Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
081203 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AUGUST 12, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 P:M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: t. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code SeCtion 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of real property located on the north Jim O'Grady, and John Meyer. 2. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation nvolv ng the City The fo owing case w I be d scussed C ty of Temecu a v. County of Riverside (Domenigoni-Barton ProPerties). Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Mayor Jeff Stone Christopher Jordan Pastor Matt Hsieh of Rancho Baptist Church Councilman Roberts Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2003-08 Resolution: No. 2003-93 R:~Agenda\081203 1 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Women of Distinction Reco.qnition to Barbara Wilder National Kids Day Proclamation Certificates of Achievement to the Temecula Valley North Little Leaque All Stars PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\081203 2 3 4 5 6 7 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2003. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the minutes of June 24, 2003; 4.2 Approve the minutes of July 8, 2003. Emerqency Manaqement Grant-funded Equipment Purchases RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Increase estimated grant revenue in the Police Department by $32,900 and increase estimated grant revenue in the Fire Department by $47,870; 5.2 Approve appropriations to the Police Department line item budget for $33,900 and Fire Department line item budget for $47,870. Amendment No. 1 to Joint Use Aqreement for Chaparral Aquatic Facility with Temecula Valley Unified School District RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Use Agreement for the Chaparral Aquatic Facility with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). Substitute Aqreements and Bonds for public improvements in Tract No. 26828-1, -2, -F (east of North General Kearney Road, south of Willows Avenue, west of Seraphina Road, and north of Rita Way) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 26828-1 (Offsite); 7.2 Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 26828-1 (In-Tract); R:~Agenda\081203 3 8 7.3 Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 26828-2; 7.4 Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 26828-F; 7.5 Accept Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 26828-1; 7.6 Accept Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 26828-2; 7.7 Accept Substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 26826-F; 7.8 Acknowledge that original bonds collected by the original subdivider, The Garret Group, LLC, will be released upon acceptance of substitute bonds by separate administrative action; 7.9 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Acceptance of Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes for Moraqa Road RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME Acceptance of Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes for Moraqa Road RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME R:~Agenda\081203 4 10 Acceptance of Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes for Moraqa Road RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME 11 Authorize Temporary Street Closure of Main Street between Old Town Front Street and the Murrieta Creek Bridqe for the Temecula-On-State Event scheduled for August 30, 2003, and deleqate authority to issue a Special Events/Street Closures Permit to the Director of Public Works/City Enqineer RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE FOR THE TEMECULA-ON- STAGE EVENT SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 30, 2003, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES 12 Award the Construction Contract for Rancho California Road Wideninq east of Ynez Road - Proiect No. PWO0-20 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Award a construction contract for Rancho California Road Widening east of Ynez Road - Project No. PW00-20 - to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $622,269.98 and authorize the Mayor toe execute the contract; 12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $62,227.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 12.3 Authorize the transfer of $65,000 in Capital Project Reserves from the Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Acct. 210-165-655-5804) to the Rancho California Road Widening east of Ynez Road - Project No. PW00-20 (Acct. 210-165-611-5804); R:~Agenda\081203 5 12.4 Authorize the transfer $135,000 in Capital Project Reserves from the Localized Storm Drain Project (Acct. 210-165-715-5804) to the Rancho California Road Widening east of Ynez Road - Project No. PW00-20 (Acct. 210-165-611-5604). RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:~Agenda\081203 6 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2003-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2003-17 Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item no__t on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR I Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 22, 2003. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 26, 2003, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\081203 7 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2003-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2003-15 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts ROLLCALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 22, 2003. Second Amendment to Agreement between the Redevelopment Aqency of the City of Temecula and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for the proposed Educational Facility RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Authorize staff to amend existing contract to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Agreement for the Educational Facility. R:~Agenda\081203 8 RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council/Temecula Redevelopment Agency before a public hearing or may appear and may be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 3 Amendment for Humanity of the Inland Valleys, Inc. Housing Project RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE AGENCY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 3.2 That the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BET~NEEN THE AGENCY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 4 Second Amendment for the Affirmed Housinq Sixth Street Homeownership Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS - TEMECULA, LLC (SIXTH STREET HOUSING PROJECT) 4.2 That the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Board adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\081203 9 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE'rWEEN THE AGENCY AND AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS - TEMECULA, LLC (SIXTH STREET HOUSING PROJECT) RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 26, 2003, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\081203 10 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 13 PA 03-0370 (Annexation) - Adoption of Resolution initiatinq annexation proceedinqs for the Redhawk Specific Plan Area and a portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration with a finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PW03-0370 (Annexation); 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS THE ENTIRE REDHAWK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND A 67-ACRE PORTION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM CSA 143, CSA 152, AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, DESIGNATED AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0370 13.3 Direct staff to prepare and submit application and associated materials for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 14 Request Zone Chanqe from L-1 to L-2 (PA02-0372) and Tentative Tract Map to create seven residential lots ranging from .5 to .82 acres in lot area (PA02-0371) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\081203 11 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .82 ACRES IN LOT AREA, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 473 FEET NORTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006 15 Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) and Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the Negative Declaration for the John Warner Road Assessment District and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with County Recorder; 15.2 Hold the public meeting and public hearing regarding the proposed Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) and Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) called pursuant to a resolution regarding the proposed districts adopted on June 24, 2003; 15.3 Allow the City Clerk to tabulate ballots from property owners received prior to the close of the public meeting and public hearing regarding the proposed districts and allow the City Clerk to announce the results of the tabulation; 15.4 If the ballots received with regard to Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) are a majority (weighted by assessment obligation) in favor of the Assessment District, adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERRULING PROTESTS AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF ELECTION - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) 15.5 If the resolution described in 4 above has been adopted, adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) R:~Agenda\081203 12 However, (a) if at least two of the owners of the parcels in Zone 2 of the Assessment District vote in favor of the Assessment District, strike Section 18 of the resolution before its adoption; and (b) if the ballots received with regard to the Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) are a majority (weighted by maximum contingent assessment) in favor of the Integrated Financing District, strike Section 19 of the resolution before its adoption. 15.6 If the resolutions described in 4 and 5 above have been adopted and the ballots received with regard to the Integrated Financing District are a majority (weighted by maximum contingent assessment) in favor of the Integrated Financing District, adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERRULING PROTESTS AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF ELECTION - INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) 15.7 If the resolution described in 6 above has been adopted, introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF CONTINGENT ASSESSMENTS THEREIN COUNCIL BUSINESS 16 Award the Construction Contract for Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project - Project No. PW02-07 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT REGARDING CERTAIN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO BE REIMBURSED FROM PROCEEDS OF TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS 16.2 Authorize the use of $1,137,000 from the General Fund to fully fund the construction of the Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Street and Storm Drain Improvements project ($1,012,500_+ will be reimbursed from Assessment District 03- 04 Bond proceeds and $124,500_+ will be sought to be recovered from Rancho California Water District (RCWD); R:~Agenda\081203 13 16.3 16.4 Award a construction contract for the Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project- Project No. PW02-07 - to McLaughiin Engineering and Mining, Inc. in the amount of $1,059,569.50 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract, provided the City Attorney has determined that there is no significant legal risk associated with any protests received at the Assessment District Public Hearing; Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $105,956.95 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 17 Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions of Necessity for the acquisition in Eminent Domain of certain real properties for public purposes RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Separately consider the twelve (12) Resolutions, which are Resolutions of Necessity of the City of Temecula Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition thereof in connection with the Winchester Road Widening Project: 17.2 Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, receive from staff the evidence stated and referred to in this agenda report ("Report"), take testimony from any person wishing to be heard on issues A, B, C, and D below, and consider all evidence to determine whether to adopt the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, each of which requires the City Council's separate consideration and determination; 17.3 If the City Council finds, based upon the evidence contained and referred to in this Report, the testimony and comments received at this hearing, and all written testimony submitted to the City Council, that the evidence warrants the necessary findings with respect to each of the following twelve (12) proposed Resolutions of Necessity, then staff recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion, adopt the proposed Resolutions (each of which requires a 4/5th vote of the entire Council) and authorize the City Attorney's office to file an eminent domain procedding to acquire the following real property interests: · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03# A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (27410 JEFFERSON AVENUE) R:~Agenda\081203 14 · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (26419 YNEZ ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (41125 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (41005 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40975 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40971 WINCHESTER ROAD) R:~Agenda\081203 15 · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40967 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40963 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40949 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40945 WINCHESTER ROAD) · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40941 WINCHESTER ROAD) R:~Agenda\081203 16 18 · Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40915 AND 40917 WINCHESTER ROAD) Consideration of Funding for VFW Permits (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Consider this request and provide direction to staff. 19 Cable, Video, and Telecommunications Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGULATING CABLE, VIDEO, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 5.12 OF TITLE 5 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING FEES FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING CABLE TELEVISION AND OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM FRANCHISES AND REGISTRATION FEES FOR OTHER VIDEO PROVIDERS 20 Cable Franchise Renewal Committee Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Appoint one member from the City Council to serve on the negotiation team for renewal of the Cable Franchise with Adelphia. R:~Agenda\081203 17 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\081203 18 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 ITEM 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $7,296,544.72. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certiflj the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03- I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 03- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of August, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Cle~ R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 07/17/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 07/24/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 07/31/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 07/17/03 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 07/31/03 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/12/03 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL iMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND 261 CFD 88~12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AG ENCY-CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 34o FACILITIES 380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE 100 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 280 REDEVELOPMENT AG ENCY-CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILrrlES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY JADA YONKER, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST GENIE ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 970,844.74 2,302,319.95 356,134.34 365,033.91 7.296,544.72 2,054,694.03 2,227,009,93 220,892.95 42,812.40 29,594.12 10,371.06 1,060,953.76 968.30 30,031.61 13,503.84 71,426.05 5,929.79 18,625.57 788,563.08 455,311.35 11,158.55 178,984.47 166.64 10,146.00 1,389.80 4,484.33 2,085.66 40,064.17 5,924+94 11,452.34 $ 6,575,376.47 721,168.25 $ 7,296,544.72 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOW lNG IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOW lNG IS TRUE AND CORRECT, SHAWN NELSON; CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $7,296,544.72. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03- I STATE Of CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY Of RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 03- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of August, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos2003/Resos03- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 07/17/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 07/24/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 07/31/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 07/17/03 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 07/31/03 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/12/03 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 210 261 280 300 32O 330 340 380 GENERAL FUND RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES RDA - DEBT SERVICE 100 165 190 192 193 194 28O 3OO 32O 33O 34O GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-ClP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED JADA~YONK ACCOU ,TING SPECIALIST SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER $ 3,302,211.78 970,844.74 2,302,319.95 356,134.34 365,033.91 $ 7,296,544.72 2,054,694.03 2,227,009.93 220,892.95 42,812.40 29,594.12 10,371.06 1,060,993.76 968.30 30,031.61 13,503.84 71,426.05 5,929.79 18,625.57 788,563.06 455,311.35 178,984.47 166.64 1,389.80 4,484.33 2,085.66 40,064.17 5,924.94 11,452.34 $ 6,575,376.47 7,296,544.72 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA 149 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 2.318,026.67 Detail 07/31/2003 001 1,103,309.16 165 5,969.75 190 81,816.22 192 63.78 193 9,151.89 194 449.26 210 255,073.12 261 968.30 280 7,009.85 300 2,571.57 320 28,858.46 330 4,491.84 340 14,023.69 380 788,563.06 2,302,319.95 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CiTY OF TEMECULA Check # Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Date Vendor 157 07/31/2003 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA), 158 07/31/2003 159 07/31/2003 160 07/31/2003 161 07/22/2003 162 07/29/2003 85650 07/31/2003 85651 07/31/2003 85652 07/31/2003 85653 07/31/2003 85654 07/31/2003 85655 07/31/2003 85656 07/31/2003 85657 07/31/2003 85658 07/31/2003 85659 07/31/2003 85660 07/31/2003 85661 07/31/2003 Description OBRA - Project Retirement Payment 000246 PERS(EMPLOYEES'RETIREME PERSERPaidMemberContrPmt 000283 INSTATAX(IRS) 000444 INSTATAX(EDD) 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) Federal Income Taxes Payment State Disability Ins Payment unemployment ins/ee training tax:2nd 005277 2 H CONSTRUCTION INC 006253 A S A P SOFTWARE 004148 AT&T 003228 U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL AS 2002 RDA tax bonds debt svc prat Jun prgss:Mercantile Bldg Retrofit Microsoft Exchange Server STD ENG Long distance svcs: P.D. xxx-6zl00 Calls on network system 006557 ALL NATIONS GOSPELS FELLO Refund: Security Deposit/Rental Fees 000747 AMERICAN pLANNING ASSOCI 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS 004446 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 004546 AUNT KIZZYZ BOYZ Membership: Emery Papp 117057 Process fees:G.Thurston 2 classes Membership: Amer Attar 206654 Temp help PPE 7/12 Lee Temp help PPE 7/5 Lee Entertainment: Hot Summer Nights OI 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA Membership: Brian Clements 147811 Membership: Candy Adkission-Flohr 005594 B B K PERFORMANCE INC Refund: DIF @ 27440 Bostik Ct. 005122 BLUES BROKERS BAND, THE Entertainment Summer Concert Serie Amount Paid 5,543.24 58,498.97 65,586.24 16,563.47 4,601.29 788,563.06 7,449.30 756.51 243.17 49.82 336.00 99.00 45.00 180.00 520.00 464.75 1,200.00 44.00 44.00 15,706.72 800.00 Check Total 5,543.24 58,498.97 65,586.24 16,563.47 4,601.29 788,563.06 7,449.30 756.51 292.99 336.00 99.00 45.00 180.00 984.75 1,200.00 88.00 15,706.72 800.00 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85662 07/31/2003 85663 07/31/2003 85664 07/31/2003 85665 07/31/2003 85666 07/31/2003 85667 07/31/2003 85668 07/31/2003 85669 07/31/2003 85670 07/31/2003 85671 07/31/2003 85672 07/31/2003 85673 07/31/2003 85674 07/31/2003 85675 07/31/2003 85676 07/31/2003 85677 07/31/2003 85678 07/31/2003 85679 07/31/2003 004176 BROADWING 002099 BU~-I-ERFIELD ENTERPRISES 006580 CABRAL, MARGARET 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 006577 CARBUNGCO, JULINA 006086 CENTER STAGE KIDS 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI 006553 COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK 001193 COMP U S A INC 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC 006135 CONTRACT INTERIORS 006584 COYNE, ELEANOR R. 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES 001393 DATA TICKET INC 006442 DELGAUDIO, GERI 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENTSERVICES 006400 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 006487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD (Continued) Description July Long distance & internet svcs July restroom lease:Old Town Refund: Music-Woodwind Ensemble July copier Lease: Fire Stn 73 Aug copier Lease: Fire Stn 73 Refund: Level 1 Swim Lessons TCSD instructor eamings Community Health Charities Payment Release to escrow acct:05802220 Misc. Computer Supplies: IS Consulting svcs to Active Dire 3 council chambers chairs Refund: dismissed Prkg Cite 24253 Aug Lease: Police Satellite Office May 2003 Citations processing Refund: Beg. Gymnastics Temp help PPE 7/11 Heer Scanner Maint Agrmnt:7/03-6/04 Refrhmnts:Roripaugh Dedication Amount Paid 1,208.54 826.00 63.57 149.77 149.77 25.00 1,424.00 173.50 14,676.80 91.20 2,400.00 3,290.68 325.00 2,119.87 409.29 64.00 2,701.01 1,995.00 3,248.66 Check Total 1,208.54 826.00 63.57 299.54 25.00 1,424.00 173.50 14,676.80 91.20 2,400.00 3,290.68 325.00 2,119.87 409.29 64.09 21701.01 1,995.00 3,248.66 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 07/3112003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85680 07/31/2003 001701 EXCEL RENTAL CENTER 85681 07/31/2003 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 85682 07/31/2003 000166 FIRSTAMERICANTITLE 85683 07/31/2003 006574 FOX, KIMBERLY 85684 07/31/2003 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY I 85685 07/31/2003 006583 FREDERICK, CATHERINE 85686 07/31/2003 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT 85687 07/31/2003 006582 GROH, LINDA 85688 07/31/2003 005968 GYMBOREE PLAY & MUSIC 85689 07/31/2003 004053 HABITATWEST INC 85690 07/31/2003 005748 HODSON, CHERYLA. 85691 07/31/2003 006581 HULING, HARRIET (Continued) Description Amount Paid Cart rental for special event Credit:price adjuslment on workhome Express mail services Lot Book Reprt: Brittingham Refund:Hawaiian Dance/Jr. Tennis Day timer supplies for Planning Refund:Tiny Tots-Creative Beg Express Mail Service: EcoDev/Plannin Refund: Sports-Beginning Golf TCSD instructor earnings Maint agrmnt for Planting & Monitoring Support Payment Refund: Exemise- Yoga Mind/Body 171.73 -100.86 98.47 150.00 85.00 376.65 125.25 32.46 100.00 48,00 450.00 34.08 83.00 85692 07/31/2003 001407 INTERVALLEYPOOLSUPPLYI Pool sanitizing chemicals 85693 07/31/2003 001186 IRWIN, JOHN 85694 07/31/2003 006579 JACKSON, EDWIN 85695 07/31/2003 006576 JENKINS, ANNETI'E 85696 07/31/2003 006573 JENSEN, RICH 85697 07/31/2003 005928 JUTKIEWiCZ, ROBIN, J. TCSD instructor earnings Refund: security deposit Refund:level 3/4 swim lessons Reimb: ICBO Certification fees TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 448.88 80.00 100.00 25.00 60.00 88.00 68.00 Check Total 70.87 98.47 150.00 85.00 376.65 125.25 32.46 100.00 48.00 450.00 34.05 83.00 448.88 80.00 100.00 25.00 60.00 156.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 85698 07/31/2003 85699 07/31/2003 85700 07/31/2003 85701 07/31/2003 85702 07/31/2003 85703 07/31/2003 85704 07/31/2003 85705 07/31/2003 85706 07/31/2003 85707 07/31/2003 85708 07/31/2003 85709 07/31/2003 85710 07/31/2003 85711 07/31/2003 85712 07/31/2003 85713 07/31/2003 85714 07/31/2003 85715 07/31/2003 (Continued) Vendor Description 003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES I Jun-Jul Eng svcs:Pala Rd Sound Wall 000206 KINKOS INC Stationery paper/supplies:Copy Ctr 000548 KIPLINGER CALIFORNIA LETTE Subscription for Kiplinger Cai Letter Amount Paid 520.00 54.73 73.00 003631 KLEINFELDER INC 006578 KOOBA, CELESTE 006534 L A MAMBO COMBO 000948 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC 006575 LI3q'LETON, ERIN 003054 LYNDE ORDWAY Geotechnical svcs:, Rancho Calif Rd Reimb. for recreation supplies MPSC Entertainment Summer Concert Serie Repair/maint. svc for computer printer TCSD instructor eamings TCSD instructor earnings Paramedic squad supplies: Fire Refund: Toddler Swim Lessons Paper folder maint contract 9,938.25 54.53 1,100.00 360.54 1,360.00 848.00 1,722.92 22.00 230.00 004772 MAACO AUTO PAINTING & BOD repair/maint to PW utility track 004141 MAINTEX INC 004068 MANALILI, AILEEN 004929 MARK FISHER COMPANY, THE 006586 MARSH, DEBRA 002693 MATROS, ANDREA 001924 MAXIMUS INC Sr Ctr custodial supplies CRC custodial supplies TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Eamings Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival Ad Refund:Sports-BB Fund-Adv. TCSD Instructor Earnings Jan-May D.I.F. Study 692.33 320.63 271.26 833.00 70.00 485.45 40.00 80.00 2,038.64 Check Total 520.00 54.73 73.00 9,938.25 54.53 1,100.00 360.54 2,208.00 1,722.92 22.00 230.00 692.33 591.89 903.00 485.45 40.00 80.00 2,038.64 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 85716 07/31/2003 85717 07/31/2003 85718 07/31/2003 001892 MOBILE MODULAR 85719 07/31/2003 006590 MOHILL, ALAN 85720 07/31/2003 001986 MUZAK INC 85721 07/31/2003 85722 07/31/2003 85723 07/31/2003 85724 07/31/2003 85725 07/31/2003 85726 07/31/2003 85727 07/31/2003 85728 07/31/2003 85729 07/31/2003 85730 07/31/2003 85731 07/31/2003 85732 07/31/2003 85733 07/31/2003 (Continued) Vendor Description 004894 MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIA Jun prof svcs:Pechanga Pkwy 001868 MIYAMOTO-JURKOSKY, SUSAN TCSDInstructorEamings 006585 NORDQUIST, BONNt 006592 O'DONNELLSCHOOLOF MUSI 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS office supplies for P.D. Satellite Stns Jul modular bldg rental:Fire Stn 92 Refund:Parking Cite# 45085 Amp for Sound System @ CRC Sound System Repair @ CRC O.T. sound sys repair/maint svcs Refund:Sci Adv Camp-Mystery/Treas TCSD Instructor Earnings Amount Paid 1,349.00 410.40 777.95 25.00 1,616.25 556.12 168.75 114.20 1,004.00 128.55 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC 004520 PAINT CONNECTION, THE City vehicle maintJrepair svcs Police motorcycle helmet Res imprv prgm: Martinez, Ricardo & 30.98 641.12 1,650.00 004538 PAULEYEQUIPMENTCOMPAN equipment rental for parks 003218 PELA Jun TCSD Idscp plan ck svcs 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG PERS Long Term Care Payment 72.60 12,210.00 227.08 004790 PETER D BRANDOW & ASSOCI 000249 PE ~ ~ Y CASH 004204 POGAN, MARK 006591 PORTILLO, LISE Jun dsgn svcs:79S Sidewalk imprv Petty cash reimbursement Petty cash reimbursement Entertainment:7/24:Smr Concert Serie Refund:Level 3 Swim Lessons 16,800.00 366.88 7.00 700.00 25.00 Check Total 1,349.00 410.40 777.95 25.00 2,341.12 114.20 1,004.00 128.55 30.98 641.12 1,650.00 72.60 12,210.00 227.08 16,800.00 373.88 700.00 25.00 Page5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CiTY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85734 07/31/2003 85735 07/31/2003 85736 07/31/2003 85737 07/31/2003 (Continued) Description 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Junvar. publicntcs:Planning/C.C. Jun var. public ntcs:City Clerk 004529 QUAID TEMECULA HARLEY-DA P.D. motomycle repair/maint svcs Credit:double billed for air spring rental supplies:Hot Summer Nights canopy rental for July 4th event Jun prgs pmt:Pechanga Soundwall im 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE 004318 R J BULLARD CONSTRUCTION Amount Paid 427.95 103.28 1,111.63 -149.29 869.25 317.50 132,091.20 56,060.52 85738 07/31/2003 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Jun dsgn svcs:W.C. Sports Complex 85739 07/31/2003 85740 07/31/2003 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Jul 01-99-02003-0 Floating mtr Jul 02-79-10100-1 NW Sports Comple 003773 REUBEN H FLEET SCIENCE CE SMARTexcursion:7/16/03 266.60 73.99 215.00 Check Total 531.23 962.34 1,186.75 132,091.20 56,060.52 340.59 215.00 85741 07/31/2003 002412 RICHARDSWATSON & 85742 07/31/2003 006483 RICHARDS, TYREASHA, I. 85743 07/31/2003 000266 RIGHTWAY 85744 07/31/2003 006371 RIO PROPERTIES, INC. 85745 07/31/2003 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR May 2003 legal services TCSD Instructor Earnings 7/18-8/14 equip rental - Vail Ranch Pk Damage waiver fee:Paseo Park Govt Cf:J.McBride/T.Buckley:8/10-12 LAFCO cost allocation svcs 85746 07/31/2003 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR May parking citation assessments 85747 07/31/2003 005334 RIVERSIDE CO FACILITIES 85748 07/31/2003 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD 85749 07/31/2003 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO 3/6-4/16/03 proper~y svcs:F,V.Intemhg 4/17-5/14/03 pmperbj svcs:F.V.lnterch 5/15-6/11/03 property svcs:F.V,Intemh Dec-Feb 03 plan check svcs:Pela Rd May-Jun plan check svcs:Pala Rd Mar-Apr 03 plan check svcs:Pala Rd May emerg, radio rental:P.D. Jun emerg, radio rental:P.D. 85750 07/31/2003 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST 4th of July event patrol svcs 4th of July Parade patrol svcs 73,829.71 702.40 196.78 60.00 388.04 6,307.80 2,282.50 1,350.00 1,050.00 210.00 5,324.90 2,750.08 1,718.63 1,193.60 1,193.60 16,266.16 4,843.77 73,829.71 702.40 256.78 388.04 6,307.80 2,282.50 2,610.00 9,793.61 2,387.20 21,109.93 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 85751 07/31/2003 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP 5/29-6/30/03:lawenfomement Amount Paid 862,154.55 Chock Total 862,154.55 85752 07/31/2003 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF Apr-Jun 03 vector control svcs 85753 07/31/2003 003310 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY processing fees for authority 85754 07/31/2003 005073 ROCKYZHARP Entertainment:Hot Summer Nights:7/ 85755 07/31/2003 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC recreation supplies - SMART prgm 85756 07/31/2003 001288 SAN DIEGO BUSINESS renew s u bscription:G.Wo]nick 85757 07/31/2003 004014 SAN DIEGO SPORTS ARENA 10 add'l tickets:family excursion:8/8/03 85758 07/31/2003 85759 07/31/2003 006537 SANDERS, SHELBY 006176 SANTA ANA COLLEGE Entertainment:Hot Summer Nights:8/ Entertainment:Hot Summer Nights:7/ Fire Prey. 2C:K. Oummings:8/18-22/03 85760 07/31/2003 005278 SCIENCE ENRICHMENT SRVCS TCSD Instructor Earnings 85761 07/31/2003 004609 SHREDFORCE INC Jul document shredding services 85762 07/31/2003 000722 SO CALFASSN CODE ENF.OFF training series:T.Cole/M.Parker:8/20/0 85763 07/31/2003 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Jul 2-00-397-5042 City Hall Jul 2-02-351-4946 Sr Ctr Jul 2-18-937-3152 Museum Jul 2-00-397-5067 various mtrs Jul 2-23-365-5992 Fire Stn 92 Jul 2-20-817-9929 P.D. Front St. Stn Jul 2-11-007-0455 6th St. Jul 2-22-891-0550 various mtrs Jul 2-18-049-6416 Front St Ped Jul 2-21-911-7892 S.Side Parking Lot Jul 2-19-171-8568 Wedding Chpl Jul 2-21-981-4720 Hwy 79S Jul 2-24-634-0426 Old Town Front St. Jul 2-24-572-8969 Old Town Front St. Jul 2-22-057-2226 6th St. Jul 2-22-496-3430 Winchester Rd. 2,300.23 12,000.00 500.00 5,967.99 89.00 115.00 300.00 300.00 125.00 7,622.88 110.00 130.00 8,430.00 1,827.96 993.10 887.06 562.76 467.95 407.08 338.96 217.15 169.98 115.38 76.31 48.41 47.80 46.22 44.39 2,300.23 12,000.00 500.00 5,967.99 89.00 115.00 600.00 125.00 7,622.88 110.00 130.00 141680.51 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 07131/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85764 07/31/2003 85765 07/31/2003 85766 07/31/2003 85767 07/31/2003 85768 07/31/2003 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST 005786 SPRINT 006145 STENO SOLOUTIONS 006589 SZEPKOUSKI, CORI 000305 TARGET STORE 85769 07/31/2003 85770 07/31/2003 85771 07/31/2003 85772 07/31/2003 85773 07/31/2003 85774 07/31/2003 003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC 006465 TEMECULAAUTO REPAIR 000309 TEMECULA COPIERS 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN 003067 TEMECULA VALLEY R V SERV 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY 85775 07/31/2003 003140 TEMECULAVALLEYTAEKWON 85776 07/31/2003 85777 07/31/2003 85778 07/31/2003 002766 THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS 006587 THOMPSON, JULIE 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC (Continued) Description Fire Stn 84 pest control svcs Fire Stn 92 pest control svcs 06/15-7/14 cellular phone svcs 6/15-7/14 acct level chrgs Jun transcription svcsTemecula Police Refund:SMART-SD Wild Animal Park recreation supplies - TCC recreation supplies - MPSC recreation supplies - Day Camp recreation supplies - SMART prgm recreation supplies - Family Fun Night supplies for 4th of July recreation supplies - Day Camp Credit:items returned misc computer supplies:l.S. Fire Prev. vehicle repair/maint svcs Jun copier usage charges Roripaugh dedication plaque repair P.D. command post trailer Winchester Crk Pk locksmith svcs Paloma del Sol Pk locksmith svcs City Hall locksmith svcs TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings Thomas Bres GIS Data Refund:Tennis-Tennis Camp Teen D.J. svcs for Sr Ctr open house:5/17/0 Amount Paid Check Total 80.00 42.00 122.00 5,341.56 33.65 5,375.21 1,627.36 1,627.36 35.00 35.00 96.96 92.18 50.95 24.13 22.55 18.30 11.08 -5.39 310.76 331.17 331.17 332.04 332.04 3,201.97 3,201.97 132.87 132.87 399,23 399.23 216.46 60.00 55.00 331.46 249.60 200.00 180.00 60.00 689.60 3,232.50 3,232.50 70.00 70.00 200.00 200.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 07/31/2003 3:12:25PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 85779 07/31/2003 005937 TOMCZAK, MARIA, T. TCSD Instructor Earnings 85781 07/31/2003 005592 TWINING LABORATORIES 85782 07/31/2003 004486 UNION 76 85783 07/31/2003 004981 UNISOURCE SCREENING & 85784 07/31/2003 000325 UNITEDWAY 85785 07/31/2003 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 85780 07/31/2003 004132 TRUCK HYDRAULIC EQUIPMEN inspect/test PW boom truck lift Jun svcs:Pechanga Soundwall Imprv City vehicle fuel usage 7/1-15/03 background screening svcs United Way Charities Payment Jul xxx-5072 general usage Jul xxx-2626 P.D. Satellite Stn Jul xxx-9897 general usage Jul xxx-3526 fire alarm Jul xxx-2676 general usage 004789 VERIZON INTERNETSOLUTION Jul intemetsvcs:0544 Jul internet svcs:7411 85786 07/31/2003 85787 07/31/2003 85788 07/31/2003 85789 07/31/2003 85790 07/31/2003 85791 07/31/2003 85792 07/31/2003 006593 VILLA AVANTI ASSOC., THE 006588 WEIR, ANNE 003756 WHITE HOUSE SANITATION 004829 WILSON GROUP LLC, THE 004774 WOODCREST UNIFORMS 005195 ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY Refund:room rental overpayment Refund:SMART-Balboa/L.B. Aquarium Jul cleaning svc:Btrfld Stage restroom Aug lobbyist services for City issues Police Uniform:G.Graves Day Camp Excursion:7/14/03 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Amount Paid Check Total 192.00 192.00 195.00 195.00 2,754.44 2,754.44 23.45 23.45 135.00 135.00 253.30 253.30 9,248.27 203.33 89.63 84.95 29.31 9,655.49 69.95 69.95 139.90 10.00 10.00 28.00 28.00 50.00 50.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 1,394.17 1,394.17 698.00 698.00 2,318,026.67 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 13 07/2412003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA 172 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 970,844.74 Detail 07/24/2003 001 703,841.47 165 8,919.50 190 36,872.71 t93 10,038.83 194 3,394.13 210 145,010.51 280 20,491.27 300 9,606.66 320 30,531.39 330 660.84 340 1,477.43 970,844.74 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 07/24/2003 12:16:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85478 07/24/2003 000745 AT&TWIRELESSSERVICES 85479 07/24/2003 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI 85480 07/24/2003 001916 ALBERTAWEBBASSOClATES 85481 07/24/2003 002877 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 85482 07/24/2003 85483 07/24/2003 85484 07/24/2003 003810 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF M 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE, TE 85485 07/24/2003 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS 85486 07/24/2003 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALL 85487 07/24/2003 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 85488 07/24/2003 85489 07/24/2003 85490 07/24/2003 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY 005891 ASPEN PUBLISHERS, INC 006562 BALLAND, MICHELE Description Amount Paid Wireless network: Fire inspections TCSD instructor earnings Consultant svcs:Roripaugh/Btdld SMART Excursion bus svc: Ice Arena SMART Excursion bus svc:Balboa Prk Day Camp excursion bus svc:Chuck E Membership Wendell Crt 86066 DUhDrug/AIcohol Screemng svc:Poli DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli Cl 15 storage unit lease Jul-June B109 storage unit lease for August F105 storage unit lease for July F105 storage uni[ lease for August B109 storage unit lease for July Workplace CFAS class: Police Dept process CPRO lees for G Thurston 2 Classes for G.Thurston process CPR fees for G.Thurston process CPRO fees for G.Thurston June animal control services Temp help PPE 7/5 & 7/12 Bird Temp help PPE 7/12/03 Delarm Temp help PPE 7/5/03 Delarm Temp help PPE 7/12/03 Boutin Temp help PPE 7/5/03 Boutin Summer concert series promotional i team pace resale inventory Shirt w/logo for police staff Payroll Mgr Letter:4/03 - 3/04 Refund: Sci Adv Camp-Wings Flying 201.99 362.40 1,172.48 566.42 566.42 385.94 206.00 126.00 126.00 1,507.00 137.00 126.00 126.00 8.00 495.00 50.00 45.00 35.00 10.00 8,455.89 686.40 624.00 499.20 208.00 84.50 925.30 41.50 28.02 238.16 151.50 Check Total 201.99 362.40 1,172.48 206.00 252.00 1,904.00 635.00 8,455.89 994.82 238.16 151.50 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Check # Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Date Vendor Description 85491 07/24/2003 001168 BANK OF AMERICA 85492 07/24/2003 85493 07/24/2003 85494 07/24/2003 85495 07/24/2003 85496 07/24/2003 85497 07/24/2003 85498 07/24/2003 85499 07/24/2003 85500 07/24/2003 85501 07/24/2003 85502 07/24/2003 85503 07/24/2003 85504 07/24/2003 85505 0W24/2003 85506 07/24/2003 85507 07/24/2003 001168 BANK OF AMERICA Reissue:CFD 88-12 reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Station 84 Electrical repairs 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 006565 BRANDT, MATT 006548 BROWN, TINA 002878 BUSINESS iNFORMATION 000128 CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES I DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli Reimb: EMS Conf:6/2-6/03 Refund:Smart Excursions Crystal report training:7/14 15:1S Public Entity Equip Prgm 03/04 Revised Ca Public Entity Eq prgm 03/ 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE/ACCT Fingerprints info for police dept 001267 CALIF DEPTOF MOTOR 38 Vehicle Code Books: Police Dept 000486 CALIF MUNI REVENUE & TAX A CMRTA Annual Sem:10/15-17:Smith 005384 CALiFORNiA BAGEL BAKERY & Refrshmnts: 6/20 Council Mtg 004832 CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASS 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY 000518 CARE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 002534 CATERERS CAFE 006547 CAULFIELD, JENNIFER Membership: Howard Windsor Helium tanks refill:TCSD Medical svcs: Police dept K-9 Refrshmnts: PW staff tour of Diamond Refshmnts: fire instructors training Refshmnts: City Staff business mtg Refshmnts: fire Accela Mtg Refshmnts: fire Accela meeting Refshmnts: Working dinner Refund:Smart Excursions Amount Paid 2,491.16 2,295.08 575.00 928.40 483.93 20.00 1,595.00 9,383.00 223.66 912.00 253.00 150.00 161.63 150.00 27.50 137.20 247.83 153.54 85.04 17.16 17.16 9.42 23.00 Check Total 2,491.16 2,295.08 575.00 928.40 483.93 20.00 9,606.66 912.00 253.00 150.00 161.63 150.00 27.50 137.20 530.15 23.00 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85508 07/24/2003 004602 CHALLENGER DOOR'S 85509 07/24/2003 004837 CHERRY VALLEY FEED & PET 85510 07/24/2003 000137 CHEVRON U S A 85511 07/24/2003 005417 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 85512 07/24/2003 006553 COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK 85513 07/24/2003 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS & 85514 07/24/2003 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET 85515 07/24/2003 006564 CONTINUING CHALLENGE HAZ 85516 07/24/2003 003739 COq~'ON BRIDGES ASSOCIATE 65517 07/24/2003 001009 O B XiNC 85518 07/24/2003 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES 85519 07/24/2003 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON 85520 07/24/2003 004569 DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATE 85521 07/24/2003 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES 85522 07/24/2003 85523 07/24/2003 85524 07/24/2003 85525 07/24/2003 006558 DELA CRUZ, MENCHIE 006539 DELGADO, VIRGIE 005965 DIVERSIFIED PROTECTION 000609 DOUBLETREE HOTEL (Continued) Description Amount Paid Res Imp Prgm:Prunty, Jeanette Police K-9 pet supplies "Kaos" Fuel expense for city vehicles First aid supplies: SMART prgm Release to escrow:RJ Bullarcl Const. Deposit:Summer Concert:7/10-8/28 Deposit:Hot Summer Nights entertain Police citizens patrol radios equip HazMat Wrkshp:9/2-5/03: Horton May-Jun city general plan update svcs Replacement of 11 traffic Iccp detect Jul Lease & Maiot:OId Two Police Plotter Paper and Ink for Special Tax ConsuSing:Butterfield CF Credit: Invoice exceeds PO July Federal lobbyist services Refund: Security Deposit Refund: Security Deposit;CRC Air conditioning unit for data center HtkHazmat Cf:Hodron:9/1-5:86989344 910.00 208.74 55.17 53,818.23 800.00 875.00 36,178.32 30.00 38,098.10 3,190.00 2,157.87 881.40 6,291.38 -3,246.39 3,000.00 100.00 100.00 75,739.00 381.48 Check Total 910.00 71.64 208.74 55.17 53,818.23 36,178.32 30.00 38,098.10 3,190.00 2,157.87 881,40 3,044.99 3,000.00 100.00 100.00 75,739.00 381.48 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85528 07/24/2003 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI 85527 07/24/2003 (Continued) Description Fuel for city vehicles: 61343 Fuel for city vehicles: 61347 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES temp help PPE 6/27/03 Rush Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Rush temp help PPE 6/27/03 Cammarota temp help PPE 6/27/03 Novotny Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Novotny Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Jones Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Seng Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Cammarota Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Bragg Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Kanigowski Temp help PPE 7/11/03 Jones 85528 07/24/2003 002390 EASTERNMUNICIPALWATER 85529 07/24/2003 003223 EDAW INC 85530 07/24/2003 002283 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL 85531 07/24/2003 002283 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL 85532 07/24/2003 005052 EMCOR SERVICE 85533 07/24/2003 003171 EMPIRE ECONOMICS LLC 85534 07/24/2003 002438 ENGEN CORPORATION 85535 07/24/2003 006538 ENGLISH, CHRISTINA 85536 07/24/2003 002939 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R 85537 07/24/2003 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION 85538 07/24/2003 003959 EVERETt & EVERETT PAINTI 95366-02 Diego Dr Ldscp Biological svcs: Lng Cyn Basin Hotel:Prey 2C class:6/18-22:88255075 , HotekPrev 2B class:7~28-8~1:811770~ 2 poriable AC units rental:Compute[ HVAC Repairs: CRC HVAC Repair:City Hall Mrkt absorption: Crowne Hilt Geotechnical svcs:R.C.Sports Park Refund: Photographing your kids AutoCAD t rainiog:C.Vlahos:9/22-23/03 June Plan check services Res Imp Prgm: Houston, Cornelius Res Imp Prgm: Johnson, David & Lee Credit: Homeowner to pay add't Amount Paid 609.51 347.33 1,908.00 1,326.78 1,240.80 1,240.80 1,174.32 1,162.09 728 91 570.24 528.90 409.46 350.00 764.16 764.16 1,260.68 178~75 65.00 5,8t0.00 3,880.00 50.00 800.00 4,635.70 3,300.00 1,200.00 -39.25 Check Total 956.84 11,886.60 409.46 350.00 764.16 764.16 1,504.43 5,810.00 3,880.00 50.00 800.00 4,635.70 4,460.75 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85539 07/24/2003 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 85540 07/24/2003 85541 07/24/2003 85542 07/24/2003 002037 EXPANETS 004464 EXXONMOBIL CARD SERVICES 000478 FAST SIGNS 85543 07/24/2003 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 85544 07/24/2003 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOCIA 85545 07/24/2003 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 85546 07/24/2003 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 85547 07/24/2003 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL MED 85548 07/24/2003 004239 FISHER MERRIMAN SEHGAL (Continued) Description Amount Paid Aug Idscp impr: Paloma Del Sol Jul Idscp impr: Winchester Park June Idscp impr: Sports Park June Idscp impr: Sports Park June Idscp impr: Sports Park June Idscp impr: Sports Park June Idscp impr: Ovedand May Idscp impr:Aragon Park June Idscp impr: Crown Hills June Idscp impr: Paseo Park June idscp impr: City Hail Phone mntc & repairs:City Hall Materials for phone equip:City Hall Fuel expense for City vehicles Directional signs:Roripaugh dedication Logo banner for Children's Museum Exhibit signs for Museum Express mail services Express mail services Express mail services Financial Advisor:Crown Hill CFD Financial Svcs: Butterfield CFD Financial Svcs: Crowne Hill CFD Financial Svcs: Wolf Creek CFD Res Impr lot book rpt:Medina xx-5288 Jones:Prof Mtgs/Chili's xx~2576 Nelson:League&Prof Mtgs xx-2576 Nelson:League of Cities xx-3083 Naggar:SW 7/16:San Jose xx-5288 Jones:Staff team Bldg xx-4117 Hughes:Prof Mtg June Pre-employment physicals First aid care for employee First aid care for employee First aid care for employee Architectural svcs: Old Town theater 2,275.00 639.61 456.79 299.09 223.94 218.69 170.20 161.64 145.74 114.96 105.45 2,498.50 846.93 383.21 182.12 170.25 21 33 192.19 152.98 20.04 5,376.78 4,809.65 3,304.87 2,702.84 150.00 994.28 533.48 420.00 183.00 93.82 40.55 718.00 270.45 174~98 157.15 1,550.14 Check Total 4,811.14 3,345.43 383.21 373.70 365.21 16,194.14 150.00 2,265.13 1,318.58 1,550.14 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85549 07/24/2003 85550 07/24/2003 85561 07/24/2003 85552 07/24/2003 003281 FOREMOST FIRE PROMOTION 006568 FRANK, NICOLE 004178 FREEDOM SIGNS 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT (Continued) Description Fire Prev. education materials Fire Prev. educational materials Fire Prev. educational materials Refund: Summer Day Camp(Joshua) Refund: Summer Day Camp(Jacob) Fac Imp Prgm: MK Market & Smoke S Fac Imp Prgm: The Loft Fac Imp Prgm: The Victorian Rose Fac imp Prgm: Heather's Design Deduction: BCSE*404757 Entertainment: Volunteer Recognition 85553 07/24/2003 85554 07/2~2003 85555 07/24/2003 001937 GALLS INC 000177 GLEN NIES OFFICE PRODUCTS 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT 5 Fast AC/DC Flashlight chargers:Fire Measuring wheel w/kickstand:Fire Misc. office supplies: City Clerk File cabinets for Aquatics Misc. Office Supplies: Finance Misc. office supplies: Fire Dept Misc. office supplies: Info Systems Misc. office supplies: B&S Misc. office supplies: City Mgr Misc. office supplies: Records Mgmt Misc. office supplies: Central Svcs Misc. office supplies: Eco Deve Express Mail Service: Fire Prevention 85556 07/24/2003 006567 GOMEZ, GLORIA Refund: Level 2 Swim Lessons 85557 07/24/2003 85558 07/24/2003 85559 07/24/2003 85560 07/24/2003 85561 07/24/2003 006569 GREYSTONE HOMES 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS 006502 GUADERRAMA, RHONDA 000520 H D L COREN & CONE INC 005311 H20 CERTIFIED POOL WATER Refund:Overpmt TM23143-6 Ph 4 "Discover Temecula" VHS copies Refund: Financially Fit Teens CAFR statistical section package June pool cleaning svcs Pool sanitizing chemicals Pool sanitizing chemicals Amount Paid 385.95 296.10 181.89 83.00 78.00 4,956.50 2,491.72 2,478.25 2,47825 -25.00 100.00 936.48 4t3.22 2,529.02 1,562.46 1,342.46 805.89 627.83 351,29 344.78 107.70 93.27 66.09 32.06 25.00 15.00 60.00 32.00 250.00 1,700.00 324.33 200.43 Check Total 863.94 161.00 12,379.72 100.00 1,349.70 7,830.79 32.06 25.00 15.00 60.00 32.00 250.00 2,224.76 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85562 07/24/2003 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 85563 07/24/2003 85564 07/24/2003 85565 07/24/2003 85566 07/24/2003 85567 07/24/2003 004188 HARRIS&ASSOCIATES 006543 HETTENBACH, FRANCI 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD 006550 HOANG, HANH 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. 85568 07/24/2003 006572 HOLY COW CREAMERY 85569 07/24/2003 006449 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES LTD 85570 07/24/2003 001573 INLAND EMPIRE TOURISM (Continued) Description Hardware supplies - TCSD Hardware supplies - Various Depts Hardware supplies - PW Mntc Hardware supplies - SMART prgm Hardware supplies - PW Jun Consulting: GASB 34 Inventory Refund: Summer Day Camp Refund: Summer Day Camp Computer processom & hard drive Refund: Photography- Beginning support payment ice cream mixer event PW Staff Tour to Diamond Vly Fac Tourism Membership 2003-2004 85571 07/24/2003 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H July Employee assistance program 85572 07/24/2003 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals Pool sanitizing chemicals Amount Paid 591.16 350.45 330.99 71.88 11.87 4,998.00 155.00 83.00 18,667.69 85.00 77.12 565.00 438.00 1,000.00 678.30 190.72 158.93 Check Total 1,356.35 4,998.00 238.00 18,667.69 85.00 77.12 565.00 438.00 1,000.00 678.30 349.65 85573 07/24/2003 003296 INTERNATIONAL CODE 85574 07/24/2003 003266 iRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE 85575 07/24/2003 006504 JOHNSON, DEBBIE 85576 07/24/2003 006544 JOURNEY, CHERYL 85577 07/24/2003 003046 KFROG95.1 FMRADIO 85578 07/24/2003 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES Intl Mech & Fuel Gas code books:B&S June Microfilm storage lease Refund: Level 4 Swim Lessons Refund: Level 1 Swim Lessons Radio broadcasting: Street Painting Radio broadcasting: Street Painting Consultant Svcs: Plan Check Review 77.38 379.50 25.00 25.00 579.00 171.00 4,950.00 77.38 379.50 25.00 25.00 750.00 4,950.00 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85679 07/24/2003 85580 07/24/2003 85581 07/24/2003 85582 07/24/2003 85583 07/24/2003 85584 07/24/2003 85585 07/24/2003 85586 07/24/2003 85587 07/24/2003 85588 07/24/2003 85589 07/24/2003 85590 07/24/2003 85591 07/24/2003 85592 07/24/2003 85593 07/24/2003 85594 07/24/2003 006560 KEMMSIES, ANGELA 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIAT 003631 KLEINFELDER INC 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 004499 LESLIES POOLSUPPLY 006541 LESNICK, KlM 003028 LOS ANGELES TIMES (Continued) Description Amount Paid Refund:Parent & Me/l&2 Swim Lesso Re-use analysis for Jefferson property Jun consullting: Education facility geotechnical svcs: Jefferson Ave reha Printer Toner Cartridges & Supplies Pool sanitizing chemicals Refund: Parent & Me Swim Lessons June Recruitment ads 85.00 4,155.02 3,398.75 1,707.00 1,301.73 69.37 25.00 820.00 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER temp help w/e 7/13 Dankworth 002046 MASTER K 9 INC 006435 MCCONNELL, LISA 006570 MCKUHN, JOANNE 003796 MEDIEVAL TIMES 001986 MUZAK INC 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS FY 03/04 Police K-9 Training "Kaos" Reimb:NASRO Conf:7/3-5/03 Reimb;So. CaI.Fire Prey Officers Asso Day Camp excursion:07/31/03 Jul music broadcast:Old Town Aug music broadcast:Old Town Misc. parts & supplies for PW Maint 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATTN: May display ads for MPSC 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City vehicle maint~repair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle repair/maint svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs 371.25 900.00 320.78 70.62 2,602.50 59.50 59.50 31.78 408.00 508.62 500.18 344.00 316.45 264.78 143.50 121.09 56.41 Check Total 85.00 7,553.77 1,707.00 1,301.73 69.37 25.00 820.00 371.25 900.00 320.78 70.62 2,602.50 119.00 31.78 408.00 2,255.03 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check Cf Date Vendor Description 85595 07/24/2003 005152 PACIFIC PRODUCTS & 85596 07/24/2003 006540 PARRISH, DANA 55597 07/24/2003 006566 PEARL, EMILY 85598 07/24/2003 000249 PETFY CASH sign anchom:PW Maint Division Refund:Parent & Me Swim Lessons Refund: Security Deposit Petty cash reimbursement Petty cash reimbursement 85599 07/24/2003 000580 PHOTO WORKS OF TEMECULA Jun photo dev- ClP DivisioD 85600 07/24/2003 Jul-Sap postage meter rental- 85601 07/24/2003 Temecula Citizen Corps Set. 85602 07/24/2003 Express mail & postal svcs Express mail & posta~ svcs 85603 07/24/2003 Jun display ads for var. depts Jun recruitment ads for H.R. dept Credit:125th Anniv. ad already, paid 85604 07/24/2003 sales tax/#900331376/900395000 85605 07/24/2003 subscription to"Wildfire":H.Windsor 85606 07/24/2003 Refund:Level 2/3 Swim Lessons 85607 07/24/2003 qty 5 waste containers for recycling 85608 07/24/2003 rent equip:Rodpaugh Open Space 85609 07/24t2003 004792 R H A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Jun consulting svcs:Vail Ranch Park C 85610 07/24/2003 000981 R H F INC radar equipment repair/maint:P.D. 85611 07/24/2003 000262 RANCHO CALIFWATER DIST Various water meters 001999 PITNEY BOWES 000252 POLYCRAFT INC 000253 POSTMASTER 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 004576 PRIMEDIA 004576 PRIMEDIA 006546 PRUITT. MICHELLE 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS INC 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE Amount Paid 1,343.00 25.00 50.00 711.46 61.66 68.01 319.74 257.25 76.80 31.50 5,027.70 2,483.94 -2,087.73 149.65 30.00 55.00 3,394.13 1,793.25 433.33 113.13 Check Total 1,343.00 25.00 50.00 773.12 68.01 319.74 257.25 108.30 5,423.91 149.65 30.00 55.00 3,394.13 1,793.25 433~33 113.13 11,797.85 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 85612 07/24/2003 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 85613 07/24/2003 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF 85614 07/24/2003 000266 RIGHTWAY 85615 07/24/2003 85616 07/24/2003 85617 07/24/2003 85618 07/24/2003 85619 07/24/2003 85620 07/24/2003 85621 07/24/2003 85622 07/24/2003 85623 07/24/2003 85624 07/24/2003 85625 07/24/2003 85626 07/24/2003 006556 RITCHEY, MIKE 000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT 004773 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF 005767 RONALD MITCHELL HERZER C 001048 ROSAS CANTINA RESTAURAN 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF 004014 SAN DIEGO SPORTS ARENA 006176 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 006176 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 006176 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 005755 SCANLON, TERRY Amount Paid dupL blueprints:R.C.Rd Imprv dupl. blueprints:J.W. Assessment Dist dupl. blueprints:J.W. Assessment Dist dupl. blueprints:J.W. Assessment Dist dupl. blueprints:F.V.Pkwy Interchg 2003 UCR Connect membership dues equip rentals * 4th of July equip rentals - 4th of July 6 portable toilets for Explorer Muster 6/28-8/03 rental - SMART prgm repairs/graffiti removal -Paseo Park equip rental ~ Riverton Park equip rental - Veteran's Park Reimb:FDIC Conf:2/11-12/03 461.60 420.39 43.96 31.32 28.03 1,000.00 1,075.93 520.08 448.65 334.50 94.81 77.94 54.39 267.87 Jun 2003 K-Rat pmt Jun 2003 Booking Fees renew permit:Sam Hicks Snack Bar renew permit:K.Hintergardt Park Final pmt:fac.imprv.prgm:Calico Coffe Refreshments:4th of July Parade support pmt:# 661183401610 Circus tickets:Family Excursion:8/8/03 Fire Prey 2B:7/28-8/01/03:J.Neuman 250.00 9,494.40 73.00 73.00 1,923.08 400.00 25.00 235.00 125.00 Fire Prey 2B:7/28-8/01/03:NMansilla 125.00 Fire Prey 2C:8/18-22/03:J.Neuman 125.00 Reimb:Cad Zone:7/8-10/03 60.61 Check Total 985.30 1,000.00 2,606.30 267.87 250.00 9,494.40 146.00 1,923.06 400.00 25.00 235.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 60.61 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 07124/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 85627 07/24/2003 85628 07/24/2003 85629 07/24/2003 85630 07/24/2003 85631 07/24/2003 85632 07/24/2003 85633 07/24~2003 85634 07/24/2003 85635 07/24/2003 85636 07/24/2003 85637 07/2~2003 85638 07/24/2003 85639 07/24/2003 85640 07/24/2003 85641 07/24/2003 (Continued) Vendor Description 004562 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CDR May-Jun plan check svcs:Fbe Prev. 006545 SCHROCK, JiLL 006436 SHETLER, DENNIS 004609 SHREDFORCE INC 006561 SISON, MARY 000645 SMART& FINALINC 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Amount Paid Refund:Level6/'7 Swim Lessons 25.00 163.17 Reimb:NASRO Conf:7/2-5/03 Document shred svcs:P.D.Front St S Document shred svcs:P.D.Front St. S Refund:Level 1 Swim Lessons 24,00 24.00 25.00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST Summer Day Camp supplies High Hopes prgm supplies kitchen supplies:City Hall/West Wing Summer Day Camp supplies Jul 2-19-999-9442 various mtrs Jul 2-24-817-8717 Old Kent Park Jul 2-20-798-3248 Children's Museum Jul 2-24-628-8963 Btdld Stage Jul 2-24-151-6582 Overland Trl City Hall pest control svcs 006559 SOUTHWESTERN RIVERSIDE C Refund:Sac. Deposit:CRC 7/12/03 006289 SUDHAKAR COMPANY INT'L Jul prgss:Citywide Slurry Seal 003599 T Y LiN INTERNATIONAL 006465 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR Jun constr. Suppod:R.C. Bridge Jun dsgn svcs:R.C. Bridge Widening Fire Prey. vehicle maint/repair svcs 005964 TiM SKOPHAMMER GOLF TCSD Instructor Earnings 003633 TOLL ROADS, THE toll road usage 006563 TYLER, WILLIAM Reimb:Cad Zone:7/8-9/03 296.01 184.20 57.42 17.77 2,118.47 333.42 199.00 32.56 13.79 56.00 100.00 248,497.70 8,327.03 2,450.48 150.42 208.00 40.50 78.37 CheckTotal 1,440.00 25.00 163.17 48.00 25.00 555.40 2,697.24 56.00 100.00 248,497.70 10,777.51 150.42 208.00 40.50 78.37 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 07/24/2003 12:10:20PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85642 07/24/2003 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 85643 07/24/2003 85644 07/24/2003 85645 07/24/2003 85646 07/24/2003 85647 07/24/2003 85648 07/24/2003 85649 07/24/2003 (Continued) Description Jul xxx-0073 general usage Jul xxx-0074 general usage Jul xxx-1473 P.D. Storefront Stn Jul xxx-1603 City Hall Jul ~oc(-3564 alarm Jul xxx-8573 general usage Jul ~o(x-3923 Stone 004789 VERIZON INTERNE]' SOLUTION July internet svcs: XX0544 Jun internet svcs:xx7411 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES I Jul long distance svcs 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC June 2003 TUMF Fees 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC 006549 WILDOMAR SENIOR PARTNER 004829 WILSON GROUP LLC, THE Gert. Assembly mtg:JO/RPJJC/SN/SP Refund:July 4, 2003 Parade Entry Fee 006542 XIA, LIJUN Amount Paid 1,220.51 259.96 124.50 89.60 56.61 31.47 27.58 69.95 69.95 5.75 252,700.00 250.00 20.00 Jul State lobbyist svcs Refund:Parent & Me Swim Lessons 3,500.00 25.00 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Check Total 1,810.23 139.90 5.75 252,700.00 250.00 20.00 3,500.00 25.00 970,844.74 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 07117/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA 140 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 3.302.211.78 Detail 07/17/2003 001 247,543.40 165 2,212,120.68 190 102,204.02 192 42,748.62 193 10,403.40 194 6,527.67 210 660,870.13 28O 2,530.49 300 1,325.61 320 12,036.20 330 777.11 340 3,124.45 3,302,211.78 Page:l 0 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 07117/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 150 07/17/2003 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA), 151 07/17/2003 152 07/17/2003 153 07/17/2003 154 07/1712003 155 07/10/2003 156 07/10/2003 85345 07/17/2003 85346 07/17/2003 85347 07/17/2003 85348 07/17/2003 85349 07/17/2003 85350 07/17/2003 85351 07/17/2003 85352 07/17/2003 85353 07/17/2003 85354 07/17/2003 85355 07/17/2003 Description OBRA - Project Retirement Payment 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME PERS ER Paid Member Contri Pmt 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SO Nationwide Retirement Payment 000283 INSTATAX (iRS) 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 004931 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 000166 FIRST AMERrCAN TITLE 005226 2003 CCPOA CONFERENCE, 005058 ADAMS, AARON 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 006495 GEL VILLAGGIO, LLC 006505 BELENYUK, TATYANA 006536 BOLOWICH, HANS 006508 BRAND, MARTY 006501 BROWN, JERRY 006500 BUSTIN, LEONARD 003138 CAL MAT 000674 CALIF CONTRACT CITIES Federal Income Taxes Payment State Disability Ins Payment 1st Time Home Buyer prgm Sr housing project @28500 Pujol St Crime Prev Cf:9/16-19:Fanene Reimb:lndian Gaming Lobbying:7/7/03 Temp help PPE 6/21-28 Carraway Refund: Substantial conf application Refund:Smart Excursions Reimb: EMS conf:6/4-6/03 Refund: Tennis Camp Teen Refund: July 4: Parade Entry Refund: July 4: Parade Entry PW patch truck asphalt materials 2003/04 Membership: Shawn Nelson Amount Paid 5,078.20 57,448.33 17,417.03 64,573.10 16,218.48 24,000.00 2,181,000.00 185.00 71.25 208.00 370.00 5.00 104.72 10.00 50.00 20.00 2,158.13 560.00 Check Total 5,078.20 57,448.33 17,417.03 64,573.16 16,218.48 24,000.00 2,181,000.00 185.00 71.25 208.00 370.00 5.00 104.72 10.00 50.00 20.00 2,158.13 560.00 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/17/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Check # Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Date Vendor Description 85356 07/17/2003 000638 CALIF DEPT OF CONSERVATIO 2003 2nd Qtr pmt:strong motion 85357 07/17/2003 005660 CALIF EMS AUTHORITY Paramediclicense renewal:Davis 85358 07/17/2003 006532 CALIF GANG TASK FORCE CGTFconf:10/21-23/03:Frost 85359 07/17/2003 006519 CAMPOS, SALVADOR Refund:Citation #0306 85360 07/17/2003 Claim adjuster services 85361 07/17/2003 Refund:Citation #1930 85362 07/17/2003 Refund: Sign Language:Babies 85363 07/17/2003 Payment Communi~ Health Charities 85364 07/17/2003 Ldscp designs: Diaz realignment prjt Credit: Amount exceeds contract 85365 07/17/2003 TCSD instructor earnings 85366 07/17/2003 Reimb: EMS conf:6/4-6/03 85367 07/17/2003 Fuel for city vehicles:61349 Van 85368 07/17/2003 Jun Biological svcs: Pala Rd Bridge 85369 07/17/2003 Refund:Citation #0167 85370 07/17/2003 002283 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL Htl:Crime Prey Conf:9/16-19:Fanene 85371 07/17/2003 002283 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL Task Force Cf:10/21-23/Frost #867561 85372 07/17/2003 005052 EMCOR SERVICE Repair HVAC at Wedding Chapel 85373 07/17/2003 063665 EMERITUS COMMUNICATIONS June long distance svcs 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY I 006518 CASTELLANOS, MIGUEL 006499 CHEYNE, SAMANTHA 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI 004414 COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN 003625 DAVIS, JOHN 006535 DAVIS, TY 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI 003223 EDAW INC 006512 ELECTRICAL SERV. CORP. Amount Paid 5,829.85 130.00 50.00 50.00 756.56 50.00 65.00 173.50 1,165.22 -545.67 420.00 148.80 107.04 2,225.24 50.00 567.60 369.41 97.50 118.80 Check Total 5,829.85 130.00 50.00 50.00 756.56 50.00 65.00 173.50 619.55 420.00 148.80 107.04 2,225.24 50.00 567.60 369.41 97.50 118.80 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 07/17/2003 8.'16:20AM CiTY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check Cf Date Vendor 85374 07/17/2003 002577 ENGINEERING RESOURCES 85375 07/17/2003 85376 07/17/2003 85377 07/17/2003 85378 07/17/2003 85379 07/17/2003 85380 07/17/2003 85381 07/17/2003 85382 07/17/2003 85383 07/17/2003 85384 07/17/2003 85385 07/17/2003 85386 07/17/2003 85387 07/17/2003 85388 07/17/2003 85389 07/17/2003 006497 EVANS-LOPEZ, CYNTHIA 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 000478 FAST SIGNS 005289 FEHLER, DEAN (Continued) Description Hydrology Study:John Warner/Santiag Refund: Sign Language:Basic Kids June Idscp impr: Vail Ranch Pkwy June Idscp impr: Vail Ranch July 4th Banner "Judges" Paramedic license renewal 004922 FIELDS OF THUNDER MUSEUM Entertainment: Western Days Old Twn 006506 FIFE, ALISON 006531 FORMOE, GARY 006525 GONZALEZ, JUAN 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS 006502 GUADERRAMA, RHONDA 004053 HABITAT WEST INC 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 002372 HARMON, JUDY 006524 HERNANDEZ, JOSE 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Refund: Sign Language:Basic Kids Reimb: ICBO certification renewal Refund:Citation #0454 July 4th 2003 parade video Refund: Back to the beach 1st Qtr svcs: Pala Bridge Mntc Agrmnt Amount Paid 5,885.00 50.00 221.64 113.90 384.96 130.00 560.00 50.00 30.00 50.00 2,000.00 6.00 700.00 Hardware supplies - Aquatics Hardware supplies - Info Sys Hardware supplies - TCSD Hardware supplies - Fire Dept Hardware supplies - Museum Hardware supplies - B&S Hardware supplies - Sr Center TCSD instructor earnings Refund:Citation #0322 Support Payment 378.84 349.99 178.29 154.03 137.58 33.34 17.42 324.92 50.00 5.68 Check Total 5,885.00 50.00 335.54 384.96 130.00 560.00 50.00 30.00 50.00 2,000.00 6.00 700.00 1,249.49 324.92 50.00 5.68 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/17/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 85390 07/17/2003 85391 07/17/2003 85392 07/17/2003 85393 07/17/2003 (Continued) Vendor Description 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 Payment ICMA Retirement 000501 INTL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL Mb:Jones/Ballreich/Flores/Domenoe 006509 JIMENEZ, JESUS Refund:Citation #0264 006526 KHOYI, SHAHRZAD Refund:Citation #0303 May Design Svcs: Murr Creek Trail Pr Jun Design Svcs: Murr Creek Trail Prjt geotechnical svcs: J. Warner Dist. Geotechnical svc: Mercantile Bldg Credit: chrged for unrelated svcs Refund:Citation #1932 TCSD instructor earnings Refund:Citation #0253 Jun prgs pmt:R.C.Bridge Widening Custodial Supplies: West Wing Custodial Suppfles: Var. Parks Custodial Supplies: Museum 07/17/2003 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER temp help PPE 06/8-29 Dankworth/Ga temp help w/e 07/06 Dankworth 85394 07/17/2003 004481 KIMLEYHORN&ASSOCIATFSI 85395 07/17/2003 003631 KLEINFELDER INC 85396 07/17/2003 006527 LAGEL, YAYOI 85397 07/17/2003 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. 85398 07/17/2003 006528 LOERA, HEUODORA 85399 07/17/2003 006182 M C M CONSTRUCTION, INC. 85400 07/17/2003 004141 MAINTEX INC 85401 85402 07/17/2003 85403 07/17/2003 85404 07/17/2003 85405 07/17/2003 85406 07/17/2003 002664 MAR CO INDUSTRIES INC 006521 MARTIN, MARIA 006517 MATTHIEU, PIERRE 003448 MELODYS AD WORKS Prey. maint svcs/2 machine brushes Refund:Citation ¢O285 Refund:Citation fl0081 Reimb. expenses:Street Painting 004894 MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOClA May svcs:Pechanga Pkwy Ph 2 Amount Paid 6,803.60 420.00 50.00 50.00 16,080.50 8,880.00 3,843.00 1,228.49 -356.49 50.00 1,496.00 50.00 511,427.00 541.43 537.03 261.29 816.84 475.20 671.64 50.00 50.00 213.56 395.00 Check Total 6,803.60 420.00 50.00 50.00 24,960.50 50.00 1,496.00 50.00 1,339,75 1,292.04 671.64 50.00 50.00 213.56 395.00 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 07/17/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85407 07/17/2003 006503 MILLER, CRYSTAL 85408 07/17/2003 85409 07/17/2003 85410 07/17/2003 85411 07/17/2003 85412 07/17/2003 85413 07/17/2003 85414 07/17/2003 85415 07/17/2003 85416 07/17/2003 85417 07/17/2003 85418 07/17/2003 85419 07/17/2003 85420 07/17/2003 85421 07/17/2003 85422 07/17/2003 85423 07/17/2003 (Continued) Description Refund:Backtothe Beach 005887 MOFFATT&NICHOLENGINEER May consulting svcs:F.V.Pkwy 006523 MONTENEGRO, ELVIRA 006514 MORIN, MADONNA 000230 MUNIFINANCIAL 006511 NELSON, CHRISTiNA 005608 NEUMAN, JASON 004512 NINYO& MOORE Refund:Citation ff0047 Refund:Citation #0293 annual TCSD notices:printing/pos[age Apr-Jun TCSD tax assessment svcs JuI-Sep TCSD tax assessment svcs Refund:Citation #0355 Reimb:Prev. 2A class:06/09-13/03 geotechnical svcs -W.C. Spods 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATTN: Jun ads:4th ol July event Jun ads:CIP constr updates 004191 NORTHCOUNTYTIMES-PMTP renewsubscription:PW 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies for Planning 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs 001171 ORIENTALTRADINGCOMPANY Summer Day Camp supplies 000472 PARADISE CHEVROLET CADI 000733 PARTY PZAZZ 002652 PAT & OSCARS RESTAURANT 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPAN repair/maint svcs on Planning vehicle canopy rentals:41h of July Rfrshmnts:Comm. Advisory Committe Equipment Repair for TCSD Amount Paid Check Total 12.00 12.00 77,450.36 77,450.36 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 11,497.33 5,775.43 4,617.00 21,889.76 50.00 50.00 594.81 594.81 6,806.00 6,806.00 681.75 583.68 1,265.43 61.00 61.00 24.91 24.91 96.83 94.52 22.96 214.31 175.51 175.51 184,63 184,63 528.58 528.58 82.35 82.35 65.00 65.00 Page5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/17/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85424 07/17/2003 006389 PAULSON PAINTING 85425 07/17/2003 006513 PAXTON, KENNETH 85426 07/17/2003 003218 PELA 85427 07/17/2003 85428 07/17/2003 85429 07/17/2003 85430 07/17/2003 85431 07/17/2003 85432 07/17/2003 85433 07/17/2003 85434 07/17/2003 85435 07/17/2003 85436 07/17/2003 85437 07/17/2003 85438 07/17/2003 85439 07/17/2003 85440 07/17/2003 85441 07/17/2003 (Continued) Description res imprv prgm:Prunty Refund:Citation #0290 Jun plan ck svcs:Planning Jul Idscp plan ck svcs:Creekside Jun Idscp plan ck svcs:O.T. Gateway 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG PERS Long Term Care Payment 004790 PETER D BRANDOW & ASSOCI dsgn svcs for SR 79S Sidewalk 006510 PHILBROOK, JOYCE Refund:Citation #0295 000580 PHOTO WORKS OF TEMECULA Jun film/photo dev- PW & TCSD 005886 PLUMBING SPECIALISTS INC. emerg, plumbing svcs:Fire Stn 84 000254 PRESS ENTERPRiSE COMPAN renewsubscdption:PW 006493 PROFESSIONALWOMENS ROU SilverSponsorship:9/26/03 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SU PPL 004627 PUBLIC SAFETY 005067 PURSUITTECHNOLOGY INC 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Jun uniform/fir mat/towel rental:City Radio rental for 4th of July events hardware to install tablets:Fire Prev. rent tables/chairs:Street Painting May dsgn svcs:Wolf Crk Sports Compl Various water meters Various water meters blueprints/misc supplies:Planning 003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORATI Jun loan collection svcs for RDA Amount Paid 2,300.00 50.00 1,850.00 602.00 258.00 227.08 120.00 50.00 422.00 100.00 154.44 961.06 340.15 888.14 498.85 24,486.48 7,774,80 891.01 23.95 16.00 Check Total 2,300.00 50.00 2,710.00 227.08 120.00 50.00 422.00 100.00 154.44 961.06 340.15 888.14 498.85 24,486.48 8,665.81 23.95 16.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 07/17/2003 8:16:20AM CiTY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Cate 85442 07/17/2003 85443 07/17/2003 85444 07/17/2003 85445 07/17/2003 85446 07/17/2003 85447 07/17/2003 85448 07/17/2003 85449 07/17/2003 85450 07/17/2003 85451 07/17/2003 85452 07/17/2003 85453 07117/2003 85454 07/17/2003 85455 07/17/2003 85456 07/17/2003 85457 07/17/2003 (Continued) Description Vendor 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE City'sR-O-Wweedspraying/debris 005807 RESOURCE STRATEGIES INC Compression Service for GIS 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST Street Painting patrol svcs:6/21-22/03 000357 RIVERSIDE CO 006520 ROBBIN, BRADLEY 003027 ROOFTEK 006515 ROSALES, HERMINIA 001048 R©SAS CANTINA RESTAURAN 006507 ROTH, 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC 004598 S T K ARCHITECTURE INC 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF 001053 SAN DIEGO ICE ARENA 000645 SMART& FINALINC 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 4th qtr traf sgnl/light maint svcs Refund:Citation #2100 Res Imp Prgm: Brown, Edward & Kon Credit:Res Imp Prgm: Brown Refund:Citation #0416 Refreshments:4th of July Parade Refund:Sign Language-Basics Kids Summer Day Camp supplies Jun dsgn svcs:Roripaugh Fire Stn .Jun dsgn svcs:Wolf Crk Fire Stn Support Payment SMART Excursion:7/09/03 Sr Ctr recreation supplies Family Fun Night supplies Jul 2-01-202-7330 var. City street Jul 2-01-202-7603 arteria~ st. lights Jun 2-00-397-5059 various mtrs Jul 2-00-987-0775 V.R. st. lights Jul 2-06-105-0654 various mtrs Jul 2-10-331-1353 Fire Stn 84 Jul 2-23-548-1975 various mtrs var City facilities gas meters Jul 095-167-7907-2 Fire Stn 84 Amount Paid 5,000.00 1,000.00 741.08 33,744.00 50.00 2,330.00 -330.00 50.00 400.00 50.00 391.38 53,758.76 1,080.00 107.00 258.00 154.23 72.38 36,728.95 13,998.80 5,396.63 5,020.03 2,216.41 28.80 1,026.67 138.64 Check Total 5,000.00 1,000.00 741.08 33,744.00 50.00 2,000.00 50.00 400.00 50.00 391.38 54,838.76 107.00 258.00 226.61 64,763.63 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 07/1712003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85458 07/17/2003 85459 07/17/2003 85460 07/17/2003 85461 07/17/2003 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST 006145 STENO SOLOUTIONS 004247 STERICYCLE INC 002224 SYNDISTAR INC (Continued) Description var. City facilities pest control svcs West Wing pest control svcs May Transcription Services:P.D. Medic squad med waste disposal svcs training materials: Fire prevention training materials: Fire prevention 85462 07/17/2003 006533 TEMECULA ALL-COMMUNITY B transportation costs:4th of July Parade 85463 07/17/2003 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN Awards for Fire Explorers 85464 07/17/2003 006529 TEMECULA VALLEY GARDEN C Relund:Sec. Deposit:St Ctr 85465 07/17/2003 006424 TEMECULAVALLEYRV, LLC options for GEM vehicle trailer 85466 07/17/2003 003140 TEMECULAVALLEYTAEKWON TCSD Instructor Earnings 85467 07/17/2003 000919 TEMECULAVALLEY UNIFIED S FY 02~03 field renovations 85468 07/17/2003 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 85469 07/17/2003 004261 VERIZONCALIFORNIA Jun xxx-5029 general usage Jul xxx-0561 general usage Jun xxx-1408 P.D. Satellite Stn Jun xxx-1540 O.T. Parking Lot Jul xxx-1941 PTA CD ~i'ACSD Jun xxx-5780 general usage Jun xxx-5840 general usage Jun xxx-2730 elevator Jun xxx-2670 911 Auto Dialer 85470 07/17/2003 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Jun access-CRC phone line Jun access-rvsd co phone line 85471 07/17/2003 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Phone svcs/EOC backup @stn 84 85472 07/17/2003 006522 VlLLASENOR, ALBA Refund:Citation #2099 Amount Paid 269.00 40.00 1,280.00 69.50 576.00 175.00 250.00 485.95 100.00 6,418.25 312.00 19,150.00 253.30 675.02 342.48 301.47 89.31 58.01 32.85 32.85 29.13 29.13 349.12 272.75 69.95 50.00 Check Total 309.00 1,280.00 69.50 751.00 250.00 485.95 100.00 6.418.25 312.00 19,150.00 253.30 1,890.25 621.87 69.95 50.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 07/17/2003 8:16:20AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 85473 07/17/2003 006530 WEBER, KIMBERLY 85474 07/17/2003 006496 WEBSTER, DONNA 85475 07/17/2003 006290 WOODCRESTVEHICLECENT 85476 07/17/2003 006516 WYMAN, JEFFREY 85477 07/17/2003 000348 ZIGLER, GAlL (Continued) Description Amount Paid Refund:Citation #0267 50.00 Refund:Ex - San Diego Zoo 60.00 install equipment on P.D. motomyc]es 4,875.01 lighting upgrades to P.D. motomycles 897.00 Refund:Citation #0288 50.00 reimb, for var. park dedications 112.49 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Check Total 50.00 60.00 50.00 112.49 3,302,211.78 Page~ ITEM 3 CITY ATT~ DIRECTOR OF FIffANC~ CITY MANAGER CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City ManagedCity Council Genie Robeds, Director of Finance August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of June 30,2003 PREPARED BY: Karen Jester, Assistant Director of FinanC~ RECOMMENDATION: June 30,2003. DISCUSSION: Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of June 30,2003. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: City Treasurer's Report as of June 30,2003 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Repor~ As of June 30, 2003 Cash AcBvit~ for the Month of May: Cash and Investments as of June 1, 2003 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and ~nvestments as of June 30, 2003 98,025,716 5,264,814 Cash and Investmenta Portfolio: T~e of Investment Petty Cash General Checkin§ Sweep Account (Money Market Account) Rex Benefit Demand Deposits Local Agency Investment Fund Federal Agency- Callable Federal Agency- Callable Federal Agency- Callable Checking Account (Parking Citations) Delinquency Maintenance Account -CFD 88-12 (investment Agreement) Delinquency Maintenance Account- CFD 88-12 (Money Market Account) Reserve Fund -CFD 88-12 (Investment Agreement) Reserve Account -CFD 88-12 (Money Market Account) Special Tax Fund -CFD 01-2 (Money Market Account) Admin Expense Fund -CFD 01-2 (Money Market Account) Vadable Bond Fund -CFD 01-2 (Money Market Account) Capital Interest Fund - CFC 01-2 (Money Market Account) Interest Differential Fund - CFC 01-2 (Money Market Account) Capital Improvement Fund -CFD 01-02 (Money Market Account) Interest Account -RDA TABs (Money Market Account) Reserve Account - RCA TABs (Money Market Account} Project Account -RDA TABs (Money Market Account) Project Account-RDA TABs (Local Agency Investment Fund) Delivery Cost Fund - TCSD COPs (Money Market Account) Project Fund - TCSD COPs (Money Market Account) Project Fund - TCSD COPs (Local Agency Investment Fund) Institution City Hall Union Bank Union Bank (Highmark U.S. Treasury) Union Bank State Treasurer-LAIF Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan MoKgage CO Union Bank CDC Funding Corp U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) CDC Funding Corp U.S, Bank (First Am. Treasury) U.S. Bank, =irst Am. Treasury) U.S. Bank FirstAm. Treasury) U.S. Bank FirstAm. Treasury) U.S. Bank FirstAm. Treasury) U.S. Bank FirstAm. Treasury) U.S. Bank First Am. TreasuP/) U.S. Bank First Am, Treasury) U.S. Bank First Am. Treasury) U.S. Bank First Am. Treasury) State Treasurer-LAIF U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) State Treasurer-LAIF Maturity/ Purchase Termination Date Date Market Value Pa#Book Balance n/a n/a n/a 1.697 2.000 2.250 2.000 % n/a 5.430 % 0.490 % 5.430 % 0.580 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 0.490 % 1.697 % 0.490% 1.697% % % 05/30/2003 12/01/2005 1,000,000 % 06/19/2003 06/19/2006 1,002,500 06/30/2003 06/30/2006 1,000,000 09/01/2007 1,500 729,832 458 73,469,350 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,958 500,000 483,367 1,531,469 5 447,517 476,163 2,740 92,772 130,682 4,608,177 45 860 9,470 2,751,635 (1)-This amount is net of outstanding checAs. (2)-At June 30, 2003 total market value (including accrued interest) for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was $55,709,492,881. The City's proportionate share of that value is $73,678,464. All investments are liquid and currently available. The City of Temecula*s portfolio is in compliance with the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next six months. ITEM 4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 24, 2003 The City Council convened in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone Absent: Councilmember: Roberts PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Chris Jordan and Antonio Pontarelli. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Scott Treadway of Rancho Community Church. ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Councilman Comerchere. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS Fire Explorers Presentation Deputy Fire Marshal Neuman invited the City Council and the public to attend the Second Annual Riverside County Fire Department Fire Explorers Post Muster at the Promenade Mall on June 28, 2003, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and briefly provided an overview of the Explorer Post Program. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Nancy Baron, 41915 Foudh Street, expressed her desire to relocate a horseless carriage and commented on the difficulties with this relocation as per City staff. Mayor Stone suggested that staff meet with the City Attorney in order to explore the matter. B. Mr. Otto Baron, 28681 Pujol Street, relayed his dismay with Code Enforcement and further commented on the relocation of a horseless carriage. C. Mr. George Di Leo, 32871 Rovato Street, reiterated his concerns with traffic on SR79 South and the overall speed limit throughout the City. D. In order to properly promote her business, Ms. Lorena Spencer, 43104 Agenda Road, reiterated her need for additional signage. E. Mr. Randy Yaught and Mr. Paul Runkle, 32070 Corte Banilio, thanked the City Council for its support of the Redhawk annexation. R:\Minutes\062403 1 It was noted that Agenda Item No. 23 will be continued off calendar and will be renoticed. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. In light public inquiries, Mayor Pro Tem Naggar commented on the need for an ice skating rink in the City and requested that staff explore skating facilities such as those in Escondido and Rancho Penisquitos. With the continual drop in interest rates, Mr. Naggar requested that the Finance Department explore whether it would be beneficial to the City to refinance those bonds. In response to those comments made by Mr. Di Leo, Mr. Naggar advised that the City is in the process of working with Caltrans in an effort for the City to control Winchester Road and SR 79 South versus Caltrans. For Mr. Naggar, Public Works Director Hughes noted that it would be anticipated that the City may have control of Winchester Road and SR 79 South by Spring 2004. Public Works Director Hughes as well noted, for Mr. Naggar, that a new timing program for the Old Town Front StreetJSR 79 South Signal should be installed within a couple months which should address the operation of this new signal. B. Having attended a recent Rotary Luncheon Meeting, Councilman Comerchero advised that the Rotary had honored organizations such as the City that have supported them. Mr. Comerchero also advised that Councilman Pratt and he had attended a F.L.I.P. meeting (street racing group), advising that this group is desirous of getting street racing off the streets and into a more suitable venue. With regard to previously made comments with regard to the City's existing Sign Ordinance, Mr. Comerchero advised that this ordinance has been predicated on a court decision. With sorrow, Mr. Comerchero informed the viewing public that the City has lost two women that have greatly contributed to this community - Donna Reeves and Fran Gilbert. C. In an effort to further reduce response times, Mayor Stone requested that a similar GIS program such as the one on the fire vehicles be explored for police vehicles. CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Approval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of May 13, 2003 R:\Minutes\062403 2 3 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Riverside County Library Contract Amendment No. 6 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve Amendment No. 6 to the agreement to provide Library Services (additional staff); 4.2 Authorize the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $150,000 to fund the Temecula Library Volunteer Coordinator half-time position and to subsidize funding to maintain the Senior Reference Librarian and Reference Librarian positions for fiscal year 2003-04. Commenting on the City's $150,000 contribution toward the Library, Mayor Stone relayed his hopes of the City receiving State funding for the construction of the new City library. 5 Offer to purchase City property for Murrieta Creek Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt resolution entitled: 5.2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING THE OFFER TO PURCHASE 64,600 SQUARE FEET OF REAL PROPERTY BEING A PORTION OF APN 922-100-017 BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE OF $161,500.00 TO BE USED FOR FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSES Assign the purchase price of $161,500.00 to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as a portion of the City's contribution to funding the Murrieta Creek Project. 6 Public Works Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Annual Maintenance Agreements RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the minor annual maintenance and construction contracts for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 with: R:\Minutes\062403 3 · Becket Engineering in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00; · Cajer Equipment Rental in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00; · Imperial Paving Company, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00; · Monteleone Contractors, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00; · Murrieta Development Co. in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00; · Rene's Commercial Management in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00; Toran Development & Construction in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00. 7 Citywide Tree Trimminq Maintenance Services RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Award the Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services contract to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for $100,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $10,000.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 8 Amendment No. 4 to Construction Contract for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Street Stripinq Proqram - Proiect No. PW01-12 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Construction Contract with C-18, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Street Striping Project - Project No. PW01-12 - for an amount of $225,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 9 Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Services Agreement with KRW & Associates RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Engineering Plan Check, Map and Legal Description Review for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 with KRW & Associates for an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 10 Aqreement with the Temecula Sunrise Rotary Club - Placement and Maintenance of Bus Benches RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve a three-year agreement with the Temecula Sunrise Rotary Club, a California non-profit corporation, for the placement and maintenance of 43 bus benches throughout the City in an amount of $12,000 for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially the form attached; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,200.00 which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. R:\Minutes\062403 4 11 Annual Professional Services A,qreements for Real Estate Appraisal Services for the various Capital Improvement Proiects for FY2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve an agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; 11.2 Approve an agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants in the amount $60,000.00 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; 11.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. 12 Annual Professional Services Aqreements for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services for various Capital Improvement Projects for FY2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the agreement with Leighton Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services; 12.2 Approve an agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC, in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services; 12.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. 13 Annual Professional Services Aqreements for Enqineerinq and Construction Survey Services for various Capital Improvement Proiects for FY2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the annual agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; 13.2 Approve the annual agreement with Project Design Consultants in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; 13.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. 14 French Valley Parkway/l-15 Overcrossing and Interchanqe Improvements - Consultant Agreement - Proiect No. PW02-11 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve an agreement with Value Management Strategies, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $31,780.60 to provide the necessary Value Analysis Services needed for the French Valley Parkway/I-15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements - Project No. PW02-11 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 14.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $3,178.06 which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. (Councilman Pratt abstained with regard to this item.) R:\Minutes\062403 5 15 Award the Construction Contract for Project No. PW02-13 - Pavement Rehabilitation Proqram - Rancho California Road, Marqarita Road to Meadows Parkway RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Award of construction contract for Project No. PW02-13 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Rancho California Road, Margarita Road to Meadows Parkway to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $629,433.50 an authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 15.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $62,943.35 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 16 Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Accept the petition requesting the initiation of proceedings to consider the formation of an Assessment District to finance the costs of Street and Storm Drain Improvements - proposed John Warner Road Assessment District; 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENTION TO ACQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS AND TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) 16.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, OF APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT DESCRIBING BOUNDARIES OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC MEETING AND HEARING, AND ELECTION - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) 16.4 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the John Warner Road Assessment District Improvements - Project No. PW02-07. 17 Tract Map No. 26941 (located south of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Staqe Road) RECOMMENDATION: 17,1 Approve Tract Map No. 26941 in conformance with the conditions of approval. R:\Minutes\062403 6 18 Community Services Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Annual Maintenance A,qreements RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Ri77o Construction in an amount not to exceed $75,000; 18.2 Murrieta Development in an amount not to exceed $75,000; 18.3 Becker Engineering Company in an amount not to exceed $75,000; 18.4 Power Distributors, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $50,000; 18.5 Strong's Painting in an amount not to exceed $100,000; 18.6 Imperial Paving Company, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $50,000; 18.7 NPG, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $50,000; 18.8 Dennis A. Hibbets Plumbing in an amount not to exceed $50,000. 19 Second Amendment to the Facility Alarm Systems Service and Monitorinq Aqreement with Computer Alert Systems for FY2003-04 RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the Second Amendment for the Facility Alarm Systems Service and Monitoring Agreement with Computer Alert Systems, Inc. to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2004; 19.2 Authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $25,000.00 for alarm monitoring and repair services; 19.3 Approve 10% contingency in the amount of $2,500.00. 20 Aqreement providinq for a Modified Schedule for approval and recordation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for a portion of the Crowne Hill Development - Tract Map No. 26941 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the Covenant between the City of Temecula and PCC ilI-Crowne Hill, LLC, and authorize the Mayor to execute the Covenant on behalf of the City. 21 Professional Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Services Aqreement for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the annual professional services agreement for Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 with PELA for landscape plan check and inspection services in the amount of $25,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. R:\Minutes\062403 7 22 Corporation for Better Housinq Senior Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BI=TVVEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND 28500 PUJOL STREET, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 22. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent and Councilman Pratt who abstained with regard to Consent Calendar Item No. 14. At 7:35 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority, the City Council meeting, after a shod recess, resumed with regular business at 8:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 23 Request Zone Chanqe from L-1 to L-2 (PA02-0372) and Tentative Tract Map to create seven residential lots ranging from .5 to .82 acres in lot area (PA02-0371) RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Continue the public hearing off calendar and renotice it. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent. 24 Development Code Amendment (Planninq Application PA03-0110) - Secondary Dwellinq Unit Approval Authority RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 03-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS (PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0110) R:\Minutes\062403 8 Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). The public hearing was opened. There being no public input, the hearing was closed. At this time, City Attorney Thorson read the proposed ordinance by title only. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent. COUNCIL BUSINESS 25 Consideration of Telecommunications Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Receive and file this repod. Noting that the City's broad-band capability increasingly continues to be a critical business decision in the location of businesses, Assistant City Manager O'Grady highlighted the staff report (of record); relayed his appreciation to staff for their efforts; and introduced Information Systems Manager Thorson who, in turn, by way of a PowerPoint presentation, further commented on the report. It was noted that the City has applied for a $200,000 grant through the U.S. Economic Development Administration, advising that such monies would be utilized to promote to the broad-band providers. In light of the City's backbone infrastructure, Assistant City Manager O'Grady and Information System Administrator Thorson advised that the City would be viewed as technologically advanced over other cities, noting that the proposed Master Plan would address regional issues as well as City issues. Commending Assistant City Manager O'Grady and Information Systems Manager Thorson, Mayor Pro Tem Naggar thanked staff for their associated efforts and viewed the advancement in this technology as paramount to future economic development. Although viewing the business portion as very important, Councilman Comerchero relayed his desire to ensure the residential portion of this plan would not be deemphasized. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar moved to receive and file the staff recommendation seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent. 26 Amendment to Animal Friends of the Valley Contract for Animal Control Services and Increase in Doq License Fees RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Approve a one-year contract extension for Animal Control Services with Animal Friends of the Valley not to exceed $130,000; R:\Minutes\062403 9 26.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional service not to exceed 10% of the amount of the agreement; 26.