The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About072302 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 IIJ AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JULY 23, 2002 - 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 11 :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 11 :00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property acquisition negotiations of a 7.7 acre parcel located on the corner of Santiago and Ynez (APN No. 0922-140-010-1). Under. negotiation is the price and terms of the real property interests. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson and Jim O'Grady. 2. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) with respect to two matters of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on existing facts and circumstances and the City will decide whether to initiate litigation. 3. Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957 and 54957.6 with respect to City Manager's Evaluation. 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: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2002-04 Resolution: No. 2002-64 Mayor Ron Roberts Prelude Music: Invocation: Matthew Fagan Pastor David Shirley of Church On The Rock Flag Salute: Cub Scout Pack 911 ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts R:\AgendaI072302 ~ PRESENT A TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS National Kids Dav Proclamation Paramedic Assessment Squad Presentation EaQle Scout - Aaron Shaw 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. 1 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 June 11, 2002. R:\AgendaI072302 2 3 Resolution Approvino List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ 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 Statement of Investment Policy RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy as proposed by staff which provides safety, liquidity and yield for City funds. 5 Consideration of Cost-Sharinq Aqreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) for ConsultinQ Services RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) for Consulting Services in a matter of the Application of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Valley-Rainbow 500 KV Interconnect Project, in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000. 6 Sister City Monument Dedication In Honor of September 11 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Temecula Duck Pond as the permanent installation location of our Sister City monument "Singing In The Rain" to commemorate the tragedies of September 11, 2001. 7 Parcel Map No. 30178, located on the east side of Orsmby Road and north of Santiaqo Road RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Parcel Map 30178 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 7.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 7.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. R:\AgendaI072302 3 8 Approval of Cooperative AQreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Aoency for Construction and FundinQ of the Mercantile BuildinQ Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Proiect PW01-20 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula for construction and funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theatre) - Project No. PW01-20; 8.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report. 9 Annual Professional Service AQreements for Real Estate Appraisal Services for various Capital Improvement Proiects for FY 2002-2003 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve an agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; 9.2 Approve an agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; 9.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. 10 Annual Professional Service Aqreements for Geotechnical and Material Testino Services for various Capital Improvement Proiects for FY 2002-2003 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve an agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services; 10.2 Approve an agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services; 10.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. 11 Annual Professional Service AQreements for EnoineerinQ and Construction Survey Services for various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2002-2003 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the annual agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; 11.2 Approve the annual agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; R\Agendal072302 4 11.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. 12 Amendment NO.5 to Professional Services AQreement - DMJM+HARRIS PechanQa Parkway (formerly known as Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II, Project No. PW99-11 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Amendment NO.5 to the Professional Services Agreement with DMJM+HARRIS in the amount of $20,103.75 to provide additional project management and field surveying services, and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment; 12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders above the original 1 0% contingency approved by City Council on November 16, 1.999 by an additional 5% (or $28,980.00). 13 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for Citywide asphalt Concrete Repairs for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Asphalt Concrete Repairs for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04. 14 Resolution of support for the passaQe of Measure A on the November, 2002 ballot RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE A ON THE NOVEMBER, 2002 BALLOT 15 Morqan Hill Project Mitiqation AQreement. Approval of Joint Community Facilities AQreement 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT AMONG EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF TEMECULA AND MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC R:\Agenda1072302 5 16 Second ReadinQ of Ordinance No. 02-03 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ******** R\Agendal072302 6 ************************************************************************************************************** TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING ***************************************************************************************************************** Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2002-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2002-08 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Approve the minutes of June 25 and July 9, 2002. DISTRICT BUSINESS 2 NaminQ of Vail Ranch Park Sites A. Band C RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve names for the Vail Ranch Park Sites located in the Vail Ranch development as follows: Park Site A - Vail Ranch Park; Park Site B - Nighthawk Park and Park Site C - Pablo Apis Park as recommended by the Community Services Commission. R\Agendal072302 7 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda1072302 8 ***************************************************************************************************************** TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ***************************************************************************************************************** Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2002-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2002-09 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts, Comerchero 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 Approval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of June 25 and July 9, 2002. 2 Approval of Cooperative AQreement with the Temecula Redevelopment AQency for Construction and FundinQ of the Mercantile BuildinQ Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project PW01-20 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula for construction and funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theatre) - Project No. PW01-20; 2.2 Authorize the Chairperson to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report; R:\AgendaI072302 9 2.3 Authorize the budgeted expenditure of $287,500.00 for the RDA's share of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit project costs incurred, as approved by the City or the RDA. 3 First Amendment to Lease of AQency Property - 27500 Jefferson Avenue RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve a first amendment to the lease agreement with the Donna L. Reeves Trust UTD 7/25/90 for Agency property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue to provide a one-year extension to this lease for an amount of $15,000 per month; 3.2 Approve a first amendment to the sublease agreement between the Donna L. Reeves Trust and Temecula Valley Automotive, d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi and authorize the City Manager to sign the consent agreement. 4 Revision of Facade Improvement ProQram RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the recommended revisions to the Facade Improvement Program, extending the list of eligible improvements to include hardscape and landscaping. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 13, 2002, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R\Agendal072302 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. 17 Remove a Condition of Approval on Amendment NO.7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (PlanninQ Application No. 02-0299) - Continued from the meeting of July 9, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REMOVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT NO. 7 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0285 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0299) COUNCIL BUSINESS 18 Consideration of FundinQ Mechanism for the Acquisition of Open Space (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Naggar.) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Discuss this matter and provide direction to Staff. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT City of Temecula/City of Murrieta Joint Workshop: July 30, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda1072302 11 PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMA TIONS "0 <1.l 8 m <1.l '01) ~ -B ~ .m ..., "0 <1.l .~ ~ <1.l<1.l"O :;::l 8 m 'Cd "0""; ;:l ~ (\j ~ ...... 1; -B <1.l 8 .D ..c: <1.l <1.l U ..9 ..c:"Oa -c ... -;:: s 0 ~ m ill m .... @ ~ .~ ...... .9 ... <1.l <1.l 0., <1.l'@ :;s U m (\j ...... ..c:2: E <1.l m 0 ;:l ...... ;:l <1.l m '01) :tl ... 0 >, riJ .0 <1.l "0 o > (\j.D u ... <1.l (\j ~ ~ . U 0 t: .~ U 8 m "0 ]; <1.l (;0, ... <1.l U ~ <1.l .~ ..c: ~ O"O(\j .D rj t: > ~8"5c-.i & <1.l .~ ~ 'S ..ci :;s 0 ... .... .~ "0 -oi38 E S m <1.l '1:: ;:l ;:l ~ U 0 .... ~ ~ U S ~]~~ & ..a .~ 0., "0 a riJ .... '01) (\j 8 [j ~ ;:l .S 0., ...... 0 ~ >,...... ;:l 0 0 ..c: ..9 ~ o U "0 SO":l ":l ..c: U <1.l m"O ...... 8 rn .0...... U (\j [j ~"O '38 0 ~....~ 0 :i .~ ~ g 8 .0 ~ <1.lU >, ~ "0 ~ ...... m .~ m <1.l (\j 8 .8 5 U .. U <1.l U "0 E-<O..c:"O - ~ S .... ~t:: !l .~ <1.l m ~....., ..j..I"Cl m = 0 -0 <1.l <1.l .!:1 -B ;E ~...... 'M ;:l ~ <1.l :a .s S "' ... ;:lOC'l C/) ~Z -B o ~ ...... "' ~cam 0 @ g- o ~ ~ .~ U ~ .!:1 li!: <1.l <1.l'~ QJO ... 0 (\j "0 '01) <1.l...... :;::l .....c:C/)-B I 8.... "0 '@ ~ >,<1.l m <1.l U ~ ~ ~ .~ ..c: [j s-B S QJ~ ;:l .s .& u"O o:l (\j rIl ;!;l' ~< <2 <1.l (\j 0 "0 m ..c: <1.l .!:1 '0 '> U ..c: <1.l "0 ~ ... ~~ -B ~ ~ ~~ "O-B .0 .~ .~ <1.l ~ ;:l ..... 0 < <1.l '1:: m .~ U - .~ @ "'" <1.l m 0 '1:: 0 d ~...;l ...... (\j'" ~ 0 >, "0 .... ...... s'O = ... .......u (\j 8 ca ~ 8 Q ...... ...... .0 ....c 0 ;:l o m 0 .... ... ~t: ..... ~ U~ u ~ '> u ~ ~ d ~ "0 0 . 0 0 ~ caS <1.l .~ ?: ;:l Q.l ~ ... ~~ 0- ~ ......"0 <1.l - ~8 ...... ...... .D .s ,.Q ...... a U m ;::I 0 <1.l .~ ~..c: ~ ~ <1.l .. o.,~ -0 .0 riJ :0 0,) m <1.l ~ 0 ~ .~ 'S U ~<1.l riJ <1.l U ... (\j .... ~ ;:l 5 m:9 Q : t: 0., <1.l <1.l ~} ...... ...... <1.l m ..c: @ ~'5 m <1.l .D ...... ... -o..c: 0 ...... 0., ~~ & 0 Q..c: <1.l ~ ~ U 0 ... ca~ ~ ~ <1.l "0 U ~ .~ <1.l <1.l o . .... m 8'0 ~ <1.l ~... 0:: ~ t: "0 ~ o . :;::l ca] .~ m 0 m <1.l ... ~ ......C'I ..c: ~ 1 ~ (\j 0 .0 .~ U "0 ~ m Z+:l ~?:l <1.l :;::l . <1.l 0 <1.l (\j m .~ >, ..c: ..c: ... <1.l ~ .~ o . <1.l ... U (\j (\j..c: -B 4'<."0 (;0,... ~ ~ z... ~~ ~ 8 . <1.l ~f <1.l ~~ .~ I ~~ ~~ m (\j ~ E-<'O ..c: ~E ~..a S ~ ~~ !i~ <1.l <1.l .~ 0"0 "0 .D li!:~ 8 ... C") ...... a ;:l 0 0 <1.l >, ..c: ... 0) rn ~;.8 >>'E ..... {lC') 0 ~ . l=i .....M >> ..... ..., ...... <lJ C/l ~ ~ 5.:.:: ..c:;E u <lJ .... '" >> (.) (.) ;:.- .... .... .~ w. ;j ro ro ..... U ....... ..c: & <lJ 0),->-< ...... - .g u' 'bbo ro P<: :::8 , .~ .... u oj ..., 0::5 i:: u r.il rn 0 <+-< OJ "'" 0 P<: '" !:.:i"O <lJ rfl 0...0 "'" i:: @ "'(j "d .:.:: OJ ::r:: ro ...... ~ l=i...l:l ;!:"OM ~ ~ (]) oj"" S rfli::O i:: ~ .... S VlroO ..c:M cO ~ ~ S 0) ...... ",">>' ;g - 0 ...l:l...l:l ZE~ Vl =:s < 0 QJ 04-1 ;j ..... ':;' ~ Z ~ >> ~ u ~ 8 "'" cO S (]) (]) ...... 0) .....cO"O 0) QJ S S (.) ~ QJ S ~ 0) ~ ~ ...."C ~ QJ Q) ~ l=i l=i ail 0 oj '-+-I :> Cf) s "C~ 0 QJ c~ ...... .... ~.~ ...... ...cl oj 04-1"= ugp ~ b.O~ Q) ...... .s <t: .~ U ,..c:"d a U < ..... ~ ~ ..., rn "'" ro oj ...... o ..... ~ ..........l:l QJ - rfl ;j ..., ,......, ..... ~ '0 ;j ..., ..= ~ oj...l:l .~ @ ~ .... ..., ~ U b.O ...... QJ o,..c: l=i ~ p.. u..... 0 l=i (.) 0 rJ'J C l=i .... ...... ...... oj u "1<<t: ~ Cf':)..., O'l l=i [-; ==It: 0) o..rn o 0) .... 00..' .... rn ~ 0 .... ...l:l ..., 0 ...,"C>> ...... 0) oj ~ ..., 0) rn~] l=i ...... 0) ...... ....... o 0) 0) ''-' "C .... "'d 0) ;::l l=i .... ..., oj oj <2 ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 11, 2002 After the Closed Session that convened at 5:30 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, June 11, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, and Stone Absent: Councilmember: Roberts PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Micah and Jacob Putnam. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Reverend Howard Brown of Winchester Community United Methodist Church. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Pro Tem Stone. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Amateur Radio Proclamations With gratitude, Mr. Harm Wijma accepted the Amateur Radio Proclamation which designated the week of June 17-23, 2002 as Amateur Radio Week; and provided additional information regarding the 24-hour event which would be held from June 22 to June 23 whereupon antennas would be raised in efforts to communicate with as many amateur operators as feasible throughout the United States, Canada, and South America, noting that the event would be held at Fire Station No. 28 which was located in Sage. Special Olvmpics Certificates Offering thanks to the City Council for their help and support, Ms. Judy Bell, Area Director of the Special Olympics, accepted the certificates, advising that on the weekend of June 14th there would be State competitions held in Long Beach. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Rob Bolles, 44526 Leona Court, Redhawk, relayed thanks to the City Council for the offering of a cost-sharing program to the County of Riverside which would heighten the emergency medical response to the unincorporated areas, noting hopes that the City would continue communications with the County regarding this issue; and offered additional thanks to Fire Chief Windsor and the crew at Station No. 92 for their assistance in assessing Redhawk's southern slopes for fire danger. In response, Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that efforts would continue with the County regarding the cost-sharing program for emergency medical response. RIMinutesl061102 Councilman Naggar noted that following the lead of Temecula (at Mayor Pro Tem Stone's recommendation) the County paramedics were now equipped to implement cricothyroidotomies, an emergency procedure that opened the breathing airway. Mr. Will Rodgers, 32124 Corte Carmona, recommended that there be consideration to construct a hospital in the City of Temecula which was a much-needed facility. In response, Councilman Comerchero noted that discussions were taking place at this time regarding the future development of a hospital, providing assurance that there would be a hospital in the City ofTemecula at a future point. Ms. Melissa Donaldson, 32153 Corte Carmona, representing Safe Alternatives for Everyone (SAFE), thanked the City Council for its support, advising that the purpose of this non-profit organization was to serve families at risk of abuse and violence, or who have already experienced some type of violence; noted that while the doors just opened June 3"', numerous phone calls and clients have already been received; and invited the City Council to SAFE's Open House which would be held on June 21st. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta, representing Citizens First for Temecula Valley (CFTV), noted that packets had been distributed to the City Council regarding a "Hyper" Wal-Mart store being proposed in the County which would include a grocery component, dry cleaners, banking services, etc., would have 2400 parking spaces, and would be located on Highway 79 (South) between Meadows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road; and urged the City Council to address this matter with the County due to the significant negative impacts this particular development would generate in the City of Temecula. For Ms. Anderson, Councilman Comerchero noted that since she had relayed to him the negative impacts regarding overnight RV parking at Wal-Mart uses, there has been an added condition by the County on the Wal-Mart Agreement restricting all night RV parking. Mr. Otto Baron, 28681 Pujol Street, with respect to Code Enforcement, recommended that there be a differentiation clarified between worn-out, non-running dilapidated yehicles, and classic antiques which were reminders of our automobile heritage, elaborating on the difficulties he has been experiencing with Code Enforcement. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Manager Nelson relayed that staff would follow-up regarding the Code Enforcement matter. Ms. Kay Williams, PO Box 435, representing the Temecula Town Association offered thanks to the City Council for its support of the 6th Annual Frontier Days Rodeo which was a tremendous success, additionally noting thanks to the community sponsors and City staff; and presented an award to the City Council in honor of its support, an award to Councilman Naggar as Celebrity Team Penner, and a commemorative T-shirt to each Councilmember. Ms. Adrienne Potter, 30816 Medinah Way, representing Kids in Danger (KID), relayed that she has been a child safety activist for the past 15 years in five cities; noted her concern regarding the congestion around the schools, in particular the location of the high school on Winchester Road; recommended that Public Works Department's budget be increased in order to fund much-needed signals; and submitted data to the City Clerk which revealed that the number one killer of kids was car accidents. R:IMinutes1061102 2 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Relaying kudos, Councilman Naggar recognized the Board of Directors and the numerous volunteers who participated in the Balloon & Wine Festival, and in particular commended the emergency personnel. B. Councilman Pratt requested that the Congestion Management Plan be agendized for the June 25, 2002, City Council meeting, and that a report be presented regarding recent progress. C. Councilman Pratt read a sentimental poem into the record regarding Old Friends. D. Providing an update, Councilman Comerchero noted that SB 910 (the Dunn Senate Bill), which would impose severe penalties for cities who do not have their Housing Elements approved by the State, and which the City of Temecula was opposed to, had made it through the Local Government Committee in Sacramento. E. Commenting on the City's opposition to the Valley Rainbow Interconnect Project, the SDG&E Transmission Line Project, Councilman Comerchero relayed that within approximately a week, the City's website will have additional information (i.e., a form, or a form letter) regarding contacting the Governor with respect to this issue. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 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 Aooroval of Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of April 23, 2002; 2.2 Approve the minutes of May 7, 2002; 2.3 Approve the minutes of May 14, 2002. 3 Resolution ApprovinQ List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A R:IMinutes1061102 3 4 Citv Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2002. 5 Records Destruction Aporoval RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City ofTemecula approved Records Retention Policy. 6 Second Amendment to Professional Services AQreement between the City of Temecula and Kelley Display, Inc. - City Banner ProQram RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Second Amendment in the amount of $1,557.00 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kelley Display, Inc. for the not to exceed amount of $52,057.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 7 Adoption of a Resolution extendinQ the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement ProQram RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE SERVICE FEE COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT SERVICE AUTHORITY UNTIL MAY 2014 8 Substitute Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds for Public Improvements in Tract Map No. 25892 (located on the south side of Pauba Road between Ynez Road and MarQarita Road and across from the Fire Station) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the Substitute Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for public improvements in Tract Map No. 25892; 8.2 Authorize the release of the existing Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Tract Map No. 25892; 8.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. R:IMinutes1061102 4 9 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Street PaintinQ Festival and Great Race Event in Old Town (located at Old Town Front Street. between Second Street and Fifth Street and Third Street between Murrieta Creek and Mercedes Street) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR THE STREET PAINTING FESTIVAL AND GREAT RACE EVENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THESE SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENTS It is noted that Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item. 10 All-Way Stop SiQn Installation - Overland Drive at Commerce Center Drive RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE 11 Professional Services AQreement for John Warner/SantiaQo Road Assessment District Improvement Proiect - HydroloQY Study - Proiect No. PW02-07 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Professional Services Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $55,400.00 to provide design services for the John Warner/Santiago Road Assessment District Improvement Project - Hydrology Study - Project No. PW02-07 - and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments/change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $5,540.00 which is equal to 10% of the agreement. It is noted that Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item. R:IMinutes1061102 5 12 Acquisition AQreement between the City and Claim Jumper Restaurant RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve and execute, in substantially the form attached hereto, the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions between City of Temecula and Claim Jumper-Temecula for the acquisition of certain real property in the amount of $50,000.00; 12.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the document. 13 California EnerQV Commission Grant Applications - Battery Back-up Systems for Traffic SiQnals RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize City staff to apply for grant funding from the California Energy Commission to partially offset the costs of installing new and existing Battery Back- up Systems (BBS) for traffic signals at critical intersections; 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR GRANT FUNDS SUPPORTING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW BATTERY BACK- UP SYSTEMS DESIGNED FOR INTERSECTIONS WITH LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) TRAFFIC SIGNALS 13.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR GRANT FUNDS SUPPORTING THE INSTALLATION OF EXISTING BATTERY BACK-UP SYSTEMS DESIGNED FOR INTERSECTIONS WITH LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) TRAFFIC SIGNALS 14 Implementation of Special Tax - Measure C RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RIMinutesl061102 6 RESOLUTION NO. 02-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 TO PROVIDE FOR RECREATION AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, AND ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 15 Cooperation AQreement for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for Fiscal Years 2003-04.2004-05,2005-06 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperation Agreement for Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06. 16 Librarv Grant Application RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY PROJECT BUDGET, LOCAL FUNDING COMMITMENT, AND SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENTS AND LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2000 16.2 Approve the grant application for the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 and authorize staff to submit the application to the Bond Act Board. 17 Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2002 and approve the following: 1) An appropriation of $150,000.00 in the City Attorney line item in the General Fund; 2) An appropriation of $50,000.00 in the Internal Service Fund Insurance Fund. R:IMinutes1061102 7 MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 -17. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception Mayor Roberts who was absent and Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to Item Nos. 9 and 11. For clarification, Councilman Comerchero relayed that with approval of Consent Calendar Item No. 12 the City would not be acquiring the Claim Jumper Restaurant, but would be acquiring a small piece of property for a road improvement. At 7:36 PM., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. The City Council Meeting resumed at 8:56 P.M. COUNCIL BUSINESS 18 Review and Adoption of the FY 2002-03 Annual OperatinQ BudQet RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FY 2002-03 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 18.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 18.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 2002-03 Advising that the proposed operating budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 would not only be balanced but would also allow for a significant investment into the City's Capital Improvement Program, City Manager Nelson provided a broad overview of the staff report (of record), highlighting the nine percent (9%) increase in projected revenues, the seven-poi nt-one percent (7.1%) increase in projected expenditures, the establishment of an undesignated General Fund Reserve of $10 million, the establishment of a policy that a minimum of $500,000 be set aside annually for the purchase of Open Space, the target goal of three percent (3%) of the total expenditure budget to be utilized for Open Space acquisitions (after consideration of retiree, health, and other City needs), and the establishment of a separate fund to pay for future retiree health benefits; and recognized the outstanding efforts of the Finance Department, and in particular Director of Finance Roberts, Assistant Finance Director Jester, Fiscal Services R:IMinutes1061102 8 Manager Papagolos, Senior Accountant Brown, Accountant Ruddell, and Administrative Secretary Caravelli with regard to the budget. Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed appreciation to staff for their diligent efforts regarding the proposed budget. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Mayor Roberts who was absent. In response to Councilman Naggar's request, City Manager Nelson relayed that staff would investigate, and report back to the City Council (via agendizing the matter) regarding all the mechanisms available to purchase Open Space in approximately 30-45 days. 19 Review and adoption of the FY 2003-07 Capital Improvement ProQram RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2003-07 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FY 2002-03 Via a PowerPoint presentation, City Manager Nelson presented the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP)for fiscal years 2003-2007, noting the 112 projects included in the CIP, the total projected cost of $409 million for the five-year program, the earmarked $160 million in funded CIP projects within the next five years (60% of which has been allocated for traffic improvement projects), and the identified $160 million in potential funding sources. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Manager Nelson confirmed that the GIS system has been installed in the City's emergency vehicles; confirmed that $30,000 was added to the CIP for overall City beautification every two years; confirmed, for Councilman Naggar, that the City of Temecula would be stepping up to the plate in efforts to improve regional improvements which will benefit all southwest Riverside County, in particular the $10 million in funding allocated for the southbound offramp for the French Valley Parkway, $6 million of which would for acquisition of right-of-way. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Rainbow Canyon Development LLC, referencing pages 97 and 98 of the proposed CIP, noted the Planning Commission's recommendation to move up to a Priority I level the State Route 79 Median Project; and concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation, relaying that Caltrans had committed 750,000 in funding (if matched), recommending that this project be pursued within AD No. 159. For Mr. Markham, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the proposed CFD which would be utilized as the funding source for the median project was being discussed at this time, but had not yet been determined; and for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, noted that although the funding had not yet been identified, staff was working with developments in the community which were proposing to bring these funds forward. R:IMinutes1061102 9 In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Manager Nelson recommended that this particular project (the Highway 79 Median Project) not be identified at a Priority I Project without designated funding, reiterating that there was a developer who was moving forward with the potential formation of a new CFD which was being analyzed by staff, advising that within the next six months there would be additional information regarding this item. As a matter of record, Councilman Pratt noted his opposition to the circulation improvements portion of the CIP due to the plan not addressing the impact of the County or the changing conditions in traffic; recommended the pursuit of the implementation of a light rail system; read into the record a report he had written regarding this proposed budget, recommending the implementation of alternate transit options (i.e., an inter-urban transit system, a monorail system); and noted that the comments he had relayed at the budget workshop had not been incorporated into the budget. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Mayor Roberts who was absent and Councilman Pratt who abstained from the circulation portion of the CIP. 20 Consideration of preliminary steps to explore the feasibility of a City Municipal Electric Utility (Placed on the agenda at the request of Council members Naggar and Comerchero.) RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Consider the approval of additional staff time to explore the feasibility of a City Municipal Electric Utility. Councilman Naggar presented the staff report (of record), relaying the request for approval of additional staff time to investigate the feasibility of implementing a City electric utility; and highlighted potential benefits if the City provided electrical utility services. Councilman Comerchero noted the prudence of further exploring this matter. Mr. Robert Lopez, 26100 Menifee Road, representing Southern California Edison (SCE), concurred that the City of Temecula was well within its rights in conducting this investigation; referencing statements from a Chino Hills 2002 City report, quoted the following: 'The generation market remains volatile and uncertain. Because of this the Chino Hill City Council decided not to go forward until there was more stability in the wholesale market place;" and provided other specified areas that the City should explore during the investigative process. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Mr. Lopez provided additional information regarding the "Energy decade" whereupon the PUC regulated the amount for which SCE could sell electricity, and SCE ultimately had to pay more for the electricity than they were selling it to the consumers for, elaborating on the potential situation if the City was acting as a separate utility at that time; and noted that he knew of no municipalities of this City's size that have formed their own utility in the last ten years. Prior to committing the additional 40 hours of staff time, Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended that the City Council obtain a copy of the Chino Hills report regarding this matter. Councilman Naggar specified the cities which had formed their own utilities, advising that if anticipated future growth was not expected, the formation of a City utility would not be logical; and for Mr. Lopez, clarified that in the study process the City would not consider taking over existing SCE lines, but future dedicated lines. R:IMinutes1061102 10 For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Lopez advised that SCE has approximately forty percent (40%) of their own generated electricity currently available, twenty to thirty percent (20%-30%) in contracts, and a bulk of the electricity was purchased via the open market; provided information regarding the cost of electricity; relayed that at this time SCE was prohibited from entering into new long-term contracts; and noted that the City would be able to enter into long-term contracts. Councilman Naggar thanked Mr. Lopez for his continued assistance with the City of Temecula. Councilman Pratt relayed that he could support the concept of the City forming its own utility as long as it was a revenue source with security. In light of the two large Specific Plans recently approved within the City, Councilman Naggar noted that in order for this concept to be feasible it would be vital for the program to be implemented within the next 12-18 months (I.e., prior to the development of the Specific Plans). Due to the fact that buying a small amount of electricity for a municipality would most likely be vastly more costly than electricity purchased in bulk, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that there could be pitfalls associated with this concept; reiterated that prior to supporting the approval of additional staff hours it would be his desire to review the Chino Hills document regarding this matter; and in response to Councilman Naggar, concurred that it would be beneficial to obtain studies from other cities on this issue, as well. Councilman Comerchero clarified that the requirement for additional staff time was to allow time for staff to obtain the studies from the other cities and distribute the documents to Council. Providing additional information, Councilman Naggar noted that one or two of the third party providers offered to provide a financial model after receiving the City's build-out information, advising that obtaining this free data would necessitate the use of staff time for providing the third party providers with the necessary data. Councilman Comerchero recommended that the City Council authorize staff to provide the data to the third party entities for the no-cost financial models, and that when that information was received along with the reports from other cities, that this item be re-agendized, advising that it was not the specific 40 hours that the Committee was requesting but for adequate time for staff to obtain and distribute the referenced data. Councilman Naggar recommended that the third party entities present their financial modeling to the City Council in order for the Committee to gain input from the Council as well as SCE. Mr. Perez provided additional information regarding the Cities of Hemet's and Moreno Valley's determination to create a utility within their municipalities. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to direct staff to accomplish the following tasks, and as such, authorize additional staff time: 1) to obtain information from alternate cities which have analysis regarding the formation of a utility, 2) to provide the third party providers with the necessary information to create a no-cost financial modeling, 3) to provide all collected data to the City Council and to SCE, 4) to agendize the matter within 60 days, and 5) to have Mr. Perez (representative of SCE), and a third party provider representative present when the matter was agendized. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Mayor Roberts who was absent. R:IMinutes1061102 11 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson advised that staff would be hand-carrying the City's Library Grant application to Sacramento on Thursday, June 13th, relaying that staff was hopeful regarding the City being a recipient of this particular grant. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Director of Community Services Parker relayed that although no date had been provided regarding the expected notification of the Library Grant recipients, staff anticipated having notification by year's end. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that under the Brown Act, there were no reportable actions to report. ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to the next regular CC meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] RIMinutesl061102 12 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ 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 $3,615,659.60. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 23rd day of July, 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos2002/Resos 02- 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. 02-_ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of July, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos2002/Resos 02- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA I LIST OF DEMANDS 07/02102 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 2,212,868.22 07111/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,128,450.34 07/03102 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 274,341.04 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 07/23102 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,615,659.60 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 893,784.29 165 RDA-LOWIMOD INCOME HOUSING 11,915.53 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 160,549.08 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 37.29 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 48,085.60 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,519,694.72 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND 633,159.87 280 RDA-REOEVELOPMENT 6,633.66 300 INSURANCE 15,505.58 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 27,942.07 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 3,190.82 340 FACILITIES 20,820.05 I $ 3,341,318.56 001 GENERAL FUNO $ 175,490.36 165 RDA-LOWIMOD INCOME HOUSING 4,481.67 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 72,558.34 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 54.27 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 4,190.11 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 525.32 280 RDA-REDEVELOPMENT 2,044.85 300 INSURANCE 815.96 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 6,936.32 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 2,543.89 340 FACILITIES 4,699.95 274,341.04 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,615,659.60 PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ANCE DIRECTOR I SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER . HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. I apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 11 07/03/2002 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Employee contribution to flex 5,364.36 5,364.36 12 07/03/2002 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME Employees state retirement 38,555.92 38,555.92 13 07/03/2002 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIU Em ployees health insurance 32,397.04 32,397.04 14 07/03/2002 000444 INSTATAX (EDO) Employees fed pr taxes 10,124.50 10,124.50 15 07/03/2002 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Employees fed pr taxes 47,361.85 47,361.85 77840 06/28/2002 004456 T & M CONSTRUCTION Joint Check Agreement 2,972.00 2,972.00 77841 06/28/2002 004456 T & M CONSTRUCTION Joint Check Agreement 3,155.93 3,155.93 77842 06/28/2002 004456 T & M CONSTRUCTION Joint Check Agreement 7,065.64 7,065.64 77843 07/02/2002 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRINTI T-shirts for SMART prgm 798.26 798.26 77844 07/02/2002 003552 AFLAC Supplemental std & cancer insurance 1,539.56 1,539.56 77845 07/02/2002 005049 AT ASTE OF TEMECULA Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56 Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56 Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56 Medium salsa for Eco Dev baskets 35.56 142.24 77846 07/02/2002 004054 ADKISON ENGINEERS INC Surveying Svcs: Winchester Rd Widen 2,440.00 2,440.00 77847 07/02/2002 005068 ADKISSON-FLOHR. CANDICE Reimb for Del Mar Sr Ctr Excursion 78.00 78.00 77848 07/02/2002 004901 ADVENTURES IN TEAM ESTEE Team bldg for planning 3,220.00 3,220.00 77849 07/02/2002 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI Membership:Stephen Brown 048646 387.00 387.00 77850 07/02/2002 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS aquatic supplies:TCSD 70.00 70.00 77851 07/0212002 004446 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL Membership: Steve Charette 205.00 Membership: Amer Attar 175.00 380.00 77852 07/02/2002 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help w/e 06/15 Acosta 1,182.00 Temp help w/e 06/15 Verano 32.50 1,214.50 77853 07/02/2002 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Install outlets @ Rancho Vista Prk 325.00 Reprgm timer for old towne st lights 52.00 377.00 77854 07/02/2002 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRV construct 2 pilasters @ Sam Hicks Pr1< 2,735.00 2,735.00 77855 07/02/2002 004176 BROADWING TELECOMMUNICA Long distance & internet svcs 845.00 845.00 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77856 0710212002 004081 BUSINESS FURNITURE GROUP Furniture for city hall & mnte fac 2,225.27 2,225.27 77857 0710212002 005071 CALIF ASSOC OF PARKS Membership:5 TCSD Commissioners 165.00 165.00 77858 0710212002 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICEIACCT drug/alcohol screening: police 455.00 Credit:Billed wrong city -35.00 420.00 77859 0710212002 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION S Membership dues:Parker 019942 415.00 Membership dues:Crowe-Pelletier 01 130.00 Membership dues:Harrington 024449 125.00 670.00 77860 0710212002 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Life insurance premium 1,100.50 1,100.50 77861 0710212002 004977 COASTLINE CONSTRUCTION awning for res trailer @ stn 92 3,576.47 3,576.47 77862 0710212002 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI Employees Charities contributions 141.50 141.50 77863 0710212002 004414 COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN G Ldscp design: Diaz Rd Re-alignment 5,766.69 5,766.69 77864 0710212002 004811 COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPOR I Paq PC Card exp Jacket for inf sys 206.88 Micro Keyboard for int sys 159.47 366.35 77865 0710212002 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET Install sigtronics equip:Fire 2,602.28 2,602.28 77866 0710212002 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES July Rental pmtpolice storefront 1,849.64 1,849.64 77867 0710212002 005069 DOMAIN REGISTRY OF AMERI domain name 5 yr renewal 85.00 domain name 5 yr renewal 85.00 170.00 77868 0710212002 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles 22.94 22.94 77869 0710212002 002981 DYNA MED Medical supplies for TCSD pools 287.69 Medical supplies for TCSD pool 86.12 Medical supplies for TCSD pools 16.16 389.97 77870 0710212002 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES I Temp help wle 06114 Naaseh-Shahry 6,236.00 Temp help wle 06/14 Cammarota 332.71 6,568.71 77871 07/0212002 002528 GLASS BLASTERS INC glass gifts w/city seal for sister city 726.24 City mugs for new hires 51.72 777.96 77872 07102/2002 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Misc. office supplies:TCSD 4,291.67 4,291.67 77873 0710212002 004910 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPAN Conf table for bldg & Safety 740.86 740.86 77874 0710212002 004053 HABITAT WEST INC Mntc svcs: Pala road Bridge PW97-15E 1,174.98 1,174.98 77875 0710212002 000116 HEALTH NET DENTAL AND VI Premium for ee vision plan 920.51 920.51 77876 0710212002 002107 HIGH MARK INC City life ins policy premium 512.50 512.50 Page:2 apChkLst Final Check list Page: 3 07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77877 07/02/2002 001158 HOLIDAY INN HtI:CAM conf:7/26-28:0ttlAllen 1,060.64 1,060.64 77878 07/02/2002 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 Retirement contributions 10,094.22 10,094.22 77879 07/02/2002 001123 INDUSTRIAL OISTRIBUTION GR Supplies for stencil truck 43.85 43.85 77880 07/02/2002 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 356.01 Pool sanitizing chemicals 356.01 712.02 77881 07/02/2002 004603 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS Caterpillar for PW mntc crew 4.426.99 4.426.99 77882 07/02/2002 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES Temp help w/e 6/18 Fudge 842.48 842.48 77883 07/02/2002 003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES I Desi9n svcs:Pala Rd PW99-11 12,330.00 Design svc:Pala Rd PW99-11SW 9,260.00 Plot easements:library site 2,320.00 23,910.00 77864 07/0212002 004481 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES I Design svcs: Diaz Road Ext PWOO-10 4,841.00 4,641.00 77885 07/0212002 000206 KINKOS INC Stationery paper/mise supplies 104.31 104.31 77886 07/0212002 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Smart computer sales kit 3,252.50 3,252.50 77887 07/02/2002 001865 MCI Jun xxx-1603 City Hall 39.50 Jun xxx-1708 Skate Park 39.50 Jun xxx-1588 eRe 39.50 Jun xxx-1540 O.T. Parking Lot 23.70 142.20 77888 07/02/2002 005070 MADRIGAL, BEATRIZ Refund:Sec. OepositMS02-0889 100.00 100.00 77889 07/02/2002 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER Temp Helpw/e 06/16 Novotny 535.35 535.35 77890 07/02/2002 004986 MAPTECH INC USGS Tapa Map Software:Fire Dept 209.90 209.90 77891 07/02/2002 003448 MELODYS AO WORKS Reimb expenses:St. Painting Fest. 744.30 Reimb expenses:St. Painting Fest. 160.01 904.31 77892 07/02/2002 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN City dental insurance 5,825.33 5,825.33 77893 07/02/2002 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES Jun EGC Satellite Stn Phone Svcs 69.00 69.00 77894 07/02/2002 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Channel Cleaning 3,000.00 3,000.00 77895 07/02/2002 004522 MULLlGANS FAMILY FUN CENT Day camp excursion:6/27/02 1,213.40 1,213.40 77896 07/0212002 003039 MURRIETA VALLEY HIGH SCH Transportation exp:4th of July Parade 250.00 250.00 77897 07/02/2002 001007 N P G CORPORATION Slurry, Seal & Re-Stripe:City Hall 2,860.00 2,860.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77898 07/02/2002 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies for Planning 182.92 Office Supplies:Finance 72.62 Credit Items Retumed:Planning -64.00 Credit Items Returned -182.92 8.62 77899 07/02/2002 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA IN Ree Supplies for Tee 106.25 106.25 77900 07/0212002 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG Employee benefits 83.99 83.99 77901 07/0212002 000249 PETTY CASH Petty cash reimbursement 547.08 Petty cash reimbursement 12.00 559.08 77902 07/02/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN May various HR recruitment ads 4,452.91 4,452.91 77903 07/02/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Renew Annual Subscription:TCSD 286.00 286.00 77904 07/02/2002 004519 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 4th of July fireworks display 12,500.00 12,500.00 77905 07/02/2002 004457 R J NOBLE COMPANY Prgs Pmt #2:Pala Rd Imprv:99-11 274,219.65 Credit Item # 25:Pala Rd Imprv -10,017.00 264,202.65 77906 07/02/2002 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK ASS Jul-Sept bus. park assoc. dues:Diaz 1,813.72 Jul-Sept bus. park assoc. dues:City Ha 1,319.07 3,132.79 77907 07/02/2002 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF C FY 02/03 Connect Membership 1,000.00 1.000.00 77908 07/02/2002 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMENT! Renew Annual PermitK.H. Park 73.00 Renew Annual PermitS.H. Park 73.00 Renew Annual PermitPala Park 73.00 219.00 77909 07/02/2002 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST Dee Bike Patrol/High Visibility 28.733.84 28,733.84 77910 07/02/2002 003544 ROBERT SHEA PEROUE REAL E Appraisal Fee:Oiaz Realignment 4,800.00 4,800.00 77911 07/02/2002 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. Reimb:Trans.Steering Comm:6/13-16/( 4.95 4.95 77912 07/02/2002 001309 RUSE, PHYLLIS Reimb:Submit Lib. Grant6/13/02 44.00 Reimb:Library Grant Mtg:6/04/02 12.00 56.00 77913 07/02/2002 001942 S C SIGNS Jun Public Ntc Signs:City Clerk 260.00 260.00 77914 07/02/2002 002864 SEA WORLD OF CALIFORNIA Day camp excursion - 07/11/02 3,000.00 3,000.00 77915 07/0212002 004814 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING I May Dsgn Svcs:8arrier Rail 11,870.50 11,870.50 77916 07/02/2002 003297 SKATE CITY Day camp excursion - 06/20/2002 392.00 392.00 77917 07/02/2002 000824 SO CALIF ASSN OF GOVERNME FY 02/03 Mem bership Dues 4,452.00 4,452.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 07/0212002 5:26:04PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77918 07/02/2002 000537 SO CALIF EOISON Jun 2-00-397-5042 City Hall 7,390.33 Jun 2-00-397-5067 Various Mtrs 801.00 Jun 2-22-496-3439 Winchester 42.93 8,234.26 77919 07/02/2002 004496 SPARKS EXHIBITS & ENVIRON~ C/O #2 PmtChildren's Museum 13,200.00 13,200.00 77920 07/02/2002 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN Jun workers' comp premium 15,989.48 15,989.48 77921 07/02/2002 003599 T Y L1N INTERNATIONAL May Dsgn Svcs:R.C. Bridge Widening 4,975.94 4,975.94 77922 07/02/2002 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Employee's union 2,145.00 2,145.00 77923 07/02/2002 003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC Computer Supplies:lnfo Sys 578.69 578.69 77924 07/02/2002 004919 TECH KNOWLEDGE INC Prof Consulting Svcs:lnfo Tech 4,820.12 4,820.12 77925 07/02/2002 001035 TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL Jan-Jun trash hauling services 1,515,508.20 1,515,508.20 77926 07/02/2002 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN EE Recogn: K. Beal 61.63 61.63 77927 07/02/2002 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY' Maint Fac Locksmith SVC5 1,634.32 1,634.32 77928 07/02/2002 001065 use M WEST (OEF COMP) Employee def comp plan 14,696.88 14,696.88 77929 07/02/2002 000389 use M WEST (OBRA) PfT EE Retirement Pmt 4,397.16 4,397.16 77930 07/02/2002 002702 US POSTAL SERVICE Postage meter deposit 4,054.45 4,054.45 77931 07/02/2002 000325 UNITED WAY Employee contributions 255.80 255.80 77932 07/02/2002 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERI Employee group health pmt 5,560.41 5,560.41 77933 07/02/2002 004794 VALLEY WINDS COMMUNITY B Transportation exp:4th of July Parade 250.00 250.00 77934 07/02/2002 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Release Claims Agreement Pmt 15,000.00 15,000.00 77935 07/02/2002 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC Var Parks Janitorial supplies 410.20 410.20 77936 07/0212002 004935 WOOO, GARY A. Seismic Retrofit Comm Theater 900.00 900.00 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 2,212,868.22 Page:5 apChkLst 07/0212002 5:26:04PM Final Check List City of Temecula Page: 6 102 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 2,212,868.22 Pages apChkLsl 07/0212002 5:26:04PM Final Check List City of Temecula Page: 7 Void Checks Bank code: union (none) Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 07/11/2002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77937 07/11/2002 001700 A PLUS TEACHING MATERIALS Mise supplies-Tiny Tots/Day Camp 37.14 37.14 77938 07/11/2002 004840 ADVANCED OFFICE SOLUTIO Office equip repairs:police dept 183.19 183.19 77939 07/11/2002 003568 ADVANTAGE BUSINESS EQUI Check signer svcs:Finance dept 419.00 419.00 77940 07/11/2002 005105 ALEGRIA, GERALD EE computer purchase prgm 894.29 894.29 77941 07/11/2002 004547 ALLEN INSTRUMENTS & SUPPL GIS computer supplies 720.25 720.25 77942 07/11/2002 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help wle 06122 Acosta 1,182.00 Temp help wle 06108 Seng 572.00 Temp help wle 06115 Seng 422.50 Temp help wle 06115 Hardin 402.68 Temp help wle 06122 Steward 84.50 2,663.68 77943 07/11/2002 001561 ARCH 6120-9/19/02 paging/rental svcs 893.65 893.65 77944 07/11/2002 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled water s8rvs:Smart Prgm 325.52 Bottled water servs:CRC 145.38 Bottled water servs:City Hall 140.08 Bottled water servs:Museum 39.73 650.71 77945 07/11/2002 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE Arts Council Camm Grant Agnnnt 10,000.00 10,000.00 77946 07/11/2002 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Electrical svcs repairs:CRC 1,185.00 Electrical repairs: City Hall 162.00 1,347.00 77947 07/11/2002 003466 BASKET & BALLOONS TOO! City promotional baskets 550.00 550.00 77948 07/11/2002 005096 BENSON,ANNE Refund: level 1 swim lessons 22.00 22.00 77949 07/11/2002 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC Design svcs:pavement mgmt PW01-2 6,800.00 6,800.00 77950 07/11/2002 004828 BEVERLEY SIMMONS & ASSOC Devellibrary Bond Application for city 12,000.00 12,000.00 77951 07/11/2002 003126 BOOMGAARDEN, DENNIS TCSD instructor earnings 295.20 295.20 77952 07/11/2002 005103 BUCKLEY, TIM Mileage reimb to fire fighters assoc 77.37 77.37 77953 07/11/2002 004580 CALIF COMMERCIAL PooLS,lN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR C 238,075.50 238,075.50 77954 07/11/2002 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICElACCT Drugs I Blood analysis:Police 875.00 Credit: incorrect charges -105.00 770.00 77955 07/11/2002 005095 CALIF LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOO Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 77956 07/11/2002 005116 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CO Confirmation of taxes remitted 100.00 100.00 Page1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/11/2002 2:55:25PM City 01 Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77957 07111/2002 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD 25.70 25.70 77958 07/11/2002 004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS TCSD instructor earnings 1,180.00 TCSD instructor earnings 660.00 TCSD instructor earnings 441.60 2,281.60 77959 07/11/2002 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refshmnts: GTE mtg 81.06 81.06 77960 07111/2002 005079 CENTURION CAPITAL MGMT, L Refund: Security Deposit 100.00 Refund: Security deposit 5.00 105.00 77961 07111/2002 003047 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHooL.P Band Transportation to parade 250.00 250.00 77962 07111/2002 001193 COMP U SA INC 17 - 256MB RAM:lnfo Sys 1,135.69 1,135.69 77963 07111/2002 004811 COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPOR Computer equip for inf sys 575.39 575.39 77964 07111/2002 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS & Deposit for Summer Concert Series 500.00 500.00 77965 07/11/2002 004250 CUSTOM GATE Annual svcs:Gate Operators 310.00 310.00 77966 07/11/2002 001009 DB X INC Replace Trffc loops:Front St @ R.C. 4,060.00 4,060.00 77967 07111/2002 005083 DE LUZ RANCHOS ASSOC. Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 77968 07111/2002 005089 DENTON, RONNA Refund: Security Deposit 100.00 100.00 77969 07111/2002 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles: PW 736.42 Fuel for city vehicles:TCSD 694.14 Fuel for city vehicles:Planning 402.79 Fuel for city vehicles: PW 355.38 Fuel for city vehicles:B&S 161.67 Fuel for city vehicles: PW 118.73 Fuel for city vehicles: PW 65.47 2,534.60 77970 07/11/2002 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERYICES Hansen, D temp help w/e 06114 2,503.42 2,503.42 77971 07111/2002 005093 EAGLE'S PEAK CHARTER SCH Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 07/1112002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77972 0711112002 000161 EDEN SYSTEMS INC Inforum gold upgrade:software support 3,091.03 Inforum gold upgrade:Data Conversio 1,875.00 Inforum gold upgrade:Exp Reimb 1,158.14 Inforum geld upgrade:P~t mgmt 625.00 Inforum gold upgrade:P~t Mgmt 500.00 Inforum gold upgrade:Exp Reimb 339.50 Inforum gold upgrade:P~t Mgmt 281.25 Inforum gold upgrade:expense reimb 266.50 Inforum gold upgrade:forms setup 250.00 Inforum gold upgrade:Data Conversio 187.50 Inforum gold upgrade:data conversion 62.50 8,636.42 77973 07/11/2002 005086 ESTRADA, HORTENCIA Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 77974 07/11/2002 001056 EXCELLANOSCAPE June Jdscp impr:ViIlages 11,780.00 June Idscp impr:Duck Pond 10,100.00 June Idscp impr:Winchester Creek 5,078.23 June Idscp impr: Sam Hicks Park 3,056.20 June Idscp impr:Winchester Creek 2,597.37 June Idscp impr:Winchester Creek 2,405.64 June Idscp impr:Nada Lane Channel 1,500.00 June Idscp repairs:Winchester Creek 752.91 June Idscp impr:Corte 611.80 June Idscp impr:Temeku Hills Park 525.00 June Idscp impr:Temeku Hills 525.00 June Idscp impr: Nicolas Rd Prk 500.00 June Idscp impr: Old Twn Strscp 316.80 June Idscp impr:Tuscany Ridge 175.00 June Idscp impr:Veterans Parks 90.00 June Idscp impr:Ridgeview 70.00 40,083.95 77975 0711112002 000478 FAST SIGNS Signs for SMART prgm 958.05 958.05 77976 07111/2002 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 218.41 Express mail services 175.04 393.45 77977 07111/2002 002832 FENCE BUILDERS Install Fencing @ R.Calif sport prk 2,564.00 2,584.00 77978 07/11/2002 003347 FI RST BANKCARD CENTER xx-6165 Yates: Lobby/Prof Mtgs 1,217.00 xx-1405 Ubnoske: conf expenses 381.32 xx-0432 Elmo:Schlffmayer Plastic 69.21 xx-1143 Parker:Daves & Busters 30.00 1,697.53 77979 07111/2002 005097 FIRTH, ALISON Refund: Parent & Me swim lessons 22.00 22.00 77980 07111/2002 004178 FREEDOM SIGNS Sign prgm:San Diego Co. Credit Unio 1,505.00 1,505.00 77981 07111/2002 005094 GALLAGHER, IRMA Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/1112002 2:55:25PM City 01 Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77982 07111/2002 005087 GETTY, DEBORAH Refund: Security depos~ 100.00 100.00 77983 07111/2002 005050 GONZALEZ, MANUAL, S. Performance:chalk art event 100.00 100.00 77984 07/11/2002 000711 GRAPHICS UNLIMITED L1THOG Cut pre-printed covers to 8.5 x 11 122.84 122.84 77985 07/11/2002 005081 GRIDIRON, CURTIS Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 77986 07111/2002 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS City/Chamber tourism CD 5,000.00 5,000.00 77987 07111/2002 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies. Parks 2,711.26 Hardware supplies. Smart Prgm 446.83 Hardware supplies - PW St Mntc 438.23 Hardware supplies - eRe 372.40 Hardware supplies. Recreation Suppl 368.45 Hardware supplies. Childrens Museu 299.29 Hardware supplies -Aquatics 128.97 Hardware supplies - Bdlg & Safety 118.42 Hardware supplies. Inf sys 113.83 Hardware supplies - Old Twn PW 108.92 Hardware supplies - City Hail/eRe 79.40 Hardware supplies - Mnte Fae 29.62 Hardware supplies - Museum 5.27 5,220.69 77988 07/11/2002 005098 HANNA, BILL Refund: Level 2 swim lessons 22.00 22.00 77989 07111/2002 005077 HARRIS, TYCINE M Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 77990 07/11/2002 004946 HEADLINER BARBERSHOP FO Entertainment:Tem Jazz Festival 5/11 400.00 400.00 77991 07/11/2002 002906 HEMET FENCE COMPANY Res Impr Prgm:Kinsley, Frank 2,305.00 2,305.00 77992 07/11/2002 001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & AS Contract svcs:2nd Qtr 2,823.92 Contract svcs 15t atr 2,739.87 5,563.79 77993 07111/2002 005076 IGLESIA BAUTISTA DEL VALLE I Refund: En9 dept 28839 Pujol St. 995.00 995.00 77994 07/11/2002 004911 IMBSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Feasibility Study: Pedestrian Crossing 9,996.29 9,996.29 77995 07/11/2002 002166 INGRAM ELECTRIC Vail Ranch: Install 5 alee meters for 19,600.00 19,600.00 77996 07/11/2002 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H Employee assistance prgm 570.57 570.57 77997 07111/2002 005092 JOHNSON, OEBRA BURROWS Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 77998 07/11/2002 005091 JULIAN CHARTER SCHOOL Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 07/1112002 2:55:25PM City olTemecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 77999 07111/2002 003046 KFROG95.1 FMRADIO Radio broadcasting:Street Painting 384.00 384.00 78000 07111/2002 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES Temp help w/e 06123 Harrington 1,080.00 1,080.00 78001 07111/2002 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIAT Consulting svcs:Welty Bldg Rehad 3,275.17 Consulting svcs:CBH analysis 2,631.93 5,907.10 78002 07111/2002 005099 KHOYI, SHAHRZAD Refund: Level 1 swim lessons 25.00 25.00 78003 07/11/2002 000206 KINKOS INC Stationery paper/mise supplies 248.70 248.70 78004 07/11/2002 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC Mise pool supplies - eRe 94.46 Mise pool supplies - ere 38.00 132.46 78005 07111/2002 004122 KRUEGER, KIMBERLEE Reimb:lmage Cast training:6125-27 61.50 61.50 78006 07111/2002 001719 L PAINe Doc revisions for State library Grant 10,599.34 10,599.34 78007 07/11/2002 005084 LABONTE, WILLIAM Relund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 78008 07111/2002 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD instructor earnings 400.00 TCSD instructor earnings 234.00 TCSD instructor eamings 172.00 leSD instructor earnings 156.00 962.00 78009 07/11/2002 000586 LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDE Tern City Code web formatting svcs 117.70 Muni Code book eovers:City Clerk 35.20 152.90 78010 07111/2002 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMOR May legal svcs: TE060 JCF 6,723.39 May legal svcs:TEO~3-012 JCF 1,033.20 7,756.59 78011 07/11/2002 002634 L1TELlNES INC Lighting for duck pond 452.55 Lighting for duck pond 350.19 802.74 78012 07111/2002 000213 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMIS longtin's Calif land Use Book 99.76 99.76 78013 07111/2002 005090 LOS RANCHITOS HOME, OWNE Refund: Security deposit 100.00 100.00 78014 07111/2002 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS Street signs replacement prgm 825.37 Street sign replacement prgm 609.00 1,434.37 78015 07111/2002 004141 MAINTEX INC Custodial Supplies:Var Parks 384.21 Custodial Supplies:Sr Ctr 312.30 Custodial Supplies:Maint Fae 312.30 Custodial Supplies:Sr etr 226.92 Custodial Supplies:Maint Fac 173.46 Custodial Supplias:City Hall 148.18 Custodial Supplies:City Hall 126.71 Custodial Supplies:Museum 108.07 Custodial Supplies:City Hall 85.38 1,877.53 78016 07111/2002 005106 MANGASER, LUZ Refund:swim lessons 25.00 25.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/1112002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 78017 07/11/2002 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER Savage,S temp help w/e 05/12 972.48 Debitunder billed for Savage 3.63 976.11 78018 07111/2002 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN Referee svcs:Adult Soltballleagues 3,550.00 3,550.00 78019 07/11/2002 002693 MATROS, ANDREA leSO instructor earnings 211.20 211.20 78020 07111/2002 001924 MAXIMUS Financial consulting svcs:lnvestment 9,554.00 Financial consulting svcs:lnvestment 4,646.00 14,200.00 78021 07111/2002 005114 MCCARTHY,CATHY EE computer pgrm 2,000.00 Reimb:Cal & Pacific oonf:4/3-6 70.36 2,070.36 78022 07/11/2002 005108 MEOOR, FRITZ Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00 78023 07111/2002 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Envelopes:B&S Dept. 250.11 Business ards:Basquez,Cohen,Gaskin 171.32 Business Cards:Salazar, S 42.83 464.26 78024 07/11/2002 000230 MUNIFINANCIAl TCSD public hearing notices mailings 1,169.78 1,169.78 78025 07/11/2002 005088 NEAL, LAUREN Refund:Security Deposll 100.00 100.00 78026 07/11/2002 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City vehicle repairs: PW 597.81 City vehicle repairs: PW 516.75 City vehicle repairs: PW 234.19 Labor:Vehicle Repair 228.67 Labor:Vehicle Repair 133.46 Vehicle repairs:tune-up & parts 99-045 101.98 City vehicle repairs: PW 24.87 Vehicle repairs:oil & filter 02-075 22.42 Vehicle repairs:oil & filter 96-028 19.19 DebitSales tax was billed incorrectly 1.01 CreditSales tax is incorrect -3.53 1,876.82 78027 07111/2002 003762 P M X MEDICAL Paramedic supplies 2,975.74 Paramedic supplies:MSB4 498.32 Paramedic supplies:MS84 367.n 3,841.83 78028 07111/2002 004852 PACIFIC PROFilES GROUP Prof consultant sves for staff 1,500.00 1,500.00 78029 07/11/2002 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA IN Supplies:special events 56.44 Mise supplies:4th July float 30.95 87.39 78030 07/11/2002 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPAN New Tires:Tractor 531.74 Heavy equipment rental:Tractor 105.75 Heavy equipment tire replacement 95.55 733.04 78031 07/11/2002 005113 PEOPLES, KRISTIN Refund:swim lessons 25.00 25.00 78032 07/11/2002 000249 PETTY CASH Petty cash reimbursement 654.15 Petty cash reimbursement 46.74 700.89 78033 07/11/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN May ad:Oixieland Fest. 2,354.24 2,354.24 PageS ------- --- apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 07/11/2002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 78034 07/11/2002 004627 PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOlOGIE Radio rental:4th July 294.76 294.76 78035 07/11/2002 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS INC Sam Hicks/Museum prk sign 2,855.38 2,855.38 78036 07/11/2002 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Phase II Design:CHS Pool 1,575.63 1,575.63 78037 07/11/2002 002612 RADIO SHACK INC Phone Parts:lnfo Sys 2.42 2.42 78038 07/11/2002 003761 RANCHO METALS & SUPPLY Steel Parts:Var Parks 15.09 15.09 78039 07/11/2002 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATI Equipment rental:PW Mntc 700.79 700.79 78040 07/1112002 000266 RIGHlWAY Equip rental. Great Race Event 1,148.53 Jun/Jul equip rental - rivert 70.89 1,219.42 78041 07/1112002 005112 RIYADENEIRA, MELINDA Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00 78042 07/11/2002 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP 04l4-5/01/02:lawenforcement 579,148.84 FY 01/02-:field train:new deputy 24,870.40 604,019.24 78043 07/11/2002 005119 ROCKHURST COllEGE Criticism & Discipline wkshp:Hazen 195.00 195.00 78044 07/11/2002 005111 RUDISill, COLETTE Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00 78045 07/11/2002 005107 RUSSELL, ELIZABETH Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00 78046 07/11/2002 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Mise craft supplies:smart pgrm 49.54 Mise craft supplies:Day Camp 47.46 97.00 78047 07/11/2002 001942 S C SIGNS Install public notice sign 455.00 455.00 78048 07/11/2002 001288 SAN DIEGO BUSINESS JOURNA Subscription:Eco Dev 89.00 89.00 78049 07/11/2002 005102 SANCHEZ,NANCY Refund:Music for toddlers 31.00 31.00 78050 07/11/2002 005100 SCHAFER OEVElOPMENT GRO Refund:Permit Overpayment 75.00 75.00 78051 07/11/2002 004562 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING COR Plan check svces: fire 1,500.00 1,500.00 78052 07/11/2002 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA Pool and spa svcs:TES Pool 824.80 824.80 78053 07/11/2002 004609 SHREDFORCE INC Document shred srvc:Jun 17 228.50 228.50 Page:;, apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 07111/2002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Tolal 78054 07111/2002 000537 SO CALIF EDISON July 2-02-351-5281 Rancho Visla 7,234.02 July 2-05-791-8807 Various Meters 3,439.81 Jun 2-02-502-8077 maint fac 1,908.00 July 2-10-331-2153 Pujol St. 1,205.69 July 2-22-417-8772 Rancho Vista Rd 952.15 July 2-19-683-3255 Front St Ped 642.85 June 2-19-683-3263 Front St 398.35 Jun 2-23-365-5992 Overland 392.68 Jun 2-22-575-0876 Front St 266.88 Jun 2-19-538-2262 Various Mtrs 141.79 Jun 2-19-171-6668 wed. chapel 93.78 July 2-20-798-3248 Child Museum 85.59 Jun 2-18-528-9980 Santiago Rd 50.51 2-23-548-1975 Various Meters 30.06 July 2-23-051-9399 Margarita Ped 15.78 16,857.94 78055 07/11/2002 005078 SORIA, ANDREW Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 100.00 78056 07/11/2002 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTRC Pest Control Srvcs:City Hall 56.00 Pest Control Srvcs:Museum 42.00 Pest Control Srvcs:TCC 36.00 Pest Control Srvcs:Chapel 32.00 Pest Control Srvcs:PD Caboose 29.00 195.00 78057 07/11/2002 005082 SOUTHWESTERN RIVERSIDE C Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 100.00 78058 07/11/2002 005110 SOWADSKI, LINDA Refund:swim lessons 22.00 22.00 78059 07/11/2002 005104 SPENCER, CINDY Refund:day camp 305.00 305.00 78060 07/11/2002 000574 SUPERTONER lase~et maintfinance 171.32 171.32 78061 07/11/2002 000305 TARGET STORE Mise supplles:smart pgrm 683.34 Mise supplies:day camp 41.97 725.31 78062 07/11/2002 005085 TEMECULA CITY BALLET COMP Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 100.00 78063 07/1 1/2002 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL sunshine fund 104.41 104.41 78064 07111/2002 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL Motorcycle repair/maintPD kawasaki 102.40 102.40 78065 07/11/2002 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN Sports award trophies 90.80 Emp Badges:Lawrence/Camberos 14.01 Sports award trophy 11.85 Name tag for Eric Week 7.00 123.46 78066 07/11/2002 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY, Deadbolt Lock:CRC 19.40 Duplicate Keys:Maint Facility 16.81 36.21 78067 07/11/2002 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNiFIED S Vehicle repairs for PW Mnte Division 2,945.75 Refund:Security Deposit 100.00 3,045.75 Pagel! apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 07/t 112002 2:55:25PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 78068 07111/2002 005118 THURSTON, GWEN Reimb:CPRS conf:413-6102 129.43 129.43 78069 07111/2002 000668 TIMMY 0 PRODUCTIONS INC OJ for 4th July 11,500.00 11,500.00 78070 07111/2002 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS Mise office supplies: PW Admin 387.34 387.34 78071 07/11/2002 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE I Beacon replacement on Backhoe 180.48 180.48 78072 07/11/2002 004895 TUMBLES, J.W. TCSD instructor earnings 129.80 TCSO instructor earning 129.80 TCSD instructor earning 129.80 388.80 78073 07/1112002 002065 UNISOURCE Paper Supplies:City Hall 943.89 943.89 78074 07/11/2002 004846 UNITED GREEN MARK INC Vail Ranch Irrigation Equip Upgrade 5,928.41 5,928.41 78075 07/11/2002 005080 VALLE, JOSE JUAN Refund:Security Deposit 85.00 Refund:Securlty Deposit 15.00 100.00 78076 07/11/2002 005109 VANDER EB, LISA Refund:swim lessons 27.00 27.00 78077 07/11/2002 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA Jun xxx-5029 general usage 677.54 Jun xxx-1408 PO Satellite Stn:Old Tw 413.94 Jun xxx-5840 general usage 213.80 Jun xxx-5780 general usage 212.90 Jun xxx-5509 general usage 146.12 Jun xxx-9897 general usage 89.57 Jun xxx-2629 general usage 75.59 Jun xxx-1289 general usage 40.01 Jun xxx-0049 general usage 31.59 Jun xxx-273O general usage 28.76 Jun xxx-2670 general usage 28.67 1,958.59 78078 07/11/2002 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Jun access-crc phone line 343.30 Jun access-rvsd co phone line 268.20 611.50 78079 07/11/2002 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES I Telecommunication srvcs:IS 1,245.87 1,245.87 78080 07/11/2002 001890 VORTEX DOORS Doors repairs & installat 1,398.76 1,398.76 78081 0711112002 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC Tree trimming services 1,650.80 Tree trimming services 414.50 2,065.10 78082 07/11/2002 005101 WOODSIDE HOMES-PASEO 0 Refund:Overpayment of Fees 72.00 72.00 78083 07/11/2002 003807 XPECT FIRST AID First aid supplies:smart pgnn 1,910.41 1,910.41 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 1,128,450.34 Page:9 apChkLst 07/11/2002 2:55:25PM Final Check List City of Temecula Page: 10 147 checks In this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,128,450.34 Page:10 ITEM 4 - . CITY DIR. CITY APPROVAL4E ATTORNEY OF FINANC MANAGER '" CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Manager/City Council y(~ Genie Roberts, Director of Finan~ ~ JUlyf2002 City Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy TO: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: Polly von Richter, Management Assistant III ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy as proposed by staff which provides safety, liquidity and yield for City funds. DISCUSSION: The California legislature has passed legislation imposing a State-mandated local program requiring the treasurer or chief fiscal officer to render an annual statement of investment policy to the legislative body of the local agency and to render a quarterly report containing specified information regarding investments and deposits to the chief executive officer and the legislative body of the local agency. The attached Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy conforms with the requirements and guidelines established by the California Municipal Treasurer's Association and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. The City of Temecula currently invests primarily in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). This investment is consistent with the City's investment policy that prioritizes safety and liquidity over yield. It is prohibited by state code from investing in certain derivative products such as inverse floaters. LAIF investment policy also puts constraints on the use of reverse repurchase agreements. Government Code Section 16429.3 states that "money placed with the State Treasurer for deposit in LAIF by cities, counties, or special districts shall not be subject to impoundment or seizure by any state official or state agency." Investment in LAIF remains a viable option for the City, however, in order to generate a maximum amount of investment income within the parameters of prudent risk management, the City's investment portfolio should reflect greater diversity. A proactive effort at managing investments will result in greater returns while preserving our principal objective of protecting the City's treasury. The attached investment policy reflects the following changes from the previous policy adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2001: . Introduces a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire for use in identifying qualified dealers. . Allows investment authority to be delegated to qualified officials and/or employees. . Cites the prudent investor standard as defined in the Government Code. . Requires City Manager approval for use of non-primary dealers. . Includes the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and other United States agency obligations with maturities of five years or less as authorized investments. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS Proposed Investment Policy 1 CITY OF TEMECULA Investment Policy I INTRODUCTION: I The intent of this Investment Policy is to establish the limits within which the City's Investment Program shall be conducted. Investment goals and objectives are defined. Authorized investments and reporting requirements are identified. The City's Broker/Dealer Questionnaire is included. The monies entrusted to the City Treasurer will be referred to as the "Fund" throughout the remainder of this document. I OBJECTIVES: I The investment policies and practices of the City of Temecula are based upon State law and prudent money management. The primary goals of these policies include: 1. To orotect the orincioal monies entrusted to this office. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City of Temecula. Each investment transaction shall seek to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether from securities default, broker-dealer default, or erosion of market value. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating the two types of risk: credit risk and market risk. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing only with issuers whose financial strength and reputation can be verified to be the highest as rated by nationally known rating agencies, and by diversifying the investment portfolio so that the failure of anyone issuer would not unduly harm the City's cash flow. Market risk, the risk of market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general level of interest rates, shall be mitigated by (a) structuring the portfolio so that securities mature earlier than or concurrent with the timing of major cash outflows, thus eliminating the need to sell securities prior to their maturity; (b) prohibiting the use of leverage and margin accounts; and (c) prohibiting the taking of short positions - that is, selling securities which the City does not own. It is explicitly recognized herein, however, that in a diversified portfolio, occasional measured losses are inevitable, and must be considered within the context of the overall investment return. 2. To orovlde sufficient IiGuiditvto meet normal ooeratinG and unexoected exoenditures. The portfolio will be structured with sufficient liquidity to allow the City to meet expected cash requirements. This will be accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands. Since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio will maintain a liquidity buffer and invest primarily in securities with active secondary and resale markets. 3. To assure comoliance with all Federal. State. and Local laws GoverninG the Investment of monies under the control of the City Treasurer. The legal basis for the City's investment activities is the City of Temecula Municipal Code, Chapter 3.04, Revenue and Finance, Fiscal Provisions Generally and Government Code Sections 53600 to 53609 and 53630 to 53686, which include parameters for authorized investments, report of investments and investment authority. Da\lic:.o~' II .1\1 ?rlrl? ICity of Temecula INVESTMENT POLICY Page 21 4. To Qenerate a maximum amount of investment income within the parameters of prudent risk manaaement and consistent with the above policies, The City's investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on three- month U.S. Treasury bills. Whenever possible, and consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment retums above the market average rate of return. The policy will also address risk management because it is such an integral part of the investment policy. To concentrate only on maximizing return would be dangerous. Therefore, policy issues will be directed to: 1) limiting the Fund's exposure to each issue and issuer of debt, and 2) determining a minimum credit requirement that firms must have in order to hold City rnoney. I SCOPE: This investment policy applies to all funds under the control of the City Treasurer, including but not limited to the general fund, special revenue funds, enterprise funds, debt service funds, capital improvement funds, trust funds and proceeds of bonds sale in the custody of the Treasurer and any other funds under his control. California Government Code Section 53601 (1) permits money from bond proceeds, obligations under a lease, installment sales or other agreements to be invested in any security that meets the statutory provisions governing the issuance of the bond or other agreements made by the issuing agency. I INVESTMENT AUTHORITY: I The City of Temecula Municipal Code delegates to the City Treasurer the authority to invest and reinvest moneys of the city, to sell or exchange securities, and to deposit them and provide for their safekeeping. The City Treasurer is responsible for daily management of the investment program, including: 0/ Establishing procedures for operation consistent with the investment policy. 0/ Approving daily investment transactions. 0/ Developing projections of the City's cash requirements for operating needs. 0/ Reviewing the liquidity position of the investment portfolio. 0/ Ensuring that the City's cash position is consistent with operating requirements. 0/ Preparing appropriate investment reports. 0/ Developing, implementing and monitoring controls over investments. 0/ Developing record keeping for investment transactions. The City Treasurer may delegate investment authority to qualified and competent officials and City employees such as the Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, or Revenue Manager. All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees of the public funds and therefore fiduciaries subject to the following prudent investor standard as defined in California Government Code Section 53600.3: When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with O""..:.........l. 1..1" '1/"\nl") ICity of Temecula INVESTMENT POLICY Page 31 like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law. I SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES: I To protect against potential losses by collapse of indiYidual securities dealers, all securities owned by the City, including collateral on repurchase agreements, shall be held in safekeeping by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and by the City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment procedures (i.e., the City's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security after the security has been properly delivered). This section is intended to comply with Government Code 53635. I REPORTING: I The City Treasurer shall render a monthly report to the City Manager and City Council showing the type of investment, issuing institution, selling institution, date of maturity, par and dollar amount of deposit, current market value for all securities, return on the City's investment portfolio expressed as an annual percentage rate, yield to maturity, cash flow information demonstrating that the City can meet its upcoming financial obligations, and such data as may be required by the City Council. The report shall also state its relationship to this statement of investment policy, as directed under the Code. The Treasurer shall annually submit a recommended updated Investment Policy to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The City's investment reporting policy meets or exceeds the requirements of Section 53646 of the California Government Code. I QUALIFIED DEALERS: I The City shall transact investments only with banks, savings and loans, investment security dealers and the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund. The dealers must be primary dealers regularly reporting to the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Exceptions to this rule will be made only after thorough research and documented confirmation of financial strength and reputation and after approval by the City Manager. Investment staff shall investigate dealers who wish to do business with the City in order to detenmine if they are adequately capitalized, market securities appropriate to the City's needs, and are recommended by managers of portfolios similar to the City's. The City's Broker/Dealer Questionnaire (Attachment A) will be used in this investigation. The City shall at least annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved to do business with the City. Confirmation of receipt of this policy shall be considered as evidence that the dealer understands the City's investment policies, and intends to show the City only appropriate investments. Revised: July, 2002 ICity of Temecula INVESTMENT POLICY Page ~ I AUTHQRIZEDINVESTMENTS: I Investments shall be made in the context of the "prudent inyestor" rule, which states: "Inyestments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." The City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, as further limited herein: United States Treasury Bills. Bonds. and Notes. or those for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledQed for pavment of principal and interest. There is no limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio that can be invested in this category. Maturity is not to exceed the projected dates of the City's cash needs or five years, whichever is less. ObliQations issued bv the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFCB). the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLB). the Federal Home Loan MortQaQe Corporation (FHLMCl. the Federal National MortQaQe Association (FNMA). and other United States aQencv obliQations with maturities of five vears or less. Although there is no percentage limitation on the dollar amount that can be invested in these issues, the "prudent investor" rule shall apply for a single agency name. Maturity is not to exceed the projected dates of the City's cash needs or five years, whichever is less. Bills of exchanQe or time drafts drawn on and accepted bv a commercial bank. otherwise known as banker's acceptances. Banker's acceptances purchased may not exceed 180 days to maturity or 40% of the market value of the portfolio. No more than 10% of the market value of the portfolio may be invested in banker's acceptances issued by any one bank. Commercial paper ranked "P1" bv Moodv's Investor Services and "A1 +" bv Standard and Poor's, and issued bv a domestic corporation havinQ assets in excess of $500.000.000 and havinQ an "A" or better ratinQ on its 10nQ.term debentures as provided bv Moodv's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 15% of the market value of the portfolio. No more than 10% of the market value of the portfolio may be invested in commercial paper issued by anyone corporation. The City may invest in no more than 10% of a single corporation. The City may invest in no more than 10% of a single corporation's commercial paper. Maturity is not to exceed 180 days. NeQotiable certificates of deposit issued bv nationallv or state-chartered banks or state or federal savinQs and loan associations. Negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs) differ from other certificates of deposit by their deposit liquidity. They are issued against funds deposited for specified periods of time and earn specified or variable rates of interest. NCDs are traded actively in secondary markets. When feasible, an independent trading service will be used as part of the evaluation process. Issuers must be rated "B" or better by Thomson Bank Watch or equivalent rating service, or rated A-1 for deposits by Standard & Poors, or P-1 for deposits by Moodys or comparably rated by a national rating agency. Transactions in NCDs shall not collectively exceed 30% of the total portfolio in effect immediately after any such investment is made. Revised: Julv. 2002 ICity of Temecula INVESTMENT POLICY Page 51 Repurchase Aareements. The City may invest in repurchase agreements with banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase agreement which specifies terms and conditions of repurchase agreements. Transactions shall be limited to the primary dealers and the top banking institutions according to the rating agency based on liquidity, profitability, and financial strength. The maturity of repurchase agreements shall not exceed 30 days. The market value of securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall be monitored daily by the investment staff and will not be allowed to fall below 102% of the value of the repurchase agreement plus the value of collateral in excess of the value of the repurchase agreement. In order to conform with provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provide for the liquidation of securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements, the only securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of deposit, eligible bankers' acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of, or that are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency of the United States. No more than 50% of the portfolio may be invested in repurchase agreements, and a "perfected security interest" shall always be maintained in the securities subject to a repurchase agreement. Local Aaencv Investment Fund. The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the maximum permitted by State law. Time Deposits. The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code, in those banks and savings and loan associations that meet the requirements for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit. Since time deposits are not liquid, no more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. The issuer firm should have been in existence for at least five years. The City may waive the first $100,000 of collateral security for such deposits if the institution is insured pursuant to federal law. In order to secure the uninsured portions of such deposits, an institution shall maintain at least 10% in excess of the total amount deposited. Real estate mortgages may not be accepted as collateral. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year. In general, the issuer must have a minimum 6% net worth to assets ratioorthe minimum ratio established by the Comptroller of the Currency. The issuer's operation must have been profitable during their last reporting period. Monev Market Funds. The City may inyest in money market funds that invest solely in U.S. Treasuries, obligations of the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations. To be eligible, companies selling money market funds must have an investment advisor with not less than five years experience and that is registered with the SEC, has the highest ranking available as evaluated by a nationally recognized rating service, and with assets in excess of $500 million. This list of authorized investments is intended to apply to the investment of all operating and surplus funds. The investment of bond proceeds shall be governed by the permitted investments as specified in the official statement for each bond issue. I INELIGIBLE INVESTMENTS: I Investments not described herein, including, but not limited to, reverse repurchase agreements, mutual funds, zero coupon bonds, inverse floaters, mortgage backed securities, common stocks and corporate notes and bonds are prohibited from use in the City's investment portfolio. Revised: July, 2002 ICity of Temecula INVESTMENT POLICY Page 61 I SWAPPING OF SECURITIES: I A swap is the movement from one security to another and may be done for a variety of reasons, such as to increase yield, lengthen or shorten maturities, to take a profit, orto increase investment quality. The purchase transaction and the sale transaction must each be recorded separately and any losses or gains on the sale must be recorded. I PORTFOLIO ADJUSTMENTS: Should an investment percentage-of-portfolio limitation be exceeded due to an incident such as fluctuation in portfolio size, the affected securities may be held to maturity to avoid losses. When no loss is indicated, the Treasurer shall consider reconstructing the portfolio basing his or her decision, in part, on the expected length of time the portfolio will be unbalanced. I POLICY REVIEW: This investment policy shall be reviewed at least annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. The City Council shall be responsible for maintaining guidance over this investment policy to ensure that the City can adapt readily to changing market conditions, and shall approve any modification to the investment policy prior to implementation. I ETHICS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST: I Officers and employees inyolyed in the inyestment process shall refrain from personal business activity that conflicts with the proper execution of the investment program or impairs their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Additionally, officers and staff involved in the investment of public funds are required to annually file a Fair Political Practices Commission Statement of Economic Interest form. Revised: Julv. 2002 CITY OF TEMECULA Broker/Dealer Questionnaire ~~___-~_ _ ~ ==___ l:;rJ~{;~ '1:"-~12?' -'(~I_J --- ___ _ _] Firm Name: Address: Phone No: ( Firm is (select one): CJ Broker CJ Dealer -- -- '-~--'---~--'~-'------- ~ T;;,~m'G((;!f'l2f;1,it:,IT@. "'0 ',' . ~_~~__~~~.:L Sales Representative: Title: Phone No: ( Supervising Representative: Title: Phone No: ( ) _~rJF~~___L.~_~'~J YES NO Is your firm a primary dealer in U.S. Government securities? D D If yes, for how long? Are the following instruments regularly offered by your firm? T-Bills D D T-NotesIBonds . D D Banker's Acceptances (Domestic) D D Banker's Acceptances (Foreign) D D Commercial Paper D D Certificates of Deposit D D Medium Term Notes D D Mutual Funds (eligible for public Investment) D 0 Agencies (please specify) D D Have any of your firm's public sector clients sustained a loss on a securities transaction arising from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the risk characteristics of a financial instrument that was recommended by and purchased through your firm? (If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D Have any of your firm's public sector clients claimed, in writing, that your firm was responsible for any investment losses? (If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D Has your firm been subject to any litigation, arbitration or regulatory proceedings, either pending, adjudicated or settled, that involved allegations of improper, fraudulent, disreputable or unfair activities related to the sale of securities or to the purchase of securities from institutional clients? (If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D Has your firm been subject to a regulatory, state or federal agency investigation for alleged improper, fraudulent, disreputable, or unfair activities related to the purchase or sale of securities? (If yes, please explain on a separate sheet.) D D What Is the net capitalization of your firm? What are your wire and delivery Instructions? Please identify all personnel who will be trading with or quoting levels to the City of Temecula: NAME: TITLE: PHONE: # YRS WI FIRM Do each of the above individuals currently hold valid licenses to trade securities on behalf of the Institution? YES o NO o Please Identify your most closely comparable governmental local agency clients In our geographical area: AGENCY: CONTACT: PHONE: # YRS CLIENT I hereby certify that I have personally read the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and the California Government Codes pertaining to the investments of the City of Temecula, and have implemented reasonable procedures and a system of controls designed to preclude imprudent investment activities arising out of transactions conducted between our firm and the City of Temecula's investment objectives, strategies and risk constraints whenever we are so advised. We pledge to exercise due diligence in informing the City Treasurer staff of all foreseeable risks associated with financial transactions conducted with our firm. We further pledge not to offer the City of Temecula any types of securities not authorized by both the City of Temec;ula's Investment Policy and California Law. I attest to the accuracy of our responses to your questionnaire. Additionally, all sales personnel will be routinely informed of your investment objectives, horizon, outlook, strategies, and risk constraints whenever we are so advised. We will notify you Immediately by telephone and In writing in the event of material adverse change in our financial condition. The supervising officer agrees to exercise due diligence in monitoring the activities of other officers and subordinate staff members engaged in transaction with the City of Temecula. SIGNED: PRINTED NAME: TITLE: '- DATED: This section must be countersign, ld by the Managing Director or by the most senior person in charge of the government secu rities operations sections. SIGNED: PRINTED NAME: TITLE: DATED: ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager~ July 23, 2002 DATE: SUBJECT: Consideration of Cost-Sharing Agreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) for Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) for Consulting Services in the matter of the Application of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Valley-Rainbow 500 KV Interconnect Project, in an amount not-to-exceed $25,000. BACKGROUND: Both the City of Temecula and SSRC have formally intervened in the hearings regarding the Valley-Rainbow Transmission Line as proposed by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE). The City and SSRC have many common goals in this matter, and have previously entered into an agreement for cost-sharing of certain expert witness costs. The initial hearing phase of this project has concluded and there is now a need for further work to present the City and SSRC's position to various State officials and agencies as the decision- making phase proceeds. The attached agreement provides for SSRC to retain consulting services and to share those costs with the City of Temecula, as well as the City of Murrieta and possibly others. The agreement provides that the City of Temecula will pay up to $25,000 for these services, and will make payments after Murrieta and possibly others have contributed to this effort. Staff recommends approval of the attached agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: Approyal of the attached agreement will require an expenditure of up to $25,000. Funds are currently available in the City's Operating Budget (Department 130-City Attorney) for this expenditure, however it is anticipated that an adjustment of $25,000 may be needed in the Mid-Year Budget review to cover these costs. ATTACHMENT: Agreement with SSRC R:\Ogradyj\SDG&E Transmission Line\Agreemenl with SSRC Agenda Report, 7-23-o2.doc COST -SHARING AGREEMENT This Cost-Sharing Agreement dated this _ day of , 2002 (this "Agreement"), is entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and Save Southwest Riverside County, a non-profit organization ("SSRC"). All or one of the parties to this Agreement are referred to herein as "Party", or collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City and SSRC are "Intervenors" in the matter of the Application of San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E") (U 902-E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") for the Valley-Rainbow 500 kV Interconnect Project (the "Project") before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (the "Proceedings"); WHEREAS, the Parties have already entered into a Joint Prosecution, Cost-Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement, dated on or about February 12, 2002, with respect to the opposition of the Project in the Proceedings; WHEREAS, acknowledging that the Joint Prosecution, Cost-Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, the Parties also wish to obtain consulting services to assist the Parties' opposition to the Project at various administrative levels and agencies of the State of California ("Consulting Services") ; WHEREAS, SSRC has agreed to retain such Consulting Services, and other cities have pledged to assist in retention of such Consulting Services; WHEREAS, the City and SSRC acknowledge at the time of entering into this Agreement, that the Parties' interests are mutually aligned in opposing the Project, and thus, wish to coordinate their efforts to oppose the Project in a cost- effective manner; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties hereby agree to the following cost-sharing agreement: 1. Maximum Contribution Amount. The City agrees to pay up to a maximum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) towards such Consulting Services. 