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANIMAL LICENSING FEES 26.4 Appoint one member as a liaison to work with staff and Animal Friends to explore the details of a new shelter. Assistant to the City Manager Yates reviewed the staff report (of record) and introduced Ms. Anne Washington, Executive Director of Animal Friends and Ms. Chris Anderson of Animal Friends who, in turn, further clarified the proposed fee structure as well the program, noting the following: · Uniform license fee for all City residents · Uniform license fee for service hourly rates, live stray animal rates, base mileage rate to create a consistency for all cities; · Spaying/neutering subsidies · Collected license revenue will offset City expenditures · Proposal for a new shelter in Wildomar Mayor Stone expressed concern with the proposed doubling rates of the license fee and as well noted that there would not be a financial advantage for a pet owner owning an unaltered dog to pay three years in advance. In response to Mayor Stone's comments, Ms. Washington advised that the dog population in the City of Temecula has continued to increase, noting that while for those cities that have imposed the $50 license fee for unaltered dogs, the dog population has decreased. It was as well noted by Assistant to the City Manager Yates that the proposed fees would be in line with those fees of surrounding areas such as Orange County and San Diego County and would possibly even be viewed as Iow. For Mayor Pro Tem Naggar who had expressed concern with raising the fee to a point where pet owners would opt to not license their dog and noting that some pet owners have made the decision to not alter their dog, Ms. Washington advised that spaying/neutering assistance would be available and that such action would be the responsible choice for the dog, noting that dogs are healthier once spayed or neutered. Advising that $130,000 has been budgeted for animal control services for this upcoming year, Mayor Stone viewed the matter as a public safety issue and, therefore, noted that the City may have to increase that amount versus passing it on to its citizens. Mr. Stone also stated that the issue of building a permanent facility must be seriously explored. Assistant to the City Manager Yates noted, for Councilman Comerchero, that the City, in an effort to ensure a high-level of service to the citizens, has established a strong working R:\Minutes\062403 10 relationship with Animal Friends of the Valley and as well has cooperatively worked with regional cities to ensure animal control will be addressed on a City level and a regional level. In response to Mayor Stone's comment, Councilman Comerchero relayed his opposition to the City appropriating additional allocations for a service that possibly the majority of the citizens may not utilize, noting that those pet owners utilizing the service should pay for the service. For Mayor Pro Tem Naggar, Ms. Washington advised that an animal control officer is on call 24 hours seven days a week but that calls, specifically on the weekends, are limited to higher priority (vicious dog, injured animal, etc.). Mr. Naggar requested that additional attention be paid to those services provided on the weekends. In an effort to ensure the citizens' property/private rights, Mr. Naggar reminded the organization to be cautious in its methods of determining whether an animal has been licensed or not. Mr. Greg Morrison, 31045 Oakhill Drive, relayed his support of the proposed plan, noting that the services of this organization have been undervalued and encouraging that the City Council approve staff's recommendation. Additional discussion ensued as to the proposed fee with Mayor Pro Tem Naggar being appointed as the City Council liaison to work with staff and Animal Friends to explore the new shelter as well as the fees charged. The following motion being offered: MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar moved to adopt the fee schedule in the proposed resolution, amending the unaltered yearly license fee to $35 from $25; to explore the new shelter as well as the fees charged; and to appoint Mr. Naggar as the City Council liaison. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent. 27 General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe for the Valley Christian Fellowship site located at the southwest corner of Margarita and De Portola Roads (PW03-0260) RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 Provide direction to staff on a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for the property located at the southwest corner of Murrieta and De Portola Roads based upon the recommendations of the General Plan Community Advisory Committee. Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of written material), highlighting the General Plan Community Advisory Committee's recommendation. City Manager Nelson noted that it was the City Council's previous decision to explore the General Plan designation and zoning for the area of discussion versus solely addressing the two parcels for the Valley Christian Fellowship. Mr. Don Stowe, 30241 Cabrillo Avenue, Board of Director of Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, relayed the Association's primary concern of buffering the community from noise, visual, and traffic impact as a result of the proposed changes. Because of the need to construct a hospital on SR79 South, Ms. Joan Sparkman, 40213 Colony Drive, Murrieta, relayed her support of the proposed change. Mr. Greg Morrison, 31045 Oakhill Drive, Chairman of the General Plan Community Advisory Committee, reviewed the Committee's recommendation, advising that there was Committee consensus with regard to changing the General Plan designation for the two Valley Christian R:\Minutes\062403 11 Fellowship parcels along with four other parcels to the west but that there was not consensus to extend the designation to the two parcels north of De Portola. Councilman Comerchero commended the General Plan Community Advisory Committee on a job well done and relayed his support of the recommendation. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Naggar moved to forward this item to the Planning Commission to further review the following issues: · Intensified use · Rezoning of the two parcels north of De Portola · Buffering · Traffic intensity · Buy-in from the Homeowners Association · Ingress/egress The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent. Mayor Stone suggested that traffic calming/circulation/intensification issues be reviewed by the Public Traffic/Safety Commission. 28 Ordinance Amendinq Council Compensation RECOMMENDATION: 28.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 03-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 2.04.050 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE SALARY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH AS PROVIDED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36516 AND PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF NECESSARY EXPENSES City Manager Nelson briefly reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the proposed increase has been based on the City's most recent population figures (75,000+); that the salary would increase to $600 per month based on existing State Code; and that the increase would be effective November 2003. City Attorney Thorson read by title only Ordinance No. 03-07. MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to adopt Ordinance No. 03-07. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Stone who voted in opposition and Councilman Roberts who was absent. R:\Minutes\062403 12 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson commended Administrative Secretary Zigler on her efforts associated with the Master Trails Plan brochure. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session Item No. 3, City Attorney Thorson advised that by a vote of four in support, zero in opposition, and one absent, the City Council authorized the commencement of litigation against the Rancho California Water District to recover the City's cost for the relocation of water lines in the John Warner Road Assessment District to accommodate the City's project to pave these roads. Mr. Thorson noted that there was nothing else to report under Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT At 9:34 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting on Thursday, July $, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\062403 13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL JULY 8, 2003 After the Closed Session that convened at 6:00 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Councilmember: None The prelude music was provided by Jon Lothermore. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Ted Miller of Crossroads Church. ALLEGIANCE The flag salute was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Naggar. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS None given. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Lorena Spencer, 43104 Agenda Road, reiterated her concern as to the lack of public visibility for her business on Fifth Street in Old Town and read a letter of support from a customer from Los Angeles. B. Commenting on rules of the Old Town Specific Plan, Mr. Otto Baron, 41915 4th Street, asked that names of businesses be placed on directional signs in Old Town. C. Mr. Doc Laine, 28657 Front Street, requested that the Street Painting Festival be moved to an alternate location in Old Town, such as the First Street Bridge, in lieu of closing Old Town Front Street. City Manager Nelson reported that a de-briefing will be held on the event, and alternate locations will be investigated. D. Echoing the comments of Doc Laine, Mr. Brian Bleecker, 28657 Front Street, requested the Street Painting Festival be moved from Old Town Front Street to an alternate location. E. Expressing his concerns regarding traffic and posted speed limits on Highway 79S, Mr. George DiLeo asked these issues be immediately addressed. He also requested annexing to the boundaries of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, to protect surrounding areas. R:\Minutes\070803 I City Manager Nelson clarified that Highway 79 S is currently under the jurisdiction of the Caltrans. He explained the City is undergoing a process to obtain jurisdiction over this Highway, and at that time steps can be taken to address speeding issues as well as signage. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mr. Roberts noted that the Southern California Association of Governments and Councilmembers Pratt and Comerchero commended Community Services Director Herman Parker for the outstanding 4th of July activities. B. Mayor Pro Tern Naggar reported he was contacted by Shawn Bruner, a business owner in Old Town, has been in contact with Congressman Duncan's Office, requesting a piece of retired military artillery donated to be placed in a local park. Mayor Stone responded stating he will be meeting with the General at Camp Pendleton, and will carry this request personally, suggesting placing such an item in the City's Veteran's Park. C. Mayor Stone addressed the following issues: Outback Steakhouse - right-hand turn lane adjacent to the restaurant. Needs red striping to prevent it becoming a parking zone. Arco Station at the corner of Nicolas and Winchester Road - two sets of yellow lines are presently there, but requested that reflected barriers be installed to prevent left-hand turn movement. Stop-light Abuses in Temecula - Stating he feeling the program has been unsuccessful, requested the Police Chief propose a program to address long- term stop light abuses. He requested a joint Public/Traffic Safety Commission Meeting to address this issue, within the next 45 days. He further requested as an interim solution, motor officers be staged at Temecula's busiest intersections: Jefferson and Front, Rancho California Road and Ynez, Ynez and Winchester, and Jefferson and Winchester. With concurrence of Council, he asked the Police Chief provide a daily email summating stop light tickets issued, for the next 60 days. City Manager Nelson stated a Joint City Council/Public Traffic Safety Commission Workshop will be scheduled in approximately 45 days. CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. R:\Minutes\070803 2 2 Approval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of May 15, 2003. 3 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 2003. 5 Reschedulinq of September 9, 2003 City Council meetinq RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Reschedule the regular City Council meeting of September 9, 2003, to September 16, 2003, and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of the Government Code. 6 Microsoft Software Licenses RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Authorize the purchase of 250 Client Access Licenses (CAL) of Microsoft Windows 2003 Professional from ASAP Software in a three-year agreement for $54,972.50 per year for a total amount of $164,917.50. 7 AeroSurf Lease Aqreement RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the AeroSurf Lease Agreement. 8 Agreement for Consultinq Services between the City of Temecula and PELA RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the contract with PELA for landscape plancheck and inspection services in the amount $100,000.00. R:\Minutes\070803 3 9 Authorization of Special Tax Levy in Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-12 (YNEZ CORRIDOR) 10 Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) Initiation of Action necessary to foreclose Delinquent Special Tax Liens RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING ACTION TO TRANSMIT TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CREDIT THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TAX COLLECTOR OF THE TAX ROLL AND TO RELIEVE THE TAX COLLECTOR OF FURTHER DUTY THERETO IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-12 AS REQUIRED BY LAW; ORDERING ACTIONS TO FORECLOSE THE DELINQUENT SPECIAL TAX LIENS; AND ORDERING THE RECORDATION OF A NOTICE OF INTENT TO REMOVE DELINQUENT SPECIAL TAX INSTALLMENTS FROM THE TAX ROLL 11 John Warner Road Assessment District - Proiect No. PW02-07 - Water Line Relocation Design - Consultant Services Aqreement RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve an agreement with Kevin Cozad and Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $16,845.00 to design the necessary Rancho California Water District (RCWD) facility relocations as needed for John Warner Road Assessment District improvements - Project No. PW02-07 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments provided the contract amount, including amendment, does not exceed $25,000.00. R:\Minutes\070803 4 12 13 Acceptance of Offer of Dedication (PM8856-Parcel 1) - Road Purposes on Pechanqa Parkway (formerly Pala Road/ RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 03-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR PECHANGA PARKWAY (FORMERLY PALA ROAD) BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY- MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME Acceptance of Offer of Dedication (PM8856-Parcel 2) - Road Purposes on Pechanqa Parkway (formerly Pala Road) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 03-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR PECHANGA PARKWAY (FORMERLY PALA ROAD) BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY- MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME 14 Contract Inspection Services for Buildinq and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve an agreement for consultant services with Berryman & Henigar, consultants, in an amount not to exceed $80,000 to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department. 15 Corporation for Better Housinq Senior Housinq Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF R:\Minutes\070803 5 TEMECULA AND 28500 PUJOL STREET, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (This item was removed from the Agenda.) 16 Second ReadinFl of Ordinance No. 03-06 (Secondary Dwelling Units) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS (PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0110) 17 Second ReadinFI of Ordinance No. 03-07 (Salary for Councilmembers) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 2.04.050 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE SALARY FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO SlX HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH AS PROVIDED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36516 AND PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF NECESSARY EXPENSES MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-14, and 16-17. (Item No. 15 was removed from the agenda.) The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Naggar, and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING 18 Linfield School Master Plan, Zone Chanqe (PA02-0612), Conditional Use Permit, and Development Plan (PA01-0653) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes~070803 6 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, FOR THE LINFIELD SCHOOL MASTER PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PAUBA ROAD, SOUTH OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, EAST MARGARITA ROAD AND WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 955-002-002 18.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL {PI) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY {PDO-7), AND ADOPTING SECTIONS 17.22.180 THROUGH 17.22.188 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PAUBA ROAD, SOUTH OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 955-002-002 18.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0653, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL COMPLEX, ATHLETIC FIELDS, AND RELATED FACILITIES, AND FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR UP TO 26 RESIDENTS ON A 94-ACRE SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 955-002-002 18.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0653, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR PHASE A-1 OF THE LINFIELD SCHOOL MASTER PLAN INCLUDING A TWO-STORY HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 38,358 SQUARE FEET AND AN R:\Minutes\070803 7 APPROXIMATELY 9,728 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 955-002-002 Mayor Stone opened the public hearing at 7:34 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar moved to continue the public hearing to August 26, 2003. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Nothing to report. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson stated there is nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT At 7:36 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\070803 8 ITEM 5 CITY ATTORNEY ~'" '' DIRECTOR OF FINANCE . CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gran/~¢ates, Assistant to the City Manager August 12, 2003 Emergency Management Grant-Funded Equipment Purchases PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Increase estimated grant revenue in the Police Department by $32,900 and increase estimated grant revenue in the Fire Department by $47,870. 2. Approve appropriations to the Police Department line item budget for $33,900 and Fire Department line item budget for $47,870. BACKGROUND: In an effort to enhance our commitment to public safety, staff has pursued and successfully secured several grants at both the Federal and State level. The City of Temecula was awarded $14,670 through the State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program. Staff recommends this grant funding be utilized for the purchase of seven (7) defibrillators to be installed at various facilities in the City to include: City Hall, the Community Recreation Center, the Senior Center, and the Promenade Mall. Each year, employees will be afforded training opportunities on these life-saving and user-friendly machines. Additionally, with the creation of the Federal Office of Homeland Security, the development of the Temecula Citizens Corps was possible. As a result, the City of Temecula was awarded $66,054 to be used to aid first responders and enhance the Citizen Corps. Approximately $8,500 will be used to purchase small tools and equipment for the volunteers that complete the required training as part of the Temecula Citizen Corps program. In addition, it is our hope that this funding will allow both the Fire Department and Police Department to equip their personnel with additional communication equipment, search and rescue equipment, and logistic support with small hand tools and equipment trailers. These equipment purchases will be entirely funded through State and Federal grants. FISCAL IMPACT: These equipment purchases will be funded entirely through grants. A FY 02 State Domestic Preparedness Program Grant will fund the Automatic Biphasic External Defibrillators for a total of $14,649.02. Another grant through the Federal Office of Homeland Security, will reimburse the Police Department in the amount of $32,863 and the Fire Department in the amount of $33,220 for the above-mentioned equipment purchases. Attachment: State Domestic Preparedness Grant Homeland Security Grant P:~aaron~Staff Reporl - PD Grants[1 l,doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 210 West San Jacinto Avenue · Perris, California 92570 · (909) 940-6900 · FAX (909) 940-6910 Tom Tisdale Fire Chief Proudly serving the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and the Cities of: Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio Lake Elsinore La Quinta Moreno Valley Palm Desert Perris Rancho Mirage San Jacinto Temecula Board of Supervisors Bob Buster District 1 John Tavaglione District 2 Jim Venable District 3 Roy Wilson Marion Ashley Apdl 22, 2003 Mr. Grant Yates, ESC City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Yates, Thank you for agreeing to participate in the FY 02 State Domestic Preparedness Program. You have agreed to participate in the purchase of equipment. Based on the number of participants, your city is eligible for $14,649.02 to purchase equipment. I have enclosed the sub-grant application (Enclosure 1) and the FY02 State Domestic Preparedness Program Grant Distribution Chart (Enclosure 2). The sub-grant application is due by the close of business on Fdday, May 9th, 2003. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at (909) 955-4700. Sincerely, TOM TISDALE County Fire Chief By: Bonnie S. Reed Emergency Services Program Supervisor Emergency Services Division Office of Emergency Services P.O. Box 1412 Riverside, CA 92502-1412 BSR: emm Enclosures ITEM 6 APPROVAI~¢~,, ~¢''¢ CITY ATTORNEY ,/'~'~4.,,v~,/,, DIRECTOR OF FINAN(~.,~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council ~ Herman Parker, Director of Community Servic August 12, 2003 Amendment No. 1 to Joint Use Agreement for Chaparral Aquatic Facility with Temecula Valley Unified School District PREPARED BY: ~-'~ Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Use Agreement for the Chaparral Aquatic Facility with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). DISCUSSION: On October 19, 1999 the City entered into a joint use agreement the TVUSD for the design and construction of an aquatic facility to be located on the Chaparral High School campus. The agreement provided for the City to administer the design and construction of the facility and to provide the initial funding for the project. The Agreement further called for the TVUSD to reimburse the City of 50% of the design and construction costs for the project over the five-year period immediately following the completion of construction of the improvements. The agreement also provides for the City's use of the facility for 17 weeks during the summer from May 1 through September 1. The agreement further calls for reimbursement from the City to the District for thirty-three percent (33%) of the maintenance costs. The original budget for the project was two million dollars. Therefore, the TVUSD's maximum commitment was to be no more than one million dollars, payable at $200,000 each year for five years. Through the course of design and construction, the City and the TVUSD agreed to include certain add alternate amenities to the project, including a zero-depth water plan feature, on-deck lighting system, and a competition timing system. In addition, vadous sub-surface utility issues were discovered during construction that required unanticipated work to be performed. Actual cost for design and construction the improvements was $3,190,169. The original intent of the agreement was that the TVUSD would reimburse the City up to a maximum amount of one million dollars for the aquatic facility improvements. Some of the additional amenities, such as the zero-depth water play feature, additional decking, locker room and office space do not benefit the TVUSD. These amenities were included in the project to support City's the recreational uses of the facility. Staff is recommending that the Joint Use Agreement be amended to reflect the one million dollar commitment originally made by the TVUSD. The City requires use of the facility from the June 1st through September 7th each year. This R:\RUSEP~AGENDAS\chaparral pool amdl-tvusd.doc schedule change decreases the City's use of the aquatic facility to twenty-seven percent (27%) of the year. Amendment No. 1 provides for the schedule adjustment to accommodate both agency's needs and also reduces the City's maintenance reimbursement obligation to 27% of annual maintenance costs in an amount not to e~ceed $75,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The total design and construction costs for the Chaparral Aquatic Facility were $3,190,169. Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Use Agreement with the TVUSD will provide reimbursement for the project to the City in the amount of $1,000,000 to be paid in equal installments over the next five years. The Amendment also reduces the amount of annual maintenance costs to coincide with the actual time the City has use of the facility and establishes a not to exceed amount of $75,000. R:\RUSEP~AGENDAS\chaparral pool amdl-tvusd.doc AMENDMENTNO. 1 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL AQUATIC FACILITY August 12, 2003 The Agreement dated October 19, 1999 between the City of Temecula ("City") and the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District") (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: Section Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: "4. Lease of Improvements to Real Property. In consideration of the benefits the District and its students will receive from this Agreement each year, the District agrees to lease'the Improvements from the City during the term of this Agreement with the annual lease payment not to exceed the formula set forth below. a. Within thirty (30) days of the completion of the Improvements and final payments to the contractors constructing the Improvements, the City shall determine the actual costs of the design and construction of the Improvements and the annual lease payments to be made by the District and shall present such determinations and supporting documentation to the District ("Construction Costs"). Construction Costs shall not include the City's administrative costs in administering the construction. b. For the first five (5) years of this Agreement, the Annual Lease Payment shall be two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) per year for a total amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). For the remainder of the term of this Agreement, the Annual Lease Payment shall be one dollar ($1.00). c. Each annual lease payment shall be due and payable on the first business day of July of each year, commencing in the calendar year following completion of the Improvements and ending in 2019, at which time the District shall have the option to purchase the Improvements for the sum of one dollar ($1.00). The obligation of the District to appropriate the money and make the payments described above shall be abated during any period in which by reason of any damage, destruction or condemnation there is substantial interference with the use of the Improvements by the District. Such abatement shall be in an amount agreed upon by the District and the City such that the annual payment in any year during which such interference continues does not exceed the fair rental value of the useable portion of the Improvements. Such abatement shall continue for the period commencing with the date of such interference and ending with the restoration of the Improvements to useable condition." R:\RUSEP\CONTRACT~chaparral pool amd 1-tvusd.doc Section 2 Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: "5. Apportionment of Use of Property by City and District. The Property shall be used for school purposes and recreational activities in accordance with the following priority schedule: a. The City shall have the exclusive right to use the Property and the improvements thereon from June 1st through September 7th of each year for public recreational swimming, lap swimming, swim lessons, aquatic classes and other recreational purposes. Dudng this pedod, City shall be responsible for staffing life guards, attendants and other staff necessary for the operation of the Property. b. District shall have the exclusive right to use the Property and the improvements thereon for its educational and recreational purposes for the remainder of the year. Dudng this pedod, Distdct shall be responsible for staffing teachers, coaches, life guards, attendants and other staff necessary for the operation of the Property." Section 3 Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: "6. Maintenance Responsibilities. During the term of this Agreement, the District shall perform all maintenance on the Property and the improvements in accordance with maintenance standards and schedules approved by the City's Director of Community Services, provided, however, that District shall perform maintenance on the pool equipment in accordance with maintenance requirements ofthe manufacturer. Except as provided in Section 6.c. below, maintenance shall include, but not be limited to: (1) the maintenance and repairs of the deck and pool, pump room equipment, filtration and chlorination systems, restrooms and locker rooms, and other structures and facilities on the Property; (2) property damage insurance; and (3) payment of all utility costs for operation of the pool. Maintenance shall not include the District's administrative costs. a. City shall pay an annual maintenance fee to the District equal to twenty-seven percent (27%) of the District's annual cost of maintaining the Property but in no event shall the amount exceed $75,000. The not to exceed amount may be changed by mutual consent of City and Distdct based upon actual maintenance and operating cost experience from the pdor year. The twenty-seven percent (27%) is the equivalent to the City's 14 weeks of use from June 1st through September 7th each year. b. Following the end of each fiscal year ending June 30th, the District shall submit an invoice to the City setting forth the District's costs of the maintenance of the Property during the previous calendar quarter and attaching thereto the documentation supporting the determination of the maintenance costs. City shall pay the invoice within forty-five days of receipt or provide the District with a written explanation of the portion of the invoice to which it objects. R:\RUSEP\CONTRACT~chaparral pool amd 1-tvusd.doc c. City shall pay twenty-seven percent (27%) of the District's cost of pedodic slurry sealing and stdping of 1/2 acres of parking adjacent to the Property, provided the District notifies the City of the work at least six (6) months prior to awarding a contract for the work. City shall also pay twenty-seven percent (27%) of the District's costs of renovating and refurbishing the locker rooms, adjacent bathrooms, pool deck, pump room or pump room equipment, provided that the District notifies the City in writing at least two (2) years prior to the award of a contract for the renovation work so that the costs can be planned fur as part of the City's Capital Improvement Plan." Section 4 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and ~ear above written. TEMCULA VALLEYUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA Stewart Morris President of School Board Jeffrey E. Stone Mayor Attest: Attest: Robert Brown Clerk of the School Board Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney R:\RUSEP\CONTRACT~chaparrai pool amd 1-tvusd.doc ITEM 7 APPROVAL /'~j,~- CITY ATTORNEY ~_~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~ ] CITY MANAGER /v'~/ I CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City ManagedCity Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Substitute Agreements and Bonds for Public Improvements in Tract No. 26828-1, -2, -F (East of North General Kearney Road, South Willows Avenue, West of Seraphina Road, and North of Rita Way) PREPARED BY: t¢l//Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works t~L/Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map 26828-1 (Offsite). 2. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map 26828-1 (In-Tract). 3. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map 26828-2. 4. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map 26828-F. 5. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map 26828-1. 6. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map 26828-2. 7. ACCEPT substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map 26828-F. 8. ACKNOWLEDGE that original bonds collected by the original subdivider, The Garret Group, LLC, will be released upon acceptance of substitute bonds by separate administrative action. 9. DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. R:~AGENDA REPORTS~2003\081203\TM26828-1,-2,-F. SUBST BOND.DOC1 BACKGROUND: The past land owner, The Garrett Group, LLC finalized their sale with Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. earlier this year and recently submitted substitute bonds and agreements. The following lists existing bonds and agreements secured by the Garrett Group, LLC and posted by Developers Surety and Indemnity Company to be released: Labor & Materials Bond No. 826572S ! $696,500 1826572S Tract Faithful Performance Monument Number Bond No. I Bond Amt. Bond Amt. Bond No. I Bond Amt. 26828-1 ~ i {Offsite) 826574S $179,000 I826574S $89,500 N/A N/A '-26§28:1 , _.(!_n-Tract) 826570S 15631,500 i 826570S $316,000 826571S 157,000 26828-2 , 826568S $460,000 _!. 826568S $230,500 826569S $5,000 26828-F $349,500 826573S $6,000 The original subdivider, Garrett Group, LLC has decided to sell the land to Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. Therefore, Richmond American Homes has elected to submit substitute bonds and agreements that will replace the ones on file from the original subdivider as follows: Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. San Diego Division 100 East San Marcos Boulevard, Suite 100 San Marcos, CA92069 Attn: Thomas Houska Accompanying the agreements are the following substitute bonds posted by Developer Surety & Indemnity Company as follows: Tract Faithful Performance Labor & Materials Monument Number Bond No. I Bond Amt. Bond No. I Bond Amt. Bond No. Bond Amt. 827999S I $179,000 827999S N/A N/A 26828-1 26828-1 26828-2 26828-F 828006S $631,500 828003S !$460,000 828002S !$696,500 828006S $89,500 828003S i $230,500 ' 828002S I $349,500 828001S i $7,000 828004S I $5,000 828000S i$6,o0o FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map R:~AGENDA R E PORTS~2003\081203\TM26828-1,-2,-F.SUBST BOND.DOC2 (TR.~34~8 T MURRIETA HO~$PRiN~ (TR.25004) PROJECT JOSEPH RD. (TR. 2~428) V I C]NI TY MAP NOT TO SCALE ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OFFINANCE~ ClTY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Acceptance of Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes For Moraga Road PREPARED BY: I~/Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works · v Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer- Land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME BACKGROUND: The Owner, First Baptist Church of Rancho California, is dedicating an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on Moraga Road along their property frontage in compliance with the Planning Application PA 99-0317 - Temecula Ridge Apartments Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council on December 12, 2000. The Owner has submitted an Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes along with a legal description and plat whereby he dedicates a 10-foot wide strip of land along their property frontage for right-of-way and public utility purposes. Upon City Council approval and recordation of the said Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes, the applicant/owner of Planning Application PA 99-0317 AGK Group LLC - Temecula Ridge Apartment will satisfy his condition of approval obligation once two other required Moraga Road Offers of Dedication - Road Purposes from AGK Group LLC and Joseph Kuzmanic have been dedicated, processed and recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2003- 2. Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes with Exhibits "A" and "B" made a part thereof. R:',AGEN DA REPORTS~003\081203'~PA99-0317 - BAPTIST CHURCH MOBAGA RD ROW DEDICATION,DOC 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: City Staff has established the requirement for dedication of 10 feet of right- of-way along property frontage on Moraga Road; The Owner, First Baptist Chumh of Rancho California, submitted an offer of dedication for road purposes dedicating 10 feet of right-of-way for public street and utility purposes for Moraga Road; Acceptance of this offer of dedication does not obligate the City to assume responsibility, nor incur liability with respect to the offer of dedication until subject street has been accepted into the city maintained street system by separate resolution. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby desires to accept the offer of dedication for road purposes by First Baptist Church of Rancho California as attached hereto along with its Exhibits "A" and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts the offer of dedication for road purposes by First Baptist Church of Rancho California for Moraga Road, but not into the City Maintained Street System at this time. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:'~AG EN DA REPO RTS~003~081203~PA9~O317 - BAPTIST CHURCH MORAGA RD ROW DEDiCATION.DOC 3 EXEMPT RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Tem~cuia PER GOV'T CODE 6103 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of Tcmecula - City Clerk P O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO City of Temecula P O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92559-9033 OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES The undersigned, being the present title owner(s) of record of the herein described parcel of land, do hereby make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Temecula, a political subdivision of the State of California, and its successors or assigns, for public read, s~eet, highway and utility pu~oses, the real property situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in Exhibit "A (written description) and shown on Exhibit "B" (plat map) attached hereto and i~orporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. It is understood and agreed that the City of Temecula and its successors or assigns shall incur no liability with respect to such offer of dedication, and shall not assume any responsibility for the offered parcel of land or any improvements thereon or therein, until such offer has been accepted by appropriate action of the City Council, or of the local governing bodies or its successors or assigns. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon hefts, successors, assigns, and personal representatives of the respective parties hereto. Signature Name: H_b. Title: ~/~ Title: the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Signature ~ "'~ ~'/r~-~4~--- Revised: 03/06/03 ~SWORMS (MISC.)\Offer of Dedication Form,doc STATE OF CALH~ORNIA } SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE } On%Jll~' ~.~ beforeme, ~ ~)~'~a~x , a Notary Public in and for the State of California, perso~a"~y atSppearedbatri~'n ~1. Ctu~one I~ ~; lllara ~:let~epe, ~ilal:y k~ ..... k, ,,,e (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/daedthey executed the same in ~their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hia/l~r/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE The City of Temecula hereby accepts the Offer of Dedication hereby attached and consents to the recordation of this documem as set forth above. Nothing herein is intended nor shall anything herein be construed as acceptance of the Dedication until such dedication has been accepted by appropriate action of the City Council, or of the local governing bodies or its successors or assigns. CITY OF TEMECULA Jeff Stone Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Revised: 03106/03 R:kLANDDEVL~ORMS'd:ORMS (MISC.)\Offer of Dedication Form~doc CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS, LAND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT THAT PORTION OF PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP 28544 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE iN BOOK 190 PAGES 41 AND 42, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID CORNER BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WITH THE CENTERLINE OF MORAGA ROAD, AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP; THENCE N15°50'52'~/V, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF MORAGA ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 70.89 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROJECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE N68°17'14'~N, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY PROJECTION, A DISTANCE OF 55.51 FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MORAGA ROAD AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF PARCEL TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE S15050'52"E, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID MORAGA ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 16.27 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 35.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAiD CURVE AND ALSO CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID MORAGA ROAD, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85038'07'', AN ARC LENGTH OF 52.31 FEET; THENCE N28°22'26"E, A DISTANCE OF 32.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID MORAGA ROAD; THENCE N15°50'52~/, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 35.91 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE S68°17'14"E, ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 12.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 0.01 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. N:\1828~Documents\Offer of Dedication-Moraga Road-2.doc SEE DETAIL "A" EXHIBIT "B" N.T.S. MORAGA ROAD N 16'26'00"W (R) ~,000.00 ......- oko CURVE TABLE DELTA 324~.00' T 00'02'56" '1 2.75' 1.39' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH [] N68'17'14"W 12.62' [] N 15'50'52"W 64.69' ~ N10'O7'55"W 100.41' [] N 15'50'52"W 169.54' 160' 80' REVISIONS DATE INIT, OWNER: JOSEPH KUZMANIC &: PETER KIRK PREPARED BY: woo AREA: 0.03 AC+ SCALE 1"=80' APPROVED DATE J. PARKS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS R.C.E. NO. 19744 EXP. 9-30-05 0 80' 160' CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT FOR RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION OF MORAGA ROAD ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~//X~ CITY ATTORNEY ~----------------~-. ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~.__ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Acceptance of Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes For Moraga Road PREPARED BY: ~j'fRonald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer - Land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME BACKGROUND: The Owner, AGK Group LLC, is dedicating 33 feet of right-of-way on Moraga Road along his property frontage in compliance with his project, Planning Application PA 99-0317 - Temecula Ridge Apartments, Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council on December 12, 2000. The Owner has submitted an Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes along with a legal description and plat whereby he dedicates a 33-foot wide strip of land along his property frontage for right-of-way and public utility purposes. Upon City Council approval and recordation of the said Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes, the Owner will satisfy his condition of approval obligation once two other raquirad Moraga Road Offers of Dedication - Road Purposes from Joseph Kuzmanic and First Baptist Church of Rancho California have been dedicated, processed and recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATFACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2003- 2. Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes with Exhibits "A" and "B" made a part thereof. R:',AGENDA RE PO RTS~2003\081203',PA99-0317 - AGK GROUP LLC MORAGA RD ROW DEDICATION.DOC 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. City Staff has established the requirement for dedication of 33 feet of right- of-way along property frontage on Moraga Road; The Owner, AGK Group LLC, submitted an offer of dedication for read purposes dedicating 33 feet of right-of-way for public street and utility purposes for Moraga Road; Acceptance of this offer of dedication does not obligate the City to assume responsibility, nor incur liability with respect to the offer of dedication until subject street has been accepted into the city maintained street system by separate resolution. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby desires to accept the offer of dedication for road purposes by AGK Group LLC as attached hereto along with its Exhibits "A" and ~B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts the offer of dedication for read purposes by AGK Group LLC for Moraga Road, but not into the City Maintained Street System at this time. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:~AG£NDA REPORTSt2CO3\081203',PA99-O317. AGK GROUP LLC MOP. AGA RD ROW DEDICATION.COC 2 (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12"' day of August, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:~GENDA REPORTS~2003~081203\PA9~0317 - AGK GROUP LLC MORAGA RD ROW DEDICATION,DOC 3 EX[~vIPT RECORDING ~,EQUESTED BY City of Temecuh PER GOV'r CODE 6103 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of Tera~cula - City Clerk P O Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO City of Temecula P O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES The undersigned, being the present title owner(s) of record of the herein described parcel of land, do hereby make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Temecula, a political subdivision of the State of California, and its successors or assigns, for public road, street, highway and utility purposes, the real property situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in Exhibit "A (written description) and shown on Exhibit "B" (plat map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. It is understood and agreed that the City of Temecula and its successors or assigns shall incur no liability with respect to such offer of dedication, and shall not assume any responsibility for the offered parcel of land or any improvements thereon or therein, until such offer has been accepted by appropriate action of the City Council, or of the local governing bodies or its successors or assigns. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon heirs, successors, assigns, and personal representatives of the respective parties hereto. IN WITheS THE/~e executed this instrument this ~ # tJ day of S~gnature z/ ~ -- S gn Name: /[~-~"~ ~//~/~ It~ Name: Title: ~/-~oc~dgcs~g/,/[rt~ ~,~,)a! ~ Title: STATE ) SS. CO~Y OF ~RS~E ) On~ ~ ~ ~ $ , before me ~e undersignS, a No~ Public in and for ~e State of California, personally appe~ personally ~own to me (or prov~ to me on ~e basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s) whose n~e(s) i~e subscfib~ to within ins~mem and ac~owledged m me ~at h~sh~ey execut~ ~e sine in hi~er/~e~ au~ofized capacity(ies), and ~at by hi~er/their signature(s)on ~e ins~ment ~e person(s), or the enfiW upon behalf of which the person(s) act~, executed ~e ins~mem. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signatur~ ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE The City of Temecula hereby accepts the Offer of Dedication hereby attached and consents to the recordation of this document as set forth above. Nothing herein is intended nor shall anything herein be construed as acceptance of the Dedication until such dedication has been accepted by appropriate action of ~he City Council, or of the local governing bodies or its successors or assigns. CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Revised: 03/06/03 R:kLANDDEVXFORMSWORM S (MISC.)\Offct of Dedication Form.doc CITY OFTEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS, LAND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AGK GROUP LLC EXHIBIT "A" THAT PORTION OF LOT 23 OF TRACT 3334 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGES 25 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 23, SAID CORNER LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (SHOWN ON SAID MAP AS LONG VALLEY ROAD), 55.0 FEET HALF WIDTH AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP, SAID CORNER ALSO LYING ON A CURVE, CONCAVED SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3945.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEARS N 15058'34'~V; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°2~1'44'', AN ARC LENGTH OF 24.94 FEET; THENCE S31°03'08"W, A DISTANCE OF 32.99 FEET, TO A POINT LYING ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED WESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 833.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS N75°14'37"E; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14~23'35'', AN ARC LENGTH OF 209.25 FEET; THENCE S0°21'48"E, A DISTANCE OF 116.03 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED EASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10008'57", AN ARC LENGTH OF 17.71 FEET; THENCE S10°30'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 41.12 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED WESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 76.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74024'50'', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 98.71 FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE N0021'48'~/V, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 23, A DISTANCE OF 484.56 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 0.32 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. '~/ ~'N BE~ N:X1828~ocumen~XOffer of dedi~tion - Momga Road -1.doc ~~ / EXHIBIT "B" N16'26'OO"W (E))1 \ .,. ~:~,~'~'' ~-~ \~. ~ / ~. ~P.O.B...,~/ ~ ~ CU~E TABLE ~ ~ - ~'~ ~ DELTA R L ~ ' ~' ~ ~ ~uo~'~z" ~oo.oo' ~z.~', ~ .f 20~ 100 0 100 200 o~: ~ ~ouP ~c ~~ EXHIBIT FOR RIGHT OF WAY PREPPED ~: WDG DEDICATION OF MORAGA ROAD ~ 0.32 AC ~ RO~D J. P~KS DEPU~ DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS SCALE l'=lO0' R.C.E. NO. 19744 EXP. 9-30-05 CURVE TABLE DELTA R L (~) 0'21'44" 3945.00' 24.94' (~) 14'23'35" 833.00' 209.25' (~ 10'08'57" 100.00' 17.71' (~) 74'24'50" 76.00' 98.71' (~) 15'31'19" 800.00' 216.73' ITEM 10 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY A'i-I'ORN EY DIRECTOR OF FINANCe: CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Acceptance of Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes For Moraga Road PREPARED BY: jb~onald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works · ' Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer- Land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME BACKGROUND: The Owner, Joseph Kuzmanic, is dedicating an additional 10 feet of right- of-way on Moraga Road along his property frontage in compliance with the Planning Application PA 99-0317 - Temecula Ridge Apartments Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council on December 12, 2000. The Owner has submitted an Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes along with a legal description and peat whereby he dedicates a 10-foot wide strip of land along his property frontage for right-of-way and public utility purposes. Upon City Council approval and recordation of the said Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes, the applicant/owner of Planning Application PA 99-0317 AGK Group LLC - Temecula Ridge Apartment will satisfy his condition of approval obligation once two other required Moraga Road Offers of Dedication - Road Purposes from AGK Group LLC and First Baptist Church of Rancho California have been dedicated, processed and recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATDACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2003- 2. Offer of Dedication - Road Purposes with Exhibits "A" and "B" made a part thereof. R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003~081203',PA99q)317 - KUZMANIC MORAGA RD ROW DEDICATION,DOC 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES FOR MORAGA ROAD, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AT THIS TIME THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. City Staff has established the requirement for dedication of 10 feet of right- of-way along property frontage on Moraga Road; The Owner, Joseph Kuzmanic, submitted an offer of dedication for road purposes dedicating 10 feet of right-of-way for public street and utility purposes for Moraga Road; Acceptance of this offer of dedication does not obligate the City to assume responsibility, nor incur liability with respect to the offer of dedication until subject street has been accepted into the city maintained street system by separate resolution. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby desires to accept the offer of dedication for road purposes by Joseph Kuzmanic as attached hereto along with its Exhibits "A" and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts the offer of dedication for read purposes by Joseph Kuzmanic for Moraga Road, but not into the City Maintained Street System at this time. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:~AGENDA REPO RTS~2003~081203~PA99-0317 - KUZMANIC MORAGA RD ROW DEDICATION.DOC 2 (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:~AGENDA REPO RTS~003\081203~PA99-0317 - KUZMANIC MORAGA RD ROW DEDICATION.DOC 3 REQUESTED BY Cily of Ten~cula PER GOVT CODE 6103 MA~TO City of Temecula - Cily Cl~k PO Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589.9033 IV[AH. TAX STATEMENTS TO City of Temecula P O Box 9033 ?em~ml~ CA 92559-9033 OFFER OF DEDICATION - ROAD PURPOSES The undersigned, being the present title owner(s) of record of the herein described parcel of land, do hereby make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Temecula, a political subdivision of the State of California, and its successors or assigns, for public road, sU'eet, highway and utility proposes, the real property situa~i in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in Exhibit "A (written description) and shown on Exhibit "B" (plat map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. It is understood and agreed that the City of Temecula and its successors or assigns shall incur no liability with respect to such offer of dedication, and shall not assume any responsibility for the offered parcel of land or any improvements thereon or therein, until such offer has been accepted by appropriate action of the City Council, or of the local governing bodies or its successors or assigns. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon heirs, successors, assigm, and personal representatives of the respective parties hereto. IbIW1TNESS/TI-iFl~.~O~nts have executed this instrument this ~,O day of ~-~k~.-q ,2003. Signature/ ,, .,I, ~ Signature ame: I£K KdZmAMIL: Title: ~/~0~{-1~ ~.. Title: STATE OF CALIFORNIA } SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE} On ~/cav /~, o,gO~'-J~ , ,beforeme, d~T/Ct'~-/r"/o~c,oc/ . a Notsry Public in and for the Stste of California, personally appeared _g~ ~¢ gl~ ~o.n tc personally known to me ~,~, F, ~'v~l [~, ,,,,~ ,,. ;L~ L,~ ,,f sail; fac ,.,~'-dzy~vldence'~ .o be the person~) whose name(~0~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that~aa/ih~execu~l the same in {~mttlu~:"author ized cap~c~-'[ty(i,k~), and that b y.~.~(t h~ si g natur eY~o n the insinunent the person(~)?or~'t.~i~ entity upon behalf of which { e~person~j~acted, executed the l"nsttument. -- .............. WITNESS myJ~nd j/ad official seal. Signature Revised: 03~6/03 VICKI S. MAC LEaD Commission # 1385852 Notary Public - California R:~NDDEV~ORMSVFORMS (MISC.)\Offet of Dedication Form.doc ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE The City of Temecula hereby accept~ the Offer of Dedication hereby attached and cousents to the recordation of this document as set forth above. Nothing herein is intended nor shall anything herein be construed as acceptance of the Dedication until such dedication has been accepted by appropriate action of the City Council, or of the local governing bodies or its successors or assigns. CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Cleric APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Revised: 03/06/03 R:~ANDDLV~)RMb-~ORM$ (MISC.)\Offe~ of Dedication Fon~doc CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS, LAND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY JOSEPH KUZMANIC AND PETER KIRK EXHIBIT"A" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1 PAGE 9, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3, SAID POINT LIES ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MORAGA ROAD, 44.0 FEET HALF WIDTH, AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP; THENCE N68°17'14"W, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, A DISTANCE OF 12.62 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MORAGA ROAD AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP; THENCE N15°50'52"W, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 64.69 FEET; THENCE N10°07'53~/V, A DISTANCE OF 100.41 FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID MORAGA ROAD, SAID POINT LYING ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVED NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3244.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEAR S74°12'04~/V; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MORAGA ROAD AND SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 0°02'56", AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.75 FEET; THENCE S15'~50'52"E, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF MORAGA ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 169.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 0.03 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. N:\1828~ocuments~Offer of Dedicat]on-Moraga Road-3.doc EXHIBIT "B" ~ ~,~,' "~ ~ ~) ~ xo , MORAGA ROAD CU~E TABLE DELTA R L T ~ 85'38'07" 35.00' 52.31' 32.43' LINE T~LE LINE B~RING LENGTH ~ m5'50'52~ 70.89" ~ N68'lT14~ 55,51' ~ N15'50'52' 16.2T E~ISIONS APPROVED CITY OF TEMECU~ )WNER: FIRST ~TIST CHURCH or OF ~CHO ~IFORN~ DEDICATION OF MORAGA ROAD PREPPED BY: WDO RO~D J. P~KS DEPU~ DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS ~ 0.01 AC ~ R.C.E. NO. 19744 EXP. 9-~0-05 SC~E 1"=80' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH [] N15'50'52"W 70.89' [] N68'17'14"W 55,51' [] N15'50'52"W 16.27' [~] N28'22'26"E 32.03' [] N15'50'52"W 35.91' [] S68'1T14"E 12.62' ITEM 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Authorize Temporary Street Closure of Main Street between Old Town Front Street and the Murrieta Creek Bridge for the "Temecula-On-Stage" event scheduled for August 30, 2003 and Delegate Authority to Issue a Special Events/Street Closures Permit to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. PREPARED BY: /b~/' Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Aldo Licitra, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE FOR THE "TEMECULA-ON-STAGE" EVENT SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 30, 2003 AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERTO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES BACKGROUND: The "Temecula-On-Stage" event is scheduled for August 30, 2003 from 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM. This first-class event will showcase the area's top chefs and wineries along with a variety of performances from local musicians, vocalists, actors and dancers. This event will be the focal point of the Labor Day weekend in which visitors will enjoy all that Temecula Valley has to offer at a discount, by purchasing a special passport provided by local businesses who partner with the event. Through this event, the organizers of "Temecula-On-Stage" will participate in the funding process to assist the Theatre Foundation in its efforts to promote a Community Theatre in Old Town Temecula. The event will require assistance from the Public Works Department by providing support services for the street closure, public safety monitoring, and the permit process. Under Vehicular Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for, among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the 1 r:~agenda reports~003\0812\temecula-on-stage street c~osure closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing". The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-96 on September 10, 1991, which provided standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public rights-of-way. This resolution set forth processes for staff reviewing applications, denying approval or approving subject to conditions including events requiring changes in normal traffic pattems, and an appeal process to the City Manager. However the resolution did not delegate authority to temporarily close streets for these special events. The subject resolution delegates the authority to approve temporary street closures for this specific event, "Temecula-On-Stage", to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All other special events requiring temporary street closures, construction-related closures, etc, shall remain subject to the approval of the City Council subject to rules and regulations established by the City Council. These rules and regulations shall also be adopted by resolution in accordance with California Vehicular Code Section 21101. Some partial closures, such as limiting lane widths for construction purposes or partial closures for block parties on cul-de-sac streets only do not require full street closures. These and similar partial street closures or restrictions are not submitted for similar resolutions in order to reduce or eliminate the administrative impact on City Council and staff time. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, and for provision, placement, and retrieval of necessary warning and advisory devices by the Public Works Department are included in budgetary items. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2003 2. Permit Application. 2 r:~genda reports~003\0812~temecula-on-stage street closure RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE FOR THE "TEMECULA-ON-STAGE" EVENT SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 30, 2003 AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERTO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the California State Vehicular Code provides for the promulgation of rules and regulations for the temporary closure of public streets by local authorities by Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish rules and regulations for the temporary closure of public streets in the interest of promoting safety and protection; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula sponsors the "Temecula-On-Stage" event, for which such temporary street closure on Main Street between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek Bridge promote the safety and protection of persons using or proposing to use that street for the special event; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to facilitate the issuance of permission to temporarily close Main Street for the "Temecula-On-Stage" event scheduled for August 30, 2003; and, NOW, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to approve the temporary street closure of Main Street for the "Temecula-On-Stage" event, and to establish the general rule that all other proposed temporary street closures shall be reviewed and approved subject to conditions, or disapproved, by the City Council; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby authorizes the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to permit the temporary street closure of Main Street for the "Temecula-On-Stage" event scheduled for August 30, 2003, and affirms the general rule that all other temporary public street closures shall be approved or denied approval by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. A'I-I'EST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk 3 r:~agenda reports~003\0812\temecula-on-stage street closure [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted bythe City Council of the Cityof Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk 4 r:~agenda reports~OO3\O812\temecula-on-stage street closure CITY OF TEMECULA SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE HELD ON PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, SIDEWALKS, OR PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY 1. AP~PUCANT'S ~ AND ADDRESS: 2. NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPANTS: · 1B · 1456 ~f/OSE OF EVENT: DATE, HOURS, PRECISE LOCATION OF EVENT. FEES TO BE C~RGED BY PE~: TYPE & NATURE OF VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, ETC.: 7. SOUND SYSTEMS - NUMBER AND AMPLIFICATION RANGE: R0 TYPE OF GOODS/SERVlCES TO BE SOLD/PROVIDED: 90 VENDORS/NAME~AND BUSINESS ADDRESS: 100 SECUP~ITY PLAN FOR EVENT: THE APPLICANT HEREBY ~ATES THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS ACCU~TE UND~ P~AL~ OF PENURY. T~ APPUC~T.AGREES TO FULLY COMPleTE THE C~ OF T~ECU~ FOR ~ DA~GE TO PUBEC PROP~, AS ~11 A I. APPLICATION FEE AMOUNT: $ PAID: 2. SPEC~L EVENT 3. MAJOR SPECIAL EVENT 4. MEET/CONFER WITH TRANSPORTATION DNISION S. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN/TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIRED RECBFT #: p wO l\form$~permits~specevnt.epp 092091 ITEM 12 APPROVAL ClTYATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANI~,~:~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council ~ ~..//William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Award the Construction Contract for Rancho California Road Widening East of Ynez Road - Project No. PW00-20 PREPARED BY: ~,-'~reg Butler, Principal Engineer Brian Guillot, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Award a construction contract for Rancho California Road Widening East of Ynez Road, Project No. PW00-20 to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $622,269.98 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $62,227.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Authorize the transfer of $65,000 in Capital Project Reserves from the Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Acct. 210-165-655-5804) to the Rancho California Road Widening East of Ynez Road, Project No. PW00-20 (Acct. 210-165-611-5804). Authorize the transfer $135,000 in Capital Project Reserves from the Localized Storm Drain Project (Acct. 210-165-715-5804) to the Rancho Califomia Road Widening East of Ynez Road, Project No. PW00-20 (Acct. 210-165-611-5804). BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2001 the City Council approved the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the subject project. Right of Way acquisitions associated with widening of Rancho California Road delayed the bid advertisement. The project will consist of the construction of a new right-turn lane from westbound Rancho California Road to northbound Ynez Road. The right-turn lane will begin just west of the Claim Jumper Restaurant ddveway entrance and will include the relocation of traffic signal control devices, curb, gutter and sidewalk. The median modification project will consist of closing two median openings along Rancho California Road adjacent to the Town Center Plaza. The two openings are located at the Claim Jumper Restaurant and Target Store driveway entrances. The closure modifications will include raised median improvements with planter areas containing rose bushes consistent with the current landscaping layout. 1 R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003\081203~PW00-20 awd. DOC Three (3) bids were received and publicly opened on July 29, 2003, the results were as follows: 1. R.J. Noble Company $622,269.98 2. Gdffith Co., Inc. $669,397.60 3. Terra-Cai Construction $696,378.00 A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found R.J. Noble of Orange, California to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. R.J. Noble has extensive experience in road construction projects and has successfully completed similar projects for the City in the past. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $430,000.00. PW has analyzed the bids to determine the reason for the higher bid costs. Five of the 32 bid items attribute to $133,000 of the overage; they are Unclassified Excavation, Retaining Wall, Type D curb, Stamped Concrete, and Irrigation & Landscape. Several of the other smaller bid items were as much as 400% over the Engineer's Estimate. A discussion with the Iow bidder revealed that the 3-staged approach to construction required by the specifications to accommodate traffic through the work zone did not allow the contractor to efficiently work, therefore the unit prices were adjusted. It is necessary to transfer funds from other projects to fully fund the construction of this project. A portion of the work included in the Rancho California Road Widening East of Ynez Road project rehabilitates the pavement adjacent to the widening. Therefore $65,000 of the $321,179 in Capitol Project Reserves appropriated in the Capital Improvement Program (ClP) for the Pavement Rehabilitation Project will be transferred. The remainder of the funding shortage, $135,000, will be transferred from the $185,000 in Capital Project Reserves appropriated for the Localized Storm Drain Project. FISCAL IMPACT: The Rancho California Road Widening and Median Modifications East of Ynez Road is a Capital Improvement Project funded through Capital Project Reserves. Adequate funds are available in the Pavement Rehabilitation Project account, Account No. 210-165-655-5804 to allow the transfer of $65,000 to the Rancho California Road Widening and Median Modifications East of Ynez Road Project account, Account No. 210-165-611- 5804. Adequate funds are available in the Localized Storm Drain Project account, Account No. 210-165-715-5804, to allow the transfer of $135,000 to the Rancho California Road Widening and Median Modifications East of Ynez Road Project account, Account No. 210- 165-611-5804. Once the aforementioned transfers are completed, adequate funds will be available for the Rancho California Road Widening and Median Modifications East of Ynez Road Project, Project No. PW00- 20 in Account No. 210-165-611-5804. The total project cost is $684,496.98, which includes the contract amount of $622,269.98 plus 10% contingency of $62,227.00. ATTACHMENT: 1. Location Map 2. Project Description 3. Contract 2 R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003~081203~PW00-20 awd. DOC CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW00-20 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING & MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS EAST OF YNEZ ROAD THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 12th day of August, 2003, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and R.J. Noble Company, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW00-20, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING & MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications for Construction of Local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW00-20, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING & MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS EAST OF YNEZ ROAD. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNI Building News 1612 South Clementine Street Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW00-20, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING & MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS EAST OF YNEZ ROAD. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. CONTRACT CA- 1 R:~CIP~RO J E CT S~:'wO0~00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS~Conbact.doc Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW00-20, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING & MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS EAST OF YNEZ ROAD All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: SlX HUNDRED TWENTY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY NINE DOLLARS and NINETY EIGHT CENTS ($622,269.98), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work (excluding Landscape Maintenance work) within a period not to exceed Seventy (70) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. An additional Ninety (90) calendar days shall be included in the Contract time limit of work for Landscape Maintenance work only. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. CONTRACT CA - 2 R:~CIP~ROJECTS~vO0~00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS~Contract.doc UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thidieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. I n accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. CONTRACT CA- 3 R:\CIP~P R OJ E CT S~:'w00~00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS~Contmct.d0c 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. PREVAILING WAGES. Pureuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates a s a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the previsions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the previsions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of pereons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to preperty, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CITY. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or premises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any arehitect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the previsions of the laws of the State of California. CONTRACT CA -4 R:~CIP~PROJECTS~Pw00\00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS\ContracLdoc 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractodconsultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. CONTRACT CA - 5 R:\CIP~ROJECTS~PwO0~00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS~Contmctdoc 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT CA - 6 R:~CIP~PROJECTS~:h#O0\00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS\Conffact.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR R. J. Noble Company P.O. Box 620 Orange, CA 92856 (714) 637-1550 Stan Hilton, Secretary Michael J. Carver, President (Signatures of two Corporate Officers required for Corporations DATED: CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT CA - 7 R:~CIP~PROJECTS~Ch#00~00-20 Rancho-Ynez~BIDDOCS\Contract.doc TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT JULY 22, 2003 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:19 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Comerchero presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts, and Comerchero ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 8, 2003. 2 Arts Council Community Grant A,qreement RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Community Grant Agreement between the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Arts Council of Temecula Valley in the amount of $40,000. 3 Citywide Tree Trimmin,q Maintenance Services RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award the Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services contract to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for $100,000.00 and authorize the President to execute the contract. 3.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed $10,000.00 which is equal to the 10% contingency amount of the contract. Minutes.csd\072203 1 4 Vacate a portion of a Landscaped Maintenance Easement within Lot 151 of Tract Map No. 23209 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2003, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4. The motion was seconded by Director Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING 5 Harveston Specific Plan No. 13- Service Level B, Proposed Residential Street Lighting; Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance; and Service Level D, Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Rates and Charqes RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2003, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Minutes.csd\072203 2 5.2 5.3 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return, and Tabulation of the Ballots; Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. Community Services Director presented the staff report of record. President Comerchero opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. Hearing no requests to speak, President Comerchero closed the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation on items 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No comments. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS Director Naggar invited the public to attend the next "Movies in the Park," to be held at Margarita Community Park, on Friday evening beginning at dusk. ADJOURNMENT At 7:22 P.M., the Temecuta Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csd\072203 3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JULY 22, 2003 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:22 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, and Roberts ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 8, 2003. 2 Old Town Billboard Lease A,qreement RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve a $30,000 lease agreement with Lamar Advertising Company for the Old Town Billboard located on Interstate 15 Freeway. MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and The motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARIN~ 3 Sale of Agency Property - 27500 Jefferson Avenue RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes.rda\072203 1 RESOLUTION NO. 03-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND GIANT RV 3.2 That the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND GIANT RV Assistant Executive Director O'Grady presented the staff report (of record). Mayor Jeff Stone opened the public hearing at 7:27 P.M. Ron Bradley, 30348 Via Canada, expressed his support of the agreement, stating Giant RV will bring 30 jobs to Temecula, as well as over a $1,000,000 in sales. He introduced Giant RV Owner Bob Barouti to the City Council and stated he is available for any questions the Council may have. Agency Member Comerchero requested that after escrow closes, Norm Reeves would be interested in storing their vehicles at the site as long as possible. Expressing his thanks for the cooperation of the City of Temecula, and his interest in this area, Mr. Bob Barouti addressed the City Council. On behalf of the City of Temecula, Mayor Stone welcomed Mr. Barouti and Giant RV into the City of Temecula. Mayor Stone closed the public hearing at 7:34 P.M. MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Item No. 3. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Comerchere and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Shawn Nelson commended Assistant Executive Director Jim O'Grady for his efforts on the Giant RV Project, and wished Mr. Barouti and Giant RV much prosperity in their future sales in the City of Temecula. R:\Minutes.rda\072203 2 AGENCY MEMBERS'REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:35 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 12, 2003 in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes.rda\072203 3 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members Meyer, Redevelopment Director John August 12, 2003 Second Amendment to Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for the Proposed Educational Facility RECOMMENDATION: That the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Board: Authorize Staff to Amend Existing Contract to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Agreement for the Educational Facility DISCUSSION: Keyser Marston Associates Inc. (KMA) entered into a professional services agreement with the Redevelopment Agency on July 1, 2002 for the amount of $24,750. Since executing the contract, KMA has assisted the Agency with pro forma analyses, identification of deal terms, and developer negotiations. Due to the complexity of analysis and negotiations for these transactions, KMA has exhausted the available budget. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. recommends that the Agency amend their existing July 1,2002 contract of $24,750 to provide for additional budget in the amount of $20,000 for a total of $44, 750. FISCAL IMPACT: The $24,750 will be funded through 165-199-831-5801. R:'~Educationcomplex~kma2ndamendstaffreport.doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC. PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTING SERVICES PROPOSED EDUCATION FACILITY THIS 2nd AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of August 12, 2003 by and between the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency, a municipal corporation "Agency" and Keyser Mamton Inc. ("Consultant"). In consideration ef the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On July 01, 2003 the Agency and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Agreement for Proposed Education Facility" ("Agreement"). B. The Agreement was amended on July 15, 2003. The Agreement as amended shall be referred to as the "Agreement." C. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 5. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall commence on August 12, 2003, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than July 1,2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT. a. The Agency agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars and 00 Cents ($44,750.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the Agency Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by Executive Director and Consultant at the time Agency's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The Executive Director may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement or $24,750.00, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement (basic agreement amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty -four thousand dollars ($24,750.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. R:~AMENDMENT~KMA2NDAMENDMENTSI2.2OO3. DOC c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services pedormed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the Agency disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 3. Exhibit A is added to the Agreement as set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:XAMENDME~MA2NDAMENDME~I2'2~O3'DOC 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. ClTY OFTEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY: Shawn D. Nelson, Executive Director ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Agency Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, Agency Counsel CONSULTANT KEYSER MARSTON 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 San Diego, CA 92108 BY: NAME: TITLE: BY: NAME: R:XAMENDMENT&KMA2NDAldENDMENT812.2OO3. DOC TITLE: 3 (Two Signatures Required For Corporations) RA4MENDMENT3~(MA2NDAMENDMENT812,2OO3. DOC 4 KEYSER MARSTON 1660 HOTEL CIRCLE NORTH, SUITE 716 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92]08 PHONE: 619/718-9500 FAX:619/718-9508 ASSOCIATES INC. AD~SORSIN: REAL ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT ]NFRASTRUCTUREFINANCE VALUATION AND LITIGATION SUPPORT To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM John Meyer, AICP, Redevelopment Director City of Temecula KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. July 21,2003 Education Facility - Amendment to Existing Contract Son Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marfa Los Angeles Calvin E. Hollis, II Kathleen H. Head A, Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Debbi¢ M. Kern This memorandum presents Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.'s (KMA's) proposal to undertake additional work tasks in accordance with our existing contract for consulting services related to the above referenced project (approved July 1, 2002). Specifically, at the time of the original contract, the Redevelopment Agency's (Agency) immediate consulting need was for review and analysis of a request for financial assistance submitted by the AGK Group (Developer) for the development of a higher education campus facility with an affordable housing component. Since executing the July 2002 contract, KMA has assisted the Agency with pro forma analyses, identification of deal terms, and developer negotiations. Due to the complexity of analysis and negotiations for these transactions, KMA has essentially exhausted the available budget. KMA envisions the following work tasks in order to assist the Agency in completing the proposed transaction: 1. Finalize the pro formas and financial analysis based on developer submittals. Participate in meetings and teleconferences with Agency staff, Developer, and legal counsel to review the pro forma analysis and negotiate the deal terms between the Agency and the Developer. 03457mm 19545.015.001 To: John Meyer, AICP, Redevelopment Director Ju~y 2'1, 2003 Subject: Education Facility - Amendment to Existing Contract Page 2 3. Assist Agency legal counsel in documenting specific provisions of the transaction. Prepare and submit a re-use analysis and Section 33433 Summary Report to justify the level of Agency assistance to the development. 5. Participate in a series of meetings with Agency officials to review the transaction. We propose to undertake the above services on a time-and-materials basis, subject to the attached schedule of standard hourly billing rates. KMA recommends that the Agency amend our existing July 1,2002 contract of $24,750 to provide for additional budget in the amount of $20,000, for a total of $44,750. We trust that this proposal is acceptable, and look forward to assisting you with the completion of this important project. Please call if you require additional information. attachment 03457mm 19545.015.001 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. HOURLYFEESCHEDULE A. JERRY KEYSER * MANAGING PRINCIPALS* PRINCIPALS* MANAGERS* SENIOR ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES SENIOR ANALYSTS ANALYSTS TECHNICAL STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF 2003~2004 $225.00 $220.00 $205.00 $165.00 $150.00 $130.00 $115.00 $100.00 $ 78.00 $ 62.50 Directly related job expenses not included in the above rates are: auto mileage, air fares, hotels and motels, meals, car rentals, taxies, telephone calls, delivery, electronic data processing, graphics and printing. Directly related job expenses will be billed at 110% of cost. Monthly billings for staff time and expenses incurred during the period will be payable within thirty (30) days of invoice date. A charge of 1% per month will be added to all past due accounts. *Rates for individuals in these categories will be increased by 50% for time spent in court testimony. 03457mm 19545.015.001 CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC. PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTING SERVICES PROPOSED EDUCATION .FACILTIY THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 1, 2002, between the Agency of Temecula Redevelopment Agency, a municipal corporation ("Agency'~ and Keyser Marston Inc., ("Consultant'3. In consideration ofthe mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 31, 2002, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto end incorporated here n as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Agency Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the Agency Clerk. Copies maybe obtained at cost at the Agency Clerk's office of Temecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the Agency, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the previsions of the Contract. C:~,Documen~ and $ ~ings~lh o I1 ~s~:~..ol Settin~s\Tempomv/Interact Files\OLK3'~maeducalionf~ili~,.doc. Updated 2/2/01 6. PAYMENT. , a. The Agency agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance w~th the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in EXhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars and 00 Cents ($24,760.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultaht shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the Agency Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services In the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by EXecutive Director and Consultant at the time Agency's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The EXecutive Director may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) 0fthe amount of the Agreement or $24,750.00, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement (basic agreement amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty -four thousand dollars ($24,750.00). Any additional work In excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the Agency disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSF- a. The Agency may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides othenviss. If the Agency suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Agency sh'all pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the Agency. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the Agency pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, Agency shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consuitantl If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the Executive Director or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this, Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice In which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the Agency shall have the right, notwithstanding any other pmvl~ion 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. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by Agency that relate to the performance of semices under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied a nd readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of Agency or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give Agency the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit Agency to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement' all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the Agency and may be used, reused or otherwise disposod of by the Agency without the permission of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Agency~ its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, Including attomey fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the Agency, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the Agency. 10. INSURA~ICE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a~ Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code I (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General LiabilitY policy described above is acceptable. R:~nem~maoduc~o~ility.doc Updated 2ffZ/01 (3) Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by the' State of California and Employer's Liability Insu, rance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance Is not required, but C~nsultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. .Minimum' Umits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) (2) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Uabllity Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Uability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage:: Two million ($2,000,000) per ctaim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Seif-lnsured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Agency Manager. At the option of the Agency Director, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or Self-insured retentions as respects the Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other InSurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability .policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) (2) The Agency, its officers, officials, emploYees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed · operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to. the Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insured maintained by the Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consuitant's insurance and shall not contribute with it; Updated 2/2J01 (s) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant's Insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either par~, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Agency. e. Acceotabilitv of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless othenvise acceptable to the Agency. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraf:le. Consultant shall furnish the Agency with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person .authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the Agency. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the Agency before work commences. As an alternative to the Agency's forms, the 'Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance poli,cies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these speclficetion$. ,. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the Agency a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be ~jnder Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither Agency nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the Agency. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against Agency, or bind Agency in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, Agency shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for Agency. Agency shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. '12, LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in eny way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The Agency, 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. R:L6'sreemeats'~mae~cafioa~cilff7.d°c Updated 2F/./01. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All Information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without Agency's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontrectors, shall not without written authorization from the Executive Director or unless requested by the Agency Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the Agency. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered '~/olunta~' provided Consultant gives Agency notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify Agency should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the Agency. Agency retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with Agency and to provide Agency with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, Agency's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by Agency to control, direct, or rewrite said response. t4. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given e'~her by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (ii~ mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below-or.on.the ~thlrd business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as PrOvided above. To Agency: To Consultant: City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Califomia 92590 Affenflon: City Manager Keyser Marston Associates Inc. 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 San Diego,' CA 92108 ' t6. ASSIGNMENT.· The consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any Part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the Upon' termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actua! Services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as, may be othenvlse agreed to in writing belween the Agency Council and the Consultant. R:~reeraeats~mmeducationfacility.doc Updated 2/2/01 16. ~.ICENSE8, At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have In full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. '17, GOVERNING LAW, The Agency and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of Califomla shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the Agency of Temecula. In the event such litigation is tiled by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the Agency of Temecula shall have any tinancial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrrants and represents to the Agency that no officer or employee of the Agency of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or othenvise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub- contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the Agency in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between th~ parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further fome or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. Updated IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused thisAgreement to be executed the day and year first above written: CITY OF TEMECULA Shawn D. Nelson, Executive Director Attest: Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, Agency Counsel CONSULTANT Keyser Marston 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 San Diego, CA 92108 Name: Paul C, U_a.t~a Title: Vice President Title: Vice Presideat & Managing Principal (Signatures of t~vo corporate officers required for Corporations) ~X,A~*oem~nl~r~duq~tion~ili~'. doc Updated EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED R:~nts~kmaeduc. afion f~illly.do~ Updated 2/2/01 June 24, 2002 INC. P.~/4 Mr, John R. Meyer, AICP Dlmc~r of Housing end Redevelopment City of Temeaula 43200 Buslnees Park Drive P.O. Box 0033 Temeoula. CA, 92589 Pmpoeal for ConauWn~ Sen/lees Proposed Education Facilily Dear John: In response to your request. Keyesr Marston Associates, lng, (KMA) is pleased to submit this proposal to assist the Temeoula Redevelopment Agency (Agency) With preparation of an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), and market and financial analysis related to a proposed mb(ed-uce, public/private development on an Agency-owned elto in western T~mecula, As background, the Agency Is considering an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with the development firm of A.G, Keding (Developer) for purposes of preliminary planning and development ooncept formulation for a 32-acre Agency-owned site, The City has Identified the Agency-owned property as a potential site for a mixed-use development, Including a higher education complex shared by multiple Institutions; affordable housing; and office and light industrial, uses. The goals of the ENA with the Developer ere likely to Include the folkwvlng: · Assess the program goals alld space requirements of the educational Inatiluflons that have expressed an Interest In a higher education complex; · Evaluate the range of compatible private land uses that may be Ifltluded on the alta: . Test the market and financial feasibility of various land uae combinations; and · Stmoture a tmnsa~on with the Agency that will result In build-out of the site as a mixed.use development, Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP - City of Temeeule Propcaal for Consulting Services ID. 183 P, 3/4 June 24, 2002 Page 2 In recent discussions, you have Indicated the Agenw'a need for KMA censutilng services cove~ng the following key points: I, Assistance In drafting the ENA, no well as negotiating el~eelflo terms of the ENA, with the Developer, Eyaluatlon of work produ'~ts prepared by the Developer and hb oonsultanta during the due diligence period, If appropriate, preparation of alternative market reseamh and flnandal analysis In rasponae to D~veloper eubmltteis, 3, Review of preliminary development concepts and tlnancial pro formes presented by the Developer. 4. Analysis of affordable hooslng development optlora arid flnandng methods, 6. Assistance to the Agency in negotiations related to possible terms of a transaction for disposition and development of the property. 6. Partidpatlon in meetlnge with Agency staff, the Developer, and/or Agency offidais, We propose to undertalm the above services on a tlme-and-meterlais basis, eubJeot to the attached standard KMA houriy billing rata aoheduis. We recommend that the Agency establish a budget for this effort in the amount of $24,750, and Mil not exceed this limit wilhout prior autherizatlon, Note that this I~udget Is earmarked only for the above work tasks, and does not oover costs associated with preparation of a DDA, re.use analysis, or Section 33438 8ummaw Report. We treat that this proposal is acceptable, and look fonrard to assisting you on this exalting project. Thank you. Sincerely, KEY8ER MARSTON A880ClATES, iNC, Paul C, Matra attachment A, J~RRY KEYSER * KEYGER MARSTON A8EOOIATE8, lNG. HOURLY FEE SCHEDULE 2002/200~ $215.00 MANAGING PRINCIP^LS*: PRINCIPALS' $195,00 MANAGERS' $160,00 SENIOR A$8OCIATE$ $145,00 AS$OOIATES $125.00' $ENIOR ANALY$TS '$110.00 ANALYSTS $ 98.00 TECHNICAL STAFF $ 75.00 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ,. $ Dlre~dy misted Job expenses not Included In the above rates are: auto mileage, air fame, hotels and motels, meals, car rentals, taxies, telephone calls, delivery, ele~ronle dale processing, graphics and printing. Direly misted Job expenses will be billed et 110% of oost. Monthly billings for stall time and expenses Incurred during the period will be payable within thlrly (~0) days of Invol~e date, A charge of 1% per month will be added to all past due accounts, ' Rate~ for IndMduals In these categories wil be Increased by 60% for time spent In ~ourt testimony. INSURI:R~ AFFO~DING OOVHRAOIK KIFSIp MIPlton Associates, ~ Pll¢¶ft~ Avenue ~11 SMI Felngtsgo~ CA 9411! P,2 L] oo ~F , 51,000,000 Aggregate ktMt , ~lstOO0 p~cttble ~~i, ~s o~cers, ;~c~a~s, a~yees ~ v~teeps ~o ~ncluded B6 uddtttonal tns~ mi ~spac~s ~,e~01 Lqabtltty pe~ attached endo.eMn~, JaMcO& P. adevelepnlnnt Agency ' ' 4~200 eus4ness Papk O~ve P,O, Box 9033 30 ~A~ ~M N~B TO ~K ~T~OATI HOLo~ ~ ~ ~ ~, n~ FA~ ~ MA~ eU~ HQ~E 6~ IMP~B ~0 ~p~N ~ ~ ~ A~ MHD UPON ~l COUgAr, ~ AQ~ ~ RIPRII~A~ · A~ORD ~O~O~TION ~$~, 'gY. 6.2BOZ 10:3B~H Eeysaf Mammon Associn;es. Inc. Poll~ Number ~TUUNUP0340 ADDITIONAL INSURED$ BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT The following is added to Commercial General Linb~U Section I- Who fo an Yueured: Any person or org~.i--iion with whom you 4greed, becaimc ora writt~ contract or agreement or permit to, to pro.tide insurance such as affo~ed tinder this policy, btlt.only with respect tel Your operatiom, "Yotlr work," or Facilities owned or used by you. This insurance docs not apply unless ~e contreot or agreement has been executed or pe~it Ms been issued prior to the "bodily injury'~ or This insutanoe does not apply *.o the rendering of or failure to render any professional se~ices. This iasurance is primiu*y if required by written contract or agreement or permit. HO 26 00 07 98 Hartford CATE (MMIDD/YYYY) ACORDM CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 07/16/2003 PRODUCER C415)957-0600 FAX (415)957-0577 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Maroevich O' Shea & Coghlan ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 425 Market Street ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. lOth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURED INSURERA: The Hartford Insurance Compan~e: Keyser Marston Associates, Thc. INSURERB: Republic Indemnity Co. of Calif( mia 55 Pacific Avenue Mall INSUREBC: Philadelphia Indemnity Insuranc~ Company San Francisco, CA 94111 INSURERO INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADD'I POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION i TR iNRRi TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER r~ATF IMMIDDIYYI DATE IMM/~D/YY~ LIMITS GENERAL LIABILiTY 57UUNUPO340 11/11/2002 11/11/2003 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 11000,O00 CLAIMS MADE i ~ iOCCUR $ 10,000 A ! PERSONAL & AOV ~JU~Y AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 57UUNUP0340 11/11/2002 11/11/2003 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ X ANY AUTO (Ea accident) 1,000, OOO A XI Comp ded $500 PBOPERTYDAMAGE X~ Coll ded $500 (Peraccident) $ EXCESSIUMBRELLALIABILITY 57RHUUN9941 11/11/2002 I 11/11/2003 EACHOCCURBENCE $ 4,000,000 I OCCUR ~ CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ 4,000, X O00 A $ Ol I X RETENTION $ 10, OOC WORKERS COMPENSATION AND 03954606 11/11/2002 , 11/11/2:O03 X I TORYLIMITS I IOFFICERIMEMBEREXCLUOED? E.L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEI $ 1,O00!00~0 ro~esslonal PHSD018083 11/11/2002 11/11/2003 $1,000,000 Each Wrongful Act ~ .lability-Claims Made $1,000,000 Aggregate Limit RETRO DATE 10/5/76 $25,000 Deductible DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDOR~SEMENT Yemecula Redevelopment Agency, the City of Temecuia, its officers, offTclals, employees and volunteers are inc]uded as Additional Insureds as respects General Liability per the attached Andorsement. ~roject 3efferson Property CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION Temecula Redevelopment Agency Attn: Kathy Seyers 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLiGATiON OR LIABILITY S AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. Klm Baur ACORD 25 (2001108) ©ACORD CORPORATION 1988 POLICY NUMBER: 57UUNUP0340 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY ADDITIONAL INSURED -- OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART. SCHEDULE Name of Pemon or Organization: Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employges and voluuteers. (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section il) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability adsing out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured. This insurance is primary if required by written contract or agreement or permit CG 20 10 10 93 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1992 ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OFFINANEE ClTY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA/TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive DirectodCity Manager Agency Members/City Councilmembers John Meyer, Redevelopment Director ,,~ i August 12, 2003 Amendment for Humanity of the Inland Valleys Inc. Housing Project RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F T HE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE AGENCY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 2. That the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE .BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE AGENCY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY BACKGROUND: The City Council/Agency Board approved the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley Inc. (Habitat) on February 11, 2003. The project is for the development of up to six single-family homes located at the northwest corner of Pujol and First Street in the Pujol Neighborhood. Agency Assistance The Agency has agreed to provide Habitat the property for the nominal fee of $10. In addition, the Agency will provide $150,000 to finish off the off-site improvements on Pujol, First and Habitat Way. R:\Habitat for Humanity~AmendmentHabitat Staff Report 081203.doc The City's processing fees were not included in the original pro-forma analysis. The cost of processing the Tentative Map is estimated not exceed $7,000. This is an eligible cost and therefore staff is recommending the Agency provide the additional funding to cover it. FISCAL IMPACT: The additional $7,000 will bring the total Agency funding for the project to $157,000. The additional funding will be allocated through the Affordable Housing Projects - Pujol Street, which contains $1 million in the FY 03-04 Capital Improvement Program Attachment: Proposed Site Plan Resolutions Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment KMA Memorandum R:\Habitat for Humanity~AmendmentHabitat Staff Report 081203.Qoc FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is dated as of August 12, 2003 and is entered into by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic ("Agency") and HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INLAND VALLEY, a California non-profit corporation, a California limited partnership ("Developer"). RECITALS A. Agency and Developer entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of February 11, 2003 (including all exhibits thereto, the "DDA") which provided for, among other things, the sale of certain land by Agency to Developer (the "Property"), and the execution, delivery and recordation of a Regulatory Agreement between Agency and Developer (the "Regulatory Agreement"). The DDA and Regulatory Agreement required that the Property be developed and used as affordable housing (the "Project"). Capitalized terms used but not defined in the Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the DDA. B. Completing the Project pursuant to the DDA will assist the Agency with increasing and improving the supply of low income housing in the community. C. The Developer requires financial assistance from Agency in order to process the tentative map necessary for the Project, and Agency and Developer have agreed to modify the DDA as hereinafier set forth in order to provide additional Agency funds to Developer to pay for exports and the costs of processing the tentative map for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the development, use and maintenance covenants and restrictions in the DDA and Regulatory Agreement, and other consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Agency a nd Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. DDA Modification. Provided Developer is not in default under the DDA, Agency shall from time to time pay to the parties entitled thereto, or reimburse Developer for, up to Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000) of the reasonable costs incurred by Developer in processing the tentative map for the Project promptly after Agency's receipt of reasonable evidence of such costs. 2. General Provisions. a. Entire Agreement. This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Amendment may not be modified, amended, supplemented, or otherwise changed, except by a writing executed by both parties hereto. R:~Habitat for Humanity~DDA 1 stAmendment. DOC b. Waiver. No failure or delay by any party in the exercise of any right hereunder shall constitute a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right preclude other or further exercise thereof, or any other right. c. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. d. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of California and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. e. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If a dispute arises under or in connection with this Amendment (including, without limitation, the enfomement or interpretation of this Amendment), the prevailing party (as determined by the trier of fact) shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this agreement as of the day and year first above written. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INLAND VALLEY, a California non-profit corporation By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic By:. Name: Ron Roberts Title: Chairperson (Signatures continue.) l1087-0001\743007vl,doc 2 ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk, Agency Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, Agency Attorney l1087-0001\743007vl,doc 3 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC. ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE DOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM John Meyer, AICP, Redevelopment Director City of Temecula KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. July 29, 2003 Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley, Inc. - Review of Proposed First Amendment SdN DIEGO Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Matra Calvin E. Hollis, Il Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabc Paul C. Anderson Gregory D, Soo-Hoo A. Jerry Kcyser Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Dcbbic M. Kcrn Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has been requested to review the proposed First Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley, Inc. (Developer) for the development of six single-family homes affordable to households at very Iow-income levels (Project). The proposed First Amendment modifies the original agreement between the padies dated November 18, 2002. Under the November 2002 DDA, the Agency would contribute $561,220 toward the project, as demonstrated below. Agency Land Contribution Additional Agency Assistance Total Agency Contribution $411,220 $15o,ooo $561,220 This contribution would be used for the construction and installation of the off-site public improvements. 03462mm 19545.014.004 To: John Meyer, AICP, Redevelopment Director July 29, 2003 Subject: Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley, Inc Page 2 The previous estimate of financing gap was based on project development costs and anticipated sales prices, with an allowance for a developer fee capped at $4,000 per unit. The development cost budget included, on- and off-site improvement requirements, shell construction, and indirect costs. As background, KMA previously prepared the re-use analysis and Section 33433 report, that was based on the terms and conditions set forth in the November 2002 DDA between the Agency and the Developer. The estimated re-use value of the interest to be conveyed is negative $763,000. This supplemental memorandum to KMA's January 2003 report presents KMA's findings based upon our review of the updated terms and conditions identified in the proposed First Amendment. The Agency has agreed to provide additional funding for the processing of fees and maps in the amount of $7,000. This incremental cost increases the financing gap for the proposed development, since the achievable revenues from the development are limited by the very Iow- income restrictions imposed by the DDA. In other words, KMA's amended finding for re-use value for the subject site is negative $770,000, that is, negative $763,000 plus negative $7,000. The chart below depicts the revised Agency costs for the Habitat for Humanity Project under the proposed First Amendment. Agency Land Contribution $411,220 Additional Agency Assistance $157,000 Legal, Economic, and Miscellaneous Costs $10,000 Total Agency Costs $578,220 03462mm 19545.014,004 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND HABITATFOR HUMANITY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. Agency and Habitat for Humanity Inland Valleys Inc, ("Developer") have entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of February 11, 2003 (the "DDA") which provided for, among other things, the Agency's contribution to Developer of certain real property described therein (the "Property") and the Agency's making a "predevelopment loan" to Developer to be secured by the Property (the "Agency Loan") for the purpose of facilitating the development of a home-ownership project constructing 6 new single family houses of very Iow income. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the DDA. B. The Agency Loan is secured by a Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixtures Filing (with Assignment of Rents) dated February 11, 2003 executed by Developer, as trustier, in favor of Agency, as beneficiary, and recorded on April 18, 2002, in the Official Records of the County of Riverside, California as Document No. 2002-201994 (the "Deed of Trust"). C. Agency and Developer desire to clarify and modify some of the terms of the DDA and the Agency Loan. D. The approval of this First Amendment by the Agency constitutes an action by the Agency to implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring interests in housing units to assure they are affordable to persons of Iow and moderate income. Therefore, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15326 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain agreement entitled "First Amendment to DDA and Promissory Note" between the Agency and Habitat for Humanity Inland Valleys Inc with such changes in each document as may be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Agency Executive Director as are in substantial conformance with the form of such Agreement which on file in the Office of the Agency Secretary. The Chairperson of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement, including related exhibits and attachments on behalf of the Agency. A copy of the final Agreement when executed by the Agency Chairperson shall be placed on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Agency. R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-__ 1 Section 3. The Executive Director of the Agency (or his designee), is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Agency, to take all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the Agreement and to administer the Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be pen~ormed under the Agreement and related documents, including but not limited to the Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, Regulatory Agreement, acceptances, escrow instructions, certificates of completion and such other implementing agreements and documents as contemplated or described in the Agreement. Section 4. The Secretary of the Agency shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Redevel- opment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Chairperson Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. RDA 03-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: AGENCY MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secreta~ R:/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-__ 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. City and Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley Inc, ("Developer") have entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of February 11, 2003 (the "DDA") which provided for, among other things, the City's contribution to Developer of certain real property described therein (the "Property") and the City's making a "predevelopment loan" to Developer to be secured by the Property (the "City Loan") for the purpose of facilitating the development of a home-ownership project constructing 6 new single family houses for persons and families of very Iow income. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the DDA. B. The City Loan is secured by a Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixtures Filing (with Assignment of Rents) dated February 11, 2003 executed by Developer, as trustier, in favor of Agency, as beneficiary, and recorded on April 18, 2002, in the Official Records of the County of Riverside, California as Document No. 2002-201994 (the "Deed of Trust"). C. City and Developer desire to clarify and modify some of the terms of the DDA and the Agency Loan. D. The approval of this First Amendment by the Agency constitutes an action by the City to implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring interests in housing units to assure they are affordable to persons of Iow and moderate income. Therefore, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15326 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). Section 2. The City Council hereby approves that certain agreement entitled "First Amendment to DDA and Promissory Note" between the Agency and Habitat for Humanity inland Valley Inc, with such changes in each document as may be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City Manager as are in substantial conformance with the form of such Agreement which on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement, including related exhibits and attachments on behalf of the City. A copy of the final Agreement when executed by the Mayor shall be placed on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3. The City Manager (or his designee), is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Agency, to take all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the Agreement and to administer the Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed under the Agreement and related documents, including but not limited to the Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, Regulatory Agreement, acceptances, escrow instructions, R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 1 certificates of completion and such other implementing agreements and documents as contemplated or described in the Agreement. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12t~ day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular ~'~eting thereof held on the 12thday of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 ITEM 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER. CITY MANAGER TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL~EMECULAREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 12, 2003 City ManagedExecutive Director and City Council/Agency Members John Meyer, Redevelopment Director~ Second Amendment for the Affirmed Housing Sixth Street Homeownership Project RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT BE'rVVEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS-- TEMECULA, LLC (6TM STREET HOUSING PROJECT) That the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENTTO THE DISPOSlTION AND DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENTBETVVEENTHEAGENCY AND AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS--TEMECULA, LLC (6TUSTREET HOUSING PROJECT) R:\Housing 2001~Affirmed DDA Amendment staff report.doc BACKGROUND: The City Council/Agency Board approved the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Affirmed Housing on February 26, 2002 and approved a first amendment on February 11, 2003. The project, generally located on the north side of Sixth Street, will consist of 14 new single-family detached homes and 3 rehabilitated single-family homes (see attached site plan). The project is currently under construction. During a recent field investigation it became evident that the existing 6th Street improvements were substandard and failing. As a result it has become necessary for Affirmed Housing to install street improvements well beyond what was estimated in the original DDA. The Developer has therefore requested an addition $121,000 to cover the cost of the street improvements. This figure is based on the engineer's estimate to remove the existing street section and replace it to City standards. Staff has reviewed and concurs with these numbers. FISCAL IMPACT: The addition of $121,000 will bring the total Agency assistance for the project to $1.638 million. The additional funding will be allocated through the Affordable Housing Projects- Pujol Street, which contains $1 million in the FY 03-04 Capital Improvement Program. Attachment: Proposed Site Plan Resolutions Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment KMA Memorandum R:\Housing 2001~Affirrned DDA Amendment staff report,doc SECOND AMENDMENT TO DD^ THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO DDA (this "Amendment") is dated as of August 12, 2003 and is entered into b y a nd between t he REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY O F THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Agency") and AFFIRMED HOUSiNG PARTNERS - TEMECULA, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). RECITALS A. Agency and Developer have entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of February 26, 2002, which was amended by a First Amendment to DDA and Promissory Note (collectively, the "DDA") which provided for, among other things, the Agency's contribution to Developer of certain real property described therein (the "Property") and the Agency's making a loan to Developer to be secured by the Property (the "Agency Loan") for the purpose of facilitating the development of a home-ownership project constructing 14 new single family houses and three rehabilitated single family houses for persons and families of low or moderate income ("Project"). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the DDA. B. Developer has requested a grant of One Hundred and Twenty-One Thousand Dollars ($121,000) to pay costs of unanticipated road improvements (the "Road Improvements") directly related to, and required for, the Project. The Road Improvements are described on Exhibit "A'~ attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the initial terms and covenants set forth herein and other consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Agency and Developer hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT Grant for Unanticipated Road Improvements. Provided Developer is not in default under the DDA, Agency shall from time to time reimburse Developer for, or pay directly to the parties entitled thereto, up to One Hundred Twenty-One Thousand Dollars ($121,000) of the reasonable costs of the Road Improvements, promptly after Agency's receipt of reasonable evidence of such costs and appropriate mechanics lien releases. Miscellaneous. Except as modified herein, the DDA shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment shall be governed by California law (without regard to conflict of laws rules). Time is of the essence of each and every R:~-lousing 2002\cottagesofOIdTown~DDA 2nd Amendment. DOC provision of this Amendment. This Amendment contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter o£this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agency and Developer have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first shown above. AGENCY: DEVELOPER: TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS - TEMECULA, LLC, a California limited liability company By: By: Affirmed Housing Group, a California corporation, its Manager Name: Ron Roberts By: Title: Chairperson Name: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson Agency Counsel I 1087-0001 \743014v 1 .doc -2 - EXHIBIT "A' Description of Road Improvements [Attached.] I 1087-0001 \743014v 1 .doc A- 1 08/04/2003 09:53 FAX 7607388405 AFFIRMED HOUSING GROUP ~001 Cottages of Old Town City of Temecula Additional Work Cost Estimate Description 1 Equipmen! Move-in 2 Remove existing AC section 3 Place 3'76" Street Section 4 Place 3"/8" Street Section 5 Traffic Cor]trol 6 Export 7 Construction Management 8 Engineering Design 9 Legals and Prats- Public ROW 10 Legals and Plats - SD Easement Unit of Quantity Meas. Unit Cost 1 EA 21,000 SF 5,400 SF 16,000 SF 12 Day 348 CY LS LS LS LS $2,500.00 $1.20 $2.60 $2,80 $1,000.00 $8.00 SUB-TOTAL HARD COSTS Dollar Amount $2,500.00 $25,200.00 $14,040.00 $44,800.00 $12,000.00 $2,784.00 $101,324.00 LS 14% of Cost $14,185.36 LS $2,663.12 $2,663.12 LS $1,663.76 $1,663.76 LS $1,163.76 $1,163.76 SUB-TOTAL SOFT COSTS $19,676.00 TOTAL $121,000.00 8/4/2003 KEYSER MARSTON FAX: 619/718-9508 ASSOCIATES INC. ADVISORS IN2 REAL ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM John Meyer, AICP, Redevelopment Director City of Temecula KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. July 29, 2003 Sixth Street Homeownership Project - Review of Proposed Second Amendment SAN D/EGO Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Matra LOSANGELES Calvin E. Holli$, I1 Kalhleen H. Head James A. Rabe PauIC. Anderson Gregory D. Soo-Hoo SAN FRANCISCO A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Debbie M. Kern RobertJ. Wetmore Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has been requested to review the proposed Second Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and Affirmed Housing Partners - Temecula, LLC (Developer) for the rehabilitation of three single-family homes and construction of 14 single- family detached homes (Project). The proposed Second Amendment modifies the original agreement between the parties dated February 11,2002. Under the February 2002 DDA, the Agency would contribute $1,517,000 toward the project, as demonstrated below. Agency Land Contribution Additional Agency Assistance (1) Total Agency Contribution $308,000 $1,209,000 $1,517,000 (1) Based on fair re-use value of negative $1,209,000. 03461 MM 19545,014.003 CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR CLIENTS To: John Meyer, AICP, Redevelopment Director July 29, 2003 Subject: Sixth Street Homeownership Project Page 2 This contribution would be used as reimbursement for costs related to acquisition, construction of the improvements, and other costs of the development. The previous estimate of financing gap was based on a detailed review of project development costs and anticipated sales prices, with an allowance for a developer fee capped at $22,500 per unit. The development cost budget included property acquisition, on- and off-site improvement requirements, shell construction, and indirect and financing costs. As background, KMA previously prepared the re-use analysis and Section 33433 report based on the terms and conditions set forth in the February 2002 DDA between the Agency and the Developer. The estimated re-use value of the interest to be conveyed was negative $1,209,000. This supplemental memorandum to KMA's February 2002 reports presents KMA's findings based upon our review of the updated terms and conditions identified in the proposed Second Amendment. The Developer has identified additional unforeseen street improvement costs within the Sixth Street right-of-way in the amount of approximately $121,000. This incremental cost increases the financing gap for the proposed development, since the achievable revenues from the development are limited by the moderate-income restrictions imposed by the DDA. In other words, KMA's amended finding of re-use value for the subject Site is negative $1,330,000, that is, $1,209,000 plus $121,000. The chart below depicts the revised Agency costs for the Sixth Street Homeownership Project under the proposed Second Amendment. Agency Land Contribution Additional Agency Assistance Legal, Economic, and Miscellaneous Costs Total Agency Costs $308,000 $1,330,000 $35,00O $1,673,000 03461MM 19545.014.003 CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR CLIENTS RESOLUTION NO. RDA 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS~TEMECULA, LLC (6TM STREET HOUSING PROJECT) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. Agency and Affirmed Housing Partners--Temecula, LLC, ("Developer") have entered into a Disposition end Development Agreement dated as of February 26, 2002 (the "DDA") which provided for, among other things, the Agency's contribution to Developer of certain real property described therein (the "Property") and the Agency's making a "predevelopment loan" to Developer to be secured by the Property (the "Agency Loan") for the purpose of facilitating the development of a home-ownership project constructing 14 new single family houses and three rehabilitated single family houses for persons and families of Iow or moderate income. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the DDA. B. The Agency Loan is secured by a Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixtures Filing (with Assignment of Rents) dated February 26, 2002 executed by Developer, as trustier, in favor of Agency, as beneficiary, and recorded on April 18, 2002, in the Official Records of the County of Riverside, California as Document No. 2002-201994 (the "Deed of Trust"). C. Agency and Developer desire to clarify and modify some of the terms of the DDA and the Agency Loan. D. The approval of this Second Amendment by the Agency constitutes an action by the Agency to implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring interests in housing units to assure they are affordable to persons of Iow and moderate income. Therefore, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15326 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain agreement entitled "Second Amendment to DDA and Promissory Note" between the Agency and Affirmed Housing Partners--Temecula, LLC, with such changes in each document as may be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Agency Executive Director as are in substantial conformance with the form of such Agreement which on file in the Office of the Agency Secretary. The Chairperson of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement, including related exhibits and attachments on behalf of the Agency. A copy of the final Agreement when executed by the Agency Chairperson shall be placed on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Agency. R/RDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-_ 1 Section 3. The Executive Director of the Agency (or his designee), is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Agency, to take all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the Agreement and to administer the Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed under the Agreement and related documents, including but not limited to the Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, Regulatory Agreement, acceptances, escrow instructions, certificates of completion and such other implementing agreements and documents as contemplated or described in the Agreement. Section 4. The Secretary of the Agency shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Redevel- opment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Chairperson Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. RDA 03-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: AGENCY MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary PJRDA Resos 2003/RDA 03-I 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND AFFIRMED HOUSING PARTNERS-TEMECULA, LLC (6TM STREET HOUSING PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. City and Affirmed Housing Partners--Temecula, LLC, ("Developer") have entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of February 26, 2002 (the "DDA") which provided for, among other things, the City's contribution to Developer of certain real property described therein (the "Property") and the City's making a "predevelopment loan" to Developer to be secured by the Property (the "City Loan") for the purpose of facilitating the development of a home-ownership project constructing 14 new single family houses and three rehabilitated single family houses for persons and families of Iow or moderate income. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the DDA. B. The City Loan is secured by a Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixtures Filing (with Assignment of Rents) dated February 26, 2002 executed by Developer, as trustier, in favor of Agency, as beneficiary, and recorded on April 18, 2002, in the Official Records of the County of Riverside, California as Document No. 2002-201994 (the "Deed of Trust"). C. City and Developer desire to clarify and modify some of the terms of the DDA and the Agency Loan. D. The approval of this Second Amendment by the Agency constitutes an action by the City to implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring interests in housing units to assure they are affordable to persons of Iow and moderate income. Therefore, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15326 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). Section 2. The City Council hereby approves that certain agreement entitled "Second Amendment to DDA and Promissory Note" between the Agency and Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC, with such changes in each document as may be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City Manager as are in substantial conformance with the form of such Agreement which on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement, including related exhibits and attachments on behalf of the City. A copy of the final Agreement when executed by the Mayor shall be placed on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3. The City Manager (or his designee), is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Agency, to take all actions necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the Agreement and to administer the Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be performed under the Agreement and related documents, including but not limited to the R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03~ 1 Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, Regulatory Agreement, acceptances, escrow instructions, certificates of completion and such other implementing agreements and documents as contemplated or described in the Agreement. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular ~-"~eeting thereof held on the 12u' day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 ITEM 13 AP P R OV~L~/[4.4~..---- CiTY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~3E CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City ManagedCity Council FROM: Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: PA03-0370 (Annexation) - Adoption of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Redhawk Specific Plan Area and a Portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt the Negative Declaration with a finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA03-0370 (Annexation) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS THE ENTIRE REDHAWK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND A 67 ACRE PORTION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM CSA 143, CSA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATED AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0370. Direct staff to prepare and submit application and associated materials for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). R:\BROWNS\annex\CC Stafffpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 1 BACKGROUND: In February of this year approximately 700 residents within the Redhawk Specific Plan area submitted a petition to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting that the City annex them. The City Council upon hearing the residents request, directed staff May 13, 2003 to proceed with the annexation of the Redhawk area and the remaining 67 acres of commercial property within the Vail Ranch Specific Plan. With the Council's decision, the City of Temecula assumes the role of the lead entity to prepare and process the annexation documents through LAFCO. At this time, staff is coming forward with the first formal step in the annexation process. The action being requested in this application includes adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project and the adoption of a Resolution initiating the Commencement of Proceedings. Following these actions, a formal application will be made to, and, the Local Agency Formation Commission will hold a hearing. Staff has requested that this item be heard at LAFCO at its combined November/December meeting. The annexation will become final only with the successful election of special rates and charges for park, median maintenance, and refuse collection by two thirds of the registered voters within the annexation area that vote in the election. The proposed effective date of the annexation is July 1, 2005. Because of the long lead time between the annexation proceedings and the actual annexation date, the City Council directed staff to extend emergency medical services to the annexation area effective July 1,2004. In addition, the Council also directed staff to eliminate the park user fees for the residents within the annexation area also effective July 1, 2004. These services are anticipated to be provided if the registered voters in an election scheduled for March 2, 2004 approve the annexation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study has been prepared for the project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the mitigation monitoring program for the project. Potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. In addition, the project by itself will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending the Negative Declaration for PA03-0370 is adopted for this project and a finding of DeMinimus Impact be made. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact associated with the annexation of the Redhawk area has been addressed within a Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted by the City for the Redhawk area. The impact report concluded at full buildout for the project, assuming 3,212 residential units and the remaining 67 acres of commercial, there would be surplus of $269,339 per year. This surplus would start to accumulate after the agreed upon tax sharing agreement with the County is satisfied. The consultant estimates it would take approximately 3.8 years to pay off the $3,000,000.00 amount. The City Council allocated $25,000.00 for the annexation in the FY 03-04 budget in the Planning Department's line item Number 5248. R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council Resolution No. 03- 2. Exhibit "A" - Map of Annexation Area 3. Exhibit "B" Map and Legal Description of Annexation Area 4. Plan for Provision of Municipal Services for Planning Application No. PA03-0370 - Annexation of the Redhawk Specific Plan Area and a Portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area 5. Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Annexation of the Redhawk Specific Plan Area and a Portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area. 6. Environmental Assessment for PA03-0370 R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 03- R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03-.._ A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF A CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE REDHAWK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND A PORTION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM CSA 143, CSA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATED AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0370. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to request the commencement of proceedings reorganizing the jurisdictional boundaries of certain inhabited territory described herein and known as the Redhawk Specific Plan area and a portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan area to include said territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Temecula and within the Temecula Community Services District and to detach said territory from County Service Area 143 and County Service Area 152 and the Riverside County Waste Management District pursuant to Part 3 of Division 3 of Title 5 of the California Government Code; WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted a General Plan for the City of Temecula and whereas the analysis within the General Plan includes said areas; WHEREAS, said area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the existing City boundary; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0370 which proposed the reorganization be processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Prezoning of the identified area on August 11, 1998; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed adoption of this Resolution was posted at City Hall, the County Library - Rancho California Branch, the United States Post Office - Temecula Branch, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, was published in the Californian, and was mailed to the Local Agency Formation Commission and to each interested and each subject agency; WHEREAS, a petition for annexation to the City of Temecula has been submitted to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission by a group of citizens; WHEREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA03-0370, on August 12, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved Planning Application No. PA03-0370; R:\BROWNS~annox~CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 5 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. That the City Council hereby requests the commencement of proceedings be taken pursuant to Part 3 of Division 3 of Title 5 of the California Government Code to reorganize the jurisdictional boundaries of certain inhabited territory described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and known as Redhawk Specific Plan Area and a portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan area, to include said territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Temecula and within the Temecula Community Services District and to detach said territory from County Service Area 143 and County Service Area 152 and from the Riverside County Waste Management District. Section 3. That the City Council requests that the proposed reorganization be subject to the condition that the residents of said territory approve a special tax and rates and charges to finance the cost of providing services to the territory. Section 4. Findinqs. That the City Council, in adopting a Resolution requesting the commencement of proceedings to reorganize the jurisdictional boundaries of the territory herein referred to as the Redhawk Specific Plan area and a portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area to include said territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Temecula and within the Temecula Community Services District; and the detachment of said territory from County Service Areas (CSA) 143 and 152, and the Riverside County Waste Management District (approving Planning Application No. PA03-0370) hereby makes the following findings: A. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. B. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which addressed the environmental impacts associated with this project, was adopted by the City Council on August 12, 2003 and this document determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Specifically, police services are an area, which will be affected by annexation. After mitigation measures are incorporated, impacts to police services will be considered less than significant. C. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. D. The proposed annexation area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the City's corporate boundary. The area is substantially surrounded by the City's existing corporate boundary. E. The territory within the proposed annexation area is within a substantially developed area, which is continuing to develop. The proposed annexation area is not prime agricultural land (as defined by Section 56064 of the Government Code), and is designated for urban growth by the City of Temecula's General Plan. R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 6 F. The project is being proposed on behalf of certain residents within the subject territory in order that the City may provide community services to the residents of said territory in a more responsive and efficient manner. G. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. H. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. I. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Section $. Environmental Compliance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration which addressed the environmental impacts associated with this project was adopted by the City Council, and this document indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program were added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, was granted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12~h day of August 2003. ATTEST: Jeff Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\BROWNS~annex~CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBIT A- MAP OF ANNEXATION AREA R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 8 oo ATFACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBIT B - MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION AREA R:\BROWNS\annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 9 DRA :T Page I of 14 E~ H lillY "At' ANNEXATION OF REDHAWK TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA LAFCO 2003- That certain parcel of land situated in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at an angle point on the existing City of Temecula boundary as described in a document recorded December 9, 1994 as Instrument No. 461244, Official Records of said County hereinafter referred to as LAFCO No. 88-70-1, said point being the intersection of the southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road (100 feet wide) as shown by Tract No. 23172, on file in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of said County; Thence hereat~er along said City of Temecula boundary and the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road, South 22057'33'' East, a distance of 1,016.04 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as North 22°56~2'' West, a distance of 1,016.04 feet) also being the northwest comer of Parcel Map 24387 as shown by map on file in Book 164 of Parcel Maps at Pages 5 through 20 thereof, records of Riverside County and the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave southerly and having a radius of 3,000.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning bears North 9046'23" West, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGIlqNIblG; Thence easterly along said curve and no~herly boundary of said Parcel Map 24387, through a central angle of 1°24'19", an arc distance of 73.58 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as a central angle of 1°24'38", and an arc distance of 73.86 feet); Thence continuing along the northerly line of said Parcel Map 24387 North 81°37'56" East, a distance of 738.45 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 81 °39'22" West, a distance of 737.32 fee0; Thence leaving said City of Temecula boundary and continuing along the northerly boundary of Parcel Map 24387 North 81037'56" East, a distance of 1,758.87 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 4,200.00 feet; Thence continuing along the northerly boundary of said Parcel Map 24387, northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 10°54'38", an arc distance of 799.79 feet; DRAPT EXHIBIT (eantinued) Page 2 of 14 Thence continuing along the northerly boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 North 70°43'18" East, a distance of 3,539.21 feet to the centerlin¢ of Anza Road and the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 1,200.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning bears South 82035'43.. West; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387, southeasterly along said curve, also being the centarline of Anza Road, through a central angle of 16°29'04", an arc distance of 345.25 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387, also being the centarline of Anza Road, South 23°5Y21" East, a distance of 140.16 feet to the most easterly comer of Parcel 18 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence leaving the centerline of Anza Road, along the southerly line of said Parcel 18 South 71°11'03" West, a distance of 3,092.94 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 1 I°07'17'' East, a distance of 1,273.78 feet to the most easterly comer of Parcel 14 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along the southeasterly boundary of said Parcel 14 South 71058'24.' West, a distance of 1,051.49 feet; Thence continuing along the boundasy of said Parcel Map 24387 South 50°32'59" West, a distance of 582.84 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 39°52'38" West, a distance of 2,189.71 feet; Thence continuing along the boanda~y of said Parcel Map 24387 South 29°37'22'' East, a distance of 1,305.54 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 73°10'23" West, a distance of 449.26 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 43°57'1Y' West, a distance of 773.17 feet to the intersection of the southwesterly line of Panba Rancho as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along said Pauba Rancho line and the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 North 46o46'24" West, a distance of 210.00 feet to the intersection of the southerly line of Little Temecula Rancho as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along said southerly line of Little Temecula Rancho and the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 53°06~24'' West, a distance of 68.13 feet; EXHllllT "A" (continued) Page 3 of 14 Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 0°53'12'' West, a distance of 1,143.59 feet to the southeast comer of Parcel 11 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387, said southeast comer also being the intersection of the centerline of Woolpett Lane and the southerly line of said of Parcel 11; Thence along the southerly line of said Parcel 11 North 88°20'45" West, a distance of 1,450.44 feet to the intersection of the southerly line of Little Temecula Rancho as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along said southerly line of Little Temecula Rancho and the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 53o06'24" West, a distance of 1,510.57 feet; Thence leaving said Rancho line and continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 00°14'33" East, a distance of 1,684.12 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 88°21'31" East, a distance of 393.97 feet to a point on the centerline of Anza Road; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 and said centerline of Anza Road South 88°21'31'' East, a distance of 530.73 feet; Thence leaving the centerline of said Anza Road and continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 88°21'31" East, a distance of 372.65 feet to the northeast comer of Parcel 24 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along the easterly line of said Parcel 24 South l°13'00" East, a distance of 1,278.36 feet to the southeast comer thereof; Thence along the southerly line of said Parcel 24 North 89°35'41'' West, a distance of t ,315.76 feet; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 South 0°20'15" East, a distance of 1,306.96 feet to the southeast comer of Parcel 23 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along the southerly line of said Parcel 23 North 89°24'49'' West, a distance of 1,319.25 feet to the most northeast comer of Parcel 25 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence along the easterly line of said Parcel 25 of said Parcel Map 24387 South 0039'20'' West, a distance of 1,335.55 feet to the southeast comer thereof; Thence along the most southerly line of said Parcel 25 and the westerly prolongation thereof North 89048'50" West, a distance of 1,993.66 feet to a comer of said Parcel Map 24387; D AFT EXHIBIT "A" (continued) Page 4 of 14 Thence leaving the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 and continuing North 89°48'50" West, a distance of 41.16 feet to the intersection of the centerline of Pala Road; Thence along the centerline of said Paia Road as shown by said Parcel Map 24387 North 43001'34" West, a distance of 520.55 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline of Pala Road as shown by said Parcel Map 24387 North 44049'36" West, a distance 372.50 feet to a point on the centerline of Deer Hollow Way, said point also described by document referred to herein as LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as the southwesterly end of Course No. 82; Hereafter, the following courses are described to follow the boundary of the City of Temeeula as described by said document referred to herein as LAFCO No. 88- 70-1: Thence along the centerline of Deer Hollow Way also being the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 North 42°23'18" East, a distance of 2,254.53 fee~ (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 42023'59" West, a distance of 2,254.57 feet) to the most southerly comer of Parcel 27 as shown by said Parcel Map 24387; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 North 24°50'41" West, a distance of 832.36 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 24°49'53" East, a distance of 832.36 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 North 30°48'15" West, a distance of 1,705.39 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 30047'27" East, a distance of 1,705.39 fee0; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Parcel Map 24387 North 61002'24" West, a distance of 448.25 feet to the most westerly cemer of said Parcel Map 24387, said comer also being the most southerly comer of Tract No. 23063-5 as shown by map on file in Book 221 of Maps at pages 21 through 29, records of said Riverside County; Thence continuing North 61°02'24" West along the boundary line of said Tract No. 23063-5, a distance of 169.00 feet (the sum of the previous 2 courses was recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 61°01'36" East, a distance of 617.25 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary line of said Tract No. 23063-5 North 45°3Y18" West, a distance of 711.38 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 45°32'22" East, a distance of711.56 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary line of said Tract No. 23063-5 North 45°48'11" East, a distance of 415.51 feet to the southwesterly (continued) Page 5 of 14 boundary line of Tract No. 23063-4 as shown by map on file in Book 221 of Maps at Pages 12 through 20 thereof, records of said Riverside County (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 45°48'16'' West, a distance of 415.45 fee0; Thence North 41°21'23" West along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-4, a distance of 442.13 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 41°19'56" East, a distance of 442.14 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-4 South 45058'28" West, a distance of 416.34 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70 as North 45°58'31" East, a distance of 416.34 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-4 North 35°27'12" West, a distance of 710.25 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 35°26'16.. East, a distance of 709.90 fee0 to a point on the centerline of Wolf Valley Road, said point also being the most southerly comer of Tract 23063-3 on file in Book 220 of Maps at Pages 40 through 56 thereof, records of said Riverside County; Thence along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 North 35°27'12" West, a distance of 88.47 feet (this course was not described in LAFCO No. 88-70-1); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063~3 North 53°34~8'' West, a distance of 726.59 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 53033'32.. East, a distance of 726.59 fee0; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 North 65016'26" West, a distance of 955.73 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 65015'30" East, a distance of 634.63 feet and South 65015'30" East, a distance of 321.10 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 North 4°18'10 East, a distance of 173.65 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 4°18E;6'' West, a distance of 173.52 feet) to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northerly, and having a radius of 1,200.00 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as 1,200.00 feet), a radial line to said beginning bears South 4° 18'10" West; Thence easterly continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 and said curve through a central angle of 7°58'45", an arc distance of 167.12 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as westerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 7057'33", a distance of 166.70 feet); DRA :T EXHIBIT "A" (continued) .Page 6 of 14 Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 North 86°19'25'' East, a distance of 119.99 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 86020'45'' West, a distance of 120.05 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 North 37°24~5'' East, a distance of 300.15 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 37°27~00" West, a distance of 300.09 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-3 North 40004'56" West, a distance of 28.05 feet to the comer of Tract No. 23063-2 as shown by map on file in Book 220 of Maps at Pages 30 through 39 thereof, records of said Riverside County; Thence along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 North 40004'56" West, a distance of 411.25 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as the sum of the previous 2 courses being South 40°03'40" East, a distance of 439.27 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 North 2l°1Y17" East, a distance of 171.28 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 21017'35" West, a distance of 171.27 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 North 20~23'03" East, a distance of 286.33 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 20o22'30" West, a distance of 286.32 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 No~,h 61°43'07" East, a distance of 216.05 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 61044'20" West, a distance of 216.03 feet) Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 North 81°3Y01" East, a distance of 315.81 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 81033'05'' West, a distance of 315.83 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 South 84039'28" East, a distance of 208.85 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 8403?55" West, a distance of 208.85 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 South 48°39'10" East, a distance of 247.87 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 4803?40" West, a distance of 247.90 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 South 69°39'18" East, a distance of 336.15 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 69°38'35'' West, a distance of 336.25 feet); RAFT (continued) Page 7 of 14 Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 North 70°44'12" East, a distance of 452.93 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 70°45'05" West, a distance of 452.95 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 South 67057'32'' East, a distance of 532.15 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 67°56'54" West, a distance of 532.09 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No 23063-2 South 63°29'28" East, a distance of 282.47 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 63°29'11" West, a distance of 282.48 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-2 and the easterly prolongation thereof North 83°15'57" East, a distance of 724.10 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 83016'35.' West, a distance of 724.11 feet) to the comer of Tract No. 23063-6 as shown by map on file in Book 222 of Maps at Pages 84 through 98 thereof, records of said Riverside County; Thence along the boundary of said Tract No. 23063-6 North 16°40'07'' West, a distance of 885.05 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 16°38'12'. East, a distance of 885.01 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-6 South 56041'35'' West, a distance of 654.72 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 56°42'21" East, a distance of 654.77 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-6 North 74°59'09" West, a distance of 578.70 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 74°58'19'. East, a distance of 578.70 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-6 North 53°08'15'' West, a distance of 36.74 feet to the most southerly comer of Tract No. 23063-1 as shown by map on file in Book 212 of Maps at Pages 49 through 58 thereof, records of said Riverside County; Thence along the boundary of said Tract 23063-1 North 53°08'15" West, a distance of 110.10 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as the sum of the preceding 2 courses, South 53°07'41" East, a distance of 146.84 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-1 North 80054'34'. West, a distance of 250.04 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-I as South 80°53'58" East, a distance of 250.08 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-1 South 88~20'52'' West, a distance of 193.02 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 88~1'44" East, a distance of 192.98 feet); (continued) Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-1 North 70°01'39" West, a distance of 199.56 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-I as South 70°01'17'' East, a distance of 199.56 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-1 North 86059'58" West, a distance of 141.49 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 86°59'50'' East, a distance of 141.46 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of said Tract 23063-1 North 0°31'07" West, a distance of 305.00 feet to the southerly comer of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24332 as shown by map on file in Book 156 of Parcel Maps at Pages 98 through 103 thereof, records of said Riverside County; Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 Nol~h 0°31'07" West, a distance of 263.08 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70- 1 as the sum of thc preceding 2 course, South 0°30'33" East, a distance of 568.12 feet); Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 North 21°16'25" West, a distance of 858.96 feet (recorded in LAFCO 88-70-1 as South 21015'55" East, a distance of 859.04 feet); Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 South 88017'35" East, a distance of 523.72 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as North 88°17'14" West, a distance of 523.70 feet); Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 North 63°50'16" East, a distance of 285.06 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 63°51'00" West, a distance of 285.07 feet); Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 No~h 46030'39" West, a distance of 215.14 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88- 70-1 as South 46~30'00'' East, a distance of 215.19 feet); Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 North 4°04'38" West, a distance of 148.52 (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 4°03'15" East, a distance of 148.41 feet); Thence continuing along the westerly line of said Parcel 1 North 50001'58.. East, a distance of 360.94 feet to a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly and having a radius of 1,200.00 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as having a radius of 1,200.00 feet), a radial line to said beginning bears South 40°25'23" West, said curve also being the centerline of Redhawk Parkway (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 50°02'41" West, a distance of 361.13 fee0; ~(H I nIT "A" (continued) Page 9 of 14 Thence northwesterly along said curve also being the centerline of Redhawk Parkway as shown by Parcel Map 27987-1 on file in Book 187 of Parcel Maps at Pages 93 through 98 thereof, records of said Riverside County, through a central angle of 22°57'41", an arc distance of 480.90 feet to the southwesterly comer of Parcel 2 as described in a document recorded Sune 11, 2001 as Instrument No. 2001-259872, Official Records of said County, hereinai~er referred to as LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 said comer being on the existing City of Temecula boundary, a radial line at said comer bears North 63°23'04'' East; Hereafter, the following courses are described to follow the boundary of the City of Temecula described by said document referred to herein as LAFCO No. 2000-10-1: Thence along the boundary of last mentioned Parcel 2 North 63°23'04" East, a distance of 66.83 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of said Redhawk Parkway (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 63°23'04" West, a distance of 66.83 feet); Thence continuing along the boundary of last mentioned Parcel 2 North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 391.17 feet (recorded in LAFCO 2000-10-1 as South 73~22'11" West, a distance of 180.00 feet and South 73°22'11" West, a distance of211.17 feet) to the southeasterly comer thereof; Thence continuing along the boundary of last mentioned Parcel 2 North 16°37'49' West, a distance of 225.00 feet to the northeasterly comer thereof, said comer being on the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) as shown by Tract No. 23172 on file in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 thereof, records of said Riverside County and the City of Temecula boundary as described by said LAFCO No. 88-70-1; Thence along the southeasterly right-of-way line of said State Highway 79 and the City of Temecula boundary North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 2,028.71 feet to the northwesterly comer of Parcel 3 as described by said LAFCO No. 2000-10-1; Thence along the westerly boundary of last mentioned Parcel 3 South 16037'49'' East, a distance of 283.00 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 16°37'49" West, a distance of 283.00 feet) to the southwesterly comer thereof; Thence along the southerly boundary of last mentioned Parcel 3 North 73o22'11" East, a distance of 283.00 feet (recorded in EXHIBIT "A" (continued) Page 10 of 14 LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 283.00 feet) to the southeasterly comer thereof; Thence along the easterly boundary of last mentioned Parcel 3 North 16037'49" West, a distance of 283.00 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 16°37'49" East, a distance of 283.00 feet) to the northeasterly comer thereof, said comer being on the southeasterly fight-of-way line of said State Highway 79 and the existing City of Temecula boundary; Thence along the southeasterly right-of-way line of said State Highway 79 and the existing City of Temecula boundary North 73°22'1 l" East, a distance of 957.76 feet to an angle point in said City of Temecula boundary as described in said LAFCO 2000- 10-1, said angle point also being the northeasterly comer of Lot 19 of said Tract No. 23172; Thence along the easterly line of said Lot 19 South 16o37'49'' East, a distance of 754.15 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000- 10-1 as North 16037'49" West, a distance of 754.15 feet) to the southeasterly comer thereof, said comer being on the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172; Thence along the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 South 68°58'51" West, a distance of 3,161.86 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 68°58'51" East, a distance of 3,161.86 feet) to an angle point therein; Thence continuing along the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 North 87o01'26" West, a distance of 126.59 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 87o01'26'' East, a distance of 126.59 feet) to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of said Re&hawk Parkway; Thence continuing along the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 South 33046'37" West a distance of 50.00 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 33°46'37'' East, a distance of 50.00 feet) to the centerline of said Redhawk Parkway and the southwesterly comer of said Tract No. 23172; Thence along the centerline of said Redhawk Parkway South 56°13'23" East, a distance of 1,287.57 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 56°13'23'' West, a distance of 1,287.57 feet) to the intersection of Pasco Parallon and said Re&hawk Parkway, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve concave southwesterly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; (continued) Thence southeasterly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Redhawk Parkway, through a central angle of 34°51'27" an arc distance of 730.05 feet (recorded in LAFCO 2000-10-1 as a radius of 1,200.00 feet, through a central angle of 34°51'27", an arc distance of 730.05 feet); Thence continuing along the centerline of said Redhawk Parkway South 21021'57'. East, a distance of 297.87 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 21°21'57" West, a distance of 297.87 feet) to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 630.00 feet; Thence southeasterly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Redhawk Parkway, through a central angle of 17°13'56", an arc distance of 189.48 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10- 1 as a radius of 630.00 feet , through a central angle of 17°13'56", an are distance of 189.48 feet); Thence confmuing along the centerline of said Redhawk Parkway South 38035'53.. East, a distance of 160.53 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 38°35'53" West, a distance of 160.53 feet) to the intersection of the centerlines of said Redhawk Parkway and Vail Ranch Parkway (100.00 feet wide), said point being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1,000 feet, a radial line at said intersection bears South 38035'53" East; Thence southwesterly along said non-tangent curve, also being the canterline of said Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 06°18'25", an arc distance of 110.08 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 1,000.00 feet, through a central angle of 06°18'25", an arc distance of 110.08 feet) to a point of cusp in said City of Temecula boundary, a radial line at to said point of cusp bears North 44°54'18.' West; Thence leaving said centerline South 84001'58" East, a distance of 203.69 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 84001'58" West, a distance of 203.69 fee0 to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southerly, having a radius of 1,600.00 feet; Thence easterly along said curve, through a central angle of 17°56'55", an arc distance of 501.22 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 1,600.00 feet, through a central angle of 17°56'55", an arc distance of 501.22 feet); EXIH1RIT "A" (continued) Page 12 of 14 Thence South 66°05'03" East, a distance of 742.19 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 66°05'03" West, a distance of 742.19 feet) to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; Thence southeasterly and easterly along said curve, through a central angle of 40°53'24", an arc distance of 856.40 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-I as a radius of 1,200.00 feet, through a central angle of 40°53'24", an are distance of 856.40 feet); Thence North 73°01'33" East, a distance of 552.40 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 73o01'33" West, a distance of 552.40 feet) to the beg'ming of a tangent curve concave southerly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; Thence northeasterly and easterly along said curve, through a central angle of 40°53'24", an arc distance of 856.40 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 1,200.00 feet, through a central angle of 40°53~4'', an arc distance of 856.40 feet); Thence South 66005'03" East, a distance of 545.80 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 66°05'03" West, a distance of 545.80 feet) to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly, having a radius of 4,000 feet; Thence southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 06°16'51", an arc distance of 438.49 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 4,000 feet, through a central angle of 06° 16'51", an arc distance of 438.49 feet); Thence South 72°21 '54" East a distance of 719.17 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as North 72021'54'' East, a distance of 719.17 feet) to an intersection with the eenterline of Vail Ranch Parkway (100.00 feet wide), said intersection being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave westerly, having a radius of 2,500.00 feet, a radial line at said intersection bears North 64050'22'' West; Thence northerly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 08°26'51", an arc distance of 368.59 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10- I as a radius of 2,500.00 feet, through a central angle of 08°26'51", an arc distance of 368.59 feet); EXHIBIT "A" (continued) Page 13 of 14 Thence continuing along the centerline of said Vail Ranch Parkway North 16042'47" East, a distance of 101.80 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 16°42'47'' West, a distance of 101.80 feet) to the beginning of a tangent curve concave westerly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 35°16'58", an arc distance of 615.80 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10- 1 as a radius of 1,000.00 feet, through a central angle of 35016'58'', an arc distance of 615.80 fee0; Thence continuing along the canterline of said Vail Ranch Parkway North 18°34'11" West, a distance of 134.68 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 18°34'11'' East, a distance of 134.68 feet) to the intersection of the centerline of said Vail Ranch Parkway and Nighthawk Pass (88.00 feet wide); Thence along the centerline of said Nighthawk Pass North 71025'49" East, a distance of 130.56 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 71~25'49" West, a distance of 130.56 feet) to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northwesterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence northeasterly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of 49°30'49'', an arc distance of 864.18 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 1,000 feet, through a central angle of 49°30'49", an arc distance of 864.18 feet); Thence continuing along the eenterline of said Nighthawk Pass North 21055'00.. East, a distance of 167.64 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 21055'00" West, a distance of 167.64 feet) to the beg'ming of a tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence northeasterly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of 18°41'32", an arc distance of 326.24 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 1,000 feet, through a central angle of 18°41'32", an arc distance of 326.24 fee0; Thence continuing along the centerline of said Nighthawk Pass North 40036'32" East, a distance of 884.29 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 40036'32'. West, a distance of 884.29 feet) to the intersection of the centerline of said Nighthawk Pass and said Butterfield Stage Road; (continued) Thence along the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road North 49°23'23.. West, a distance of 1,514.00 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 49023'23" East, a distance of 1,514.00 feet) to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 2,000.00 feet; Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the centerline of said Butterfleld Stage Road, through a central angle of 26°25'50'', an are distance of 922.60 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as a radius of 2,000.00 feet, through a central angle of 26°25'50", an arc distance of 922.60 feet); Thence continuing along the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road North 22°57'33" West, a distance of 55.54 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 22°57'33" East, a distance of 55.54 feet) to the northeast comer of Parcel Map 23780 filed in Book 161 of Parcel Maps at Pages 92 through 99 inclusive, records of said Riverside County; Thence continuing along the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road Noah 22°57'33" West, a distance of 238.79 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 as South 22°57'33" East, a distance of 238.79 feet) to, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 1,344 acres, more or less. MWEdgm 878-2A 8/01/03 FIGURE 2 { ANTA ~....../ I , ROAD i FIGURE 5 SOUTHEASTERLY , ,J ~.~':.'.':.'::.:;~"~ RIGHT-OF-WAY i~ ...~'~ · .~.f.f)~.5¢gf'" :.:.:.:~.:.:.z.:.:.:.:~.z.:.:.:.¥5 ~~ { ~.~ ~ass ":':':':':~':':':+:':5~'~':<':':'¥5~.S~ ~.~}';~'?'~':':"" ":~';~::~"'- ' . .........,........................=......:[~ .~,. ,:.:. '~ ~ ~,yOLPERT ~~"~ ~ __. ' , ~~'~r%': ..... ~ FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 ~ ~ , ~ ~ DEER LEGEND HOLLOW WAY EXISTING CI~ OF TEMECU~ BOUNDARIY PROPER~ LINE STREET CENTERLINE ~ REDHAWK ANNEXATION AR~ ~NNEX~T~ON ~=~ ~CRES. ~ORE O~ LESS K~cm CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT ~ ~.~ ~.- ~id,, a. 9~. ~-~-S~ THE CI~ OF TEMECU~ ~FCO 2003- - . SCA~: N.T.S. DATE: 7/31/03 D~WN BY:MW~ CHEC~D BY:~ W.O.: 878-2 ~G~ I DRAFT 17782 !~' ~ BUTTERFIELD PARKWAY ~..~' ~ Ko~¢~a CITY OF TEMECUIA E×HIBIT LAFCO ~003- - SCALE: i'~1000' DATE: 7/81/03 DRA~fN By:MW._~E CHECKED BY: RAN W.O.:. 878-p flGOl~ ~ 0[' 7 _..,.~' ~ :. ., ...,...........,............................................. ....................... { WOOLPER? DRAFT ;';.';';~'Z:;'?;';'?Z.';'.'.'.'.:¥::'.:';.!.::';.:¥::';~.:~ /- ¢_ ANZA ·:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:<.:.:.:.:.:.:c.:.:.:.:¢.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ;;:')'??;i;i;i;i;i???~.::i;;"i?;)?."5 _[~¢m CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT ~?15~3.1~? AIqN~XATION OF R~DHAWK ARgA 3~o~ u~r~t~ ~,.. ~,~. C~ ~. ~-es4-*~ THE CITY OF TEMECULA LAFCO 2003-__-__ SCALE: 1"=i000' DATE: 7/31/03 DRAWN By:M~/._.~E CHECKED By:RAN ~.0.: 878-~ [qGURE $OP 7 24387 ~ g~ L28 .... ., K~¢~ CiTY OF ?F,,MECULA .Xm~iT ANNEXATION OF RRDHAWK AREA LAFCO 800~- $C~: i'~lO00' {)ATE: 7//31//03 DRAWN BY:MW~ CHECKED BY:RAN M.O.: ~ ~--~ SOUTHEASTERLY l; ~- RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ HWY. 79 '~ ~ ~. .~ . . ....................... · ~ ~ Z ....... · .................... · TRACT . :..:..._... ....................... EX STING 23172 ~'~, ~,, CITY OF W~;?.":&': \ ?~/.:.~;:f!~.';;7.:~;~';.:~'.'.~.3;'.'.~.:~.! BounoarY ~~ii~\ x~s ============================================ ~, ~: ..:.:..~ ,:.:.".::.!:'.?'...Y::.x.:.:~.:.k.x.x.:~.:~.~?'...'..: ~ REDHAWK · · ~.-.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.','..".'.'.'.'.'.'.':.'.'.,....:..:...,..~......~.. ~ ~. .:.:.:.:-'..:-:-x.:.:.:.:-x.:<.x.: .... I~;~;~. PARKWAY X, · ~.'.'~y.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~ :.'.'.'.'.':.~...:5 s~.:'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ~ ::i';.'":'.~-~'::i::-... t~~/ ' ..~ii';~S::;'.'.~'~ '"'"" ':':'?rq"""' --,,'.'.'.'.'.'.o~'.¢ t .'...'.'."'.'.'.'.'.'.".' .'-'.' ~. \ .............,.~ ........ ..........................~ ..~,.........,.. ~, .........:.:.?:.:.:.~I? ~, 738~ ,x'~ . ~- .'...~.~..............:.........................0,..0,..........-... ................... ~,...~.:...... ..:......:...............~_ .. ~.. ~........ ......L~ .~.....:.........~ .:............................................ ~/' q .... :... v.v...v.v...v...... ~.. .. ..v.....v.x w...v....... ~ ....: ................. ~ C~,tx~ ~ .... ~'.~.: ...... ... *~' .~' ...................:.....~ ,~ ...................... ............ .. >....~ ....L~ .. ...:..........,f.............~ ~ ........... .....:.............. \~..............:.....~ I .:.:.:.:~ ...... · ".'.v~. ~ :.....v.w v,.:....:.v,...,.. ~ ......:..:..... v...........v:....: '~----t i~:~ · ~ ~' ,~ .:.:.:.:.X.:.X.:~}~ ~.~3~: a.:.:.X.:.X.:.~'''''''''''''''''''''''''''*'''''''; ~..".'.'.::' 1RAC T..: ~ [.~~::;;;::'.::...!i'.-'F""" .:::7 K. zcm CITY OF TEMECULA 3~2 U,i~mily ,I,,,e.- ri~er~d,, Ck 92501. 909-684-6900 THE CITY OF TEMECULA LAFCO 2003- - 8CAI,E: 1"=1000' DATE: 7/31/03 DRA~FI, I BY:MW.~,~E CHECKED BY:RAN W.O.: 878-2 FIGUP,,~ 5 OF ? COURSE SHEET LIN1: DIR1:CTION DISTANCE LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE LI S22'57'55"E 1016.04' L40 S45'58'28"W 416.34' L2 N81'$7'56"E 758.45' L41 N$5°27'12"W 710.25' L5 N81'57'56"E 1758.87' L42 N55'27'12"W 88.47' L4 N70'43'18"1: 3559.21' L45 N55"54'28"W 726.59' L5 S25'55'21 "E 140.16' L44 N65° 16'26"W 955.7,.t' L6 S71'11'03"W, 5092.94' L45 NO4'I8'lO"E 17,.1.65'' = L7 S11°07'17"E 1275.78' L46 N86'I9'25"E 119.99' L8 S71'58'24"W ! 051.49' L47 N57'24'25"E 300.15' L9, S50'32'59"W 582.84' L48 N40'O4'56"W 28.05' LIO S39'52'$8"W 2189.71' L49 N40'O4'56"W 411.25' Lil S29'$7'22"E , 1505.54' LSO, N21*I$'17"E 171.28' L12 S73'10'25"W 449.26' L51 N20*25'OS"E 286.55' L15 S45'57'15"W 773.17' L52 N61'45'O7"E 216.05' L14 N46'46'24"W 210.00' L55 N81'$5'Ol"E 315.81' L15 S55'06'24"W 68.15' L54 S84'59'28"1: 208.85' L16 S00'55'i2"W 1145.59' L55 S48'59'10"E 247.87' L17 N88*20'45"W 1450.44' L56 S69'59'18"1: 536.15' L18 S5.$'06'24"W 1510.57' L57 N70'44'12"E 452.95' L19 SOO" 14'35"E 1684.12' L58 S67'57'52'E 552.15' L20 S88'21 '51 "E 595.97' 1,59 S63'29'28"E 282.47' L21 S88'21 '51"1: 550.75' L60 N85*lS'57"E 724.10' L22 S88°21'51"E ,572.65' L61 N16'40'OT"W 885.05' L25 S01'15'00"E 1278.56' L62 S56'41'55"W 654.72' ' L24 N89'55*41"W 1515.76' , L65 N74*59'O9"W 578.70' L25 S00°20'15"E 1506.96' L64 NS$'O8'lS"W 56.74' L26 N89'24'49"W 1319.25' L65 NS$'O8'15'W 110.10' L27 S00°59'20"W 1555.55' L66 N80'54'34"W 250.04' L28 N89'48'50"W 1995.66' L67 S88'20'52"W 195.02' L29 N89'48'50"W 41.16' , L68 N70'Ol'59"W 199.56' L$O N45'O1'$4"W i 520.55' L69 N86'59'58"W 141.49' L51 N44'49'56"W 572.50' L70 NOO'51'O7"W 505.00' L32 N42'25'18"E 2254.55' L71 NOO'51'O7"W 265.08' L33 N24*50'41"W 852.36' L72 N21'16'25"W 858.96' L$4 N50'48'15"W 1705.59' L73 S88' 17'55"1: 525.72' DRA1 L55 N6 I'02'24"W 448.25' L74 N65*50'16"E 285.06' L$6 N61'O2'24"W 169.00' L75 N46'$O'$9"W 215.14' L57 N45*55'IS"W 711.58' L76 NO4*O4'58"W 148.52' L58 N4S'48' I 1 "E 415.51' L77 NSO*OI '58"1: 560.94~ L59 N41'21'25"W 442.15' Kn cm CITY OF TEMECULA ,XHm T 1'0 ~ u~.i~y *,,.- ~r,,.~,. c~ ~. ~-~-s~oTHE CITY OF TEMECULA LAFCO 2003- - L SCALE: N/A DATR: 7/31/03 DRAWN BY:MW.__~.E CHECKED BY:RAN W.O.: 878-2 I;1GUI~ 6 0;' ? LIN1: DIR1:CTION DISTANCE LI S22'57'55"E 1016.04' L2 N81'57'56"E 758.45' L5 N81'57'56"E 1758.87' L4 N70'43'I8"E 3559.21' L5 S25'55'21 "[ 140.16' L6 S71'11'05"W 5092.94' L7 S11'07'17"E 1275.78' L8 S71'58'24"W 1051.49' L9~ S50'32'59"W 582.84' LIO S39'52'$8"W 2189.71' Li S29'$7'22"E 1505.54' L12 S75'10'25"W 449.26' L15 S45'57'15"W 773.17' L14 N46'46'24"W 210.00' L15 S55'06'24"W 68.15' L16 S00'55' i 2"W 1145.59' L17 N88*20'45"W 1450.44' L18 S55'06'24"W 1510.57' L19 SO0° 14'35"E 1684.12' L20 S88'21 '51 "E 595.97' L21 S88'21 '31 "1: 550.75' L22 S88'21 '51 "E ,572.65' L25 SO I* I 5'O0"E 1278.56' L24 N89'55'41 "W 1515.76' L25 S00°20'15"E 1506.96' L26 N89'24'49"W 1319.25' L27 S00'59'20"W 1555.55' L28 N89'48'50"W 1995.66' L29 N89'48'50"W 41.16' L$O N45'01 '$4"W 520.55' L51 N44'49'56"W 572.50' L32 N42'25'18"E 2254.55' L33 N24'50'41 "W 852.36' L$4 NSO'48'lS"W 1705.59' L55 N6 I'02'24"W 448.25' L$6 N61'O2'24"W 169.00' L57 N45*55'IS"W 711.58' L58 N45'48' I 1 "E 415.51' L59 N41*21'25"W 442.15' LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE L40 S45'58'28"W 416.54' L41 N$5*27'12"W 710.25' L42 N35'27'12"W 88.47' L45 N55*34'28"W 726.59' L44 N65°16'26"w 955.7,.t' L45 NO4*18'lO"E 173.65'' L46 N86'19'25"E 119.99' L47 N57'24'25"E 300.15' L48 N40'O4'56"W 28.05' L49 N40'O4'56"W 411.25' LSO N21*I$'17"E 171.28' L51 N20'25'OS"E 286.55' L52 N61'45'O7"E 216.05' L55 N81*$5'Ol"F,. 515.81 L54 S84'59'28"1: 208.85' L55 S48'59'10"E 247.87' L56 S69'59' 18"1: 536.15' L57 N70'44' 12"1: 452.95' L58 S67'57'52"E 552.15' 1,59 S65'29'28"E 282.47' L60 N85*15'57"E 724.10' L61 N16'40'07"W 885.05' L62 S56'41'55"W 654.72' ' L65 N74*59'O9"W 578.70' L64 NS$'O8'15"W 56.74' L65 NS$'O8'15"W 110.10' L66 N80'54'54"W 250.04' L67 S88'20'52"W 195.02' L68 N70'01 '59"W 199.56' L69 N86'59'58"W 141.49' LTO N00'51 '07"W 505.00' L71 N00'51 '07"W 265.08' L72 N21'16'25"W 858.96' L73 S88' 17'55"E 525.72' L74 N65*50'16"E 285.06' L75 N46'$O'$9"W 215.14' L76 NO4*O4'58"W 148.52' L77 NSO*OI '58"E 560.94' COURSE SHEET LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE CURVE TABLE L78 N63'23'O4"E 66.83' CURVE LENGTHI RADIUS DELTA L79 N75'22'I I"E 391.17' C1 7,3.561 ,3000.00 01'24'19' L80 N16*37'49"W 225.00' C2 799.79 4200.00 10'54',38" L81 N75°22'11"E ~ 2028.71' C3 545.25 1200.00 16'29'04" L82 S16'37'49"E 285.00' C4 167.12 1200.00 07'58'45" L83 N73'22'1 l"E 283.00' C5 480.90 1200.00 22'57'41" L84 N16°37'49"W 285.00' C6 750.05 1200.00 54'51'27" L85 N73'22'1 I"E 957.76' i C7 189.48 650.0(3 17'13'56" L86 S 16'37'49"E 754.15' C8 110.08 1000.00 6'18'25" L87 S68'58'51"W 3161.86' C9 501.22 1600.00 17'56'55" iL88 N87'01 '26"W 126.59' C10 856.40 1200.00 40'53'24" L89 S33'46'37"W 50.00' Cll 856.40 1200.00 40'53'24" L90 S56'13'25"E I 1287.57' C121 458.49 4000.00 6°16'51" L91 S21'21'57"E~ 297.87' C13= 368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" L92 S$8'35'53"E 160.53' C14 615.80 1000.00 ,35'16'58" L93 S84'01'58"E 203.69' C15 864.18 1000.00 49'30'49" L94 S66'05'05"lr 742.19' C16 `326.24 1000.00 18'41',32" L95 N73'O1'33"E 552.40' C17 922.60 2000.00 26'25'50" L96 S66'05'05"E 545.80' L97 S72°21 '54"E 719.17' L98 I N16'42'47"E 101.80' L99 N18'34'11"W 154.68' LIO0 N71'25'49"£ 1`30.56' LI01 N21'55'OO"E 167.64' L102 N40'36'32"E 884.29' LIO`3 N49'23'23"W 1514.00' L104 N22*57'3`3"W 55.54' L105 N22'57'53"W 2`38.79' DRAFT Kmmm CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT ANNEX*T ON OF A,"A ~o~ u.~,~,,~, ~,.- ~r~d~. C* ~. ~0~-~-~ THELAFcoCITY2003_OF TEMECULA_~ [ SCALE: N/A DATE: 7/31/03 DRAWN BY:l/lifE CHECKED By:RAN #.O.: 878-2 RGU~ ? 01~ 7 LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE L78 N63'23'O4"E 66.83' L79 N7`3'22'I I"E 391.17' L80 N16*37'49"W 225.00' L81 N7`3°22' 1 ! "E 2028.71' L82 S16'57'49"E 283.00' L83 N73'22'1 l"E 283.00' L84 N16°37'49"W 283.00' L85 N7,3'22'11 "E 957.76' L86 S16'37'49"E 754.15' L87 S68'58'51 "W 3161.86' L88 N87'01 '26"W 126.59' L89 S33'46'37"W 50.00' L90 S56' 13'25"E 1287.57' L91 S21'21'57"E 297.87' L92 S,38'35'53"E 160.5,3' L93 S84'01 '58"E 205.69' L94 S66'05'05"E 742.19' L95 N73'01 '33"E 552.40' L96 S66'05'05"E 545.80' L97 S72'21 '54"E 719.17' L98 N16'42'47"E 101.80' L99 N18'34'I I"W 154.68' LIO0 N71'25'49"£ 1`30.56' LI01 N21'55'OO"E 167.64' L102 N40'36'32"E 884.29' LIO,3 N49'23'23"W 1514.00' L104 N22*57'3,3"W 55.54' L105 N22'57'53"W 2`38.79' CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA C1 7`3.58 ,3000.00 01'24'19" C2 799.79 4200.00 10'54',38" C3 345.2,' 1200.00 16'29'04" C4 167.12 1200.00 07'58'45" C5 480.90 1200.00 22'57'41~ C6 7,30.05 1200.00 34'51 '27" C7 189.48 630.0(3 17'13'56" C6 110.08 1000.0(3 6'18'25" C9 501.22 1600.00 17'56'55" C 10 856.40 1200.00 40'53'24" C11 856.40 1200.00 40'53'24" C12 4,38.49 4000.0( 6'16'51" C13 368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" C14 615.80 1000.00 35'16'58" C15 864.18 1000.00 49'30'49" C16 ,326.24 1000.00 18'41'32" C17 922.6(3 2000,00 26'25'50" ATFACHMENT NO. 4 PLAN FOR PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0370 ANNEXATION OF THE REDHAWK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND A PORTION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 10 0 0 0 ATFACHMENT NO. 5 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE REDHAWK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND A PORTION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA R:\BROWNS\annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 11 Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Temecula and County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 (909) 694-6444 August4,2003 SRHA Job #1022 TANLEY 11661 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 306 Los Angeles, California 90049-$111 310.820,2680, 310,820.8241 -fax www.stanleyrhoffman.com CONTENTS Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Overview and Summary ........................................................................... Overview of City of Tcmccu]a Fiscal Analysis ....................................................... Pending Sa]cs Tax Sharing Agrecrncnt Between City and County .......................... Overview of County of Riverside Fiscal Analysis ................................................... Summary of City Fiscal Analysis ............................................................................. 2 Summary of County Fiscal Factors .......................................................................... 2 Organization of Report ............................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 City of Temecula Fiscal Analysis ............................................................ 4 Land Development ................................................................................................... 4 Estimated Residential Value .................................................................................... 4 Population and Employment .................................................................................... 4 Property Tax Allocation .......................................................................................... 6 Public Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 6 City of Temecula Fiscal Analysis ............................................................................ 7 Community Services District Revenues .................................................................. 8 Other Fiscal Assumptions ........................................................................................ 8 Sales Tax Estimate for 67-Acre Commercial Site ................................................... 8 Chapter 3 County of Riverside Fiscal Analysis ..................................................... 14 3, l Project Description £or County Fiscal Analysis ..................................................... ] 4 3.2 County Fiscal knpacts ............................................................................................ ] 7 3.2.1 Prior to Annexation ......................................................................................... ]7 3.2.2 Upon Annexation .......................................................................................... :_19 3.3 County Fiscal Assumptions ................................................................................... 21 3.3.1 Revenue Assumptions ...................................................................................... 22 3.3.2 Cost Assumptions ............................................................................................ 26 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. i Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLES 2-! Existing and Projected Assessed Valuation ......................................................................... 2-2 Al]ocatiun o£RivemJde County's ?rop¢~ty Tax Rate ......................................................... 6 2-3 Public Road ]n~astmctu~e .................................................................................................. 7 2-4 Summary of Recurring Revenues and Costs ...................................................................... 