2. Sequence of Contribution Payment. The payment for the Consulting Services will be sequenced to reflect contributions from other Cities as follows: the City of Temecula will commence payment after (1) an initial payment - 1 - by the City of Murrieta of fifty -two thousand dollars ($52,000), and a contribution of the City of Hemet, if any. After such payments, Temecula and Murrieta shall pay for the balance, if any, of such Consulting Services on a matching, i.e., dollar- for-dollar basis, up to the maximum contribution amount set forth in Section 1 hereof. 3. Protocol For Payment. SSRC, through its Counsel of Record in the Proceedings, shall forward a copy of billing invoices for such Consulting Services to the City's counsel of record in the Proceedings. The billing invoices shall reflect the total amount of the fees and costs incurred, and a calculation of amount due and owing by the City pursuant to the sequencing and share provisions in this Agreement. The City, through its Counsel of Record in the Proceedings, will then remit said amount to the consultant providing such Consulting Services. 4. Entire AQreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties, and all prior negotiations and understandings, whether oral or written, between the Parties, have been merged herein. 5. AQreement BindinQ on Others. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure the benefit of the respective officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors, and assigns, as applicable, of each of the Parties. 6. Other Documentation. The Parties agree to execute such other documents, if any, as are necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement. 7, Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. 8. Arms-LenQth Transaction. This Agreement is a product of arms- length negotiations. Thus, none of the Parties can claim any ambiguities to any term of the Agreement should be construed against any of the other Parties to this Agreement. This Agreement is also entered into without prejudice or precedential value and is not intended to be, nor shall it be used as evidence, or in any other manner, in any court or dispute resolution proceeding regarding any other claims between the Parties, if any. 9. GoverninQ Law. This Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. 10. Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of any term or provision of this Agreement shall be construed to be, or shall be, a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement, No waiver shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the Party waiving the breach. - 2 - 11. Headinos. The various headings of the paragraphs of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. 12. No Assionment. The Parties hereto, and each of them, represent and warrant that there has been no assignment, encumbrance, hypothecation or other transfer of any interest in any of the claims released under this Agreement. 13. Separate Counsel. Each of the Parties represents and warrants to each other Party hereto that it has had an opportunity to receive independent legal advice from attorneys of its own choosing with respect to the legal effect of this Agreement, and further represents and warrants that it has carefully reviewed this entire Agreement and that each and every term thereof is understood and that the terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been signed by the Parties as shown below. Dated: ,2002 THE CITY OF TEMECULA By: Dated: _, 2002 SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY By: - 3 - ITEM 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Council Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services & TO: DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Sister City Monument Dedication In Honor of September 11 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Temecula Duck Pond as the permanent installation location of our Sister City monument "Singing In The Rain" to commemorate the tragedies of September 11, 2001. BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the year our Sister City, Leidschendam- Voorburg, the Netherlands, has led a community wide fundraising effort to fund a statue that would be donated to the City of Temecula to commemorate the United States tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001. The fund raising effort has been well received by the residents of Leidschendam-Voorburg, and several thousand dollars have been raised towards this effort. Our Sister City residents share in the grief and tragedy that occurred in New York on September 11, 2001. Our Sister City envisions this monument being installed in a prominent location in Temecula for our residents to view. Our Sister City has commissioned a local Voorburg artist, Franz Kokshoorn, to replicate one of his existing works of art, a bronze statue entitled "Singing In The Rain", to be constructed and installed here in Temecula. The statue depicts a mother and her two children riding a bike through heavy wind and rain. Our Sister City feels this symbolizes America the American spirit to continue and press on in good spirit, even in the face of tragedy. The artist Franz Kokshoorn and a Voorburg representative Jan Kok, visited Temecula on June 28 and 29, 2002 and looked at various locations throughoutthe City as potential sites for the installation of this monument. Mayor Ron Roberts, members of City staff and members of the press accompanied the visiting representatives. At the conclusion of the day, the artist and Mayor Roberts had selected the southeast corner of the Temecula Duck Pond walkway as the most appropriate place for installation of this monument. It was felt that this location is highly visible within the City and lends itself to visitation by pedestrians at the Temecula Duck Pond and provides an excellent environment for contemplation. The installation of the monument would include the construction of a concrete pad approximately 10 x 10, lighting, a small retaining wall, landscape irrigation modification, trees and shrubs, a seat wall and the installation of a bronze plaque. It is staffs intent to have the statue, plaque and all construction completed before September 11, 2002 and a small program is being planned for R:IZIGLERG\REPORTl072402 CC September 11 Monument.doc dedication of the monument on 9/11/2002. FISCAL YEAR: It is estimated that the costfor installation of the monumentto include concrete work, irrigation modifications, replanting, lighting, and the installation of the bronze plaque will cost $28,000. Appropriate funding has been budgeted in the TCSD operating budget. R:\ZIGLERGIREPORTl072402 CC September 11 Monument.doc ;..~ ,>I,,:~ r,-~:J-;-'~;;~ ~~~-~~":- . -." ~, . -. . .~. - ,rt. "\""lJ;)~pe\r. ' l~, I'~--:- . ,. , , ~ Ad Crlremets. . .' , . c" .J-' ,;." ",r '. r' ,-, . 'From: ~EliSabetCr!lemel'S" -TQ:" ;' "AdCr~rrlers'!<aet:r~~rT!@'tern.ecula.cO[i1>, , Senti"... ..MoJi(lay,'Mafch 18,2()02'tO,!l5',PM " ,'. ,Subj8ct:,lranslalion '. . ': . . -' . . Here is the.traiJSiaiio!l of the aiticll:in:th~S oorb,lIl'gpaPer:' ..' . .,: ,,-. ~.. .', ~,' ", ,., , ,,_', ,', ",_ _',>", ,',' __",' "':,''1:, .' Whe!1we iNnk back to Septe!nberof1~ Year ,all o{ inm1edi~ttilYcthinlC'6f 'tJ1e 11thazl(ithel!igllimesflyiDgipto the thp W<?dd ~e(lenteriIJ..;N~Vv' , 'York:. ..... .: . \:." ....... ;,o'..... .;;..;'....';.'.... .., "'--~,-- ' ':. ,~' "0.,,' . --~'. :,___~~. .- ,.., ,"". . ,. , I , . . '. Th~.iJ:tereffeCCl"oftliistenibledeejiarestiUfe1tuiinanYpartofthe...' . .' tJs:fhi~{s ~sothe case, fuoursister city Temecula. To show ,our frienasin: '. . ,Tt:lUeCwa.thatwe care,.w~!ta,ves~d.ac!lIIlJl<li~toc9UeCte!\olJgb..'ffioney 'to' 'offerolll'siSter,ciiYa$tUe<..' ....... . .....: ......; ,'... we aie'askilig,thePeople ofYoorblitg.to setld ~m eur6's;~:oUl"fUnd: ,.': " ..- ,~ . ~ .,,',./.- . , ~" -,,' ,', ~ , ,^' ,'" .. -, ' ,,':' "" -' ..' ,- " This initiative'Was takeii'by our former mayor BasJ;:imhoorn, Ios.Tigges and JanK.ok. J;he last tWo are part of the Wotkgroup T~,in.ecu1a)il\\Oorburg.. . ~,_ ',:. ~ . < ,_: _.' ~__': _ -' , , '^~';., _::_~",,__.;<,~ _~' _,>',<.~_1, =~'. _e. ~':. ': .~..~-> " ,": _.:', '-'f~"',,") ;__w' ; " '__'* i_ "p:veiytin:i.evv~'haye ~ llgI'Oup.o.(VisitOrSfrO$.teiiiecj1ill,thf:Y~VearWaYS i . ' 'sl1own great iI1!eresfiI(our stiltdes which canoe fojln'd1l119verVoorburg. ; : " . Fora long'tim!:l;,~r~ep:n;we triedtpcome ~p,with.somc;ltliing.to ~ow '. '. oursj~~r cjt)ipUr l:o}i1~sion, V!ekrto'iV- thR! $e SePIl, tJ;agedies havehi4s . r.. I, ','~so,l!hilnpa&tQIiOlJf sisteri:ity;,- ManY,nili~perSODn~r,te~i5!esw' :; , /: . , : ,:' ["eineCulliian,4,llieSetnilitarypetsons,are'-nqw',away5roin.honi~,!0:help > .~ :', . prevent furtliertrligedies,'; . . . . . '.. .' .>; ;: i.' i ~ pi; " ~ . . Thirt';s why we contactedFrai1s,Ko~hoomand iiskedlilil1'ifheWas WilliIigto . . . '-~eanexaCt ctipy 'ofthestatuethatis;,placed,owtheJnlilVlast!"eethe~ in.~; ";0. ;< "YQorb~g;,This.i-sJbe one caned:"sw.gwgil1tJieJilinn'and.hasveiY~peciljt, - .,' ",syt!1PO!ic wellllitig :It,sl1q,,,,;a;iI1oth.~r lID.d2',clill.~ll.bit.~b~!'1ln'~~ fllil1": .' " .. .ThtOlighthe.tain ilnil, the lleayYnead:wmd'shekeepsongoipg !md'nothingcan' .stopher.This is also 'tljecase w..AI1iericalpldinTeinecu1.a; they !p"e. w,odcing togethe~., @d lJ!'e;going strong. even tliJ'oughablld rnin!in4a heaV}>headwing, " '. }Ne.are.trying,toshow.WjthtAis (jur,comp/lfisjQua:0.4;olJfppdetObe: '. , "as'socjated With Tem~ula. / . . .' ,_ ..' ':., ',I'" : ' . · The 'Way weare Collecting these. monies are.twofoldl'otir formerrnliyor;and .. . .... hono~citiZerionemecu1.aMr. J;lasEenhoorh, will try toget.c<irporate . . spopsors. , . ""{~' . .. -,' , '. .: .' ,'. . Se,condj.y.we. are ~g, the,citizens of Voorburg.to send us 9. n Eur6''( for ' . _.~ . ._ . ? < !1 ~ . ' Sep.;i1.2001 ~ ,!e feel',thqt it ii'l very iptp6rtairt we'9ff~r tljis ~e to , : ; "Tem~ul!lfjofn. ALL ofthecitize,nofVporburg. The; ideaisto'fu1vethis ", ': . project completedlitld deHveredby or:op Sep.l nOp2..' . . '" ... .':.," Thenwe alsoiJ,ave a pric;eilttiwl1~ to @~ C8qIpaign. When som.e oo;e!iepos!t. sOme mQney totJri~ special acCOUJit,he'or;Shewill re<;eive .allllIiiis(;ll\ The..:,'.;;" wjl)ni\r. Will~ive ~ tick.etto; /i:oto'Ternecula,t() be,part ot:the coIIl!Iiittee: ,;'. .' ';whOWilfbring .the stlitueto thepeopleof:Temeciila: We ,hl\ve.andv.ilrbelievl: . Stiongly that All citizeIiwill plu'ticipate;intbiscollectioll, ...' . , , i f I I i , I \., , j', , r~ , -; .ftCkt~ at SkM'. ~,..Je m e~S1~:2W:f ~~; Crrj '. ,'~ . .~ , ". ~ ~ -.< ' " 7', _,_ '-', " , "",'" -fi 3/~9i20Q2 , '-':i:: :'~.'.,~L' n",. <.i<'~)-."" ." "\'"'T'--~' '>',~ "'~41;. 'f . . ;';j~~i~: ". -'. ',. I _;~,~Z,r~ ' At m SlIIIIfDI , , , , " ..' VI_1Y"-'~' ". .'r -:- '..', '_, ' , ',' " '. ~ "', - " '~, .'.." . .' · >: .... ............ . "'N".'~.':";\' .. .. ' . ..',," "'.. " '.: ~.' .:":-' ~,I~~:' ',. ,'0'" '. ~ - ;;.....~ I "f'" ..-...,",: .' ~ " -. - . .. n" R ANC H ;0 " ',j"-'" ..iI!", '.,,: ,.,~.~ .,<.'. ".:,,, '~' ,.. t "t, ,,' '/ . 'P0i4o " ., .. "-;, ',-';':'. ". '.~ . . :' ~', " ~I .'" ':< , .. " . r:~ ",1:,'" ;. '<oC- ~! ;-. .-i\.':;'.-. . '" .'. ,,~:.~ .J. . ~},.'.,' "':!!...':V" :-;',;'~ : :t,',:,t_~.:.;./~:/:;~~.'~~.. "<r;' .' ~ ';'r';-: ")' ".,.:. ;"':',,-,,; , "':-.,', " ,cJ' '. f ..... ITEM 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: City Manager/City Council ~~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 30178, Located on the East Side of Orsmby Road and North of Santiago Road. PREPARED BY: t/ Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Reza James, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City council approve 1) Parcel Map 30178 in conformance with the conditions of approval. 2) Subdivision Improvement Agreement 3) Subdivision Monument agreement and Accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument bond as security for the agreements. BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2002 the Director of Planning for the City of Temecula approved Tentative Parcel Map 30178 subject to the conditions of approval. The Developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval for recordation of the parcel map. The site is currently vacant and being graded. Parcel Map No. 30178 is a (2) parcel residential subdivision of 2.35 net acres located on the east side of Orsmby Road and north of Santiago Road. The final map is in conformance with the approved tentative map. The approval of a final subdivision map, which substantially complies with the previously approved tentative map, is a mandatory ministerial act under the State law. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No alternatives were considered FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Parcel Map No. 30178 3. Development Fee check list 4. Fees and securities report R:\Agenda Report\2002\0723\PM 30178 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 30178 DATE: JULY 23,2002 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY SECURITY Street and drainage $ 43,360.00 $ 43,360.00 Water $ $ Sewer $ $ TOTAL $ 43,360.00 $ 43,360.00 Monument $ 2,000. - DEVELOPMENT FEES City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs $ 0.00 RCFCD (ADP) Fee $ N/A Development Impact Fee $ TBD SERVICE FEES Planning Fee $ 56.00 Comprehensive Transportation Plan $ 4.00 Plan Check Fee $ 790.00 Monument Inspection Fee $ 250.00 Fees Paid to Date $ 1100.00 Balance of Fees Due $ 0.00 2 R:\Agenda Report\2002\0723\PM 30178 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. PARCEL MAP 30178 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. FEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Development hnpact Fee to be paid prior to issuance of occupancy Quimby Fee N/A 3 R:\Agenda Report\2002\0723\PM 30178 PARCEL MAP 30178 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. ~ ~ . , ;; ~ i i ~ I ! i ~ I; ~! ~ I~ ~ . ~ - ~ .1 ~~ ~ ~ lLffi ... ... .0: :<d !i ~ ~ , . . , . <i. z ~cx:l 3l'- l!5 ....-4 ~O tnC":) ~ ~ ~.. ;; =1 ~ a, . .go ~i ~ ~~ -" ~~ ~~ ..< i: l!5~ " ~ ~ ~I~ .......:l ~h ~~ ~~~ ~u ~q ~~ ;:~(I) ~ < ~~ ~ u~ 'l' ~ ! w c 13 i? ~::l...g. a~a~ ..tlU~ ...~~:;; .....a......I . ~,c~l:i ~.. ~~!! v ~ . ~ ~ I . d ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~ i~ e. ~~ . ~s ~ !~ c ~ ~. . (I~ ~... . ~;@i 1Ili=!i _ ",g ~~l!i i~~;~ ~~~ 'f-~ ~~~ ~~~e~ "In: ~~~~~ ~~!f z~... . ~~; ~;~~~~ )-~... 15........~...~ z:di. 1oJ~i!'g~- ~i'8 ~~3~.~ .Ii!~ ~ .~;~~ !i ~~ !~~...~~ ~ g~ ~~I'~. C~~ -3~. ~~o -,i..~~"" ez~~ :r~! ~ ~-,. ~~!.~g G.)-!;l!i: :z:- 0 l'- ...~ ~ ~~ ~...l'- f~~~ ;:~ ~i: ~ . ~ ~~l'-j :a-o~-, U1~~u C !o;:;:iIi... ~~...i:~15 i;;:;:~ ~&:o~~.: ~c;;i ~al::;:o j!;~~~ _g;:!i~~ ~!~~i ~ l!;;~..l~... - ~ffi15~ffi ~ ~~'~ffiJ' . ~f~":~ ~ Ul~~~; ~ ~, ." 8 ~!~~ffi .. ~ ~~ @~l;l ... e~~~~e I !i::i~~~~ ~ CiioUl:;l~ 5 a~~2~~ N : ...a:15......';f 0 ~~c~i~ ~ )- .~:c!U1- ~~ -In lr;!!i!t3~ . ~Ul~51~~ t~il!5;:;! lI!...~lI'I~:: ~." !;:!0"'~1Il~ ~ -~li~15~ 0 o ~8wlt :~ ~,~ si!;:~e~ i~1il-l~ H' .g .... - ~~~~ ~~:;li~C -Q.!5S~ ....~i:a-~ i ...iiio...... i5e:dl!5l1'1 ...~c;~. lI~...~...i e--t!c o~z~ ~.~~~~ ~~'!~~ ~ l!;;~"'lI'Ig'" ~~~...-! ~ ~i~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ rw;~w~ ~)-~...~:. ~ ! a: :::I ca:"'1l..l0 ...c~.1I.. "'Ir!::;:cw c ~~d!W~ gG... ~~~ i ... c~:;~..~i:~ul)~ ~ ~iv.!~ffi;: ,!~~~i~~ ...~a:~:::I _~~~ II:!~ g ~~~~lfi~ "'g'~&~:~ ii~~~~~~;S~ ~ ,~..~o ..~' ..~.-. ~"s~~.. i !;:~~...tii... z '" ...c "'-W':I:-'" 0,", ~ :Z:(II (II~(II~~~ ~~~~~;~ ~__"'~1Il i-~iN-~ ~ ~~~~zl!5 8~G;a:~(II ~ ...(11......_... ..._lL.....l(ll ~ :z: "'<II:Z: c uet:... ,:::I'" w~~~i~ ~~iOi;~ ~ ~ ~ . t . . ~ ~s :22 , u!7 "N' -:~ " ~~ l:~ ~~ "... ...z ~ b~ . ,~ " .. ~ ~ j;:~~~~ -"'lL "'IS ~ZI/Jl!;;-z ~!~~~~ <Ill'- _Z g........... ~... ~~..:;~ .. l!;;~ .;i!Oci <~ ~i~~~~~,,; ~~ ~~il!5iffi~~ ~~ !!:E~ui~~~ ~ ~i~i~~!: ~ o eGos'" 5li!iii;Sll!"'~ ~ ~~~~ti~~i .. )-e-e~j!:~o !::!;et: ..!-i:;: lrt3l!;;..jn:a-...1Il ~~~E~~i~ ~~!i"'IlI(11~:;: ~~8ti~~a:i~ ~ !t1ll~><<II l!- c: -~...~~l!;; :< g . t::E 3e .. Jif .~ ~> ~ . . . , ~~ . ~ ~ ~ iS~I'i"l!;;i ~~iii~ ~ _. . .~C i"l:ioG-:a- ~il~~@~ ~...-,ii1:Q.~t3 D'lao...ao...Sa: ;;l?~~~.~ ...... Q.~...... ~~~ ~~~ c.~ ..,,~ l;;gi:~8:.:!~ ~~~g':~~ lii~~i~!;:D'I i~~lf~; 8... ...:::Ia:S1 ....Ii.. ~lilj:.~~~i j!i~"'ClU'" iffiS~~ii :~!~:l~ '" i-i......... i!:15:Ct;!!i...;;: ~~~ ~EE c Q-(IIC tiitD~~:.~~t ~Slt;le-~! ...z:t...tcu- et:_<II_"'_ ~~",......~!;: _/:jj!:~i!:,a: . .. <~ ~i ~~ $ uu ~ . . -!i:c,. (II':5~ l!i!uC . ~. ... ...~~~ gig~ I.~- .-~ .0. o ~ ~ . ~ ~ i~ . ~ . t ~ ~~~ .~~ ~!l~ S~~ ~ . . . _ -)-3'- ~~~H~~ lii~!i!i~1Il e~~~~~ C ......- ......C ... N ::I",OCg g 15 "'ll<'" N ...~~el(a j~~~~\:1 zu~~~... i -0 .'~ ' !::!~lui~j: !i ~ffi~~~~ <II ~~~i~~ ! ... ...zg; i .0'" ~ ';Ii~~ I ~ . ~ offi.~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~!e~...g ~... &i..l~~~8 l3 ~ ~ ~~e~iii~ ~ ~ .I.~~ - - ~lL m ~ Q. ...!II: e~c ~ '" '" ~~~Hi~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~e:e' ~ [ ! ...et:et:-""'i ~ ~~lt~!z !i !i ~ . . ~ ~ , ~ ~ " ~~ . ~ ~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~~i ~t; !::"'~it ~~c" ui~", ~,~~ ~~~~ O(......lj!: t;~i~ ~ ,~~ GU-~ w~5ti . Qu-........ ... 0...0 ~ri~~!i ..~ j ...e (II... v"'&l:"'(II ....!l!)- Ill.,...li::... ~ l!;;a:- ~~~~~ - -(II"'i!: ~~ll.j:-. .., d~u... gg~~~ m~~ ~ ~ . . ~ ;, ~ w . w -. . .' <,.) ISffi ~~~i .~. ~ici~ ~~~i !.1iiti... ggl:'l~ i=~o ~~~I ~~!~. f5_......~ ~i~j!:... f~&!l!;;~ ~l5.'~ .:;: ~ 1Itt3l!i ~~~1II0 cz .- j!:_)-"'c zg~":; ~c8:;j... ;;~~ie :~...!~ et:...o-o ...-' ~~ ~~~~o -0((11 ... ~llm i5~~g: z...iil....- ~ ~ o ~ . ~ i . i'l .~ , ;c .. o .~ i~ -:~ .~ o ~~ o . ~ e ~ . C~ ~:i~~ g':...i... ... :r_~ w,., to,=, ~o~ilo( z...... ~ iii:::el!5~ e....~ib ~~~~. 3_t3. .c~ ... oa:lLCc -. . ~~~~~ u~15"'!;: ~ c~ eiii~ ~~~;lS i!~!i~: !!i...- ... lL~~~"',.: ~ei~~~ zS15...?;:lL ~~i~~~ 0"'- ...... .....5l:;:0~ 't!2{'S.t!... ~~c~ij~ ~~~~t!l;; ->... ...... ~o~~~~ ;:~~......~ ~~-~~. ~ ~ <i. ~ cx:l . 3 ~ f'- ~~ 0 ~....-4 i~ ~ ~ 0 .~1i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ lja in f"'\ =~ ~~ ;i! ..< i~ ~::s i; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i! ~ .. U ~.~ C sll. I- : I'V ;;~~ 0........ ?:... If) 1:< In u ~ :;:. < w_ . ~ ~ ~ 6 alii i u ~::l 1Il ~. ~ ~~ II E~ .....::> <l( ;I;.: z ~ ~ ~~o ~ .. " gS~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_u D . ~;i ~ :~ fS ._ " ~6 ~ ::::~:;: l3 ..,Ilo .lfi ~..._ .... ...:1 'I' ~~~ ~ 5t; ~ i~~ Q gg .- -ClO ~ zit - i . 0 ~ e .. .~ ~ C ~~~ j!:~~ ~.~ ~~~ 6~~ 8~!:! ~i::i "66 .-1 ~;;2 6~-~ . . ffi ~ ,~, I~~ "~. z:...l) i....N ~~~ ." ~~;:: i~ ~<; ~< ~' ffi~ .. -0 ~~ ~2 :::lil &~ ~u .. 3~ c. !t~ ~. ~~ .- f~ 6 ! ~~I t ~l!l!! E . Vi.... ~e ~~i . i\ . - ~ .- I'.' ., . 5t:l ~;~ _w )l.... ~~ ~~i3 I mi ~~~~ . ~ <; N z '" ~ Ol to 0 a N ". ! 0.. "' <: ". Ol :l: ~ -J UJ al '" rr :;;; <: 0: 0.. ~ uj :1 '" ~ rr ~~ <: "' 0.. ~~ ~::: " :1 pto..I'l'lO':lS _:tl :! .~ "' d- ."- . ~::: PARG~L MAP 13'188 p.M.B. 81/83-84 pARG~L 1 No (16,"4 ." 11~.80') N -J UJ '" rr <: 0.. Nii ;l:l ..,5 e;j; ..~ ~ :; .. : NOTli'03'"",104.81' . ;; . . .41 ~ ~ II S . U19.7O' 23'i'i.1ll'l132-215') "A" R 0 AD ((; (M OT47'1rt.. o R M S B Y P. M. 8. 21/61-67 pARG~L 8 P ARC~ MAP 8607 ~ ~~~~ ilol~:: ".~ m:~;::ci' ;:~[!il ~~..~ a n. ... a:~ . - N -J Ul '" '" 4: 0.. ~ ;;\ ,; ~ -J Ul '" . '" 4: n. ~ " g~~ , -. z ~I:l ..,~ :~ ~ I~' 2'; .~" S" ::::1;:0 -;~~ ::g -~~ cn~"'1- ;:.....:ll'l "- -< ::1i ~ Z UlIj -' >, . ~; !!~ ~~ I .. ~~~ ,~. i~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ . ~~~~ ~ 8~~~ ~ 8 :;;!~fS~ ~ z...~ti I:i~ ~20;~ ...3uj!: ~ :1 .. -S ~.! ~.. ~~ :1 -. !!" i!~ Ol IDOl ID'" ro' ~tO '" n.~ 4:" ~" -JID lU ",' ",:l: ~o: <5 3 .....A.. ~~o~ G1"'~~ d...~lll ~~.~ ~ti; ...../LCD ~z:'1'! ~~~; ~olll~ ...,.. (M OT"7'1e" w ..90. , . ~; .. -I o 4: o a:: o CJ 4: I- Z 4: (/) 0' i~1!: 2'; dS-!l ~~<5 ._il ~~g ~~2 ~~~ ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council ~.p1william G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 DATE: SUBJECT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Agency for Construction and Funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No. PW01-20 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of Temecula (City) and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula for construction and funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No. PW01-20. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report. BACKGROUND: The City's Capital Improvement Program includes improvements for the Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater). This Improvement is located within the Project Area of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Project Area 1988-1. The RDA's planning also calls for this Project to be funded by the RDA. The Community Redevelopment Law, a Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes and encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the planning, undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b) specifically authorizes such cooperative agreements allowing a city and a redevelopment agency to assist each other in the construction and installation of parks, playgrounds, community, and educational facilities. The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 specifically authorizes the expenditure of RDA funds on Community facilities within or benefiting the Project Area. Completion of this Project will promote the goals of the redevelopment, as it will complete community improvements as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program and in the Redevelopment Plan. The Project will also induce private investment in and promote expansion of the commercial areas which will provide additional employment opportunities within the Project Area. The attached "Cooperative Agreement" between the City and the RDA for construction and funding of improvements to Mercantile Building (Community Theater); Project No. PW01-20 will implement the funding plans of the City and the RDA. R\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmt0121 CC.doc FISCAL IMPACT: The Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater) project is funded through RDA Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A total of $287,500.00 has been budgeted for the seismic retrofit reinforcement in Administration Account No. 210-190-183-5801 and Construction Account No. 210-190-183-5804. ATTACHMENT: Cooperative Agreement R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmI0121 CC.doc 2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCANTILE BUILDING SEISMIC RETROFIT (COMMUNITY THEATER) - PROJECT NO. PWOl-20 TillS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT made and effective as of July 23,2002 by and between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Redevelopment Agency ofthe City ofTemecula, a public body, corporate and politic ("Agency"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: I. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each party finds and determines to be true and correct: a. The Community Redevelopment Law at Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes and encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the planning, undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b) and (c) specifically authorize such cooperative agreements between a city and a redevelopment agency to assist each other in the restoration and safety enhancement of historically significant buildings intended for public use within the Project Area. b. The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 specifically authorizes the expenditure of Agency funds on building rehabilitation within or benefiting the Project Area. c. The Old Town Temecula Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater), Project No. PWOI-20 is a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and is located within the Project Area of Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1. d. Completion of the Project will benefit the Project Area and will assist in the elimination of blight within the Project Area as it will restore and enhance public safety of a historically significant building intended for public use, Community Theater, as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program and in the Redevelopment Plan. The Project will induce private investment in the commercial area, and promote expansion of employment opportunities within the commercial areas within the Project Area. e. No other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the community. 2. The City and the Agency agree to cooperate and share responsibility for the design and construction of the Project in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement. 3. The City shall undertake the following responsibilities with respect to the Project: a. prepare necessary bid documents for the Project; b. solicit bids and award construction contracts for the Project; and c. administer the construction contracts. 4. The Agency shall pay for all Project costs, except for such costs as the City is obligated to pay R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPW01-20CSD TheaterlMercantileRDACOOP.doc pursuant to this Agreement. The Agency shall, however, reimburse City for its payments made for the value of the City services provided. 5. The City Manager, upon the recommendation of the Director of Finance, shall determine the allocation of costs between the City and Agency pursuant to this Agreement and his or her determination shall be final. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Agency Secretary Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey/Agency General Counsel R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPW01-20CSD TheaterlMercantileRDACOOP.doc 2 ITEM 9 " - ... APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Manager/City Council 1fl4 William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Annual Professional Services Agreements for Real Estate Appraisal Services for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2002-2003 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Laura Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve an agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; and 2. Approve an agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide as needed real estate appraisal services; and 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. BACKGROUND: There are various projects described in the approved Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007 that will require real estate appraisal services. The attached agreements are to provide as needed services and these services will be utilized on projects that are approved in the Capital Improvement Program or for special projects that come up through out the year. Once the annual agreement is executed, each service request will be negotiated separately and may contain some or all of the following services: . Research and/or review Title Reports. . Prepare necessary surveys and identify existing right-of-ways. . Prepare description of properties including, but not limited to, present use, zoning, shape contour and elevations, utilities, etc. . Prepare necessary legal descriptions, exhibits and any other miscellaneous services for acquisition purposes. . Provide assistance to the City, as necessary, to acquire right-of-way, preparation of easement documents, permission to enter/grade letters, etc. . Appraise properties for the purpose of estimating market value and provide appraisal reports. The actual number of projects and costs are not known at this time. Payment will be based upon actual time spent on tasks as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. An accumulative not to exceed limit of $30,000 has been set for each Agreement. R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT Appraisal.AGR.DOC FISCAL IMPACT: The Consultant will submit a cost proposal for each service request. Once a scope of service and a schedule offees are negotiated, funds are allocated from the corresponding project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agreement with Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal 2. Agreement with Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 2 R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAL CONTRACT Appraisal.AGR,DQC CITY OF TEMECULA ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July23, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal, ("Consultant"). In consideration ofthe mutual covenants and conditions setforth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for Real Estate Appraisal Services on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. When there is a need for Real Estate Appraisal Services on an as needed services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the associated fees are negotiated. 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 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 T emecula. 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 City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and 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 tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($30,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 1 r:lagnntslmasterslannual conlract2002.03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work in excess of the amount above shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 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, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 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 City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shilll provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and 2 r:lagnntslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained fora period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. 3 r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accidentfor bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4 r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-Q3\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceotability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 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 any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 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 City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 5 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-031ajp b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (Ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal 41919 Moreno Road, Suite A Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Robert S. Perdue, MAl 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree thatthe laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govem the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 6 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. 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 contractor/consultant 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 9commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 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. 7 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal 41919 Moreno Rd, Suite A Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6904 Robert S. Perdue, MAl By: Name: Title: (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:lagrmtslmaslerslannual oontract2002-03\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED AND PAYMENT RATES 9 r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-Q3\perdue appraisal FY02-03lajp ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL 41919 Moreno Road, Suite A, Temecnla, CA 92590 Serving The Inland Empire Appraisal Consultants to Government, Financiul, Legal and Agricultural Industries May 23, 2002 Mr. Amer Attar, P.E., MBA Senior Engineer-Capital Projects City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: RFQ - Public Works Department ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES Various-CIP Projects Approved for FY 2002-2003 Dear Mr. Attar: Thank you for considering ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL for the Temecula Annual Contract for Appraisal Services. Pursuant to your request, we are including specific information relative to the appraisal qualifications of ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL. I have responded to each question under "General Requirements" in a question-by- question format. Please contact me directly if you require additional information. Sincerely, ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL 0(o~'(\ py~-- Robert S. Perdue, MAl RSP:lkm RESPONSES TO GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. (1) A brief description of the consulting jirm, (2) organization structure, (3) location of principal offices, (4) number of professional personnel, and (5) other pertinent information, including the names of all staff members who will work on the project. (1) ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL is based in Temecula and is the largest real estate valuation firm in Riverside County. The firm specializes in eminent domain for mostly Riverside County municipalities. (2) ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL IS a sole proprietorship owned by Robert Shea Perdue. (3) ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL 41919 Moreno Road, Suite A Temecula, CA 92590 Phone: (909) 694-6904 Fax: (909) 694-6964 (4) Five full time; six part time (5) Robert Shea Perdue Mark Routh Beverly Ortega Lori Miller Richard Russell Vincent Disanza Brenda Greengard 2. The name and relevant experience of the principal or project manager in thejirm who will have direct and continued responsibility for the project. This person will be the City's contact on all matters dealing with the project and will handle all day-to-day activities through to completion. Robert Shea Perdue directs litigation, eminent domain and agricultural appraisals, office operations, professional ethics and quality control. Mr. Perdue has a breadth of knowledge in agricultural, special use, eminent domain and litigation valuation. As a 43-year resident of Inland Southern California, he also has a distinct familiarity with the local market. Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 1 Mr. Perdue obtained a Bachelor of Science degree from San Diego State University and has completed post-graduate work in Real Estate Appraisal and Demographics. He maintains a California Real Estate Brokers license, has been awarded the MAl designation from the Appraisal Institute, is the past president of International Right-of-Way Association and is an active member of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Mr. Perdue's qualifications are attached. Please contact Bob Perdue, the owner, on all matters dealing with this contract and any projects which result from this contract. His phone number is (909) 694-6904. 3. The names of any outside consultants and/or sub-contractors to be utilized, including a brief description of their role on the project, and an organizational chart. None anticipated. 4. The consultant's understanding of the purpose of the annual agreement and the proposed approach to do the work. Real estate appraisal services. 5. A detailed list of the items of work to be performed by the consultant. STANDARD APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION AND SUMMARY Cover Letter Certificate of Appraiser Summary of Conclusions Narrative Report: Item I - Owner Item 2 - Address (or location) of Subject Property Item 3 - Legal Description Item 4 - Delineation of Title Item 5 - Purpose of Appraisal and Function Item 6 - Summary of Appraisal Problems (and Scope) Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 2 DESCRIPTION 1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2. Neighborhood Location and Description 3. Description of Subject Property A. Present Use B. Accessibility and Road Frontages C. Land Contour and Elevations D. Land Area E. Land Shape F. Utilities G. Present Zoning H. Highest and Best Use of Land if Vacant 1. Improvements J. Specialty Items K. Real Estate Taxes L. Assessments M. Existing Lease or Rental Data N. Highest and Best Use Improved and As Vacant 4. Valuation of Property A. Site Analysis and Evaluation 1. Cost Approach a. Land analysis b. Improvement analysis 2. Sales Comparison Approach a. General Discussion 1) Relationships 2) Sales that are Comparable b. Comparative Analysis c. Correlation and Conclusion by Comparative Approach Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 3 3. Income Approach a. Data b. Analysis c. Correlation and Conclusion by Income Approach 4. Correlation and Final Conclusion B. Approaches to Value I. Cost Approach a. Cost New b. Accrued Depreciation c. Land Value d. Indicated Value by Cost Approach 2. Comparative [Market Data] Approach a. General Discussion I) Relationships 2) Sales that are Comparable b. Comparative Analysis I) Whole Property Comparisons 2) Comparative Units c. Correlation and Conclusion, Comparative [Market Data] Approach 3. Income Approach a. Data b. Analysis c. Correlation and Conclusion, Income Approach C. Correlation of Value Indications from All Approaches The specific process of the consultant's approach to most condemnation projects is as follows; Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 4 Pre-Valuation . Meet with the client to review and discuss project overview. . Review existing or proposed project. . Review CEQA and other reports on proposed or existing project. . Review proposed time frame for project completion as well as intermediate meetings and deadlines. . Review client concerns on proposed acquisitions (relative to property owner's accommodations). . Request a copy oftitle report. . Send letters of introduction to property owners for initial property owner contact. Valuation . Meet with property owner and/or representative to inspect the property and understand the property owners concerns about acquisition and the project's impact on the owner's property. Also, introduce any selected consultants at this meeting for inspection and investigation of a) soils, b) land use potential, c) engineering, d) consideration of water well improvements, e) consideration of agricultural improvements, t) consideration of unusual or non-conforming structural improvements. . Identify real estate, property rights and appraisal problem. . Commence preliminary data survey including complete inspection and verification of all land sales, improved sales (including agricultural improvements), and rental comparables (if applicable). . Proceed with analysis including general data on region, city and neighborhood as well as local and regional economic trends. Proceed with specific data collection on subject property including review of title report, site conditions, building conditions (review public records, building and safety records, assessors data (if permitted) and any other concerns relative to environmental constraints such as endangered species, wetlands, habitat, blueline streams (Department of Fish and Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 5 Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Wildlife etc.), hazardous materials, etc. . Estimate highest and best use as vacant and as improved. . Valuation of the larger parcel relative to the three approaches to value. . Reconciliation of value. . Final estimation of value. . If applicable - analysis and valuation of part to be acquired and consideration of Severance Damages, General and Benefits; writing of report. The standard narrative appraisal report (Limited, Restricted; Complete, Summary or Complete, Self-Contained) will be organized and formatted according to the guidelines of USP AP, Appraisal Institute, California Code of Civil Procedure and Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. 6. Resumes of all prime and sub-consultant personnel that will work on the annual agreement. Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal personnel qualifications attached. 7. Examples of each consultant's recent relevant experience with client references. References - Recent Public Agency and Dairy Clients Mr. Rich Edmond Chief Appraiser County of Orange 300 N. Flower Street PO Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 (714) 834-5070 1996 - Present 1991 - 1994 Valuation Assignments: Eleven dairies, one pig and sheep ranch, two alfalfa ranches, hay lot and truck terminal, cattle auction yard, real estate brokerage office and several large farm parcels. All partial and full acquisitions for flowage easement interests - Prado Dam Project. Contract value - $30,000, $60,000 and $120,000. Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 6 Mr. A. Louis Schnepp, ASA, CRA Appraisal Manager County of San Bernardino 825 E. Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-2774 1990 - Present Valuation Assignments: Full acquisitions by the County of San Bernardino: two horse ranches, parcels of vacant land, eight dairies, four calf ranches, flooding value diminution study and a nudist resort. Contract value approximately $100,000. Mr. Chuck Hale Executive Director So. Cal. Ag. Land Foundation (County of San Bernardino) 13839 Bon View Avenue Chino, CA 91710 (909) 464-0186 1990 - Present 1983 - 1987 Valuation Assignments: Various full acquisition appraisals for dairies, ranches and vacant land. Contract value approximately $90,000. Also completed numerous appraisal assignments for Mr. Hale when he was the Assistant City Manager for the City of Vista (Community Development Director- 1983 to 1987). Assignments included numbered several hundred full and partial acquisitions relative to commercial, industrial and residential properties for street widening, utility easements and floodway channels; single and multiple partial acquisitions. Contract value in excess of$200,000. Ms. Janet Parks Real Properly Agent County of Riverside Department of Building Services 3133 Mission Inn Avenue Riverside, California 92507-4199 (909) 955-9275 1996 - Present Valuation Assignments: Over one dozen eminent domain assignments including Highway 74 (72 parcels) right-of-way project. Contract value approximately $80,000. Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 7 Murrieta Water District 42290 Ivy Murrieta, CA 92562 (909) 677-7667 1995 - Present Valuation Assignments: Easement acquisitions for water transmission lines - partial easement acquisition and full acquisition of well and pump. Assessment District appraisals. Contract value approximately $40,000. Riverside County Flood Control 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501-1719 (909) 788-9965 1996 - Present Valuation Assignments: Commercial site in floodway, industrial lot in flood zone, floodway acquisition through horse ranch and 83 properties in flood plain. Contract value approximately $45,000. Valuation Assignments - Other Clients 1991 - Present -City of Temecula - Redevelopment Agency -City of Murrieta - Engineering Department -Rancho California Water District - Internal Revenue Service -Best, Best & Krieger, LLP -Orange County Water District Please refer to Robert Shea Perdue's Qualifications for additional client listings. Valuation Assignments - Summary Since 1978 have appraised thousand of properties in Southern California for eminent domain acquisition and litigation. Property types range from residential and vacant land to commercial and industrial. Partial acquisitions include street, utility, flood, avigation and conservation easements. 8. Current hilling rate schedule. Appraisals are quoted and billed on a lump sum case-by-case basis. Should additional appraisers' time be required for updated estimates of value, attorney/client conferences, deposition or expert witness testimony, this time will be billed at our standard rates of$150 and $190 per hour, respectively. Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 8 9. The proposal shall be signed by an authorized official o/the consultant firm. 10. The proposal shall be valid/or a minimum o/ninety (90) days. 11. Consultant is obligated to provide evidence o/insurance liability and abide by the City's Risk Management Procedures in accordance with Exhibit "A". Declarations or certificates ofinsurance for our general liability , automobile liability, worker's compensation and professional liability policies are attached. 12. Consultant will maintain required pro/essionallicenses and registration during the life o/the Contract with the City. Robert S. Perdue currently holds the MAl appraisal designation, is a licensed general appraiser and is a licensed real estate broker. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT SHEA PERDUE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL Robert S. Perdue, MAl RSP:lkm Response to RFQ - FY 2002-2003 Page 9 CITY OF TEMECULA ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002.2003 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23,2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for Real Estate Appraisal Services on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. When there is a need for Real Estate Appraisal Services on an as needed services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the associated fees are negotiated. 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 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 atthe City Clerk's office ofTemecula. 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 City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though setforth in full, based upon actual time spent on the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($30,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 1 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work in excess of the amount above shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section. the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions ofthis Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 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 City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and 2 r:lagrmtslmaslerslannual conlrac12002.03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attomey fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. 3 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this projecVlocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03\ajp (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Cons~ltant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 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 any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 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 City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 5 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract20Q2-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03\ajp b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100 Montrose, California 91020-1706 Attention: Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attomey fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 6 r:lagnntslmasterslannual contracl2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03lajp 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of T emecula 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 contractor/consultant 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, orin 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 9commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 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. 