10 2-5 General Fund Revenue Factors .......................................................................................... 11 2-6 General Fund Cost Factors ................................................................................................. 12 2-7 Estimated Sales Tax Revenues for 67-Acre Site ............................................................... 13 3-1 County of Riverside, Land Use and Market Summary ...................................................... 15 3-2 Riverside County General Fund, Recurring Revenues and Costs .......................................................................................... 18 3-3 Riverside County, 2003 Population and Employment Distribution .................................. 22 3-4 Riverside County General Fund, Summary of General Fund Revenue Factors ..................................................................... 23 3-5 Property Tax Allocations, Prior To and Upon Annexation to City of Temecula ......................................................... 23 3-6 Riverside County General Fund, Summary of General Fund Net Cost Factors ..................................................................... 27 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. ii Redhawk Annexation ,4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Chapter t Overview and Summary 1.1 Overview of City of Temecula Fiscal Analysis This memorandum sununarizes the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation o f t he R ed.hawk community area into the City of Temecula under two altematives: 1. Alternative 1 -- Annexation of existing development with 2,436 developed residential parcels and 776 vacant parcels plus a 3.0-acre commercial site and a 67-acre commercial site (44 commercial acres currently estimated to be developed or under-construction). 2. Alternative 2 -- Annexation with full development of 3,212 residential parcels and the 3.0- acre and 67-acre commercial sites. For this analysis, the City of Temecula's fiscal impact model was calibrated with the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget. The fiscal factors were updated for the annexation analysis based on discussions with the City's Finance Department, Planning, Community Services and Public Works staff. 1.2 Pending Sales Tax Sharing Agreement Between City and County Under the earlier Vail Ranch Annexation Agreement, the County rebates 50 percent of the sales tax generated from the 67-acre site to the City. Another sales tax sharing agreement is pending between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. Upon annexation, the City would rebate the County 50 percent of the sales tax generated by the 67-acre site until a limit of $3,000,000 is reached. The City would receive the other 50 percent. When the limit of $3,000,000 is reached, then the County would not receive any more sales tax revenues and 100 percent would accrue to the City of Temecula. Currently, 44 acres of the 67-acre site is either developed or under construction. 1.3 Overview of County of Riverside Fiscal Analysis A fiscal analysis was also prepared for the County of Riverside's General Fund prior to annexation and under future build-out for the following two conditions after annexation: 1. Assuming that the 50 percent sales tax sharing agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula for the 67-acre commercial site is operational; and, 2. Assuming that the 50 percent sales tax sharing agreement limit of $3,000,000 is reached whereupon the County ceases to receive any sales tax revenues from the 67-acre site and 100 percent of the sales tax generated then accrues to the City of Temecula. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1 Redhawk.~nnexation/lrea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside 1.4 Summary of City Fiscal Analysis Alternative 1.' Alternative 1, assuming annexation of the existing development, is estimated to generate a net annual recurring steady state fiscal surplus of $64,442, or a revenue-cost ratio of 1.03. This is before the proposed sales tax sharing arrangement where 50 percent of the sales tax generated by the 67-acre site, or an estimated $517,880 per year would be received by Riverside County up to a maximum of $3,000,000. At this rate, it would take approximately 5.8 years to payoffthe $3,000,000 amount. Prior to achieving the steady state fiscal conditions, it is assumed that the citywide planning and general government/overhead functions would be phased in on a marginal basis and thereby assist in offsetting the sales tax sharing payment. Alternative 2. Alternative 2 presents the projected case at full build-out where the 67-acre and the 3- acre commercial sites are fully developed and all of the 3,212 residential units are developed. Under this alternative, the projected annual recurring steady state fiscal surplus increases to $269,339, or a revenue-cost ratio of 1.10. Again, this is before the proposed sales tax sharing arrangement where 50 percent of the sales tax generated by the 67-acre site, or an estimated $788,590 per year, would be received by Riverside County up to a maximum of $3,000,000. At this rate, it would take approximately 3.8 years to payoff the $3,000,000 amount. Again, it is assumed that the citywide planning and general government/overhead functions would be phased in on a marginal basis and thereby assist in offsetting the sales tax sharing payment. 1.5 Summary of County Fiscal Analysis Prior to Annexation. Prior to annexation and assuming full build-out of Redhawk to the City of Temecula, a net annual recurring surplus of $944.0 thousand is projected to the County General Fund. The projected surplus is based on recurring revenues of $3.43 million and recurring costs projected at $2.49 million resulting in a revenue-cost ratio of 1.38. Property tax is the largest projected revenue source at about 35.2 percent of total General Fund revenues followed by sales and use tax at 23.0 pement. The third largest revenue source is motor vehicle license fees at 18.5 percent. Together, these three sources represent about 77 percent of the total revenues. Upon Annexation with Sales Tax Sharing. Upon annexation and with the proposed sales tax sharing agreement, the County General Fund is projected to receive a net annual surplus of $895,144. This is based on projected recurring revenues of $2,402,348 and recurring costs of $1,507,203. The sales tax sharing represents about $788,590 per year up to a maximum of $3,000,000. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 2 Redhawk Annexation .4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Upon Annexation without Sales Tax Sharing. Upon annexation at full build-out and assuming that the $3,000,000 limit for sales tax sharing has been reached, the County General Fund is projected to receive a net annual surplus of $106,554. This is based on projected recurring revenues of $1,613,758 and recurring costs of $1,507,203. The two major sources of revenues under the post- sales tax sharing agreement are property taxes at 56 percent of total General Fund revenues and motor vehicle license fees at 39 percent. 1.$ Organization of Report Chapter 2 presents the fiscal analysis for the City of Temecula along with the land development statistics and key assumptions. Chapter 3 presents the fiscal analysis for the County of Riverside General Fund prior to and post-annexation along with the land development statistics and key assumptions. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 3 Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Chapter 2 City of Temecula Fiscal Analysis 2.1 Land Development The proposed Redhawk annexation area is comprised off · A total of 3,212 residential units at build-out. · 2,436 developed residential parcels with an estimated average property value (2003) of $240,474 per unit based on Riverside County's Auditor-Controller data. · 776 undeveloped (vacant) parcels with an estimated average land value (2003) of $72,424 per parcel. · 3.0 acres of land zoned for neighborhood retail development - 30,000 sq. ft. of total estimated leasable space 67.0 acres of land zoned for community retail development - 670,000 sq. ft. of total estimated leasable space with 44 acres, or 440,000 sq. ft. of space, either currently developed or under construction. 2.2 Estimated Residential Value Table 2-1 provides an estimate of the assessed valuation for the residential property in the annexation area. Estimated valuations from 2001 for existing units were adjusted by 3% annually (2% under the Proposition 13 limitation plus 1% for turnover). The total estimated residential assessed valuation in 2003 under Alternative 1 is $641,995,688 for 2,436 developed parcels and 776 vacant parcels. For Alternative 2, an average assessed value of $282,000 was estimated per unit for the 766 currently undeveloped parcels. This is based on estimated average prices of homes currently be'mg sold in Zip code 92592 that contains the Redhawk development. This yields as estimated total residential property valuation of $804,626,664 at full development. 2.3 Population and Employment Population in the proposed annexed area is based on a factor of 2.85 persons per residential unit, resulting in an estimated current population of 6,943 persons in the Redhawk project area under Alternative 1. For Alternative 2, with the addition of 766 homes, the population is estimated to increase to 9,154. Existing retail employment is estimated at 940. This includes the 3.0-acre commercial site, representing an estimated 30,000 square feet of retail space and an estimated employment of 60 plus Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 4 Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside 440,000 square feet and an estimated employment of 880 for the 67-acre site. This estimate is based on 44 acres currently either developed or under construction on the 67-acre site. Retail employment is estimated using an average factor of 500 square feet per retail employee. At full development there is an estimated retail employment of 1,400. Again, this is based on 60 employees at the 3-acre site plus 1,340 employees at the 67-acre commercial site. Full development of the 67-acre site is estimated to contain 670,000 square feet of retail space or 1,340 employees at 500 square feet per retail employee. Table 2-1 Redhawk Annexation Area Existing and Projected Assessed Valuation Valuation Category 2003 1. Estimated Property Value - Existinfl Residential Developed Units 2,436 Estimated Value per Unit~ $240,474 Estimated Valuation $585,794,664 Estimated Property Value -- Vacant Lots Undeveloped Units Estimated Value per Parcel~ Estimated Valuation 776 $72,424 $56,201,024 Total Estimated Existinfl Residential Valuation $641,995,688 2. Estimated Property Value -- Future Residential Future Developed Units Estimated Value per Unit~ Estimated Valuation 776 $282,000 $218,832,000 Total Estimated Future Residential Valuation $804,626,664 1. Based on valuations from the 2001 Riverside County assessor's data base and increased by 3% annually to 2003. 2. Based on recent sales data for Zipcode 92592 that includes the Redhawk development. 3. Includes the sum of the valuation for the 2,436 existing developed units plus the future development of 766 units. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Riverside County Auditor-Controller's Assessor Data Base Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 5 Redhawk ~4nnexation ~4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside 2.4 Property Tax Allocation As shown in Table 2-2, the City General Fund will receive 25 percent of the current allocation of the County's General Fund property tax rate, which is equal to 3.28% of the 1.0% basic property tax levy. The City's share of property tax revenues is calculated for each Tax Rate Area (TRA). The County's General Fund Tax Rate for each TRA is multiplied by the ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) retention factor to determine the County's share of the property tax revenues. The County's share of the property tax revenues is then multiplied by 25 percent to determine the City's distribution as shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 Redhawk Annexation Area Allocation of Riverside County's Property Tax Rate TRA 94101 92102 94130 County General County ERAF CountySham Fund Property Retention of Property Tax Parcels Tax Rate Factor ~ Revenues 1,254 0.2548 0.507 0.1292 23 0.2710 0.507 0.1374 423 0.2699 0.507 0.1368 Wei~lhted Rate 0.2588 0.507 0.1312 City Share of Property Tax - Annexed Area 2 City Share of Property Tax Rate - Annexed Area 25% 0.0328 Notes: I. The ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) shift results in the county retaining approximately 50.7% of the initial tax rate with the remainder going to the public schools. 2. Upon annexation, the City/County properly tax transfer agreement stipulates that the City only racaives 25% of the County's property tax rate in the unincorporated area, while the County retains the remaining 75%. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Riverside County Auditor-Controller's Assessor Data Base 2.5 Public Infrastructure Table 2-3 provides a summary of the estimated arterial, major, collector and local mad lane miles for the project. The proposed annexation area contains an estimated total of 22.14 lineal miles of these roads and 50.52 lane miles. Local serving roads are estimated at 52.42 lineal feet per parcel or 31.89 lane miles at build-out. All local roads are assumed to be two lanes. Six new traffic signals are also estimated to be annexed into the City. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 6 Redhawk Annexation ~rea Fiscal Impact,4nalysis August 2003 City of Ternecula and County of Riverside Road Type Length urban arteda196' 720.0 major 80' 15,020.1 residential collector 68' 13,297.6 industrial collector 86' 3,671.5 residential 40' 84,199.2 Table 2-3 Redhawk Annexation Area Public Road Infrastructure I Incremental I Storm Segment Lanes Curbs Signals Drain City Lane Curb Lineal Factor Share Miles Miles Miles 6 4 2.00 0.80 100% 0.82 0.55 0.14 4 2 2.00 0.80 100% 11.38 5.69 2.84 2 2 0.80 100% 5.04 5.04 2.52 2 2 2.00 0.80 100% 1.39 1.39 0.70 2 2 0.80 100% 31.89 31.89 15.95 116,908.4 16 12 6 50.52 44.56 22.14 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Temecula, Geographic Information Systems 2.6 City of Temecula Fiscal Analysis The fiscal analysis is presented in Table 2-4 for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1, assuming annexation of the existing development, is estimated to generate a net annual recurring steady state fiscal surplus of $64,442, or a revenue-cost ratio of 1.03. This is before the proposed sales tax sharing arrangement where 50 pement of the sales tax generated by the 67-acre site, or an estimated $517,880 annually as shown at the bottom of Table 2-4, would be received by Riverside County up to a maximum of $3,000,000. At this rate, it would take approximately 5.8 years to payoffthc $3,000,000 amount. Prior to achieving the steady state fiscal conditions, it is assumed that the citywide planning and general government/overhead functions would be phased in on a marginal basis and thereby assist in offsetting the sales tax sharing payment. Alternative 2 presents the projected case at full build-out where the 67-acre and the 3-acre commercial sites are fully developed and all of the 3,212 residential units are developed. Under this altemative, the projected annual steady state fiscal surplus increases to $269,339, or a revenue-cost ratio of 1.10. Again, this is before the proposed sales tax sharing arrangement where 50 pement of the sales tax generated by the 67-acre site, or an estimated $788,590 annually as shown at the bottom of Table 2-4, would be received by Riverside County up to a maximum of $3,000,000. At this rate, it would take approximately 3.8 years to payoff the $3,000,000 amount. Again, it is assumed that the citywide plarm/ng and general government/overhead functions would be phased in on a marginal basis and thereby assist in offsetting the sales tax sharing payment. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 7 Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Alter sales taxes, representing 46.0 percent to almost 50 percent of the projected revenues, the next major source of revenue is the Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu fee of $344,234 to $453,855 representing about 14.4 percent to 15.3 percent of the total revenues. This is followed by property taxes at $236,01 lto $301,802. This represents another 10.0 percent of total revenues. The other revenue sources combined represent about 26.0 to 28.0 percent of total revenues. The major costs are Police Protection at $887,408 to $1,180,165, or about 45.0 percent of total costs and net Fire Protection at $259,034 to $345,443, or about 13.0 percent. The combined Public Works costs are estimated to range from $227,316 to $279,271, or about 11.0 percent. These three cost categories represent about 70 percent of the public cost budget. 2.7 Community Services District Revenues The Temecula Community Services District (CSD) provides for thc maintenance of parks and recreation, arterial street lighting and medians, residential street lighting and residential refuse collection and recycling in Redhawk. Charges are levied on a per parcel basis for residential parcels and on an EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit) basis for non-residential parcels. The residential and non-residential parcels will also cover perimeter landscaping separately through a Homeowners' Association rather than through the CSD. The estimated annual revenues generated from these parcel charges range from $655,294 for Alternative 1 to $867,097 for Alternative 2 and are considered adequate to pay for the required maintenance costs. 2.8 Other Fiscal Assumptions Revenue and cost assumptions for the fiscal model were derived from the City's fiscal year 2003- 2004 budget. The revenue and cost assumptions and factors are summarized in Tables 2-5 and 2-6, respectively. Table 2-5 highlights the revenue factors for property and sales taxes, business license tax, franchise fees, motor vehicle license taxes, State gasoline taxes, fines and forfeitures and CSD parcel charges. Table 2-6 highlights the cost factors for police and fire protection, public works and community services, non-fee supported planning costs and citywide overhead. 2.9 Sales Tax Estimate for 67-Acre Commercial Site A sales tax estimate has been prepared for the 67-acre commercial site as presented in Table 2-7 with the assistance of Hinderliter de Llamas, the City's sales tax consultant. The estimate is based on Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 8 Redhawk,4nnexation ~4rea Fiscallmpact~4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside about developed 44 acres that includes both existing establishments and those just opened or under construction, such as: Wal-Mart, Kohls, Ross and Famous Footwear. Where newer stores or those under construction do not have a year of actual retail sales performance data, then countywide averages for theses same stores are used. This also includes retail sales at the existing golf course clubhouse. The estimated sales tax of $941,000 over the 44 acres yields an estimated taxable sales per square foot of $214 based on about 10,000 retail square feet per acre or a floor area ratio of about 23 percent. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 9 Redhawk,~nnexation ,~rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLE 2-4 REDHAWK ANNEXATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF RECURRING REVENUES AND COSTS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Existing Development Buildout Development Recurring Revenues: Amount % Amount % Property tax $236,011 10.5% $301,802 9.6% Transfer tax: New Development ($0) 0.0% $0 0.0% Turnover $31,264 1.4% $39,895 1.3% Sales/Use Tax: 3 Acre Site $52,800 2.3% $52,800 1.7% Sales/Use Tax: 67 Acre Site~ $1,035,760 46.0% $1,577,180 49.9% Transient occupancy tax $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Business License tax $6,082 0.3% $9,058 0.3% Franchises $140,449 6.2% $186,241 5.9% Motor vehicle in-lieu $344,234 15.3% $453,855 14.4% State gasoline tax $136,499 6.1% $179,968 5.7% Measure A sales tax (capital projects) $200,097 8.9% $263,818 8.4% Fines and forfeitures $38,390 . 1.7% $51,398 1.6% Interest $29,716 1.320% $41,927 1.3% Other $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Subtotal $2~251,302 100.0% $3,157,942 100.0% Net of Meaxure A sales tax (capital projects) $200,097 $263,818 Total Revenues $2,051,205 $2,894,124 Recurrlnn Costs: Police protection $887,408 44.7% 1,180,165 45.0% Net fire cost $259,034 13.0% 345,443 13.2% Animal control $9,790 0.5% 16,111 0.6% Public Works - Streets $199,531 10.0% 244,796 9.3% Public Works - Other $3,430 0.2% 4,553 0.2% Public Works - Admin. $24,355 1.2% 29,922 1.1% Community Services: $196,131 9.9% 262,085 10.0% Planning (Non-Fee Supported) $169,233 8.5% 227,082 8.7% Citywide overhead $237,852 12.0% 314,t 81 12.0% Total Costs $1,986,%3 100.0% $2,624,339 100.0% Net Recurring Fiscal Impact $64,442 $269,785 Recurring Revenue~Cost Ratio 1.03 1.10 Sales Tax Sharing Agreement Analysis Retail Sales Tax Sharing with Riverside County 50% Sales Tax To County for 67 Acre Site $517,880 Payoff Amount to Riverside County $3,000,000 Years to Achieve Payoff 5.8 50% $788,590 $3,000,000 3.8 Note: 1. Assumes 50% of sales tax goes to Pdverside County until $3,0OO,OOO payoff limit is reached. 2. These are net General Fund costs that are not covered by the CSD parcel ehasge revenues. 3. This scenario assumes that all vacant parcel are developed at the average value of $282,000. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Temecula Fiscal Model Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 10 Redhawk,4nnexation .4rea Fiscallmpact,4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLE 2-5 REDHAWK ANNEXATION ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND REVENUE FACTORS ** POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ** 75,014 TEMECULA POPULATION FOR CALCULATING MULTIPLIERS (DOF -2003) 36,307 TEMECULA EMPLOYMENT FOR CALCULATING MULTIPLIERS (City - 2003) ** LOCAL TAXES ** 1.0% 3.28% 6.59% $O.OOO55 0.80 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.33 5.92 PROPERTY TAX RATE, TOTAL TEMECULA GENERAL FUND STRUCTURAL FIRE TAX PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RATE PER $1 OF AV CONSIDERATION RATE (for transfer tax) TURNOVER RATES--RESIDENTIAL --HOTEL --OFFICE --RETAIL --INDUSTRIAL & other non-residential TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE RATIO OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME TO HOUSING VALUE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX PER EMPLOYEE ** FRANCHISE FEES ** 4.00 GAS FRANCHISE-Per EDU 22.18 ELECTRICITY FRANCHISE--Per EDU 11.64 SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE--Per EDU 17.31 CABLE TV FRANCHISE--Per DU ** REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES ** $4.42 STATE GASOLINE TAX-2106 PER CAPITA $6.54 STATE GASOLINE TAX-2105 PER CAPITA $8.70 STATE GASOLINE TAX-2107 PER CAPITA $49.58 MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES PER CAPITA $24.13 MEASURE A PER CAPITA (for capital projects) ** OTHER REVENUES ** $4.87 FINES AND FORFEITURES per capita and employee 1.26% INTEREST FACTOR as % ofn~ General Fund revenues **CSD PARCEL CHARGES** -- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -- $63.44 CITYWIDE PARKS/RECREATION $0.00 A. ART'L STR~ LTG./MED. (included under Citywide factor) $25.68 B. RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING $0.00 C. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (covered by HOA) $172.54 D. RES. REFUSE/RECYCLING - MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -- $47.58 CITYWIDE PARKS/REC. (75% of Single Family rate) $0.00 A. ART'L STR. LTG./MED. (included under Citywide factor) -- NON-RESIDENTIAL PER ACRE -- (Developed) $380.64 CITYWIDE PARKS/REC. (~ 6 edu per acre and $63.44 per edu) $0.00 A. ART'L STR. LTG./MED. (included under Citywide factor) Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Temecula Fiscal Model - August 2003 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 11 Redhawk dnnexation drea Fiscal Impact dnalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLE 2-6 REDHAWK ANNEXATION ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND COST FACTORS ** POLICE PROTECTION $119.25 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER CAPITA $63.25 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER E1VI~LOYEE ** FIRE PROTECTION ** $178.17 FIRE PROTECTION PER RESIDENTIAL EDU $178.17 FIRE PROTECTION PER NON-RESIDENTIAL EDU $81.19 FIRE PROTECTION CREDIT PER EDU ** ANIMAL CONTROL ** $1.76 ANIMAL CONTROL COST PER CAPITA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT - CITYWIDE SERVICES ** $72.16 COMMUNITY SERVICES COST PER EDU ** PUBLIC WORKS/PARK MAINTENANCE ** $3,978.00 $795.60 $5,610.00 $918.00 $1,530.00 $7,140.00 $204.00 12.0% PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PER LANE MILE STREET SWEEPING PER CURB MILE- ALL STREETS TRAFFIC SIGNAL O & M PER INTERSECTION STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE PER LINEAL MILE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PER BRIDGE PARK MAINTENANCE PER ACRE OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PER ACRE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD ** PLANNING DEPARTMENT ** $21.04 PLANNING COST PER CAPITA (non-fee supported) $24.63 PLANNING COST PER EMPLOYEE (non-fee supported) ** CITYW1DE OVERHEAD ** 13.6% CITYWIDE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ADMIN. RATE ** EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT FACTORS ** 1.0 per single family residential unit 0.8 per multi family residential unit 0.5 per 1,000 non-residential sq. R. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Temecula Fiscal Model - August 2003 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 12 Redhawk,4nnexation ~4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLE 2-7 REDHAWK ANNEXATION AREA ESTIMATED SALES TAX REVENUES FOR 67-ACRE SITE Retail Establishments Estimate~1 Sales Tax Per Year Apparel Stores~ $90,000 General Merchandise~ 775,500 Eating & Drinking 32,000 Other~ 43,500 TOTAL3 $941,000 I. Existing estimated sales tax revenue for 67-acre site is based on both existing establishments and those just opened or underconstruction such as: Wal-Mart, Kohls, Ross and Famous Footwear. 2. Includes taxable sales of service station, golf course and other smaller, retail establishments. 3. An estimated 44 acres of the 67-acre site is developed or underconstruction. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, lnc. Hinderliter de Llamas Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 13 Redhawk ~4nnexation ,4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Chapter 3 County of Riverside Fiscal Analysis This chapter presents the fiscal impact analysis of the Redhawk area that is currently located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Three fiscal impacts are projected for the following Alternatives: · Prior to Annexation Alternative. This Alternative projects fiscal impacts to Riverside County prior to annexation of the Redhawk area to the City of Temecula. Under the Vail Ranch Annexation Agreement, the County rebates 50 percent of the sales tax generated t~om the 67-acre site to the City. Recurring revenues and costs are projected to the County General Fund. · Upon Annexation Alternative. This Alternative assumes the Redhawk area will be annexed to the City of Temecula. - With Sales Tax Sharing. This annexation Alternative projects the fiscal impacts to the Riverside County General Fund with a sales tax sharing agreement assuming the County receives 50 percent of the sales tax projected for the 67-acre commercial retail parcel included in the project until the sum reaches $3,000,000. - Without Sales Tax Sharing. This annexation Alternative projects fiscal impacts to the Riverside County General Fund after the $3,000,000 sales tax amount is reached, and the City of Temecula receives 100 percent of the projected sales tax. Section 3.1 presents the land use and market summary for County fiscal analysis of the Redhawk area. Section 3.2 presents the fiscal impacts to the Riverside County General Fund prior to and upon annexation of Redhawk to the City of Temecula. The fiscal assumptions for the Riverside County analysis are presented in Section 3.3. 3.1 Project Description for County Fiscal Analysis The land use and market summary for the Redhawk annexation area is presented in Table 3-1. The table presents the summary prior to annexation and upon annexation with the sales tax sharing alternatives. The entire Redhawk study area is proposed for annexation to the City of Temecula. Units and Square Feet. As shown in Panel A of Table 3-1, a total of 3,212 single-family residential units are included in the Redhawk annexation area. Of the total units, 2,436 units are existing and 776 residential units are planned for future development. Two commercial parcels with a total of 700,000 square feet are planned for Redhawk: 1) A 3-acre parcel with 30,000 square feet of neighborhood retail, and 2) A 67-aere parcel with 670,000 square feet of community retail. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 14 RedhawkAnnexation Area Fiscal lmpact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLE 3-1 REDHAWK ANNEXATION AREA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LAND USE AND MARKET SUMMARY (in Constant 2003 Dollam) A. UNITS AND SQUARE FEET Slnule Family Residential Units Existing Development Future Development Total Residential Units Commercial Retail Square Feet 3-Acre Parcel (Neighborhood) 67-Acm Parcel (Community) Total Commemial Retail Square Feet B. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Pouulation ({~2.85 careens eer unltt Emolovment (~ 500 square feet per employee) C. ASSESSED VALUATION Slnete Family Residential Units Existing Development (@ $240,474 per unit) Future Development (@ $282,000 per unit) Total Residential Valuation Commercial Retail ¢~ $165 oer bulldthg square foot)z Prior to Annexation Upon Annexations With Sales Tax Without Sales Tax I Shar n~l Sharing 2,436 0 0 3,212 0 0 30,000 ~70,000 700,000 9,154 0 0 1,400 0 0 $585,794,664 $585,794,664 $585,794,664 218.832.000 218.832.000 218.832.000 $804,626,664 $804,626,664 $804,626,664 $115,500,000 $115,500,000 $115,500,000 Total Assessed Valuation D. PROPERTY TAXa $920,126,664 $920,126,664 $920,126,664 $1,207,20~ $905,405 $905,405 E. COMMERCIAL RETAIL TAXABLE SALES 3-Acre Parcel (Neighborhood) (@ $160 per square foot) $4,800,000 $0 67-Acm Parcel (Communily) (@ $214 per square foot? 143.380.000 71.690.000 Total Commercial Retail Taxable Sales $148,180,000 $71,690,000 F. SALES AND USE TAX~ 3-Acre Pamel (Neighborhood) 67-Acre Pamel (Community) - 50% to the Counly 67-Acre Pamel (Community). 50% to the City Totsl Sales and Use Tax 0 o $0 $52,800 $0 $0 788,590 788,590 $0 $1,629,980 $788,590 $0 Notes: 1. Two scanafios are presented upon annexation of the Redbawk area: 1) With a sales tax sharing agreement assuming the Counly receives 50 pement of the sales and use tax projected for the 67-acre oommunity retail parcel until the sum reaches $3,000,000. 2) After the $3,000,000 cap is reached, the City receives 100 percent of the sahes tax from the 67-acre parcel. 2. Commercial retail is valued at a total of $165 per building square foot and includes land, building and unsecured valuatio 3. The fiscal analysis assumes that upon annexation 25 pement of the current allocation of 13.12 percent of the basic one pement property tax levy to the County General Fund will shift to the City of Temecula General Fund. 4. Sales tax is projected at I percent of taxable sa~es and use tax is projected at 10 pement of sales tax. Currently the Counly bas a tax sharing agreement to rebate to the City 50 pement of the sales tax generated by the 67-acre parcel. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Temecula County of Riverside Auditor Controller Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 15 RedhawkAnnexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Population and Employment. Redhawk area population is estimated at 9,154 based on 2.85 persons per housing unit. Employment associated with the Redhawk study area is estimated at 1,400 based on 500 square feet per employee. Assessed Valuation. As shown in Panel C of Table 3-1, the total assessed valuation for Redhawk is estimated at $920.13 million. Residential valuation is estimated at $804.63 million and includes $585.79 million for the existing residential units ($240,474 per unit) and $218.82 million for the future residential units ($282,000 per unit). Commercial valuation is estimated at $115.50 million based on a valuation of $165 p er square foot ineluding 1 and value, building constmction a nd unsecured valuation. Property Tax. Projected property tax to the County of Riverside is based on the total project assessed valuation and the property tax allocation to the County General Fund for the Tax Rate Areas for the Redhawk area. Prior to annexation, property tax to the County General Fund is projected at 13.12 percent of the basic one percent levy, or $1.21 million. Upon annexation 25 percent of the property tax allocation will shift to the City and the County General Fund will continue to receive property tax. Upon annexation, the County General Fund is projected to receive property tax at 9.84 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy, or $905.4 thousand. Commercial Retail Taxable Sales. Total taxable sales for the commercial development in the Redhawk area are projected at $148.18 million prior to annexation. As shown in Panel E of Table 3- 1, taxable sales for the 3-acre neighborhood parcel are projected to total $4.80 million, assuming $160 of taxable sales per square foot for the 30,000 square feet of neighborhood uses. Taxable sales for the 67-acre square foot parcel (670,000 square feet) are projected at $143.38 million, assuming $214 taxable sales per square foot for the community retail uses. Prior to annexation, County rebates 50 percent of the sales tax generated from the 67-aere site to the City. Upon annexation with the tax sharing agreement, 5 0 percent o f t he taxable s ales for t he 6 7-acre parcel ($71.69 million) are allocated to the County until the County receives a total of $3.00 million in sales tax from the parcel. After the $3.00 million cap is reached, no taxable sales are projected for the County. Sales and Use Tax. T oral sales and use tax are projected at $1.63 million from the 67-acre commercial site prior to annexation. As shown in Panel F of Table 3-1, sales and use tax to the County is projected at $788.6 thousand with the Vail Ranch sales tax sharing agreement. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 16 Redhawk.4nnexation .4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside 3.2 County Fiscal Impacts Table 3-2 presents the recurring revenues and costs to the Riverside County General Fund prior to and upon annexation of Redhawk to the City of Temecula. The County General Fund receives property tax at an average rate of 13.12 percent of the basic one percent levy prior to annexation; upon annexation, the estimated average rate is 9.84 percent of the basic one percent levy. Upon annexation the County also receives property transfer tax, motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues, property tax administration revenues. Upon annexation with the property tax agreement, the County will also receive sales and use tax for the 67-acre parcel in the project until a $3.00 million cap is reached. Prior to annexation, the County provides municipal-type services, such as Sheriff patrol and development services to the unincorporated Redhawk area, as well as countywide services that are provided to all County residents within incorporated and unincorporated areas. Upon annexation of the Redhawk area to the City of Temecula, the County General Fund provides only countywide services to Redhawk. 3.2.t Prior To Annexation Prior to annexation of Redhawk to the City ofTemecula, a recurring surplus of $944.0 thousand is projected to the County General Fund. T he projected surplus i s based o n r ecun*ing revenues projected at $3.43 million and recurring costs projected at $2.49 million resulting in a revenue/cost ratio of 1.38. Count~ General Fund Recurring Revenues Prior to Annexation. As Table 3-1 indicates, the largest projected revenue source to the County General Fund prior to annexation of Redhawk is property tax at $1.21 million, about 35.2 percent of total recurring revenues. The second largest recurring revenue source is sales and use tax, projected at $788.6 thousand and 23.0 percent of total projected recurring revenues prior to annexation. This is followed by the third largest revenue source, motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues at $633.3 thousand, or 18.5 percent of recurring revenues. These three revenue sources represent approximately 76.7 percent of total projected recurring revenues to the County General Fund fi.om Redhawk prior to annexation. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 17 Redhawk~tnnexation ,4rea Fiscallmpact,4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside TABLE 3°2 REDHAWK ANNEXATION AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL FUND RECURRING REVENUES AND COSTS (In Constant 2003 Dollars) Prior to Annexation~ Amount UponAnnexaUon= With Without Sales Tax Sales Tax Sharing Shadng Percent of Total Upon AnnexaBon= Prior With I Without to Sales Tax Sales Tax Recurrlne Revenues Property tax $1,207,206 $905,405 $905,405 35.2% 37.7% 56.1% Property transfer tax 94,861 47,431 47,431 2.8% 2.0% 2.9% Sales and use tax: 3-Acre Parcel 52,800 0 0 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% Sales and use tax: 67-Acre Parcel 788,590 788,590 0 23.0% 32.8% 0.0% Franchise taxes 92,426 0 0 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% Animal licenses 15,301 0 0 0.4% 0,0% 0.0% License-CATV 44,235 0 0 1,3% 0.0% 0.0% Vehicle code fines 47,452 0 0 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Other fines, forfeitures and penalties 134,616 0 0 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% Forieitures and penalties 38,024 0 0 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% Motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues 633,332 633,332 633,332 18.5% 26.4% 39.2% Federal in-lieu taxes 5,543 0 0 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Property tax administration 27,590 27,590 27,590 0.8% 1.1% 1.7% Building use and concessions 5,017 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Con~butions from other funds 207,290 0 0 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% Interest on Invested Funds 36.521 0 0_ 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% Total Recurring Revenues $3,430,805 $2,402,348 $1,613,755 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Recurrin(I Costs= Municipal-Type Costs: Sheriff Coroner - patrol $886,979 $0 $0 35.7% 0.0% 0.0% Deveropment services ~2,{}Q:~ _0 0 ~1,7% 0.0% 0.0% Subtotal $979,583 $0 $0 39.4% 0.0% 0.0% Countywide Costs: General government $201,461 $201,461 $201,461 8.1% 13.4% 13.4% Public pretection 796,162 796,162 796,162 32.0% 52.8% 52.8% Health and sanitation 171,298 · 171,298 171,298 6.9% 11.4% 11.4% Public assistance 227,672 227,672 227,672 9.2% 15.1% 15.1% Education, recreation and culture 2,060 2,060 2,060 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Debt service and contingency 1{~,551 108.551 108.551 4.4% 7,2% 7.2% Subtotal $1,507,203 $1,507,203 $1,507,203 60.6% 100.0% 100.0% Total Recurring Costs $2,486,786 $1,507,203 $1,507,203 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Net RecurHn~l Surplus $944,019 $895,144 $106,554 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.38 1.59 1.07 Notes: 1. Currently the County has a tax sharing agreement to rebate to the City 50 percent of the sales tax generated by lhe 67-acre community commercial parcel. 2. Two scenarios are presented upon annexation of the Redhawk area: 1 ) With a sales tax sharing agreement assuming the County receives 50 percent of the sales tax projected for the 67-acre community retail parcel until the sum reaches $3,000,000. 2} After the $3,000,000 cap is reached, the City receives 100 percent of the sales tax from the 67-acre parcel. 3. Municipal costs are for public ser,/ices provided directly to the project, whlre Countywide costs are potentially provided to all residents of the County. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 18 Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside County General Fund Recurring Costs Prior to Annexation. Table 3-1 also presents projected recurring costs to the County General Fund prior to annexation of Redhawk to the City of Temecula. Prior to annexation, annual recurring costs are projected at $2.49 million. Recurring costs to the County of Riverside General Fund prior to annexation include the municipal-type costs of sheriff patrol protection and development senrices. Other costs are considered countywide and are projected both prior to annexation and upon annexation since they are provided to all residents of the County. Sheriff patrol protection costs are projected at $887.0 thousand prior to annexation and account for 35.7 percent of the total recurring annual costs prior to annexation. The next largest projected cost is countywide public protection, projected at $796.2 thousand and 32.0 percent of total projected rectnring costs prior to annexation. Countywide public protection includes district attorney, public defender and other court related operations costs. The third largest cost is public assistance projected at $227.3 thousand and 9.2 percent of total projected recurring costs prior to annexation. Sheriff patrol, public protection and public assistance costs represent 76.9 percent of total projected recurring costs to the County General Fund prior to annexation. Other projected costs to the County General Fund prior to annexation include countywide general government, countywide health and sanitation, countywide debt service and contingency, development services and countywide education, recreation and cultural services. 3.2.2 Upon Annexation Projected impacts to the County General Fund upon annexation are also presented in Table 3-2. Fiscal impacts upon annexation are projected with a tax sharing agreement and without a tax sharing agreement. With Tax Sharing Agreement A recurring surplus of $895.1 thousand is projected to the County General Fund after annexation of Redhawk with a tax sharing agreement between the County and the City of Temecula. Recurring revenues are projected at $2.40 million and recurring costs are projected at $1.51 million upon annexation. This results in a revenue/cost ratio of 1.59. Proiected Recurring Revenues. Projected recurring revenues to the Riverside County General Fund upon annexation with a tax sharing agreement include only property tax, property transfer tax, sales and use tax for the 67-acre parcel, motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues and property tax Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 19 RedhawkAnnexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside administration revenues. Upon annexation, property tax is the largest projected revenue source to the County General Fund projected at $905.4 thousand and representing 37.7 percent of total recurring revenues. The second largest recurring revenue upon annexation is sales and use tax, projected at $788.6 thousand and representing approximately 32.8 percent of total projected recurring revenues. The third largest County General Fund revenue source is motor vehicle in-lieu revenue at $633.3 thousand, or about 26.4 percent of total projected recurring revenues upon annexation of Redhawk to the City of Temecula. Projected Recurring Costs. Table 3-2 also presents projected recurring costs to the County General Fund upon annexation of Redhawk with a tax sharing agreement. After annexation, annual recurring costs are projected at $1.51 million. Recurring costs to the County of Riverside General Fund upon annexation include countywide net operating costs. Police protection and development services to Redhawk will be provided by the City of Temecula upon annexation. The largest projected cost upon annexation is countywide public protection, estimated at $796.2 thousand and 52.8 percent of total recurring costs upon annexation. Public assistance is the next largest countywide cost upon annexation, projected at $227.7 thousand and 15.1 percent of total recurring costs upon annexation. The third largest cost upon annexation is general government, projected at $201.5 thousand and 13.4 percent of total recurring costs. These three costs represent 81.3 percent of total recurring countywide costs upon annexation. Without Tax Sharing Agreement A steady state annual recurring surplus of$106.6 thousand is projected to the County General Fund after annexation of Redhawk without a tax sharing agreement. Recurring revenues are projected at $1.61 million and recurring costs are projected at $1.51 million upon annexation. This results in a revenue/cost ratio of 1.07. Proiected Recurring Revenues. Projected recurring revenues to the Riverside County General Fund upon annexation without a tax sharing agreement include only property tax, property transfer tax, motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues and property tax administration revenues. Upon annexation, property tax is the largest projected revenue source to the County General Fund projected at $905.4 thousand and representing 56.1 percent of total recurring revenues. The second largest recurring revenue upon annexation is motor vehicle in-lieu revenue, projected at $633.3 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 20 Redhawk Annexation ,4rea Fiscal Impact,4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside thousand and representing approximately 39.2 percent of total projected recurring revenues. The third largest County General Fund revenue source is property transfer tax at $47.4 thousand, or about 2.9 percent of total projected recurring revenues upon annexation of Redhawk to the City of Temecula. Proiected Recurring Costs. Table 3-2 also presents projected recurring costs to the County General Fund upon annexation of Redhawk without a tax sharing agreement. After annexation, annual recurring costs are projected at $1.51 million. Recurring costs to the County of Riverside General Fund upon annexation include countywide net operating costs. Police protection and development services to Redhawk will be provided by the City of Temecula upon annexation. The largest projected cost upon annexation is countywide public protection, estimated at $796.2 thousand and 52.8 percent of total recurring costs upon annexation. Public assistance is the next largest countywide cost upon annexation, projected at $227.7 thousand and 15.1 percent nf total recurring costs upon annexation. The third largest cost upon annexation is general government, projected at $201.5 thousand and 13.4 percent of total recurring costs. These three costs represent 81.3 percent of total recurring countywide costs upon annexation. 3.2 County Fiscal Assumptions This section presents the revenue and cost factors used in preparing the Riverside County fiscal analysis of the Redhawk annexation area. The analysis is presented in constant year 2003 dollars and is based on information fxom the following sources: County of Riverside's Fiscal Year 2003-04 Proposed Budget ,, State of California, Department of Finance (DOF), City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2003 · Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), RTP 2001 Projections, 2003 estimates Property tax, property transfer tax, and sales and use tax are projected using the case study method. All other revenue factors and all cost factors are projected based on a per capita or per employee basis using either the total County or unincorporated portion of the population and employment. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 21 Redhawk.4nnexation Area Fiscallmpact~4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Revenues and costs are allocated between population and employment based on the shares of population and employment to the combined population and employment for the appropriate jurisdiction, as shown in Table 3-3. TABLE 3-3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 2003 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION Jurisdiction I P°pulati°n~ I Empl°yment~ I Total A. Total County 1,705,537 584,092 2,289,629 Share of Total3 74.0% 26.0% 100% B. Unincorporated Area Share of Total3 465,753 98,901 564,654 82% 18% 100% Notes: 1. Population estimates are from January 1, 2003 estimates,Califomia Department of Finance (DOF). 2. Employment estimates are for 2003 from SCAG RTP 2001 Projections. 3. The estimates are rounded to the nearest whole percent. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. State of California, Department of Finance (DOF), City/County Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2003 Southern California Association of Govemment (SCAG), RTP 2001 Projections 3.3.1 Revenue Assumptions The revenue factors used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Rexthawk annexation are presented in Table 3-4. Property Tax. Property tax revenues are projected by multiplying 1.0 percent times the tax allocation percentage for each jurisdiction or special district by the assessed valuation of the study area. The fiscal analysis assumes the City of Temecula General Fund will receive 25.0 percent of the existing property tax allocation to Riverside County General Fund upon annexation of the Redhawk Area. The current property tax allocations within the TRAs encompassing the Redhawk area, both prior to and upon annexation are presented in Table 3-5. Upon annexation, about 25.0 percent of the current Riverside County allocation of 13.12 percent will shift to the Temecula General Fund. The County General Fund will receive 9.84 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy upon annexation. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 22 Redhawk Annexation .4rea Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Praperty Tax Property Transfer Tax Sales and Use T~x Transient Lodging Tax Subtotal Other General Fund Revgnpes Franchises Animal Licenses License-CATV Vehicle Code Fines Other Fines, Fon'eitures & Penalti~ Forfeitures and Penalties Interest on Invested Funds Motor Vehicle In-lieu Federal In-Ueu Taxes Property Tax Administration Building Use and Concessions Contribution from Other Funds Subtotal Total TABLE 3-4 REDHAWK ANNEXATION AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL FUND SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE FACTORS (~n Constant 2003 Dollars) Fiscal Year Budget Amount 2003-2004 Dlstrt buflonlDIvlser' S195,070,994 Assessed Valuation 12,000,000 Assessed Valuation 22,500,000 Taxable Sales 1.010.000 Room Receipts $230,580,994 PopulaUon IEmpIoyment Capita IEmpIoyee .Case Study Case Study- ....... Case Study Case Study $4,952,000 Unincorporated Population and Employmen' 82.0% 18.0% $8.72 $9.01 778,510 Unincorporated Population 100.0% 0.0% $1.87 $0.00 2,370,000 Unincorporated Population and Employmen 82.0% 18.0% $4.17 $4.31 2,542,397 Unincorporated Population and Employmen' 82.0% 18.0% $4.48 $4.63 29,296,570 Countywide Population and Employrnent 74.0% 26.0% St 2.71 $13.04 8,275,189 Countywide Popula8on and Employment 74.0% 26.0% $3.59 $3.68 7,948,118 Countywide Population and Employment 74.0% 26.0% $3.45 $3.54 118,000,000 Countywide Population 100.0% 0.0% $69.19 $0.00 1,032,720 Countywide Population 100.0% 0.0% $0.61 $0.00 6,004,434 Countywide Population and Employment 74.0% 26.0% $2.6t $2.67 1,091,890 Countywide Population and Employment 74.0% 26.0% $0.47 $0.49 45.112.671 Countywide Population and Employment 74.0% 26.0% $19.57 $20.08 $227,404,499 $131.23 $61.46 $457,985,493 Notes: 1. The particular category is either generated in unincorporated areas or countywide, as shown. 2. Revenues are allocated between population and employment based on the shares of population and employment to the co~nbined pepulatior and employment for the appropriate jurisdiction. 3. Per capita and per employee factors are derived by dividing the allocated costs by either the population and employment for the appropriate jurisdiction. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc, County of Riverside, FY 2003-04 Proposed Budget State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 County/City Population and Housing Estimates, January 1,2003 Socthem Califomia Association of Governments, Projections 20Of, Riverside County Employment Estimates for 2003 TABLE 3-5 REDHAWK ANNEXATION AREA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATIONS PRIOR TO AND UPON ANNEXATION Description of Fundt General Fund Tax Rate Allocations Prior to Upon Annexations Annexationa County I City of Temecula 0.131200 0.098400 0,032800 Note: 1. Only the property tax allocation for the General Funds are presented in this table. 2. The fiscal analysis assumes that upon annexation, 25 percent of the current allocation of 13.12 percent to the County General Fund will shift to the City of Temecula General Fund, Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Riverside County Auditor Controller's Office Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 23 Redhawk,4nnexation ,4rea Fiscal Impact,4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Property Transfer Tax. Riverside County taxes sales of real property at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of property value. Upon annexation, 50 percent of the property transfer tax is allocated to the County and 50 percent to the City of Temecula. Residential units are estimated to change ownership an average of about 10.0 percent per year, or each home changes owners on the average of once every 10 years. Commercial property is assumed to change ownership an average of about 5 percent per year, or at an average of once every 20 years. Sales Tax. Sales tax revenues are projected at one percent of taxable sales. Use Tax. In addition to sales tax, a use tax factor of 10.0 percent is applied to the sales tax. The use tax factor is derived from two major sources: - A use tax rather than a sales tax is paid on construction materials from residential and non-residential development. This tax is counted in the county where construction takes place, not at the point of sale of materials. - A use tax is also levied on purchases from out-of-state sellers of goods for use in California. The State Board of Equalization assembles the use tax collections into a number of pools. County pools for each county are based on tax proceeds assigned to a county level. A statewide pool is developed for tax proceeds that cannot be assigned to individual counties. These pools of use tax proceeds are then distributed to individual cities and counties on a quarterly basis. The distribution percentages to local jurisdictions for the county pool are calculated on the basis of each city's and county's share of total countywide non-situs based sales tax as a percentage of total point-of-sale sales tax. A similar procedure is used in the allocation of the statewide pool. Transient Lodging Tax. There arc no lodging facilities in the Redhawk area; therefore, this revenue source is not projected. Franchises. Franchise revenues for fiscal year 2003-2004 are estimated at $4.95 million for the unincorporated area of the County. These revenues are allocated 82 percent to population and 18 percent to employment, which represents each components share to the total combined population and employment estimate of 564,654 for the unincorporated area. Franchise revenues are projected at $8.72 per capita and $9.01 per employee based on the following formulas: - $4.95 million times 82% divided by 465,753 = $8.72 per capita - $4.95 million times 18% divided by 98,901 = $9.01 per employee Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 24 Redhawk~lnnexation .,lrea Fiscallmpact~lnalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Animal Licenses. Revenues from animal licenses are projected using a factor of $1.67 per capita and are deteanined by dividing the budget amount of $778.5 thousand by the unincorporated population County population of 465,753. Cable TV Licenses. Revenues from this source are est'unated at $4.17 per capita and $4.31 per employee and are based on 2003-2004 revenues of $2.37 million for the unincorporated County area and are allocated 82 percent to population and 18 percent to employment. The combined population and employment of the unincorporated area is 564,654 (465,753 population and 98,901 employment). The formulas are: - $2.37 million times 82% divided by 465,753 = $4.17 per capita - $2.37 million times 18% divided by 98,901 = $4.31 per employee Vehicle Code Fines. Vehicle code fines in the unincorporated area for fiscal year 2003-2004 are estimated at $2.54 million and are allocated 82 percent to population and 18 percent to employment. Revenues from this source are projected at $4.48 per capita and $4.63 per employee based on the following calculations: - $2.54 million times 82% divided by 465,753 = $4.48 per capita - $2.54 million tunes 18% divided by 98,901 = $4.63 per employee Other Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties. Countywide population and employment of 2,289,629 and the budget amount of $29.30 million determine the method for projecting this revenue source. Revenue factors are estimated at $12.71 per capita and $13.04 per employee based on the following: - $29.30 million times 74% divided by 1,705,537 = $12.71 per capita - $29.30 million times 26% divided by 584,092 = $13.04 per employee Forfeitures and Penalties. Revenue factors from this category are projected based on the total countywide population and employment and revenues of $8.28 million. The per capita factor is $3.59 and the per employee factor is $3.68 based on the following calculations: - $8.23 million times 74% divided by 1,705,537 = $3.59 per capita - $8.23 million times 26% divided by 584,092 = $3.68 per employee Interest on Invested Funds. These revenues are estimated at $3.45 per capita and $3.54 per employee based on the total County population and employment and estimated revenues of $7.95 million. - $7.95 million fanes 74% divided by 1,705,537 = $3.45 per capita - $7.95 million times 26% divided by 584,092 = $3.54 per employee Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 25 Redhawk ~4nnexation ~trea Fiscal Impact ~4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside Motor Vehicle In-lieu. Revenues fi.om this source are projected at $69.19 per capita based on the budget mount of $118.00 million divided by the total Riverside County of 1,705,537. Federal In-lieu Taxes. These revenues are projected at $0.61 per capita and are determined by dividing the County Budget amount of $1.03 million by the total County population of 1,705,537. Property Tax Administration. These revenues are estimated at $2.61 per capita and $2.67 per employee based on the total County population and employment and revenues of $6.00 million. - $6.00 million times 74% divided by 1,705,537 = $2.61 per capita - $6.00 million times 26% divided by 584,092 = $2.67 per employee Building Use and Concessions. Revenues fi:om this source are projected using a factor of $0.47 per capita and $0.49 per employee. This is based on the 2003-04 budget amount of $1.09 million and the total County population and employment. - $1.09 million times 74% divided by 1,705,537 = $0.47 per capita - $1.09 million times 26% divided by 584,092 = $0.49 per employee Contributions from Other Funds. Revenue factors for this category are projected based on the total countywide population and employment and estimated Fiscal Year revenues of $45.11 million. The per capita factor is $19.57 and the per employee factor is $20.08 based on the following calculations: - $45.11 million times 74% divided by 1,705,537 = $19.57 per capita - $45.11 million times 26% divided by 584,092 = $20.08 per employee 3.3.2 Cost Assumptions Ongoing recurring costs to the County of Riverside General Fund include a combination of municipal-type costs and countywide costs, as shown in Table 3-6. Municipal-Type Costs The municipal-type costs include sheriff's patrol and development services. Municipal costs are projected based on the estimated net fiscal year 2003-2004 expenditures for each category and the estimated unincorporated County population and employment. Sheriff Coroner - Patrol. Net expenditm'es for Sheriffpatrol in the unincorporated area for fiscal year 2003-2004 are estimated at nearly $47.52 million and are allocated 82 percent to population and 18 percent to employment. Sheriff patrol costs are projected at $83.67 per capita and $86.49 per employee based on the following calculations: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 26 Redhawk Annexation Area Fiscal Impact Analysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside - $47.52 million times 82% divided by 465,753 = $83.67 per capita - $47.52 million times 18% divided by 98,901 = $86.49 per employee Development Services. Development services net expenditures in the unincorporated area for fiscal year 2003-2004 are estimated at nearly $4.95 million and are allocated 82 percent to population and 18 percent to employment. Development services costs are projected at $8.74 per capita and $9.02 per employee based on the following calculations: - $4.95 million times 82% divided by 465,753 = $8.74 per capita - $4.95 million times 18% divided by 98,901 = $9.02 per employee TABLE 3-6 REDHAWK ANNEXATION AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL FUND SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND NET COST FACTORS (In Constant 2003 Dollars) Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Net CateEIory Expenditures Sheriff Patrol: Unicorporated $47,522,405 Development Services: Unincorporated 4,954,757 General Government: Countywide 48,715,681 Public Protection: Countywide 192,521,574 Health and Sanitation: Countywide 35,461,733 Public Assistance: Countywide 47,132,199 Education, Recreation and Culture: Countywide 498,027 Debt Service and Contingency: Countywide 23.624.081 Total Recurring Costs $400,430,457 Marginal Net CostsI Net Cost Allocationz Non- Residential Residential Cost Factor= Per Per Cap ta Emp oyee $47,522,405 $38,968,372 $8,554,033 $83.67 $86.49 4,954,757 4,069,280 891,856 $8.74 $9.02 43,844,113 32,444,644 11,399,469 $19.02 $19.52 173,269,417 128,219,368 45,050,048 $75.18 $77.13 3t,915,560 31,915,560 0 $18.71 $0.00 42,418,979 42,418,979 0 $24.87 $0.00 448,224 331,686 116,538 $0.19 $0.20 23.624.081 17.481.820 6.142.261 $10.25 $10.52 $367,997,536 $295,849,709 $72,154,206 $240.63 $202.87 Note: 1. 2. All Countywide costs, except debt service and contingency costs, are projected to increase at a marginal rate with new growth. Costs for municipal-type services to unincorporated areas are projected to increase in direct proportion to new growth. Net countywide costs are allocated 76 percent to residential development and 24 percent to non-residential development, based on the shares of population and employment to the combined total County population and employment. Net costs to unincorporated areas are allocated 82 percent to residential development and 18 percent to non-residential development based on the shares of population and employment to the combined total unincorporated population and employment. Per capita and per emproyee factors are dedved by dividing the allocated costs by either the population and employment for the apprepdate jurisdiction. Source: Stantsy R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. County of Riverside, FY 2003-04 Proposed Budget State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 County/City Population and Housing Estimates, January 1,2003 Southern California Association of Governments, RTP Projections 2001, Riverside County Employment Estimates for 2003 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 27 RedhawkAnnexation ~4rea Fiscallmpact~4nalysis August 2003 City of Temecula and County of Riverside ATrACHMENT NO. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PA03-0370 R:\BROWNS~annex\CC Staffrpt Redhawk annex 8-12-03.doc 12 City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: PA03-0370, Redhawk and Vail Ranch (portion) Annexation DISTRIBUTION DATE: July 22, 2003 CASE PLANNER: Steve Brown CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ..................................... Fire Department ...................................... Police Department ................................... Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .................... Planning, Advance .................................. Public Works ........................................... STATE: Caltrans ................................................... , Fish & Game ........................................... , Mines & Geology ..................................... Regional Water Quality Control Board .... , State Clearinghouse ................................ State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ............ ( Water Resources .................................... ( FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ........................ ( Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... ( REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District .............. ( Western Riverside COG .......................... ( RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ........... (X) Airport Land Use Commission ................ ( ) Engineer .................................................. ( ) Flood Control .......................................... (X) Health Department .................................. ( ) Parks and Recreation ............................. (X) Planning Department .............................. (X) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA).. ( ) Riverside Transit Agency ........................ ( ) ...... () UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ............. (X) Inland Valley Cablevision ........................ (X) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ..... (X) Southern California Gas .......................... (X) Southern California Edison ..................... (X) Temecula Valley School District .............. (X) Metropolitan Water District ...................... ( ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ................. (X) Eastern Information Center ..................... ( ) Local Agency Formation Comm .............. (X) RCTC ..................................................... ( ) Homeowners' Association ....................... (X) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ................. ~ ................................ ( R:~Annexafion~Redlmwk'~ OTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.doc 2 City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration PROJECT: PA03-0370 APPLICANT: City of Temecula LOCATION: Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan Areas, Southeast Corner of the City DESCRIPTION: This project includes pre-zoning and the initiation of annexation proceedings for approximately 1,275 acres of the Redhawk Specific Plan (No. 217) area and 67 acres of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan (No. 223) area from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula and the City of Temecula Community Services District. The City of Temecuia intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the City Council intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are included in the project design and/.or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this Notice and will be included as part of the Negative Declaration for this project. The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is July 24 2003 to August 12, 2003. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589- 9033. City Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through: The Local Newspaper. ~ Posting the Site. X_~ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners. If you need additional information or have-ally questions concerning this project, please contact Sieve Brcwn ~) 694-6400" ~'-"~ _~ Prepared by: ~-~~~ ~ (Signature) ~/ Steve Brown at (909) 694-6400. Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner (Name and Title) R:~.nncxationkRedhawlfNOTlCE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.doc 1 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: 7. Zoning: Planning Application No. PA03-0370 (Annexation - Redhawk) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Brown, Principal Planner Project Location: Located within the City's southeastern Sphere of Influence (known as Redhawk Specific Plan and a portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan), southeastern comer of the City Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Same as No. 2 General Plan Designation: Multiple: (HTC - Highway Tourist Commercial), (BP - Business Park), (OS- Open Space/Recreation), (NC - Neighborhood Commercial), (L - Low Density Residential), (LM Low-Medium Density Residential), (M - Medium Density Residential), (H - High Density Residential) and (P- Public/Institutional Facilities) SP (Specific Plan No. 217 - Redhawk, Specific Plan No. 223 - Vail Ranch) Description of Project: The pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,275 acres of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and 67 acres of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 223) from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. The areas to be annexed have existing entitlements (approved Specific Plans, Development Agreements, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Tentative Tract Maps, R:~PLANNI~GX205PA98.IES 7/22/03 mf City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Determination TO: SUBJECT: County Clerk and Recorders Office County of Riverside P.O. Box 75'l Riverside, CA 92501-0751 FROM: Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. State Clearinghouse No.: Project Title: PA03-0370 Redhawk Annexation Project Location: Redhawk Specific Plan and a portion of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan within the City's southwest Sphere of Influence. Project Description: Annexation of approximately 1,275 acres of unincorporated Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. Lead Agency: City of Temecula Contact Person: Stephen Brown Telephone Number: (909) 694-6400 This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above described project on August 12, 2003 and has made the following determinations regarding this project: The project ([ ] will [X] will not) have a significant effect on the environment. That ([ ] An Environmental Impact Report [X] A Negative Declaration) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures ([ ] were IX] were not) made a condition of the approval of the project. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([ ] was [X] was not) adopted for this project. Findings ([X] were [ ] were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590. Signature: Date: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office: R:\BROWNS\annex\NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.doc City of Temecula 43200 Business P~---'~ive # PO Box 9033 # Temecula # California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 # FAX (909) 694-6477 August 13, 2003 Cindy Kohler Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside PO Box 751 Riverside, CA 92502-0751 SUBJECT: Notice of Determination PA 03-0370 (Redhawk Annexation) Dear Ms. Kohler: Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. The City of Temecula is paying the $64.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Please return a stamped copy of the Notice of Determination within 5 working days after the 30 day posting in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning Enclosures: check 3 copies of this letter 2 self addressed stamped envelopes R:\BROWNS\annex\NOTICE OF DETERMINATION,doc 10. Development Plans, Conditional Use Permits, etc.) and portions have been either constructed or are under construction. The approvals are not being affected by the annexation. This project is a boundary shift between two local jurisdictions which will result in the re-assigning of responsibility for service provision to the area from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. Police, Parks and Recreation and City of Temecula Governmental Services are the specific areas which have been identified to be affected by the annexation. These affects have been determined to be less than significant. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Vacant (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. SP- 4), vacant (designated NC Neighborhood Commercial on the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Plan) and vacant (designated C-P-S, A-l- 10 and R-R on the Southwest Area Community Plan). South: Vacant, agricultural areas and large lot single- family residences. East: Vacant and large lot single-family residences. West: Vacant (Murdy Ranch), single-family residences and commercial. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside LAFCO R:'~LANNING'~205PA98.1~S 7/22/03 mf ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checldist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geologic Problems IX] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Date Pfin~d Name R:~PLANNING~05PA98,IF~ 7/22/03 mf ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoqxnated Significant No Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? i. Unique geologic or physical features? 4, WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? [] [] [] [] [] [] (] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] (1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] (] [] [] (] (] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] IX] (x] [x] (x] ix] [x] ix] (x] [x] [x] IX] IX] (x] IX] IX] IX] [x] ix] R:~LANN/NG~205PA98.1ES 7~22/03 mf ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lncoq>orated Impact Impact 6o 7o d, Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g, Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: [1 [] [] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [] [l [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [1 [] [] [x] [] [l [1 [X] [] [1 [] ~1 [] [] [] [~ [] [] [1 ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [1 [l [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [l [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] IX] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ I [x] [] [] [1 [xl [ ] [ I [ I [xl R:'~I.ANNING~05PA9$.IES 7/22103 mf ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoqx)rated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] IX] Ix] ix] ix] ix] ix] 10. 11. 12. d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] IX] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] IX] IX] [] IX] IX] IX] IX] IX] IX] IX] RSPLANNING~205PA98.1ES 7~2/03~ff 6 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [] [] Il [] [] [] IX] IX] IX] IX] IX] IX] Ix] IX] R:~PLANNING~05PA98.1ES 7~2/03mf 7 c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 17. c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. None. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ix] ix] [] [] [] [] [x] ix] ix] [] (] [x] IX] [x] IX] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,342 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217, 1,275 acres) and a portion of the Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223, 67 acres) Specific Plan Areas from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. Tins project is a boundary shift between two local jurisdictions which will result in the re-assigning of responsibility for service provision to the area from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula and the pm-zoning of these areas to a Specific Plan designation. No areas are anticipated to be impacted by the pre-zoning. These areas are currently zoned Specific Plan by the County of Riverside. The areas to be annexed have existing entitlements (approved Specific Plans, Development Agreements, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Tentative Tract Maps, Development Plans, Conditional Use Permits, etc.) and portions have been either constructed or are under construction. The approvals are not being affected by the annexation. Police, Parks and Recreation and City of Temecula Governmental Services are the specific areas which have been identified to be affected by the annexation. These affects have been determined to be less than significant. 1. Land Use Planning The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in impacts which would conflict with general plan designation or zoning; conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project; be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity; affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses; or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including Iow-income or minority community). 2. Population and Housing The analysis contained in the lES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects; induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure); or displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. 3. Geologic Problems The analysis contained in the lES has determined that the project would not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving the following: fault rapture; seismic ground shaking; seismic ground failure (including liquefaction); seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard; landslides or mudflows; erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill; subsidence of the land; expansive soils; or unique geologic or physical features. 4. Water The analysis contained in the lES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rote and mount of surface runoff; exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding; discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity); changes in the amount of surface water in any water body; changes in currents, or the course or dkection of water movements; change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability; altered direction or rate R:~PLANNING~205PA98.1ES 7/22/03 mf of flow of groundwater; impacts to groundwater quality; or substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. 5. Air Quality The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate; or create objectionable odors. 6. Transportation/Circulation The analysis contained in the 1ES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: an increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion; hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses); inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses; insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site; hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists; conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle rocks); or rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts. 7. Biological Resources The analysis contained in the lES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds), locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees); locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.); wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool); or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The analysis contained in the lES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: conflict with adopted energy conservation plans; use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner; or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. 9. Ham~s The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation); possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard; exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards; or an increase to fire hazard in areas with flammable brash, grass, or trees. I0. Noise The analysis contained in the lES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would result in: an increase in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. R:~.~2bYNING~205PA98.1~ 7/22103 11. Public Services Fire Protection and Schools The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts to fire protection or schools. No additional increase in firc protection services or schools will be required as a result of this annexation. Fire Station 92 near Overland Trail near Redhawk Parkway currently services the Redhawk/Vail Ranch area and will continue to do so after annexation. No change will occur with respect to what school district the area falls within, or to which schools students from the area will attend. Both the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans require the construction of schools to mitigate impacts with respect to the demand for schools. Annexation/pre-zoning of the area will not affect either the demand or the provision of schools within these specific plan areas. Police Protection There will be a significant impact to police protection; however, mitigation measures will reduce this to a level less than significant. In order to meet the City's established Level of Service standard of one officer per 1,000 residents, the increase in population as a result of the proposed annexation will require seven additional police officers. The increased cost for the seven police officers will be paid from the City's General fund. Revenue sources include the property taxes from existing and future residential development and sales tax revenue from existing and future commercial and industrial development. After mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated. Maintenance of Public Facilities Currently all existing dedicated streets and roads within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan areas are maintained by the Riverside County Road Department. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula, the City will become responsible for their maintenance. After annexation all existing streets will be added to the City's Pavement Management System. Funding for the City's Pavement Management System comes primarily from Gas Taxes and Measure A Funding that is allocated to municipalities based on population. With the annexation of this area and the associated increase in the population, additional funds will be available for road maintenance. All future improvement within the annexation area will be constructed by the developers as part of ongoing construction associated with the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. The City does not currently have any Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) within the area, nor or any anticipated for the near future. Other Public Services The proposed project will not result in additional impacts to library services, street sweeping and animal control. The annexation/pre-zoning area is currently a part of the Riverside County Library System. The City of Temeeula is also a part of the Riverside County Library System. No change in the provision of library services is anticipated as a result of this project. Street sweeping service is provided to the Redhawk Specific Plan Area on a monthly basis by a private company contracted by the County. No street sweeping service is currently being provided to the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula street sweeping services will be provided to both specific plan areas on a weekly basis by the City' s franchised solid waste hauler, CR&R. No appreciable change in service levels is anticipated as a result of this project. Animal control services within the annexation/pre-zoning area are currently provided by Riverside County. Upon annexation into the City animal control services will be provided by Lake Elsinore Animal Friends (LEAF). No appreciable change in service levels is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. Utilities and Service Systems The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts to the following: power or natural gas, communications systems, cable television services, local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal or local or regional water supplies. Power Currently the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas electrical power is served by Southern Califomia Edison which is also currently providing service to the proposed annexation/pre-zoning area. No change in the provision of electrical services is anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Gas Natural gas service for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas is currently be'mg provided by Southem California Gas Company. No change in the provision of natural gas services is anticipated as a result of this project. Communication Systems Telecommunication services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation/pre- zoning area, are provided by Verizon. No change in the provision of telecomm~mication services is anticipated as a result of this project. Cable Television Services Cable television services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation/pre- zoning area, are provided by Adelphia. No change in the provision of telecommunication services is anticipated as a result of this project. Local or Regional Water Treatment or Distribution Facilities & Local or Regional Water Supplies The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies potable water to the City of Temecula. Between 50% and 85% of the City's water supply (depending on the annual rainfall) is distributed from the Murdeta- Temecula groundwater basin. This water supply is supplemented from imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (EMWD). The RCWD has a current annual supply capacity of 59,000 acre feet which is adequate to meet current demand for potable water including the annexation/pre-zoning area. The Water District is investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands including upgrading existing wells, adding wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water. A combination of these improvements will ultimately be necessary to accommodate future demands in the City. The RCWD currently supplies water to the Redhawk/Vall Ranch area and would continue to do so upon annexation/pre-zoning. No change in the provision of water is anticipated as a result of this project. Sewer or Septic Tanks Wastewater facilities for the City of Temecula and its sphere of influence are provided by Eastern municipal Water District (EMWD) which is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Water District is currently meeting treatment demand in the Temecula and has a current capacity to treat 10 million gallons per day it is facility. Additionally Rancho California Water District has a wastewater treatment facility services the Temecula area which has capacity to treat 3.4 million gallons per day. The Redhawk/Vail Ranch area is currently being serviced by the EMWD facility and will continue to be upon annexation/pre-zoning. The Water District anticipates expansion of its existing facilities when the demand generated by continuing development requires it. No change in the provision of water is anticipated as a result R:',PLANNING~05PA98.1ES 7/'22/03 mf 12 ofthis project. Storm Water Currently all storm water for the annexation area drains to Temecula Creek. All flood control facilities within the annexation area are either maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) or the Redhawk Home Owner's Association. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for the maintenance of all facilities which are designed to the specifications of and accepted by them. This arrangement exists for all territories within Riverside County, whether they located within the jurisdictional boundaries of a city or they are within an unincorporated area of the County. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula all flood control facilities will continue to be maintained by either RCFC&WCD or the Redhawk Home Owner's Association. No change in the handling of stormwater is anticipated as a result of this project. Solid Waste Disposal Currently solid waste services to the annexation area are being provided to the County by Waste Management Inland Valley (WMIV). Solid waste service within the City limits is provided by CR&R which is a privately operated company being contracted by the City. Upon annexation to the City solid waste services for the annexation area will initially provided by WMIV but may change to CR & R. The City will negotiate with Waste Management Inland Valley and CR&R to transition service for the next fiscal year following the finalization of the annexation. Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 939 all cities and counties must have a waste stream soume reduction plan. The City has such a plan and will implement that plan in the annexed area. No change in the solid waste services is anticipated as a result of this project. 13. Aesthetics The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: affect a scenic vista or scenic highway, have a demonstrable negativ~ aesthetic effect or create light or glare. 14. Cultural Resources The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: disturb paleontological resources, disturb archaeological resources, affect historical resources, have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 15. Recreation The analysis contained in the lES determined that the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact which would increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities. The maintenance of parks areas in the annexation area is currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. Upon annexation and the approval of the City's Special Tax for the maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, arterial street lights, traffic signals, medians and the provision of rexae~ational and human services programs by the registered voters within the annexation area; all parks within the annexation area which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). RAPLANNING~205PA98.IES 7/22/I}3 mi* 13 Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract f'n-ms to provide median and slope maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). The proposed annexation is contingent upon approval by the registered voters in the annexation area of the City's Special Tax which will levy rates and charges for park maintenance on the property tax rolls. The maintenance of all medians and the majority of slope areas are currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. A portion of the slope areas are the responsibility of the Redhawk Home Owner's Association (HOA) and other smaller areas are the responsibility of private property owners. Upon annexation and the approval of the City's Special Tax for the maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, arterial street lights, traffic signals, medians and the provision of recreational and human services programs by the registered voters within the annexation area; and the requisite approval of changes fro slope maintenance and all medians and those slopes which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The responsibility of those slopes which are currently held by the Redhawk HOA and private property owners would remain unchanged when the area is annexed to the City. Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract I'm-ns to provide median and slope maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). The proposed annexation is contingent upon approval by the registered voters in the annexation area of the City's (TCSD) Special Tax which will levy rates and charges for the maintenance of slopes and medians on the property tax rolls. R:~PLANN1NGg?.05PA98.1ES 7/22tD3mf ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY A'F]-ORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN(~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Request Zone Change from L-1 to L-2 (PA02-0372), and Tentative Tract Map to create seven residential lots ranging from .5 to .82 acres in lot area (PA02-0371). PREPARED BY: Don Hazen, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the zone change by mot[on and: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .82 ACRES IN LOT AREA, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 473 FEET NORTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. BACKGROUND: This item was originally scheduled for City Council review on June 24, 2003 and the applicant requested a continuance off calendar. This is an application to change the zoning designation of a 4.57-acre site from L-1 (Low Density Residential; one-acre minimum lot size) to L-2 (Low Density Residential; one-half acre minimum lot size), and a tentative tract map to subdivide the site into seven (7) residential lots (.5 acres to .82 acres in area). Staff felt the zone change was appropriate based on the site's proximity to Ynez Road and the residential tract across the street, which has average lot sizes of approximately 9,300 square feet. On May 7, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and received testimony from six abutting property owners to the north and east, who testified that the proposed L-2 zoning designation would result in a higher density and a lot pattern that is P:\PLANNING\Hazend\Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 1 incompatible with the larger lots in the general vicinity. Other than the applicant and representative, one other person spoke in favor of the application. Six people spoke in opposition to the project, primarily with concerns about density and land use capatability. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council denial of the applications. The Commission members noted that the surrounding properties to the north and east were significantly larger in area (2.09 to 2.8 acres) than the proposed lots (.5 to .8 acres), and that the request was inconsistent with the intent of the Low Density Residential General Plan designation and the rural character of the area. The current zoning designation would permit four (4) lots of approximately one acre in area to be created. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, two letters of support were received and are attached (Attachment #2) FISCAL IMPACT: None ATrACHMENTS: 1. Resolution denying Tentative Tract Map No. 30169 - Page 3 2. Letters of Correspondence - Blue Page 4 Adopted Planning Commission resolutions 2003-029 and 2003-30 recommending denial of PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 - Page 5 4. Minutes of the May 7, 2003 Planning Commission - Page 6 5. Staff Agenda Packet, May 7, 2003 Planning Commission - Page 7 P:\PLANNING~Hazend~Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 2 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 P:\PLAN N I NG\Hazend~Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .82 ACRES IN LOT AREA, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 473 FEET NORTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0371 (Tentative Tract Map), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on May 7, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application; WHEREAS, the City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on August 12, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the record and public testimony, denied Planning Application No. PA02-0371 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The City Council, in denying Planning Application No. PA02-0371, cannot make all of the findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance and hereby finds that: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are not consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Tentative Tract Map for seven lot-single family lots on 4.57 acres is not consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element Goal No. 3, which strives for land P:~PLANNlNG~Hazend~resos-pa02-0371-72.doc use patterns that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The proposed Tentative Map will create seven (7) single-family residential parcels ranging between 21,792 sq. fl. and 35,756 sq. fl in net lot area. The abutting developments to the north, south, and southeast have single-family homes on lots ranging from 91,462 sq. ft. to 124,938 sq. ft. Development Code Section 17.06.020C states that the Low Density Residential zoning designation is intended to provide for the development of single-family detached homes on larger lots with a custom character of development". If approved, the resulting density and lots arranged in a linear fashion along an internal cul-de-sac street is not consistent with the predominant land use pattern and does not retain the custom rural character of the area. Section 2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula City Council this 12th day of August 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at th a regular meeting thereof held on the 12 day of August 2003, by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk PSPLANNING~Hazend~resos-pa02-0371-72.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 LETDERS OF CORRESPONDENCE P:\P LAN NING\H azend\Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 4 AGENDA I~EM 23 June 18, 2003 Charles X. Delgado 30270 Santiago Road Temecula, CA 92592 (909) 699-2404 RECEIVED JUN 2 2003 CITy iVIANAGER,S OFFICE. cc: G. Thornhill Mayor Jeff Stone City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Subject: PA 02-0371/0372, TM 30169 Chaparral Area Dear Mayor Stone: I would like to go on record supporting the application for a zone change from L1 (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre lots) and the 7-lot subdivision proposed for the subject property. This is a logical transition from The Highlands tract homes to the west of Ynez, the Windsor Crest/County Manor tract homes to the north, and the 1.0 and 2.5 acre lots to the east. This project is consistent with the Chaparral Policy of the General Plan and is consistent with the Meyler map that was recently built and the Lanni map that was recently recorded. The Chaparral Area has been desighated for half acre lots since 1989, and the old County SWAP plan was designated 1-2 units to the acre by the City General Plan in 1993. There are no active CC&R's in this area and, as a result, there could be any use allowed in this zone. A church could locate there with far higher traffic, light, and noise impacts than seven custom homes. Mayor Jeff Stone June 18, 2003 Page 2 Additionally, if this map is not approved, then someone could locate a modular or mobile on the existing lot, or with no CC&R's, could do the same on each of the four one-acre lots, destroying our property values. In closing, it is my understanding that all of the owners who are opposed take access from Santiago Road, and only one owner is actually adjacent to the site. These owners are willing to sacrifice a quality project over the issue of three additional lots, the denial of which may result in a mediocre project with no quality control. Please do not hesitate to call if you should have any comments or questions. Sincerely, Charles X. Delgado CC; Jeff Comerchero, Temecula City Council Michael Naggar, Temecula City Council Sam Pratt, Temecula City Council Ron Roberts, Temecula City Council T~ C~ 9zS92 RECEIVED JUL 2003 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE July 24, 2003 cc: G. Thornhill Mayor Jeff Stone City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: PA 02-0371/0372, TM 30169 ChaparrM Area Dear Mayor Stone: I support a~zone change from El:to L2 on the referenced seven lot subdivision. I build custom homes in the Chaparral'Estates area. Although my property does not touch the subject property, Stis within a few lots. The city has already approved a 3-lot subdivision on half-acres to the South and an 8-lot subdivision to the north. Why shouldn't the owner of this property be given the same oppommity? The way this project is designed, with a private gate and roads, will enhance the commtmity. It will increase the tax base to the city as well. Please call me if you would like to discuss this letter or have questions. Sincerely, Lawrence L. Slusser President ~ Cc: J. Comerchero, Temecula City Council :~ '. M~ Naggfii'¢TemecutaCily:CounCil :' S.(Prm~t, ~T~meOUl~ City Council ' ' 1E' Roberts,' Tem~cul~; City Council A'I-rACHMENT NO. 3 ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 2003-029 AND 2003-030 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PA02-0371 AND PA02-0372 P:\PLANNING\Hazend~Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372 A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Mamhand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0372 (Change of Zone), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner proscribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a rogular meeting, considerod the Application on May 7, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interosted persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of Planning Application No. PA02-0372, hereby finds that the amendment to the Official Zoning Map is not consistent with the adopted General Plan goals for the City of Temecula, because Land Use Element Goal No. 3, strives for "land use patterns that will protect and enhance rosidential neighborhoods". The current zoning designation of the abutting pamels to the north, south, and southeast is L-1 and their lot sizes range between 91,462 sq. ff. and 124,938 sq. ff. The zone change request to L-2 would permit the subdivision of the 4.5-acre site into a maximum of seven (7) single-family homes on minimum 21,780 square foot lots. The higher density permitted with the proposed zoning is not compatible with the abutting land use patterns of larger lots with a single home on each. Development Code Section 17.06.020C states that the L-1 and L-2 designation is "intended to provide for the development of single-family detached homes on larger lots with a custom character of development. R:\T M~002~02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd',Revised Resos.doc Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Although an Initial Study was prepared for the application, the California Environmental Quality Act does not require environmental review for projects being denied. Section 4. Commission this 7th day of May 2003. ATTEST~ Debb~,.Ubnoske~.secretary . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning on [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003-029 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of May, 2003, bythe following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Guerdero, Mathewson Olhasso, Telesio NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M~2002~D2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd'~Rev~sed Resos.doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0371 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30169), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on May 7, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application, cannot make all of the findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: Tentative Tract Map (Section 16.09.140) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are not consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Tentative Tract Map for seven lot-single family lots on 4.27 net acres is not consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element Goal No. 3, which stdves for land use patterns that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The proposed Tentative Map will create seven (7) single-family residential parcels ranging between 21,792 R:\T M~002~02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Revised Rases.doc 4 sq. ft. and 35,756 sq. ft in net lot area. The abutting developments to the north, south, and southeast have single-family homes on lots ranging from 91,462 sq. ft. to 124,938 sq. ft. Development Code Section 17.06.020C states that the Low Density Residential zoning designation is intended to provide for the development of single-family detached homes on larger lots with a custom character of development". If approved, the resulting density and lots arranged in a linear fashion along an internal cul-de-sac street is not consistent with the predominant land use pattern and does not retain the custom rural character of the area. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project; however, the California Environmental Quality Act does not pertain to denied applications. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning ~ ~i~eff, Chai~e~ A~EST: · :~ebbie Ubnbske, ~reta~ - · [s STATEOF CALIFORNIA ) ' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECU~ ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No, 2003-030 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of May, 2003, bythe following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M'~2002~02-O371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Revised Resos,doc ATrACHMENT NO. 4 MINUTES OF THE MAY 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION P:\P LAN NING\Hazend~Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 6 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 A'~ent~a~iver'Tract Map application to subdivide 4.57 .qross acres into 7 sin.qle-family .qated residential lots averaqin.q 0.5 net acres and A Chanqe of Zone application to chanqe the zoninq from Low Density Residential (L-1) to Low Density Residential (L-2) located on the east side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiaqo Road RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Recommend to City Council, Adoption of a Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372 A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. 7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006 Principal Planner Hazen provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: Chan,qe of Zone · That the applicant is proposing a Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-l) to Low Density Residential (L-2); C:\Documents and Settings\Mcintyk\Desktop\050703.doc 11 · That the proposed Change of Zone will allow the applicant to subdivide the 4.57 gross acre into half-acre lots; that currently, the property is zoned (L-l) and would only allow one-acre minimum lot sizes; · That standard conditions of approval have been recommended; · That staff would recommend that a Home Owners Association (HCA) be created to provide maintenance responsibility for the common facilities such as the streets, rear- yard slopes, and a corner of open space at the northwest corner; · That the Department of Public Works would recommend the following modifications to the conditions of approval: o #11-F -- all streets and driveway centerline intersections shall be at a 90 degrees; o #12-F -- all intersections shall be perpendicular (90); o #33 -- all lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Principal Planner Hazen advised that he had received a phone call from the applicant regarding Condition No.4, noting the following: o B-2 - this project is within a liquidation hazard zone; o B-3- this project is within Subsidence Zoning. · That both sections are required prior to recordation of the final map; · That staff would recommend that an Environmental Restraint sheet be filed and incorrectly noted that this site was within a liquefaction and subsidence zone; that staff would consent to the elimination of B-2 and B-3; · That after initial study of the project, staff has determined that there were no potentially significant environmental impacts; · That staff would recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration; · That City Council approval will be required; In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's query regarding the Murrieta Fault, Principal Planner Hazen relayed the following: · That a preliminary fault hazard study was submitted with this application; · That the area in reference is roughly 150 feet on the northeast corner; · That boring samples were taken and no evidence of fault ruptures were found; · That the Public Works Department would require detailed analysis prior to recordation of a map; C:\Documents and Settings'u'vlcintyk\Desktop\O50703.doc 12 · That if evidence of a fault hazard were noted, the Public Works Department would not allow this map to record; · That the requested change of zone would require the affected lot to merge with the lot that is out of that zone, which could result into a six-lot map; but at this time, there is not such evidence. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the final map cannot be recorded until it is determined whether or not a fault line is present. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant would concur with the conditions of approval along with the modifications that Principal Planner Hazen has recommended. · That offsite trenching was completed to establish whether or not a fault line was present; · That trenching but not boring was performed; · That there was no evidence of any faulting that would require any setback on the property; · That a fault hazard investigation was performed; · That the open space lot will not be an open space lot and that it will be a portion of one of the lots; · That because it is a gated privacy subdivision, there will be a Homeowners Association (HOA); · That the project is not a part of the Los Ranchitos project; Ms. Lowrey, 29925 Via Serrito, spoke in favor of the project, noting that the new homes would be a great addition to the community. The following individuals spoke against the proposal: · Mrs. Ceceiia Lewis · Mr. Steve Lewis · Mr. Robert Burns · Mr. Steve Lis · Ms. DianneTanna · Mr. Ralph Neimeyer 30080 Santiago Road 30080 Santiago Road 30112 Santiago Road 30000 Santiago Road 30052 Santiago Road 29962 Santiago Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke against the proposal for the following reasons: · That the Fire Department requires an ingress and egress; C:\Documents and Settings\Mcintyk\Desktop\050703.doc 13 · That the area is zoned for one house per acre; · That the residents enjoy living in a rural area; · That the residents enjoy having farm animals; · That the residents would like to see the property developed as one-acre lots. Mr. Dennis Marchand, 30176 Long Horn Drive, Marchand-Way Development, representing the applicant, noted the following: · That Marchand-Way Development specializes in building high-end residences; · That the homes that are being proposed are not simplistic, tract-style homes; · That the intention would be to build high-quality homes with architectural features and amenities, ornately themed, and European style designs of various sorts; · That the CC&Rs will entail architectural guidelines that must be met; · That there has been no decision as to whether these homes will be one- or two-story homes. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to deny staff's recommendation. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval and to recommend to the City Council for a one acre minimum. At this time the Public Hearing was closed. 8 Plannim qos. PA02-0605 a Development Plan for the desiqn and construction of a 9.24-acre center which includes two proposed retail buildinqs totalinq uare feet three conceptual future retail building pads, PA02-0606 a Conditional Use Permit ~ment Plan for the desiqn and construction of a 4,000 square foot restaurant a drive-thru on Pad "G" of a 9.24-acre commercial center within Temecula Re( PA02-0607 a Development Plan for the desiqn and construction of a restaurant, on pad "F" of a 9.24-acre commercial center within the Temecula Re~ located on the northwest corner of North Temecula Reqional Center (aka Power Center General Kearny and Marqarita Roads in APN 910-130-087 thru -090 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning and PA02-0607 (Development Plan) based on the project for which an Environmental Impact R6 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Declarations; No.'s PA02-0605, PA02-0606, of Consistency with a EIR) was previously certified uent EIR's and Negative C:\Documents and Settings\Mcintyk\Desktop\050703.dcc 14 ATrACHMENT NO. 5 STAFF AGENDA PACKET MAY 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION P:\PLANNING\Hazend~Staff Rpt. PA02-0371-72.doc 7 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 7, 2003 Planning Application No. PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 Prepared By: Rolfe Preisendanz RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL~ ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372 A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Marchand-Way Development, Dennis Marchand PA02-0371 A Tentative Tract Map application to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into 7 single-family gated residential lots averaging 0.5 net acres. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc PA02-0372 A Change of Zone application to change the zoning from Low Density Residential (L-l) to Low Density Residential (L-2). LOCATION: Located on the east side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiago Road. EXISTING ZONING: Low Density (L-l) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Low Density (L-1) Low Density (L-2) Low Density (L-1) Rancho Highlands Specific Plan GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density(L) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential East: Single family residential West: Single family residential PROJECT STATISTICS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30169) Lot area (gross): Lot area (net) Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Average Lot Area: 199,069 square feet (4.57 acres) 186,001 square feet (4.27 acres) 21,792 square feet (0.50 acres) 35,756 square feet (.82 acres) 30,300 square feet (.69 acres) BACKGROUND The applications for Tentative Tract Map 30169 and a Change of Zone were submitted on July 11, 2002. Also submitted was PA02-0373 a request for a Variance to allow net acreage smaller than half-acre minimum as required by the Development Code. On September 9, 2003 staff notified the applicant's representative, Markham Development Management Group, that the findings for a Variance could not be made and requested that the applicant reconfigure the map and propose a private street, which does not detract from net acreage. The applicant resubmitted plans on November 4, 2002 and was deemed incomplete again on December 4, 2002. The applicant resubmitted a revised Tentative Tract Map on February 3, 2003. During the ensuing review period staff completed an Initial Study on March 3, 2003 and deemed the project complete on March 5, 2003. The project was then scheduled for Planning Commission. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Change of Zone The applicant is proposing a Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-1) to Low Density Residential (L-2). The General Plan Land Use Element specifies a density range of .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for both zoning designations. The proposed change of zone will allow the applicant to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into half-acre lots. Currently the property is zoned (L-1) and only allows one-acre minimum lot sizes. Tentative Tract Map The applicant proposes to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into seven (7) single-family residential lots as shown below. The overall density range equates to approximately 1.53 du/ao. LOT NUMBERS NET LOT SIZE Lot 1 35,756 square feet (.82 acres) Lot 2 26,644 square feet (.61 acres) Lot 3 26,644 square feet (.61 acres) Lot 4 26,915 square feet (.61 acres) Lot 5 25,877 square feet (.59 acres) Lot 6 21,831 square feet (.50 acres) Lot 7 21,792 square feet (.50 acres) Each of the seven single-family lots will take access off of a 50-foot wide private road, which will align with the centerline of Quiet Meadow Road. Quiet Meadow Road is located on the west side of Ynez Road and provides access to the Rancho Highlands subdivision to the west of the proposed subdivision. The proposed private road will be developed as a cul-de-sac and run along the north edge of the tract boundary. Via Serrito to the north of the proposed tract will be vacated to allow for the development of the new private street. The seven lots created by this application will be developed as a gated community. The proposed entry gates will be set back approximately 70 feet from the west property line off of Ynez Road. Lot 1, located on the southeast corner, will be traversed by the private road easement creating a small triangular shaped open space lot on the north side of the street. The Home Owners Association established as a result of this proposal will maintain all common areas such as the open space area of lot 1, the median landscaping in front of the entry gates, the streetscape along Ynez Road and the streetscape along the private road. Lots 1-7 will take access off the private road and will be developed with a privately maintained slope along the north, south, and west boundaries of the property. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 3 ANALYSIS Change of Zone The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (L) and is compatible with other properties of similar L-2 zoning. The property to the south of this proposal was recently changed to L-2 and is currently being developed as a eul-de sac with three single-family homes. Additionally, the approval of a change of zone from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the desired target density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre as established by the General Plan Land Use Element for Low Density Residential designation (1.5 du/ac proposed). The General Plan EIR analyzed the impacts of development at the target density and no additional impacts will result from this proposal. Mitigation measures approved with the General Plan EIR will be applied to this project where applicable. Tentative Tract Map The proposed seven-lot tentative tract map is consistent with the City of Temecula's Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. The seven lots created by this subdivision have a range of .50 acres to .82 net acres as required by Chapter 17.06.040. Additionally the lots created by this subdivision meet the minimum lot frontage, minimum width at the required setback area, the minimum average width and minimum average lot depth also required by Chapter 17.06.040. Additionally, the proposed subdivision is within the allowed General Plan Land Use Element density range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Because the application did not qualify for a Categorical Exemption an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, staff has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of density and recommends approval of Planning Applications PA02-0371 and PA02-0372. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval with the following findings and attached conditions: FINDINGS Tentative Tract Map (Section 16.09.140 Temecula Municipal Code) The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Map has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code and the General Plan. The proposed seven lot-single family lots on 4.57 gross acres conforms with the target density range specified in the General Plan. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be consistent with the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. Additionally, the reduction of minimum lot sizes as requested by the applicant is consistent with the Development Code. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~S haft Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 4 The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The proposed properly has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is suitable for the seven lot single-family residential units as proposed. The density for the project is consistent with and falls within, the Low Density Residential (.5-2 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) as stated in the General Plan. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environment Quality Act. Based on the results of the Initial Study the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. A Negative Declaration will be prepared as result. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the proposed map will not cause any serious health problems. The map has been conditioned to comply with all current Building Codes and Fire Codes. City staff, prior to occupancy, will inspect any future development of single-family homes. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. The proposed subdivision has been designed to offer the opportunity to provide future alternative heating and cooling opportunities. During the review of the architecture staff will review the plans to insure that the applicant is providing these alternative opportunities. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. The project has been designed taken into account the adjacent public right of ways located along Ynez Road and Quiet Meadow Road. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 5 The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the applicant to pay the appropriate Quimby fees. The applicant prior to any building permits being pulled for the project shall pay these fees. Attachments 1. 2. PC Resolution No. 2003- (Change of Zone) - Blue Page 7 PC Resolution No. 2003- (Tentative Tract Map 31069) - Blue Page 10 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 14 Exhibit B -~ Initial Study- Blue Page 25 Exhibits - Blue Page 26 B. C. D. E. Vicinity Map General Plan Map/Existing Zoning Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map Tentative Tract Map 31069 R:\T ML2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Repor~ and Conditions of Approval.doc 6 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- FOR PA02-0372 CHANGE OF ZONE R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372 A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0372 (Change of Zone), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on May 7, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA02-0372 hereby finds that the amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the City of Temecula, the site is physically suitable for the type of development that has already occurred in this area, and the proposed change of zone would further the City's long-term land use and housing goals. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study has been prepared for Planning Applications No. PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 8 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of May 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of May, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T MX2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Slaff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 9 ATFACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- PA02-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30169 R:~T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 10 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Mamhand-Way Development Inc., flied Planning Application No. PA02-0371 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30169), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on May 7, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: Tentative Tract Map (Section 16.09.140) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Map has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code and the General Plan. The proposed seven lot-single family lots on 4.57 gross acres conform to the target density range specified in the General R:XT M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc Plan. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be consistent with the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. Additionally, the development of the proposed lots as requested by the applicant is consistent with the Development Code. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultura~ use; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. Thesiteissuitableforthesevenlotsingle-familyresidentialunitsasproposed. Thedensity for the project is consistent with and falls within, the Low Density Residential (.5 - 2 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) as stated in the General Plan. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environment Quality Act. Based on the results of the Initial Evaluation, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA guidelines a Negative Declaration will be prepared. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the proposed map will not cause any serious health problems. The map has been conditioned to comply with all current Building Codes and Fire Codes. City staff priorto occupancy will inspect any future development of single-family homes. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicabIe building codes and State energy guidelines. The proposed subdivision has been designed to offer the opportunity to provide future alternative heating and cooling opportunities. During the review of the architecture staff will review the plans to insure that the applicant is providing these alternative opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 12 The proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. The project has been designed taken into account the adjacent public right of ways located along Ynez Road and Quiet Meadow Road. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the applicant to pay the appropriate Quimby fees. The applicant prior to any building permits being pulled for the project shall pay these fees. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared with the California Environmental Quality Act as attached in Exhibit B. Based on a finding of no significant environmental impact, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for the application. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally recommends approval of the Application according to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of May 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecuta Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003-__was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of May, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 13 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\T ML2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA02-0371 (Tentative Tract Map 30169) Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.57 gross acres of land into seven single-family lots, located on the east side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiago Road. DIF Category: Residential Detached Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-060-006 Approval Date: May 7, 2003 Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION May 7, 2006 Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of one thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements The tentative tract map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the City of Temecula's Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval,doc 15 legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 4. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: A copy of the Final Map. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1) This property is located within thirty- (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Qrdinance No. 655. 2) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. 3) This project is within a Subsidence Zone. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 4) The CC&R's shall include provisions for the creation of a Homeowners Association and H©A maintenance responsibility of sloped landscape areas, drainage improvements, and the private street. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdXStaff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency shall complete all conditions. General Requirements It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: f. g. h. i. j. k. I. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District Verizon Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 10. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: R:~T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 11. 12. Improve Ynez Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. Un]ess otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: f. g. h. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207,207A and/or 208. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: Minimum road widths of 32-ft. paved with 50-ft. right-of-ways or easements (shown on typical section). Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200-ft. minimum). Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so, configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90). R:~T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 13. 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved bythe Department of Public Works. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The City prior to commencement of the appraisal shall have approved the appraiser. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A 32-foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all private streets and drives. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 24. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning Department Department of Public Works Community Services District 25. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 26. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 27. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 28. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 29. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. The final NPDES requirement shall be address at the right- of-way prior to the water exiting into the street. 30. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If R:~T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 20 the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 32. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 33. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 34. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. 35. The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutter's rights of access along Ynez Road as shown on the approved Tentative Map. 36. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. A registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation shall certifythe building pad, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 37. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 38. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 39. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 41. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 42. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 21 43. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 44. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 45. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III.A) 46. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (8" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 47. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) 48. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. 49. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 50. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902 and Ord 99-14) 51. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 99-14) Roads on this map being less than 32' will require both sides to be painted Red, and marked "Fire Lane-No Parking CVC. 22500A". R:\T IV~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 22 52. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 53. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 54. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 55. Firefighting personnel shall provide all manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 56. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (CFC Appendix II-A) 57. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) 58. Prior to recording a final map a binding agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department Water Systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies and all fire hydrants and supplies will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity. 59. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 60. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 23 61. All perimeter parkways (including within the ROW along Ynez Road), the portion of Lot 1 on the north side of the private road, slopes, retaining wails, drainage facilities, street medians and residential street lighting on the private street shall be maintained by the established homeowners association. 62. Any damage done to existing Class II bike lanes along Ynez Road during construction shall be repaired to the satisfaction of Public Works. Prior to Final Map 63. TCSD shall review and approve the CC&R's. 64. The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .10 acres of parkland, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 65. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 66. if additional arterial street lighting is to be installed along Ynez Road then prior to the first building permit or installation of the street lighting, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 24 EXHIBIT B INITIAL STUDY R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 25 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Marchand Way Development Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location East side of Ynez Road, between Pauba Road and Santiago Road Project Sponsor's Name and Marchand-Way Development Address 31530 Railroad Canyon Road Ste. 9 Canyon Lake, CA 92587 General Plan Designation Low density residential (L) Zonin9 Low density residential (L-l) Description of Project PA02-0371: A Tentative Tract Map application to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into 7 single-family residential lots averaging 0.5 net acres; and PA02-0372: A Change of Zone application to change the zoning designation and map from L-1 to L-2. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Ynez Road serves as the west boundary of the project site, with single-family residential uses located to the north, south and east. An area to the south of the subject property consists of a culdezac, with full street improvements, approved by the City for single-family residential uses. Low-density single-family residential homes and vacant residential lots will be served by existing infrastructure. Other public agencies whose Eastern Municipal Water District for sewer service. approval is required Rancho California Water District for water service R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture Resources Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geology and Soils Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance Land Use and Planning None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Rolfe Preisendanz Assistant Planner Printed name Title R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow R~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 2 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potenfially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact ~mpact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project site is vacant and is surrounded by SP-2 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) zoned properties to the north that include single family residential housing, Low Density Residential (L-1 and L-2) zoned property to the east, north, and south. The development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.5. The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designations and environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (L). The approval of a change of zone from L-1 to L-2 would increase the desired target dwelling units per acre from 1.3 to 1.5, but stay within the Iow-density residential range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre as established by the General Plan Land Use Element. Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project where necessary. ,O. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is located within the County of Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, which will require site disturbance mitigation fees to be paid prior to grading activity. The site has been continuously grubbed for weed abatement and fire protection. R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: .8, The proposed tentative tract map is for seven (7) total single-family residential lots and is within the allowed General Plan Land Use Element density range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Even with the approval of a zone change from L-1 to L-2 the property would still be within the allowed density range for iow density residential land uses and therefore would have no impact on the surrounding area. 2.b. The proposed project involving a single-family residential subdivision would have no impact on the displacement of existing housing. 2.c. The proposed project involving a single-family residential subdivision will have no impact on displacing any residents within the surrounding area. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially PotentiallySignificant Unless Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? R:\T b1~2.002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 4 Comments: The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project proposes to subdivide for residential lots a 4.5-acre vacant site, zoned for Iow-density residential development. The proposed tentative map and zone change is anticipated to be within the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive receptors will occur as a result of this project. 3.e. The proposed tentative map and zone change approvals will not create any significantly objectionable odors and will not create an impact to the surrounding community. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppor[ing Infonmation Sources Impact Incorporated ~mpact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resoumes, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? R:\T M'~.002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 5 Comments: 4.a-d. The project site for the proposed tentative map and zone change applications is not located within an environmentally sensitive habitat or wetlands area as indicated on the City of Temecula General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element Figure 5-3 and the Potentially Sensitive Environmental Habitat Areas map. 4.e-f. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee prior to the issuance of a grading permit. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a, b 5.c., d. The project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-6). The Eastern Information Center of the University of California at Riverside (UCR) recommended in its response dated July 22, 2002, that a Phase I Cultural Resource Management Report be prepared to identify the potential for historical or cultural resources at the project site. The applicant submitted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by a Cultural Resources Consultant in October 2002. The results of this assessment determined that no archaeological sites of either prehistoric or historical origin had been recorded within the property boundaries. A field survey conducted by the consultant on October 1, 2002 confirmed that no significant prehistoric or historical cultural resources were observed within the property boundaries. The project site is located in an area that has high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-7). Therefore, at least one Paleontological Monitor will be present on the site at the commencement of and during all grading operations as a condition of approval to evaluate any significant cultural or historical resources encountered. R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.dcc 6 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incoq3orated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: The City of Temecula General Plan Fault Hazard Zone map Figure 7-1 and Environmental Hazards map show that there is an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone through the eastern section of the project site; therefore, ground shaking impacts are possible as a result of this project. The Fault Hazard Investigation prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. reported that no evidence of faulting was identified within the exploratory Fault Trench-1 (FT-1), which was excavated across the existing State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. Additionally, based on the findings of the Fault Trench-2 (FT-2), no restricted use zones for habitable structures are considered necessary for the northeast corner of the subject property. (iii-iv) The project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard zone and is not within an area of potential subsidence as indicated on the General Plan Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazards map Figure 7-2. 6,5. The minimal amount of grading required for the proposed seven lot residential tentative tract map will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and will therefore not result in any significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and therefore will not have a significant impact. R:\T M'~.002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.dcc 7 oC. The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 6d. An expansion index test was performed on representative on-site soil samples collected for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. The results of that test indicated that the expansion index for on-site soils were equivalent to a very Iow expansion potential and would therefore have no impact on creating substantial risks to life or property. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be served with connection to the existing Eastern Municipal Water District public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Ipz~orporated rmpact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 8 Comments: The proposed project will have no impact in creating a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 7.b, c. The proposed project will have no impact involving the release of hazardous materials, substances, or emissions within the environment or one-quarter mile from an existing or proposed school site. This project site is not nor is it located near a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e, f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 7.g. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. This project site is not adjacent to wild lands and therefore would be susceptible to high fire danger. However, during development review the proposed project will be required to comply with Fire and Building Codes to assure that all development is safe from fire danger. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 9 g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Ii. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8.c, d. 8.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent development, will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b.,f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hard scape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff, which is created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.e. Due to the small scale of the proposed residential subdivision, the project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.g-i. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway and the dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.j. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 10 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potenfially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No rssues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incoq~orated ~mpact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 9eneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a. There are neither mineral resource designations nor any known mineral resources on this project site. 10.b. Development of the site has no potential to lose access to known and available mineral resources since none occur on the project site, nor is access required across the site to such resources. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 11.a. This project site is designated for the development of single-family residential housing units. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, the proposal to divide the land will not create noise. No impacts will result from this project. R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow R~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 11 11.b. 11.c. 11.d. This project site is designated for the development of single-family residential housing units. There will be no activities related to this subdividing of the property that would lead to exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Future residents of the homes will not be exposed to high levels of noise according to the noise contours shown in the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated. Since the project site is designated for Iow-density residential development per the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps, the proposed residential tract map is consistent with this land use designation. No unanticipated noise impacts will result from this project. The future grading and home construction activity may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. 11 .e, f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport, therefore, people working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. No scenic resources will be damaged or altered as a result of this project. 13.c. The City's residential performance standards and General Plan Community Design Element and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the proposed land division residential properties is consistent with the goals and policies established by these documents. 13.d. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare to adversely affect the day or nighttime views within the project area. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 12 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues ar~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X Comments: 13.a- f. The proposed residential tract map will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The later development of the parcels created by this project will incrementally increase the need for these services. However, those projects will contribute their fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees, park and recreation fees, and school district fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed division of land. 14. RECREATION. Pntentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppodin~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a-b. The project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The proposed residential tract map would eventually add a small number of single-family homes to the vacant property, which would likely increase the use of existing local parks and recreational facilities, but not to a significant level. The proposed subdivision will have a less than significant impact. R:\T M'~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow R~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 13 15. TRANSPORTATIONrFRAFFIC. Would the project: Pctentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No rssues and Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: 15.a-b. The proposed residential tract map with up to seven (7) single-family homes and slightly higher residential density above the target density will have no impact on increased vehicle traffic and levels of service on the local street system. 15.c. The proposed project will have no impact on a change in air traffic patterns to pose any risk to the public. 15.d. The proposed project will have no impact to substantially increase traffic hazards or risk to the public due to a design feature or incompatible uses. 15.d. The proposed project will have no impact on emergency vehicle access. The project will be reviewed and conditioned by City staff to provide proper emergency vehicle access. 15.e. The proposed project will have no impact on parking capacity. The project will be reviewed and conditioned by City staff to provide adequate parking capacity. 15.f. The proposed project will not conflict with nor impact adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or programs. R:\T M'~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd'tCEQA iNITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 14 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Intormation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a., b. and e. The development of the property will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. No significant impacts are anticipated. 16.c. The proposed residential tract map would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impact to existing water facilities is expected. 16.d. The proposed residential tract map and single-family homes will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. No impact to existing water supplies is expected. 16.f,g. The proposed residential tract map and single-family homes will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs and will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.dcc 15 17. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Pntential~ySignificant Unless Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated ImDact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 17a,c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In addition, this property is not considered prime or unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue. 17b. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence, there are no impacts related to this issue. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Comments: 17.a. This site is surrounded by Iow-density residential development and does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is a residential land division project and change of zone application and it does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore the proposed project would not have an impact on fish and wildlife species. 17.b. The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being subdivided in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of a seven (7) lot subdivision and a minor density increase with approval of a zone change from L-1 to L-2 will not have a significant impact. 17.c. The proposed residential tract map and zone change entitlements would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project is designed and will be developed consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18.a. Earlier analyses specifically related to this project site were not used because they were outdated. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study 18.b. All impacts related to this proposed project were adequately addressed and analyzed within this environmental initial study document. 18.c. No mitigation measures were required with this proposed project since there are no issues identified in the checklist that would be considered potentially significant unless mitigation was incorporated. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 17 SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. City of Temecula General Plan, dated November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2, 1993. City of Temecula Development Code. City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance adopted August 24, 1999. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Jean Keller, Ph.D, October, 2002. Fault Hazard Investigation, prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc., January 29, 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc., February 10, 2003 R:\T M'~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 18 ATrACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE-May 7, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(L) Low Density Residential P roject EXHIBIT C - EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION - (L-l) Low Density Residential CASE NO. - PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -May 7, 2003 R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval,doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0372 EXHIBIT - D PROPOSED ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -May 7, 2003 R:\T M',2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report and Conditions of Approval.doc CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30169 CASE NO. - PA02-0371 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -May 7, 2003 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31069 R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Repod and Conditions of ApprovaLdoc 3O ITEM 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council i~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) and Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) Integrated PREPARED BY: ~reg Butler, Principal Engineer "-' Paul Thimmig, Bond Counsel RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the Negative Declaration for the John Warner Road Assessment District and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of determination with County Recorder. Hold the public meeting and public hearing regarding the proposed Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) and Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) called pursuant to a resolution regarding the proposed districts adopted on June 24, 2003. Allow the City Clerk to tabulate ballots from property owners received prior to the close of the public meeting and public hearing regarding the proposed districts, and allow the City Clerk to announce the results of the tabulation. If the ballots received with regard to Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) are a majority (weighted by assessment obligation) in favor of the Assessment District, adopt the resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERRULING PROTESTS AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF ELECTION - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) 5. If the resolution described in 4 above has been adopted, adopt the resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) R:\PYLE~John WamergJWAD formAR01,doc 20002.05~6872 However, (a) if at least two of the owners of the parcels in Zone 2 of the Assessment District vote in favor of the Assessment District, strike Section 18 of the resolution before its adoption; and (b) if the ballots received with regard to the Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) are a majority (weighted by maximum contingent assessment) in favor of the Integrated Financing District, strike Section 19 of the resolution before its adoption. If the resolutions described in 4 and 5 above have been adopted, and the ballots received with regard to the Integrated Financing District are a majority (weighted by maximum contingent assessment) in favor of the Integrated Financing District, adopt the resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERRULING PROTESTS AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF ELECTION - INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) If the resolution described in 6 above has been adopted, introduce and have the first reading of the ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF CONTINGENT ASSESSMENTS THEREIN BACKGROUND: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed Assessment District and related improvements. The IS determined that this project is not exempt from CEQA and a Negative Declaration was prepared. No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are proposed. The public review period for the Negative Declaration was from May 22, 2003 to June 10, 2003. At the time this report was prepared, a single opposition letter had been received from one property owner. The concerns of this owner have been addressed. On June 24, 2003, the City Council adopted two resolutions indicating its intention to form the Assessment District and the Integrated Financing District, preliminarily approving an Engineer's Report for the two districts, and calling for a public meeting and hearing and election to occur on August 12, 2003 with regard to the two districts. The Assessment District includes 33 parcels in a Zone 1 that are proposed to be assessed for street and related storm drain improvements in the vicinity of John Warner Road, and 3 parcels in a Zone 2 that are proposed to be assessed only for the storm drain improvements. The Integrated Financing District would levy contingent assessments on the 33 parcels in Zone 1, with the respective contingent assessments only payable if a property in Zone 1 subdivides at a later date. The public meeting and public hearing allow an opportunity for the persons owning the parcels to be assessed to protest the proposed districts or any aspects thereof. Notices of the meeting and hearing were sent to the owners of the parcels to be assessed, along with ballots for them to vote in favor or against each proposed district. General support for the formation of an Assessment District was confirmed at an informal public meeting and through a mailed questionnaire. A couple residents have voiced their opposition to the district. It is anticipated that at least one of them, Mr. Tiritilli, a property owner within Zone 2, will speak out against the Assessment District at the public hearing. He has also stated that if the City moves forward with the formation of Zone 2 of the Assessment District he will file a legal challenge against it. It is staff's opinion, as well as that of the City Attorney and the City's Bond Council, that the special and direct benefit received by the property owners within both zones of the proposed Assessment District is well defined and documented in the Engineer's Report pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "Act"). Furthermore, that the district formation proceedings followed every aspect of the Act. After the public meeting and hearing have been closed, the City Clerk will tabulate the ballots submitted, with separate ballots for the Assessment District and the Integrated Financing District, and will announce the results of the tabulation. The ballots are weighted by the amount to be assessed (with respect to the Assessment District) or the maximum contingent assessment (with respect to the Integrated Financing District). SPECIFIC ACTIONS: If a majority of the ballots received (as weighted) with regard to the Assessment District are in favor of the Assessment District, the City Council should adopt two resolutions overruling any protests, determining the results of the election, adopting the engineer's report and confirming the assessments to be levied in the Assessment District; however, the Zone 2 parcels and the Zone 2 improvements will only be included in the Assessment District if ballots in favor of the Assessment District are received from at least 2 of the 3 owners of the parcels in Zone 2 of the Assessment District. If a majority of the ballots received (as weighted) with regard to the Assessment District are opposed to the Assessment District, no further action following the tabulation of the ballots should be taken by the City Council at the August 12th meeting, and at the next meeting of the City Council a resolution will be presented for adoption which terminates the proceedings to form the Assessment District and the Integrated Financing District. If a majority of the ballots received (as weighted) with regard to the Assessment District are in favor of the Assessment District and a majority of the ballots received (as weighted) with regard to the Integrated Financing District are in favor of the Integrated Financing District, the City Council should adopted a resolution overruling any protests and determining the results of the Integrated Financing District election, and introduce and have the first reading of the ordinance establishing the Integrated Financing District. If the ballots received (as weighted) are not in favor of the Integrated Financing District, the City Council should adopt the resolution approving the Engineer's Report with a provision that all references to the Integrated Financing District be stricken from the Report. If the Assessment District election is successful, property owners will be given thirty days to prepay their assessments. It is expected that fudher resolutions and documents will be presented to the City Council at its September 234 meeting to authorize the issuance of bonds to be secured by the assessments that are not prepaid. FISCAL IMPACT: The improvements to be constructed will be paid for with proceeds of any assessments that are prepaid, the proceeds of bonds issued to be repaid from the remaining assessments, and a City contribution shown in the Engineer's Report of $214,300 towards certain administration, inspection, design and consultant costs. If the Integrated Financing District is formed, any contingent assessments paid upon any subdivision of land in the Assessment District will be used to pay all or part of the principal and interest on the bonds issued for the Assessment District. Except for the City contribution described above, only parcels in the Assessment District will be responsible for the payment of the costs of the improvements to be constructed through the levy of the assessments and, if applicable, the contingent assessments. Any assessment district bonds will not be general obligations of the City, but will be limited obligations, payable solely from assessments levied on land in the Assessment District. Attachments: Initial Study of Environmental Impact Resolutions (3) Ordinance City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration PROJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: John Warner Road Assessment District City of Temecula John Warner Road, south of Santiago Road Subject to successful formation of an Assessment District, the project will consist of road and drainage improvements to five unimproved roads in the City of Temecula. Road improvements will consist of a cumulative total of 0.78 miles of 28-foot wide paved surfaces, concrete curbs and gutters, concrete sidewalks (total ROW of 66 feet for John Warner Road and total ROW of 80 feet for all other roads), and thermoplastic road markings. Drainage improvements will consist of a cumulative total of 0.34 miles of storm drain facilities and will include riprap energy dissipaters and a desilting catch basin. The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the City Council intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. There are no mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment, The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is May 22, 2003 to June 10, 2003. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through: X The Local Newspaper. __ Posting the Site. X Noticeto Adjacent Property Owners. If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Emery J. Papp, Associate Planner aL~909) 694-6400. Prepared by: ~,~ ~. ,///.. ~//~)~:~ Emow J. Papp, Associate Planner (Signature) (Name and Title) R:'xF-,A~A 102 John Wa.ram' Road A.D~NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.doc 1 City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: John Warner Road Assessment District DISTRIBUTION DATE: May 22, 2003 to June 10, 2003 CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ..................................... ( Fire Department .................................... ( X Police Department ................................. ( X Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .................. ( X Planning, Advance .................................. ( Public Works ......................................... ( X STATE: Caltrans ................................................... ( Fish & Game ........................................... ( Mines & Geology ..................................... ( Regional Water Quality Control Board .... ( State Clearinghouse ................................ ( State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ............ ( Water Resources .................................... ( FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ........................ ( ) Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... ( ) ........ () () REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District .............. ( ) Western Riverside COG .......................... ( ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ........... ( ) Airport Land Use Commission ................ ( ) Engineer .................................................. ( ) Flood Control ........................................ ( X ) Health Department .................................. ( ) Parks and Recreation ............................. ( ) Planning Department .............................. ( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA).. ( ) Riverside Transit Agency ........................ ( ) ...... () UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ........... ( X ) Inland Valley Cablevision ...................... ( X ) Rancho CA Water District ..................... ( X ) Southern California Gas ........................ ( X ) Southern California Edison ................... ( X ) Temecula Valley School District .............. ( ) Metropolitan Water District ...................... ( ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... ( X ) Eastern Information Center ..................... ( ) Local Agency Formation Comm .............. ( ) RCTC ..................................................... ( ) Homeowners' Association ..................... ( X ) Santiago Estates CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning .................................................. ( ) RAEAXEA 102 John Warner Road A.D',NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.doc 2 City of Temecula ·~ P.O. Box 9033 '~' Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title John Warner Road Assessment District (Environmental Assessment No. 102) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P,O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Emery J, Papp, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location John Warner Road, Colver Court, La Presa Loop, Lolita Road, and Paulita Road, south of Santiago Road and east of Cabrillo Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (see attached map), These roads abut properties with the following APNs: 945- 104-001 through 008; 945-120-006 through 013; 945-130-001 and 002; 945-140-010 through 012; 945-180-001 through 004; 945-180- 006 through 014; and 945-180-016. Project Sponsor's Name and Address City of Temecula General Plan Designation Local Road Zoning Not Applicable scription of Project Subject to the successful formation of an Assessment District to secure financing, the project will consist of road and drainage improvements to five unimproved roads in the City of Temecula. Road improvements will consist of a cumulative total of 0.78 miles of 28-foot wide paved surfaces and asphalt dikes (total ROW of 66 feet for John Warner Road and total ROW of 60 feet for all other roads). Drainage improvements will consist of a cumulative total of 0.34 miles of storm drain facilities and will include riprap energy dissipaters and a desilting basin. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project is located south of Santiago Road within the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association. This area is characterized by large-lot, very Iow-density residential development. The homes in this area are currently accessible only from unimproved dirt roads, The roads within the proposed Assessment District area can become impassible in inclement weather, which poses a safety concern for residents and for emergency vehicle access during the winter months, Other public agencies whose approval No outside agency permits are required. is required R:\EA\EA102 John Warner Road A.D~A 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 1 ~ Environmental Factors Potentially Affected · ) IThe environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality TransPortation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resoumes Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that 'the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT but it must; , the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are further is required. Date Emery J. Papp Printed name Associate Planner R:\EA~EA102 John Warner Road A.D',EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 2 .. ,' ) .~ E "r' E .g. n' ~. i~ lB 8 ! ,. ~ I~ ~) i::3 I;:: ,~ + ~--~ Land Use and Planning. Would the project: PotenUa~!y rent,al y significant Unless Less Than ig~c~lnt Mitigation sIg~lficant No Issues a~d Supporting Information Sources 'Impact Incoi~'ated impact Impact ! a. Physically divide an established community? ,,' b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: This project will provide for the formation of an Assessment District for the purpose of paving existing dirt roads in the City of Temecula, and to construct permanent drainage facilities as design elements of the paved road surfaces. This project will not cause any changes to existing land use patterns. This project will have no impacts on land use. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues and Supportihg {hfom~ati(~nSOurces · I~' ) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ,,, businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ,/ elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: This project will not displace any housing units or local residents. The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements is not expected to induce residential and population growth in the area. The primary purpose of the project is to replace the existing dirt roads in the area with all-weather access roads to the existing homes in the area. This project will have no impacts on population or housing. R:\EA\EA102 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 3 ~.~ GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? , , '~ ;'~P~n~ally Slgr~i~h~ess: Le~sThan .' :S g~[fi~ht 'Miljg~ttl0n Sleight No Issues and Suppolting Informatlon Sources . . ~ I~ Ih~rp~rat~d Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death ~ involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ,/ iv)Landslides? ,/ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of '~-~ septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not expose people or property to any significant impacts or effects caused by geology or soils. The construction of the improved roads with paved surfaces, asphalt dikes, and storm drains will stabilize soils. The new roads will eliminate wind erosion and the creation of fugitive dust caused by vehicular traffic. As a result, no significant impacts are expected to occur. 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: i~otenti~fiy · ~: ,~oten~a y ,si~!~afit~Onless ~es~han I Issuesa~Sup~ng;Inf~ti0~$~ut~s ,,. ; ~ i~ ,:, ~ ~;~ I~pa~ c :' ::l~ted~ ~::1~ ~ a. Violate any water quali~ standards or waste discharge / requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intedere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate / of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not suppo~ existing land uses or planned uses for ~ = which permits have been granted)? ~. Substantially alter the existing drainage paffern of the site / or area, including through the alteration of the course of a R:\EA\EAI02 John Wamer Road A.D'~_.A 102 John Warner Rd, A.D..doc 4 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potent~lly Potentially signiflcai~t Onless Less Than Significant Mitigation SignJlicent No Issues a~l Suppo~ling information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or/Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a !~_ result of the failure of a levee or dam? '1 .~ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system. The proposed road improvements are not expected to effect hydrology or water quality standards beyond current roadway runoff levels. In fact, the construction of the improved roads with paved surfaces, asphalt dikes, storm drains and catch basin will eliminate erosion of the existing unimproved roadway and improve downstream sedimentation and siltation problems. The improvements will not expose people or property to any new significant impacts or effects caused by flooding. As a result, no significant impacts are expecte~d to occur. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b, Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- i attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient i air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d, Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ,/ R:\EA"EAI02 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D,.doc 5 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: SIg~ ~nless Less Than Sl~gii~ M~gati~'n $ig~(~ant No Issues and Suppoffing Inf0rmatt~h Sou~e" ~'r~0~ I~at~d ImPacl ImPact concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will have temporary effects on air quality. Construction activities will have the potential to create fugitive dust. However, construction and earth-moving activity will require adequate watering to reduce the potential for dust. Also, asphalt paving will cause volatile organic compounds to be released into the air. However, because of the relative small amount of new roadway surface (less than one mile) and the temporary impact of the release of VOCs, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Furthermore, the asphalt surface will improve long-term air quality in the area by eliminating year-round fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling on the existing unimproved road surfaces. 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: ; ~...i, i '~o~.n?aily ,~sigl~ifiC~tUfi!ess, ~LeSS,Than IssuesandSupi3orflnglnformati0nSou~ ,=; ,~. -~ ,~irhp~ct IncorpOreal !mpact:T Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street ..~ system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the :i ) number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ,/ : incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? v g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not impact or adversely affect area circulation. The roads being paved provide access to an existing area that is built out. The primary purpose for the improvements is to provide all-weather access to homes in the area. These improvements are not expected to attract additional vehicle trips to the area. The design speed of the local roads is 27 miles per hour and the capacity of a local road, per the City of r/ ~mecula General Plan Circulation Element, is about 2,000 trips per day. There are 35 properties within the · pdoposed Assessment District boundary. Assuming a factor of 12 vehicle trips per household per day, the number of average daily vehicle trips for project area will be about 420. As a result, the impact from traffic is R:\EA\EA102 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D,,doc 6 not expected to be significant. The proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element requirements for local roads. No additional impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: P~tentialiy Potentlaliy Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Suppeding Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ,z local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Deparfment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the ~' California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected i wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water i Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, v~ coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially With the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ,~ ~ "~ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or o~rdinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or v' ordinance? . f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ,/ Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not significantly affect biological resources. The proposed project will place impervious surfaces on existing unimproved roads that are used to access homes in the Santiago Estates area. The existing right-of- way is established and there are no threatened or endangered species that would be impacted by this project. 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: P~te~tial,ly P6t~htialiy Significant Migg~at!on Significant Ho Issues and Suppodin~ Information Sources I~pact 'lncoi'~0fated linp~ ,, ~lml~act a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? I Result in the loss of availability of a locally important i mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ,,' general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? R:~.A'~_AI02 John Warner Road A.D'~,[A 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 7 ,.P--Rmments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements ~ not consume any non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner. The project will not reduce regional or locally important resources. As a result, no impacts to energy or mineral resources are expected to occur from this project. 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Sup~3o~ting Information Sources Impact Incoq3orat~l Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or ,,' disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ,/ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely ,,. hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to · ) Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ,,' would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ,/ evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not expose area residents to any new hazards or hazardous materials not already transported through this area or found in adjacent neighborhoods. The project will result in a reduction of hazards by creating a safer route through the project area. The project is not located within the safety area for any public Or private airports. As a result, no impacts are expected from this project. R:\EA\EA102 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 8 t3 NOISE. Would the project result In: Potentiatiy Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mi~flgafl0n Slgnif~ant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the v project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the I project area to excessive noise levels? ~ "'~mments: The formation of the Assessment District and construction of road and drainage improvements v~l not significantly impact noise in the project area. Some additional construction-related noise is expected to occur while the project is being constructed. However, these impacts will be of relatively short duration and will largely be confined to daylight hours when most residents are less likely to bothered or affected. While construction of the roadway and drainage improvements will result in a temporary increase in the amount of noise and vibration, no significant impacts ara anticipated. Noise from traffic is not expected to increase. As stated in the Traffic Section of this environmental assessment, the number of average daily trips is significantly less than the design capacity of the roadway. No noise impacts are expected to occur as a result of vehicular traffic. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: · ~ ~gt~t hi ~ . · t~te~tiall~."' ' ' " · S!g~tiqant ~nles$: LeS~$ Than Issues a~ SuppoSing Information Sou~s a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the constru~ion of which could cause significant environmental impacts, ~ in order to maintain acceptable se~ice ratios, response times or other pedormance objectives for any of the public se~ices? b. Fire protection? R:',F-A~EAI02 John Warner Road A.D~EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 9 c. Police protection? ,/ d. Schools? _~) Parks? Other public facilities? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not affect the demand for, or adversely effect, public services. This project may result in a small incremental increase in road maintenance and landscape maintenance costs. The project is also expected to provide an incremental improvement in the provision of police, fire and ambulance services by improving traffic flow and reducing potential response times. As a result, no effects are expected from this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Informafion Sources Impact IncorpOrated Impact impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ,,. applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ,,. facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water i drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the i construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ~ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ,,. accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ,,. regulations related to solid waste? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not affect public utilities or service systems. The project is expected to tie into and to use the existing storm runoff system serving this area. As a result, no significant impacts are expected from this project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: I Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Ib. ! limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildin Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not R:\EA\EA102 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 10 within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or; ,/ ,..-,) quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not have the potential to affect views in the area. None of the roads in project area have been designated as a scenic roadway. Street lighting is not included as part of this proposed Assessment District and, therefore, there will be no impacts associated with glare. As are result, no significant impacts are anticipated. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially SIgn!ficant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Infom~ation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,,, a historical resource as defined in Section t506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,,, an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ,/ d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? /-~mments:~' The roadway and shoulder areas of the project area have been extensively graded and maintained for years and the discovery of cultural resources is not expected occur in such highly disturbed soil conditions. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ,/ i facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that ,,, might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will not affect the demand for, or adversely affect, recreational facilities. As a result, no impacts are expected from this project. R:\EA\E. A102 John Warner Rond A.O~EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 11 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ~~~ ~otent!a!!y potentially $igni~ce~nt~leos Less-'~han sJg~l~ .~t Mitigation Signl~cant No Issues and SuppOrting Infomlation Sources impact IncorPorated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate ,/ a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a v~ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ~ either directly or indirectly? Comments: The formation of the Assessment District, and construction of road and drainage improvements will meet current and future traffic and circulation needs within the project area. This existing need was created by homes within the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association that are currently utilizing /~)improved roads to access their properties. The need to form the Assessment District has been lobbied by r,Omeowners and reinforced by emergency services such as the City's Police and Fire Departments. The primary purpose of these improvements is to address the need for all-weather access to homes in the area. The cumulative impacts of the ultimate build-out of the project area (to General Plan standards) were addressed in the City General Plan and Final EIR that were adopted in November of 1993. This project will provide benefits that far outweigh any potential impacts associated with the construction of the project. R:\EA\EA102 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd. A.D..doc 12 ~-~. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, )other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or riegatlve declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project, The City of Temecula General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan are available for review at the public counter of the Planning Department located at 43200 Business Park Drive in Temecula. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan (November 9, 1993) City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (November 9, 1993) John Warner Road Assessment District Street Improvement Plans John Warner Road Assessment District Storm Drain Plans R:~F_.A~F_A102 John Warner Road A.D\EA 102 John Warner Rd, A.D,.doc 13 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERRULING PROTESTS AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF ELECTION - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003 the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted a resolution of intention to acquire and construct improvements and to form the City of Temecula Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) (the "Assessment District") and the related City of Temecula Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) (the "integrated Financing District"); and WHEREAS, this Council also has adopted a resolution preliminarily approving an Engineer's Report for the Assessment District and the Integrated Financing District, and calling for a public meeting and hearing, and an election, with respect to the proposed Assessment District; and WHEREAS, a notice of the public meeting and hearing, accompanied by ballot materials, were mailed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, all written protests and other written communications received by the City Clerk with respect to the Assessment District were publicly read at the public meeting and hearing and all persons desiring to be heard at the public meeting and public hearing were fully heard; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public meeting and hearing, the City Clerk tabulated the ballots cast in the election with respect to the Assessment District, and the City Clerk has completed and filed with the Council a Cedificate regarding the results of the election in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, this Council now desires to overrule any protests and declare the results of the election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. That protests, if any, against the Assessment District were not signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of the lands within the Assessment District to be assessed for the purposes of the Assessment District. Section 2. That said protests, if any, be, and each of them are hereby overruled. Section 3. That the results of the election held within the Assessment District, as reported by the City Clerk, were that more than a majority of votes cast (weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of each property voting) were in favor of the establishment of the Assessment District and the levy of assessments therein, so it is therefore determined that a majority protest does not exist. Page 1 of 2 R:~PYLEUohn Wame~ResoCityOverrulingAD.doc Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Page 2 of 2 R:~PYLEUohn Wamer~ResoCii'/Ove rrulingAD.d oc EXHIBIT A CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING RESULT OF ASSESSMENT BALLOTS CAST - CITY OF TEMECULA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Temecula hereby certify that I have personally received and assembled all ballots eligible to be cast in the proceedings for the establishment of the City of Temecula Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road), and the levy of special assessments therein, and in accordance with instructions contained in the Assessment Ballot. I personally tabulated the ballots and certify the result of that count to be as follows: TOTALVOTESTHAT COULD BE CAST: TOTAL VOTES CAST"YES" TOTAL VOTES CAST"NO" THE VOTES CAST"YES"EQUAL respective amounts of assessments. , representing assessments of $ , representing assessments of $ , representing assessments of $ % OF THE TOTAL VOTES CAST, weighted by the I hereby make the foregoing Certification on ,2003. By: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk, City of Temecula County of Riverside State of California A-1 RESOLUTION NO. 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) THE CITY COUNCIL O F T HE CITY O F T EMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003 the City Council (the UCouncil") of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted a resolution of intention (the "Resolution of intention"), to acquire and construct improvements in connection with the proposed City of Temecula Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) (the "Assessment District"), and the related City of Temecula Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) (the "Integrated Financing District"), and referred the proposed acquisition and construction of improvements to the Engineer of Work for the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, the Council thereby directed the Engineer of Work to make and file with the City Clerk a report (the "Report") in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk, whereupon said City Clerk presented it to the Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003 the Council thereupon duly considered said Report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of t he Act, including (i) maps and descriptions of lands and easements to be acquired; (ii) plans and specifications of the proposed improvements; (iii) itemized and total costs of said improvements; (iv) a diagram of the Assessment District; and (v) an assessment according to special benefits, all of which was done in the form and manner required by the Act; and WHEREAS, the Council found that the Report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the Report for all subsequent proceedings under the Act related to the Assessment District, whereupon the Council, pursuant to the requirements of the Act and the California Government Code, appointed a time and place for a public meeting and public hearing on the Assessment District at which time and place all pretests in relation to the Assessment District were heard; and WHEREAS, notice of the public meeting and public hearing was provided to each owner of property in the Assessment District, and said public meeting and public hearing were duly and regularly held at the appointed time and place; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard at the public hearing were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the Assessment District were fully heard and considered by the Council, and the Council has acquired jurisdiction to order said acquisition and construction of improvements and the confirmation of said diagram and assessment to pay the costs and expenses thereof; and WHEREAS, following the public meeting a nd public h earing, t he City Clerk tabulated ballots in the election regarding the Assessment District, and this Council adopted a resolution overruling any protests and declaring the results of the election to be more than a majority of the ballots case in the election (weighted according to the proposed financial obligation of each property voting) in favor of the Assessment District and the levy of the assessments therein; and R:~YLEUohn Wamer~ResoAdoptEng Rpt01.doc WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Assessment District for the Council to retain said jurisdiction to acquire and construct said improvements and levy said assessments and issue bonds secured by said assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Based upon the Report and the testimony and other evidence received at the public meeting and hearing, it is hereby determined that: (a) all properties within the boundaries of the Assessment District receive a special benefit from the improvements identified in the Report; (b) the proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel preposed to be assessed has been determined in relationship to the cost of acquisition and construction of the improvements; (c) no assessment is proposed to be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the preportional special benefit to be conferred on such parcel from the improvements; (d) only special benefits have been assessed; and (e) there are no parcels within the Assessment District which are owned or used by any agency as such term is defined in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, the State of California or the United States. Section3. That the Assessment District benefited by said acquisition and construction of improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof are more particularly described in said Resolution of Intention and made a part hereof by reference thereto. That all public streets and highways within said Assessment District in use in the performance of a public function as such shall be omitted from said district and from the levy and collection of the special assessments to be hereafter levied and collected to cover the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of imprevements. Section 4. That the plans and specifications for the proposed acquisition and construction of improvements contained in said Report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved as the plans and specifications to which said work shall be done as called for in said Resolution of Intention. Section 5. That the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses in connection therewith, contained in said Report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved as the Engineer of Work's total and detailed estimate of the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements. Section 6. That t he public interest a nd convenience require a nd the Council does hereby order the acquisition and construction of improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City Clerk, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said acquisition and construction of improvements, and also for further particulars pursuant to the provisions of said Act. Section 7. That the diagrem showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said Resolution of Intention, and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions having been given a separete number upon said diagrem, as contained in the Report, be, and hereby are finally approved and confirmed as the diagram of the properties to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements. Section 8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed acquisition a nd construction o f improvements u pon t he several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by said subdivisions, respectively, from said acquisition and construction of improvements, and of 2 R:~PYLEUohn Warner~ResoAdoptEngRpt01.doc the expenses incidental thereto, contained in the Report, be, and the same hereby are finally approved, confirmed and are hereby levied as the assessments to pay the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements. In addition, an annual assessment to pay for administrative costs in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount described in the Report is hereby levied, as more particularly set forth in the Report. Section 9. as a whole. That the Report be, and the same hereby is finally adopted and approved Section 10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith deliver to the Public Works Director, in his capacity as Superintendent of Streets for the City, the assessment (in the form of the final Report), together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by this Council with the Clerk's certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof; and that said Public Works Director shall record said diagram and assessment in his office in a suitable book to be kept for that purpose, and append thereto his certificate for the date of such recording, and such recordation shall be and constitute the assessment roll herein. The City Clerk shall also record a certified copy of the assessment diagram in the Office of the County Recorder. Section 11. The City Clerk shall execute and record a Notice of Assessment in the office of the Public Works Director and the County Recorder of the County of Riverside, such notice to be in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached to this resolution. From the date of such recording with the Public Works Director and with the County of Riverside, all persons shall be deemed to have notice of the contents of such assessment, and each of such assessments shall thereupon be a lien upon the property against which it is made, and unless sooner discharged such liens shall so continue for the period of ten (10) years from the date of such recordation, or in the event bonds are issued to represent said assessments, then such liens shall continue until the expiration of four (4) years after the due date of the last installment upon said bonds. Section 12. Upon recordation of the diagram and assessment, a notice shall be mailed to each owner of real property within the Assessment District at his last known address, as such address appears on the last equalized tax rolls of the County, such notice to set forth a statement containing a designation of the property assessed, as well as the amount of the final confirmed assessment, and further indicating that bonds will be issued pursuant to the "improvement Bond Act of 1915." Section 13. Notice shall also be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, such notice setting forth the amount of the final assessment and indicating that such assessment is now due and payable, and further indicating that if such assessment is not paid within the allowed thirty (30) day cash collection period, bonds shall be issued as authorized by law. Section 14. The County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8682 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, to enter into his assessment roll on which property taxes will next become due, opposite each lot or parcel o f I and affected, i n a s pace marked "public improvement assessment" or by other suitable designation, the next and several installments of such assessment coming due during the ensuing fiscal year covered by the assessment roll and that such entry then shall be made each year during the life of the bonds for the proceedings for the above-referenced Assessment District. This authorization is continual until all assessment obligations have been discharged and the bonds terminated. As an alternate, and when determined to be in the best interests for bondholders of the Assessment District, this Council may, by Resolution, designate an official other than the County Tax Collector and/or other agent, to collect and maintain records of the collection of the assessments, including a procedure other than the normal property tax collection procedure. 