7 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03lajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 2609 Honolulu Ave., Suite 100 Montrose, CA 91020-1706 (818) 957-1881 Frances Wolfe Mason, President Frances Wolfe Mason, Secretary/Treasurer (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual conlract2002-Q3\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-Q31ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED 9 r:lagrmtslmaslerslannual conlract2002-03\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-03lajp ) MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100 Montrose, California 91020-1706 Telephone (818) 957-1881 Fax (818) 957-1891 a-mail: fmason@mason2.com Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl David S. Mason, MAl eRE Lisa M. Benson, MAl Vincent G. Maher, MAl eRE Kate C. McWatters, MAl Bradford D. Thompson, MAl Kendall Thurston, MAl Victoria Valentine, RM MRED Robert W. Waters, MAl SR/WA May 28, 2002 ) Mr. Amer Attar, Senior Engineer Ms. Laura E. Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Statement of Qualifications (RFQ) Annual Agreement for Appraisal Services City of Temecula ) DearMr. Attar and Ms. Bragg: Pursuant to your request, we are submitting the following statement of qualifications for real property services. IlItroductioll The firm of Mason & Mason, Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants, established in 1926, conducts an appraisal and consulting business in the general Southern California area. Offices have been maintained in Glendale since April 1, 1957. While the primary geographic area served is Southern California, assignments have been undertaken and completed throughout California and in Arizona and Nevada. The principal office location is as follows: ) . Mason & Mason 2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100 Montrose, California 91020 Phone (818) 957-1881 Fax (818) 957-1891 We have appraised large scale multiple parcel projects, as well as individual properties, and many ofthese have involved redevelopment and urban renewal assignments. Our redevelopment work has included nearly 2,000 parcels for the cities of Arcadia, Ventura, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Santa Monica, Torrance, Port Hueneme, Pasadena, Glendale, and National City. Other recent multiple parcel appraisals have included several hundred acres for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for the proposed Eastside Reservoir, south of Hemet in Riverside County, several hundreds of properties involved in numerous inverse condemnation - noise damage suits for ) Mr. Amer Attar, Senior Engineer Ms. Laura E. Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects City of Temecula May 28, 2002 ., properties within the Ontario Airport area of influence for the Department of Airports, and multiple properties in inverse condemnation damage suits in Big Bear ( airport noise), San Bernardino County. ., In general, our clientele includes many cities, the State of California, and the Federal Government. State agencies include the divisions of Beaches & Parks, Department of Transportation, General Services, Natural Resources, Finance, and Forestry. The cities include Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Palm Desert, Irwindale, Camarillo, San Dimas, EI Monte, and others. Assignments have also been completed for more than 15 school districts in Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura and Orange Counties. ) Among our private clients have been numerous attorneys, individuals and private corporations, such as the Coastal Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corp., Catellus Corp., Seventh Day Adventist Church, Newhall Land & Farming, Crown Zellerbach Co., Honolulu Oil Corp., Nohl Land & Cattle Co., Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Pacific Bay Homes, Standard Oil, Union Oil, Texaco, Minute Maid Corp., Hughes Tool Co., Southern Pacific Transportation Co., as well as many banks, savings & loan institutions, public utilities, insurance and title companies. , The appraisers in this firm are all members of the Appraisal Institute, as follows: . Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl David S. Mason, MAl Lisa M. Benson, MAl Vincent G. Maher, MAl CRE Kate Collins McWatters, MAl SRA . Bradford D. Thompson, MAl . Kendall Thurston, MAl . Victoria L. Valentine, RM . Robert W. Waters, MAl SR/W A . . . . Purpose The firm of Mason & Mason understands that the purpose of the State of Qualifications is to retain appropriate consultant's to perform appraisal services for various projects throughout the year. The requested Statement of Qualifications is for an annual agreement to cover these services on an as needed basis. The following scope of services include the type of activities that may be required. Once the annual agreement is executed, each service will be negotiated separately and may contain some or all of these services, as follows: . Research and/or review title reports; Prepare necessary surveys and identify existing right-of-ways; Prepare description of properties including, but not limited to, present use, zoning, shape, contour, elevations, and utilities, etc.; Prepare necessary legal descriptions, exhibits and any other miscellaneous services for acquisition purposes; . . . MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 2 ) Mr. Amer Attar, Senior Engineer Ms. Laura E. Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects City ofTemecula May 28, 2002 ) . Provide assistance to the City, as necessary, to acquire right-of-way, preparation of easement documents, permission to enter/grade letters, etc.; . And Appraise properties for the purpose of estimating market value and provide appraisal reports. ) Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl is the Managing Partner, and coordinates the project assignments, including primary review capacity. The principal appraisers at Mason & Mason are all members of the Appraisal Institute, and perform individually on assignments, and foml team groups for major projects. Pursuant to the Annual Agreement for Professional Appraisal Services, Mason & Mason will perform assignments, as needed, or on an hourly or not to exceed proposal basis. The as needed apprais:lI assignments will be assigned by Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl to Principal Appraisers based on existing workload, expertise, and ability to perform the required assignment in a timely manner. We have enclosed the following items to better identifY the firm's and individual qualifications for the real estate appraisers/consultants at Mason & Mason; ) . Mason & Mason Organizational Chart Summary of Key Personnel Subcontractors List Individual Appraiser Qualifications Mason & Mason Major Projects List Mason & Mason Client List Mason & Mason 2002 Standard Fee Schedule Insurance Certificate City of Temecula Annual Agreement for Professional Appraisal Services . . . . . . . COllclusioll This Statement of Qualifications is valid for a minimum of 90 days. The individual personnel at Mason & Mason agree to maintain required professional licenses, including required continuing education during the life of the contract with the City of Temecula. The firm of Mason & Mason has provided evidence of insurance liability (see attached), and will abide by the City's Risk Management procedures. We look forward to working with you. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, MASON & MASON Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl Enclosures FWM:cjf MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 3 ) . i ...ORGANI,ZAT10NAL .CHART II MASON & MASON A California Corporation 2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100 Montrose, California 91020-1706 818/957-1881 818/957-1891 fax e-mail: fmason@mason2.com .I FEDERAL !.D. NO. 95-4509544 '. ) MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants Property Management Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl Managing Partner Appraiser Kendall Thurston, MAl USP AP Reviews Principal Appraisers Frances H. Wolfe Mason, MAl David S. Mason, MAl CRE Lisa M. Benson, MAl Vincent G. Maher, MAl eRE Kate Collins-McWatters, MAl SRA Bradford D. Thompson, MAl Kendall Thurston, MAl Victoria L. Valentine, RM MRED Robert W. Waters, MAl SR/W A EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 10 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contrac12002-Q3\Mason & Mason appraisal FY02-031ajp ) MASON & MASON Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants 2609 Honolulu Avenue, Suite 100 Montrose, California 91020-1706 Telephone (818) 957.1881 Fax (818) 957.1891 e-mail: fmason@mason2.com Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl David S. Mason, MAl Lisa M. Benson, MAl Vincent G. Maher, MAl eRE Kate C. McWatters, MAl SRA Bradford O. Thompson, MAl Kendall Thurston, MAl Victoria L. Vaientine, RM, MRED Robert W. Waters, MAl SRlWA ) 2002 STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE Compensation for work performed on a time-and-materials basis will be computed as follows through December 31, 2002: APPRAISAL SERVICES ) . Principal Appraiser . Associate Appraiser . Research $200.00 to $300.00/hour $150.00 to $200.00/hour $65.00 to $100.00/hour EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES ) - Consultation, Deposition, and Court Appearance . Frances Wolfe Mason, MAl . David S. Mason, MAl . Vincent G. Maher, MAl CRE . Lisa M. Benson, MAl . Bradford D. Thompson, MAl . Kate C. McWatters, MAl SRA . Robert W. Waters, MAl, SR/WA . Victoria L. Valentine; RM, MRED $300.00/hour $300.00/hour $225.00 hour $175.00/hour $225.00/hour $225.00/hour $175.00/hour $150.00/hour ) Research Court Exhibit Preparation Minimum Charge for Deposition and Court Appearances $65.00 to $100.00/hour $30.00 to $65.00/hour 4 hours USPAP REVIEWS & COMPLIANCE CONSUL TING ) . Kendall Thurston, MAl $300.00/hour (Retired Director of Screening for Ethics & USPAP- Appraisal Institute) MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ) The following are billed at cost plus 10%: . Subcontractor Services . Blue Printing Services and Printing . Court Exhibits . Long Distance Telephone Calls, Fax, etc. . Commercial Delivery Services . Computer Services . Air Transportation and Travel Expenses . Automobile Travel @ $0.33 per mile Revised 10/01 ITEM 1 0 . APPROVAL t:1~,.. ..-- ~ CITY ATTORNEY 'V DIRECTOR OF FINAN I CITY MANAGER -F- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council ~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 DATE: SUBJECT: Annual Professional Services Agreements for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2002-2003 n PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Laura Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC. in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services; and 2. Approve agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services; and 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. BACKGROUND: There are various projects described in the approved Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007 that will require geotechnical and material testing services. The attached agreements are for two separate annual contracts to provide as needed services; these services will be utilized on projects that are approved in the Capital Improvement Program or for special projects that come up through out the year. Two firms have been selected for annual agreements so that the City is assured that at least one firm will be available when needed. Once the annual agreements are executed, each service request will be negotiated separately with one of the two firms and may contain some or all of the following services: . Subsurface exploration and logs summarizing the conditions encountered . Seismicity . Geotechnical Evaluation and recommendations . Discussion of existing pavement or site conditions . Recommendations for removal of unsuitable material . Soil Ferrous corrosivity and Portland Cement attack potential . Environmental concerns/hazards . Review of available geologic maps and reports for the region . Discussion of the material encountered in the borings and measured engineering properties . Preparation of field and final compaction reports R:\AGENDA REPQRTS\2002\072302\ANNUAL CONTRACT GEOTECH.AGR.DOC . Review of project plans & specifications with emphasis on geotechnical and laboratory materials testing services and attend progress meetings . Observation and Field testing services during all phases of site grading . Field observation and testing during trench backfilling operations . Field density testing during subgrade and base compaction . Field sampling and testing of base and asphalt concrete . All necessary laboratory tests to support field services and to satisfy Caltrans and other regulatory agency requirements . Batch plant inspections . Structure backfill observation and testing . Concrete sampling and testing . Consulting services requiring corrective and/or remedial recommendations The actual number of projects and costs are not known at this time. Payment will be based upon actual time spent on tasks as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. An accumulative not to exceed limit of $60,000 has been set for each Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The Consultant will submit a cost proposal for each service request. Once a scope of service and a schedule of fees are negotiated, funds are allocated from the corresponding project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agreement with EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC. 2. Agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. 2 R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT GEOTECH.AGR.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAUMATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions setforth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for geotechnical/material testing on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. When there is a need for geotechnical/material testing on an as needed services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the associated fees are negotiated. 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 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 T emecula. 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 City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp any travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number of hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00) 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 unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant atthe time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work in excess of the amount above shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions ofthis Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 2 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained fora period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non~wned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3 r:\agrmts\masters\a.nnual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 4 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03fajp (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 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 any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 5 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contracl2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC 41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1 Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Gina L. LeSueur 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 6 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-Q3/ajp 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation conceming this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior. or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral orwritten, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. 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 contractor/consultant 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 9commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 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. 7 r:lagrmlslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT EnGEN Public Works Services, LLC 41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 296-2230 By: Osbjorn Bratene, President By: H. Wayne Baimbridge, CEO/CFO (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:lagrrntslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-Q3/ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED 9 r:lagnntslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp o n n [] n J] I] I] II I] 11 1 ] : I II lJ 11 I j 11 Ii U lJ o n n n n [] 1I I] ;] I] I] I] 1] I] !] I] II U II I' lJ EnGEN Corporation appreciates the opportunity to provide this proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services for the City of Temecula for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. EnGEN Corporation is currently providing services under an annual contract with the City of Temecula for fiscal year 2001-2002. It is our sincere hope to continue to provide these services for fiscal year 2002-2003. This proposal is based on information derived from your Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFQ) dated May 14, 2002. INTRODUCTION EnGEN Corporation is a professional organization specializing in geotechnical soils engineering, geologic evaluation, engineering geology, environmental site assessment, laboratory testing and analyses, and construction materials testing. Our professional staff is comprised of highly qualified Engineers, Geologists and Engineering Technicians whose combined experience provide more than 20 years of specialized earth science and materials engineering services in the Southern California area. EnGEN Corporation's operating philosophy is "Pride in Professionalism". We incorporate the "common sense" approach with technical expertise to accomplish project tasks with the client's best interest in mind. This approach, as well as our reputation as a responsive, well-organized firm has fueled our growth and enabled us to provide excellent customer service. EnGEN's corporate office, located in Temecula, California, houses a state-of-the-art laboratory facility, as well as professional and administrative staff. This office and our office in Santa Ana, California enable us to service both public and private sector clients in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that this contract will consist of various projects that will require geotechnical and/or materials testing services until June, 2003. Each request for services will be negotiated separately based on the services requested. SCOPE OF SERVICES - COMPACTION & LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES The scope of services for compaction and laboratory testing services shall include but not be limited to the following: o In-Place Moisture and Density Tests o Laboratory Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Tests o Sieve Analysis Tests DR-Value Tests o Direct Shear Tests o Consolidation or Collapse Tests o Ph, Resistivity, Soluble Sulfate, and Chloride Tests SCOPE OF SERVICES - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES EnGEN Corporation will provide final reports that include logs of borings summarizing the subsurface conditions encountered, results of laboratory testing, and a plan indicating the location of the explorations. The reports will also provide seismic design criteria based on current code requirements. 1 ~ n n 11 n 11 I] I] j] !] l] 1 ] ;] I] I] U :] II U , 1 lj Geotechnical evaluation and recommendations within EnGEN Corporation's technical reports will include but not be limited to the following: o Standard Grading Recommendations o Earthwork Recommendations o Settlement Considerations And Calculations Following Cdmg Report 117. o Surface And Subsurface Drainage Recommendations o Foundation, Column And Slab Recommendations o Slope Stability o Soil Sulfate Content Implications And Impact On Foundation Design o Utility Trench Backfill o Lateral Earth Pressures Used For Retaining Wall Design o Pavement Design o Grading And Foundation Plan Review o Construction Monitoring o Pile Driving <If Necessary) o Lateral Earth Pressures o Discussion Of The Existing Pavement Or Site Conditions o Recommendations For Removal Of Unsuitable Material o Soil Ferrous Corrosivity And The Portland Cement Attack Potential o Environmental Concerns/Hazards o Summary Of Findings And Recommendations o Consulting Services Requiring Corrective and/or Remedial Recommendations, If Necessary. o Review Of Available Geologic Maps And Reports For The Region o Discussion Of The Material Encountered In The Borings And Measured Engineering Properties. o Logs Of The Exploratory Borings Summarizing The Subsurface Conditions Encountered, Results Of Laboratory Testing, And A Plan Indicating The Location Of The Explorations o Review Of Project Plans & Specifications With Emphasis On Geotechnical And Laboratory Materials Testing Services o Attend Progress Meetings As Required o Observation And Field Testing Services During All Phases Of Site Grading <Including But Not Limited To Removal Of Unsuitable Soils, Approval Of Areas To Receive Fill And Mass Fill Placement), Available 24 Hours Per Day o Field Observation And Testing During Trench Backfill Operations o Field Density Testing During Subgrade And Base Compaction o Field Sampling & Testing Of Base And Asphalt Concrete o All Necessary Laboratory Tests To Support Field Services And To Satisfy Caltrans And Other Regulatory Agency Requirements o Batch Plant Inspections o Structure Backfill Observation And Testing o Concrete Sampling And Testing o '97 UBC Near Source Seismic Factors o Dynamic Settlement Calculations 2 ~ n n n n 11 n II 11 I] l] 1 ] I] I] IJ U U U , I I: ..1 UNDERSTANDING OF PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT & SCOPE OF WORK EnGEN Corporation understands that the City of Temecula will require a complete service package to accommodate day-to-day requirements of the City for geotechnical consulting and testing services. This office has been providing all of the specialized engineering services outlined in the RFQ for over 20 years in the Temecula Valley for public agencies and private development companies. These services have included geotechnical investigations, compaction testing, consulting services and laboratory testing. These services will be provided on an "on-call" basis as project demands dictate. Understanding of Soil and Geotechnical Conditions within the Temecula Valley: Nearly 75% of the geotechnical services provided by EnGEN Corporation are within the Temecula Valley. The previous work conducted in the City of Temecula by EnGEN Corporation has shown that soil conditions within the region vary significantly in terms of stability, soil settlement/consolidation and corrosive potential. Registered professional engineers and geologists as well as trained technical engineering personnel are qualified to recognize the potential for these characteristics should they be observed at each project during the grading/construction operations. Any soils observed that may have the potential for these characteristics, or that could have an adverse effect on the foundation, footings and/or pavement areas will be sampled and tested in order to provide appropriate recommendations. Understanding of Compaction Control Needs of the City of Temecula: Clayey sands or slightly plastic and plastic soils will present some difficulty in compaction. Where these soils are encountered, it will be recommended that efforts be made to mix with clean sands in order to minimize the difficulty in achieving the required compaction. It will be recommended that compaction operations only utilize mechanical equipment. Jetting within trenches should be avoided. The technician(s) on site will provide the Contractor and the City with daily field test results and report any unusual conditions to the appropriate project professionals immediately. The standard of compaction frequency varies depending on the size of the work area, volume and depth, however it is generally understood that one compaction test should be taken for every two vertical feet (or lift) of backfilled material or compacted fill placed. Each test is documented on a "daily field report" and plotted on a scaled site plan showing the number, location and depth of test taken. Understanding of Unstable Soil Conditions within the Temecula Valley: Unstable soil conditions exist throughout the valley at varying depths from the surface to deep beneath the surface and each site should be evaluated in order to determine if unstable conditions exist. The evaluation process allows the engineer to examine the characteristics of each soil horizon under controlled laboratory conditions, simulating the conditions and loads that the soil would experience under varying conditions. The most damaging soil conditions that have been observed to occur within the Temecula Valley include hydro-consolidation of supporting soils, expansion potential impacting foundation stresses and slope stability. Due to the variety of soil types that may be encountered throughout the City, some soils encountered could potentially be unstable. It is recommended that all excavations be configured in accordance with CAL/OSHA requirements and be under technical observation at all times when work is in progress. 3 ~ n n n n n I] II II II :1 II :1 1] I] II , 1 /J u I] U Understanding of Regional Geology: EnGEN Corporation has conducted many geotechnical investigations within the City boundaries, and as part of these studies the geology has been evaluated. The City of Temecula is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. EnGEN Corporation will address potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction and faulting that might be considered detrimental to any proposed development during its lifetime. The scope of work. proposed will include a technical review of any previous reports, site reconnaissance, and presentation of findings, conclusions and recommendations of the geological analysis of the data collected. PROJECT APPROACH Initial Work Plan Review Meeting: EnGEN Corporation will conduct an initial in-house review of available maps, project plans, reports, specifications and any other documentation relevant to the project. We will schedule a meeting with City staff, contractor and others, on-site, to discuss project specifications and site conditions before construction begins. EnGEN Corporation will also discuss the construction schedule with the contractor and City staff to properly plan our manpower requirements in order to meet the contracto~s projected schedule and attend progress meetings, as required. A general fieldwork and safety plan meeting with field and technical staff will also be conducted. We will meet with the City Project Engineer and other appropriate engineering staff, if deemed necessary or required because of project changes or special circumstances uncovered during the initial document review of technical data. Site Reconnaissance: Potential subsurface exploration point locations will be planned by our Geotechnical Engineer and staff. Site reconnaissance will consist of traversing the site, conducting surface mapping, verifying access to all necessary areas, retrieving soil samples and/or staking proposed boring locations to assist DIG ALERT. Exploratory borings will be drilled within the proposed development area ranging in depth to a maximum of 50 feet below ground surface or refusal, utilizing truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The actual number of borings will be determined during the field operations. In-situ and bulk samples along with standard penetration testing will be obtained at 5.0-foot intervals or less to evaluate subsurface geotechnical conditions for laboratory testing. PROFESSIONAL STAFF The following is a list of personnel that will be assigned to the City's projects: Project Geotechnical Engineer - Osbjorn Bratene, GE 162 As President of EnGEN Corporation, Mr. Bratene is available should any special conditions be encountered which require senior Geotechnical Engineer involvement throughout the duration of the project. See attached resume. Field Operations Manager/Geologist - Jeffrey P. Kilpatrick As the Field Operations Manager/Geologist, Mr. Kilpatrick is available should any conditions arise throughout the duration of the project that may require professional judgment or observation of geological conditions. See attached resume. Field Operations AssistantlDay-to-Day Contact - Ryan Waroff Mr. Waroff will serve as "Engineer-in-Charge", the liaison between EnGEN Corporation and the City staff on all matters concerning each project and will coordinate the day-to-day activities through completion. See attached resume. 4 ~ n n n 11 n I] II 11 II ; I 11 11 1] I] 11 lJ U I) I j Field Supervisor Field Supervisors oversee the field technician(s) on each project to ensure adequate documentation of field and testing activities and maintain field scheduling and reporting coordination with the Contractor and the City throughout each project duration. Full-Time Senior Field Technician(s) Senior Field Technician(s) will be available to observe and test on a full-time or as needed basis throughout each project construction period. The technician(s) assigned to each project are experienced in compaction operations, concrete sampling and testing in accordance with oversight Agency guidelines and the State Board of Professional Engineers requirements. The following is a list of subcontractors that may be used on the City's projects: . ES Babcock - An analytical laboratory for performing chemical analysis. . Martini Drilling - A drilling company used as an outside service for drilling. . Cal Pac Drilling - A drilling company used as an outside service for drilling. . Structural Systems Inspections - A company used for special inspections. . Rice's Concrete - A company used for cutting and coring of asphalt and concrete Resumes and references for all subcontractor's will be provided upon request. Each subcontractor used by EnGEN Corporation is a firm used for many years by EnGEN with years of experience and all of the necessary insurance and professional requirements to meet the needs and minimum qualifications of the City of Temecula. 5 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 10 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\EnGen annual FY02-03/ajp ~ Il 11 11 I] II II ; I : I : I , I i I : I .1 11 I ; I : [ 1 ] J i ') ! I II i i , I I , , , ' I . , EnGEN Corporation 2002 SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES HOURLY PERSONNEL CHARGES Principal....... .................................................................................................................. $125.00 Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) ................................................................... $100.00 Geotechnical Engineer, (GE)............................................... ............................................ $95.00 Engineering Geologist, (CEG) ......................................................................................... $95.00 Project Engineer (RCE) ................................................................................................... $85.00 Project Geologist (RG) .................................................................................................... $85.00 Staff Engineer/Project Manager ...................................................................................... $75.00 Staff Geologist................................................................................................................. $75.00 Field Supervisor.......................................................................................................... ..... $75.00 Senior Technician................................................. ............. ....... ....................................... $70.00 Senior Field Technician, Prevailing Wage Rate .............................................................. $90.00 Field Technician.............................................................................................................. $65.00 Field Technician, Prevailing Wage Rate...........................................................:.............. $85.00 Lab Technician.. ..................................................... ........... ..... ......................................... $60.00 Drafting Services.... ............................................................. ............. ......... ............... ....... $50.00 Word Processing....................... ............................................. ......................................... $50.00 Clerical Services............................................................................................. ................. $45.00 Special Inspector (Concrete, Mason & Welding) ..............................................:...... On Request Court Appearance, Depositions, and/or Governmental Representations . (including Travel Time, hourly rate)....................................................................... $250.00 ADDITIONAL CHARGES Vehicle Charge (mileage exceeding 50 miles round trip from office), per mile ........ On Request Postage or Special Delivery Services....................................................................... Cost + 15% Outside Services ...................................................................................................... Cost + 15% Standard copies of reports, wet signed (each) ........................................................ On Request Per Diem, (per day per person) ............................................................................... On Request Overtime Rate/Holiday Rate .................................................................................... $25.00Ihour Prevailing Wage OIT Rate....................................................................................... $15.00Ihour Prevailing Wage DIT Rate....................................................................................... $25.00lhour Prevailing Wage Holiday Rate................................................................................. $50.00Ihour LABORATORY TESTING FEES Laboratory testing fees are per test and do not reflect sample pick-up and delivery charges or out of ordinary sample preparation time. Fees for additional tests available upon request. SOIL TESTING Maximum Dry Density / Optimum Moisture Content Relationships a) ASTM 0-1557, (Method A) ............................................................................. $125.00 b) ASTM 0-1557, (Method B, C)......................................................................... $150.00 c) ASTM D-1557, (Method D).............................................................................. $150.00 d) Califomia Impact (CAL TRANS 216)................................................................ $125.00 Expansion Index, UBC 29-2 ............................................................................................ $90.00 Sand Equivalent (average of 3 points) ............................................................................ $90.00 Soluble Sulfate......... .................. ..................................................................................... $45.00 Corrosion Analysis (pH, Redox, Sat. Res., Sulfates)..................................................... $45.00 Atterberg Limits (Plasticity Limit):.....................................................................:............. $150.00 Consolidation, single point (collapse test) ....................................................................... $75.00 Consolidation, per additional loading point...................................................................... $25.00 Consolidation, In-situ sample, time rate-ratio data (per increment).................................. $30.00 company Publlcations/lSchedute of Fees, 2002 Page 1 of3 _sed May, 2002 ~ Il II 11 11 II ! I II II 11 : ] I] , I : ] 11 ! 1 : I 1 r , J 1 ' , ' , , II , I , , , , EnGEN Corporation 2002 SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES SOIL TESTING, (Continued) Direct Shear, in-situ sample, saturated, 3 points ........................................................... $130.00 Direct Shear, remolded sample, saturated, 3 points...................................................... $160.00 Hydrometer Analysis (minus No. 10 sieve material) ........................................................ $65.00 R-Value: CAL TRANS 301.................................................................................................. $210.00 C.B.R. (3 points, excluding optimum moisture / max. density curve) .................. $300.00 Ring Density ....... ..... ......... ......... ........ ................................................... ........................... $15.00 Sieve Analysis, washed, 3/4" Max. ................................................................................ $100.00 Specific Gravity (+ NO.4 Sieve Material) ......................................................................... $70.00 Specific Gravity (- NO.4 Sieve Material) .......................................................................... $80.00 Moisture Content/Dry Density....... .,...............................' ......................... .............. .......... $15.00 Miscellaneous Aggregate Testing............................................................................ On Request Other Specialty Testing (not listed above)............................................................... On Request CONCRETE TESTING Concrete Mix Design (review calculations only)............................................................. $150.00 Flexural Strength, 6"x6"x24" beam~................................................................................. $45.00 Beams Cured but not tested (less than 28 days old)....................................................... $25.00 Compression Tests, Hold Samples, 6"x12" cylinder........................................................ $20.00 Cylinders Canceled, Not Tested (less than 28 days old) ................................................. $15.00 . MASONRY TESTING Compression Test, Hold Samples, Mortar or Grout Cylinders ............................(each) $20.00 Compression Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required (Net area also requires absorption and unit weight tests) ........................ (each) $65.00 Absorption Test, Masonry Unit, 3 required (Net area also requires unit weight test) .................................................. (each) $45.00 Unit Weight, Masonry Unit, 3 required................................................................ (each) $45.00 Moisture Content, Masonry Unit (as received), 3 required.................................. (each) $45.00 Lineal shrinkage, masonry unit, 3 required......................................................... (each) $85.00 Tensile Test on Masonry Block........................................................................... (each) $125.00 Shear Test on Masonry Core.............................................................................. (each) $85.00 Compression Test on Masonry Core ................................................................. (each) $45.00 Compression Test of Masonry Prisms 8"><16" (other sizes on request) .............. (each) $125.00 Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not listed above) ........................................................ On Request ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TESTING Specific Gravity (Compacted Sample)...................,......................................................... $45.00 Stabilometer Test (Sample Mixing - set of 3)................................................................. $270.00 Premixed Sample (set of 3) ................................................................................ $170.00 Extraction, % Bitumen and Sieve Analysis .................................................................... $175.00 Marshall Test, per Core Specimen, (stability and flow) ................................................. $150.00 Marshall Test, Maximum Density Only........................................................................... $150.00 Marshall Test, (Sample Preparati~n - set of 3) .............................................................. $275.00 Evaluation of On-Site Failures................................................................................. On Request Other Specialty Testing (i.e., not listed above) ........................................................ On Request Company Publk:atlonslSchedule of Fees, 2002 Pege20f 3 Re\llsed May, 2002 11 n 11 II II II 11 ; I 11 11 , I , I , I : I , I i I 1 ] ] I II ~ ) I, 1 ! , . I j ! i i, I' , . EnGEN Corporation 2002 SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES Coring Field Samples of Concrete, AC., Masonry, etc. .......................................... On Request Reinforcing Steel, Structural Steel and High Strength Bolt Testing ........................ On Request Portland or Asphaltic Cements, Uquid Asphalts, Emulsions and Slurry Seals ........ On Request Roofing Observations and Tests ............................................................................. On Request Density of Sprayed Fireproofing ......................................................................... (each) $55.00 Asbestos P.L.M. Analysis ................................................................................... (each) $35.00 Company PublicationslSchedule 01 F.... 2002 Page30f 3 fle',;sed May. 2002 CITY OF TEMECULA ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAUMATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23,2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Kleinfelder, Inc., ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for geotechnical/material testing on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. When there is a need for geotechnical/material testing on an as needed services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the associated fees are negotiated. 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 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 T emecula. 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 City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for any travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number 1 r:lagrmts\masterslannual oontract2002.03\K1einfelder annual FY02-03/ajp of hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00) 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 unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work in excess of the amount above shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 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, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other proviSion of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 2 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\K1einfelder annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non~wned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 4 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than AVII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall fumish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 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 any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 5 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attomey, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (Ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of T emecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager Kleinfelder, Inc. 43218 Business Park Drive, Suite 201 Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mark S. Spykerman RG, CEG 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. To Consultant: 6 r:lagrmlslmasterslannual oonlract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable atlorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. 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 contractor/consultant 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 9commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 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. 7 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Kleinfelder, Inc. 43218 Business Park Dr, Suite 201 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-1488 By: Michael P. Kesler, Regional Manager By: John Moossazadeh, Vice President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED 9 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp , , , ' I' ! ' l. , , , I j I' I, ! ' l. I: [ : I: I: L I: [[ l; Ii I[ r ...,. KLEINFElDER An employee owned company May 29,2002 Proposal No. 56-YP3440 Public Works Department City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 Subject: Submittal of Statement of Qualifications of Package Reference: City of Temecula, Department of Public Works: Request for Statement of Qualifications "Annual Agreement For Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services, Various elP Projects Approved/or FY 2002-2003 dated May 14, 2002" Kleinfelder, Incorporated (Kleinfelder) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the referenced Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide "On-call" geotechnical and materials testing services to the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works. The enclosed package includes all required company information as detailed in the RFQ package and demonstrates that Kleinfelder has the experience, resources and local presence to perform the services that are outlined in the RFQ package. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at (909) 506-1488. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. /lIfJ Mark S. Spykerman RG Geotechnical Group Manager Attachments: Geotecbnical/Materials Testing Statement of Qualifications Fee Schedule 56- YP3440rrEM2P042 Copyright 2002 KJeinfelder, Inc. K LEI N F E L D E R 43218 Business Park Drive, Suite 201, Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-1488 (909) 506-1491 fax r' r' I' , . I' L ! ' I, 1 . I , I. I' , , . I' I. [ . [ : I: !: !: [; [; [; [; ...q KLEINFElDER INTRODUCTION This statement of qualifications package has been prepared in response to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works (hereinafter referred to as "the City"). According to the solicitation package, the City is seeking the services of a qualified consulting firm, with a wide range of expertise, to provide geotechnical and materials testing services on an "as-needed" basis for various projects approved for FY2002- 2003. SCOPE OF SERVICES We have reviewed the RFQ and understand that the scope of servIces required by the Department of Public Works includes, but is not limited to, the following services. Subsurface Exploration Services · Provide as-needed, in-place moisture and unit weight tests . Perform laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture tests Provide sieve analysis data Provide R-values . . . Perform direct shear tests . Perform consolidation or collapse tests . Perform pH, resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride tests Provide field logs of exploratory borings that summarize the subsurface conditions encountered, the results of laboratory testing, and plot plans that indicate the boring locations. . 