3 R:~°YLEUohn Wamer~ResoAdoptEng Rpt01 .doc In accordance with the provisions of Section 8685 of the Streets and Highways Code, if any lot or parcel of land affected by any assessment is not separately assessed on the tax roll so that the installment of the assessment to be collected can be conveniently entered thereon, then the Auditor shall enter on the roll a description of the lot or parcel affected, with the name of the owners, if known, but otherwise the owners may be described as "unknown owners", and extend the proper installment opposite the same. Section 15. The CountyAuditor shall, within 90 days after any special assessment installment becomes delinquent, render and submit a detailed report showing the amounts of the installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected, for the preceding term and installment date, and from what property collected, and further identify any properties which are delinquent and the amount and length of time for such delinquency, and further set forth a statement of percentages retained for the expenses of making such collections. This request is specifically made pursuant to the authorization of Section 8683 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Section 16. The appropriate officer or officers of the City are hereby authorized to pay any and all fees required by law in connection with the above. Section 17. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. [Section 18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Council hereby finds and determines that less than a majority of the property owners that would specially benefit from the Zone 2 improvements identified in the Report have voted in favor of the Assessment District, and the Council hereby directs that all references to Zone 2, the Zone 2 improvements, the costs of the Zone 2 improvements and the parcels identified as 34, 35 and 36 in the Report be stricken from the Report, such that parcels 34, 35 and 36 will not be included in the Assessment District, and the Zone 2 improvements and the costs thereof will not be funded by the Assessment District.] [Section 19. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Council hereby finds and determines that less than a majority of the property owners that would specially benefit from the improvements identified in the Report have voted in favor of the Integrated Financing District described in the Report, and the Council hereby directs that all references to the Integrated Financing District be stricken from the Report.] Section 20. For the purposes of the City of Temecula Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) and City of Temecula Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road), the City Council hereby confirms that the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula serves as the Superintendent of Streets and Engineer of the Work for these Districts. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor 4 R:~PYLE'John Wamer~ResoAdoptEngRpt01.doc ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular ~neeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~PYLBJohn Wame~ResoAdoptEng RptO 1.doc EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT CITY OF TEMECULA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) Pursuant to the requirement of Section 3114 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California (hereinafter, the "City"), hereby gives notice that an assessment diagram and assessment were recorded in the Office of the Public Works Director of the City as provided for in Section 3114 of the California Streets and Highways Code, and relating to the property more particularly described on that certain assessment diagram filed in accordance with Section 3114 of the California Streets and Highways Code, in Book __ of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page __ in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside. Notice is further given that upon the recording of this Notice of Assessment in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, the several assessments assessed on the lots, pieces, and parcels shown on the filed assessment diagram shall become a lien upon the lots or portions of lots assessed, respectively. In addition to the several assessments assessed on the lots, pieces and parcels shown on the filed assessment diagram, each lot, piece or parcel as shown on the filed assessment diagram which have unpaid assessments shall be additionally assessed annually (i) the amount of $ (or such higher amount as may be permitted if Section 8682 of the California Streets and Highways Code is amended to permit a higher amount) to cover certain administrative and collection charges as authorized by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, and (ii) an amount specified in the assessment proceedings to pay costs of the City with respect to the registration of bonds and compliance with federal arbitrage laws, as permitted under Section 8682.1 of the California Streets and Highways Code. Reference is made to the assessment diagram and assessment roll for this assessment district recorded in the Office of the Public Works Director of the City, in his capacity as Superintendent of Streets of the City. Dated: ,2003 By: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California A - 1 R:~PYLEUohn Warner~ResoAdoptEngRpt01,doc RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERRULING PROTESTS AND DETERMINING RESULTS OF ELECTION - INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003 the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted a resolution of intention to acquire and construct improvements and to form the City of Temecula Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) (the "Assessment District") and the related City of Temecula Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) (the "Integrated Financing District"); and WHEREAS, this Council also has adopted a resolution preliminarily approving an Engineer's Repod for the Assessment District and the Integrated Financing District, and calling for a public meeting and hearing, and an election, with respect to the proposed Integrated Financing District; and WHEREAS, a notice of the public meeting and hearing, accompanied by ballot materials, were mailed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, all written protests and other written communications received by the City Clerk with respect to the Integrated Financing District were publicly read at the public meeting and hearing and all persons desiring to be heard at the public meeting and public hearing were fully heard; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public meeting and hearing, the City Clerk tabulated the ballots cast in the election with respect to the Integrated Financing District, and the City Clerk has completed and filed with the Council a Certificate regarding the results of the election in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, this Council now desires to overrule any protests and declare the results of the election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. That protests, if any, against the Integrated Financing District were not signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of the lands within the Integrated Financing District to be contingently assessed for purposes of the Integrated Financing District. Section 2. That said protests, if any, be, and each of them are hereby overruled. Section 3. That the results of the election held within the Integrated Financing District, as reported by the City Clerk, were that more than a majority of votes cast (weighted according to the proportional maximum contingent financial obligation of each property voting) were in favor of the establishment of the Integrated Financing District and the levy of assessments therein, so it is therefore determined that a majority protest does not exist. Page I of 2 R:\PYLEUohn Wamer~ResoCityOvenulinglFD.doc Section 4. and adoption. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Page 2 of 2 R:~PYLE~John Wame~ResoCi~OverrulinglFD.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No.03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING RESULT OF ASSESSMENT BALLOTS CAST - CiTY OF TEMECULA INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Temecula hereby certify that I have personally received and assembled all ballots eligible to be cast in the proceedings for the establishment of the City of Temecula Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road), and the levy of contingent special assessments therein, and in accordance with instructions contained in the Integrated Financing District Ballot. I personally tabulated the ballots and certify the result of that count to be as follows: TOTAL VOTES THAT COULD BE CAST: of $ representing maximum contingent assessments TOTAL VOTES CAST "YES" $ , representing maximum contingent assessments of TOTAL VOTES CAST "NO" $. , representing maximum contingent assessments of THE VOTES CAST "YES" EQUAL % OF THE TOTAL VOTES CAST, weighted by the respective amounts of maximum contingent assessments. hereby make the foregoing Certification on ,2003. By: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk, City of Temecula County of Riverside State of California A-1 ORDINANCE NO. 03- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-05 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF CONTINGENT ASSESSMENTS THEREIN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003 the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted a resolution of intention (the "Resolution of Intention"), to acquire and construct improvements in connection with the proposed City of Temecula Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road) (the "Assessment District"), and the related City of Temecula Integrated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Warner Road) (the "integrated Financing District"), and referred the proposed acquisition and construction of improvements to the Engineer of Work for the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, the Council thereby directed the Engineer of Work to make and file with the City Clerk a report (the "Report") in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "Act") and provisions of the California Government Code applicable to integrated financing districts; and WHEREAS, the Report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk, whereupon said City Clerk presented it to the Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003 the Council thereupon duly considered said Report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of the Act and the Government Code for integrated financing districts, including (i) maps and descriptions of lands and easements to be acquired; (ii) plans and specifications of the proposed improvements; (iii) itemized and total costs of said improvements; (iv) a diagram of the Integrated Financing District; and (v) a contingent assessment according to special benefits, all of which was done in the form and manner required by the Act, and, where applicable, the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Council found that the Report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the Report for all subsequent proceedings under the Act and the Government Code for the Integrated Financing District, whereupon the Council, pursuant to the requirements of the Act and the Government Code, appointed a time and place for a public meeting and public hearing on the Integrated Financing District at which time and place all protests in relation to the Integrated Financing District were heard; and WHEREAS, notice of the public meeting and public hearing was provided to each owner of property in the Integrated Financing District, and said public meeting and ~ublic hearing were duly and regularly held at the appointed time and place; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard at the public hearing were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the integrated Financing District were fully heard and considered by the Council, and the Council has acquired jurisdiction to order said acquisition and construction of improvements and the confirmation of said diagram and contingent assessment to pay the costs and expenses thereof; and WHEREAS, following the public meeting and public hearing, the City Clerk tabulated ballots in the election regarding the Integrated Financing District, and this Council adopted a resolution overruling any protests and declaring the results of the election to be more than a Page 1 of 1 R:~YLE~Iohn Wamer~OrdinanceEstlFD,doc majority of the ballots case in the election (weighted according to the proposed maximum contingent financial obligation of each property voting) in favor of the Integrated Financing District and the levy of the contingent assessments therein; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Integrated Financing District for the Council to retain said jurisdiction to acquire and construct said improvements and levy said contingent assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Based upon the Report and the testimony and other evidence received at the public meeting and hearing, it is hereby determined that: (a) all properties within the boundaries of the Integrated Financing District will receive a special benefit from the improvements identified in the Report; (b) the proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel proposed to be contingently assessed has been determined in relationship to the cost of the acquisition and construction of the Improvements; (c) no contingent assessment is proposed to be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit to be conferred on such parcel from the improvements; (d) only special benefits have been contingently assessed; and (e) there are no parcels within the Integrated Financing District which are owned or used by any agency as such term is defined in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, the State of California or the United States. Section 3. That the Integrated Financing District benefited by said acquisition and construction of improvements and to be contingently assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof are more particularly described in said Resolution of Intention and made a part hereof by reference thereto. That all public streets and highways within said integrated Financing District in use in the performance of a public function as such shall be omitted from said district and from the levy and collection of the special contingent assessments to be hereafter levied and collected to cover the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements. Section 4. That the plans and specifications for the proposed acquisition and construction of improvements contained in said Repod, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved as the plans and specifications to which said work shall be done as called for in said Resolution of Intention. Section 5. That the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses in connection therewith, contained in said Report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved as the Engineer of Work's total and detailed estimate of the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements. Section 6. That the public interest and convenience require and the Council does hereby order the acquisition and construction of improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Resolution of intention on file in the office of the City Clerk, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said acquisition and construction of improvements, and also for further particulars pursuant to the provisions of said Act. Section 7. That the diagram showing the Integrated Financing District referred to and described in said Resolution of Intention, and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions having been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in the Report, be, and hereby are finally approved and confirmed as the diagram of the properties to be contingently assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements. Page 2 of 2 R:\PYLEUoha Wamer~OrdinanceEstlFD.dcc Section 8. That the contingent assessments upon the several subdivisions of land in the Integrated Financing District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by said subdivisions, respectively, from the acquisition and construction of improvements, and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in the Report, be, and the same hereby are finally approved, confirmed and are hereby levied as contingent assessments to pay the costs and expenses of said acquisition and construction of improvements, said contingent assessments to be due and payable in a lump sum at the time of approval by the City Council of tentative subdivision map, vesting tentative subdivision map or final subdivision map (whichever may first occur) for a respective parcel in the integrated Financing District. Section 9. as a whole. That the Report be, and the same hereby is finally adopted and approved Section 10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith deliver to the Public Works Director, in his capacity as Superintendent of Streets for the City, the contingent assessment (in the form of the final Report), together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by this Council with the Clerk's certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof; and that said Public Works Director shall record said diagram and contingent assessment in his office in a suitable book to be kept for that purpose, and append thereto his cedificate for the date of such recording, and such recordation shall be and constitute the contingent assessment roll herein. The City Clerk also shall execute and record a Notice of Contingent Assessment in the office of the Public Works Director Section 11. Upon confirmation of the contingent assessments and recordation of the contingent assessment roll and diagram with the Public Works Director, a certified copy of the contingent assessment diagram shall be immediately filed in the Office of the County Recorder. Immediately thereafter, a copy of the notice of contingent assessment shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder in the manner and form as set forth by law and specifically Section 3114 of the Streets and Highways Code of the state of California. Upon recordation of the notice of contingent assessment, such contingent assessment shall constitute a lien upon the real property against which the notice is recorded and such line shall continue until the contingent assessment and all penalties, if any, are fully paid or the property is sold to satisfy the lien. The contingent assessment lien shall have the same force, effect, priority, and duration as would a delinquent lien under the Act, and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 8500). Section 12. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933. Section 13. The appropriate officer or officers of the City are hereby authorized to pay any and all fees required by law in connection with the above. Section 14. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adopt[on. Section 15. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. Page 3 of 3 R:~PYLE~John Warner~OrdinanceEstlFD.doc PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 2003. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 03- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of August, 2003; and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 26th day of August, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT 0 :COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Page 4 of 4 R:~PYLELIohn Wamer~OrdinanceEstlFD.doc ITEM 16 APPROVAL CITY AT'EORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~F_.,~(~.. CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Award the Construction Contract for Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project - Project No. PW02-07 PREPARED BY: (-~Greg Butler, Principal Engineer RECOMMENDATION: If the City Council adopts a Resolution adopting the Engineer's Report and ordering the acquisition and construction of improvements - Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road), then Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT REGARDING CERTAIN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO BE REIMBURSED FROM PROCEEDS OF TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS Authorize the use of $1,137,000 from the General Fund to fully fund the construction of the Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Street and Storm D rain Improvement project. ($1,012,500_+ will be reimbursed from Assessment Distdct 03-04 Bond proceeds and $124,500_+ will be sought to be recovered from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) Award a construction contract for the Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Street and Strom Drain Improvement Project - Project No. PW02-07 to McLaughlin Engineering and Mining, Inc. in the amount of $1,059,569.50 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract, provided the City Attorney has determined that there is no significant legal risk associated with any protests received at the Assessment District Public Hearing. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $105,956.95, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of forming Assessment Distdct 03-04 (John Warner Road) to provide funds for the proposed improvements. Because the bond proceeds will not be available until later this year, Staff is requesting that Council authorize the use of General Fund undesignated reserves to fully fund the construction project. The General Fund will be reimbursed with Assessment District (AD) bond proceeds once the AD formation proceedings are complete. I R:~AGENDA REPORTS~2003\081203~PW02-07 John Warner awd. DOC The status of the City's request to RCWD for reimbursement is discussed below. On June 24, 2003 the City Council approved the Construction Plans a nd Specifications a nd authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the subject project. The award of this contract is contingent upon the successful formation of Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Warner Road). The formation of the Assessment District which was formally initiated by City Council with the adoption of a resolution of intention on June 24, 2003, will have been finalized by City Council's earlier adoption of a Resolution adopting the Engineer's Report and ordering the acquisition and construction of improvements-Assessment Distdct No. 03-04 (John Warner Road). In the event the City Council takes the necessary actions to form the Assessment District and there were protests filed during the public hearing, the City Attorney will evaluate the validity of the protests. If the City is exposed to any significant risk, the City Attorney will recommend that the City Manager not execute the contract until such time as the legal issues associated with the protest have been resolved. However, if City Council does not take the necessary actions to form the Assessment District, the Council should not award the construction contract and a recommendation to reject all bids will be made at the next meeting of the City Council. Eight (8) bids were received and publicly opened on July 29, 2003, the results were as follows: 1. McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc. $1,059,569.50 2. Greg J. Hards Construction $1,114,269.00 3. R.J. Noble Company $1,148,206.00 4. Silvia Construction, Inc. $1,227,101.80 5. Vance Corporation $1,259,529.00 6. Palp, Inc. (dba Excel Paving) $1,206,000.00 7. Riverside Construction $1,287,589.00 8. KEC Engineering $1,307,865.00 A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found McLaughlin Engineering and Mining, Inc., of Temecula, California to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. McLaughlin Engineering and Mining, Inc. has extensive experience in road construction projects and has successfully completed similar projects for the City in the past. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $1,465,000.00 The scope of work for this project includes grading and paving the existing dirt roads as well as installing a storm drain system that will protect the proposed street improvements from erosion and sedimentation. Staff has been coordinating the underground utility relocation work necessitated by the proposed street and storm drain improvements. The City's position is that each respective utility agency shall be responsible for all costs associated with relocating their existing utilities. This is based upon the City's prior rights established by the offer of dedication for public road purposes on Parcel Map 6607, recorded on January 26, 1976 in the County of Riverside. Despite the City's best efforts to have RCWD complete and fund the necessarydesign and relocation work, on Thursday June 12, 2003, RCWD's Board of Directors voted to not honor the City's request to relocate the water lines in the John Wamer Road assessment distdct area. In an effort to keep the project moving forward and avoid a lengthy delay associated with the waterline relocation design and construction, at the July 8, 2003 City Council meeting Council approved a consultant services agreement with Kevin Cozad & Assoc (Cozad) for the necessary design work. Unfortunately the final design of the waterline relocation was not ready pdor to the solicitation of bids for the street and storm drain improvements. Therefore, the specifications and bid documents describe the relocation of the existing potable waterline, and related appurtenances. This action assured that a reasonable representation of the waterline relocation work was competitively bid. 2 R:~GENDA REPORTS~2003\081203~PW02-07 John Warner awd,DOC Once the waterline relocation plans and specifications are finalized, the scope of work will be compared to that described in the project specifications. Any revision to the scope of work and/or adjustment in compensation will be negotiated and implemented by executing a change order with the contractor awarded the project based upon the bids as received. The City will be seeking to recoup the costs associated with this design contract, and all other RCWD facility relocation expenses, from RCWD using any means available including legal action if necessary. FISCAL IMPACT: The John Warner Assessment District project is included in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The project is funded with Capital Project Reserves and Assessment District bond proceeds. The base amount of the construction contract is $1,059,569.50, adding a 10% contingency of $105,956.95 yields a total construction authorization of $1,165,526.45. An adequate appropriation is available in Account No. 210-165-727-5604. However, because all of the revenue sources for this appropriation are not available at this time, an advance from the General Fund will be necessary to fully fund the construction contract until the AD Bond precaeds are available and at which time the General Fund will be reimbursed with AD Bond proceeds. In the event RCWD does not reimburse the City for all utility relocation expenses incurred completing work required to relocate RCWD facilities, an additional appropriation may be required to fully fund the project. ATrACHMENT: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Project Description 4. Contract 3 R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003~081203~PWO2A)7 John Warner awd. DOC RESOLUTION NO. 03-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXPRESSING OFFICIAL INTENT REGARDING CERTAIN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO BE REIMBURSED FROM PROCEEDS OF TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Temecula (the "City") as follows: WHEREAS, the City has developed a list of capital projects (the "Projects") described in Exhibit A hereto; WHEREAS, all or a portion of the expenditures relating to the Projects (the "Expenditures") (i) have been paid within the sixty days prior to the passage as of this Resolution or (ii) will be paid on or after the passage of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for the Expenditures with the proceeds of obligations the interest on which will be excluded from the gross income of the owner or owners thereof (the "Obligations"); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the Expenditures with proceeds of the Obligations to be issued by the City or another entity of the City or in which the City is a member or for which the members of the City Council act as the governing board or whose debt is subject to the approval of the City Council. Section 2. The maximum principal amount of the Obligations expected to be issued for the Projects is $1,500,000. Section 3. This Resolution is a declaration of official intent to reimburse expenditures pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.150.2. Section 4. All actions of the officers, agents and employees of the City or other entity of the City that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution, whether taken before or after the adoption hereof, are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS Public infrastructure improvements related to City of Temecula Assessment District 03-04 (John Warner Road) Exhibit A il III CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW02-07 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 12th day of August, 2003 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as UClTY", and McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CiTY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW02.07, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM D RAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications for Construction of Local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Previsions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW02-07, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW02-07, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. CONTRACT CA-1 R:~CIP~P ROJ E CTS~PW02~PW02-07 John Wamer~Specs~Contract.doc Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW02-07, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ONE MILLION FIFTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE DOLLARS and FIFTY CENTS ($1,059,569.50), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed seventy five (75) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. CHANGE ORDERS. Ail change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. PAYMENTS LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the vadous portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. CONTRACT CA-2 R:~CIP~PROJ ECTS~PW02~PW02-07 John Wame~Specs\Contmct doc UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a o ne-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by t he Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. I n accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to for[eit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CiTY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. CONTRACT CA~3 R:\CIP~PROJECTS~W02',PW02~)7 John Wamer~Specs\Contmct.d oc PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relation's Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the 12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. CONTRACT CA~I R:\C IP~P ROJ ECTS~PW02~PW02-07 John Wame~Specs\ConffacLd0c 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractodconsultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. CONTRACT CA-5 R:~CIP~PROJECTS~PW02~PW02-07 John Warner~Specs\C0ntracLdoc 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be ped'ormed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT CA-6 R:\ClP~PROJECTS~PW02~PW02~)7 John Warne~Specs\Contra~cloc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR McLaughlin Engineering and Mining, Inc. 41934 Main St., #107 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 699-7957 Wayne White, Vice President By: Print or type NAME DATED: Print or type TITLE (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Al-rEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT CA-7 R:~CIP~PROJECTS~PW02~PW02-07 John Wa meres pecs~Contract,doc ,I ITEM 17 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL 1~,,£ I CITY ATTORNEY ~ I DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~ CITY MANAGER ~1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 12, 2003 Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition in Eminent Domain of Certain Real Properties for Public Purposes PREPARED BY: Ronald Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Separately consider each of the following twelve (12) Resolutions, which are Resolutions of Necessity of the City of Temecula Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition thereof in connection with the Winchester Road Widening Project: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (27410 JEFFERSON AVENUE) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (26419 YNEZ ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (41125 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (41005 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40975 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40971 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40967 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40963 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40949 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40945 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40941 WINCHESTER ROAD) RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40915 AND 40917 WINCHESTER ROAD) 2. Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, receive from staff the evidence stated and referred to in this Agenda Report ("Report"), take testimony from any person wishing to be heard on issues A, B, C, and D below, and consider all evidence to determine whether to adopt the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, each of which requires the City Council's separate consideration and determination. 3. If the City Council finds, based upon the evidence contained and referred to in this Report, the testimony and comments received at this hearing, and all written testimony submitted to the City Council, that the evidence warrants the necessary findings with respect to each of the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, then staff recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion, adopt proposed Resolution Nos. 03- ; 03- .; 03- .; 03- __.; 03- ; 03- .; 03- .; 03- ; 03- ; 03- .; 03- .; and 03- (each of which requires a 4/5ths vote of the entire Council) and authorize the City Attorney's office to file an eminent domain proceeding to acquire the following real property interests: portions of 27410 Jefferson Avenue and of Vacant Lot (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910- 310-013 & -011) for permanent easements, including permanent street easement and footing easement, and temporary construction easements; · portions of 26419 Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-300-013) for permanent street easement and temporary construction easement; · portions of 41125 Winchester Road (Assessor's Pamel Number 910-281-003) for permanent street easement and temporary construction easement; · portions of 41005 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-283-001) for permanent street easement and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40975 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-001) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40971 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-002) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40967 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-003) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40963 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-004) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40949 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-006) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40945 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-007) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; portions of 40941 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-008) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; and portions of 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-283- 005) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement. These real property interests are referred to below collectively as "Subject Property Interests" and are described more particularly in the Exhibits attached to each Resolution of Necessity. Each Resolution also contains a drawing depicting the location of the real property interests in relation to the Winchester Road Widening Project. Said Resolutions together with their Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated in this Report by this reference. 4. If the Resolutions of Necessity are approved, authorize the City Attorney's office and City staff to take all necessary steps to deposit with the Court the amount of probable compensation required by law for issuance of Orders for Possession. 5. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: The City Council has before it twelve (12) proposed Resolutions of Necessity for the acquisition of permanent easements, utility easements, and temporary construction easements on certain real properties located on Winchester Road, Ynez Road, and Jefferson Avenue in the City of Temecula in connection with the Winchester Road Widening Project ("proposed Project"). The real property interests sought for the proposed Project are sought for a public use, namely for street widening and improvement purposes, and all purposes necessary and convenient thereto in connection with the proposed Project pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,40401 and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. The proposed Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from the Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. The proposed Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road and the Interstate 15 ("1-15") Freeway, Winchester Road and Ynez Road, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. The proposed Project would also provide a right-turn lane to the northbound and southbound 1-15 Freeway to ease traffic congestion on Winchester Road. As shown more fully below, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Temecula and is required for the public health and safety because it will maintain the current level of service at these intersections, alleviate anticipated unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and maintain traffic circulation at the standard set forth in the City's Circulation Element. As shown more fully below, the real properties that are the subject of the Resolutions of Necessity are necessary for the proposed Project. The "Subject Property Interests" the City seeks to acquire for the proposed Project are described as follows: portions of 27410 Jefferson Avenue and of Vacant Lot (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910- 310-013 & -011) for permanent easements, including permanent street easement and permanent footing easement, and temporary construction easements; · portions of 26419 Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-300-013) for permanent street easement and temporary construction easement; · portions of 41125 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-281-003) for permanent street easement and temporary construction easement; · portions of 41005 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-283-001) for permanent street easement and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40975 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-001) for permanent street easement utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40971 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-002) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40967 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-003) for permanent street easement utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40963 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-004) for permanent street easement utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40949 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-006) for permanent street easement utility easement, and temporary construction easement; · portions of 40945 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-007) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement; portions of 40941 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-284-008) for permanent street easement utility easement, and temporary construction easement; and portions of 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 910-283- 005) for permanent street easement, utility easement, and temporary construction easement. Legal descriptions of each of the real property interests the City seeks to acquire for the proposed Project are attached as Exhibits "A" to each Resolution of Necessity. Maps depicting the location of the real property interests the City seeks to acquire in relation to the proposed Project are attached to each of the above Resolutions of Necessity as Exhibits "B." Each Resolution and their respective Exhibits "A" and Exhibits "B" are incorporated in this Report by this reference. In order to adopt each Resolution of Necessity with respect to the Subject Property Interests, the City Council must find and determine with respect to each proposed acquisition that: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; The proposed Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; The Subject Property Interests described in each Resolution of Necessity are necessary for the proposed Project; and The City has made an offer as required by Government Code section 7267.2 to each of the owners of record of the real property it seeks to acquire. The amount of just compensation is not an issue before the City Council at this hearing. This hearing relates to issues A, B, C, and D above. DISCUSSION: Description of Proposed Project and Environmental Review Winchester Road is a state highway that provides regional access to and from the Hemet area, located to the northeast of Temecula, as well as local access to and from Interstate-15. Winchester Road is generally a four-lane Major Highway west of Jefferson Avenue and a six to eight-lane Urban Arterial east of Jefferson Avenue in the City of Temecula. Ultimately, it is expected that Winchester Road will be widened from its current two lanes (east of Margarita Road) to six lanes to Florida Avenue (State Highway 74) in the Hemet area. The proposed Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. As discussed in detail below, the proposed Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road and the 1-15 Freeway, Winchester Road and Ynez Road, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. The proposed Project would also provide a right-turn lane to the northbound and southbound 1-15 Freeway to ease traffic congestion on Winchester Road. As shown more fully below, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Temecula and is required for the public health and safety because it will maintain the current level of service at these intersections, alleviate anticipated unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and maintain traffic circulation at the standard set forth in the City's Circulation Element. As discussed more fully below, the proposed Project was a condition of approval of Specific Plan 13 ("Harveston Specific Plan") and related planning applications. The proposed Project was also a mitigation measure set forth in the Environmental Impact Report for the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications ("Final EIR') and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. In approving City Council Resolution No. 01-72, which adopted Specific Plan 13 (Planning Application No. 99-0418) on Parcels totaling 550 acres located east of Interstate-15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limit, (referred to hereafter as "Harveston Specific Plan"), the City Council found that Lennar Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA 99-0419 (General Plan Amendment), PA 99- 0418 (Specific Plan, Development Code Amendment and Specific Plan Zoning Standards), PA 00-0189 (Environmental Impact Report), PA 99-0245 (Change of Zone), PA 99-0446 (Development Agreement),~ PA 00-0295 (Tentative Tract Map 29639),2 PA 01-0030 (Tentative ~ On August 14, 2001, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 01-08 (An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Approving That Certain Agreement Entitled "Development Agreement By and between the City of Temecula and Lennar Communities and Winchester Hills I LLC" for the Harveston Tract Map 29928), PA 01-0031 (Tentative Tract Map 29929), and PA 01-0032 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30088) (hereafter referred to collectively as "Development Application") in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code to obtain land use approvals for a 550-acre planned community located adjacent to and east of Interstate-15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road, and south of the northern City limit. In adopting Resolution No. 01-72, the City Council found that the Development Application is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community and is in conformance with the City's General Plan. The City Council found that the Development Application sets policies and standards to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. It also found that access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. In approving Resolution No. 01-72 on August 14, 2001, the City Council also found that the Development Application is compatible with surrounding land uses. It noted that the Development Application proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. It also found that the Development Application will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. In approving Resolution No. 01-72, the City Council further found that the Harveston Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment, and that the Harveston Specific Plan is compatible with the City's Development Code. Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 01-72 contains the findings of consistency with the General Plan. For example, the City Council found that the Harveston Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and serves to implement all aspects of the General Plan. The City Council also found the Harveston Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, Specific Plan Area (Planning Application No. 99-0446)). In approving Ordinance No. 01-08, the City Council found that the Development Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals, as defined in the Development Agreement, implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and the Harveston Specific Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The City Council also found that the City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the development project as well as the various benefits to the City resulting from this development project, and concluded that the development project is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. As set forth in the Development Agreement, one the City's primary reasons for entering into this Agreement was to provide a means by which the improvements included in the proposed Project, and other road improvements, could be completed. However, the Development Agreement does not commit the City to the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. The Development Agreement states at section 3.1.3.5 that if "the Owner or Development Transferee is unable to acquire the required property, the CITY shall consider in good faith the acquisition of the required property." Further, the Agreement Pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5 entered into between the developer and the City on November 4, 2002, expressly provides that "[t]he parties recognize that CITY cannot exercise its power of eminent domain until all legally required preconditions, including a Resolution of Necessity have been lawfully adopted by CITY's legislative body pursuant to law. This Agreement is solely made in furtherance of the authority granted under Government Code Section 66462.5. It is neither a commitment nor an announcement of an intent ~by CITY to acquire any or all of the Off-site Property that may be identified in this Agreement." On August 14, 2001, the City Council approved Resolution No. 01-73, Planning Application No. 00-295 for Tentative Tract Map ("TTM") No. 29639, a subdivision of approximately 550 acres into 91 lots. In approving TTM No. 29639, the City Council found that the proposed subdivision and improvements are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan, and with the Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed Project was also one of the conditions of approval of TTM No. 29639. convenience, or welfare of the City. It determined that it is in conformance with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment, and the Growth Management Action Plan, which set policies and standards to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. In addition, the Council determined the Specific Plan's standards ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design, and circulation. For example, with respect to the Land Use Element, the City Council found that the Harveston Specific Plan meets the goal of requiring development to evaluate the incremental traffic impacts on local roads through the proposed phasing of the Development Application in order to ensure that any adverse impacts to local roads in residential areas are either avoided or adequately mitigated. Specifically, the City Council noted that the Traffic Analysis for the Development Application, which was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (dated July 19, 2000) and reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer ("Traffic Analysis"), together with the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR satisfy this Land Use Element goal. According to the Traffic Analysis, impacts from the Development Application at the projected opening year (2002) and at the projected build-out year (2005) result in a minimum Level of Service ("LOS") "D' at all times at all of the critical intersections within the vicinity of the development project with the implementation of certain transportation improvements. These improvements were identified and included as mitigation measures in the Final EIR. With respect to the Circulation Element, the City Council found that the Development Application satisfied the goal of striving to maintain a LOS "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours and LOS "C" or better during non-peak hours. According to the Traffic Analysis, the impacts from the Development Application at the projected opening year and at the projected build-out year result in a minimum LOS "D" at all critical intersections studied with the implementation of certain transportation improvements. Specifically, the Traffic Analysis identified ten intersections that would need improvements by the year 2005. These improvements include the following intersections that are part of the proposed Project: Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and 1-15, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. The City Council found that the overall impacts of the Development Application to these intersections were identified in the Final EIR, which included mitigation measures to ensure the above circulation goals are met. The City Council also found that the Circulation Plan of the Harveston Specific Plan and its standards requiring construction and upgrade of the roadway facilities were consistent with City standards. It found that these standards satisfy the Circulation Element's goal of ensuring that the street standards and roadway facilities are constructed or upgraded to meet City standards, where feasible. In addition, the City Council found that the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR ensure that the Harveston Specific Plan and Development Application meet the goals set forth in the Circulation Element of requiring the evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to development project approval and the implementation of mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, project development. Moreover, the City Council found that the Harveston Specific Plan satisfies the Circulation Element's goal of pursuing trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. The Harveston Specific Plan meets this goal by incorporating certain street improvements including the addition of turn lanes, restrictions on turning movements during peak traffic periods at congested intersections, and the widening of intersection approaches to accommodate additional through movement lanes and to improve visibility. As explained above, the proposed Project will add several turning and through lanes and widen the intersection approaches at the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Road, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. Further, the City Council found that the improvements to Winchester Road at the 1-15 Interchange, which are part of the proposed Project, help meet the Circulation Element's goal of requiring development projects to actively pursue improvements to existing interchanges within the City to achieve the adopted service level standards. As explained above, the proposed Project was a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications. Specifically, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound through lane; (2) adding a southbound right turn overlap phase; and (3) modifying the signal to provide a northbound right turn overlap phase. In addition, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; (2) adding a southbound left-turn lane (dual left); (3) converting the southbound right-turn lane to a shared through and right-turn lane; and (4) adding a northbound right-turn lane (dual right). The proposed Project would also improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; and (2) adding a southbound dedicated leE-turn lane (dual leE) and widening off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. During Phase II of the Development Application, the proposed Project would further improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound leE-turn lane (dual leE); (2) adding eastbound through lane; (3) adding a northbound leE-turn lane (triple left); (4) modifying a signal to provide northbound right turn overlap phase; (5) splitting the northbound and southbound signal phases; (6) adding a westbound through lane; and (7) adding a southbound shared through and right-turn lane (300' minimum). The proposed Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). Finally, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road by (1) modifying the signal to provide a southbound and northbound right-turn lane overlap phase; and (2) adding an eastbound leE-turn lane (dual). All of these proposed intersection and street improvements are part of the proposed Project. These proposed improvements were approved by the California Department of Transportation in the (1) Project Plans for Construction on State Highway in Riverside County in Temecula on Route 79 (Winchester Road) from Interstate 15 to 0.6 KM East of Ynez Road and (2) Project Plans for Construction on State Highway in Riverside County in Temecula on Route 79 at Jefferson Avenue and on Route 15 at Route 79 Separation (referred to collectively as "Caltrans proposed construction plans"). Further, in approving the Harveston Specific Plan, the City Council found that the Harveston Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design, and circulation. The City Council, thus, adopted Resolution No. 01-72 subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit "C" to Resolution No. 01-72. Resolution No. 01-72 together with its Exhibits and the Planning Applications referenced in Resolution No. 01- 72, Resolution No. 01-73, and Ordinance No. 01-08 are all on file in the City's Planning Department, and are incorporated in this Report by this reference. Currently, most of Winchester Road in the proposed Project area operates at a LOS "C" at non-peak traffic hours. If traffic volumes continue to increase at the projected levels, the level of service on Winchester Road will be operating at LOS "D" or worse at non-peak traffic hours, adversely impacting the public health and safety of the City's residents. The proposed Project is necessary to reduce the existing transportation and traffic congestion impacts on Winchester Road and to maintain a LOS "D" at all times, including peak-traffic hours, with the current and anticipated development in the City. The proposed Project is also necessary in order to improve volume-to-capacity ratios needed to maintain the recommended level of service set forth in the Circulation Element. The proposed Project would ensure that the level of service on Winchester Road is maintained at LOS "D" or better at all times and, thus, provide adequate traffic circulation to the City's residents. Consequently, the proposed Project may also have a beneficial effect on the access and response times of emergency vehicles that service the community. The potential environmental effects of the proposed Project were studied and analyzed in connection with the Environmental Impact Report for the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications. The City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") on April 1, 1999, pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines. The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Aisc, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. The City Council on August 14, 2001, adopted Resolution No. 01-70 (A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189)). In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Development Application is anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the proposed Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at ali times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because the impact to the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads is considered significant, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. In addition, the mitigation measures required the modification of the signal at Winchester Road and Margarita Road to provide a southbound right-turn overlap phase. It also required the addition of an eastbound left-turn lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. Further, under the Project Build-out 2005 Scenario, the City Council found the Development Application will cause an increase in traffic levels. The City anticipated that the residential and service commemial components of the proposed development would generate approximately 17,678 daily trips. Thus, with the completion of the proposed development, ten off-site intersections would operate at a LOS "F" during one or both of the peak traffic hours. The City determined that because the Development Application's traffic contributes incrementally to the cumulative impact, the Development Application is responsible for its fair- share of the improvements. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the incremental impact of the Development Application on traffic can be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, and as explained above, at the Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue intersection, the mitigation measures require the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane (dual right), southbound left-turn lane and the conversion of a southbound right-turn lane to a shared through and right-turn lane. At the Winchester Road at Interstate-15 southbound ramp, the mitigation measures require the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane and southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual lane), and the widening of the offramp to accommodate the added lane. The Phase II improvements also required the modification of the signal at Winchester and Margarita Roads to provide southbound and northbound right-turn lane overlap phases and the addition of an eastbound left-turn lane (dual). The City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and Mitigation Monitoring Program, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Development Application under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The proposed Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan? 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements that make up the proposed Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require the City to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. The City of Temecula's General Plan, Development Code, Resolution No. 01-72, the Harveston Specific Plan, the staff report in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan, Resolution No. 01-70, the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Resolution No. 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the Development Agreement, exhibits to 3 Specifically, as part of the approval of Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council considered Land Use Alternatives, City-Wide-Build-Out Circulation Alternatives, Community Park Design Alternatives, and CEQA Alternatives, such as the No Project Alternative. Because the City does not have a comparable area to that described in the Harveston Specific Plan within its jurisdiction, the City Council determined that an altemative location for the Harveston Specific Plan development project would not be a viable option. Further, as set forth in the Final EIR and in Resolution No. 01-70, the City considered other Land Use Alternatives to the development proposed by the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications. The City weighed the benefits to the City of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and other Land Use Alternatives against the impacts of this development project and selected the Harveston Specific Plan based on the social, economic, and environmental benefits to the City. These benefits are discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, set forth in Resolution No. 01-70. As explained above, the proposed Project, which is one of the mitigation measures of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, is necessary to ensure the traffic circulation goals of the City are met. these documents and all documents referenced therein, the Caltrans proposed construction plans, the Agreement Pursuant to Government Code section 66462.5, and aerial maps of the Subject Property Interests are on file in the City's Planning Department, and are incorporated in this Report by this reference. The proposed Project may require the relocation of several utilities that are located in the Subject Property Interests. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the proposed Project. Negotiations with the utility companies are ongoing. City's Actions Pursuant to Government Code Section 7262 et seq. As more fully described below, the City of Temecula, pursuant to California Government Code section 7262 et seq., obtained fair market value appraisals of the Subject Property Interests, set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value and extended written offers in May 2003, to the owners of record. In June 2003, the City revised its proposed street improvement plans, resulting in a change to the legal descriptions on the following three parcels: Vacant lot (APN 910-310-011); 41125 Winchester Road (APN 910-281-003); and 41005 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-001 ). Accordingly, the City engaged the same appraiser to update the initial appraisals based on the revised legal descriptions. The City set just compensation in accordance with the updated appraised value and extended revised written offers in June 2003 to M & J Ramsay Corporation and in July 2003 to EHG Associates and Taco Bell Corporation, the owners of record of the respective parcels. Following is a brief summary of the City's actions with respect to each of the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq. · 27410 Jefferson Avenue- APN 910-310-013 and Vacant Lot identified as APN 910-310-011 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a May 8, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owner of record M & J Ramsay Corporation. In June 2003, the City revised its proposed street improvement plans for the proposed Project and determined a 10 square foot permanent easement on APN 910-310-011 was no longer necessary for the proposed Project. Accordingly, the City engaged the same appraiser to update the appraisal report based on the revised legal description. In June 2003, the City extended a revised written offer letter to the owner of record. The City has received no response from the record owner. · 26419 Ynez Road- APN 910-300-013 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a May 8, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a wdtten offer letter to the owner of record KIR Temecula (formerly Kimco Palm Plaza). The City has engaged in negotiations with the record owner, but a negotiated sale has not been reached. · 41125 Winchester Road - APN 910-281-003 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a May 8, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owner of record EHG Associates. In June 2003, the City revised its proposed street improvement plans for the proposed Project and determined that property in addition to that described in the May 2003 offer letter was needed for the proposed permanent easement on APN 910-281-003. Accordingly, the City engaged the same appraiser to update the appraisal report based on the revised legal description. The City set just compensation in accordance with the updated appraised fair market value based on a July 1, 2003 date of value. In July 2003, the City extended a revised written offer letter to the owner of record. The City has received no response from the record owner. · 41005 Winchester Road - APN 910-283-001 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a May 8, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owner of record Taco Bell Corporation. In June 2003, the City revised its proposed street improvement plans for the proposed Project and determined that property in addition to that described in the May 2003 letter was needed for the proposed permanent and temporary construction easements on APN 910-283-001. Accordingly, the City engaged the same appraiser to update the appraisal report based on the revised legal description. The City set just compensation in accordance with the updated appraised fair market value based on a July 1, 2003 date of value. In July 2003, the City extended a revised written offer letter to the owner of record. The City has engaged in negotiations with the record owner, but a negotiated sale has not been reached. · 40975 Winchester Road - APN 910-284-001 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record Byron P. Sansom and Patricia W. Sansom. The City has received no response from the record owners. · 40971 Winchester Road - APN 910-284-002 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record Kelly J. O'Neil and Debra O'Neil. The City has received no response from the record owners. · 40967 Winchester Road - APN 910-284-003 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record Anthony D. Young and Deniece M. Young. The City has received no response from the record owners. · 40963 Winchester Road - APN 910-284-004 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record Gary M. Willard and Brenda K. Willard. The City has received no response from the record owners. 40949 Winchester Road - APN 910-284.006 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owner of record Ellis-Faeber Medical Building. The City has received no response from the record owner. · 40945 Winchester Road- APN 910-284-007 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record Thomas D. Loboue and Laura B. Loboue. The City has received no response from the record owners. · 40941 Winchester Road- APN 910-284-008 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record David C. Robinson and Yolanda F. Robinson. The City has received no response from the record owners. · 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road (improved with Express Tires) - APN 910-283-005 Pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., the City obtained an initial fair market value appraisal of this subject real property based on a January 23, 2003 date of value. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and in May 2003 extended a written offer letter to the owners of record James Frank D'Angelo, Trustee and Jubela Family Limited Partnership. The City has engaged in negotiations with the record owners, but a negotiated sale has not been reached. True and correct copies of the initial and revised offer letters are on file in the City's Public Works Department. These offer letters are incorporated in this Report by this reference. To date, however, no negotiated purchase for the subject property interests has been consummated, and the schedule for the proposed Project requires that the City Council consider the proposed Resolutions of Necessity at this time. City staff is continuing its negotiations with the record owners. A. The Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Project As shown above, the proposed Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. The proposed Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at Ynez Road, and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. The proposed Project would also provide a right-turn lane to the northbound and southbound 1-15 Freeway to ease traffic congestion on Winchester Road and to meet the demands of increased traffic volumes in the area. Specifically, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound through lane; (2) adding a southbound right turn overlap phase; (3) modifying the signal to provide a northbound right turn overlap phase. The proposed Project would also improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; (2) adding a southbound left-turn lane (dual left); (3) converting the southbound right-turn lane to a shared through and right-turn lane; and (4) adding a northbound right-turn lane (dual right). Further, the proposed Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; and (2) adding a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left) and widening off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. Further, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound left-turn lane (dual left); (2) adding eastbound through lane; (3) adding a northbound left-turn lane (triple left); (4) modifying a signal to provide northbound right turn overlap phase; (5) splitting the northbound and southbound signal phases; (6) adding a westbound through lane; and (7) adding a southbound shared through and right-turn lane (300' minimum). The proposed Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). Finally, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road by (1) modifying the signal to provide a southbound and northbound right-turn lane overlap phase; and (2) adding an eastbound left-turn lane (dual). These improvements would ensure safe traffic circulation on Winchester Road and, thus, prevent unacceptable congestion and unsafe conditions that would result absent the proposed Project. As evidenced in the Traffic Analysis discussed above, the level of service on certain intersections along Winchester Road is at level "D" during peak-hour traffic. The proposed Project is needed to maintain the current LOS "D" at all times consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Harveston Specific Plan and is required for the public health and safety because it will alleviate anticipated unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and maintain traffic circulation at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The proposed Project would ensure that vehicles are able to circulate in a safe manner, including emergency vehicles vital to the public health and safety. The proposed Project is necessary to reduce the existing transportation and traffic congestion impacts on Winchester Road, one of the main arterials in the City of Temecula. The improvements on Winchester Road and the intersections described above are necessary to achieve the traffic and circulation goals identified above, including improving the flow of traffic. Thus, the proposed Project benefits the City as a whole. The proposed Project also ensures that other goals of the Circulation Element are met, including the goal of widening of intersection approaches to accommodate additional through movement lanes and to improve visibility at congested intersections. The proposed Project may require the relocation of several utilities that are located in the Subject Property Interests. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the proposed Project. B. The Proposed Project is Located in the Manner that will be Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury As shown in detail above, the proposed Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. The proposed Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at Ynez Road, and Winchester at Margarita Road. The proposed Project would also provide a right-turn lane to the northbound and southbound 1-15 Freeway to ease traffic congestion on Winchester Road and to meet the demands of increased traffic volumes in the area. The proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound through lane; (2) adding a southbound right turn overlap phase; (3) modifying the signal to provide a northbound right turn overlap phase. The proposed Project would also improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; (2) adding a southbound left-turn lane (dual left); (3) converting the southbound right-turn lane to a shared through and right-turn lane; and (4) adding a northbound right-turn lane (dual right). Further, the proposed Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; and (2) adding a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left) and widening off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. Further, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound left-turn lane (dual left); (2) adding eastbound through lane; (3) adding a northbound left-turn lane (triple left); (4) modifying a signal to provide northbound right turn overlap phase; (5) splitting the northbound and southbound signal phases; (6) adding a westbound through lane; and (7) adding a southbound shared through and right-turn lane (300' minimum). The proposed Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). Finally, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road by (1) modifying the signal to provide a southbound and northbound right-turn lane overlap phase; and (2) adding an eastbound left-turn lane (dual). The proposed Project would require certain permanent easements for street right of way and footing, temporary construction easements, and utility easements from the Subject Property Interests, which are located immediately adjacent to Winchester Road and at the critical intersections of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue and Winchester and Ynez Roads. The proposed Project cannot be constructed without the acquisition of portions of the following properties for the right-of-way improvements: 27410 Jefferson Avenue and of Vacant Lot (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-310-013 & -011): The proposed widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require permanent easements for street dght of way and footing, and temporary construction easements. The improvements to eastbound Winchester Road would provide a new right-turn lane to the southbound on ramp to Interstate 15 (I-15). These improvements have been extended westerly beyond the improvements identified in the conditions of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications to the intersection of Jefferson Avenue to facilitate a future fourth westbound through lane planned by the City of Temecula. These improvements require an approximate 912 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way, and two permanent wall footing easements of approximately 146 and 529 square feet each from APN 910-310-013. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 6,447 square feet has been established on APN 910-310-013 and a temporary construction easement of approximately 24,950 has been established on APN 910-310-011 to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easements is twelve (12) months. 26419 Ynez Road (APN 910-300-013): The proposed eastbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street dght of way and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional left-turn lane, additional right-turn lanes, and a total of four through lanes at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 4,105 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 16,741 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is twelve (12) months. 41125 Winchester Road (APN 9t0-281-003): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road and southbound Ynez Road require a permanent easement for street right of way and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The widening of southbound Ynez Road would provide an additional through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. These improvements require an approximate 3,730 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 22,963 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is twelve (12) months. 41005 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-001): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,413 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,355 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is twelve (12) months. 40975 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-001}: The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximately 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40971 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-002): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road requires a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40967 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-003): The proposed westbound widening if and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40963 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-004): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40949 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-006): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easements. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,604 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 251 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 7,042 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40945 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-007): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,604 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 251 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 7,042 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40941 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-008): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,604 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 251 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 7,042 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-005) The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 1,277 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 112 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 4,825 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. The proposed Project, as planned and located, would ensure safe traffic circulation on Winchester Road and, thus, prevent unacceptable congestion and unsafe conditions that would result absent the proposed Project. As evidenced in the Traffic Analysis discussed above, the level of service on certain intersections along Winchester Road is at level "C" at non peak-hour traffic times and at level "D" during peak-hour traffic. The proposed Project is needed to maintain the current LOS "D" at all times consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Harveston Specific Plan and is required for the public health and safety because it will alleviate anticipated unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and maintain traffic circulation at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The proposed Project would ensure that vehicles are able to circulate in a safe manner, including emergency vehicles vital to the public health and safety. The proposed Project is necessary to reduce the existing transportation and traffic congestion impacts on Winchester Road, one of the main arterials in the City of Temecula. The improvements on Winchester Road and the intersections described above are necessary to achieve the traffic and circulation goals identified above, including improving the flow of traffic. Thus, the proposed Project benefits the City as a whole. The proposed Project also ensures that other goals of the Circulation Element are met, including the goal of widening of intersection approaches to accommodate additional through movement lanes and to improve visibility at congested intersections. The proposed Project may require the relocation of several utilities that are located in the Subject Property Interests. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the proposed Project. C. The Subject Property Interests Described in the Resolutions of Necessity are Necessary for the Proposed Project. As explained above, the proposed Project would widen portions of Winchester Road and add additional turning lanes and through lanes at several intersections. Specifically, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound through lane; (2) adding a southbound right turn overlap phase; (3) modifying the signal to provide a northbound right turn overlap phase. The proposed Project would also improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; (2) adding a southbound left-turn lane (dual left); (3) converting the southbound right-turn lane to a shared through and right-turn lane; and (4) adding a northbound right-turn lane (dual right). Further, the proposed Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by (1) adding an eastbound right-turn lane; and (2) adding a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left) and widening off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. Further, the proposed Project would improve the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road by (1) adding an eastbound left-turn lane (dual left); (2) adding eastbound through lane; (3) adding a northbound left-turn lane (triple left); (4) modifying a signal to provide northbound right turn overlap phase; (5) splitting the northbound and southbound signal phases; (6) adding a westbound through lane; and (7) adding a southbound shared through and right-turn lane (300' minimum). The proposed Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). Finally, the proposed Project would also improve the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road by (1) modifying the signal to provide a southbound and northbound right-turn lane overlap phase; and (2) adding an eastbound left-turn lane (dual). The proposed Project would require additional right of way for permanent easements, temporary construction easements, and utility easements. The proposed Project requires the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests, which are located immediately adjacent to Winchester Road and at the critical intersections of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue and Winchester and Ynez Roads. The proposed Project cannot be constructed without the acquisition of portions of the following properties, which are described more particularly in the Exhibits to the Resolutions of Necessity, for the right-of-way improvements: 27410 Jefferson Avenue and of Vacant Lot (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-310-013 & -011): The proposed widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require permanent easements for street right of way and footing, and temporary construction easements. The improvements to eastbound Winchester Road would provide a new right-turn lane to the southbound on ramp to Interstate 15 (I-15). These improvements have been extended westerly beyond the improvements identified in the conditions of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications to the intersection of Jefferson Avenue to facilitate a future fourth westbound through lane planned by the City of Temecuia. These improvements require an approximate 912 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way, and two permanent wall footing easements of approximately 146 and 529 square feet each from APN 910-310-013. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 6,447 square feet has been established on APN 910-310-013 and a temporary construction easement of approximately 24,950 has been established on APN 910-310-011 to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easements is twelve (12) months. 26419 Ynez Road (APN 910-300-013): The proposed eastbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional left-turn lane, additional right-turn lanes, and a total of four through lanes at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 4,105 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 16,741 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is twelve (12) months. 41125 Winchester Road (APN 9t0-281-003): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road and southbound Ynez Road require a permanent easement for street right of way and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The widening of southbound Ynez Road would provide an additional through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. These improvements require an approximate 3,730 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 22,963 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is twelve (12) months. 41005 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-001): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,413 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,355 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is twelve (12) months. 40978 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-001): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximately 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40971 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-002): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40967 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-003): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40963 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-004): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,184 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 232 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 5,659 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40949 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-006): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,604 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 251 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 7,042 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40945 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-007): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,604 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 251 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 7,042 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40941 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-008): The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 2,604 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 251 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 7,042 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-005) The proposed westbound widening of and improvements to Winchester Road require a permanent easement for street right of way, a utility easement, and a temporary construction easement. The proposed street improvements of over 1,200 feet in length would provide an additional through/right-turn lane at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. These improvements require an approximate 1,277 square foot permanent street easement for the additional right of way and an approximate 112 square foot utility easement for the relocation of a Rancho California Water District utility easement. In order to construct the necessary improvements, a temporary construction easement of approximately 4,825 square feet has been established to facilitate the installation of permanent improvements, relocate the existing utilities, minimize disruption to traffic, and minimize impacts to the existing business on the site. The term of the temporary construction easement is six (6) months. The proposed Project may require the relocation of several utilities that are located in the Subject Property Interests. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property interests and are affected by the proposed Project. D. The City Has Made Offer Required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the Owners of Record of the Real Property the City Seeks to Acquire. As explained more fully above, the City, pursuant to Government Code section 7262 et seq., obtained fair market value appraisals of the Subject Property Interests, set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and extend a written offer(s) to the following record owners of the Subject Property Interests: · 27410 Jefferson Avenue (APN 910-310-013) - M & J Ramsay Corporation; · 26419 Ynez Road (APN 910-300-013)- KIR Temecula; · 41125 Winchester Road (APN 910-281-003) - EHG Associates; · 41005 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-001) - Taco Bell Corporation; · 40975 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-001) - Byron P. Sansom and Patricia W. Sansom; · 40971 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-002) - Kelly J. O'Neil and Debra O'Neil; · 40967 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-003) - Anthony D. Young and Deniece M. Young; · 40963 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-004) - Gary M. Willard and Brenda K. Willard; · 40949 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-006) - Ellis-Faeber Medical Building; · 40945 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-007) - Thomas D. Loboue and Laura B. Loboue; 40941 Winchester Road (APN 910-284-008) - David C. Robinson and Yolanda F. Robinson; · 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road (APN 910-283-005)- James Frank D'Angelo, Trustee and Jubela Family Limited Partnership. True and correct copies of the offer letters and revised offer letters are on file in the City's Public Works Department, and are incorporated in this Report by this reference. As explained more fully above, the City received no response from certain property owners. The City has engaged in negotiations with the owners that responded to the City's offer(s). To date, however, no negotiated purchase has been consummated and the schedule for the proposed Project requires that the City Council consider the proposed Resolutions of Necessity at this time. Adoption of each Resolution of Necessity requires a separate vote of at least four/fifths (4/5) of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. The cost of the acquisition is the responsibility of the Harveston Assessment District. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 03- 2. Resolution No. 03- 3. Resolution No. 03- 4. Resolution No. 03- 5. Resolution No. 03- 6. Resolution No. 03- 7. Resolution No. 03- 8. Resolution No. 03- 9. Resolution No. 03- 10. Resolution No. 03- 11. Resolution No. 03- 12. Resolution No. 03- R:/Agenda Reports/Eminent Domain Winch. Rd 8 12 29 City of Temecula × ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ / / August 7, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (27410 JEFFERSON AVENUE) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are permanent street and footing easements and temporary construction easements on the property commonly known as 27410 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-310-013, and a temporary construction easement on the vacant lot identified as APN 910-310-011 in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is twelve (12) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easements on Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-310-013 are shown on Exhibits "A," which are marked on the top right hand corner with the job numbers ("JN") 10101661-M2 and 10101661-M4. These permanent easements are depicted on Exhibits "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M2 and 10101661-M4, respectively. The Exhibits marked with JN 10101661-M4 show the permanent footing easements. One of the temporary construction easements on APN 910-310- 013 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner JN 10101661-M23, and depicted on Exhibit "B" with the same job number. The legal description of the temporary construction easements on both APNs 910-310- 013 and 910-310-011 are shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M3 and depicted on Exhibit "B" with the same job number. The legal description of the temporary construction easement on APN 910-310-011 is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with the job number 10101661-M24, and depicted on the map with the same job number. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, which is a public use. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 1 Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft Ell:{ in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, wdtten and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagementJPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All .of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final fIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the 1-15 and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final fIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final fIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final fIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final fIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft fIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. R:lResos2OO31Resos 03-_ 3 B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the subject property interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Properly Interests and are affected by the Project. Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. R:/Resos2003/Resos 03-__ 4 Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03-. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 8, 2002 JN 10101661.M2 Page 1 of I That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, state of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 20668 filed in Book 139, Pages 77 and 78 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at an angle point in the westerly line of said Parcel 1, said angle point being the southwesterly terminus of a course having a bearing and distance of UNorth 53°58'09" East 248.66 feet" in the northwesterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said course North 53°57'10" East 145.31 feet; thence South 49°28'52".West 160.37 feet to the non-tangent intersection with a curve in said westerly line of Parcel 1 concave easterly and having a radius of 170.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 79°54'43" East; thence along said westedy llne and curve northerly 19.21 feet through a central angle of 06°28'32', to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 912 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT mB" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description w~ prepared by m~y, direction. ~n~nd('L'H~he, P L S 6185, ~Wly license expires 3/31/06, GRAPHIC SCALE 300 EXHIBIT 'B' WINCHESTER ROAD MAY 08, 2002 DATA TABLE BRNG/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH N48'O7'50"E -- 97.01' N41'52'10"W -= 55.07' N53'57'10"E -- 145.31' S49'28'52"W -- 160.37' 06'28'32" 170.00" 19.21' SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET .CONSULTING ROAD, ~qtE 400 '1 SCALE 1"=100' JD~ NO, 10101661-U2 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT"A"' WINCHESTER ROAD Revised June 1, 2003 May 22 2002 JN 10101661-M4 Page 1 of 2 Those certain parcels of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being those portions of Parcel i of Parcel Map No. 20668 filed in Book 139, Pages 77 and 78 of Pamel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: PARCEL COMMENCING at an angle point in the westerly line of said Parcel 1, said angle point being the southwesterly terminus of a course having a bearing and distance of "North 53°58'09" East 248.66 feet" in the northwesterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said course in said northwesterly line North 53°57'10'' East 145.31 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said northwesterly line South 49°28'52" West 109.07 feet; thence Sou{h 40o32'04'' East 3.94 feet; thence North 49°28'52" East 159.41 feet to said northwesterly line; thence along said northwesterly line South 53°57'10" West 50.50 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: .529 Square Feet. PARCEL 2 COMMENCING at an angle point in the northerly line of said Parcel 1, said angle point being the northeasterly terminus of a course having a bearing and distance of "North 53°58'09" East 248.66 feet" in the northwesterly line of said Parcel 1, said angle Exhibit "A" Winchester Road Revised JUne 1, 2003 JN 10.101661-M4 Page 2 of 2 point beginning of a curve in the boundary line of said Parcel 1 concave southerly and having a radius of 100.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 36°02'50'' East; thence along said northerly line and curve easterly 11.22 feet through a central angle of 06°25'35'' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said northerly line and curve easterly 61.98 feet through a central angle of 35~30'51 to the southeast line of said Parcel 1; thence along said southeasterly line South 52°17'08" West 5.16 feet; thence South 89°46'04" West 9.85 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southerly and having a radius of 119.09 feet; .thence along said curve westerly 47.00 feet through a central angle of 22036'53" to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 146 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was .prepared by me or under my d~rection. as E. Verloop,-P].lR.S15348 My license expires 12/31/E3. H:~Pdata\ 1010166 I'~)ldlNkLBOALSk661 Igl004.wp d 60 0 60 120 180 · GRAPHIC SCALE'~/~ ~",,~,,,Xg?,,,X~(x ~° , / ,~/ /~~'~ EXHIBIT DATA TABLE NO, · BRNG/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH S53'57~10"W -- 50.50' N49'28'52"E -- 159.41' S40'32'04"E -- 3.94' S49'28'52"W -- 109.07' 06'25'35" 100,00' 11,22' 35'30'51" 100,00' 61,98' S52'17'08"W -- 5,16' S89'46'04"W -- 9.85' 22'36'55" 119,09' '47,00' SHEET 1 OF FOOTING EASEMENTS SHEET· 276~ YNEZ ROAD, 8UR~ 400 '~WCtJLA~ CALIFORNIA REV I SED SCALE MAY 22, 2002 1"=60' 10101661TM4 RBF CONBULTING 27~5 Ynez Rosd, 8ulte 400 TemeaJla, CA 92591 EXHIBIT TEMPORARY CON~TRU(~TION EASEMENT WINCHEETER ROAD August'8, 2002 JN 1010181~1-M23 Page 1 of 2 That certain, parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of Ca;i;umia, being that portlon'of Parcel 1 of parcel Map No. 20668 filed In Book 139, Pages 77 end 78 Of Parcel Maps In the Office of the County P.l~x~lar of said Riverside County, described as a whole as follows: BEGINNING at an angle point in the westedy line of said Parcel 1, said angle ~int being the southwesterly terminus of a' ceume having a bearing and distance of 'NOrl~l 53'58~09" East 2~,8,66 feet" In the nodhwestarly line of said Parcel 1; thence aong the boundary line of said Parcel Map No. 2088B through the following ~ourses: along said course North 53'57"t 0" East 248,66 feet to the beginning of a tangent ounm (~,=ave southeasterl,/and havln[! a radius of 100,00 feet; thence slang r, aid curve easterly 73.20 fee{ through a central angle of 41"56'26" to the most easterly comer of said Parcel 1; thence leaving said boundaryltne, non-tangent from said curve along the ~mutheaste~lyl[ne of said Parcel I Soulh 52'1T08" West 160.36 feet;' thence leaving said southees~ line of Par~t t slang Ifle ne~;; ~;tariy I~mlongation of the northeasterly liae of ~!d Parcel I North 37°42'52" West f 8.58'feet; thence South 5.~,57'~0~ West 33.89 feel; thence South 62'5137" West'127;65 feet to a POint on a non-tangent curve In the westerly line of said Parcel t concave easterly and having a radius of 170,00 feet, aradla! line of .said mrve from said point bear~ $0ulh 82'38"~ East; thence alo~i satd westerly line and curve northerly 27.3'1 feet through a oentral angle of 09'12'19" to the Y~.UE POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit ~A' W~oh~zr Road JN 1010161~1.M23 Page 2 of 2. (]ONT.'UNIN~; 0.148 Acres, more or less. ~UBJEOT TO all Covenants, I~ihls, Right,-of-Way and Easements of Record, EXHIBIT "B" attaohed hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Thls d~scdp6on was prepared '""~homa~ E, Verloop~O.J~. 5~48, My license expires 12/31/03. 50' NO. 20688' P ~O'-J ~O..O t2 PC~.2 sHEET EXHI]HT TE:lvPORAR¥ CONSTRUCTION . lC) IQ16~1-IvI~3 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (26419 YNEZ ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650 and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement and temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 26419 Ynez Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-300-013 ("Subject Property Interests"). The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description of the permanent easement on Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-300-013 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-M7. This permanent easements is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M7. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M19, and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M19. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 1 thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Aisc, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the subject property interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project. Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular r~eeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-_. 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT'"A" WINCHESTER ROAD Revised June 19,2002 May24,2002 JN 10101661-M7 Page 1 of 2 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 23430 filed in Book 168, Pages 7 through 9 of Parce! Maps in the Office 'of the County Recorder of said RiVerside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most northwesterly comer of said Parcel 1, said comer being the northwesterly terminus of a course shown on said parcel map as "North 86°45'44" West 32.49 feet" in the northerly line of said parcel; thence along the boundary line .of said parcel through the following courses: along said course South 86'55'55" East 32.46 feet; thence South 41°59'41" East 4.22 feet to a point on a 'non-tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 25.26 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 19°59'52" West; thence leaving said boundary line, along said curve westerly 27.24 feet through a central angle of 61 °46'35"; . thence tangent from said curve South 48°13'17'' West. Il.88 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 4495.40 feet; thence along Said curve southwesterly 180.37 feet through a central angle of 02°17'56" to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 180.28 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears North 44°04'39" West; thence along said curve southwesterly 47.16 feet through central angle of 14°Sg'14"'to an Intersection with a non-tangent curve COncave southeasterly and having a radius of 157.29 feet, a radial line of said curve from said.intersection bears South 26°09'25" EaSt; thence along said curve southwesterly 21~19 feet through a central angle of 07°43'06"; thence non-tangent from said curve North 33°52'31" West 3.28 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 160.57 feet; a radial line of said curve from said point beara South 33~52'31" East; Exhibit "A" Winchester Road Revised June 19, 2002 JN 10101661.M7 Page 2 of 2 thence along said curve southwesterly 21.91 feet throUgh a central.angle of 07°49'10"; thence non4angent from said curve South 48°18'19" West 31.06 feet to the northwesterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northwesterly line North 33°58'12" East 14.41 feet to an angle point in said northwesterly line; thence continuing along said northwesterly line North 48°07'50" East 297.47 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, · CONTAINING: 4105 Square Feet~ SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. BXHIBIT "B' attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by~ my direction. ~a~mond L, Mathe, PiL.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. H:~DATA\I 0101 ~6 r~D~Al~6611~100?.wpd 0 6b 120 180 'GRAPHIC SCALE -- N48' 07' 50"E (N48'O8'53"E) I I ~,, I _ ~ P.O.B. I ~J ~l ~ II APN 910-300-013 N19'59'52"E~ ~ . ~ ' ...... ~1 ~ , II (R) - ~1 o ~6, ii~ K[MCO PAL~ PLAZA L.P. ~1 m,. ~ .1. ~' 51~. '~'[I1' PCL. 2 67' P.M. NO. 25450 P.M.B. DATA TABLE BRNG/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH I S86'55'55"E -- 52.46' 2 S41'59'41"E -- 4.22' 3 61'46'35" 25;26' 27.24' 4 S48'13'17"W -- 11.86'. 5 14'59'14" 180.28' 47.16' 6 07°45'06" 157.29' 21.19' 7 N33'52'31"W '(R) 3.28' 8 07'49'10" 160.57'' 21.91' 9 S48°18'19"W -- 31.06' 10 N33'58'12"E -- 14.41' SHEET EXHi~IT '9' WINCHESTER ROAD ~ C'O N 8u LTIN[~ 168~7-9 EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING EMWD EASEMENT 1 OF. 1 SHEET REVISED 6/19/02 MAY 24, 2O02 SCALE JOB NB, 10101661-M7 IN U~'X RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May 241 2002 JN 10!01661-M19 Page 1 of 2 That certain Parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1of Parcel Map No. 23430 filed in Book 168, Pages 7 through 9 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most northerly comer of said Parcel 1, said corner being the northwesterly terminus of a course shown as "North 86°45'44" West 32.49 feet" in the northerly line of said Parcel; thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the following courses: South 86°55'55.' East 32.46 feet; thence South 41°59'41" East 13.51 feet; thence leaving said boundary line South 47°52'27" West 242,60 feet; thence South 80°40'26" West 60.59 feet; thence South 06°47'10" East 14,88 feet; thence South 70°36'57" West 20.76 feet'to the beginning, of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 19.69 feet; thence along said curve southwesterly 12,64 feet through a central ang e of 36°46'40"; thence tangent from said curve South 33°49'42" West 89.29 feet; thence South 29°24'53" West 85.47 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 3.28 feet; thence along said curve southwesterly and westerly 5.12 feet through a central angle of 89°22'30"; Exhibit "A" Winchester Road Temporary Construction Easement May24,2002 IN IOlO1661-M19 Page2of2 thence tangent from said curve North 61°12'37" West 12160 feet; thence South 29°19'59" West 110.11 feet; thence South 81'21'49" West 44.69 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve in the boundary line of said Pamel 1, said curve being concave southeasterly and having a radius of 200.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 70°47'09.' East; thence along said boundary line through the following courses: along said curve northeasterly 86.13 feet through a central angle of 24°40'25"; thence tangent from said curve North 43'53'16" East 181.94 feet; thence North 33°58'12" East 69.49 feet; thence North 48°07'50" East 297.47 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 16741 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by m~~jI~ direction. eond L, athe, P.L.S. 6185, My I~cense expires 3/31/06. H:~PDATA~I 0101661 ~DMIH'II~AI.,S~61181019,wpd 10~' 0 lOb ) 200 GRAPHICSCALE <~EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING EMWD EASEMENT EXISTING RCWD EASEMENT DATA TABLE NO. BENG/D~I,.TA EN)IUS LEI~TH 1 $86'55'55'E ~ 32,48' 2 $41'59'41"E -- 13.51' 3 S47'52'27'W -- 242.60' 4 N80'40'26"E w 60.59' 5 $06' 47' IO'E -- 14.88' 6 S70'36'57"W -- 20,76' 7 36'46'40" 16,69' 12.64' 8 S33'49'42'W -- 89.29' 9 S29'24'53"W -- 85.47' 10 8g'22'30" 3.28' 5, 12' 11 N61° 12'37"W -- 12.60' 12 $2g' 19'59"W -- 110.11' 13 S81*21'49"W ~ 44.69' 14 24'40°25" 200,00' 86.13' 15 N43' 53' 16"E '-- 181 ~94' 16 N33'58' 12'E -- 69,49' 17 N48'O7'50"E '~ 297.47' _~C/L WINCHESTER ROA_D .4S'OT'50"E -~N48'OS'33"E) P.O.B. I 89.78' ' D. PCL. 2 Z SHEET ! Df ! SHEET EXHIglT '9' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION 'EASEMENT I SCALE MAY 24, 2002 1"=,100' JO~ NB, RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (41125 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement and temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 41125 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910- 281-003 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is twelve (12) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-281-003 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-M6. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M6. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M14 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M14. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 1 further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CECA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CECA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CECA and the CECA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CECA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase t - 2002 R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez·Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 Revised June 01,2003 May 24., 2002 JN 1010166t-M6 · Page I of 2 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, Coun'ty of Riverside, State of California, being that portion ofParcel 1 of Parcel MaP No. 19677 filed in Book 13~, Pages 85 and 86 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County' Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most northerly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the following courses: South 41°51'27'' East 214.69 feet;. thence South 03o08'28" West 32.55 feet; thence South 48°07'50" West 354.21' feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 45°'06'43" East 74.21 feet to the beginning.of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 4653,53 feet; ' thence along said curve northeasterly 252.55 feet through a central angle of 03°06'34"; thence tangent from said curve North 480 t3!17" East 4.35 feet; thence South 41°46'43" East 0,97 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave westerly and having a radius of 41.01 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point beam Nodh 43°09'14" West; thence along said curve northerly 61.65 feet through a central angle of 86°08'16"; thence non-tangent from said curve 'South 49°20'05" West 0.97 feet; thence North 40°39'55" West 55.26 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southwesterly and having a radius of 2580.05 feet; Exhibit "A" Winchester Road Revised June 01, 2003 JN 10101~I-M6 Page. 2 of 2 thence along said curve northwesterly 1.0.49 feet through a central angle of 00°13'59" to the beginning of a reverse curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 74.80 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bea[s North 49006'06'' East; thence along said curve northwesterly 22.00 feet through a central angle of 16°50~54"; thence North 40047'03'' West ~101.98 feet to the northerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northerly line North 71°07'22" East 0.47 feet to the TRUEPOINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING: 3730 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights~of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. ' This description was prepared by me or under my direction. "'--.T,~omas E: Verlobp, )b.L.S~,\5348 My license expires 12/31/03. H:XPdaIa\I0101661',,AD~ALSX6611gI006,wpd 60 0 60 1; GRAPHICSCALE DATA TABLE ' BRNG/DELTA RADIUS . LENGTH 1' N45*O6'45"E .--. 74,21' 2 N48°15'17"E' -- 4;3.5' 3 S41'46'43"E -- 0,97' 4 86'08'16" 41.01' · 6t,65' 5 $49"20'05"W -- . 0,97' 6 N40°39'55"W -- 55,26' 7 0¢13'59" 2580,05' 10.49' 8 16"50'54" 74.80' 22,00' 9 N40'47'OS"W -- 101.98' ~0 N71°O7'-22"E ~- 0.47' PM NO. 19677 W (2, 0 Z 180 PMB 135/a5-86 0 r~ ~ N ~ W Z w 50'>- J obi .j.[. ~ o I '-q EHG ASSOCIATES ~R'~-- S03°08'28"~ 52.55 f~-C/L ~INCHESTERROAD N48oo7'5.0"E (N46°OS'~3"E) '75,00' ~) EXISTIN~ ACCESS'ROAD EASEMENT ~EXISTING SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT EXHIBIT 'B' WINCHESTER' ROAD SHEET CONSULTING 1 OF 1 SHEET 27¢~5 YI~EZ ROAD, 909.676.8042 · FAX 909,~'.'.'/6,7240 · t~.RBPx~0I~ REVISED 6/01/03 SCALE MAY 24, 2002 1',=60' 10101661-M6 · INDEx N,~ RBF CONSULTING '27855 Ynez Road, Suite 400 . Temecula, CA 92591 Revised June 19, 2002 May24,2002 JN 10101661.M14 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT That certain parcel of land situated In the City of Temecula, County of Riverside; State of California, being that portion of Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 19677 filed in Book 135,. · Pages 85 and 86 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of'said Rivemlde County~ described as follows: BEGINNING at the most northerly comer of said Parcel 1; · thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the following courses: Sou~h 41°51'27" East 214.69 feet; thence South 03°08'281. West 32..55 feet; · thence South 48°07'50" west 354.21 feet; thence leaving Said boundary line North 44°53'17" West 17.99 feeti thence North 48~07'50" Easi 65.80 feet; thence North 41 °46'34" West 62.81 feet; thence North 48°13'26" East 169.89 feet; thence South 41'°46'34'. East 61.01 feet; thence North 48°26'09" East 07..27.feet; thence North 02°53'43" East 36.57 feet; thence North 40°85'56'' West 118.20 feet.; thence South 48°08'33" West 14.61 feet; Exhibit aA" Winchester Road. Temporary Consiruofion Easement Revised Juno 19, 2002 · 3N 10101661.M14 Page 2 of 2 thence North 41°51'27" West 87.11 feet to the northwesterly line of'said'Parcel i; thence along .said northwesterly line North 69°23'32'' East 34.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 22963 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record EXHIBIT ,B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by ~y direction. J~d/mond~L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. " ..... )') ' 160 2~. 0 ! I I I . GR. APH[C SCALE DATA TABLE 1 S03'08'28"W ~ 32,55'. 2 N44'53'lT'W ~ 17,99' 3 N48*O7'50"E ~ 65,80' 4 N41*46'34"W -- 62,81' 5 S41'46'34"E -- ' 61,01' 6 NO2'53'43"E -- 56,57' 7 $48'08!33"~ -- 14,61' PM NO. 19677 PMB PCL . 1 APN 910-281-003 N48'13'26"E 169.89' I N~9 ~?, 32 E' 1~5/85-86 .~ N48' 26' 0,9 "E _ 50' S48'07 554.21' F--C/L .WINCHESTER R_0AD (~) EXISTING ACCESS ROAD EASEMENT ~D EXISTING SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT (~).EXISTING .INGRESS AND'E~RESS EASEMENT EXHIBIT 'B' SHEET TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ~ EASEMENT .o..uL.,N. REV[SED 6/19/02 MAY.24,2002 SCALE t"=60' 1 OF I SHEET ND, 10101661-M14 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (41005 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement and temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 41005 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910- 283-001 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is twelve (12) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits '%" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-283-001 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-M10. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M10. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M15 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M15. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, and Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off- ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 1 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August 2003. A']-FEST: Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 9259'1 EXHIBIT "A' WINCHESTER ROAD Revised June 1, 2003 May 2~, 2002 'JN 10t01661-M10 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of.Temecula, County of Riverside, State of 'California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of ParCel Map No. 23335 filed in Book. 172, Pages 87 through 89 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Parcel !; · thence along the boundary line of said parcel' through the. following, courses: South 48007'50'' West 161.00 feet; thence North 86°51'48" West 32.53 feet; · thence North 41°51'27" West 141.36 feet; thence leaving said boundary line South 44°29'50" East 116.60 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 39.57 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears Nodh 45°54'18" East; thence along said curve easterly 56.60 feet through a central angle of 81°57'19"; thence non:tangent from said curve North 48°13'17" East 143.10 feet.to the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 41 °50'12" East 9.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING: 2413 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights:of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT '~B" attached hereto and.by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepare.d by me or under my direction, Thomas E. Verloop, P.£.~,~48; My license expires 12/31/03." · ' H:, kPdata\l O l O1661~d)IvllNVoBO~\661l~O l O. ~d 0 0 120 180 GRAPHIC SCALE PARCEL MAP NO. 2J J J5 PMB 172/87~89 o o 50"(~ 4' APN g 10-285-00 TACO BELL CORP ] ~ ~_ N48"1~' I~"E ~ ~~'w ~6~.oo' , ~/I · .~/ I P.'O.B. 73.02' I N48° 07' 50",E.~ -'~ (N48' 07'48"E) ~ C/L .W!NCHESTER , )) ROAD. . I ~>'EXISTJNG ·LANDSCAPE ~AINTENANCE EASEMENT ~> EXISTING MONUMENT WALL ~ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT EXHIBIT W ! NCHESTER ROAD DATA TABLE BRNG/DELTA 'RAD I US LENGTH 1 N86'51'48"W. '-- 32:53' 2 N41°51'27"W .-- i41.36' '3 S44~29'50"E -- 116.60' 4 81°57'197 39..57' 56.60' 5' S41°50'12"E -- 9.83' SHEET 1 Of 1 SHEET 276,.~ yNt~ ROAD, 8UffE 400 ~ cNJr-oRt~ REV I SED SCALE MAY 24, 2002 1"=60' 10101661-M10 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road; Suite 400 Temecula', CA 9259t Revised June 01, 2003 May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M15 Page 1 of.2 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT That certain pamel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of Califomia, being that portion of ParCel t of Pamel Map No. 23335 filed .in. Book 172, · Pages 87 through 89 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside . County, described as'follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly corner of said Parcel .1; thence along the boundary ,line of said parce! through the following courses: South 48°07~50" West 161.00 feet; thence North 86°51'48" West 32.53 feet; thence North 41°51'27" West 195.55 feet, to the northerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northerly line North 39°40'50" East 3.51 feet; .thence South 42°31'43" East 169.76 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 24.61 feet; . thence along said curve easterly 38.37 feet th[ough a central angle Of 89°20'27"; thence tangent from said curve North 48°07'50" East 153.94 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; .Exhibit"A" Winchester Koad Temporary Construction Easement ReVised 6/0'1/03 ~lq 10101661-M15 Page 2 of 2 thence along said northeasterly line South 41°50'12" East 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. cONTAINING:· 5355 Square Feet. suBjECT TO ali Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This"description was prepared by me or under my dir, ect~en.,, Thomas E. Verloop, P.tJs.~48, My license expires .12/31/03~"7 ,H:~data\t0101661'u~DtvtlH~.LBOALS~6611~i015.'~,mPd 0 6O 120 180 N W Z >... GRAPHIC SCALE S^NT~ e~uoIs / : ~"'~'~' PARCEL ~AP 5o"'~ ,.h~ NO. 25555 PMB172/87-89 ~ ,~ PCL.. 1 % ~ APN 910-285-001 ~ I~ I ~ ,, ' ~ ~4g'07'50 [ DATA TABLE, 1 N86'51 ' 48"W -- 32.53' · 2 8g" 20' 27" 24.61' 38.37' 3 S41'50~ 12"E -- 25,00' N48° 07' 50"E (N48° ~'~' 48"E) W 1' NCHESTER ROAD, I'--. EXISTING .LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT EXISTING MONUMENT WALL"~ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 'SHEET 1 OF 1' SHEET EXHIBIT 'B' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT[ON EASEMENT REVISED JUNE 01, 2003 SCALE MAY 24,2002 i"=60" ! 101016,61-M15 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40975 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40975 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-001 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-001 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-Ml1. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M11. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M20 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M20. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M16 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M16. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road eastedy from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 1 right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Aisc, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are par[ of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and shod-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12t~ day of August, 2003. AI-I'EST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 5 .RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temeoula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 24, 2002 JN 10t01661~Mll Page 1 of 1 That certain Parcel of.land Situated in the City of Temecula, CoUnty of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed In 'BoOk 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps in .the Office of the County Recorder Of 'said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING et the most easterly COmer of said Lot 1; thence along the boundary line of said lot through the following COurses: South 48°07'50" West 226.36 feet; 'thence North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; thence leaving said boundarY line North 48°13'17" East 226.34 feet to the northeasterly llne of sald Lot 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 41°§2'10" East 9.47 feet to.the POINT OF BEGINNING,. CONTAINING: 2184 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and. Easem. ents of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by m~y direction.' .~,~moncl"C.. Mathe, P.L.8. 6185, "'My license expires 3/31106. H:~PDATA\I(~I0 t 66 I~DI~I4~AI,S~6 ll~01 l.~qpd ,'~RAPHIO SCAthE' EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE' EASEMENT ~EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 'TRACT NOi 27690 ~B 248/39-41 LOT 1 APN 910-284-005 N48~O7~50"E (N48'(~'OS"E) ~- C/L W I NCHESTF_.R ROAD .I SHEET EXHIBIT W I NCHESTER ROAD CONBUL,TINm · I SCALE MAY 24, 2002 1"=60' ! BF ! SHEET JBB' NO, 101016.61-Mll RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A,' RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT · WATER EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101561.M20 Page I of I That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690. filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the southwesterly line of said 'lot North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 47.49 feet tO the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North,42°21'33" West 11.64 feet; thence North 4.7°38'27;' East 1'9.75 feet; thence South 42°21'33" East 11.84 feet; 'thence South 48°13'17"'West 19.75 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 232 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT"'B".attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared ~raymond L Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. H:~DATA\I 010166 I'ADI~IK~AL~6 l[/1020,wpd · bu' . .120 '180 gRAPHIO SCALE ~)EXISTING'SCE EASEMENT 1 EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 2 EXISTING 'TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 3, (~PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 4 5 6 DATA TABLE N41'50' 12"W -- 9,85' N48'13'17"E N42'21'33"W N47'38'27"E S42'21'33"E S48'13'17"W -- 47.49 ' -- 11,6¢" -- 19.75 ' -- 11,84 ' -- 19,75' TRACT NO. 27690. MB .248/,39-41 LOT 1 APN 910-284-005 TEMECULA IdEDICAL PARK DEV., G.P. N. 48'_.07' 50"E. (N.48'OS'OS"E.) ~ C/L WINCHESTER ROAD EXHIDIT ISHEET I DF 1 SHEET RANCHO' CALI FORN I A ~ lil'~hlNINIi ' 1~l~811N · ¢IIINS'I~IIUI~ll13N ~WATER DISTRICT ,WATER EASEMENT RBF CONSULTIN(3 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May24,2002 JN 10101661-M16 Page 1 of 1 · That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of MaPs in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the bOundary line of said lot through the following courses: South 48°07'50, West 226,35 feet thence North 41°50'12'' West 25.00 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°07'50'' East 226.34 feet to 'the northeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence, along said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING:' 5659 Square Feet; SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. · EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. · This description was prepared by m{j~yor direction. ~lyl~lly llceond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, nse expires 3/31/06.' I'L*~*DATA\I 0 ! 0166 I,~qD~AI,S~611~016.wpd 'GRAPHIC SCALE <~EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRACT .NO. 276'90 MB 248/59'41 LOT 1 IIIl Am 9,o-28.~-oo5 ~11 TEtJECULA EEDICAL PARK DEV. CP. ------- .... ,,,.~o.,~-, /P-- .,,~'o?'§o"E 22~.,,' . ~ZZZCZZ: 25.00 ~1~ i £ ! '~. N,,'52'1o"w -'--~i---' ........ .--, --~ ~..-~-5:~---' '"------ N48'07 '50"E 226.35' ;,28~) ~ % ~ P.O.B. N48° 07' 50 "E ~ . (N48' 08 "~8"E) C/L WINCHESTER ROAD- · SHEET EXHI]~IT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT!ON EASEMENT MAY 24, 2002 SCALE 1"=60' 1 nF 1 SHEET 10101661-M16 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40971 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40971 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-002 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-002 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-Mll. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M11. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M20 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M20. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M16 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M16. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ I right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the 1-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Depadment of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12TM day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12~ day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400· Temeoula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 24, 2002 JN 10101661~Mll Page 1 of I That certaln Parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps In the Office of the County Recorder Of 'said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the boundary line of said lot through the following courses: South 48°07'50" West 226.35 feet; 'thence North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; then.ce leaving said boundary line North 48°13'17" East 226.34 feet.to the northeasterly · line of said Lot 1; ther{ce along said northeasterly line South 41'52'10" East 9.47 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 2184 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all CovenantS, Rights, Rights-of-Way and. Easem. ents of Record, EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by m~j~y direction.' ..l~mon~ Mathe, P.L,S. 6185, M'""' 'iy I cense expires 3/31/06. H.'~D&TA\tO~O 166 I'~AI)~NV~BO~ ll~O i i.v~d I~RAPHIC SCALE' 180 ~)EXISTINGSCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE' EASEMENT ~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 'TRACT NO. 27690 M8 248/.~9-# ~ LOT I APN 910-284-005 N48~ 07 '. 50"E - (N48'os'Os"E) ~ C/L W I NCI'F_STER ROAD .I SHEET EXHIDIT WINCHESTER ROAD 1:3 C3 N ~t U L.TI N 13 MAY 24, 2002 SCALE 1"=60' 1 DF 1 SHEET !0101661-Mll RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT · WATER EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M20 Page I of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I ef Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, pages 39 through 41 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Lot 1; thence along, the southwesterly line of said lot North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 47.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 42°21'33" West 11.64 feet; thence North 47°38'27" East 1'9.75 feet; thence South 42°21'33" East 11.84 feet; thence South 48013'17" West 19.75 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 232 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B".attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared my direction. ~i'R'~.yn~ond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3131106. H:~DATA\I 0 i 0166 I~*~D~IN~LSOAt,S~ llg1020.v;pd GRAPHIO SCALE EXISTING SCE EASEMENT 1 EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 2 <~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 3 (~PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 4 5 6 DATA TABLE N41'50'12"W '-- 9.83' N48'13'17"E -- 47,49' N42'21'33"W -- 11,64" N47'38'27"E -~ 19.75' S42'21'33"E -- 11.8¢' S48'13'17"W -- 19.75' TRACT NO. 27690 AfB 248/59-41 LOT 1 APN 910-284-005 TE(~ECULA I~_DIOAL PARK DEV., E.P. - -F .-E_-Z{ .... · N. 48'_..07'50"E. ' (N.48'OB'OS"E.) ~'"~'-C/L WINCHESTER ROAD EXHIBIT 'I~' IsHEET t DF 1 SHEET RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT MAY 24, 2002 SCALE I JO~ No, , 1"=60' 10101661-M20 ,:,., /.. . _ :. RSF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92691 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARy CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M15 Page 1 of.1 That certain parcel of land situated In the City of TemecUla, County of Riverside, State Of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of MaPs in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: .. BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the boundary line' of said lot through the following courses: South 48°07'50" Wast 226.35 feet thence North 41°50'12" West 25~00 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°07'50" East 226.34 feet to 'the northeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 4~752'10" East 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING-' 5659 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, ~ights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me.~y direction, ,~ond I.i Mathe, P.L.8. 6185, "My license expires.'3/31/06. ' )) 180 ') 'GRAPHIC SCALE EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT {~EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR N41 °50' 12"W · TRACT NO. 2Z690 MB 248/59-4 1 LOT 1 APN 910-284'-005 TEMECC~A MEDICAL PARK DEV. CP. "1"'-'- N48'O7'50"E 226.34' , "'--'---- N48°O7'50"E 226.35' ~ N48'O7'50"E ~ .(.48'08"'~8"E) ' -- C/L WINCHESTER ROAD SHEET EXHIBIT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT I .n I l I:30 N ~ U I.TIN 13 MAY 24, 2002 SCALE 1"=60' '/ cz-- __~'~.__ N41 '52' IO"W P.O.B. 1 DF I SHEET 10101661-M16 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40967 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40967 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-003 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits ~B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-003 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-Ml1. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M11. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit UA," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M20 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M20. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M16 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M16. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ I right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 5 INDEX RBF cONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 24, 2002 JN 10101661rMll Page I of I That certain Parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps In the Office of the County Recorder of 'Said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly COmerof Said Lot ;I; thence along the boundary line of said lot through the following courses: - South 48°07'50" West226.35 feet; 'thence North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; then.ce leaving said boundary line North 48°13'17" East 226.34 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 1; ~ thence along said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 9.47 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING., CONTAINING: 2184 square Feet. SUBJECT TO all CovenantS, Rights, Rights-of-Way and. Easem, ents of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by m~~ dlrootlon, lt:~;'I~ATA\I 0,10 t66 I~ADIvlIN~BOA~ ll~i01 i .wpd 60 1~ 180 'GRAPHIC SCALE' ~EXISTING SCE EASEMENT (~ EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE' EASEMENT ~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 'TRACT NO. 27690 I~B 248/,39-41 N41'50' 12"W 9.83'..~ LOT I ,APN 910-284-005 TEIV~CULA ~IEDICAL PARK DEV. Gt=. ' F _ N48' r¥~7"E _ ~_!6_.3_~'_ J 2_ _ ~ N48' 07 ':50"E .... ..[ZZZ _ _ _~1' 5~'_1_o~w ,;..~9.47' N48rO7:50"E (N48:~'~'OS"E) -- ~"-C/L WINCHESTER ROAD SHEET EXHIBIT 'B'. WINCHESTER ROAD ~ CONaULTINra MAY 24, 2002 1 "=60' 1 .OF 1 SHEET JO~ N~ 10101661-Mll RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 40'0 Temeoula, CA 92591 May 24, 2002 jN 10101661-M20 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ' WATER EASEMENT That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps in .the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the Southwesterly line of said lot North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 47.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 42°21'33" West 1 ~1.64 feet; thence North 47°38'27" East 1'9.75 feet; thence South 42°21'33" East 11,84 feet; thence South 48°13'17" West 19.75 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 232 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. 'EXHIBIT "B".attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared b~ my dlroctlon. /--E'aymond L. Maths, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31106. H:~PDATA\I 0101661 ~DIvlII,~EOALS~661 l~1020.wpd QRAPHIO SCALE DATA TABLE · z N48.13,17 E -- 47,49' EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 3 N42.21,337 -- 11,6¢" pRoPoSED RIGHT OF WAY · 4 N47.58,27.E -~ 19.75' 5 S42 21 35 E '-- 11.84' TRACT NO. 27690 . N;48~O7'50"E. ~"~ C/L (N.48'OS'OS"E,) W!NCHESTER ROAD I EXHI]~IT ']~' RANCHO CALI FORN I A ~.WATER DISTRICT .. WATEE EASEMENT IsHEET 1 DF 1 SHEET 1"=60' 10101661-~20 RBF CONSULTIN(~ 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M16 Page 1 of 1 · 'That certain.parcel of land situated in the City of Temesula, County of Riverside, State of California, being.that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed In Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of MaPs in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the boundary line of said lot .through the following courses: South 48°07'50.' West 226.35 feet thence North 4i°50'12'i West 25.00 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°07'50'.' East 226.34 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ' CONTAINING: 5659 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this. reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me~y direction. ..~af~ond L, M.athe, P.L.S. (}185, "My license expires ·3131106.' 'GRAPHIC SCALE 1; 0 EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR N41'50' 12"W TRACT NO. 276'90 MB 248/59-4 1 LOT 1 APN 910-284-005 TE'I~ECULA MEDZCAL PARK DEV. N48'OT'50"E 226.34' N48°O7'50"E 226.35'~ N48'O7'50"E ~ .(N48'OS'-~8"E) -- C/L WINCHESTER ROAD I SHEET EXHIBIT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ~ASEMENT' MAY 24, 2002 1"=60' :-ZZZI .... ~_N4~'52' ~o"w P.O.B. ElF '1 SHEET Pt*ANNINEI · D£eI~N · QONBTRUQTIOH RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40963 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CiTY Of TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40963 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-004 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-004 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-Mll. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M11. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M20 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M20. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M16 and depicted on Exhibit "B' also marked with JN 10101661-M16. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/resos 03-~ I right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagementJPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/resos 03-~ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final fIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final fIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/resos 03-__ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/resos 03-__ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 24, 2002 JN 10101661~Mll Page 1 of 1 That certain Parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps in .the Office of the County Recorder Of 'said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly COmer of said Lot ~; thence along the boundary line of said lot through the following COurses: South 48°07'50" West 226.35 feet; *thence North 41'50'12" West 9.83 feet; then~.e leaving said boundary line North 48'13,17" East 226.34 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 41°52'10'' East 9.47 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 2184 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all CovenantS, Rights Rights-of-Way and Easem. ents of Record. EXHIBIT "E" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by.. ~y direction. H:~DATA\I 0,l 01 ~ I~ADMII,~EOALS~61 ~i01 l.v/pd 60 1; 180 'GRAPHIC SCALE EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT <~_,)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR "TRACT NO. 27690 &lB 248/.~9-41 LOT 1 APN 9 I0-284-00~I. TE~ECYJLA ~V/EDICAL PARK DEV. N41'50' 1,2"W ~.L-. 4-------1-.- [ --: N48, O7~50"E (N48'O~'O8"E) ~C/L WINCHESTER ROAD EXHIDIT Ii'/I NCHESTER ROAD MAY 24, 2002 SHEET 1 DF I SHEET ROAD, ~ 400 1EIgEO~A, OAL, FO~'~ g'Z~gt-4~ RBF CONSULTINO 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT · WATER EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M20 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot I of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the southwesterly line of said lot North 41°50'12" West 9.83 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 47.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 42°21'33" West 11.64 feet; thence North 47°38'27" East 1'9.75 feet; thence South 42°21'33" East 11.84 feet; thence South 48°13'17"'West 19.75 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 232 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B". attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared my direction. ~i~r~[ymond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. H:~PDATA\I 010166 I'~Dldll,~2~Al.b¥~ ll~1020.wpd · 120 180 GRAPHIO SCALE DATA TABLE ~, ............. "'"""'-"' · "'~ ........ ;'--7-',7 ......... ';' ......... <~ EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT - N41.50 12 W -- 9.83' 2 N48 13 17"E 7 <~) EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 3 u,~,-,..-,,,-,.,,~ -- 4 .49 ® ,'"o,'OSED RI*T o~- wA,' , ;,;;,'~'~'~-~"~: :: · 5 S42:21 e S48 13 17 W -- 19.75' TRACT NO. 27690 - . " I LOT 1 ~ . I~/ il TEMECULAMEDICALPARKDEV..G.p. I '~ .:il-- (33 I I '-~ ~ J.L _ _ · _ I ....... · .... ..... ... ' x'f~F~--~--'--'~ --- =--+-=--,-'~-P--- Z'~ / "L''"'" ~'" f '..~'o~'~o"~-. -.~ ~ / P.O.B.(,~) (~ N.48'O7'50"E. ~'"'-- C/L (N.48'OS'OS"E.) W !NCHESTER ROAD EXHIBIT JsHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 10t01661-~20 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May24,2002 JN 10101661-M16 Page 1 of 1 *That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 27690 filed in Book 248, Pages 39 through 41 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Lot 1; thence along the boundary line of said lot through the following courses: South 48°07'50" West 226.35 feet thence North 4'1°50'12" West 25.00 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°07'50" East 226.34 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 4752'10" East 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 5659 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This deecrlption was prepared by me or~,my direction. ~ond I.* U.athe, P.L.S. 6185, 'lVly license expires*3/31/06. H:~PDATA~I 010166 I~flI, N.~OAI~66 llgl016.wpd 0 60 1; 180 'GRAPHIC SCALE EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRACT NO. 27690 /fib 248/J9-4 1 LOT 1 APN ~o-2~-oo~ TE'Ii~CI~A MEDICAL PARK DEV. CP. N41 50 12 W I~q~...-"-'- .N48 07 50 E 226.34 · ~ _____i~Z~ _ 2.__5.._.00_.~-~_j~, ............... i__ I ~._N41'52' IO"W N48'O7'50"E ~ o (.48° 08"'~8"E)-- C/L WINCHESTER ROAD SHEET EXHII)IT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION m~ EASEMENT m m m m CONI~ULTIN 13 MAY 24, 2002 SCALE 1"=60' 1 DF I SHEET jrli) NB, 10101661-M16 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40949 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40949 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-006 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-006 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-M12. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M12. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M21 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M21. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M17 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M17. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 1 right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General P Jan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the miti§ation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the 1-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final fIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final fIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft fIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-._ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27665 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92691 EXHIBIT. "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 24, 2002 JN 1010166.1.M12 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 28317 filed In Book 188, Pages 99 ani~ 100 of. parcel Maps. in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of sa d Parcel 1; thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the following courses: South 48°07'50" West 281.67 feet thence North 41'52'10" West 9.47 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°13'17'' East 281.67 feet to the northeasterly Ilne of said Parcel 1; thence along said northeasterly llne South 41"52'10" East 9.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: .2504 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all C0venantsI Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by m~y direction, ~y i~ceOnd~athe, P.L.S. 6185, nse expires 3/31/06. H:~PDATA\I 010166 I~DlvllN~I~AJ.~ 11~1012.vqjd GRAPHIC SCALE APN 910-284-00~ TEMECULA I~DICAL PARK DEV. PHASE II, G,P. PARCEL MAP' NO. 28517"' PIVI8 188/99-100 PCL. 1 N48' 07 ~50"E (.48'~'8'54"E) WTNCHESTER ROAD EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EXISTING. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT SHEET EXHIBIT WINCHESTER ROAD ,mON B LILTING I SCALE MAY 24, 2002 1"=60' ! DF I'SHEET JD~ ND, 10101661-M12 RBF CONSULTING · 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" 'RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M21 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula,. County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No..28317 filed in Book .188, Pages 99 and 100 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County described as followS: COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Parcel 1; thence along-the southwesterly llne of said parcel North 41 °52'10" West 9.47 feet; thence North 48°13'17'~ East 82.56 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence. North 40°58'11" West 12.32 feet; thence North 49°01',49. East 20.64 feet; thence South 40~58'11" East 12.03 feet; thence South 48°13'17" West 20.64 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 251 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. · EXHIBIT "B'! affached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.' This description was prepared by ~y direction. ~ymond L. Mathe, P.L.8. 6185, My license expires 3/31108. H:LI)DATA~I 010166 I~"DMIN~L~ I 1~I021 wpd 0 60 1~ 180· 'GRAPHIC SCALE APN 910-284-00~ TEI~IECULA MEDzcAL DEV., PHASE ZZ, G.P, lO'r- PARCEL MAP NO. 28517 P/fiB 188/99-100 PCL. 1 · ' ' /.P;O.B; ~ r-- N48 ° 07' 50 "E (N48'08' 54"E) WINCHESTER ROAD EXISTING SCE EASEMENT EXISTING ACCESS EASEI~T EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EXISTING LANDSCAPE IvlAINTENANCE EASEMENT PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT DATA TABLE .... B_Ne/DELTA RADIUS 1 N41'52'10"W 2 N48'13'17"E 3 N40'58'll"W 4 N49'O1'49"E 5 S40'58'11"E 6 S48'13'17"W ,SHEET ! RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT LENGTH MAY 24, 2002 1" 60' -- 9.47' --, 82.56' ' 12.32' -- 20.6,~' -- 12.05' -- 20.64' BF ! SHEET JO2 ND, ' 10101661-M21 NI EX N RBF CONSULTING 2?5§$ Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temeeula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10!01661-M17 ' Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated In the City of Temecula, County of Riverside 'State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 283.17 fi ed in Book 188, Pages 99 and 100 of Parcel Maps In the Office of the County Recorder of said Rlverslde Count'),, described as.follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the fOllowing courses:. South 48°07'50" West'281.67 feet; thence North 41°52'10" West 25.00 feet thence leaving said boundary line 'North 48°07'50" East 281.67 feet to'the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northeasterly line south 41°52'10" East 25.00 feet tO the POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING: 7042 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. F. XHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by {his reference made a part hereof. .I Th!s description was Prepared by m~y direction. ,J~lfjmond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185,. My. license expires 3/31/06. H:%PDATA~i 01016M~,DMIN~M30~ 11810 t ?.wpd · GI~APH ! C 'SCALE /;~r.. APN 9 I0-284-00~ T£1dECULA MEDICAL DEV. ,. PHASE II, ~.P. PARCEL MAP NO. 28317 Pit;lB 188/99,100 PCL. 1 ~(~ ~ ~ S48'07'50"W 281.67' ,¥ P.O,B, N48°07' 50"E (N48'08' 54"E) L . W!NCHESTER ROAD ~)' EXI'STIN(~ SCE EASEMENT ~) EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT (~ EXISTIN(~ TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (~ EXISTIN(~ LANDSCAPE aA!NTENANCE EASEMENT SHEET .1 DF 1 SHEET EXHT]~1'T TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT!ON =~= = CONBULTING ~o~.e7~o4~ ' I SCALE I JO]l MAY 24,~ 2002 I 1"=60' 10101661-1~17 I RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40945 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40945 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-007 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-007 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-M12. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M12. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M21 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M21. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M17 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M17. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 Southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ I right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston S ~ecific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagementJPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Har~eston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT. "A" WINCHESTER ROAD May24,2002 JN 10101661.M12 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of .California, being that portion of Parcel I of Parcel Map NO. 28317 filed In Book 188, Pages 99 an~1100 of parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Parcel 1; thence along the boundary line of said parcel South 48°07'50". West 281.67 feet thence North 41 °52'10" West 9.47 feet; through the following courses: thence leaving said boundary line North 48°13'17'' East 281.67 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along Said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 9.02 feet tO the pOINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 2604 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and. Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared iy m~y direction. ~'mond~athe, P.L.S. 6185, '~fvly-Ilcense expires 3/31/08. GRAPHIC.SCALE AP~V ~ !0-284-00~ TEIt,IECULA IdEDI¢AI. PARK DEV. PHASE ~, G~p. PARCEL MAP NO. 28317 PA,tB 188/99- ~00 PCL. 1 N48°15'17"E S48'07'50"W C/L 1'448 ' 07 ~ 50" E (N48'~'54"E) WINCHESTER ROAD S41'52' 10" ~ P.O.B. <~>EXISTING SCE EASEMENT ~>E. XISTING ACCESS EASEMENT (~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR <~)EXISTING LANDSCAPEMAINTElqANCE EASEMENT EXHIBIT '~' WINCHESTER ROAD · MAY 24, 2002 SHEET 1 BF I'SHEET · ¢30 NBU LTI.N 13 ~CALE 1 "=60' JO{~ Nn, 10101661-M12 RBF CONSULTING 275S$ Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" 'RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT . May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M21' Page 1 of 1 That certain ParCel of land Situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of. California, being that portion of Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 28317 filed in Book 188, Pages 99 and 100 of Parcel Maps In the Office of the County Recorde~ of said Riverside County, described as follows:' COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Parcel 1; thence along the southwesterly line of said parcel North 41°52'10" West' 9.47 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 82.56 feet to the TRUE POINT OF'BEGINNING; thence North 40°58'1 West 12.32 feet, t" ' thence North 49°01"49. East 20.64 feet; thence South 40°58'11" East 12.03 feet; thence South 48°13'17!, West 20,64 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 26! Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B'~ attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof,' ' This description was prepared bY ~y direction. ~l~Ymond L. Mathe P,L.8. 61.85; My license expires 3/31/06. H.~UDATA\! 010166 r~qDMIh'~3OALS~ 11~102 L~pd 0 Z- Z'qb__<3 6o 1; 180' , L 'GRAPHIC SCALE APN 910-284-00~ TEI~£CULA MEDICAL DEV., PH~S£ II, PARCEL MAP NO. 28517 =-I PMB 188,/99-100 PCL. I N48'O7'50"E (N48°OS'54"E)- WINCHESTER ROAD (~EXISTING SCE EASEkC_NT (~EXISTING ACCESS EASEtvE]qT ~EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ~)EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ~)PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT ']~' RANCHO CALI FORN'I A WATER DISTRICT 'WATER EASEMENT MAY 24, 2002 DATA TABLE RADI~ LENGTH 1 N41'52'10,W -- 9.47' 2 N48'13'lT"E -- 82.56' 3 N40'58'11"W ~ 12.32' 4 N49'O1'49"E ' -- 20,64' 5 S40'58'11"E -- 12,03' 6 S48'13'i7"W -- 20,64' SHEET 13 0 N IS U LTINI~ SCALE I 1" '60' '. BF 'l SHEET ~0~,.676,~04~ · FAX~9.e7e.7~.40 · w. MF. wa JOB ND, 10101661-M21 N 9 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road,· Suite 400 Temeoula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD · TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ~May24,2002 JN 10!01661-M17 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 28317 fi ed In Book 188., Pages 99 and 100 of Parcel Maps In the Office of the county Recorder of said Riverside County, described as.follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of Said Parcel 1; thence along· the boundary line of said parcel through the-following courses:. South 48°07'50'' West281.67 feet; thence North 41 °52'10" West 25.00 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°07'50" East 281.67 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 25.00 feet tO the POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING: 7042 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by {his reference made a part hereof. This description was Prepared by m~y direction. ,~ond L.'Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, My, license expires 3/31/06. H:~DA'FA~I0101661~qDld]N~130~IIsI0t?.~d 180 .GRAPHIC 'SCALE APN 910-28#-00~ S48' 07 '50"W 281.67' TEW£CULA MEDICAL DEV., pHAsE Il', G.P. PARCEL /vlAP NO. 28517 =- P~B ~88/99- ~00 PCL. 1 '~ ........ -J--ri'35' ~-L~_ N48 07 50 E 281,67''-'-:--;--~ -- I I ~ :::~4.1 '52' lO"E: 2~-:-00' N48° 07' 50"E (N48'O8'54"E) WINCHESTER ROAD ~)EXISTING SCE EASEMENT ~)EXISTING ACCESS EASE]dENT ~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (~EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEIdENT SHEET 1 OF EXH!DIT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 1:30 N aU L.I'ING P.O.B. MAY 24,' 2002 ' I SCAL£ 1"=60' I I SHEET JDB NO, 10101661-M17 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40941 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40941 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-284-008 ("Subject Property Interests"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B' to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-284-008 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN') 10101661-M12. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M12. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M21 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M21. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M17 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M17. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 1 right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagementJPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August 2003. ATTEST: Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-._ 5 INDEX N-, I RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT."A" WINCHESTER ROAD May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M12 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that port!on of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 28317 filed in Book 188, Pages 99 ami 100 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most easterly comer of said Parcel 1; thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the following courses: South 48°07'50" West 281.67 feet thence North 41°52'10" West 9.47 feet; thence leaving said boundary.line North 48°13'17" East 281.67 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; . thence along Said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 9.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 2604 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by m~y diro~lon. ~y i.~ond"L-'l~athe, P.L.S. 6185, ense expires 3/31/06. H:~ATA~I 0101661~DMI14%130~ 11~012,wpd ) 6u 1: ~RAPHIC SCALE APN 9 ~0-254-00~ TE~ECULA ~EDICAL PARK DEV. PHASE II, G,P. PARCEL MAP NO. 28517' PlvfB 188/99- 100 PCL. 1 S48'07'50"W 281.67' ~ S41 '52' IO"E ~.-¥:5'2' ~ P.O.B. N48' 07 ? 50"E (N48' 08' 54"E) WINCHESTER ROAD ~ExISTING SCE EASEMENT ~EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT ~EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIgOR (~EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT SHEET EXHIBIT W!NCHESTER ROAD OONBULTING . 1 OF I'SHEET MAY 24, 2002 ~"CALE 1"=60' JO~ NO, 10101661-M12 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10101861-M21 Page 1 of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula,. County of Riverside, State of California, being that' portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 28317 filed in Book 188, Pages 99 and 100 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as folloWS: COMMENCING at the most southerly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the southwesterly line of said parcel North 41°52'10" West 9.47 feet; thence 'North 48°13'17" East 82.56 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 40°58'11" West 12.32 feet; thence North 49o01,49" East 20.64 feet; thence South 40°58'11" East 12.03 feet; thence South 48°13'17" West 20.64 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 251 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record EXHIBIT "B'! attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof." This description was prepared by ~y direction. ~l~ymond L~ Mathe, P.L.8. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. H:~UDATA\I 01016~ I~D/~I~LEOAL,~/611~102 l.wpd 0 60 1: 180' GRAPHIC SCALE APN 910-284-005 TEb~CULA IW£DICAL DEV., PHASE II, C~,P, ~ PARCEL MAP NO. 28517 PMB 188/99- 100 PCL. 1 -;--- ....... '1-% -- -- -- ~-%--. ..J ' -- L __ . .... /T,P',O,B; ~ ~ N48*O7'50"E_ . (N48°oe'54"E) WINCHESTER ROAD 'DATA TABLE ® iSTi.G SCE EASEM r R^D U (~)EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT " ..... 1 N41'52'10"W -- 9.47' (~.~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 2 N48'13'17"E -- 82,56' (~EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 3 N40'58'11"W '- 12,32' EASEMENT 4 N49'O1'49"E -- 20,64' ~)PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 5 S40'58°11"E -- 12,03' 6 S48'13'17"W -- 20,64' EXHIBIT'B' SHEET 1 DF 1 SHEET ~ANCHO CALIFORNIA ~ .~-.,.,. · o..,,-. · oo..,r, uo.-,o. WATER' D I STR I CT WATER EASEMENT , 1 "=60' 10101661-M21 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT May 24, 2002 JN 10!01661-M17 Page 1 of 1 That Certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 283.17 filed in Book 188, Pages 99 and 100 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as ~follows: BEGINNING at the most'easterly comer of said Parcel 1; thence along the boundary line of said parcel through the following courses:. South 48°07'50" West 281.67 feet; thence North 41°52'10" West 25.00 feet; thence leaving said boundary line North 48°07'50" East 281.67 feet to the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said northeasterly line Sodth 41°52'10" East 25.00 feet t° the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 7042 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by {his reference made a part hereof. This description was Prepared by m~y dlre~ion. ,~ond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185,. My license expires 3/31/06. I~'%PDA?A~I 010166 I~ADI~411,M~O~ tl~101 ?,wpd ~-.,. 1: 180 · GRAPHIC 'SCALE APN 910-284-00E TEMECULA MEDICAL D£V., PHASE Ii, G.P. 25.00 ~ PARCEL /V/AP NO. 28J 17 · P/CB 188/99-100 PCL. 1 I S48'07'50"W 281.67' N48' 07' 50"E ' (N48'O8'54"E) WTNCHESTER ROAD 41'52'10"1 25.00' i P.O.B. (~EXISTING SCE EASEMENT (~)EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT (~)EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (~EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT SHEET EXHIttIT 'I~' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT ION EASEMENT I i i l I=0 NS U LI'INI~ 1 DF 1 SHEET SCALE RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (40915 AND 40917 WINCHESTER ROAD) THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation, in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 2. The real property interests described in Section 3 of this Resolution are to be taken for a public use, namely for permanent easements and temporary construction easements in connection with the proposed widening and improvements of Winchester Road ("Project"), and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Temecula to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, Section 19, California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including, but not limited to sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law. Section 3. The real property interests the City seeks to acquire are a permanent street easement, public utility easement, and a temporary construction easement on the property commonly known as 40915 and 40917 Winchester Road, Temecula, and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-283-005 ("Subject Property Interasts"). The term of the temporary construction easements is six (6) months. The legal description of the Subject Property Interests are attached as Exhibits "A" to this Resolution and depicted on Exhibits "B" to this Resolution. Said Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the legal description to the permanent easement on APN 910-283-005 is shown on Exhibit "A," which is marked on the top right hand corner with the job number ("JN") 10101661-M13. This permanent easement is depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M13. The legal description of the public utility easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M22 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M22. The legal description of the temporary construction easement is shown on Exhibit "A," marked on the top right hand corner with JN 10101661-M18 and depicted on Exhibit "B" also marked with JN 10101661-M18. The Subject Property Interests are required for the construction, widening, and improvements of Winchester Road, including the relocation of utility facilities, which is a public use. Section 4. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Harveston Specific Plan. The Project would widen and improve Winchester Road easterly from Jefferson Avenue to approximately 885 feet east of Ynez Road. Specifically, the Project would provide additional through lanes and turning lanes at the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Project would improve Winchester Road at the 1-15 southbound ramp by adding an eastbound R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 1 right-turn lane, a southbound dedicated left-turn lane (dual left), and widening the off-ramp to accommodate the added lane. The Project would also improve the Winchester Road at 1-15 northbound ramp by adding a westbound right-turn lane (dual right). These improvements will further the public health and safety by ensuring adequate traffic circulation in this area and, thus, will prevent unacceptable traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. The Project is also necessary for the public health and safety because it will ensure that traffic circulation and the level of service are maintained at the standard set forth in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The Project is also necessary to meet the demands of anticipated increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from recent and proposed development in the vicinity of the Project area. Section 5. The potential environmental impacts of the Project were studied and analyzed as an integral part of the City Council's adoption on August 14, 2001 of Resolution No. 01-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions, and adopting the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection therewith for the Harveston Specific Plan, located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limits (Planning Application 00-0189). The street improvements that make up the Project were a condition of approval of the Harveston Specific Plan and related planning applications. Pursuant to section 15082 of the State California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the City on April 1, 1999 issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The City received comments in response to the Notice of Preparation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the City prepared a Draft EIR to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City on November 2, 2000, filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. This initiated a 45-day public comment period pursuant to section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Aisc, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. The City sent copies of the Draft EIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City also placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries throughout Riverside County and in City offices. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City on February 2001, provided its responses to the fourteen (14) comments received on the Draft EIR. These comments and responses were included as part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, in adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, certain environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a less than significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. Specifically, the City Council determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Cimulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-__ 2 The City Council also determined that the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions will have a potentially significant impact on transportation and circulation in the City. It determined that that there will be an increase in traffic levels under the Phase I - 2002 Scenario. At Phase I, the build-out of the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions are anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day. All of the study intersections, including those that are part of the Project, were found to operate at LOS "D" or better at all times, with the exception of Winchester Road at Ynez Road and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. Accordingly, because this is considered a significant impact, intersection improvements were identified to allow LOS "D" or better to be maintained at both of these intersections and, thus, reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Specifically, the mitigation measures required a modification of the signal at Winchester Road at Ynez Road to provide both a northbound and southbound right turn overlap phase. The mitigation measures also required the addition of an eastbound through lane on Winchester Road at this intersection. These improvements are part of the Project. In addition, the mitigation measures required certain improvements at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The City Council found that with the implementation of certain mitigation measures, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions' incremental impact on traffic at the projected 2005 build-out scenario can be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include the improvements proposed by the Project and discussed above in Section 4. Accordingly, the City Council found and determined that with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, including the Harveston Specific Plan Circulation Element and mitigation measures, no significant traffic impacts will result from the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-out 2005 Scenarios. The Project is comprised of all of the improvements or mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with Winchester Road and the intersections of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road at the I-15, and Winchester Road and Margarita Road. In adopting Resolution No. 01-70, the City Council found that it reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Harveston Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. Further, the City Council found that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council certified the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of Resolution No. 01-70 but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 of Resolution No. 01-70. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 3 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Harveston Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Harveston Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Harveston Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Harveston Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan. All of the environmental documentation prepared in connection with Resolution No. 01- 70, including the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, has been reviewed by City staff in connection with the proposed Resolutions of Necessity and on August 4, 2003, pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications, of which the street improvements proposed by the Project are an integral part, and that the City has not obtained any new information of substantial importance that would require City staff to undertake further environmental analysis. These environmental findings in connection with the Harveston Specific Plan and related applications and the conditions imposed as part of their approval, are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. Section 6. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely street purposes, is a more necessary public use within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.650 than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated those utility easements, which are located in the Subject Property Interests and are affected by the Project Section 7. that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and determines A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto is necessary for the Project; and D. The City made the offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code to the owners of record. Section 8. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council on August 12, 2003, including the Agenda Report dated August 12, 2003 and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated by this reference. These documents include the environmental documents referenced above, Resolution Nos. 01-70, 01-72, 01-73, Ordinance No. 01-08, the City's General Plan, and Development Code. These documents also include the Project Construction Plans, which were approved by the State of California Department of Transportation. The findings and declarations in this Resolution are also based upon any testimony, records and documents produced at the hearing, all of which are incorporated by this reference. R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 4 Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire by eminent domain the property described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of August, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the city of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-~ 5 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez ROad, Suite 400. Temecula, CA 9289.1 May 24, 2002 JN 1010!561-M13 EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 1 WINCHESTER ROAD That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula~ County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel "B" of Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-0122 recorded December 12, 1995 as Instrument No. 412211' of Official Records In the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly comer of said Parcel 'B"; thence along the southwesterly line of said Parcel North 41°52'10" West 9 02 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 106.31 feet ~o ~e beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 178.30 feet; thence along said curve northeasterly 56.14 feet through a Central angle of 18~02'30" to the southeasterly line of said Parcel "B"; thence along ·said southeasterly line, non-tangent from said curve South 48°07'50" West 161.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ' CONTAINING: 1277 Square Feet. . SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared .by m~ direction. l~ondL. Uathe, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. I'I:~PDATA\I 01016~ i ~I)MIN~L~OAL~61 [g013 wpd 0 120 180 ~ .GRAPHIC SCALE PARCEL NAP NO. 28317 PMB 188/99-1 O0 PCL . 1 LLA NO. 95-0122 PARCEL NAP INST. NO. :412211, O.R. NO. 23335 · ( 12- 12-95,) PMB 172/87-89 PCL. B APN 910-283-005 DANGELO JAMES F TRUST ~=18'02 '30" N48' 13' 17"E ~__ ,'R=178.30' L=56.14' ~-,~.~,' _~_:.:.: ___~ .... ,---, ,I P.O.B. N23'44' 13"W - - TRT - ~ N48"07 '50"E (N48'O8~54"E) L""'C/L WINCHESTER ROAD PCL. 5 (~>EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT · (~EXISTINO TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (~)EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT .r EXHIBIT WINCHESTER ROAD SHEET ! DF ! ·SHEET CONBUL'rlNm SCALE MAY 24, 2002. 1"=60' 10101661-M13 RBF CONSULTING 27555.Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT Revised January 7, 2003 May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-M22 Page I of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City bf Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel "B" of Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-0122 recorded December 12, .1995 as Instrument No. 412211 of Official Records in the. Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southerly comer of said Parcel "B"; thence along the southwesterly line of said pamel North 41"52'10" West 9;02 feet; thence North 48°13'17" East 45.99 feet to the TRUE POINTOF BEGINNING; thence Nodh 4?50'48" West 5.69 feet; thence North 48°09'12" East 19.69 feet; thence South 41°50'48" East 5.71 feet; thence South 48°13'17- West 19.69 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 112 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my dlrec, tlon, -'Thomas E, Verloop, P~, 5348, My license'expires 12/31/03, H-~DATA\I010166 l'~DlvHlh~6111~1022.v~d 0 GRAPHIC SCALE PARCEL NAP. NO. 28517 PMB189/99- 100 PCL. 1 LLA NO. 95-0122 iNST. NO. 412211 O.R. ( 12- 12-95) ..P..O.C. PCL ; B APN 910-283-00.5 DANGELO JANES F TRUST N48'O7'50"E -~ ~N.8'O6'5.~) · c/L WINCHESTER ROAD 1 N4~'52'lO"W 2 N48'13'17"E N41'50'48"W 4 N48'og'12"E 5 S41'50'48"E 6 S48'13'17"W DATA TABLE -- 9,02' -- 45.99' -- 5,69' -- 19,69' -- 5,71 ' -- 19.69' EXHIIHT RANCHO CALI FORN I A WATER DISTRICT WATER EASEMENT coN-u-'r,N. <~EXIST'[NG ACCESS EASEMENT (~>EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (~EXIST[NG LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (~PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY SHEET ! OF I SHEET SCALE .JO~ NB. REVISED JANUARY 7, 2003 1"=60' 10101661-M22 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 EXHIBIT "A" WINCHESTER ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Revised June 19, 2002 May 24, 2002 JN 10101661-'M18 Page I of 1 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel "B" of Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-0122 recorded December 12, 1995 as Instrument No. 412211 of Official Records In the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside CoUnty, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly comer of said Parcel 'B"; thence along the southwesterly line Of said parcel North 41°52'10" West 25.00 feet; thence North 48~07'50" East 192.98 feet to.the northeasterly line of said parcel; thence along said northeasterly line South 41°52'10" East 25.00 feet to the southeasterly · line of said Parcel "B"; thence along said southeasterly line South 48°07'50" West 192.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 4825 Square Feet. SUBJECT TO all' Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "'B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or unde~y direction. ~ nd L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185, My license expires 3/31/06. I~PI~ATA\I 0101661 ~)IvIIN~I~3AI,E~ 1 Igl018.wpd 0 180 · . GRAPHIC SCALE PARCEL /gAP NO. 28317 PMB 188/99- 100 PCL . I LLA NO. 95-0122 INST. NO. 412211, O.R. (12-12-95) PCL. B ' APN 910-283-005 DANGELO dAISES F TRUST N48'O7'50"E 192.98' '"'""- S48'07'50"W P.O.B. N48°O7'50"E (N48' ~'~'5~"E) W I NCHESTER ROAD 'k',,_C/L ~)EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT {~EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ~£XISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE'EASEMENT SHEET 1 EXHIDIT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION .~.= EASEMENT CONaU LTl'NB REV[SED 6/19/02 I SCALE , MAY 24, 2002 1"=60' PARCEL MAP NO. 23335 PI~IB 'i72/87-89 PCL. 5 S41 '52' IO"E DF 1 SHEET JOB NO, 10101661-M18 ITEM 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINA/b~E ~ j CITY MANAGER (~F ~-~' TO~ FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag August 12, 2003 Consideration of Funding for VFW Permits - Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Naggar RECOMMENDATION: Staff. That the City Council consider this request and provide direction to BACKGROUND: The upcoming Riverside Flood Control District project to improve Murrieta Creek will require that the VFW move from their current quarters on Pujol Street. Finding a suitable new site has been difficult for the VFW, and they have recently worked out an arrangement with the Western Eagle Foundation to occupy space in Western Eagle's building on Diaz. Although the VFW will be getting some relocation assistance from the County Flood Control District as part of this project, the VFW does not expect that this will be adequate to cover all of the costs related to this move. Mayor Pro Tern Naggar has requested that the City Council consider covering those City Permit costs for the VFW associated with the move. This is expected to include Conditional Use, Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, and possibly Fire Permits. DISCUSSION: Staff has done preliminary research on this request, and believes that City permit costs will be approximately $2000 to $3000. A firm figure is not available, because some of these fees are related to the work being proposed and we have not yet received building plans. However based on discussions with representatives of the VFW, we believe that this is a reasonable estimate. Staff also believes that it is likely that the costs of moving and related building improvements could exceed the relocation payments received. If the City Council does concur with this request, Staff would recommend that: 1. That such assistance be provided only in the event that moving-related costs exceed the relocation assistance from the County, and that suitable documentation be provided; and 2. Funding for these fees be provided through our Community Support funding budget. This is the most appropriate budget category. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated costs of these permits is expected to be less than $3,000. Funds are available in the Community Support Budget for this expenditure. C:\Documen[s and Settings~Jim. OGradylMy Documents~Sla~f Repo~l - VFW funding, 8-12-03~doc ITEM 19 APPROVA~v,~..x... CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OFFIN,A/N'~ CITY MANAGER /,/-~// TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Herman Parker, Director of Community Service~? August 12, 2003 Cable, Video and Telecommunications Ordinance PREPARED BY: ~l~, Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Introduce and read by title only an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGULATING CABLE, VIDEO, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 5.12 OF TITLE 5 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING FEES FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING CABLE TELEVISION AND OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM FRANCHISES, AND REGISTRATION FEES FOR OTHER VIDEO PROVIDERS DISCUSSION: Chapter 5.12 of Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code regulates the provision of cable services within the City of Temecula. The Chapter was adopted shortly after City incorporation in December 1989. Since that date, the federal and state laws governing cable providers and services, as well as other telecommunications services, have changed significantly. Along with these legal and legislative changes, the industry has experienced dramatic technological changes. R:\RUSEP~AGENDAS\telecommunica§ons ordinance.cc.doc Pdor to incorporation, the County of Riverside approved a cable franchise transfer to Inland Valley Cablevision for the provision of cable services in the area that would later incorporate as the City of Temecula. That franchise agreement has subsequently been transferred to successor providers, the current provider being Adelphia. The franchise agreement expires on January 9, 2004 and staff is beginning the franchise renewal negotiations process with Adelphia. After reviewing the City's existing Ordinance, our cable franchise attorney with Richards, Watson and Gershon, Bill Rudell, has recommended that the first step the City should take in the negotiations process is the adoption of a new cable, video and telecommunications services Ordinance, completely amending the existing Ordinance. This recommendation is made in order to be in compliance with current state and federal laws, and to keep abreast of current technologies and trends. Some of the most noteworthy changes in the proposed Ordinance ara: 1) Updated language consistent with current state and federal law, 2) Inclusion of other telecommunications service providers, 3) Expanded requiraments for an initial franchise application, 4) Defined application requirements a franchise renewal or transfer, 5) Enhanced consumer protection and service standards, 6) Established penalties and procedures to enforce penalties for non-compliance with consumer service standards, 7) Required parental control options, and 8) Established control over windows of time for construction in the public rights-of-way. A companion Resolution, defining certain deposits as required by the Ordinance should be considered at the same time as the Ordinance. These deposits are intended to cover costs associated with processing new applications, transfers and/or changes of control of both cable television and open video system franchises and registration fees for other video providers offering services within the City. Copies of the proposed Ordinance and Resolution have been provided to Adelphia, Verizon and other interested utility providers for their review and comments. Adoption of the new Ordinance and Resolution will provide a framework not only for the current cable franchise agreement renewal negotiations, but also for other telecommunications services that may be provided to City residents in the future. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact with the adoption of this Ordinance. The Resolution establishes fees and deposits required to begin negotiations for a franchise agraement or renewal. Attachments: Proposed Telecommunications Ordinance Proposed Telecommunications Fee Resolution R:\RUSEP~AGENDAS\telecommunicafions ordinance.cc.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGULATING CABLE, VIDEO, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 5.12 OF TITLE 5 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 5.12 of Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety. Section 2. The Temecula Municipal Code is amended by adding to Title 5 a new Chapter 5.12 to read as follows: "CABLE, VDEO, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVDERS ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.12.010 Title This ordinance is known and may be cited as the "Cable, Video, and Telecommunications Service Providers Ordinance" of the City of Temecula. 5.12.020 Purpose and Intent A. The City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. The development of cable, video, and telecommunications services and systems may provide significant benefits for, and have substantial impacts upon, the residents of the City. 2. Because of the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with cable, video, and telecommunications services and systems, the public convenience, safety, and general welfare can best be served by the City's exercise of its regulatory powers. 3. This chapter adopts provisions that authorize the City to regulate cable, video, and telecommunications service providers to the extent authorized by federal and state law, including but not limited to the federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the federal Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, applicable regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, and applicable California statutes and regulations. 743035-2 1 4. The cable, video, and telecommunications services that are addressed in this chapter include services provided by cable television systems, open video systems, master antenna television systems, satellite master antenna television systems, direct broadcast satellite systems, multichannel multipoint distribution systems, local multipoint distribution systems, and other providers of video programming, whatever their technology, as well as voice and data services provided by telephone corporations. B. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to provide for the attainment of the following objectives: 1. To enable the City to discharge its public trust in a manner consistent with rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory policies, industry competition, and technological development. 2. To authorize and to manage reasonable access to the City's public rights-of-way and public property for cable, video, and telecommunications purposes on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis. 3. To obtain fair and reasonable compensation for the City and its residents for authorizing the private use of the public rights-of-way and public property. 4. To promote competition in cable, video, and telecommunications services, minimize unnecessary local regulation of cable, video, and telecommunications service providers, and encourage the delivery of advanced and competitive cable, video, and telecommunications services on the broadest possible basis to local government and to the businesses, institutions, and residents of the City. 5. To establish clear local guidelines, standards, and time frames for the exercise of local authority with respect to the regulation of cable, video, and telecommunications service providers. 6. To encourage the deployment of advanced cable, video, and telecommunications infrastructure that satisfies local needs, delivers enhanced services, and provides informed consumer choices in an evolving cable, video, and telecommunications marketplace. 7. To maintain and to enhance public, educational, and governmental programming opportunities that will enable local government to communicate with its residents and to provide them with alternate means of disseminating information. 5.12.030 Defined Terms and Phrases Various terms and phrases used in this ordinance are defined below in Section 5.12.170. 743035-2 2 5.12.035 Suspension and Waiver of Application Fee Deposits A. With regard to any application fee deposit for an initial franchise, or for the renewal of a franchise, or for the transfer or change in control ora franchise that is authorized by this Chapter 5.12, the City Manager may suspend that application fee deposit in accordance with this section. B. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, will review all written information submitted by the applicant or franchisee in support of its contention that applicable law prohibits imposition of the application fee deposit provided for by this Chapter 5.12. If a determination is made that applicable law supports the contention of the applicant or franchisee, then the City Manager may suspend the imposition of the application fee deposit; provided, however, that such suspension must be ratified by the City Council within 30 days after the City Manager's determination and, if ratified, the application fee deposit will be deemed to have been waived." ARTICLE 2. CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS 5.12.040 Authority and Findings A. In accordance with applicable federal and state law, the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive franchises to construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain cable television systems within the City limits. B. The City Council finds that the development of cable television services may provide significant benefits for, and substantial impacts upon, the residents of the City. Because of the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with cable television, the City Council further finds that the public convenience, safety, and general welfare can best be served by establishing regulatory powers to be exercised by the City. This Article 2 is intended to specify the means for providing to the public the best possible cable television services, and every franchise issued in accordance with this Article 2 is intended to achieve this primary objective. It is the further intent of this Article 2 to adopt regulatory provisions that will enable the City to regulate cable television services to the maximum extent authorized by federal and state law. 5.12.050 Franchise Terms and Conditions A. Franchise Purposes A franchise granted by the City under the provisions of this Article 2 may authorize the Grantee to do the following: 1. To engage in the business of providing cable television services that are authorized by law and that the Grantee elects to provide to its subscribers within the designated franchise service area. 743035-2 3 2. To erect, install, construct, repair, rebuild, reconstruct, replace, maintain, and retain, cable lines, related electronic equipment, supporting structures, appurtenances, and other property in connection with the operation of the cable system in, on, over, under, upon, along and across streets and public rights-of-way within the designated franchise service area. 3. To maintain and operate the franchise properties for the origination, reception, transmission, amplification, and distribution of television and radio signals, and for the delivery of cable services and such other services as may be authorized by law. B. Franchise Required It is unlawful for any person to construct, install, or operate a cable television system within any street or public way in the City without first obtaining a franchise under the provisions of this Article 2. C. Term of the Franchise 1. A franchise granted under this Article 2 will be for the term specified in the franchise agreement, commencing upon the effective date of the resolution adopted by the City Council that authorizes the franchise. 