56-YP3440ITE~2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page I of 15 , , , ' , , 1 ' , . ! : f' I. 1 ' 1. f' , i, [ : I: !: I: [ : [ : [ [ I[ u I; ...". KLEINFELDER Seismicity Studies . Provide the City with information regarding relative frequency and distribution of earthquake activity within a particular region or at a specific site, as well as other seismic related geologic hazards, including fault rupture, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and slope instability. Geotechnical Evaluations and Recommendations Provide geotechnical evaluations and recommendations including those related to: . Grading Earthwork Settlement considerations Surface and surface drainage Foundation, column, and slab recommendations . . . . . Slope stability . Soil sulfate content implications . Utility trench backfill . Retaining walls and recommended lateral earth pressures for design . Pavement design . Grading and floor plan review . Construction monitoring . Pile driving . Lateral earth pressures In addition to these services, Kleinfelder understands that the City requires that the consultant also be able to provide the following services: · Engage in discussions with City personnel regarding existing pavement or site conditions . Provide recommendations for the removal of unsuitable materials . Review project plans and specifications for the City, in regards to on-going or proposed geotechnical and material testing projects 56. YP3440/TEM2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 2 of 15 , , ( , ( . I' , , ! ' I. I' I, I' i I. " . , . I' I I !: l: [ : [ : 1 : I; I: u I: ...q KLEINFElDER . Perform batch plant inspections Provide field observation and testing services during trench backfilling operations . . Provide professional geotechnical field services during all phases of site or roadway- grading, including, but not limited to, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of areas to receive fill and mass fill placement . Provide concrete sampling and testing services Provide field compaction testing during sub grade and base compaction Provide personnel for structure backfill observation and testing Prepare field and final compaction reports as required. Provide reports that include a summary of findings and recommendations . . . Perform field sampling and testing of aggregate base, concrete and asphalt concrete Perform all necessary laboratory tests to support field services and to satisfy Caltrans and other regulatory agency requirements Provide information regarding soil ferrous corrosivity and Portland Cement attack potential . Review project plans and specifications with an emphasis on geotechnical and laboratory materials testing services and attend progress meetings as required . . . . Review geologic maps and reports for the region as needed . Provide consulting services, if necessary, in regard to sites that might require corrective and/or remedial actions · Recognize, and provide consultation, if necessary, regarding environmental concerns and hazards at project sites Kleinfelder routinely provides all of the services listed above to a wide range of clients in both the private and public sectors. In addition, we have successfully performed these very services for the City of Temecula under previous contracts. The following section describes our firm and provides a brief resume of the staff members who are available to work on any projects that might be awarded by the City. 56- YP3440ffEM2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. page3 of 15 , . . , , ' I. I' I , . " I, ,. , I. I' I I, I' , . I: I: l: [ : [; I: lJ [l [l I; ...~ KlEINFElDER EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Kleinfelder, is an employee-owned geotechnical, engineering, and environmental consulting firm, specializing in earth, air and water sciences; we are a leader in these fields as evidenced by our number 62 ranking in the in Engineering News Records' survey of the "Top 100 Consulting Firms" in the nation. This ranking recognizes Kleinfelder as one of the premier engineering firms in the nation. We employ over 1400 employees at 53 offices throughout the western half of the United States. With assets such as these, we are able to manage multi-site projects effectively and to mobilize quickly to meet large-scale project management requirements. However, our decentralized, regional structure and numerous local offices give us insight into local conditions and critical knowledge of local regulations and practices. Our resources in southern California include over 320 staff in eight offices. Kleinfelder's Inland Empire Region incorporates offices and laboratories in Redlands, Victorville and Temecula. The region is staffed with more than 100 qualified engineers, geologists, managers, field and administrative personnel. With resources such as these we foresee no difficulty responding to the needs of the City. If awarded a contract we will provide management to the City from our Temecula office. This office, which is located in the Rancho California Business Park (just two blocks from the City of Temecula offices), includes a staff of over 30 and a geotechnical and materials testing laboratory. Our Temecula personnel are familiar with the local geology, they routinely interact with Caltrans and local regulators, and they have provided services to the City on previous on-call contracts. The project manager and his technical support staff will be readily available to meet with City representatives and will also be able to quickly respond, if needed, to sites anywhere in Temecula. In addition to routinely providing geotechnical and material testing services our local staff has been involved in numerous earthquake studies in Temecula and the surrounding areas pertaining to the siting and design of proposed facilities and assessing the potential for damage caused by earthquakes. An extensive database and reference library has been developed to determine the appropriate seismic criteria for sites in Temecula including site specific geologic and soil conditions, local seismic data, and the location of capable faults. 56- YP3440rrEM2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 4 of 15 , ' I' I, I' I. , . I. ! . I. r' I I i. 1: I: , . L !: [; [: It I: u I: h..q KLEINFElDER Our staff also has broad experience in the evaluation, design, and construction of both asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete pavements and structures. They have provided construction and testing services directly for Caltrans and other public sector clients including the City of Temecula. It is our objective on any project to reduce the uncertainty inherent in construction materials. We have an in-house testing and qualification program designed to assure that qualified personnel are assigned to each project. We can assure you that certified technicians, under the direction of registered engineers, will be assigned to any project we are awarded. Our technicians undergo certification under nationally recognized programs such as those granted by the National Institute for the Certification of Engineering Technicians (NICET), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the International Conference of Building Officials (leBO) and the American Welding Society. In addition, we have a large number of Caltrans certified technicians available if needed. Kleinfelder material engineers routinely work with design professionals, providing knowledge and expertise in the development of design specifications and analysis of construction materials. Kleinfelder engineers work diligently to reduce the uncertainty involved in dealing with construction materials and damaged structural elements, through the application of standardized destructive and non-destructive testing programs suitable for each client's specific needs. Our local staff has expertise with: . Rehabilitation assessments and structural investigations of steel, concrete, masonry and wood structures; . Performing building surveys to establish as-built construction details; . Evaluation of materials through non-destructive and destructive test methods; Designing and performing full-scale load testing programs and assessments of building distress; . . Failure investigations and analysis; . Evaluation of design adequacy, construction techniques, and integrity of building materials; . Providing damage assessments and accident reconstruction; . Providing expert witness testimony. 56- YP3440/TEM2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 5 of 15 , ' , . I' : ' ! ' I. , . I. ! . I. l' I. ! . [ : [ : !: l: [; [: I; It [~ [; kq KLEINFELDER Our staff also has broad experience in the evaluation, design, and construction of both asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete pavements and structures. They have provided construction and testing services directly for Caltrans and other public sector clients including the City of Temecula. It is our objective on any project to reduce the uncertainty inherent in construction materials. We have an in-house testing and qualification program designed to assure that qualified personnel are assigned to each project. We can assure you that certified technicians, under the direction of registered engineers, will be assigned to any project we are awarded. Our technicians undergo certification under nationally recognized programs such as those granted by the National Institute for the Certification of Engineering Technicians (NICET), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO) and the American Welding Society. In addition, we have a large number of Caltrans certified technicians available if needed. Kleinfelder material engineers routinely work with design professionals, providing knowledge and expertise in the development of design specifications and analysis of construction materials. Kleinfelder engineers work diligently to reduce the uncertainty involved in dealing with construction materials and damaged structural elements, through the application of standardized destructive and non-destructive testing programs suitable for each client's specific needs. Our local staff has expertise with: . Rehabilitation assessments and structural investigations of steel, concrete, masonry and wood structures; . Perfonning building surveys to establish as-built construction details; . Evaluation of materials through non-destructive and destructive test methods; . Designing and perfonning full-scale load testing programs and assessments of building distress; . Failure investigations and analysis; . Evaluation of design adequacy, construction techniques, and integrity of building materials; . Providing damage assessments and accident reconstruction; . Providing expert witness testimony. 56. YP3440ffEM2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 50f15 , . , . { , i, I' , I: f' J l. [ . , I, f' , i I. I: I: I' [ : l: I: I: I; [\ II [; It",q KLEIN FELDER Our local laboratories are fully equipped for testing soil, rock and construction materials. Kleinfelder has an in-house quality assurance program to maintain a high level of accuracy and reproducibility in testing services performed by the firm. Experienced technicians perform the laboratory tests, and registered professional engineers review the results. All gauges, proving rings, scales, and other equipment used for testing are calibrated on a regular basis by certified independent agencies. These services will complement and assist the City engineering staff throughout construction-related activities. Our trained, experienced technicians, who as stated earlier undergo certification through NlCET, lCBO and ACl, perform all laboratory tests. Our own quality assurance program is supplemented with regular inspection by governmental agencies. Periodic inspection of our testing equipment and testing techniques is conducted by the U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers, U. S. Navy, and U.S. Forest Service to verify acceptance of our testing laboratories for work performed for the respective agencies. The most significant outside quality assurance inspection of our firm is by the National Bureau of Standards through the Commercial Testing Laboratory Accreditation Program. Our laboratories are capable of providing both common and specialty soil and materials testing services. Kleinfelder is certified by Caltrans to perform soil, concrete and asphalt testing services. In addition, we participate in the Caltrans Laboratory Reference Samples Program and are AASHTO accredited in hot mix asphalt testing. In addition, our main Inland Empire materials laboratory is State of California Division of State Architect (DSA) approved. Kleinfelder has a long, successful track record of providing service on public works related projects. Approximately 60% of our current projects in Southern California are public works related, either being performed directly for public agencies or through design/civil engineering firms. As a result, Kleinfelder is well versed in the requirements for timeliness and efficiency when working on public sector projects. After 40 years in the business, we have worked with many federal, state and local agencies (including the City of Temecula) and are knowledgeable of the applicable codes, regulations and ordinances associated with public works design and construction. As a result, we are experienced in the requirements for timeliness and efficiency when working on public sector projects. 56. YP3440rrEM2P042 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 6 of IS EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 10 r:lagnntslmasterslannual oontract2002-03\Kleinfelder annual FY02-03/ajp ! ' ! ' 1_ r' I, I' I. I' 1. 1 i. I' , l, J I. f' I. L I: I: I: Ii I; l! !: KLEINFELDER 2002 FEE SCHEDULE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES CITY OF TEMECULA 2002-2003 PROFESSIONAL STAFF RATES. Professional I .......................................................................................................................... Professional II ......................................................................................................................... Staff Professional I .................................................................................................................. Staff Professional II / Project Manager I .................................................................................. Project Professional 1 Project Manager II ................................................................................. Senior Professional / Senior Project Manager .......................................................................... Principal Professional ..........................................................................,.................................. Program/Client Manager I ...................................................................................................... Program/Client Manager II ........................ ............................................................................. Senior Principal Professional .................................................................................................. Senior Program/Client Manager............................................................................................... ADMINISTRA TIVElTECHNICAL STAFF RATES Administrative I ...................................................................................................................... Project Administrator I ........................................................................................................... Project Administrator II .......................................................................................................... Technician ................................................................. ............................................................ Senior Technician ................................................................................................................... Supervisory Technician ............................................... ............................................................ Draftsperson......................................................................................... _.................................. CADD Operator...................................................................:................................................... Designer ................................................................................................................................. $ 86 / hour $ 95 / hour $ 104 / hour $ l13/hour $ 122 1 hour $ 140/hour $ 149 thour $ 149/hour $ 158/ hour $ 1581 hour $ 167/ hour $ 60 / hour $ 67/ hour $ 77 1 hour $ 67/ hour $ 82 / hour $ 90 / hour $ 70 / hour $ 82 / hour $ 90 1 hour Public works projects or projects receiving public funds will be subject to California Prevailing Wage laws. The above rates do apply to projects subject to prevailing wages in California for field technical staff. . Applies to all professional rates including but not limited to civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical, geotechnical and environmental engineers; industrial hygienists; geologists; hydrogeologists; hydrologists; and computer specialists. Temewla 2002 (Revised 5/29/02) GEOTECHNICAUMATERIALS TESTING EQUIPMENT CHARGES Diamond Bit Core Barrel Charge Asphalt Concrete or Masonry 2" Diameter..................................................... $ 6.20 I inch............................................. $ 4.90 I inch 3" Diameter..................................................... $ 7.75/ inch............................................. $ 5.40 I inch 4" Diameter..................................................... $ 9.25/ inch............................................. $ 6.50 I inch 6" Diameter..................................................... $12.80 / inch............................................. $ 7.751 inch 8" Diameter..................................................... $16.25 / inch............................................. $ 10.82 / inch Minimum bit charge-6" per job i. MATERIALS TESTING EQUIPMENT Skidmore Wilhelm Bolt Tension Calibrator ............................................................................. Torque Wrench........................................................................................................................ Schmidt Hammer ..................................................................................................................... R Meter (Pachometer) ............................................................................................ .................. Windsor Probe ......................................................................................................................... Anchor Bolt Testing Device............................................................,........................................ Concrete Vapor Transmission Test Kit-Floors & Slabs....................................................RMA Thin Lift Nuclear Asphalt Gauge ............................................................................................. Nuclear Asphalt Con1ent Gauge............................................................................................... Coring Machine with Generator............................................................................................... Floor Flatness Testing Device .................................................................................................. I' I, I' 1 , . I' i' I. SOIL AND AGGREGATE TESTS r' I. COMPACTION CURVES Standard 4" Mold........................................................ .................................. D-698 Method A Standard 6" Mold...................................................................................... D-698 Method B, C Modified, 4" Mold ...................................................................................... J)..1557 Method A Modified, 6" Mold .................................................................................. D-1557 Method B, C California Impact, Dry Method.............................................................................. CAL-216-F California Impact, Wet Method................................................................................. CAL-216 Check Point ............................................................................................................................. Relative Density (Maximum and Minimum) .................................................. D-4253 & 4254 I' I I, L Ii [: !: II [; SOIL AND AGGREGATE STABILITY R- Value, Untreated Material or field Sample............................................................. CAL-301 R- Value, Reproportioned or Chemically -Treated. ..................................................... CAL-301 Correction for oversized material in sample .............................................................. CAL-301 C.B.R 100% Compaction (Includes compaction curve) ....................................D-1883, T-180 C.B.R Other Compaction Effort (Includes compaction curve)......................................D-1883 Soil Cement, C.T.B., Mix Design................... .......................................................................... C.T.B. Compression Test, (Includes Preparation)........................................ D-1633, CAL-312 Lime-Treated Compression Test (Includes Preparation) ............................................ CAL-373 Check Point ...................................................... ................... ..................................... CAL-373 Cement-Treated Compression Test................................................................. PCA EB052. 06S BASIC SOIL AND AGGREGATE PROPERTIES Sieve Analysis, Coarse and Fine Including Wash........................................................... C-136 Sieve Analysis, Coarse (Retained on NO.4 Sieve) .......................................................... C-136 Sieve Analysis, Fine Including Wash (Passing NO.4 Sieve) ........................................... C-136 Sieve Analysis, Wash (% Finer than No. 200 Sieve)....................................................... C-1l7 Hydrometer (Without Sieve Analysis) ...... ......... .............................................................D-422 Hydrometer (Including Sieve Analysis) .......................................................................... D-422 Specific Gravity ......................................................................................C-127, C-128, D-854 Sand Equivalent, Average of 3 ....................................................................... ........... CAL-217 Sand Equivalent, One Point Method ........................................................................................ Plasticity Index............................................................................................................ D-4318 Liquid Limit................................................................................................................ D-4318 Expansion Index Test...................................................................................04829, UBC 18-2 Swell Pressure, Per Point......................................................................................................... Moisture Determination and Unit Weight .........................................J)..2216, D-2937, D-4643 Moisture Determination Only......................................................................... D-22 16, D-4643 Resistivity of Soil (Laboratory Measurement)................................................. CAL-532 or 643 [ ~ II Temecula 2002 2 1 : $ 43.25 I day $ 43.25 / day $ 70.00 I day $ 70.00 / day $ 21.75 I shot $ 140.00 I day $ 60.00 / test $ 76.00 / day $ 75.00 / day $ 151.50 / day $ 98.00 / day $ 156.00/ each $ 177.00/ each $ 156.001 each $ 165.00/ each $ 176.00/ each $ 136.001 each $ 108.001 each $ 253.001 set $ 204.001 each $ 246.00/ each $ 65.00/ each $ 480.00/ each $ 565.00/ each On Request $ 740.00/ each $ 740.001 each $ 226.00/ each $ 490.00/ each $ 107.00/ each $ 70.00/ each $ 95.001 each $ 65.00/ each $ 127.001 each $ 190.00/ each $ 75.00/ each $ 85.00/ each $ 70.00/ each $ 130.00/ each $ 83.00/ each $ 126.00/ each $ 79.001 each $ 39.00/ each $ 20.001 each $ 126.001 each (Revised 5/29/02) ! ' , . I' i. , . , . , , i. r' ( . l. 1 : I' I: t: I; I; I: I: , , l i I: SOIL AND AGGREGATE TESTS ICont.) pH Test (Laboratory Measurement)......................................................................... EPA-9045 pH Test, Lime Treated Soils................................ ........................................................... C-977 Organic Content-Soils.................................................................................................. 0-2974 Pinhole Test for Dispersive Soils.................................................................................. 0-4647 Dielectric Constant.................................................................................................................. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY Flexible Wall, Falling Head............................................................ 0-5084, EM 1110-2-1906 Rigid Wall Permeability of Undisturbed Sample, up to No.4 Sieve Size................................... Rigid Wall, Constant Head, Gravel.......................................................................................... SAMPLE PREPARATION Trimming ................................................................................................................................ Remolding .... ........................................................................................................................... Splitting.........................,......................................................................................................... Mixing and Processing............................................................................................................. SHEAR STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION TESTS Unconfined Compression, Including Moisture Content and Unit Weight.......................................................................................................... 0-2166 Triaxial Compression Test Quick Per Point................................................................................................................. UU Saturated ........................................................................................................ 0-2850 CO Saturated ......................................................................................... EM-I I 10-2-1906 CU Saturated......................................................................................................... 0-4767 CU Saturated with Pore Water Pressure................................................................. 0-4767 Direct Shear (Quick) Per Point (Dry) ...........................................................................0-3080 Oirect Shear (3 point staged test) (Saturated) ........................................................................... Direct Shear (Residual) Per Point (Saturated)........................................................................... Consolidation, With Two Time Rates....................................................................................... Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation, With Time Rate...............................................0-4186 Consolidation, Without Time Rate, Six Load Increments .............................................0-2435 Collapse Potential.................................................................................................................... Note: Special testing procedures that deviate from standard will be charged on a time and expense basis. AGGREGATE QUALITY Injurious Organic Matter.................:................................................................................ C-40 Absorption, Gravel......................................................................................................... C-127 Absorption, Sand........................................................................................................... C-128 Unit Weight, Average of 3 ................... ............................................................................ C-29 Unit Weight, One Point Method............................................... ........................................ C-29 Los Angeles Abrasion Test-500 Revolutions ................................................. CAL-211, C-131 Los Angeles Abrasion Test-I,OOO Revolutions .............................................. CAL-211, C-535 Sulfate Soundness (5 Cycles) Per Sieve Size.................................................... CAL-214, C-88 Mortar Making Properties of Sand (2 ages) ..................................................... CAL-515, C-87 Potential Reactivity Test................................................................................................. C-289 Cleanness Test (Referee Test) ................................................................................... CAL-227 Crushed Particles on Sieved Sample.............................................................. CAL-205, 0-693 Flat and Elongated Particles on Sieved Sample ................................ 0-4791, CE-119, CE-120 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles................................................................................... C-142 Lightweight Pieces in Aggregate............................ ........................................................ C-123 Durability, Fine........................................................................................... CAL-229, 0-3744 Durability, Coarse....................................................................................... CAL-229, 0-3744 Durability Index. Coarse and Fine............................................................... CAL-229, 0-3744 Temecula 2002 3 $ 45.00/ each $ 84.00/ each $ 79.00/ each $ 196.001 each $ 47.00/ each $ 324.001 e;u:h $ 163.00/ each $ 162.74/ each $ 49.001 each $ 65.001 each $ 48.00/ each $ 52.00/ hour $ 89.00/ each $ 113.001 point $ 186.00/ point $ 284.001 point $ 222.001 point $ 322.001 point $ 93.001 each $ 246.00/ each $ 93.00/ point $ 315.00/test $ 487.00/ test $ 243.00/ test $ 89.00/ each $ 50.00/ each $ 50.001 each $ 73.00/ each $ 83.00/ test $ 54.001 each $ 132.001 each $ 172.001 each $ 83.00/ each $ 332.001 each On Request $ 122.001 each $ 122.00/ each $ 122.00/ each $ 89.001 each $ 195.001 each $ 98.00/ each $ 147.001 each $ 219.00/ test (Revised 5/29/02) , ' , . I' I, : I I, 1 ' , . f' , . . r: I' I. ! : r' L [; L [; I; li [ : CONCRETE Concrete Mix Design Review........... ........................................................................................ Laboratory Trial Batch, Including Compression Testing of Six Specimens............................... Concrete Cylinder Cured and/or Compression Tested...................................................... C-39 Compression Test, Lightweight Insulating Concrete ...................................................... C-495 Unit Weight of Concrete Cylinders ................................................................................ C-138 Flexural Strength, Concrete Beam........................................................................ C-78, C-293 Compression Test, Gunite/Shotcrete......................................................................................... Compression Test, Gunite/Shotcrete Panel, Set of 6 Cores ....................................................... Compression Test on Cored Specimens (Includes End Preparation) ................................. C-42 Cylinder Molds ........................................................................................................................ Drying Shrinkage Test, set of3 ..................................................................... C-157, CAL-530 Modulus of Elasticity of 6" x 12" Concrete Cylinder ...................................................... C-469 Splitting Tensile Strength.............................................................................................. C-496 Cement Content of Hardened Concrete ............................................................................ C-85 Density of Spray Applied Fireproofing........................................................................... E-605 Unit Weight of Lightweight Concrete............................................................................. C-567 Concrete Permeability................................................... .......................................... CRD-C-48 Mortar Bar Expansion.................................................................................................... C-227 * Does not include coring MASONRY Grout or Mortar Specimen Cured and/or Compression Tested...........................C-579, C-IOI9, C-780, C-942, C-I09 Compression Test, Masonry Units................................................................................... CI40 Compression Test, 8 x 8 x 16 Prisms or smaIIer.......................................... UBC 24-26, E 447 Compression Test, 10 x 8 x 16 Prisms or smaller ........................................ UBC 24-26, E 447 Compression Test, 12 x 8 x 16 Prisms or smaller ........................................ UBC 24-26, E 447 Absorption and Received Moisture, Masonry Uni!........................................................... C140 Lineal Shrinkage, Masonry Units.................................................................C-426, or Title 21 Compression Strength, Brick ........................................................................................... C-67 Modulus of Rupture, Brick................. _............................................................................. C-67 Absorption Test, Brick, 5-Hour with Coefficient .............................................................. C-67 Shear Test on Masonry or Brick Cores...................................................................... CAL-644 Gront or Mortar Mold.................................................................... ...................................... -... Breaking Load, Roof Tile ....................................................................................... UBC 32-12 Absorption, Roof Tile............................................................................................. UBC 32-12 Permeability, Roof Tile................................................. ........................................................... ASPHALT Specification Tests-AR Grades................................................................................................. -Liquid Asphalt Grades..................................................................................................... -Emulsions....................................................................................................................... . Other Asphalt Tests................................................................................................................. Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent................................................................................ CAL-303 Extraction, % Bitumen...............................................................0-1856, D-2172, or CAL-31O Extraction, % Bitumen, with Gradation ................................................................................... Film Stripping.................................................................................................. ........ CAL- 302 Stabilometer Test and Mixing of Sample................................................................... CAL-366 Stabilometer Test on Premixed Sample ..................................................................... CAL-366 Swell................ .................................................... ..................................................... CAL-305 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility, in Addition to Stabilometer ....................................... CAL-307 Complete Design of Wearing Surface for a Given Asphalt and Aggreg;lte, Hveem or Marshall Method...................................................................... Marshall Stability and Flow-Set of3 (Without Mixing)................................................D-1559 Marshall Stability and Flow-Set of3 (Lab Mixed)........................................................0-1559 Superpave Mix Design- Preliminary Voids Analysis only (PMA)..............FHWA SA-95-D03 Superpave Mix Design (Excludes Binder or Agg. Qual. testing)..................FHW A SA-95-D03 Unit Weight of Core or Compacted Sample................................................................... 02726 Moisture Content (Xylene Reflux Method)...................................................................0-1461 Maximum Density of Mix by Marshall Method, Set of3 (Without Mixing).............................. Maximum Density of Mix by Hveem Method, Set of3 (Without Mixing).... CAL-304, D-1561 Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity (Rice Method).................................................D-2041 Index of Retained Strength............................................................................. D-I074, D-I075 Index of Retained Strength................................................................. US Army Corps Method Temecu1a 2002 4 $ 190.00/ each $ 540.001 each $ 22.00/ each $ 44.00/ each $ 44.001 each $ 84.00/ each $ 54.001 each $ 190.00/ set $ 50.00/ each* $ 2.75/ each $ 343.001 each $ 196.00/ each $ 63.00/ each On Request $ 59.00/ each $ 59.00/ each $1100.00/ each $1100.00/ each $ 24.001 each $ 50.001 each $ 79.001 each $ 89.001 each $ 98.001 each $ 59.00/ each $ 132.00/ each $ 49.00/ each $ 59.001 each $ 72.001 each $ 79.00/ each $ 2.73/ each $ 35.00/ each $ 59.00/ each $ 98.00/ each On Request On Request On Request On Request $ 206.00/ each $ 136.001 each $ 216.00/ each $ 103.00/ each $ 200.00/ each $ 134.001 each $ 108.00/ each $ 216.00/ each On Request $ 273.00/ set $ 351.00/ set $2,163.001 each $3,500.001 each $ 40.00/ each $ 200.85/ each $ 161.00/ set $ 162.00/ set $ 124.001 each $ 885.00/ each $ 605.64/ each (Revised 5/29/02) . . . . I. , . , . I I. 1 I. f i; r' l. I: !: I; L li I: METALS Tensile, Up to 0.5 sq. in. Cross Sectional Area......................................................................... 0.5 sq. in. to 1.8 sq. in....................................................................................................... Greater than 1.8 sq. in....................................................................................................... Bend Only............................................................................................ .................................... Tensile and Bend, Up to 0.5 sq. in. Cross Sectional Area .................................................. Tensile and Bend, 0.5 sq. in. to 1.8 sq. in................................................................................. Tensile and Bend, Greater than 1.8 sq. in................................................................................. Pre-Stress Strands, Tensile and Elongation .................................................................... A-416 Pre-Stress Wire, Tensile and Elongation .............................. ..........................................A-421 Machining Costs.................................................................................................. .................... Weight of Coating (Set of 3) ............................................................................................A-90 Bolts, Nuts & Washers, Hardness, & Load Tests ...................................................................... " Does not iuclude machining costs, if required. WELDING QUALIFICATIONS-STRUCTURAL STEEL (PHYSICAL TEST METHOD-ASME, AWS, API, TITLE 21) Operator Performance and Procedure Tests.............................................................................. Machiniug and Material Costs................................................................................................. Laboratory Testing:.................................................................. Gnided Bend Test, face or root Side Bend Test.................................................................................................................. Free Bend Test.................................................................................................................. Tensile Test (reduced section) ........................................................................................... Macroetch Test................................................................................................................... Fracture Test..................................................................................................................... T Bend Test ...................................................................................................................... Notch Test ........................................................................................................................ Fusion Qualification Test on High Pressure Polyethylene Pipe ................................................. Qualification tests also available by X-ray procedures .............................................................. " Does not include machining costs, if required. ROOFING TESTS Standard Quantitative Analysis................................................................................................ Weight of Bitumen., Ply Structure Diagram Standard Quantitative Analysis With Gravel.................................... ............ ............................ Includes Weight of Gravel Quantitative Analysis................................................................................................... 0-2829 Quantitative Analysis (New Roofs)............................................................................... D- 3617 Unit Weight of Surfacing......................................................................................................... Unit Weight of Sample............... .............................................................................................. Diagram of Sample.................................................................................................................. Void Analysis .......................................................................................................................... Ply Type Identification............................................................................................................. Mat Type Identification............................................................................................................ Bitumen Sample Recovery....................................................................................................... Bitumen Type Identification (Softening Point) ......................................................................... Compliance Report .................................................................................................................. Technical Photograph.............................................................................................................. Roof Moisture Survey............................................................................................................... Ternecula 2Q02 5 $ 65.00/ each" $ 76.00/ each" On Request $ 32.00/ each $ 76.00/ each $ 87.00/ each On Request On Request On Request At Cost + 20% $ 113.00/ set On Request On Request On Request $ 43.25/ each $ 43.25/ each $ 43.26/ each $ 76.oo/each" $ 70.00/ each $ 48.40/ each $ 65.00/ each $ 54.59/ each On Request On Request $ 157.59/ each $ 190.55/ each $ 272.95/ each $ 190.55/ each $ 81.37/ each $ 76.00/ each $ 81.37/ each $ 81.37/ each $ 56.65/ each $ 59.74/ each $ 216.30/ each $ 146.00/ each On Request On Request On Request (Revised 5/29/02) I. I' I. i. I 1. [ . I; , , l. r .. I; I: [; I: TIMBER Moisture Content Measurements.............................................................................................. Strip Tension Test.................................................................................................................... Truss Load Test...................................:................................................................................... Shear Test..................................................................... ......... ............... ................................... Qualification Test For Adhesives ......................................... ........................................... ......... Face Joint Bonding Test........................................................................................................... End Joint Bonding Test............................................................................................................ Temew18 2002 6 $ 21.75 each, + technician's hourly rate $ 97.85 each, + Machining cost On Request On Request On Request On Request On Request (Revised 5/29/02) I' , ' I. I' I, I' i. I: I. I ~ I' I. I: [; I: !; I: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND TESTING EQUIPMENT SOIL AND WATER Acoustic Water Level Indicator ............................................................................................... Air Circulating Fan.................................................................................................................. Air Compressor (3 - 10 cfm) ................................................................................................... Analog Thermometer' ............................................................................................................ Bailers .:........... ..................................... .......... ........ ...... ........................... ........ ....... ................ Bat Probe ................................................................................................................................. Bed Load Samplers Hand-Held Low Flow ....................................................................................................... High Flow with Suspension System and Winch ................................................................ Brunton Transit' ........................................................................................... .......................... Centrifugal Water Pump' ................................. ....................................................................... Christy Box.......... .......... ............................ ...... ............ ...................................... ...................... Concrete Bags - 50 Lbs ............................................................ ................................................ Conductivity. pH, and Temperature Monitor ........................................................................... Conductivity-Based Water Level Indicator .............................................................................. Current Meter/Flow Measurement Equipment ......................................................................... Diaphragm Surface Pump ....................................................................................................... Digital Thermometer............................................................................................................... Disposable Bailers............................................................................................................. ....... Distilled Water.. ............................ .................. ................... ............................ ...... .................... Groundwater Sampling Truckffrailer ..................................................................................... (Complete with generator, air compressor, sample pump and reel assembly, steam cleaner and water tank, water level indicator, conductivity, pH and temperature monitor, bailer) 4-hour minimum Hand Auger and Soil Sampler ................................................................................................. Hermit Hydrologic Monitor ..................................................................................................... Hydrogen Peroxide Test Kit ..................................................................................................... Interface Probe (oil/water) ....................................................................................................... Isco Composite Water Sampler Unit ............................ ............................................................ Iseo Bladder............................................................................................................................. Isco Flow Recorder ................................................................................................................. Level or Transit and Rod ......................................................................................................... Line/Cable Locater .................................................................................................................. Locks.......................................................................................................... ......... .................... Lysimeter Sampling Equipment ............................................................................................... Mason Jars............................................................................................................................... Measuring Wheel' ................................................................................................................... Metal Detector' ...................................................................................................................... Mileage, Round Trip................................................................................................................ Peristaltic Pump ...................................................................................................................... Personal CompIBasic Soft Sys........................................................................... ....................... pH Meter................................................................................................................................. Photo Ionization Detector......................................................................................................... Pipe Cutter and Threader' ....................................................................................................... Portable Air Compressor' ........................................................................................................ Portable Generator* ................................................................................................................. Portable Generator (1.5 to 4 kW) ............................................................................................ Portabte Generator (greater than 4 kW) ................................................................................... Power Inverter' ....................................................................................................................... Pump Bladders........................................................................................................................ QED Filters ............................................................................................................................. Range Finder* ......................................................................................................................... Sample Transfer Vessel (filter)................................................................................................. Sampling Kit ........................................................................................................................... Steam Cleaner (0.5 to 2 gpm) .................................................................................................. Stevens Water Level Recorder* ................................................................................................ . Weekly and monthly rates available upon request. Temewta 2002 7 $ 125.00 / day $ 21.63 / day $ 113.00 / day $ 16.50 / day $ 48.40 / day $ 43.26 / hour $ 59.74 / day $ 97.85 / day $ 16.50 / day $ 81.00 / day $ 103.00 / each $ 6.50 / each $ 55.00 / day $ 55.00 / day $ 97.85 / day $ 86.52 / day $ 16.50 / day $ 16.50 / each $ 2.75 / gallon $ 81.00 / hour $ 70.00 / day $ 563.00 / day $ 6.49 / hour $ 64.89 / day $ 183.34 / day $ 26.00 / each $ 129.78 / day $ 98.00 / day $ 108.15 / day $ 7.60 / each $ 38.11 / day $ 21.75/case $ 16.50 / day $ 16.48 / day $ 92.00 / day $ 81.00 / day $ 16.50 / hour $ 26.75 / day $173.00 / day $ 26.78 / day $ 26.75 / day $ 43.25 / day $ 98.00 / day $ 124.00 / day $ 21.63 / day $ 76.22 / each $ 21.75 / each $ 16.48 / day $ 21.63 / day $ 16.50 / day $ 123.60 / day $ 54.59 / day (Revised 5/29/02) I' , , I' i. , . , , , I' 1. f' I. I' I, [ : !: I: [ : II ![ Lf, !: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND TESTING EQUIPMENT (Continued) Storage Tanks 500 gallon ........................................................................................................................ 2,000 gallon ................................... .................................................................................. Suspended Sediment Samplers DH48 Hand-Held Low Flow ............................................................................................. 049, D74 High-Flow with Suspension System and Winch ................................................ Syringe Sampler ..................................................................................................................... Trailer-Mounted 4-inch Submersible Pwnp and Reel Assembly.............................................. Transducer and SElOOO Recorder ........................................................................................... Variable Voltage Supply. ...............................................................................:........................ Walkie Talkie Set.................................................................................................................... Well Development Tool ..................................... ..................................................................... AIR AND GAS Absolute Pressure Transducer ......... ......................................... Bacharach 0, Combustible Analyzer ....................................... Barhole Puncn ......................................................................... Barometer ................................................................................ Calibration Gas ........... ...................................... ,...................... Calibration Gas Regulator ........................................................ Combustible Gas Analyzer ....................................................... Differential Pressure Transducer .............................................. Draeger Quantimeter ............................................................... Draeger Tubes .................................... --.. --............... --.... --........- Dual Ambient Air Sampler .................__..__....____........__..__......... Field Gas Chromatograph ....__......__........__....__........__................ Fyrite COz or Oz Indicator ...................................................... Gas Chromatograph (office) ..................................................... Gas Production Curves ............................................................. Integrated Surface Sampler ...................................................... lrrometer .................................................................................. Kurz Velocity Meter ................................................................ Magnehelic Gauge .......................... ......................................... Moisture Meter ........................................................................ Nalgene Hand Pwnp ................................................................ Oz Analyzer ............................................................................ organic Vapor Analyzer or Photoionization Detector ............... Organic Vapor Analyzer with Strip Chart Recorder ................. Orifice Plate ............................................................................. Pitot Tubes ............................................................................... Portable Brailsford Pwnp or Equivalent ................................... Slack Tube Manometer ............................................................ Sound Level Meter ................................................................... Strip Chart Recorder (dual pen) ............................................... Strip Chart Recorder (single pen) ............................................. Submersible Pwnp (3") ............................................................. Tedlar Air Sample Bag ............................................................ Test Skid.................................................................................. Test Trailer .............................................................................. Vibration Analyzer................................................................... Voltmeter ........................................ ......................................... Wind Speed and Direction Indicator (one system each) ............ . Weekly and monthly rates available upon request. Temewla 2002 8 $ 16.48 / day $ 16.48 I day $ 64.89 I day $ 96.82 / day $ 167.89 / day $ 389.34 I day $ 249.26 / day $ 942.45 / week $ 26.78 / day $ 26.75 / day $ 65.00 I day Rate/Dav RatelWeek Rate/Month $ 25.75 $ 86.52 $ 267.80 43.26 129.78 422.30 21.63 59.74 146.26 16.48 48.41 140.08 8.75 26.78 70.04 8.76 26.78 81.37 65.00 226.60 692.16 26.75 96.82 281.19 129.78 442.90 1,375.05 16.48 each 70.00 211.15 757.05 628.30 2,513.20 6,921.60 16.48 38.11 123.60 76.22 each run 442.90 each run 43.26 129.78 422.30 8.65 26.78 76.22 26.75 97.85 281.19 16.50 48.40 141.11 16.50 48.41 141.11 21.63 64.89 206.00 77.00 257.50 746.75 200.00 607.70 2,111.50 227.00 628.00 2,389.60 26.78 81.37 281.19 16.48 49.44 140.08 38.11 113.30 367.71 8.76 26.78 76.22 55.00 21.63 64.89 206.00 21.63 64.89 206.00 86.52 38.11 each 346.08 1,199.95 3,821.30 412.00 1,494.00 4,532.00 70.04 8.76 26.78 70.04 422.30 1,493.50 (Revised 5/29/02) , . I' I, I' i, l' I. ! . , , I' I, I' I. [ : r' I. L I ~ I; I! Il [I, I) MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION MATERIALS. Casing, Blank Schedule 40, PVC with Threaded Joints 10-foot lengths ................................................................................... Casing, Blank Schedule 40, PVC with Threaded Joints 5-foot lengths ..................................................................................... Casing, Screens, 0.02-inch Slots, Schedule 40 PVC with Threaded Joints, 10-foot lengths.......................................................... Casings, Screens, 0.02-inch Slots, Schedule 40 PVC with Threaded Joints, 5-foot lengths ........................................................... Casing, PVC Plug ..................................................................................... Casing, PVC Cap ...................................................................................... Sand, 100-lb bag ....................................................................................... Bentonite Pellets, 50-lb bucket .................................................................. Drums ....................................................................................................... Granulated Bentonite, 50-lb sack ............................................................... Ground Pump and Controller ..................................................................... Cement/Bentonite Slurry ........................................................................... Security Tops ............................................................................................ Brass Tubes .............................................................................................. · Quotations on prices for PVC well casings greater than 4-inch diameter and other materials (stainless steel, etc.) provided on request. HEALTH AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT Portable Personnel Decontamination Trailer ............................................. Personnel Air Sampling Pump .................................................................. Borehole Ventilation System ..................................................................... Level B Protectiona ................................................................................... Level C Protectiona ................................................................................... Level D Protectiona ................................................................................... Limited Level D Protectiona ..................................................................... a Charges for each protection level are based on dry work conditions and use of uncoated PVC/nitrile/neoprene gloves. A nominal charge for wet work conditions requiring coated or special chemical resistant coveralls (i.e., Saranex) and gloves (i.e., Viton) may be added. 2-inch 4-inch $ 7.62/ foot $ 16.4& / foot $ &.75/ foot $ 21.63/ foot $ &.75/foot $ 21.63/ foot $ 9.79/ foot $ 31.93/ foot $ &. 75 / each $ 27.&1 / each $ 16.50/ each $ 3&.11 / each $ 33.00/ bag $ 124.00 / bucket $ 57.00 / each $ 55.00 / sack $1,030.00/ month $ 146.26/ cubic yard $ 249.00 I each $ &.65 / each $ 269.&6 I day $ 9&.00 I day $ 206.00 / day $ 270.89 I day I person $ 173.00 I day / person $ 49.00 I day / person $ 39.00 / day / person SPECIAL MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE COSTS Baseline physical costs are covered by the company; however, project-specific medical tests will be charged at cost, plus 20%. Temecula 2002 9 (Revised 5/29/02) , . , i OTHER EQUIPMENT CHARGES ! ' ! . GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT Seismograph, Single Channel Bison Model1570C or Nimbus Model ES-125 .................................................................................................................. Seismograph, Twelve Channel Nimbus Model ESI210F ........................................................ Resistivity Meter, Bison Model #2390 ..................................................................................... Soil Test Model R-40C ........................................... .......................................................... Megger Earth Tester ........................................................................................................ Magnetometer, Portable Proton-Geometrics Model 6816 ......................................................... Electromagnetics ..................................................................................................................... Terrain Conductivity Meter Geonics Model EM 31....................................................................................................... Downhole Shear Wave Velocity Measurement ......................................................................... Blast and Vibration Monitor, VM-IOO (Normal set up and takedown)...................................... Slope Indicator (4-hour minimum)........................................................................................... Pneumatic Piezometer Indicator Sinco Model 51411-A ....................................................................................................... Sealed Double Ring lnfiltrometer Test Equipment................................................................................................................. ,. , . I. r' I. I' i. ! ' , I. OFFICE EQUIPMENT Microcomputer, basic software systems and supPorting hardware............................................. Mainframe Computer Time-Sharing (per CPU minute)............................................................ Camera and Film ..................................................................................................................... Computer Connect Time...................................................................... -................................... Disk: Storage (per megabyte) .................................................................................................... Environmental Information Management System Software Surcharge ..................................... Project Management and CPM Software Surcharge ................................................................. Reproduction .......................................................................................................................... Telephone ............................................................................................................................... Facsimile Copies ..................................................................................................................... Report Surcharge .................................................................................................................... Large Format Drawing Copies, 20-lb Bond ............................................................................. Large Format Drawing Copies, Erasable Vellum ..................................................................... Large Format Drawing Copies, Precision Trim ....................................................................... Mylar Reproductions................................................................................................................ Autocad Drafting, Hardware and Software ..."......................................................................... Autocad Drawing Plots ........................................................................................................... Video Camera ......................................................................................................................... ! . i. I: I: L I: I [ II li U. I: Temecula 2002 10 $ 195.00 /day $ 510.00 /day $ 170.00 /day $ 139.05 /day $ 108.00 /day $ 195.00 /day $ 226.60 /day $ 206.00 /day On Request $ 412.00 /day $ 48.41 /hour $ 185.40 /day On Request $ 21.63 /hour $ 9.27 /minute $ 21.75 /week $ 7.73 /hour $ 76.22 Imonth $ 16.48 /hour $ 16.48 /hour $ 0.52 /page $ 0.52 /minute $ 2.60 /page $ 38.00 /copy $ 2.73 /sq ft $ 3.81 /sq ft $ 1.65 leach $ 16.48 /sheet $ 32.96 /hour $ 1.65 /minute $ 76.22 /day (Revised 5/29/02) ITEM 11 ..'~ ,.., i .. - APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council rrJlwilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 DATE: SUBJECT: Annual Professional Services Agreements for Engineering and Construction Survey Services for Various Capital Improvement Projects for FY2002-2003 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Laura Bragg, Project Engineer - Capital Projects ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the annual agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; and 2. Approve the annual agreement with Project Design Consultants in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide as needed engineering and construction survey services; and 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreements. BACKGROUND: There are various projects described in the approved Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2007 that will require engineering and construction survey services. The attached agreements are for two separate annual contracts to provide as needed services and these services will be utilized on projects that are approved in the Capital Improvement Program or for special projects that come up through out the year. Two firms have been selected for annual agreements so that the City is assured that at least one firm will be available when needed. Once the annual agreements are executed, each service request will be negotiated separately with one of the two firms and may contain some or all of the following services: . Research existing survey data such as maps, records of survey, monument ties, and benchmarks. . Locate existing monuments. . Performing boundary and control surveys. · Prepare legal descriptions and plat maps for right-of-way acquisition. . Perform Aerial mapping and topographic surveys. . Establish and verify horizontal and vertical control. . Locate horizontally to 0.1 j; feet all existing facilities. . Performing field surveying for project design purposes. A:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT Survey.AGR.DOC . Perform construction staking including center lines, limits of clearing and grubbing and construction, slopes, saw cuts, edge of pavement, layout lines, drainage structures, curb & gutters, etc. The actual number of projects and costs are not known at this time. Payment will be based upon actual time spent on tasks as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. An accumulative not to exceed limit of $60,000 has been set by for each Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The Consultant will submit a cost proposal for each service request. Once a scope of service and a schedule of fees are negotiated, funds are allocated from the corresponding project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agreement with Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 2. Agreement with Project Design Consultants 2 R:\A.GENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ANNUAl CONTRACT Survey.AGR.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc., ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for engineering and construction survey services on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. When there is a need for engineering and construction survey on an as needed services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the associated fees are negotiated. 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 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 ofTemecula. 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 City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for any travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number of 1 r:\agrmts\masters\annual rontract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00) 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 unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work in excess of the amount above shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 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, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 2 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this projecUlocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) peraccidentfor bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 4 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraae. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an altemative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 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 any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 5 r:\agrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information conceming the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address ofthe party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of T emecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Califomia 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 151 South Girard Street Hemet, California 92544-4462 Attention: Kevin B. Cozad, President 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 6 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. 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 contractor/consultant 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 9commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of Califomia. 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. 7 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 151 S. Girard St. Hemet, CA 92544-4462 (909) 652-4454 Kevin B. Cozad, President Kevin B. Cozad, Secretary (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED 9 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-03/ajp J Annual Agreement for Engineering and Construction Survey Services City of Temecula Statement of Qualifications May 29, 2002 I ] I I I ] STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR ANNUAL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES The City of Temecula is continuing to implement an aggressive Capital Improvements Project Program to expand and improve the city's infrastructure. As part of the program, the City of Temecula requires professional engineering and construction surveying services for the planning, design and construction of new facilities and the improvement and maintenance of existing facilities. This may include research, boundary and control surveys, topographic surveys, aerial topographic surveys, and construction surveying. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. has the staff and experience to provide these services to the City of Temecula. We believe our firm can provide the best service to the City because: . We maintain a manageable staff providing consulting services only to a small number of municipal clients. As a result, you get our best team with one of our principals as project manager. . We have twenty-five years of experience meeting City, County and Caltrans standards. . Our engineers are also surveyors. We see the project from the perspective of the office and the field. Our experience in surveying, roadway design, traffic signalization, and such diverse areas as hydrology, hydraulics, culvert and bridge design, sound wall design, retaining wall design, environmental assessment, or construction administration means our team can assist the City with all aspects of the project. . We have provided similar services to most cities within Westem Riverside County. . Although, we can provide our own in-house surveying services, landscape plans, signing and striping plans, traffic control plans, soil erosion control plans, right-of-way plans and other speciality services, we also do not hesitate to rely on subconsultants for traffic engineering, geotechnical services or additional surveying services. . Before we begin a project, we prepare a detailed list of tasks required to complete the project The detailed tasks provide a basis for estimating our services, maintaining control and providing a scope of services to be included with the contract. 1 Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. ~ ] 1 ] I I I I Annual Agreement for Engineering and Construction Survey Services City of Temecula Statement of Qualifications May 29, 2002 I INTRODUCTION TO KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. is a full service consulting engineering firm that, since 1977, has provided civil engineering, structural engineering, planning, surveying, environmental assessment, and construction administration services to a wide range of public agencies throughout Southem California. Our highly qualified team of principles and professionals with extensive consulting experience will apply their expertise with Eagle Point Road Calc and TOS data collection software to your projects. Utilizing 100% CAD-based design and analysis, we can also provide fully compatible AutoCAD or Micro Station computerized files to the City of Temecula. Currently, Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. is working with the City of Temecula, the Eastem Municipal Water District and the Riverside County Transportation Department as "Qualified Consultants" providing engineering, surveying and environmental services for multiple projects. During the past 25 years, we have also provided services to the cities of Riverside, Hemet, San Jacinto, Perris, Loma Linda and San Bernardino; school districts; hospital districts; Rancho Califomia Water District, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Lake Hemet Municipal Water District, the University of Redlands, and the University of California, Riverside. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. performs our own in-house surveying with staff members that are surveyors and that also have significant office design experience. The survey crew uses 'state-of-the-art" survey equipment including "Robotic" electronic total stations with vertical axis compensation and full data collection interface with TDS data collection software for fast and efficient data collection, stake-out and transfer to office computers. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. also utilizes GPS software for large scale control and aerial targeting surveys. I FIRM DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION I Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 's staff that will be assigned to your projects includes three civil engineers, two dual licensed in surveying, one project engineer who is a Licensed Land Surveyor, and two with Land Surveyor-in-Training certificates. All staff members have both extensive professional design and surveying experience. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. believes the key to quality control is to assign the same professional to the survey crew that will be performing the in-house design for projects. In this way, our staff becomes intimately familiar with the type and accuracy of control and topographic data required by the design professional to prepare improvement plans and the requirements of the contractor during construction. 2 Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. J I I 1 I I 1 I I Annual Agreement for Engineering and Construction Survey Services City of Temecula Statement of Qualifications May 29, 2002 I AVAILABLE SERVICES ~ . Preliminary Research & Surveying - Survey research at the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control and local utilities to obtain both recorded and unrecorded survey maps, monument ties and benchmarks. . Research and analyze the existing recorded and unrecorded survey maps and compare to field monuments and field conditions. Review title reports and deeds to determine property boundaries and control. . Obtain traffic control and encroachment permits from the City, the County and Caltrans to enter the public right-of-way during construction surveying. Provide traffic control during construction surveying in the public right-of-way. . Perform boundary and control surveys using record information and monument ties to locate existing monuments for street centerline and property lines for control mapping. At Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 's option, global positioning system (GPS) equipment may be used for either control or topographic surveying. . Utilizing Riverside County benchmark NGVD 29 datum obtained from the County, the City or MWD, Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. can establish and verify vertical control and provide topographic surveying, construction surveying or large scale aerial mapping. Set 4"-wide 4' X 4' aerial targets with X, Y, Z coordinates for horizontal and vertical control for aerial topographic surveying. Provide closure and reference maps to aerial survey firm for preparation of the aerial topographic survey map. . Perform field topographic surveys to collect field data, spot elevations and surface features of utilities with sufficient overlap for design of improvements for construction utilizing robotic total stations with TOS data collection software. Hardscape physical features will be located both horizontally and vertically within .02:t foot accuracy. Natural ground features will be located within .10 :t foot accuracy. . Digital data reduction of topographic information, record utility locations, and aerial topographic data to a three-dimensional AutoCAD 14, 2000 or 'ntergraph .OGN compatible file. 3 Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 1 I 1 ] 1 1 I I 1 1 Annual Agreement for Engineering and Construction Survey Services City of Temecula Statement of Qualifications May 29, 2002 . Perform construction surveying for road and facility improvements utilizing the design engineer's CAD file, if available. Meet with the City and the contractor and determine the exact staking requirements for the project. Set off-set stakes, blue tops and other construction stakes required by the contractor to perform the grading and the construction of facilities. Perform office calculations for field stake out and provide cut sheets and control information to the City and the contractor. . Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. will also submit to the City: A. Utility location maps signed and stamped by Brian Fox, Professional Land Surveyor No. 7171, color coded per Caltrans utility mapping standards. B. Survey notes for the project route. C. Record maps collected from utility companies or public agencies for the project route. I ADDITIONAL SERVICES I Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. can also provide the following additional services to the City: . Utility Research - Obtain available maps for water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone, cable TV, and other known utilities in the project area. The results of the utility research can be added to the digital survey data file containing the topography. . Field Locating of Existing Utilities - Verify surface utility markings along the project route. Above ground power and telephone poles can be field verified. Overhead wires can be located per record information. . Research for the Acquisition of Right-of-Way - Research and obtain existing right- of-way documents and plot the existing right-of-way for review by the City. Prepare legal descriptions and plat maps for additional right-of-way and coordinate acquisition of right-of-way with the City. 4 Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. 1 I ] ] I ] I I Annual Agreement for Engineering and Construction Survey Services City of Temecula Statement of Qualifications May 29, 2002 . Coordination with Utility Purveyors - Meet with utility purveyors to coordinate the design of utilities that must be relocated for new construction. Redesign facilities, prepare construction cost estimates and prepare legals and plat maps for additional easements. . Potholing - Additional subsurface utility exploration can be performed by potholing to accurately verify location and elevation of underground crossings. All topographic information and utility locations will be submitted to City staff for review in order to determine the alignment and to assign pothole locations. Assist City staff in determining location and ultimate number of potholes. . Three-Dimensional Utility File - Plot available record and field verified underground and overhead utility information on the utility location map. Utility information will be plotted as a separate 3-<limensional digital file representing utility locations within the project limits. Utilities can be color coded per Caltrans Utility Mapping Standards. . State Plane Coordinates - Assignment of state plane coordinates NAD-83 (CCS- 83) Zone 6, Califomia State Plane Coordinate System, can be used at control points along the route. . Overall Project Feasibility - Review preliminary information to determine the overall feasibility of project, considering topography. existing utilities and conceptual design. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates for City review. . Project Management - Provide project management and coordination services of design consultants and processing through agencies for the City. . Construction Administration and Inspection Services - Monitor compliance with plans, contracts and specifications. Review change orders, determine percentage completion and verify quality control. . Prepare traffic control and barricade plans for construction. . Full color photographic exhibits of facility or project routes. . Video tape records of routes or sites before and after construction. 5 Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 10 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Cozad annual FY02-Q3/ajp 1 1 1 I I I I I I J KEVIN COZAD , &ASSOCIATES, INC. . CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS . MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS . SURVEYORS / GPS . PLANNERS SCHEDULE OF FEES November 1, 2001 GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. provides services in the fields of civil engineering, structural engineering, and land surveying in accordance with presently accepted professional practices. Kevin Cozad & Associates, Inc. does not provide services relating to construction safety and shall be held harmless by the contractor from any liability in this regard. In the event that the client requests termination of work prior to its completion, we reserve the right to complete, at the client's expense, such analysis and records as are considered necessary by us to place our files in order and/or to protect our professional reputation. PERSONNEL CHARGES - RATES PER HOUR Principal Civil Engineer/Principal Land Surveyor/Structural Engineer .............. 160.00 Project Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140.00 Project Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120.00 CAD Drafting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.00 Administrative/Project Coordination ......................................... 75.00 Typing, printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.00 Survey - Office Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120.00 Survey Crew with Robotic Total Station (4 hr. minimum) ........................ 195.00 (Travel time charged portal to portal) Survey Crew w/ GPS ........................................ Estimated by project OTHER CHARGES Expert Witness - Deposition and/or Court appearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two times hourly rate Expert Witness - Research, Case Review and/or Preparation . . . . . . . . . .. Normal hourly rate Mileage to and from meetings or project site .............................. $0.35/mile Blueprints, Duplicating, Photography, Binding, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cost + 20% Telephone calls, Postage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cost + 20% Field Supplies (stakes, monuments, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cost + 20% TERMS OF PAYMENT All services will be progress billed weekly, and all invoices are due and payable when issued unless otherwise agreed. Retainers are required for all projects. Our fee schedule is based upon prompt payment of fees. Interest will accrue at the rate of 1 Y:i percent of the invoice total per month on invoices 30 days old or older. If suit or action is instituted to collect any sum due, the client shall be liable for attorney's fees and court costs. 151 South Girard Street. Hemet, CA 92544-4462 909/652-4454 . FAX: 909/766-8942 . cozad@ivic.net CITY OF TEMECULA ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002.2003 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 23,2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Project Design Consultants, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 23,2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated or extended pursuanttothe provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. This is an annual contract for engineering and construction survey services on an as needed basis. Consultant can perform any of the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. When there is a need for engineering and construction survey on an as needed services, the City will identify the specific scope of work, and request a fee schedule from the consultant. The City will instruct the consultant to proceed with the work once the exact scope of work and the associated fees are negotiated. 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 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 ofTemecula. 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 City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as negotiated and as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, as modified on the consultant letter of June 27, 2001, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the tasks as directed by the City on an as needed basis. Consultant shall not bill the City for any travel time and expenses associated with it, nor shall he charge a set minimum number of 1 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp hours for each site visit. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates are null and void. The total cumulative annual amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($60,000.00) 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 unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City. Consultant shall be compensated for services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. Any additional work in excess of the amount above shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 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, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 2 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002.03IProject Design annual FY02-D3/ajp 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 City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scooe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 4 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03IProject Design annual FY02-03/ajp (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, retum receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraae. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an altemative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 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 any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 5 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03IProject Oesign annual FY02-03/ajp 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 City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of T emecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: Project Design Consultants 43460 Ridge Park Drive, Suite 170 Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Scott A. Hurst, Assistant Vice President 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 6 r:lagnnts\masterslannual contract2002-D3\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written , are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. 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 contractor/consultant 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 9commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 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. 7 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Project Design Consultants 43460 Ridge Park Dr., Suite 170 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 695-5596 Scott A. Hurst, Asst. Vice President Arnie White, Sr. Vice President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:lagrmtslmasterslannual contract2002-03IProject Design annual FY02-03/ajp EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED 9 r:lagrmts\masterslannual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp '] ] . ] . ] ] ] ] ] I I I I I ] I ] J I I I I ] ] I ] ] ) ::jj.it"'"~ City cfTemacllla :a Rmnmst For Q!l?!lfic3t!cns ,... ....r -r!.... ~-."' . ....:'1:" .....-,-..,." --....~"...r. i ., (;'., 'J f ~.... ,i,,"f' L.:rr._~_" E;.,.G....UI"'...~ liOL ~IT~..lGuL....::. '-' ~......_....dJ.Ut.C.. ~_. ilu~ 0.;..,. ~."u.. Understanding or Annual Agreement ProjeclDesign Consultants understands that this RFQ is for As-Needed/On-Call survey services and as such. understands response time and clear communication are paramount to a successful relationship. Our 5-year relationship with Sempra Energy is an example of our ability to meet these demands and even exceed expectations. We meet or exceed the insurance requirements requested ond we are aware that the State Prevailing Wage rate is to be paid to field personnel. It is also understood that travel time to and from the project site will not be charged and there is no minimum amount of work required per request. ProJectbnroach ProjeclDesign Consultant's Temecula survey department is stoffed with 3 office personnel and 2 field crews as well os 4 employees dedicated to aerial photogrammetry. During peok workloads survey crews and/or office personnel are transferred up from the San Diego office to ensure project deodlines are met. Equipment on-hand includes electronic total stations, data collectors GPS equipment and a high precision digital level. Task orders will be written by the Project Manager for each assignment including scope of services. budget and agreed upon schedule. The following provides a brief description of the methods we propose to employ to accomplish the scope of work requested: . Record Research and Review - This task consists of reviewing preliminary title reports and accompanying documents provided by the City of Temecula or a Title Company. Research activities include but are not limited to the fOllowing: research existing County and City survey data such os record maps, record of surveys, monument ties, corner records, horizontal coordinate control stations, and benchmarks. PDC has online accounts set up and can order many of the Riverside County record maps without leaving the office. . Locate Existing Monuments - This task includes searching in the field for property corner monuments, street centerline monuments and centerline ties. The located monuments would then be used in conjunction with a boundary survey, for orientation of a project to the local site. or for preparation of corner records relating to monuments that are anticipated to be destroyed by construction. . Perform Boundary and Control Surveys - This task includes searching in the field for all evidence of boundary locations including but not limited to: property corner monuments, street centerline monuments. lines of occupation, and other physical evidence pertinent to retracement of boundary locations. Physical evidence found in the field will be precisely located by GPS or electronic total station survey instrumentation and 011 data o PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS 7 1 1 1 1 ) I 1 1 ) I ) J I ] I ] I I ) I I ] I ] I ] J ] J I - 1\\""'7> CitllofTemeGUla 'j RCl!mlst FlIf Qnall;!G2ti!lns if---"'" --. -,,---".... ...,...._-.....~-"T ~ -r."" -....r-...- (-- -, . C"..... .."'....1;' l'_J....~;;~u l.::,..u'"'"...........t___ [d::'."_,","'.""~ L (~ _c.,~_l."''''.'-n l...~~I..Qr L>.I.L.u....... will be recorded electronically in data collectors together with physical sketches and field notes if deemed necessary. Control Surveys involve the establishment or location of survey monuments to be used at a later date for either additional field surveying or aeriol photogrammetry. Control and large boundary surveys projects may require GPS survey methods for increased accuracy and efficiency. All boundary surveys will meet or exceed ALT A/ ACSM standards for positional accuracy of 0.07 feet plus 50 ppm. . Prepare Legal Descriptions and Plat Maps for Right-of-Way Acquisifion - This task includes preparation of plats illustrating the location. extent and dimensions of proposed right-of- way acquisition areas. Legal descriptions will be written and signed by a licensed Land Surveyor for use in the grant of easement or condemnation. The iegal descriptions will be crosschecked with the plat and traverse tapes to ensure accuracy and quality. . Perform Aerial Mapping and Topographic Surveys - This task includes field surveying for conventional topographic surveys to collect horizontal and vertical data on plonemetric features and ground shots to map the contour of the land to the accuracy of the proposed contour interval. Electronic total stations or GPS equipment will be utilized to electronically gather the data for loter downloading to on office computer. This information will then be utilized to generate the topographic map in either ACAD 14 or 2000 format. In cases where aerial mapping is required, aerial panels will be set and located horizontally and vertically based on published benchmark information and rotated to either local property corners or State Plane Coordinates if requested. Aerial photography will then be collected and later compiled on PDC's 1" order IMA stereo analytical plotter in Temecula. CA. The aerial mapping will be supplemented with a field check to verify accuracy and completeness. . Esfablish and Verify Horizontal and Vertical Control - Horizontal survey control can be bosed on State Plane Coordinates if requested: otherwise coordinates will be based on a local system. Large surveys will be performed utilizing LEICA system 500 GPS equipment for high accuracy. Vertical control can be established from local published benchmarks by either PDC's High Precision Digital Level capable of performing first order leveling or a conventional level. . Locate Horizontally all Existing Facilities - This task includes the field location of existing plannemetric features to within 0.1' feet. generally for design purposes or for as- built surveys. Facility locations will be recorded with an electronic dota collector and later downloaded and processed in the office. Field sketches will be generated to assist in the office drafting. . Perform Field Surveying for Project Design Purposes - This task includes a field survey to locate existing terrain and plannemetric features for engineering design. Task may aiso include street cross-sections and collection of invert elevations of existing sewer and storm drain facilities. Special attention will be paid to areas where proposed design will motch existing improvements. . Perform Consfruction Sfaklng - This task includes the staking of street centerlines, limits of clearing and grubbing and construction. slopes, saw cuts. edge of pavement, layout o PRo.1EcrDESIGN CONSULTANTS 8 1 I -J J J I J J J J I I ] I ] 1 J J I ] J ] J ] I J l\i.'P' 'lio- Cltv ufTer:ilHmla I RemlGstF6rQ:I?HficHtillfiS -,-.,..."[ -,..-,.-~ "'I -,' -- - -0:> ,. -:- 1"\.-.......('1 ,"\/('... ,i....') f......._r....I..s.""'"'...'"'"_~ f....~ L_"~" .'-"0..._.. c C..........._. ......t ..>.. \,. ...lJ...._ l uil,wuS lines. drainage structures. curb & gutter, etc. Cut-sheets will be prepared and delivered as needed to illustrate the staked elevations and proposed cut/fill to finished grade. Survey centerline/profiles will be pre-calculated and downloaded to hand held computers. Survey party chiefs will calculate stake offset locations in the field from construction plan station & offsets. This approach provides maximum flexibility and responsiveness to the contractor's requests. This approach also forces porty chiefs to read the plans in the field where experienced chiefs can confirm the intent of the plans will be functional and correctly staked and constructed. 01 PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS 9 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 10 r:\agrmts\masters\annual contract2002-03\Project Design annual FY02-03/ajp 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I J I I 1 J J ] J I I ] I I I J J ] I I J - -j\l"~ ")i!> City ofTemecl!la I Re'1"3S1 Fcr Qual',lcatwns --"'....~ ., "'-"'''1''' rr "'''O-":l .j..,. ""..~ 'l"'j..,- (', l:"'lr",. J''''''c t.I.~.....~." t~_G..:;""..;;..~L.. [""~u"-.lG.L_Q c.. (C........_:I.1.. L~.. ....... Vv_ ...uII1J.....uoi:.l lABOR RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF TEMECUIA mectivo Juno 30. 2002 through Juno 30, 2003 Principal Project Manager $135 $115 ~lJaYAi,l1.l~r0 Crew/Mapping Manager Surveyor Survey/Map Technician Clerical 2-Man Survey Crew (Conventional) 3-Man Survey Crew (Conventional) 1-Man Crew (GPS; 1 Receiver) 2-Man Crew (GPS; 2 Receivers) 3-Man Crew (GPS; 3 Receivers) $85 $80 $65 $40 $160 $205 $120 $175 $220 :):)~).J:;(r:" (t\!1 ;f~lsJl~I~;!:~ ~:J~I ~';< ~a("'l'()c..':v:.