2. A franchise granted under this Article 2 may be renewed upon application by the Grantee in accordance with the then-applicable provisions of state and federal law and this Article 2. D. Franchise Service Area A franchise is effective within the territorial limits of the City, and within any area added to the City during the term of the franchise, unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting the franchise or in the franchise agreement. E. Federal or State Jurisdiction This Article 2 will be construed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal and state laws, and it applies to all franchises granted or renewed after the effective date of this chapter, to the extent authorized by applicable law. F. Franchise Non-Transferable 1. Grantee may not sell, transfer, lease, assign, sublet, or dispose of, in whole or in part, either by forced or involuntary sale, or by ordinary sale, contract, consolidation, or otherwise, the franchise or any of the rights or privileges therein granted, without the prior written consent of the City Council, which consent may not be unreasonably denied or delayed. Any attempt to sell, transfer, lease, assign, or otherwise dispose of the franchise without the written consent of the City Council is null and void. The granting of a 743035-2 4 security interest in any assets of the Grantee, or any mortgage or other hypothecation, will not be deemed a transfer for the purposes of this subsection. A transfer to a person or entity owned or controlled by or under common ownership or control of Grantee shall not be deemed a transfer for the purposes of this subsection. 2. The requirements of subsection (1) apply to any change in control of Grantee. The word "control" as used herein is not limited to the ownership of major stockholder or partnership interests, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. If Grantee is a partnership or a corporation, prior authorization of the City Council is required where ownership or control of 25 percent or more of the partnership interests or of the voting stock of Grantee, or any company in the tier of companies controlling the Grantee, whether directly or indirectly, is acquired by a person or a group of persons acting in concert, none of whom, individually or collectively, owns or controls those partnership interests or that voting stock of the Grantee, or Grantee's upper tier of controlling companies, as of the effective date of the franchise. 3. Unless precluded by federal law, Grantee must give prior written notice to the City of any proposed foreclosure or judicial sale of all or a substantial part of the Grantee's franchise property. That notification will be considered by the City as notice that a change in control of ownership of the franchise will take place, and the provisions of this paragraph that require the prior written consent of the City Council to that change in control of ownership will apply. 4. For the purpose of determining whether it will consent to an acquisition, transfer, or change in control, the City may inquire about the qualifications of the prospective transferee or controlling party, and Grantee must assist the City in that inquiry. In seeking the City's consent to any change of ownership or control, Grantee or the proposed transferee, or both, must complete Federal Communications Commission Form 394 or its equivalent. This application must be submitted to the City not less than 120 days prior to the proposed date of transfer. The transferee must establish that it possesses the legal, financial, and technical capability to remedy all then-existing defaults and deficiencies, and, during the remaining term of the franchise, to operate and maintain the cable system and to comply with all franchise requirements. If the legal, financial, and technical qualifications of the proposed transferee are detem~ined to be satisfactory, then the City will consent to the transfer of the franchise. 5. Any financial institution holding a pledge of the Grantee's assets to secure the advance of money for the construction or operation of the franchise property has the right to notify the City that it, or a designee satisfactory to the City, will take control of and operate the cable television system upon Grantee's default in its financial obligations. Further, that financial institution must also submit a plan for such operation within 90 days after assuming control. The plan must insure continued service and compliance with all franchise requirements during the period that the financial institution will exercise control over the system. The financial institution may not exercise control over the system for a period exceeding one year unless authorized by the City, in its sole discretion, and during that period of time it will have the fight to petition the City to transfer the franchise to another Grantee. 743035-2 5 6. Unless prohibited by applicable law, Grantee must reimburse the City for the City's reasonable review and processing expenses incurred in connection with any transfer or change in control of the franchise. These expenses may include, without limitation, costs of administrative review, financial, legal, and technical evaluation of the proposed transferee, consultants (including technical and legal experts and all costs incurred by these experts), notice and publication costs, and document preparation expenses. The total amount of these reimbursable expenses may be subject to maximum limits that are specified in the franchise agreement between the City and the Grantee. No reimbursement may be offset against any franchise fee payable to the City during the term of the franchise. G. Geographical Coverage 1. Unless otherwise provided in the franchise agreement, Grantee must design, construct, and maintain the cable television system to have the capability to pass every dwelling unit and commercial building in the franchise service area, subject to any service- area line extension requirements or territorial restrictions set forth in the franchise agreement. 2. After service has been established by activating trunk or distribution cables for any service area, Grantee must provide standard installations to any requesting subscriber within that activated part of the service area within seven days from the date of request, or such longer time as may be requested by the subscriber, provided that the Grantee is able to secure on reasonable terms and conditions all rights-of-way and permits necessary to extend service to that subscriber within that period. Standard installations are defined as installations that are located up to 125 feet from the existing distribution system and do not require trenching to serve. H. Nonexclusive Franchise Every franchise granted is nonexclusive. The City specifically reserves the right to grant, at any time, such additional franchises for a cable television system that it deems appropriate, subject to applicable state and federal law. If an additional franchise is proposed to be granted to a subsequent Grantee, a noticed public hearing must first be held if required by the provisions of Government Code § 53066.3. I. Multiple Franchises 1. The City may grant any number of franchises, subject to applicable state and federal law. The City may limit the number of franchises granted, based upon, but not necessarily limited to, the requirements of applicable law and the following specific local considerations: a. The capacity of the public rights-of-way to accommodate multiple cables in addition to the cables, conduits, and pipes of the existing utility systems, such as electrical power, telephone, gas, and sewerage. b. The benefits that may accrue to subscribers as a result of cable system competition, such as lower rates and improved service. 743035-2 6 c. The disadvantages that may result from cable system competition, such as the requirement for multiple pedestals on residents' property, and the disruption arising from numerous excavations within the public rights-of-way. 2. The City may require that any new Grantee be responsible for its own underground trenching and the associated costs if, in the City's opinion, the rights- of-way in any particular area cannot reasonably accommodate additional cables. 5.12.060 Franchise Applications and Renewal A. Filing of Applications Any person desiring an initial franchise for a cable television system must file an application with the City. An application fee deposit in an amount established by resolution of the City Council must accompany the application. That application fee deposit will cover all anticipated costs associated with reviewing and processing the application, including without limitation costs of administrative review, financial, legal, and technical evaluation of the applicant, consultants (including technical and legal experts and all costs incurred by those experts), notice and publication requirements, and document preparation expenses. If actual costs exceed the application fee deposit, the applicant must pay the difference to the City within 30 days following receipt of an itemized statement of those costs. If actual costs are less than the application fee deposit, the remaining balance will be refunded to the applicant. B. Applications - Contents An application for an initial franchise for a cable television system must contain, as applicable: 1. A statement describing the proposed franchise service area and an explanation whether this proposed service area is, or will be, part ora larger regional cluster of franchise service areas. 2. A resume of the applicant's prior history, including the applicant's experience and expertise in the cable television industry. 3. A list of the partners, general and limited, of the applicant, ifa partnership, or the percentage of stock owned or controlled by each stockholder, if a closely-held corporation. If the applicant is a publicly-owned partnership or corporation, each owner of 10 percent or more of the partnership interests, or of the issued and outstanding capital stock, must be identified. If the applicant is a limited liability company, the following information must be provided: the address of its principal executive office; the name and business or residence address of each member and of each holder of an economic interest in the limited liability company, together with the contribution and the share in profits and losses of each member and holder of an economic interest; the name and business or residence address of any manager or managers and the chief executive officer, if any, appointed or elected in accordance with the articles of organization or operating agreement. 743035-2 7 4. A list of officers, directors, and managing employees of the applicant, and a description of the background and qualifications of each such person. 5. A statement specifying the number of people employed by the applicant, whether on a full-time or part-time basis. 6. The names and addresses of any parent or subsidiary of the applicant, or any other business entity owning or controlling applicant in whole or in part, or that is owned or controlled in whole or in part by the applicant. 7. Financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that demonstrate the applicant's financial ability to: a. Construct, operate, maintain and remove any new physical plant that is proposed to be constructed in the City. governmental access requirements. Comply with the City's public, educational, and c. Comply with the City's requirement that franchise fees be paid on the applicant's gross revenues derived from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services. 8. An accurate map showing the location of any existing telecommunications facilities in the City that the applicant intends to use, to purchase, or to lease. 9. A description of the cable services and any other services that will be offered by the applicant using existing or proposed facilities. 10. The proposed construction and service schedule, the proposed rate structure for cable services, and the proposed commitment to provide public, educational, and governmental access capacity, services, facilities, and equipment. 11. Any additional information that the City deems to be reasonably necessary to evaluate the applicant's qualifications. C. Consideration of Initial Applications 1. Upon receipt of an application for an initial franchise, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee must prepare a report and make recommendations to the City Council concerning that application. 2. A public hearing will be noticed prior to any initial franchise grant, at a time and date approved by the City Council. Within 30 days after the close of the hearing, the City Council will make a decision, based upon the documents and testimony received at the hearing, whether the franchise should be granted, and, if granted, subject to what 743035-2 8 conditions. The City Council may grant one or more franchises, or may decline to grant any franchise. D. Franchise Renewal Franchise renewals will be processed in accordance with then-applicable law and with the renewal terms, if any, of the franchise agreement. The City and Grantee, by mutual consent, may enter into renewal negotiations at any time during the term of the franchise. Unless prohibited by applicable law, a renewal application fee deposit in an amount established by resolution of the City Council must accompany the renewal application or the renewal request. That renewal application fee deposit will cover all anticipated costs associated with reviewing and processing the renewal application, including the review of Grantee's prior compliance with the franchise, the ascertainment of the community's cable-related needs and interests, the engagement of technical and legal consultants, and expenses related to negotiations and document preparation. If actual costs exceed the renewal application fee deposit, the Grantee must pay the difference to the City within 30 days following receipt of an itemized statement of those costs. If actual costs are less than the renewal application fee deposit, the remaining balance will be refunded to the Grantee. No renewal application fee may be offset against any franchise fee payable to the City during the term of the franchise. The City Council may authorize the renewal of a cable television franchise agreement by resolution. 5.12.070 Contents of Cable Television Franchise Agreements A. The provisions of a franchise agreement for the operation of a cable television system may relate to or include, without limitation, the following subject matters: 1. The geographical area, duration, and nonexclusive nature of the franchise. 2. The applicable franchise fee to be paid to the City, including the pementage amount, the method of computation, and the time for payment. 3. Requirements relating to compliance with and implementation of state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the operation of the cable television system. 4. Requirements relating to the construction, upgrade, or rebuild of the cable television system, as well as the provision of special services, such as outlets for public buildings, emergency alert capability, and parental control devices. 5. Requirements relating to the maintenance of a performance bond, a security fund, a letter of credit, or similar assurances to secure the performance of the Grantee's obligations under the franchise agreement. 6. Requirements relating to comprehensive liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and indemnification. 743035-2 9 7. Requirements relating to consumer protection and customer service standards, which requirements may include, without limitation, compliance with the statutes, rules and regulations set forth below in Section 5.12.080 of this Article 2. 8. Requirements relating to the Grantee's support of local cable usage, including the provision of public, educational, and governmental access channels, the coverage of public meetings and special events, and financial support for the required access channels. 9. Requirements relating to the Grantee's obligation to provide an institutional network, and channel capacity on that institutional network for educational or governmental use, subject to the City's rules and procedures for the use of such channel capacity and for compatibility with any telecommunications network that has been or may be developed by the City. 10. Requirements relating to construction, operation, and maintenance of the cable television system within the City's streets and public rights-of-way, including compliance with all applicable building codes and permit requirements of the City, the abandonment, removal, or relocation of facilities, and compliance with FCC technical standards. 11. Requirements relating to recordkeeping, accounting procedures, reporting, periodic audits, performance reviews, the inspection of Grantee's books and records, and reimbursement for technical audits and franchise fee audits under specified circumstances. 12. Acts or omissions constituting material breaches of or defaults under the franchise agreement, and the applicable penalties or remedies for such breaches or defaults, including fines, penalties, liquidated damages, suspension, revocation, and termination. 13. Requirements relating to the sale, assignment, or other transfer or change in control of the franchise. 14. The Grantee's obligation to maintain continuity of service and to authorize, under certain specified circumstances, the City's operation and management of the cable system. 15. Such additional requirements, conditions, policies, and procedures as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties to the franchise agreement and that will, in the judgment of City staff and the City Council, best serve the public interest and protect the public health, welfare, and safety. B. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of a franchise agreement authorized by the City Council and provisions of this Article 2, the provisions of the franchise agreement will control. 743035-2 10 5.12.080 Consumer Protection and Service Standards A. Operational Standards. 1. Grantee must maintain the necessary facilities, equipment, and personnel to comply with the following consumer protection and service standards under normal operating conditions: a. Sufficient toll-free telephone line capacity during normal business hours to ensure that telephone calls are answered promptly. Telephone answer time by a customer service representative, including wait time, may not exceed 30 seconds when the connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred, transfer time must not exceed 30 seconds. percent of the time, measured quarterly. A caller must receive a busy signal less than three c. Emergency toll-free telephone line capacity on a 24-hour basis, including weekends and holidays. After normal business hours, the telephone calls may be answered by a service or an automated response system, including an answering machine. Calls received after normal business hours must be responded to by a trained company representative on the next business day. d. A conveniently-located local business and service or payment office open during normal business hours at least eight hours daily on weekdays, and at least four hours weekly on evenings or weekends, and adequately staffed with trained customer service representatives to accept subscriber payments and to respond to service requests, inquiries, and complaints. e. An emergency system maintenance and repair staff, capable of responding to and repairing major system malfunctions on a 24-hour per day basis. f. A trained installation staff must provide service to any subscriber requiring a standard installation within seven days after receipt of a request, or such longer time as may be requested by the subscriber, in all areas where trunk and feeder cable have been activated. g. The Grantee must schedule, within a specified four- hour time period Monday through Saturday (legal holidays excluded), all appointments with subscribers for installation of service, service calls, and other activities at the subscriber's location. The Grantee may schedule installation and service calls outside of normal business hours for the convenience of the subscriber. The Grantee may not cancel an appointment with a subscriber after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment. If a Grantee representative is delayed in keeping an appointment with a subscriber and will not be able to honor the scheduled appointment, the subscriber must be contacted prior to the time of the scheduled appointment, and the appointment must be rescheduled, as necessary, at a time that 743035-2 11 is convenient for the subscriber. The Grantee must undertake appropriate quality control measures to ensure that the customer is satisfied with the work. h. Subscribers who have experienced a late or a missed appointment due to the fault of the Grantee will receive either a free installation or a $20 credit. i. Upon a subscriber's request, the Grantee will arrange for pickup or replacement of converters or other equipment provided by the Grantee at the subscriber's address within 14 days after the request is made if the subscriber is mobility- limited. 2. Under normal operating conditions, the standards of subparagraphs (a), (c), (f) and (g) above must be met not less than ninety percent of the time, measured on a quarterly basis. B. Service Standards 1. The Grantee will render efficient service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt service only for good cause and for the shortest time possible. Except in emergency situations, scheduled interruptions will occur during a period of minimum use of the cable system, preferably between midnight and 6:00 a.m. Unless the scheduled interruption lasts for no more than two hours and occurs between midnight and 6:00 a.m. (in which event 24-hours prior notice must be given to the City), 48-hours prior notice must be given to subscribers. 2. The Grantee will maintain a repair force of technicians who will respond to subscriber requests for service within the following time frames: a. For a system outage: Within two hours, including weekends, after receiving subscriber calls or requests for service that by number identify a system outage of sound or picture on one or more channels, affecting five or more subscribers to the system. b. For an isolated outage: Within 24 hours, including weekends, after receiving requests for service identifying an isolated outage of sound or picture on one or more channels. c. For inferior signal quality: No later than the following business day, excluding Sundays and holidays, after a request for service identifying a problem concerning picture or sound quality. 3. The Grantee will be deemed to have responded to a request for service under the provisions of this paragraph (B) when a technician arrives at the service location and begins work on the problem if the problem cannot be corrected remotely. Ifa subscriber is not home when the technician arrives, the technician must leave written notification of arrival. 743035-2 12 4. The Grantee may not charge for the repair or replacement of defective or malfunctioning equipment provided by the Grantee to subscribers, unless the defect or malfunction was caused by the subscriber. 5. The Grantee must determine the nature of the problem within 24 hours after commencing work and resolve all cable system related problems within three business days, unless technically infeasible. C. Billing and Information Standards. 1. Subscriber bills must be clear, concise, and understandable. Bills must be fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and premium service charges and equipment charges. Bills also must clearly delineate all activity during the billing period, including optional charges, rebates, and credits. 2. The first billing to a subscriber after a new installation or service change must be prorated based upon when the new or changed service commenced. Subscribers must not be charged a late fee or otherwise penalized for any failure attributable to the Grantee, including the failure to timely or correctly bill the subscriber. 3. In case of a billing dispute, the Grantee must respond in writing to a written complaint from a subscriber within 30 days after receiving the complaint at the office specified on the billing statement for receiving that complaint. 4. Upon request by a subscriber, credits or refunds must be provided by Grantee to subscribers who experience an outage, interruption, or disconnection of service of four or more consecutive hours, provided that such loss of service is neither caused by the subscriber nor attributable to scheduled repairs, maintenance, or construction in circumstances where Grantee has provided advance written notice to subscriber, and the loss of service does not exceed the time period specified by Grantee. For subscribers terminating service, credits or refunds must be issued promptly, but no later than 30 days after the return of any Grantee-supplied equipment. 5. The Grantee must provide written information on each of the following matters at the time of the installation of service, at least annually to all subscribers, and at any time upon request: a. Products and services offered. b. Prices and options for programming services and conditions of subscription to programming and other services. c. Installation and service maintenance policies. d. Instmctions on the use of the cable service. 743035-2 13 Channel positions of programming carried on the system. f. Billing and complaint procedures, including the address and telephone number of the City's office designated for dealing with cable-related issues. Consumer protection and service standards and penalties for noncompliance. 6. Subscribers must be notified in writing of any changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions as soon as possible. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of 30 days in advance of those changes if the change is within the control of the Grantee. In addition, Grantee will endeavor to notify Grantor of those changes at least five working days before subscribers are notified. 7. The Grantee must maintain a public file containing all written notices provided to subscribers under these consumer protection and service standards and all published promotional offers made by Grantee to subscribers. These documents must be maintained for a minimum period of two years. D. Verification of Compliance with Standards. 1. Upon 30 days prior written notice, the City may require the Grantee to provide a written report demonstrating its compliance with any of the consumer service standards specified in this section. The Grantee must provide sufficient documentation to enable the City to verify compliance. 2. A repeated and verifiable pattern of noncompliance with the consumer protection and service standards of this section, after the Grantee's receipt of written notice and an opportunity to cure, may be deemed a material breach of the franchise agreement. E. Subscriber Complaints and Disputes. 1. The Grantee must establish written procedures for receiving, acting upon, and resolving subscriber complaints without intervention by the City. The written procedures must prescribe the manner in which a subscriber may submit a complaint, either orally or in writing, specifying the subscriber's grounds for dissatisfaction. The Grantee must file a copy of these procedures with the City. These procedures must include a requirement consistent with Section 5.12.080(C)(3). 2. Upon request, and subject to applicable law protecting subscriber privacy rights, the City has the right to review the Grantee's response to subscriber complaints. 3. All subscribers have the right to continue receiving service so long as their financial and other obligations to the Grantee are honored. If the Grantee elects to 743035-2 14 rebuild, modify, or sell the system, or if the City gives notice of intent to terminate or not to renew the franchise, the Grantee must act to ensure that all subscribers receive service while the franchise remains in force. 4. Upon a change of control of the Grantee, or ifa new operator acquires the cable system, the original Grantee must cooperate with the City, the new Grantee, or the new operator in maintaining continuity of service to all subscribers. During that transition period, the Grantee is entitled to the revenues derived from its operation of the cable system. F. Disconnection and Downgrades. 1. A subscriber may terminate or downgrade service at any time, and the Grantee must promptly comply with the subscriber's request within seven days or at any later time requested by the subscriber. No period of notice prior to voluntary termination or downgrade of service may be required of subscribers. Grantee will impose no charges for the voluntary termination of all services unless a visit to the subscriber's premises is required to remove a converter box or other equipment or property owned by Grantee. Grantee may, in accordance with applicable law, charge a fee to downgrade service ifa service call is required. 2. The Grantee may disconnect a subscriber's service in compliance with paragraphs (i), (j), and (k)of Section 53088.2 of the California Government Code. If service is disconnected for nonpayment of past due fees or charges, the Grantee must promptly reinstate service upon payment in full by the subscriber of all such fees and charges, including late charges. 3. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (2) above, the Grantee may immediately disconnect service to a subscriber if the subscriber is damaging or destroying the Grantee's cable system or equipment. 4. The Grantee may also disconnect service to a subscriber when service causes signal leakage exceeding federal limits. If service is disconnected, the Grantee will immediately resume service without charge upon the satisfactory correction of the signal leakage problem if the signal leakage problem is attributable to the Grantee. 5. The Grantee may also disconnect service in cases where customers are stealing service or have made threats of physical violence upon Grantee's personnel. 6. Upon termination of service to a subscriber, the Grantee will endeavor to remove its equipment from the subscriber's premises within 30 days. G. Changes in Service. Except as otherwise provided by federal or state law, subscribers must not be required to pay any additional fee or charge, other than the regular service fee, in order to receive the services selected. No charge may be imposed for any service or equipment that the subscriber has not affirmatively selected. Payment of the regular monthly bill will not by itself constitute an affirmative selection. 743035-2 15 H. Deposits. Grantee may require a reasonable, nondiscriminatory deposit on equipment provided to subscribers. Such deposits must be placed in an interest- bearing account. The deposit must be returned, with interest earned to the date of repayment, within 30 days after the equipment is returned to the Grantee. I. Parental Control Option. Grantee must provide parental control devices at no charge to all subscribers who desire to block the video or audio portion of any pay channels providing adult programming that the subscriber finds objectionable. For other programming, such devices will be provided at a reasonable charge to the subscriber. J. Additional Requirements. 1. All officers, agents, and employees of the Grantee, or of its contractors or subcontractors, who, in the normal course of work come into contact with members of the public, or who require entry onto subscribers' premises, must display a photo- identification card. The Grantee must account for all identification cards at all times. All vehicles of the Grantee or its subcontractors must be clearly identified as vehicles engaged in providing services for the Grantee. 2. In addition to the consumer protection and service standards specified in this Section 5.12.080, the Grantee must comply with all applicable consumer protection and service standards that are imposed upon cable operators by the following: a. Federal statutes, and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Federal Communications Commission, including the following: (i) The provisions of Section 76.630 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as it now exists or may later be amended, which relate to compatibility with consumer electronics equipment. (ii) The provisions of Section 551 of Title 47, United States Code, as it now exists or may later be amended, which relate to the protection of subscriber privacy. b. The provisions of California Government Code Sections 53054, et sea., entitled the "Cable Television and Video Provider Customer Service and Information Act." c. The provisions of California Government Code Section 53088, et seq., entitled the "Video Customer Service Act." d. The provisions of California Civil Code Section 1722(b)(1)-(6), which relate to service or repair transactions between cable television companies and their subscribers. e. The provisions of California Penal Code Section 637.5, which relate to subscribers' rights to privacy protection. 743035-2 16 3. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between a consumer protection and service standard specified in this Section 5.12.080, and a standard set forth in the statutes, rules, regulations, and orders that are referenced above in subsection (2), then the standard that is specified in this Section 5.12.080 will apply to the extent authorized by applicable law. K. Penalties for Noncompliance. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this paragraph is to authorize monetary penalties for the violation of the customer service standards established by this section in a manner consistent with the Video Customer Service Act (Government Code Sections 53088 et seq.) and pursuant to the City's inherent police powers. The imposition of penalties authorized by this paragraph (K) will not prevent the City or any other affected party from exercising any other remedy to the extent permitted by law. 2. Administration and Appeals. a. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee is authorized to administer this paragraph (K). Decisions by the City Manager to assess monetary penalties against the Grantee must be in writing and must contain findings supporting the decisions. Decisions by the City Manager are final, unless appealed to the City Council. b. If the Grantee or any interested person is aggrieved by a decision of the City Manager, the aggrieved party may, within 10 days of the written decision, appeal that decision in writing to the City Council. The appeal letter must be accompanied by the fee established by the City Council for processing the appeal. The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the City Manager. c. Schedule of Penalties. The following schedule of monetary penalties may he assessed against the Grantee for the material breach of the provisions of the customer service standards set forth in this section, provided that the breach is within the reasonable control of the Grantee: (i) For a first material breach: the maximum penalty is $200 for each day of material breach, but not to exceed a cumulative total of $600 for each occurrence of the material breach. (ii) For a second material breach of the same nature within a 12-month period for which the City has provided notice and a penalty has been assessed, the maximum penalty is $400 for each day of the material breach, but not to exceed a cumulative total of $1200 for each occurrence of the material breach. (iii) For a third or further material breach of the same nature within a 12-month period for which the City has provided notice and a penalty has been assessed, the maximum penalty is $1000 for each day of the material breach, but not to exceed a cumulative total of $3000 for each occurrence of the material breach. 743035-2 17 (iv) The maximum penalties referenced above may be increased by any additional amount authorized by state law. d. Judicial Remedy. This paragraph does not preclude any affected party from pursuing any judicial remedy available to that party without regard to this paragraph (K). e. Notification of Breach. The City must give the Grantee written notice of any alleged breach of the consumer service standards and allow the Grantee at least 30 days, or such longer time as may be reasonably necessary to cure, from receipt of the notice to remedy the specified breach. For the purpose of assessing penalties, a material breach is deemed to have occurred for each day, following the expiration of the period for cure specified herein, that any breach has not been remedied by the Grantee, irrespective of the number of subscribers affected. f. Limitations. With respect to any Grantee that operates under a franchise or license agreement with the City, any monetary penalties assessed under this paragraph (K) must be reduced dollar for dollar to the extent that any liquidated damage or penalty provision of the franchise or license agreement imposes a monetary obligation on the Grantee for the same customer service failure, and no other monetary damages may be assessed for that customer service failure. ARTICLE 3. OPEN VIDEO SYSTEMS 5.12.090 Applicability The provisions of this Article 3 apply to an open video system operator, as defined below in Section 5.12.170, that intends to deliver video programming to consumers in the City over an open video system. 5.12.100 Application Required A. Before commencing the delivery of video programming services to consumers in the City over an open video system, the open video system operator must file an application with the City. That application must include or be accompanied by the following, as applicable: 1. The identity of the applicant, including all affiliates of the applicant. 2. Copies of FCC Form 1275, all "Notices of Intent" filed under 47 CFR 76.I 503(b)(1), and the Order of the FCC, all of which relate to certification of the applicant to operate an open video system in the City in accordance with Section 653(a)(1) of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules. 3. The area or areas of the City that the applicant desires to serve. 743035-2 18 4. A description of the open video system services that will be offered by the applicant over its existing or proposed facilities. 5. A description of the transmission medium that will be used by the applicant to deliver the open video system services. 6. Information in sufficient detail to establish the applicant's technical qualifications, experience, and expertise regarding the ownership and operation of the open video system described in the application. 7. Financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that demonstrate the applicant's financial ability to: a. Construct, operate, maintain and remove any new physical plant that is proposed to be constructed in the City. b. Comply with the City's public, educational, and governmental access requirements as specified below in Section 5.12.120(B)(4). c. Comply with the City's requirement that gross revenue fees be paid in the maximum amount authorized under federal law, as specified below in Section 5.12.120(B)(2). 8. An accurate map showing the location of any existing telecommunications facilities in the City that the applicant intends to use, to purchase, or to lease. 9. If the applicant's operation of the open video system wi Il require the construction of new physical plant and facilities in the City, the following additional information must be provided: A preliminary construction schedule and completion dates. b. Preliminary engineering plans, specifications, and a network map of any new facilities to be constructed in the City, in sufficient detail to identify: (i) The location and route requested for the applicant's proposed facilities. (ii) The locations, if any, for interconnection with the facilities of other telecommunications service providers. (iii) The specific structures, improvements, facilities, and obstructions, if any, that the applicant proposes to add, remove, or relocate on a temporary or permanent basis. 743035-2 19 c. The applicant's statement that, in constructing any new physical plant, the applicant will comply with all applicable ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City, including the payment of all required permit and processing fees. 10. The information and documentation that is required to be submitted to the City by a video provider, as specified below in paragraph (B) of Section 5.12.140. 11. Such additional information as may be requested by the City Manager. 12. An application fee deposit in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. B. If any item of information specified above in paragraph (A) is determined under paramount federal or state law to be unlawful, the City Manager is authorized to waive the requirement that such information be included in the application. 5.12.110 Review of the Application Within 30 days after receipt of an application filed under Section 5.12.100 that is deemed to be complete, the City Manager will give written notice to the applicant of the City's intent to negotiate an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions under which the operation of the proposed open video system will be authorized by the City. The commencement of those negotiations will be on a date that is mutually acceptable to the City and to the applicant. 5.12.120 A~eement Required A. No video programming services may be provided in the City by an open video system operator unless the operator and the City have executed a written agreement, which may be designated as a franchise, setting forth the terms and conditions under which the operation of the proposed open video system will be authorized by the City. That agreement may be authorized and approved by resolution of the City Council. B. The agreement between the City and the open video system operator may contain provisions that relate to the following subject matters, to the extent that such provisions and subject matters are not preempted by federal law or regulations: 1. The nature, scope, and duration o f the agreement, including provisions for its renewal or extension. 2. The obligation of the open video system operator to pay to the City, at specified times and in lieu of the franchise fees permitted under Section 622 of the Communications Act, fees on the gross revenue received by the operator, as authorized by 47 CFR 76.1511, in accordance with the following standards and procedures: 743035-2 20 a. The amount of the fees on the gross revenue will be the maximum amount authorized by Section 653(c)2)(B) of the Communications Act, which is the rate imposed by the City on the existing franchised cable operator. b. The term "gross revenue" means (i) all gross revenue received by an open video system operator or its affiliates, including all revenue received from subscribers and all carriage revenue received from unaffiliated video programming providers; and (ii) all advertising revenue received by the operator or its affiliates in connection with the provision of video programming, where such revenue is included in the calculation of the cable franchise fee paid to the City by the incumbent franchised cable operator. The term "gross revenue" does not include revenue, such as subscriber or advertising revenue, collected by unaffiliated video programming providers. 3. The obligation of the open video system operator to comply with requirements relating to information collection and recordkeeping, accounting procedures, reporting, periodic audits, and inspection of records in order to ensure the accuracy of the fees on the gross revenue that are required to be paid as specified above in Subsection (2). 4. The obligation of the open video system operator to meet the City's requirements with respect to public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, services, facilities, and equipment, as provided for in 47 CFR 76.1505. in this regard, the following standards and procedures are applicable: a. The open video system operator is subject to the same public, educational, and governmental access requirements that apply within the cable television franchise service area with which its system overlaps. b. The open video system operator must ensure that all subscribers receive all public, educational, and governmental access channels within the franchise service area in which the City's subscribers are located. c. The open video system operator may negotiate with the City to establish the operator's obligations with respect to public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, services, facilities, and equipment. These negotiations may include the City's franchised cable operator if the City, the open video system operator, and the franchised cable operator so desire. d. If the open video system operator and the City are unable to reach an agreement regarding the operator's obligations with respect to public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, services, facilities, and equipment within the City's jurisdiction, then the following obligations will be imposed: (i) The open video system operator must satisfy the same public, educational, and governmental access obligations as the City's franchised cable operator by providing the same amount of channel capacity for public, educational, and governmental access and by matching the City's franchised cable operator's annual financial contributions in support of public, educational, and governmental access services, facilities, and 743035-2 21 equipment that are actually used by the City. For in-kind contributions, such as cameras or production studios, the open video system operator may satisfy its statutory obligation by negotiating mutually agreeable terms with the City's franchised cable operator, so that public, educational, and governmental access services to the City are improved or increased. If such terms cannot be agreed upon, the open video system operator must pay to the City the monetary equivalent of the franchised cable operator's depreciated in-kind contribution, or, in the case of facilities, the annual amortization value. Any matching contributions provided by the open video system operator must be used to fund activities arising under Section 611 of the Communications Act. (ii) The City will impose upon the open video system operator the same rules and procedures that it imposes upon the franchised cable operator with regard to the open video system operator's use of channel capacity designated for public, educational, and governmental access use when that capacity is not being used for such purposes. e. The City's franchised cable operator is required under federal law to permit the open video system operator to connect with its public, educational, and governmental access channel feeds. The open video system operator and the franchised cable operator may decide how to accomplish this connection, taking into consideration the physical and technical characteristics of the cable and the open video systems involved. If the franchised cable operator and the open video system operator cannot agree on how to accomplish the connection, the City has the right to decide. The City may require that the connection occur on City-owned property or on public rights-of-way. fi All costs of connection to the franchised cable operator's public, educational, and governmental access channel feed must be borne by the open video system operator. These costs will be counted towards the open video system operator's matching financial contributions set forth above in subparagraph (d)(i). g. The City will not impose upon the open video system operator any public, educational, or govemmental access obligations that are greater than those imposed upon the incumbent franchised cable operator. h. If there is no incumbent franchised cable operator, the provisions of 47 CFR 76.1505(d)(6) will be applicable in determining the obligations of the open video system operator. i. The open video system operator must adjust its system to comply with new public, educational, and access obligations imposed on the City's incumbent franchised cable operator following a renewal of the cable television franchise; provided, however, that the open video system operator will not be required to displace other programmers using its open video system to accommodate public, educational, and governmental access channels. The open video system operator must comply with such new public, educational, and governmental access obligations whenever additional capacity is or 743035-2 22 becomes available, whether it is due to increased channel capacity or to decreased demand for channel capacity. 5. If the City and the open video system operator cannot agree on the application of the FCC's rules regarding the open video system operator's obligations to provide public, educational, and governmental access under the provisions of subsection (4) set forth above, then either party may file a complaint with the FCC in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set forth in 47 CFR 76.1514. No agreement will be executed by the City until the dispute has been finally resolved. 6. If the open video system operator intends to maintain an institutional network, as defined in Section 611 (f) of the Communications Act, the City will require that educational and governmental access channels be designated on that institutional network to the same extent that those channels are designated on the institutional network of the City's franchised cable operator. 7. The authority of an open video system operator to exercise editorial control over any public, educational, or governmental use of channel capacity will be restricted in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR 76.1505(f). 8. The obligation of the open video system operator to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations relating to customer service standards, including those specified in Section 5.12.080 of Article 2 of this chapter. 9. If new physical plant is proposed to be constructed within the City, the obligation of the open video system operator to comply with the following rights-of- way use and management responsibilities that are also imposed by the City upon other cable television and telecommunications service providers in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner: a. Compliance with all applicable City codes, including applications for excavation, encroachment, and construction permits and the payment of all required permit and inspection fees. b. The coordination of construction activities. c. Compliance with established standards and procedures for constructing lines across private property. Compliance with all applicable insurance and indemnification requirements. The repair and resurfacing of construction-damaged streets. 743035-2 23 f. Compliance with all public safety requirements that are applicable to cable television and telecommunications service providers using public property or public rights-of-way. 10. Acts or omissions constituting breaches or defaults of the agreement, and the applicable penalties, liquidated damages, and other remedies, including fines or the suspension, revocation, or termination of the agreement. 11. Requirements relating to the sale, assignment, or transfer of the open video system. 12. Requirements relating to the open video system operator's compliance with and implementation of state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the operation of the open video system. 13. Such additional requirements, conditions, terms, policies, and procedures as may be mutually agreed upon by the City and the open video system operator and that will, in the judgment of the City Council, best serve the public interest and protect the public health, welfare, and safety. ARTICLE 4. OTHER VDEO AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND SYSTEMS 5.12.130. Other Multichannel Video Programming Distributors The term "cable system," as defined in federal law and as set forth in Section 5.12.170 below, does not include a facility that serves subscribers without using any public rights-of-way. Consequently, the categories of multichannel video programming identified below are not deemed to be "cable systems" and are therefore exempt from the City's franchise requirements and from certain other local regulatory provisions authorized by federal law, provided that their distribution or transmission facilities do not involve the use of the City's public rights-of-way. A. Multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), also known as "wireless cable," which typically involves the transmission by an FCC-licensed operator of numerous broadcast stations from a central location using line-of-sight technology. B. Local multipoint distribution service ("LMDS"), another form of over- the-air wireless video service for which licenses are auctioned by the FCC, and which offers video programming, telephony, and data networking services. C. Direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), also referred to as "direct-to-home satellite services," which involves the distribution or broadcasting of programming or services by satellite directly to the subscriber's premises without the use of ground receiving or distribution equipment, except at the subscriber's premises or in the uplink process to the satellite. Local regulation of direct-to-home satellite services is further proscribed by the following federal statutory provisions: 743035-2 24 1. 47 U.S.C. § 303(v) confers upon the FCC exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services. 2. Section 602 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that a provider of direct-to-home satellite service is exempt from the collection or remittance, or both, of any tax or fee imposed by any local taxing jurisdiction on direct-to-home satellite service. The terms "tax" and "fee" are defined by federal statute to mean any local sales tax, local use tax, local intangible tax, local income tax, business license tax, utility tax, privilege tax, gross receipts tax, excise tax, franchise fees, local telecommunications tax, or any other tax, license, or fee that is imposed for the privilege of doing business, regulating, or raising revenue for a local taxing jurisdiction. 5.12.140 Video Providers - Registration; Customer Service Standards A. Unless the customer protection and customer service obligations of a video provider, as that term is defined in Section 5.12.170, am specified in a franchise, license, lease, or similar written agreement with the City, a video provider must comply with all applicable provisions of the following state statutes: 1. The Cable Television and Video Customer Service and Information Act (Government Code §§ 53054, et sea.) 2. The Video Customer Service Act (Government Code §§ 53088, et seq.) B. All video providers that are operating in the City on the effective date of this ordinance, or that intend to operate in the City after its effective date, must register with the City; provided, however, that this registration requirement is not applicable to any video provider that has executed a franchise, license, lease or similar written agreement with the City. The registration form must include or be accompanied by the following: 1. The video provider's name, address, and local telephone numbers. 2. The names of the officers of the video provider. 3. A copy of the video provider's written policies and procedures relating to customer service standards and the handling of customer complaints, as required by Government Code §§ 53054, et seq. These customer service standards must include, without limitation, standards regarding the following: a. Installation, disconnection, service and repair obligations, employee identification, and service call response time and scheduling. b. Customer service telephone and office hours. c. Procedures for billing, charges, refunds, and credits. 743035-2 25 d. Procedures for termination of service. e. Notice of the deletion of a programming service, the changing of channel assignments, or an increase in rates. Complaint procedures and procedures for bill dispute resolution. g. The video provider's written acknowledgment of its obligation under Government Code §53055.1 to provide to new customers a notice describing the customer service standards specified above in subparagraphs (a) through (f) at the time of installation or when service is initiated. The notice must also include, in addition to all of the information described above in subparagraphs (a) through (0, all of the following: (i) A listing of the services offered by the video provider that clearly describes all levels of service and the rates for each level of service. (ii) The telephone number or numbers through which customers may subscribe to, change, or terminate service, request customer service, or seek general or billing information. (iii) A description of the rights and remedies that the video provider may make available to its customers if the video provider does not materially meet its customer service standards. h. The video provider's written commitment to distribute annually to its employees and customers, and to the City, a notice describing the customer service standards specified above in subparagraphs (a) through (f). This annual notice must include the report of the video provider on its performance in meeting its customer service standards, as required by Government Code §53055.2. Subject to the written notice and cure provisions of Government Code §53056(b), a video provider that fails to distribute the annual notice required by Government Code §53055.1 will be assessed a monetary penalty in the sum of $500 for each year in which the annual notice is not distributed to all of its customers. 4. Unless a video provider is exempt under federal law from its payment, a registration fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council to cover the reasonable costs incurred by the City in reviewing and processing the registration form. 5. In addition to the registration fee specified above in subsection (4), the written commitment of the video provider to pay to the City, when due, all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the City in resolving any disputes between the video provider and its subscribers, which dispute resolution is mandated by Government Code §53088.2(0). C. The customer service obligations imposed upon video providers by the Video Customer Service Act (Government Code §53088 et seq.) consist of the following: 743035-2 26 1. Every video provider must render reasonably efficient service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt service only as necessary. 2. All video provider personnel contacting subscribers or potential subscribers outside the office of the provider must be clearly identified as associated with the video provider. 3. At the time of installation, and annually thereafter, all video providers must provide to all customers a written notice of the programming offered, the prices for that programming, the provider's installation and customer service policies, and the name, address, and telephone number of the City's office that is designated for receiving complaints. 4. All video providers must have knowledgeable, qualified company representatives available to respond to customer telephone inquiries Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, during normal business hours. 5. All video providers must provide to customers a toll-free or local telephone number for installation, service, and complaint calls. These calls must be answered promptly by the video providers. 6. All video providers must render bills that are accurate and understandable. 7. All video providers must respond promptly to a complete outage in a customer's service. The response must occur within 24 hours of the reporting of that outage to the provider, except in those situations beyond the reasonable control of the video provider. A video provider will be deemed to respond to a complete outage when a company representative arrives at the outage location within 24 hours and begins to resolve the problem. 8. All video providers must provide a minimum of 30 days' written notice before increasing rates or deleting channels. All video providers must make every reasonable effort to submit the notice to the City in advance of its distribution to customers. The 30-day notice is waived if the increases in rates or deletion of channels are outside the control of the video provider. In those cases, the video provider must make reasonable efforts to provide customers with as much notice as possible. 9. All video providers must allow every residential customer who pays his or her bill directly to the video provider at least 15 days from the date the bill for services is mailed to the customer, to pay the listed charges unless otherwise agreed to pursuant to a residential rental agreement establishing tenancy. Customer payments must be posted promptly. No video provider may terminate residential service for nonpayment ora delinquent account unless the video provider furnishes notice of the delinquency and impending termination at least 15 days prior to the proposed termination. The notice must be mailed, postage prepaid, to the customer to whom the service is billed. Notice must not be mailed until the 16th day after the date the bill for services was mailed to the customer. The notice of delinquency and impending termination may be part of a billing statement. No video provider may assess a late fee any earlier than the 22nd day after the bill for service has been mailed. 743035-2 27 10. Every notice of termination of service pursuant to the preceding subsection (9) must include all of the following information: The name and address of the customer whose account is delinquent. b. The amount of the delinquency. The date by which payment is required in order to avoid termination of service. d. The telephone number of a representative of the video provider who can provide additional information and handle complaints or initiate an investigation concerning the service and charges in question. Service may only be terminated on days in which the customer can reach a representative of the video provider either in person or by telephone. 11. Any service terminated without good cause must be restored without charge for the service restoration. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, failure to pay, payment by check for which them are insufficient funds, theft of service, abuse of equipment or system personnel, or other similar subscriber actions. 12. All video providers must issue requested refund checks promptly, but no later than 45 days following the resolution of any dispute, and following the return of the equipment supplied by the video provider, if service is terminated. 13. All video providers must issue security or customer deposit refund checks promptly, but no later than 45 days following the termination of service, less any deductions permitted by law. 14. Video providers must not disclose the name and address of a subscriber for commercial gain to be used in mailing lists or for other commercial purposes not reasonably related to the conduct of the businesses of the video providers or their affiliates, unless the video providers have provided to the subscriber a notice, separate or included in any other customer notice, that clearly and conspicuously describes the subscriber's ability to prohibit that disclosure. Video providers must provide an address and telephone number for a local subscriber to use without toll charge to prevent disclosure of the subscriber's name and address. D. As authorized by Government Code §53088(q), the following schedule of penalties is adopted. These penalties may be imposed for the material breach by a video provider of the consumer protection and service standards that are set forth above in paragraph (C), provided that the breach is within the reasonable control of the video provider. These penalties are in addition to any other remedies authorized by this article or by any other law, and the City has discretion to elect the remedy that it will apply. The imposition of penalties authorized by this paragraph (D) will not prevent the City or any other affected party from exercising any other remedy to the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to any judicial remedy as provided below in subsection (2). 743035-2 28 1. Schedule of Penalties. a. For a first material breach: the maximum penalty is $200 for each day of material breach, but not to exceed a cumulative total of $600 for each occurrence of material breach, irrespective of the number of customers affected. b. For a second material breach of the same nature for which a monetary penalty was previously assessed within the preceding 12-month period: the maximum penalty is $400 per day, not to exceed a cumulative total of $1,200 for each occurrence of the material breach, irrespective of the number of customers affected. c. For a third or further material breach of the same nature for which a monetary penalty was previously assessed within the preceding 12-month period: the maximum penalty is 5;1,000 per day, not to exceed a cumulative total of $3,000 for each occurrence of the material breach, irrespective of the number of customers affected. d. The maximum penalties referenced above may be increased by any additional amount authorized by state law. 2. Judicial Remedies Not Affected. The imposition of penalties in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) above does not preclude any affected party from pursuing any judicial remedy that is available to that party. 3. Administration, Notice, and Appeal. a. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee is authorized to administer this paragraph (D). Decisions by the City Manager to assess penalties against a video provider must be in writing and must contain findings supporting the decisions. Decisions by the City Manager are final, unless appealed to the City Council. b. If the video provider or any interested person is aggheved by a decision of the City Manager, the aggrieved party may, within l 0 days of the written decision, appeal that decision in writing to the City Council. The appeal letter must be accompanied by the fee established by the City Council for processing the appeal. The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the City Manager. c. The imposition of monetary penalties under subsection (1) above is subject to the following requirements and limitations: (i) The City must give the video provider written notice of any alleged material breach and must allow the video provider at least 30 days from receipt of that notice to remedy the breach. (ii) For the purpose of assessing monetary penalties, a material breach will be deemed to have occurred for each day following the 743035-2 29 expiration of the period for cure specified in subparagraph (i) above that the material breach has not been remedied by the video provider, irrespective of the number of customers affected. 5.12.150. Telecommunications Service Provided By Telephone Corporations A. The City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long- distance telephone service. 2. The California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") is primarily responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition, and it issues certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related telecommunications service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other authorized telephone corporations. 3. Section 234(a) of the California Public Utilities Code defines a "telephone corporation" as "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any telephone line for compensation within this state." 4. Section 616 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that a telephone corporation "may condemn any property necessary for the construction and maintenance of its telephone line." 5. Section 2902 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets. 6. Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes telephone and telegraph corporations to construct telephone or telegraph lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. 7. Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all entities in an equivalent marmer. Nothing in Section 7901.1 adds to or subtracts from any existing authority that municipalities have with respect to the imposition of fees. 743035-2 30 8. Section 50030 of the California Government Code provides that any permit fee imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to provide telecommunications services, must not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for general revenue purposes. B. In recognition of and in compliance with the statutory authorizations and requirements set forth above in paragraph (A), the following regulatory provisions are applicable to a telephone corporation that desires to provide telecommunications service by means of facilities that are proposed to be constructed within the City's public rights- of-way: 1. The telephone corporation must apply for and obtain, as may be applicable, an excavation permit, an encroachment permit, or a building permit ("ministerial permit.") 2. In addition to the information required by this Code in connection with an application for a ministerial permit, a telephone corporation must submit to the City the following supplemental information: a. A copy of the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the CPUC to the applicant, and a copy of the CPUC decision that authorizes the applicant to provide the telecommunications service for which the facilities are proposed to be constructed in the City's public rights-of-way. Any applicant that, prior to 1996, provided telecommunications service under administratively equivalent documentation issued by the CPUC may submit copies of that documentation in lieu of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. b. If the applicant has obtained from the CPUC a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a "competitive local carrier," the following additional requirements are applicable: (i) As required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC, the applicant must establish that it has timely filed with the City a quarterly report that describes the type of construction and the location of each construction project proposed to be undertaken in the City during the calendar quarter in which the application is filed, so that the City can coordinate multiple projects, as may be necessary. (ii) If the applicant's proposed construction project will extend beyond the utility rights-of-way into undisturbed areas or other rights-of-way, the applicant must establish that it has filed a petition with the CPUC to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity and that the proposed construction project has been subjected to a full-scale environmental analysis by the CPUC, as required by Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. 743035-2 31 (iii) The applicant must inform the City whether its proposed construction project will be subject to any of the mitigation measures specified in the Negative Declaration ["Competitive Local Can'iers (CLCs) Projects for Local Exchange Communication Service throughout California"] or to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan adopted in connection with Decision No. 95-12-057 of the CPUC. The City's issuance of a ministerial permit will be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with all applicable mitigation measures and monitoring requirements imposed by the CPUC upon telephone corporations that are designated as "competitive local carriers." C. The City reserves all rights that it now possesses or may later acquire with respect to the regulation of any cable or telecommunications service that is provided, or proposed to be provided, by a telephone corporation. These reserved rights may relate, without limitation, to the imposition of reasonable conditions in addition to or different from those set forth in this section, the exaction of a fee or other form of consideration or compensation for use of public rights-of-way, and related matters; provided, however, that such regulatory rights and authority must be consistent with federal and state law that is applicable to cable or telecommunications services provided by telephone corporations. ARTICLE 5. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY 5.12.160 Findings; Policies and Procedures A. The City Council finds and determines that numerous and repetitive excavations in the public fights-of-way diminish the useful life of the surface pavement and generally cause adverse negative impacts for local residents, local businesses, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The City Council further finds and detemfines that the utility substructure in the public fights-of-way is subject to potential adverse negative impacts as a consequence of new economic and regulatory policies that foster increased competition between various utility service providers, including telephone corporations, and between other service providers, such as cable system operators. In order to mitigate these potential adverse negative impacts, the following policies are adopted: 1. The City Manager is directed to develop and to implement public rights-of-way policies and procedures that incorporate, to the extent reasonably feasible and consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, the following requirements that are intended to encourage the shared use by utility and other service providers of existing facilities in the public rights-of-way: a. A requirement that utility and other service providers requesting permits review information provided by the City that identifies the location of facilities, such as underground conduits, that are available for shared use, and the owners of those facilities. b. A requirement that utility and other service providers requesting permits submit a written statement that describes in reasonable detail the 743035-2 32 efforts made to obtain from other utility service providers the right to use excess capacity within existing facilities, and to thereby avoid the construction of new facilities. c. A requirement that utility and other service providers occupying the public rights-of-way submit annually to the City a map, which may be in a uniform electronic-data format to be specified by the City, that shows the location of their respective facilities in the public rights-of-way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an updated annual map need not be provided unless there are changes to the location of the service provider's facilities in the public rights-of-way. d. Any additional requirements that will encourage utility and other service providers to share excess capacity within previously-constructed facilities and to coordinate the construction of new facilities in order to minimize the number of excavations in the public rights-of-way. 2. The City Manager is directed to ensure that all utility and other service providers, including telephone corporations and cable system operators, comply with all local design, construction, maintenance and safety standards that are consistent with state and federal laws and regulations and that are contained within, or are related to, any permit that authorizes the construction of facilities within the public rights-of-way, including all applicable insurance provisions. 3. Based upon the City's projected plans for street construction or renovation projects, the City Manager is authorized to establish on a quarterly basis one or more construction time periods or "windows" for the installation of facilities within the public rights- of-way. Cable system operators, telephone corporations, and other utility service providers that submit applications for permits to construct facilities after a predetermined date may be required to delay such construction until the next quarterly "window" that is established by the City. B. The City Council finds and determines that the installation in the public rights-of-way of numerous above-ground facilities by utility service providers, including telephone corporations, and other service providers may create safety hazards and adverse visual impacts. Consequently, the Public Works Department is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in order to mitigate those potential adverse impacts that may result, whether on an individual or a cumulative basis, from permitted above-ground facilities. Those conditions may include or relate to, without limitation, the following: 1. Prior to issuance of the requisite permits, alt above-ground facilities proposed to be installed by a utility or other service provider in the public rights-of-way must be clearly delineated on the plans when they are submitted for the City's review. 2. The design and installation by qualified professionals of landscaping and barriers to minimize public view of above-ground facilities whose location has been approved by the City. 3. The maintenance of all above-ground facilities in good condition, including compliance with the City's ordinances regarding graffiti removal. In this 743035-2 33 regard, a utility or other service provider may be required to affix to its above-ground facilities a coded label or marker that identifies the specific facility and sets forth a telephone number that may be called to report any damage, destruction, or graffiti vandalism involving that facility. 4. The placement of above-ground facilities, such as overhead drops, as close as possible to other utility drops, consistent with all applicable electrical codes. 5. Reasonable limitations upon the number of above-ground facilities that may be installed within a designated geographical area. 6. Reasonable limitations upon the dimensions or volume, or both, of above-ground facilities. 7. The specification of colors of above-ground facilities reasonably requested by the City to ensure that these facilities blend with the surrounding environment to the maximum extent possible. 8. Such additional conditions regulating the time, place, and manner of installations of above-ground facilities as will reasonably mitigate potential safety hazards and adverse visual impacts attributable to these facilities. C. The City reserves all rights that it now possesses or may later acquire to adopt and implement City-wide requirements for the undergrounding of above-ground facilities, or any portion thereof, in a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory manner. To the extent authorized by law, all utility and other service providers will be required to comply with those requirements at their sole expense. ARTICLE 6. DEFINITIONS 5.12.170 Defined Terms and Phrases A. The words, terms, phrases, and their derivations set forth in this ordinance have the meanings set forth below. Words used in the present tense include the future tense, and words in the singular include the plural number. "Cable service" means the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming, or other programming services, and subscriber interaction, if any, that is required for the selection or use of that video programming or other programming service. For the purposes of this definition, "video programming" means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station; and "other programming service" means information that a cable system operator makes available to ail subscribers generally. "Cable system," or "cable communications system" or "cable television system," means a facility, consisting ora set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service that includes video 743035-2 34 programming and that is provided to multiple subscribers within a community. The term "cable system" does not include: (i) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations; (ii) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way; (iii) a facility of a common carder that is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act, except that such facility will be considered a cable system (other than for purposes specified in Section 621 (c) of the Communications Act) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services; (iv) an open video system that complies with Section 653 of the Communications Act; or (v) any facilities of an electric utility that are used solely for operating its electric utility system. "Cable system operator" means any person or group of persons: (i) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in that cable system; or (ii) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of that cable system. "City" means the City of Temecula as represented by its City Council or by any delegate acting within the scope of its delegated authority. "__ CFR" means the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, the citation of "47 CFR 80.1" refers to Title 47, part 80, section 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. "Communications Act" means the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §§ 153, et seq.), as amended by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "FCC" or "Federal Communications Commission" means the federal administrative agency, or any lawful successor, that is authorized to regulate telecommunications services and telecommunications service providers on a national level. 743035-2 35 "Franchise" means an initial authorization, or the renewal of an initial authorization, granted by the City Council, whether such authorization is designated as a franchise, agreement, permit, license, resolution, contract, certificate, or otherwise, that authorizes the construction or operation of a cable system or an open video system. "Franchise fee" means any fee or assessment of any kind that is authorized by state or federal law to be imposed by the City on a Grantee as compensation in the nature of rent for the Grantee's use of the public rights-of-way. The term "franchise fee" does not include: (i) Any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability(including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services, but not including a tax, fee, or assessment which is unduly discriminatory against cable operators or cable subscribers); (ii) Capital costs that are required by the franchise to be incurred by a Grantee for public, educational, or governmental access facilities; (iii) Requirements or charges that are incidental to the award or enforcement of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages; or (iv) Any fee imposed under Title 17, United States Code. "Franchise service area" or "service area" means the entire geographic area of the City as it is now constituted, or may in the future be constituted, unless otherwise specified in the ordinance or resolution granting a franchise, or in a franchise agreement. "Grantee" means any person that is awarded a franchise in accordance with this chapter, and that person's lawful successor, transferee, or assignee. "Multichannel video programming distributor" or "video programming distributor" means a person such as, but not limited to, a cable system operator, an open video system operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available multiple channels of video programming for purchase by subscribers or customers. "Open video system" means a facility consisting of a set of transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service, including video programming, and that is provided to multiple subscribers within the City, provided that the FCC has certified that such system is authorized to operate in the City and complies with 47 CFR 1500 et seq., entitled "Open Video Systems." "Open video system operator" means any person or group of persons who provides cable service over an open video system and directly or through one or more affiliates 743035-2 36 owns a significant interest in that open video system, or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of that open video system. "Person" means an individual, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or governmental entity. "Public, educational or government access facilities" or "PEG access facilities," means the total of the following: (i) Channel capacity designated for noncommercial public, educational, or government use; and (ii) Facilities and equipment for the use of that channel capacity. "Subscriber" or "customer" or "consumer" means any person who, for any purpose, subscribes to the services provided by a multichannel video programming distributor and who pays the charges for those services. "Street" or "public right-of-way" means each of the following that has been dedicated to the public and maintained under public authority or by others and is located within the City limits: streets, roadways, highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, sidewalks, easements, rights- of-way, and similar public property that the City from time to time authorizes to be included within the definition of a street. "Telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. "Telecommunications equipment" means equipment, other than customer premises equipment, used by a telecommunications service provider to provide telecommunications service, including software that is integral to that equipment. "Telecommunications service" means the offering of telecommunications directly to the public for a fee, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the equipment or facilities that are used. "Telecommunications service provider" means any provider of telecommunications service. "__ U.S.C. § "means the United States Code. Thus, the citation of"47 U.S.C. § 153" refers to Title 47, section 153, of the United States Code. "Video programming provider" means any person or group of persons who has the right under the federal copyright laws to select and to contract for the carriage of specific video programming on a cable system or an open video system. 743035-2 37 "Video provider" means any person, company, or service that provides one or more channels of video programming to a residence, including a home, multi-family dwelling complex, congregate-living complex, condominium, apartment, or mobilehome, where some fee is paid for that service, whether directly or as included in dues or rental charges, and whether or not public rights-of-way are used in the delivery of that video programming. A "video provider" includes, without limitation, providers of cable television service, open video system service, master antenna television, satellite master antenna television, direct broadcast satellite, multipoint distribution services, and other providers of video programming, whatever their technology. B. Unless otherwise expressly stated, words, terms, and phrases not defined in this ordinance will be given their meaning as used in Title 47 of the United States Code, as amended, and, if not defined in that Code, their meaning as used in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. ARTICLE 7. VIOLATIONS; SEVERABILITY 5.12.180 Violations; Enforcement A. Any person who violates any provision of this Part I is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as provided for in Chapter 1.20 of Title 1 of this Code. B. The misdemeanor penalty specified above in paragraph (A) is not applicable to a violation of any provision of this ordinance for which another sanction or penalty may be imposed under any franchise, license, lease, or similar written agreement between the City and a multichannel video programming distributor or telecommunications service provider. C. The City may initiate a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any violation of this ordinance. 5.12.190 Severabilit¥ If any provision of this ordinance is determined by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by any federal or state agency having jurisdiction over its subject matter, to be invalid and in conflict with any paramount federal or state law or regulation now or hereafter in effect, or is determined by that court or agency to require modification in order to conform to the requirements of that paramount law or regulation, then that provision will be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent part of this ordinance, and such determination will not affect the validity and enforceability of any other provisions. If that paramount federal or state law or regulation is subsequently repealed or amended so that the provision of this ordinance determined to be invalid or subject to modification is no longer in conflict with that law or regulation, then that provision will again become effective and will thereafter be binding on the City and any affected cable or telecommunications service provider; provided, however, that the City must give the affected cable or telecommunications service provider 30 days written notice of that change before requiring compliance with that provision, or such longer period of time as may be reasonably required for the cable or telecommunications service provider to comply with that provision." 743035-2 38 Section 3. In adopting this ordinance, it is the intent of the City Council that Section 5.12.080, entitled "Consumer Protection and Service Standards," will apply to all franchised video programming distributors, including Century-TCI California, L.P., dba Adelphia Cable Communications. To the extent that any consumer protection and service standard referenced in Resolution No. 96-35 is inconsistent or in conflict with any provision of Section 5.12.080 of this ordinance, said standard in Resolution No. 96-35 is hereby repealed and superseded. Similarly, to the extent that any consumer protection and service standard set forth in the Non-Exclusive License dated January 10, 1989, is inconsistent or in conflict with any provision of Section 5.12.080 of this ordinance, said standard in the Non-Exclusive License is hereby superseded. Section 4. Following the City Council's adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is directed to provide a copy by certified mail to the franchised cable operator, Century- TCI California, L.P., dba Adelphia Cable Communications. Upon the expiration of 90 days following the transmittal of this ordinance to Century-TCI California, L.P., dba Adelphia Cable Communications, the provisions of Section 5.12.080 relating to consumer protection and service standards will apply to the operation of the cable television system within the franchise service area under the Non-Exclusive License referenced above in Section 3. The authority for this action by the City is derived from the following sources: A. 47 Code of Federal Regulations 76.309, entitled "Customer Service Obligations," which provides in relevant part as follows: "(a) A cable franchise authority may enforce the customer service standards set forth in paragraph (c) of this section against cable operators. The franchise authority must provide affected cable operators ninety (90) days written notice of its intent to enforce the standards." "(b) Nothing in this rule should be construed to prevent or prohibit: (3) Any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any consumer protection law, to the extent not specifically preempted herein; or (4) The establishment or enfomement of any State or municipal law or regulation concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed, or address matters not addressed by the standards set forth in paragraph (c) of this section." B. California Government Code Section 53088 et seq., entitled the "Video Customer Service Act." Section 53088.2(p) of this Act provides as follows: 743035-2 39 "(p) Nothing in this division limits the power of a city, county, or city and county or video provider to adopt and enforce service standards and consumer protection standards which exceed those established in this division." Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to cause this ordinance to be published as required by law. of PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ,2003. day ATTEST: MAYOR SUSAN JONES, CMC CITY CLERK 743035-2 40 [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA SS I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof;held on _, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAiN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: SUSAN JONES, CMC CITY CLERK 743035-2 41 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING FEES FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING CABLE TELEVISION AND OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM FRANCHISES, AND REGISTRATION FEES FOR OTHER VIDEO PROVIDERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following fees apply to applications submitted to the City that are related to transactions involving cable television franchises and open video system franchises, as referenced in Chapter 5.12 of Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES 1. Application fee deposit payable by any person requesting an initial franchise for a cable television system: $25,000 2. Renewal application fee deposit payable by the franchisee of a cable television system for all anticipated costs to be incurred by the City in reviewing and processing the franchisee's renewal application: $20,000 3. Deposit payable by the franchisee of a cable television system for review and processing expenses to be incurred by the City in connection with any proposed transfer or change in control of the franchise: $2,500 B. TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM FRANCHISES 1. Application fee deposit payable by any person requesting an initial agreement or franchise to construct and operate an open video system: $20,000 2. Renewal application fee deposit payable by an authorized video system operator for all anticipated costs to be incurred by the City in reviewing and processing the video system operator's renewal application: $20,000 737972-1 3. Deposit payable by an authorized open video system operator for review and processing expenses to be incurred by the City in connection with any proposed transfer or change in control of the open video system: $2,500 Section 2. The following fees apply to the filing with the City of a registration form by a video provider, as required under Chapter 5.12 of Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code: REGISTRATION FEE PAYABLE BY VIDEO PROVIDERS Registration fee to cover the reasonable costs incurred by the City in reviewing and processing the registration form required of all video providers under Chapter 5.12 of Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code: $100 Section 3. The City Council finds and determines that the new fees established by this resolution are in an amount that is reasonably necessary to recover the costs and expenses to be incurred by the City in reviewing and processing the documents for which those fees are imposed or are authorized to be imposed. Section 4. The new fees set forth in this resolution will become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2003-__, which ordinance amends in its entirety Chapter 5.12 of Title 5 of the Municipal Code. Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. 2003. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this __ day of ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 737972-1 ITEM 20 APPROVAL~/~,,~..,---'~ CITY ATTORNEY #v/,,~, DIRECTOR OF FINANC~ CITY MANAGER ~ '-' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Herman Parker, Director of Community Service~ August 12, 2003 Cable Franchise Renewal Committee Appointment PREPARED BY: ~" Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint one member from the Council to serve on the negotiation team for renewal of the cable franchise with Adelphia. DISCUSSION: Prior to incorporation, the County of Riverside approved an original cable television franchise agreement for the provision of cable services in the area that would later incorporate as the City of Temecula. That franchise agreement has subsequently been transferred to successor providers, the current provider being Adelphia. The franchise agreement expires on January 9, 2004 and staff is beginning the franchise renewal negotiations process with Adelphia. Staff recommends that the City negotiation team include a City Council member, an Assistant City Attorney, City Manager's office representative and other key staff. The negotiation team will meet to assess the franchisee's performance, determine the community's cable services needs, and establish the City's negotiation deal points. The team will meet several times with the Adelphia team to reach agreement on the deal points and finalize the franchise agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the appointment of a member of the Council to the cable negotiation team. The franchisee will need to deposit fees in accordance with a Resolution adopted by the Council to cover administrative costs associated with the renewal process. R:\RUSEP~AGENDAS\cable subcommittee appointment.doc