\J"!I\,';t~:r( Stereo Compiler & Stereo Plotter Photogrammetry Manager Mapping Editor Task Order (Defined Scope) $80 $80 $65 Lump Sum Reimbursable charges for blueprinting, photographic mylar reproduction, photocopying, travel and mileage. delivery services. long-distance telephone charges, computerized plotting, special graphic supplies, facsimiles, and other direct project charges incurred on behalf of Client will be billed to Client at cost plus 10%. Rates subject to change without notice after June 30, 2003 , . j o PROJEcrDESIGN CONSULTANTS 10 ITEM 12 APPROVAL Gln....--- CITY ATTORNEY 0 DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER ----1fL- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council ~".yWilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Amendment NO.5 to Professional Services Agreement-DMJM+HARRIS Pechanga Parkway (Formerly known as Pala Road) Improvements-Phase II Project No. PW99-11 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer ~ Steven W. Beswick, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve Amendment No.5 to the Professional Services Agreement with DMJM+HARRIS in the amount of $20,103.75 to provide additional project management and field surveying services, and authorize the Mayor to execute this amendment. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders above the original 1 0% contingency approved by City Council on November 16, 1999 by an additional 5% (or $28,980.00). BACKGROUND: On November 17, 1999 the City Council awarded the subject design contract to DMJM of Orange, California in the amount of $579,600.00. Amendments No.1 thru 4 were previously approved by the City Manager as authorized by the City Council on November 16, 1999. The work included in Amendments NO.1 thru 4 consisted of the following: Road design services for the intersection of Pechanga Parkway (Formerly known as Pala Road) and Loma Linda Road for the Phase I Improvements, Traffic study (2025 design year) at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Pechanga Parkway, Road design services for an additional traffic lane on Pechanga Parkway between Masters Drive and Muirfield Drive, Noise Study and Acoustical Analysis for Pechanga Parkway Improvements-Phase II, adjustment for new billing rates for DMJM+HARRIS and Engineering Resources (Sub-Consultant for DMJM+HARRIS) starting July 1, 2001 for the remaining number of man hours to finish the original scope of work. Amendment NO.5 will provide for the following: . Additional project management time not included in the original scope of work for Pechanga Parkway Improvements (Phase II) from October 2000 thru November 2001. Staff has prepared Exhibit "D" identifying additional project management costs in the amount of $20,103.75. This additional project management charges are a result of the various delays this project has encountered. . Additional field surveying services requested by Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. DMJM+HARRIS has submitted a cost proposal for the additional field surveying services in the amount of $3,630.00. R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\PW99-11 DMJMHAARtSContract.amendS.DOC The scope of work forthis project includes the widening of Pechanga Parkway from State Route 79 South to Pechanga Road. The first section from State Route 79 South to Via Gilberto excluding the Pechanga Parkway Bridge at Temecula Creek will be designed as a six lane urban arterial with a 134-foot right of way. The second section from Via Gilberto to Pechanga Road will be designed as four lane arterial with a 11 O-foot right of way. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II projectfrom State Route 79 South to Pechanga Road, Project No. PW99-11 is a Capital Improvement Projectfunded fordesign engineering through Development Impact Fees. The original contract limit was $637,560.00, which included the base contract amount of $579,600.00 plus the 10% contingency amount of $57,960.00. Amendments NO.1 thru 4 were approved for a total amount of $41,189.39. The revised contract amount, including Amendment No.5 in the amount of $23,733.75, is $644,523.14. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-165-668-5802. ATTACHMENTS: Amendment NO.5 R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\PW99.11 DMJMHARRISConlract.amendS.DOC FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND DMJM+HARRIS PECHANGA PARKWAY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PALA ROAD) IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II PROJECT NO. PW99-11 THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 23, 2002 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and DMJM+HARRIS ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On November 17, 1999, the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of T emecula Professional Services Agreement for Pala Road Improvements - Phase II, Project No. PW99-11"("Agreement"). B. The Agreement was amended on March 20, 2000, January 24,2001, March 13,2002, and again on April 15, 2002. The Agreement as amended shall be referred to as the "Agreement". C. All sections of the agreement that refer to P ALA ROAD, shall now be changed to "PECHANGA PARKWAY", pursuant to City Council meeting held on June 25, 2002. D. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibits "D" & "E", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Six Hundred Forty Four Thousand, Five Hundred Twenty Three Dollars and 14 Cents ($644,523.14) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 3. Exhibits "D" & "E" are added to the Agreement, 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:\ciplprojectslpw99lpw99-11\DMJM.amend5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT DMJM+HARRIS 999 Town and Country Road Orange, CA 92868-4786 (714) 245-9660 Tom W. Bogard, P.E. Vice President Bruce R. Toro, Sr. Vice President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 2 r:lciplprojeclslpw991pw99-11 IDMJM.amend5 ... ~ 0 :: ... 0 Gl C. 0 u 11l Oi c :g. ~ 0 'tl C 0 ~ m = ... C () () N ~ I- Gl .c - E D:l Gl - > :J: 0 z >< 0 W - () () () N ~ Gl .c 0 - U 0 E E ... Ol - Ol 0 CJ - C Gl E Gl l:ll 01 C 01 :0 Oi c .2 - '6 'tl 11l < ii: 0:: < J: + :0 ..., :0 0 I '" .... <Xl ill ;1; III 1ii ~ 0 <Xl , , t- ~ oj <D .. ci l'i 8 '" '" ~ '" en '" "! ~ '" () S ri N ~ N ... I ~ 0 ~ N .,. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... r! \ " () 0 "! 0 :c 0 0 0 0 '" ci g <; N ci ci ci <D S ~ '" <Xl ~ ... ~ ....... ....... ~ i ~ Ol ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" .2 .,; oj ci ci ci .; ci <6 ::> ~ '" '<t 0 ~ :c 0 ;:: ~ 0 0\ << '" 0 0 0 0 '" -i i~ r! N ci ci ,..: <D '" (') ... - " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ll. - Lri .,; .,; g ~ 13 .,; ~~ \\ ~ ~ en '" ~ ~ " " ~ o 0 !;: :J: 'i \\: ~ "C,g ;// ;.J o \\ .,. .. .. .,. .. .. .. ::> " '" a; ~ ~ 0 en <0 en Z 1ii '" <0 "l '" 0 "'- {;i <D ... oj N ;::: oj '" 0 <Xl <Xl '" 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ i: Ii :c= ~ " z '" .. '" '" '" '" '" z f 0 ~ " '" it "C ~ 0 ~ '" W Q " " Q ~ ~ w Cii '0. Cii '" ;.J C> ~ " ~ '13 1ii ~ '" w ~ " '2 0 * ~ '5 '0. " .r= ~ 11l '" ~ ~ ~ 8 '[ ::; 6 W '0. 0 oJ Q ~ ~ ~ is ~ w 0 "C .8 :~ ~ '2 .- '" 0 E 0 j D- " e .l!l <( "C D. '" D. '" (,) <( I- RECEIVED JUL 1 1 2002 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1836-A South Commercenter Circle San Bernardino, California 92408 DM}MllHARRIS Tel: (909) 890-0600 Fax: (909) 890-0620 July 9, 2002 Mr. Steve Beswick Associate Engineer-Capital Projects CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Pala Road Improvements - Phase II, Project No. PW 99-11 Additional Survey Costs Dear Steve: Attached please find the Proposal from Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. for the additional field surveying as requested by the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. The cost for the requested services from ERSC is $3,630.00 which includes the services listed in their letter dated July 2,2002 as well as our ten (10) percent markup for general and administrative (g&a) costs. ERSC will deliver the results of their field work within three weeks of the Notice to Proceed. The mapping will be prepared and submitted along with the hydraulic calculations for the project. Should you have any questions please contact me at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, DMJM+HARRIS ~Gl '((.-<9-- Roger S. Cunliffe-Owen, P.E. Associate Vice President Cc: Andy Nowak, DMJM+HARRIS Amer Attar, City of Temecula AN AECOM COMPANY ITEM 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER II CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: City Manager/City Council !\,A~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for Citywide Asphalt Concrete Repairs for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Senior Engineer Eric Weck, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Asphalt Concrete Repairs for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-04. BACKGROUND: This Asphalt Repair Project for FY2002-2003 is part of the Annual Street Maintenance Program. The Program involves fixing portions of streets that require minor repairs and the associated pavement striping and legends. The roads included in this project are as follows: Margarita Road, Lo Colima Road, Front Street, Overland Trail and Pujol Street. The specifications and contract documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract document is available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $110,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department, Maintenance Division, Routine Street Maintenance Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget Account No. 001-164-601- 5402 for Project No. PW02-04. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\PW02-04BID.DOC o IX << z '6 "- ~ o 'l o ~ '" \)\\)0 co\-l t-S \otl\-l 1'1<.0\-1\ Sw.t-t-\ Ol-\) S\ jol- I'D o Q) ~ <{ -'L ~ o "" " \,).- " ",' I, 'oq.~' 'III Ii "r~ 7"1:" :_-----\\ ;.... ,(;' >.' '\ f'-~ "" ... II ,~-:_.._.\~, '::;" \\'~-\ ~~ '<~\ 'II " -.__ \ 1,\ \\ [L <t :2 Z o ~ u o .-J w = c- O] :r: X w Q) ~ <{ -'L ~ o "" ITEM 14 APPROVAL ~ CITY A HORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN C ~ CITY MANAGER r CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manager DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution of support for the passage of Measure A on the November, 2002 ballot PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE A ON THE NOVEMBER, 2002 BALLOT BACKGROUND: Measure A is a countywide ballot initiative that would extend a half-cent sales tax used for transportation improvements and programs. Since 1989, Measure A funds have been used to build roads & highways, expand public transit and maintaining local roads. These funds are a result of a one-half percent sales tax for transportation to supplement traditional revenues and revenues to be generated through locally-adopted developer fees and assessment districts for transportation impro\ements. Measure A expires in 2008, yet the extension of Measure A will be on the November 2002 ballot for voters of Riverside County to consider. This is primarily due to the time it takes to plan and guide transportation projects through the process of environmental checks and construction. This measure is not a new tax but rather the extension of an existing retail and transactions use tax of Y, of 1 % for a 30-year period for specified transportation purposes. Riverside County is the fastest growing county of its size in California. Population in Riverside County has increased 150% in the last twenty years and will likely reach 3 million residents by 2020. Riverside County greatly needs a more extensive transportation network to support this population. The Measure A extension is estimated to raise over $4.6 billion for transportation projects countywide. This will include major improvements to every state highway and interstate in the county, the establishment of a regional arterial roadway system, as well as expanding public transit for all residents and maintaining and improling our local streets and roads. R:\ADAMSA\CQUNCILlResolulion- Measure A staff ,.pen.doc If the passage of the Measure A extension is successful, specific improvements to our community and Southwest Riverside County will include: . Adding two lanes each direction on the 1-215 to the San Bernardino Countyline . Adding one lane each direction on 1-15 from Route 60 to the San Diego Countyline In addition, regional arterial imprOl.ements planned include: . Scott Road from State Route 79 to 1-215 . Clinton Keith Road from State Route 79 to 1-215 . French Valley Parkway (Date Street) from State Route 79 to 1-15 . Railroad Canyon/Newport Road from 1-25 to 1-15 Due to these local and regional imprOl.ements planned, It is staff's recommendation to support the passage of Measure A on the November 2002 ballot. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time Attachments: Resolution 02-_ RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE A ON THE NOVEMBER, 2002 BALLOT WHEREAS, since 1989, Measure A has supplied Riverside County with the funding to provide its residents with safer roads, more reliable public transit and traffic relief; and WHEREAS, Riverside County is the fastest growing large county in California and is anticipated to grow to a population of more than three million people by the year 2020; and WHEREAS, over sixty percent of transportation funding throughout Riverside County and its cities is provided by Measure A; and WHEREAS; extending Measure A will raise over $4.6 billion for much needed transportation projects, programs and improvements; and WHEREAS; Measure A will provide major improvements to every interstate and highway in the county; and WHEREAS; Measure A will expand public transit programs and options for commuters, seniors and disabled residents; and WHEREAS; Measure A will provide the crucial funding needed for cities such as Temecula to maintain and improve local streets and roads; and WHEREAS; if Measure A is not extended, the transportation network within Riverside County would be seriously crippled, adversely affecting commuters and residents throughout the county; and WHEREAS; by passing Measure A on the November 2002 ballot, Riverside County will ensure a stable source of funding to relieve traffic congestion, increase public transit programs, build new highways and improve local streets; and WHEREAS; passing Measure A would ensure that the City of Temecula would be able to provide a safer environment to its residents and maintain the high quality of life we enjoy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Temecula supports the passage of Measure A on the November, 2002 ballot; and PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of July 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: 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. 02-_was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of July, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: o COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: o COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: o COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk ITEM 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC~ CITY MANAGER~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT To: City Manager/City Council From: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Date: July 23, 2002 Subject: Morgan Hill Project Mitigation Agreement-Approval of Joint Community Facilities Agreement RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve: RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT AMONG EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF TEMECULA AND MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC BACKGROUND: On June 26, 2001, the City Council approved an "Agreement for Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313" between the City of Temecula and TR4, L.P ("Mitigation Agreement"). The Mitigation Agreement provides for TR4, the original developer of the Morgan Hill Project, to pay to the City a mitigation fee of $1.176 million. The City is required to use the funds for the "design and construction of roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road (SR 79S) between Butterfield Stage Road and the 1-15/SR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of the improvements to the 1-15/SR 79S interchange." The mitigation fee is required to be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Morgan Hill Project. In addition, as required by the Agreement, TR4 posted a performance bond in favor of the City in the amount of $1.176 million to secure the payment of the mitigation fee. On July 9, 2002 the City Council approved the assignment of the Mitigation Agreement from the original developer, TR4, L.P., to McMillin Morgan Hill, LLP. The Council is also being asked to approve a joint community facilities agreement with Eastern Municipal Water District and McMillin Morgan Hill so that payment of the $1.176 million mitigation fee can be paid from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by a Community Facilities District being established to pay for public improvements for the Morgan Hill Project. Joint Community Facilities Aqreement The new owner of the Morgan Hill Project is proposing to fund a number of public improvements for the Project from the proceeds of bond to be issued by a community facilities district formed on the Morgan Hill Project. Under this type of public improvement financing, the bonds are secured by and paid out of real property taxes levied on property within the district boundaries, in this case the Morgan Hill Specific Plan Area. The community facilities district for the Morgan Hill Project will be formed and administered by the Eastern Municipal Water District. The District will be responsible for the formation of the community facilities district, imposition of the taxes, disbursement of bond proceeds to public works projects, collection of taxes, and payment of principal and interest on the bonds. This type of public improvement financing is also being used to finance the public improvements for the Harveston Project, except that in Harveston, the City is the public entity forming the community facilities district, issuing the bonds and administering the district. The Joint Community Facilities Agreement requires the City to use the proceeds of the Mitigation Fee for the purposes outlined in the Mitigation Agreement, account for expenditures and provide Eastern Municipal Water District with a report of any expenditures and interest accruing on the funds. All expenses of the City resulting from the Joint Community Facilities Agreement requirements shall be paid by Eastern Municipal Water District or McMillin Morgan Hill, LLC. The City shall not be responsible in any way for payment of principal and interest on the bonds. This is the responsibility of Morgan Hill property owners and Eastern Municipal Water District. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The payment of the Mitigation Fee to the City is secured by a performance bond. All expenses and potential liabilities for payments to bondholders or other problems with the community facilities district will be the responsibility of the Morgan Hill Property owners or Eastern Municipal Water District. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 02-_ 2. Agreement for Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313 3. Joint Community Facilities Agreement Among Eastern Municipal Water District and City of Temecula and McMillin Morgan Hill, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Attachment # 1 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT AMONG EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF TEMECULA AND MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC WHEREAS, the City of Temecula (the "City") has entered into an "Agreement for Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313" (the "Mitigation Agreement") with TR4, L.P., and has approved an assignment of the Mitigation Agreement from TR4, L.P., to McMillin Morgan Hill, LLP (the "Developer"); and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Agreement provides for the Developer to pay to the City a mitigation fee of $1,176,000 (the "Mitigation Fee") for use by the City to pay the costs of design and construction of roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road between Butterfield Stage Road and the 1-15/SR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of the improvements to the 1-15/SR 79S interchange (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Eastern Municipal Water District (the "Water District") is undertaking proceedings to form Community Facilities District No. 2002-06 (Morgan Hill) of the Eastern Municipal Water District (the "CFD") pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"), and the CFD may issue bonds (the "Bonds") in order to finance, among other public facilities, a portion of the costs of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City enter into a joint community facilities agreement (the "JCF Agreement") with the Developer and the Water District so that an amount equal to the Mitigation Fee can be financed with proceeds of the Bonds, and, upon the issuance of the Bonds and the availability to the City of an amount equal to the Mitigation Fee from Bond proceeds, the Developer can be relieved of its obligation to pay the Mitigation Fee; and WHEREAS, in order to enable the CFD to provide for Bond proceeds to finance the Improvements, Section 53316.2 of the California Government Code requires that the City and the Water District enter into the JCF Agreement prior to the formation of the CFD; and WHEREAS, a form of the JCF Agreement, by and among the City, Water District and the Developer has been filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council, with the assistance of City staff, has reviewed the JCF Agreement, and the City Council now desires to approve the JCF Agreement and direct its execution and delivery. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. ADDroval of JCF Aqreement. The City Council hereby approves the JCF Agreement in the form on file with the City Clerk, and hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute and deliver the JCF Agreement in such form together with any changes therein deemed advisable by the City Director of Finance upon consultation with the City Attorney, the approval of such changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery by the City Manager of the JCF Agreement. The City Council hereby declares that the JCF Agreement will be beneficial to the residents residing within the boundaries of the City. Section 2. Official Actions. The Mayor, City Manager, Director of Finance, the Director of Public Works and City Clerk, and all other officers of the City, are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things necessary or desirable hereunder to implement the JCF Agreement, including but not limited to the execution and delivery of any and all agreements, certificates, documents and other instruments which they, or any of them, deem necessary or desirable and not inconsistent with the purposes of this Resolution and the JCF Agreement. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting held on the day of July, 2002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, , City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. _ was duly adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of July, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk J6319 7/18/02 -3- Attachment # 2 MITIGATION AGREEMENT .'-- AGREEMENT FOR MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF MORGAN HILL SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 313 TIDS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of June 26, 2001 by and between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and TR4, LP, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: I. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which the parties agree are true and correct: a. Developer is the owner of certain real property in the unincorporated area of Riverside County consisting of 478.3 acres, generally located north of Monte Verde Road, south of Highway 79 and Nighthawk Pass, east ofEl Chimisal Road, and west of Anza Road, which is more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit A to this Agreement ("Property"). . b. On June 5, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside certified Environmental Impact Report No. 412, approved Resolution No. 2001-172 adopting Specific Plan No. 313 (Morgan Hill) and approved Resolution No.2001-135 amending the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, which resolution includes the adoption of ComprehenSive GeneraJ. Plan Amendment No. 475, the General Plan . Amendment for Morgan Hill. The Board deferred adoption of the zoning ordinance for Specific Plan No. 313, Zone Case No. 6397. ( ) c. Specific Plan No. 313 is a 478.3 acre master planned community. The Specific Plan proposes construction of 1,126 dwelling units on 338.1 acres, ll.l acres for parks, 12.3 acres for an elementary school, 89.9 acres for open space, 2.2 acres for paseos (trails), and 24.8 acres for major roads. d. Specific Plan No. 313 is associated with Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 475 which: (I) Changes the Qpen Space and Conservation Map designation from "Agriculture" to "Adopted Specific Plan No. 313;" (2) changes the Southwest Area Community Plan Land Use Allocation Map designation from "Agricultural 10 ac. Min." to "Morgan Hill SP No. 313;" (3) changes the SWAP Growth Management Concept Plan to reflect the entire Property as "Urban Area;" and (4) changes the Land Use Element of the General Plan. e. Specific Plan No. 313 is also associated with Change of Zone Case 6397 which proposes to change the existing zoning classifications of Light AgriculturaI, 10- acre minimum, (A-l-lO), Light AgriculturaI, 20-acre minimum (A-I-20), and R-R (Rural Residential) to SP (Specific Plan). The SP zoning designation would also establish those development standards required to implement the Specific Plan. f. For the purposes of this Agreement, Environmental Impact Report No. 412, as certified by Board action, Specific Plan 313 as approved by Resolution No. 2001- June 29,2001 659090.2 I ( 172, Comprehensive General Plan as approved by Resolution No. 2001-135, and Zone Case No. 6397 as proposed to the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2001 shall collectively constitute and be known as the "Morgan Hill Project" g. As originally proposed, Specific Plan No. 313 would have included 1,436 residential units. The City objected to the proposal on the ground that it would have caused significant traffic impacts within the City. As a result of the City's objections, Developer agreed to .contribute $1.5 million to the City of Temecula towards the cost of specified road improvements to Winchester Road (SR 79S) within the City ofTemecula which would further mitigate the impacts of the proposed SP 313 on the City of Temecula. h. On April 17 , 2001, the Board of Supervisors gave tentative approval to a substantial revision to the proposed Specific Plan No. 313 which reduced the residential units from 1,436 units to 1,126 units and revised the land use plan. i. City objected to the revised proposal on the same grounds as its objections to the prior proposal and on the added grounds that the new proposal required a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and new public hearings before the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. j. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors rejected the City's objections and approved the Morgan Hill Project as described in subparagraph b. of this section. ) k. City and Developer have discussed the impacts of the Morgan Hill Project upon the City and further mitigation for these impacts. As a result of these discussions, the City and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement in order to provide further mitigation for the impacts of the Morgan Hill Project on the City and in lieu oflitigation over the Morgan Hill Project and address the City's concerns over the impact of the Morgan Hill Project on the City. 1. Completion of Developer's obligations under this Agreement will alleviate the City concerns about the impacts of the Morgan Hill Project upon the SR 79S corridor within the City ofTemecula. 2. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts. a. Developer shall pay to the City of Temecula the sum of one million one hundred seventy six thousand dollars ($1,176,000.00) ("Mitigation Fee"). b. City shall use the Mitigation Fee for the design and construction of roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road (SR 79S) between Butterfield Stage Road and the I-15/SR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of the improvements to the I-15/SR 79S interchange. City shall determine, in its sole discretion, June 29, 2001 659090.2 -2- .l the specific projects within this corridor to which the Mitigation Fee shall be applied and shall determine, in its sole discretion, when the Mitigation Fee shall be applied to such uses. c. City shall retain any interest which may accrue on the Mitigation Fee from the time of payment to the City until application to an approved use and may use the interest for any purpose. d. Developer shall pay the Mitigation Fee to the City on or before the issuance of the first building permit by the County of Riverside fro a residential dwelling unit for the Morgan Hill Project. e. In the event the Mitigation Fee is paid and not used or not fully used by the City within fifteen (15) years from the date of this Agreement, City shall return the unused portion of the Mitigation Fee to the Developer, without interest, excluding the amount by which it is reduced for the cost of the performance bond or letter of credit,. 4. Security for Payment of Mitigation Fee. a. On or before July 2, 2001, Developer shall file with the City Clerk a performance bond or letter of credit securing Developer's performance under this Agreement in an amount of not less that one million one hundred seventy six thousand dollars ($1,176,000.00). ( ) b. The performance bond, ifused, shall be from a surety admitted in the State of California and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Surety shall have a current A.M. Best Rating of "A minus" or better and a financial size of "VII" or better. The letter of credit shall be in a form and from a bank approved by the City Attorney. c. The Mitigation Fee payable to the City shall be reduced by the actual premium paid by Developer for the performance bond or the actual fee paid by the Developer for the letter of credit, but in an amount not to exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00). 5. City Agreement Not to Litigate. Provided the security described in Section 2 is in full force and effect and Developer is in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, City agrees not to file any legal action which challenges the validity of the following actions or seeks to have such actions declared illegal: (1) The Environmental Impact Report No. 412, as . certified by the Board of Supervisors; (2) Specific Plan No. 313, as approved by Resolution No. 2001-172; (3) Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 475, as approved by Resolution No. 2001-135; and (4) Zone Change 6375, provided, however, that the text and exhibits attached to or incorporated into Zone Change 6375 as ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors is substantially the same as the text and exhibits attached or incorporated into the Zone Change 6375 as proposed to the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2001. June 29, 2001 659090.2 -3- I , ---/ 6. Reoresentations and Warranties. The parties, and each of them, represent and warrant to and agree with each other as follows: a. The parties have each received independent legal advice from attorneys of their choice with respect to the advisability of making the settlement and release provided herein and of executing this Agreement. Prior to the execution of this Agreement by each party, each party's attorneys have reviewed this Agreement at length. b. Except as expressly stated in this Agreement, none of the parties has made any statement or representation to any other regarding any fact that is relied upon in entering into this Agreement. No party to this Agreement relies upon any statement, representation or promise of any other party not contained herein in executing this Agreement or in making the settlement provided for herein. c. Each party, and its attorney, has made such investigation of the facts pertaining to the underlying dispute and this Agreement, and all of the matters pertaining thereto, as they deem necessary. d. The terms of this Agreement are contractual, and are the result of negotiations among the parties to settle the City's objections to the Morgan Hill Project and to forego litigation. e. City acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement of the City enforceable against the City in accordance with its terms. ) f. Developer acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement of the Developer enforceable against the Developer in accordance with its terms. g. This Agreement has been carefully read by each of the parties and the contents hereto are known to and understood by each of the parties. It is signed freely by each party executing this Agreement. h. Each person executing the Agreement in a representative capacity eXpressly warrants and represents that the party on whose behalf they are signing has duIy approved this Agreement and has authorized such person to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party, and agrees to indemnifY, including reasonable attorneys' fees, all . other parties hereto against any claim that the party did not approve the Agreement or that such person is not so authorized. 7. Intemtion. This Agreement constitutes a single, integrated contract expressing the entire agreement of the parties hereto relative to the subject matter hereof. No covenants, agreements, representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever have been made by any party hereto, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement. All prior discussions and June 29, 2001 659090.2 -4- ) J ( negotiations have been and are merged and integrated into, and are superseded by, this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing, signed by the City and the Developer. 8. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either party except through a written amendment of this Agreement duly approved and executed by City, Developer and assignee. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold approval of an assignment if the assignee is financially capable of completing the terms of this Agreement and can obtain the bond described in section 2 prior to the effective date of the assignment. 9. No Liability. It is understood and agreed that this settlement is the compromise of disputed claims, and that the terms and conditions recited herein are not to be construed as an admission of liability of the part of the parties hereby released, and that said parties deny liability therefore and intend merely to avoid litigation, including, but not limited to, any admission regarding the adequacy of the EIR and/or the mitigation measures imposed by the County of Riverside. 10. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542. The City and the Developer acknowledge that Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California provides as follows: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which ifknown by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." () Notwithstanding Section 1542, this Agreement constitutes a full release in accordance with its terms, and the City and the Developer knowingly and voluntarily waives the provisions of Section 1542. II. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1654. This Agreement has been negotiated at anns' length between persons knowledgeable in the matters dealt with herein. In addition, each party has been represented by experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel. Accordingly, any rule oflaw, including, but not limited to, Section 1654 of the Civil Code of California, or any other statutes, legal decisions, or common law principles of similar effect, that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the party that has drafted it is of no application and is hereby expressly waived. 12. Notices. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the United States Mail as provided above. / , June 29, 2001 659090.2 -5- ( To City: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Attention: City Manager To Developer: TR 4, LP 17341 Irvine B!., Suite 200 Tustin, Ca. 92780 Attention: Steven Vliss, President ) 13. Governing Law; Litigation; Attorney Fees. The City and Developer understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 14. 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. 1/1/ I//! ) June 29,2001 6590902 -6- ) ') () ) ',-_/ June 29, 2001 6590902 -7- I ) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be ) executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA ,....,. -- ~ Peter M. Thorson City Attorney ( ) June 29, 2001 659090.2 -8- ,-) ...- ( () (~) , ) TR 4, LP, a California limited 1~n::llny, By Highpoint Communities, Inc., a California corporation I G-rNt:RPJ ~..ot:t By: ~9- Vice President /\ ~ June 29, 2001 659090.2 -9- C) ( I , ) '-.j ) EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF MORGAN mLL PROJECT PROPERTY AN EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS, IN AND OVER A STRIP OF LAND 110.00 FEET IN WIDTH, OVER THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO PAUBA, IN THE COONTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO LUIS VIGNES BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 19, 1860 AND RECORDED IN BOCK 1, PAGE 45 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COONTY, CALIFORNIA, THE CENTER LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: (Il BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE RANCHO TEMECULA, IN THE COONTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO LUIS VIGNES BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860 AND RECORDED IN BOCK 1, PAGE 37 OF PATENTS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COONTY, CALIFORNIA, SAID POINT BEING A COONTY OF RIVERSIDE BRASS CAP MONUMENT SET IN A 14-INCH DIAMETER PIPE FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND SHOWH IN SAID COONTY SURVEY FIELD BOCK 832, PAGE 3, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE TEMECULA-MURRIETA RANCH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 47041'03" EAST, 13,151.78 FEET TO A 6 INCH BY 6 INCH BY 18 INCH GRANITE STONE, CHISELEJ)' L.E. ON THE SOUTH FACE AND ACCEPTED AS CORNER NUMBER 9 OF SAID RANCHO AS SHOWN ,BY RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOCK 5, PAGE 39 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COONTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 640 52' 19" EAST, 811.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 580 12' 41' EAST, 225.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,800.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 328.32 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 100 27' 03"; THENCE NORTH 680 39' 44" EAST, 1,872.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,043.77 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 140 57' 03"; THENCE NORTH 830 36' 47" EAST, 711.84 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 771.47 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 220 06' 04"; THENCE NORTH 610 30' 43" EAST, 1,070.04 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 8,000.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,182.13 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 080 27' 59" ; THENCE NORTH 690 58' 42" EAST, 2,924.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,600.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,357.45 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 210 36' 16"; THENCE NORTH 480 22' 26" EAST, 1,581.11 FEET TO POINT "A"; THENCE SOUTH 41" 42' 50" EAST, 732.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 662.98 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 180 59' 35"; THENCE SOUTH 22' 43' 15" EAST, 823.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAI)) CURVE, 731.19 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 200 56' 49"; THENCE SOUTH 010 46' 26" EAST, 766.30 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 625.11 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF June 29, 200 I 659090.2 -10- . . .;:?::-.. -. ~.: _',;,' . .. ~""-':...:. ,-.' ,,",'"-''' -'''''''''," - ':--.:, ,:;;:~.~:":::':"-,i~~_:--':':'~~:-~~~~~";~~~~ I ,':.,...;.." -~', 1_~"-~.' :; .b','- ~ '. 250 34' 58"; THENCE SOOTH 270 21' 24" EAST, 554.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 812.79 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 380 48' 2S"; I THENCE SOOTH 110 27' 04" WEST, 551.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 589.26 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 280 08' 06"; THENCE SOOTH 160 41' 02" EAST, 776.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 682.27 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 320 34' 33 U i THENCE SOOTH 150 53' 31" WEST, 2,867.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,086.29 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 150 33' 36" i THENCE SOOTH 000 19' 55" WEST, 1,423.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,564.26 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 220 24' 23"; THENCE SOOTH 220 44' lS" WEST, 1,552.61 FEET TO POINT "A", BEING THE TRuE POINT OF BEGINNING AND THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 976.10 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 460 36' 20" (THE CENTER LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY SIGN ROUTE 71 INTERSECTS THE CENTER LINE OF SAID 110.00 FOOT ROADWAY AT A POINT 220.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID CURVE FROM THE BEGINNING THEREOF, SAID HIGHWAY 71 ALSO KNOWN AS TEMECULA AGUANGA STATE HIGHWAY); THENCE SOOTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 140.00 FEET TO POINT "B"; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 722.82 FEET TO POINT "C"; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 388.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 967.37 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 270 42' 47"; THENCE SOUTH 030 50' 45" WEST, 501.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLy AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 00. 27' 51" WEST, THE SIDE LINES OF SAID ROADWAY ARE TO BE FORESHORTENED OR LENGTHENED SO AS TO TERMINATE IN SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE. . ~-...~-_.-----_._- ,- ) -.. ~ EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED IN PARCEL C-2 HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. PARCEL C-2: THAT PORTION OF SAID RANCHO PAUBA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT POINT "B" AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 (I) ABOVE DESCRIBED; THENCE SOOTH 230 52' 02" EAST, 1,111.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 967.37 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 270 42' 47"; THENCE SOOTH 030 50' 45" WEST, 501.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 00. 27' 51" WEST; I~j I 'J J (~ THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 905.20" FEET, 'THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 430 13' 12"; THENCE SOUTH 46' 18' 57" WEST, 1,470.89 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY Am) HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,029.09 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 190 39' 15"; THENCE SOUTH 260 39' 42" WEST, 570.39 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY Am) HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 986.64 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 280 15' 55"; THENCE SOUTH 54' 55' 37" WEST, 754.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY Am) HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 493.72 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 090 25' 46"; THENCE SOUTH 450 29' 51" WEST, 1,276.76 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID RANCHO PAUBA; THENCE ALONG SAID RANCHO THENCE NORTH 43' 58' 00" THENCE NORTH 73' 10' 43" THENCE NORTH 29' 36' 32" THENCE NORTH 390 54' 22" THENCE NORTH 50' 34' 20" THENCE NORTH 710 59' 45" THENCE NORTH 110 05' 22" THENCE NORTH 71' 11' 43" ....<...-.'..... :... ". t ') LINE, EAST, EAST, WEST, EAST, .EAST, EAST, WEST, EAST, . .",~... -. "'-"- .-....'"';" ..'-..... ". .,0,"';,:." ..,..p;~~~.,..:.. '';'~':.':;'_'~i..:!:' .'.-i~*~y~ r.. NORTH 46' 45' 773,26 FEET; 449.22 FEET; 1,305.47 FEET; 2,190.07 FEET; 582,58 FEET; 1,051.49 FEET; 1,273.78 FEET; 3,092,94 FEET TO 26" WEST, 1,577.85 FEET; THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THE PORTION THEREOF INCLODED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A BEARING AND LENGTH OF "SOUTH 23' 52' 02" EAST, 1,251.44 FEET" IN THE CENTER LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 110.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL A OF DEED RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 9, 1965 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 127437 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COONTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 23' 52' 02" EAST, ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE 622.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 660 07' 58" THENCE SOUTH 23' 52' 02" THENCE NORTH 66' 07' 58" THENCE NORTH 230 52' 02" WEST, EAST, EAST, WEST, 155.00 100.00 155.00 100.00 FEET; FEET; FEET; FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. (j (-) I ' . ) '~ June 29, 2001 659090.2 ( J EXIllBIT B FORM OF PERFORMANCE BOND -11- ]UN 28 2001 18:07 FR ~---'l3EST 8. KRIEGER 909 686 5036 ' .- JUI'I-~-4.lCl.L .L.L.,,>,1, ~ )IIIU11,."", TO 2~ -'-'~}-:1b~!_!"..I.~'.L~ . Proj~t Name: Moras" Hili proieCt'80nd No. ~~tl, 14;;10 I Premium $17.640.00lyr ~ ) ". TRAFFIC MITIGATION BOND WHEREAS, the City Council 01 the City crf T emecula, State of Callfomia a.nd TR4. LP. a Califomia limited paMership (herein designated as 'Principal'), have entered into the attached agreement whereby the principal. recognizing tile Impact of his development on existing street and highway facilities. prjnc:ipalhas agreed as a condition of approval of the map to m~igate the impact ollhe development by payment to the City of a sum 01 money to be used lor mitigation of such impact: and. WHEREAS. principal wtshes till defer the payment of the sum, and is requirec1 under the tenms of said agreement furnish security to guarantee the payment of the traffic mitigation fees. NOW THEREFORE. we. the principal and Gulf Insurance ComDanv. a corporation organlted and exlslillg under Ihe laws of the Slate of Missouri and authorized to transact'surely business In the Slate of california, as Surety are held and firmly bound unto CilY ofTemecula , in the sum 01 One Million One Hundred SevenN Sill Thousand and NO/100lhs Dollars ($1 176 000). for the payment whereof, well and lnJly to be made, said Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs. administrators. successors and assigns. JOintly and severaRy. finmly by these presents. The Cond~ion of this Obligation is such that if the above-bounden Principal, his or its heirS, executors, administrators. successors or assigns, shall In all things stand to and abide by and well and trUly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions In the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided. on his or their part. to be kept and performed at the lime and in the manner therein specified, and In all respectS ac:c:ording to their , lnJe intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the Clly of Temecula, its officers, agents and employees. ( ) as therein stipulated, then this obllga~on shall become nun and void: othetWlse it shall be and remain in full fon:e and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and ,in addition to the race amount specified therefor, there sllall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, inclUding reasonable attomey'& fees. incurred by City ,111 successfully enlorcing such obligation, all to be taxed as c:ost5 and included in any jUdgement rendered. The surety hereby stipulated and agrees that no change. extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of tile agreement shall In anywise affe<:l'ils obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive' notice of any such change. extension of time. alteration or addition io the tenmS of this egreement surely funher stipulates and agrees lh81 the provision of Section 2845 01 the Civil Code are not a condition precedent to the Surety's Obligations hereunder and are hereby waiv b urety. Wh the uired payment covered bylhe Agreement Is made, the Cily of Temecula will thereupon release the obligation 0 this bo d. IN WITNES 2001. EOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the prIncipal and surely above named, on June 27, Gulf Insurance Company (Surety) (_J By: Victoria M. Campbell. , TOTAL P.B2 ** TOTAL PRGE.12 ** Attachment # 3 JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT Quint & Thimrnig LLP 7/18/02 JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT among EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT and CITY OF TEMECULA and MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company relating to: COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2002-06 (MORGAN HILL) OF THE EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT )6320 JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT THIS JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into effective as of the _ day of July, 2002, by and among the EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a municipal water district ("EMWD"), the City OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation (the "City") and MCMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Property Owner"), related to the proposed formation by EMWD of a community facilities district to be known as "Community Facilities District No. 2002-06 (Morgan Hill) of the Eastern Municipal Water District" ("CFD No. 2002-06") for the purpose of financing costs related to certain public facilities and equipment, including costs related to certain facilities to be constructed by or under the supervision of the City. RECITALS: A. Property Owner is the owner of certain real property which consists of approximately 452.71 acres of land located in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside and which is proposed to constitute the land within the boundaries of CFD No. 2002- 06 (the "Property"). The Property is depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto. B. The Property Owner desires to develop the Property for residential purposes and has obtained, or intends to obtain, the necessary development approvals to construct approximately 1,126 single family detached residential units on the Property, as such development may be modified from time to time (the "Project"). C. The Project will require the payment, pursuant to that certain "Agreement for Mitigation of Impacts of Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313" between City and the former owner of the Property, TR4, LP, a California limited liability company (the "City Agreement"), of a Mitigation Fee in the aggregate amount of One Million One Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Dollars ($1,176,000.00) (the "Mitigation Fee"), which is to be used to finance costs of the design and construction of roadway and traffic improvements on Winchester Road between Butterfield Stage Road and the I-15jSR 79S interchange or for the design and construction of improvements to the I-15jSR 79S interchange (collectively, the "City Facilities"). The City has agreed that the Mitigation Fee may be paid directly to City or paid out of proceeds of the bonds, or other securities, issued by CFD No. 2002-06 (the "Bond Proceeds"). D. The City has agreed to provide the Property Owner with a credit against payment of the Mitigation Fee to the extent that Bond Proceeds are made available to the City to pay costs of the City Facilities, all as further described herein. E. 2002-06. EMWD will have responsibility for the formation and administration of CFD No. F. The Board of Directors of EMWD (the "EMWD Board") has declared its intention to form and establish CFD No. 2002-06 pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the" Act"). -1- G. EMWD and the City, by their respective approvals of this Agreement, find and determine that the residents residing within the boundaries of their respective jurisdiction will be benefited by the City Facilities and that this Agreement is beneficial to the interests of such residents. H. The parties hereto intend to have CFD No. 2002-06 assist in the financing of the City Facilities by making Bond Proceeds available to the City in an amount which is equal to the amount of the Mitigation Fee. 1. EMWD is authorized by Section 53313.5 of the Act to assist in the financing of the City Facilities. This Agreement constitutes a joint community facilities agreement, within the meaning of Section 53316.2 of the Act, by and among EMWD, City and Property Owner, pursuant to which CFD No. 2002-06, when and if formed, will be authorized to finance a portion of the costs of the City Facilities. As authorized by Section 53316.6 of the Act, responsibility for constructing, providing for and operating the City Facilities will be the responsibility of the City, as described herein. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and is, by this reference, incorporated herein. 2. Proposed Formation of CFD No. 2002-06. EMWD will undertake to analyze the appropriateness of forming CFD No. 2002-06 to finance a portion of the costs of the City Facilities as well as certain other facilities and equipment. EMWD will retain, at the expense of the Property Owner, the necessary consultants to analyze the proposed formation of CFD No. 2002-06. 3. Sale of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. In the event that CFD No. 2002-06 is formed, the EMWD Board acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2002-06 may, in its sole discretion, make Bond Proceeds available to the City to pay a portion of the costs of the City Facilities by issuing bonds of the CFD in one or more series (the "Bonds"). To the extent that the EMWD Board determines, in its sole discretion, that Bond Proceeds are available to finance a portion of the costs of the City Facilities, it may deposit such amount in a special fund, or fund(s), accounts(s) or subaccount(s), of CFD No. 2002-06 (the "City Facilities Account"), established by the document pursuant to which the Bonds are issued (the "Fiscal Agent Agreement"). The Bonds shall be issued only if, in its sole discretion, the EMWD Board determines that all requirements of state and federal law and all EMWD policies have been satisfied or have been waived by EMWD. In no event shall City have a right to compel the issuance of the Bonds or any deposit of Bond Proceeds to the City Facilities Account. The City Facilities Account, to the extent established and funded as described in the preceding paragraph, shall be held by the fiscal agent or trustee for the Bonds (the "Fiscal -2- Agent"), and amounts shall be disbursed from the City Facilities Account upon receipt by the Fiscal Agent of a Disbursement Request Form executed by the City Manager or the City's Director of Finance. The City agrees that amounts will be withdrawn from the City Facilities Account solely to pay costs of the City Facilities then due and payable by the City, or that have otherwise theretofore been paid by the City after the date of this Agreement, and the City hereby represents and warrants that it reasonably expects to expend at least 85 % of any Bond Proceeds deposited to the City Facilities Account within 3 years of the date of deposit. In no event shall EMWD, the Property Owner or CFD No. 2002-06 have any right to approve any such disbursement request. The City Director of Finance shall have the sole right and obligation to direct the investment of any amounts on deposit in the City Facilities Account; provided that any such investment shall be a permitted investment for Bond Proceeds under the Fiscal Agent Agreement. Amounts deposited to the City Facilities Account and any investment earnings thereon shall be used solely for (a) satisfaction of Disbursement Request Forms submitted to the Fiscal Agent as described in the preceding paragraph, (b) with respect to any amounts on deposit in the City Facilities Account on the date which is 15 years after the first deposit of funds therein, to the redemption of Bonds, and (c) to the extent investment earnings on amounts in the City Facilities Account are in excess of the yield on the Bonds, the excess may be used by CFD No. 2002-06 to make rebate payments to the federal government. In the event that Bond Proceeds are deposited to the City Facilities Account and the provisions governing the City Facilities Account are consistent with the foregoing provisions of this Section 3, the City will provide a dollar for dollar credit for each dollar of Bond Proceeds so deposited against amounts owing in respect of the Mitigation Fee. Nothing herein shall supersede the obligation of Property Owner to pay the Mitigation Fee when due. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a mechanism by which CFD No. 2002-06 may issue bonds to provide a source of funds to finance the City Facilities in lieu of the payment of the Mitigation Fee. In the event that Bond Proceeds are not available to satisfy the obligation, then Property Owner shall remain obligated to pay the Mitigation Fee as a condition of receiving building permits for the Project; provided, however, that in the event Bond Proceeds in an amount less than the full amount of the Mitigation Fee are deposited in the City Facilities Account, the Property Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied the applicable Mitigation Fee with respect to the Project in an amount equal to such deposit. The City agrees to maintain accounting records relating to the use of amounts disbursed to or upon its order from the City Facilities Account in accordance with City accounting procedures for similar funds. The City will, upon written request, provide EMWD with reasonable access to City's records related to such disbursements. 4. Reimbursement of City Costs. Property Owner shall advance to the City an amount equal to the City's costs reasonably incurred in connection with its review and approval of this Agreement, which advance may, in the sole discretion of the EMWD Board as the legislative body of CFD No. 2002-06, be reimbursed to Property Owner from Bond Proceeds. -3- 5. Construction. The City will be responsible for all matters related to the design and construction of the City Facilities. 6. Ownership of Facilities. The City Facilities shall be and remain the property of City. 7. Limited Obligations. All obligations of EMWD under and pursuant to this Agreement shall be limited to the amounts, if any, on deposit in the City Facilities Account. No Boardmember, officer or employee of EMWD shall in any event be personally liable hereunder. Following any deposit of Bond Proceeds in the City Facilities Account as provided in Section 3 above, EMWD shall have no liability with respect to the handling or the investment of such funds by the Fiscal Agent, or the disposition of such funds by the City. 8. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall cease to be effective and shall terminate if a deposit of Bond Proceeds to the City Facilities Account is not made by CFD No. 2002-06 by March 1, 2003. 9. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time but only in writing signed by each party hereto. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the matters provided for herein and supersedes all prior agreements and negotiations between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. 11. Notices. Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement to be given or delivered to another party shall be deemed to have been received when personally delivered or seventy-two hours following deposit of the same in any United States Post Office in California, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: EMWD: Eastern Municipal Water District 2270 Trumble Road Post Office Box 8300 Perris, California 92572-8300 Attn: General Manager City: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attn: City Manager Property Owner: McMillin Morgan Hill, LLC c/o McMillin Land Development 2727 Hoover Ave. National City, CA 91950 Attn: Wade Hall -4- Each party may change its address for delivery of notice by delivering written notice of such change of address to the other parties hereto. 12. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. 13. Severabilitv. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible. 14. Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 15. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by another party hereto, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of another party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by such other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 16. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No person or entity other than CFD No. 2002-06 when and if formed shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than City, EMWD, Property Owner and CFD No. 2002-06 (and their respective successors and assigns), any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. 17. Singular and Plural; Gender. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural, and terms in the masculine gender shall include the feminine. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute but one instrument. -5- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written above. EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT By: Director of Finance ATTEST: By: Secretary of the Board of Directors CITY OF TEMECULA By: City Manager ATTEST: By: City Clerk McMILLIN MORGAN HILL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: McMillin Management Services, LP, its Manager By: Corky McMillin Construction Services, Inc., a California corporation, its General Partner By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: -6- EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY [COPY OF BOUNDARY MAP TO BE INSERTED] Improvement Area A [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] Improvement Area B [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] Improvement Area C [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] A-1 EXHIBIT B DISBURSEMENT REQUEST FORM 1. , as Fiscal Agent for Community Facilities District No. 2002-06 (Morgan Hill) of the Eastern Municipal Water District ("CFD No. 2002-06"), is hereby requested to pay from the City Facilities Account established by CFD No. 2002-06 in connection with its Series _ Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds") to the City of Temecula ("City") or its order, the sum set forth in 3 below. 2. The undersigned certifies that the amount requested hereunder is being or has been expended for costs of the City Facilities. 3. Amount requested: $ 4. The amount set forth in 3 above is hereby directed to be paid to 5. Capitalized terms used in this Disbursement Request and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given such terms in the Joint Community Facilities Agreement among EMWD, City and Property Owner, dated as of ,2002. Date: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Its: B-1 ITEM 16 ORDINANCE NO. 02-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Temecula and Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System. SECTION 2. The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behaif of said Agency. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of 30 days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the Californian, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Temecula and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of June, 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2002l0rds 02-03 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 the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of June, 2002, 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 23rd day of July, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2002l0rds 02-03 2 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT JUNE 25, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:28 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Pratt ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Stone Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Tract Map No. 23209 - Service Level B. Service Level C. and Service Level D Rates and Charqes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 02-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FlUNG OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 23209 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 2 Authorize the expenditure of funds for the Landscape Maintenance Contract with Excel Landscape. Inc. for FY 2002-2003 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $1,110,440.00 for the base contract and an additional amount not to exceed $120,000.00 for the supplemental and new areas that may be brought on line during the term of the contract; Minutes.csd\062502 2.2 Approve a contingency of 10% in the amount of $123,044.00 for extra work items. 3 Third Amendment to the Tree Maintenance Services Contract with West Coast Arborists. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the third amendment for the extension of the Tree Maintenance Services Contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. through June 30, 2003 in an amount of $75.00000; 3.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,500.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. MOTION: Director Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of President Stone who was absent. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No additional comments. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT A. Community Services Director Parker invited the community to the Star Spangled Fourth of July Festivities, advising that the parade, in Old Town, will begin at 10:00 A.M. with family festivities at the Sports Park beginning at 2:00 P.M. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. Minutes.csdl062502 2 ADJOURNMENT At 7:33 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csd\062502 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT JULY 9, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:43 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Pratt ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Stone 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 June 11, 2002. 2 Amendment NO.2 to a ConsultinQ AQreement for Professional Materials TestinQ - Chaparral HiQh School SwimminQ Pool - Proiect No. PWOO-08CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Amendment NO.2 to the consulting agreement with Ninyo & Moore in the amount of $13,637.50 to complete the materials testing services for the Chaparral High School Swimming Pool - Project No. PWOO-08CSD - and authorize the President to execute the amendment. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of President Stone who was absent. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Extending his appreciation to those involved, Community Services Director Parker commended his staff and other City departments involved with making this year's Fourth of July Festivities another success. Minutes.csd\070902 GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT Echoing Community Services Director Parker's comments, General Manager Nelson as well commended those involved on a job well done. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:46 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 7:00 P,M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, President ATTEST: Susan W, Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL} Minutes.csd\070902 2 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER 1fJ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community service& July 23, 2002 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Naming of Vail Ranch Park Sites A, Band C PREPARED BY: Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator / RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve names for the Vail Ranch Park Sites located in the Vail Ranch development as follows: Park Site A - Vail Ranch Park; Park Site B - Nighthawk Park and Park Site C - Pablo Apis Park as recommended by the Community Services Commission. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2001, the Vail Ranch community was annexed into the City of Temecula. There are three developed park sites in the Vail Ranch area that are unnamed. The Community Services Department maintains a policy of naming and placing signage on all City park and recreation facilities. At the direction of the City Council, the Community Services Department ran a "Name Your Parks" campaign for the Vail Ranch community. Flyers were distributed, advertisements and press releases were placed in the local newspapers and the park naming was offered on the City's website. During a four-week period, several suggestions were made for naming the park sites. Attached you will find those names suggested through the Vail Ranch park naming campaign. Also attached, you will find our standard list of park name recommendations for future City of Temecula Park and Recreation Facilities. Pursuant to City policy, the Community Services Commission forwards recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding the naming of the City's parks and recreation facilities. At their meeting June 10, 2002, the Commission approved a motion to recommend that the following names be forwarded to the Board for these sites: Park Site A Vail Ranch Park Park Site B Nighthawk Park Park Site C Pablo Apis Park The Board may approve these names or select other names of their choice. FISCAL IMPACT: City of Temecula concrete monument park signs will be installed at each site. The cost of each sign is approximately $4,000 and has been funded in the current year's budget. ATTACHMENTS: Vail Ranch Park Site Map List of Name Recommendations from the Naming Campaign R:\McCarthC\Agenda AeportsWail Ranch Park Sites Naming.doc Memo Dated July 15, 2002 Re: Pablo Apis List of Name Recommendations for Future City of Temecula Park and Recreation Facilities Letter Dated July 8, 2002 Re: Names for New City of Temecula Parks Resolution No. CSD 92-08: Naming Parks and Recreation Facilities A:\McCarthC\Agenda ReportsWail Ranch Park Sites Naming.doc ............. '... .' ,- Vail Ranch Parks City of T emecula June 6. 2002 /\I Centerline _ Parks [ ] Parcels I I City 500 , o 500 N A 1000 Feet , ---~ Legend This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System. The map is derived from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Riverside County. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The Geographic Information System and other sources should be queried for the most current information. This map is not for reprint or resale. r:\gis\kelli\arcviewprojects\vail_ranchJ)arks.apr Park A (Located at Vail Ranch Parkway) Vail Park Luiseno Park Heart of Temecula Park Pablo A is Park Walter Vail Park Tony Tobin Park Teme Vail Park Ramona Wolf Park PARK NAME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VAIL RANCH PARK SITES ~ .. l"l o 3 3 .. = c.. ll> .... o. = '" Park B (Located at Nighthawk Pass) I Hawk Park I Via del Rio Park I Pablo Apis Park 2 Cattleman Park 2 Ramona Park I Luiseno Park I Ni hthawk Park I I I 2 Sunset Park Kit Carson Park Immigrant Trail Park I I Vail Ranch Park Erie Stanley Gardner Park Rori augh Park Pe ercom Park Butterfield Trail Park Palomar Park I 2 ~ .. l"l o 3 e .. = c.. ll> f"'to; o' = '" I I I I I I I I I TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM City of T emecula Community Services Department Memo To: Herman Parker From: Wendell Ott, Museum Services Manager Date: July 15, 2002 Re: Pablo Apis Pablo Apis became one of the noted Luisefio leaders during post-secularization times. (He married Casilda Ano at Mission San Luis Rey.) According to the padrones, Pablo Apis and Casilda Ano were parents of seven children born between 1809 and 1831. Their eldest child was named Pablo Apis after his father, and both played prominent roles in Luisefio affairs. The younger Apis received a grant for the Little Rancho Temecula from Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Apis died (1855) about the time his claim for the Little Temecula Rancho was rejected by the Board of Land Commissioners in 1853. A few years later, the Apis heirs were successful in having their title restored after an appeal of the case. [Pablo Apis was one of the few Indians to be awarded a land grant. Getting the grant was one thing, keeping it was another.] Until early in 1990, a low mound of melted adobe on the south bank of the Temecula Creek marked the location of the Apis Adobe, an important historic house of early San Diego County. The home of Pablo Apis served as a ranchhouse, store, and the Temecula station of the Overland Mail Company. The house was a quarter mile east of the historic Indian village of Temecula and three miles southeast of modern downtown Temecula near the intersection of State Highway 79 and Redhawk Road. (Running past the front door of the Apis Adobe was the trail variously known as the Emigrant Road, the Butterfield Stage Road, and the Overland Road.) . LIST OF NAME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE CITY OF TEMECULA PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES 1. Palomino Park 13. Eagle Park 2. Cutting Horse Park 14. Eagle Ranch Park 3. Wild Horse Park 15. Vineyard Park 4. Bronco Park 16. Granite Park 5. Cattle Drive Park 17. Wolfe Valley Park 6. Vaqueros Park 18. Bear Mountain Park 7. Wagon Wheel Park 19. Rainbow Canyon Park 8. Fort Temecula Park 20. Ponderosa Park 9. Old West Park 21. Recreation Park 10. Rodeo Ranch Park 22. Earle Stanley Gardner Park 11. Indian Park 23. Vail Ranch Park 12. Patricia H. Birdsall Park 24. Ronald Regan Park R:\ZIGLERGILISTSILIST OF PARK NAME RECOMMENDATIONS.doc Jul OS 02 06:34a ~ . Elliott Miller SOS 600 8726 p.2 Dr. David M. Elliott & Dr. Anne J. Miller 20246 Avenida de Arboles Murrieta, California 92562 (909) 600-8626 FAX (909) 600-8726 8 July 2002 Mayor and City Council City of Temecula Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9003 Re: Names for new City of Temecula parks Dear Sirs: We understand that Pablo AplS Park is being considered for a name of one of the new parks in Temecula. We strongly support the use of this name for a park. The Apis name has been associated with Temecula since 1836, if not before. Descendants of Pablo Apis continue to reside in the Temecula Valley; 166 years later. Few people, if any, can say that their family has lived in the Temecula area that long. Pablo Apis, a Luiseno Indian, was granted the Little Temecula Rancho, which contained about 2200 acres. Much of what was the Little Temecula Rancho is part of Temecula today. Most of Redhawk, part of Vail Ranch, the Pechanga Entertainment Center, the Wolf Store area, part of the neighborhoods southwest of Pala and Loma Linda Roads, and some of the area known as Wolf Valley are all in what was the Little Temecula Rancho. To name one of the parks Pablo Apis Park would be a great honor to Temecula's history, to the Luiseno Indians who have lived here so many years, and to the many descendants of Pablo Apis. Sincerely, /J~b:fr/vpf?-_._-- David M. Elliott ~~ Anne J. Miller RESOLUI10N NO. CSD 92-08 A RESOLUI10N OF TIlE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TIlE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY FOR NAMING PARKS AND RECREATION FAClLmES WHEREAS, on April 23, 1991, the Board of Directors (the "Board") adopted a policy for naming parks and recreation facilities; and WHEREAS, the Community Services District and the Parks and Recreation Commission requests that the aforementioned policy be adopted by resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, mE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF mE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DOES HEREBY, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLWWS: Section 1. That the policy for naming parks and recreation facilities as set forth on Exhibit "A" is adopted establishing a uniform policy and procedure that identifies criteria for the naming of parks and recreation facilities. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1992. ~1iL Ronald J. Parks, President ATTEST: R."", CSD 92-08 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 92-08 was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of September 1992 by the following roll call vote. AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Moore, Lindemans, Munoz Parks, NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None ~.J7J une S. Greek, C. Clerk Roso. CSD 92-08 Exhibit "A" TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Naming Parks and Recreation Facilities PURPOSE To establish a uniform policy and procedure that identifies criteria for the naming of parks and recreation facilities. POLICY The Park and Recreation Commission will be responsible for the selection of names for parks and recreation facilities. Once a name is selected, it will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for ratification. Staff will be responsible for encouraging citizens and community organizations to suggest possible names that will then be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. At a minimum, each park and community building will be designated a name. Naming of specific areas within a park (garden, swimming pool, lake, ballfield, etc.) is acceptable but should be kept to a minimum to avoid confusion. No park shall be given a name which might be perceived as controversial by the community. All names selected shall be acceptable and meaningful to a majority of the neighborhood/community where the park or recreation facility is located. Priority in naming sites shall be given to geographical locations, historic significance or geologic features. No park shall:be named for a person, except where an individual has made a si9nificant financial contribution toward the acquisition and/or development of the park or facility, or has been an outstanding long-time community leader who has supported open space and recreational activities. All park and recreation facilities will be designated a formal name within six months of acquisition or construction. All parks shall have an entrance sign. Buildings will have an entrance sign and a plaque inside the facility for name identification. The name of a park or recreation facility may be changed only after a hearing is held by the Commission to receive community input and direction. No name shall be changed unless there is significant justification and support by the community. E,ESPONSIBILITY Department Parks and Recreation Commission Department ACTlON 1. Acquires a new park or recreation facility. 2. Solicits possible names from community. 3 . Forwards suggested names to the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration. 4. Receives any additional community input. 5. Selects a name for the new park or recreation facility. 6. Forwards name to city Council for ratification. 7. Installs the appropriate naming sign or plaque. . . TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community servicesQ) July 23, 2002 DATE: SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gail L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary The Master Plan for the Temecula Public Library was adopted at the September 26, 2000 City Council Meeting. Staff has negotiated a contract with LPA for the final construction documents and specifications for the Temecula Public Library. Staff is resolving the final issue with the construction documents and they will be submitted for final plan check. Staff released an RFQ for grant writing services to apply for the California State Library's Bond Act 2000. Staff and the consultant worked tirelessly to complete the grant application, which was delivered in person by Phyllis Ruse and Aaron Adams to Sacramento on June 13, 2002. The plans for general tenant improvements for the Temecula Children's Museum are in second plan check. The Community Services Commission reviewed the design concept for the project and recommended staff take the design concept forward to the City Council. The Board of Directors approved the Master Plan at the March 26, 2002 City Council meeting. Staff anticipates the project will be going out to bid in the near future. RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail Ranch Park Site "C" adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's CIP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. The Community Services Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual master plan at their February 11, 2002 Commission meeting. The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable television services and assessment administration. The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of all parks and recreation facilities, as well as all other City owned public buildings and facilities. In addition, the Maintenance Division assists in all aspects of Citywide special events. R:\ZIGLERGIXDEPTRPTl0702.doc July 16,2002 The Recreation Division completed the annual 4th of July Extravaganza, which included the 4th of July parade through Old Town and the events at the Rancho California Sports which included live entertainment, food and craft vendors and 30 minutes fireworks display. Staff is currently programming many of the summer programs including Summer Day Camp, the SMART Program, the Learn To Swim and Public Swim Programs, and the Summer Concert Series. The Recreation Division continues to plan, program and implement a variety of classes and activities for the community. R:\ZIGLERGIXDEPTRPTl0702.doc July 16,2002 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 25, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:33 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Comerchero ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBER: Stone Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Exclusive Neqotiatinq Aqreement with AGK Group, LLC RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the Agency and AGK Group, LLC. MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item NO.1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Stone who was absent. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No additional comments. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. R:\Minutes. rda\062502 ADJOURNMENT At 7:33 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 9, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes. rda\062502 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JULY 9, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:46 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Comerchero ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBER: Stone Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of June 11, 2002. MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item NO.1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Stone who was absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. R\Minutes.rda\070902 ADJOURNMENT At 7:47 P.M. the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 23, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:IMinutes. rdal070902 2 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: DATE: Executive Director/Agency Members ,tW~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer July 23, 2002 FROM: SUBJECT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Agency for Construction and Funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No. PW01-20 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That Redevelopment Agency Board: 1. Approve an Agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" between the City of Temecula (City) and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Temecula for construction and funding of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater) - Project No. PW01-20. 2. Authorize the Chairperson to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency in substantially the form attached to the Agenda Report. 3. Authorize the budgeted expenditure of $287,500.00 for the RDA's share of the Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit project costs incurred, as approved by the City or the RDA. BACKGROUND: The City's Capital Improvement Program includes improvements for the Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater). This Improvement is located within the Project Area of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Project Area 1988-1. The RDA's planning also calls for this Project to be funded by the RDA. The Community Redevelopment Law, a Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes and encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the planning, undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b) specifically authorizes such cooperative agreements allowing a city and a redevelopment agency to assist each other in the construction and installation of parks, playgrounds, community, and educational facilities. The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 specifically authorizes the expenditure of RDA funds on Community facilities within or benefiting the Project Area. R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmt0121 ROA.doc 1 Completion of this Project will promote the goals of the redevelopment, as it will complete community improvements as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program and in the Redevelopment Plan. The Project will also induce private investment in and promote expansion of the commercial areas which will provide additional employment opportunities within the Project Area. The attached "Cooperative Agreement" between the City and the RDA for construction and funding of improvements to Mercantile Building (Community Theater); Project No. PW01-20 will implement the funding plans of the City and the RDA. FISCAL IMPACT: The Mercantile Building Retrofit (Community Theater) project is funded through RDA Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A total of $287,500.00 has been budgeted for the seismic retrofit reinforcement in Administration Account No. 210-190-183-5801 and Construction Account No. 210-190-183-5804. ATTACHMENT: Cooperative Agreement R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2002\072302\ARcoopagrmto121 RDA.doc2 2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCANTILE BUILDING SEISMIC RETROFIT (COMMUNITY THEATER) - PROJECT NO. PWOl-20 TillS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT made and effective as of July 23, 2002 by and between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the CityofTemecula, a public body, corporate and politic ("Agency"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: I. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each party finds and determines to be true and correct: a. The Community Redevelopment Law at Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes and encourages cities and redevelopment agencies to aid each other and to cooperate in the planning, undertaking, construction, and operations of redevelopment projects. Sections 33220 (b) and (c) specifically authorize such cooperative agreements between a city and a redevelopment agency to assist each other in the restoration and safety enhancement of historically significant buildings intended for public use within the Project Area. b. The Redevelopment Plan for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1 specifically authorizes the expenditure of Agency funds on building rehabilitation within or benefiting the Project Area. c. The Old Town Temecula Mercantile Building Seismic Retrofit (Community Theater), Project No. PWOI-20 is a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and is located within the Project Area of Temecula Redevelopment Project Area 1988-1. d. Completion of the Project will benefit the Project Area and will assist in the elimination of blight within the Project Area as it will restore and enhance public safety of a historically significant building intended for public use, Community Theater, as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program and in the Redevelopment Plan. The Project will induce private investment in the commercial area, and promote expansion of employment opportunities within the commercial areas within the Project Area. e. No other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the community. 2. The City and the Agency agree to cooperate and share responsibility for the design and construction of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 3. The City shall undertake the following responsibilities with respect to the Project: a. prepare necessary bid documents for the Project; b. solicit bids and award construction contracts for the Project; and c. administer the construction contracts. 4. The Agency shall pay for all Project costs, except for such costs as the City is obligated to pay R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPWOl-20CSD TheatellMercantileRDACOOP.doc pursuant to this Agreement. The Agency shall, however, reimburse City for its payments made for the value of the City services provided. 5. The City Manager, upon the recommendation of the Director of Finance, shall determine the allocation of costs between the City and Agency pursuant to this Agreement and his or her determination shall be final. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Ron Roberts, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, Agency Secretary Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney! Agency General Counsel R:ICIPIPROJECTSIPW01IPW01.20CSD TheaterlMercan,leRDACOOP.doc 2 ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Executive Director FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag~ July 23, 2002 U DATE: SUBJECT: First Amendment to Lease of Agency Property - 27500 Jefferson Avenue RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Agency approve a first amendment to the lease a9reement with the Donna L. Reeves Trust UTD 7-25-90 for Agency property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue to provide a one year extension to this lease for an amount of $15,000 per month. 2. That the Agency approve a first amendment to the sublease agreement between the Donna L. Reeves Trust and Temecula Valley Automotive, d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi and authorize the City Manager to sign the consent agreement. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Redevelopment Agency ori9inally entered into a lease with the Norm Reeves Group (Donna L. Reeves Trust UTD 7-25-90) for Agency property at 27500 Jefferson Avenue in January of 1994. This agreement has been periodically amended, and most recently the Agency entered into a new agreement with the Donna Reeves Trust dated March 30, 2001. The Norm Reeves Group was able to make expansions on their own property, and consequently requested that the Agency approve a sublease with San Bernardino Mitsubishi. The Agency approved this sublease on August 14, 2001. The lease agreement with the Reeves Trust provides that the agency receives $15,000 per month rental, and is due to expire on March 31, 2003. Temecula Valley Mitsubishi wishes to extend the terms of their sublease for up to an additional one-year period. This requires an amendment to our a9reement with the Donna L. Reeves Trust as well as approval of the amendment to the sublease. The attached amendments provide for this extension as well as a 90 day notice period for termination. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments. Approval of these amendments will result in the continuation of lease and sales tax revenues from this location. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in revenues of $15,000 per month to R:IOGRADYJ\27500 JEFFERSONlAGENDA REPORT - AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH REEVES, 07-23-02.DOC 7/10102 the Agency in addition to sales tax revenues. ATTACHMENTS: 1. First Amendment to Lease between Agency and Donna L. Reeves Trust 2. First Amendment to Sublease between Donna L. Reeves Trust and Temecula Valley Automotive R:\OGRADYJI27500 JEFFERSONIAGENDA REPORT. AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH REEVES, 07-23-02.DOC 7/5/02 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the day of , 2002, by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Lessor") and DONNA 1. REEVES, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED JULY 25, 1990 (the "Lessee"), with respect to the following facts: RECITALS A. Lessor and Lessee entered into that certain Standard Industrial/Commercial Single- Tenant Lease - Net dated as of March 30, 2001 (the "Lease"), whereby Lessor leased to Lessee that certain real property located in the City of Temecu1a, County of Riverside, State of California and the three commercial buildings located thereon (the "Premises"), commonly known as 27500 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, California, for use as an automobile dealership with a retail sales and service center, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Lease. B. Lessee then subleased all of the Premises pursuant to that certain Agreement of Sublease dated as of August 2001 (the "Sublease"), by and between Lessee, as sublessor, and Temecula Valley Automotive, a California corporation d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi ("Mitsubishi"), as sublessee. Lessor granted its consent to the Sublease and its approval of Mitsubishi as a subtenant of the Premises, as required under Section 12 ofthe Lease. C. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Sublease, Lessee assigned to Mitsubishi the option to purchase the Premises set forth in an Addendum to the Lease dated April 1, 2002 (the "Purchase Option"). Mitsubishi must exercise the Purchase Option by giving written notice of such exercise to Lessee during the period from April 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002 (the "Option Period"). D. Pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Lease, the two (2) year term of the Lease is due to expire on March 31,2003. Lessor and Lessee desire to amend the Lease in order to grarlt Lessee the option to extend the term ofthe Lease for a twelve (12) month period, and to extend the term of the Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. E. Lessor hereby acknowledges that Lessee and Mitsubishi intend to execute an amendment to the Sublease concurrently herewith, which amendment will similarly grant Mitsubishi the option to extend the terms of the Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to the terms and conditions more specifically set forth in such amendment, so that the term of the Sublease shall run and expire concurrently with the term of the Lease, as it may be extended or earlier terminated. Lessor further acknowledges that Lessor intends to grant its consent to such amendment to the Sublease, which consent is required to be obtained pursuant to Section 12 of the Lease. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein by this reference, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: I. Grant of Option to Extend Term. Unless the Lease is terminated prior to expiration of the Original Term, Lessee shall have the privilege and option of extending the term of the Lease (the "Extension Option"), for an additional term of twelve (12) months (the "Extension Term"), to commence upon expiration ofthe Original Term, only so long as Lessee is not in default or breach under the Lease at the time of exercise of such Extension Option and at the time such Extension Term commences. Such option shall be exercised by Mitsubishi's delivery of written notice thereof to Lessor no later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Original Term, sent in the manner and to the address of Lessor set forth in Section 23 of the Lease. The parties acknowledge and agree that upon the exercise of option by Mitsubishi, that the Lease shall automatically be extended for an additional twelve (12) month period, and that no separate notice from Lessee shall be required or be effective to extend the term of the Lease or the Sublease. If for any reason Mitsubishi fails to timely and properly exercise the Extension Option as aforesaid, then the Extension Option shall automatically terminate. In addition, in the event of termination of the Lease for any reason, then the Extension Option, if not yet exercised, or if exercised but not yet commenced, shall automatically terminate. The terms and conditions of the Lease shall be the same during the Extension Term as during the Original Term, as provided in the Lease. The "Term" as used in the Lease shall be deemed to include the Original Term and the Extension Term, if any. 2. Extension of Option Period for Purchase Ootion. In the event that Lessee validly and timely exercises the Extension Option, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 1 hereof, then the term of the Option Period in which to exercise the Purchase Option, as set forth in paragraph (b) of the Option to Purchase Standard Lease Addendum attached to the Lease dated April 1, 2001, shall be extended so that the Option Period shall expire on December 31, 2003 (i.e., ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Extension Term) or upon the earlier termination of the Lease. 3. Termination of Extension Term. The parties acknowledge and agree that for the duration of the Extension Term, Mitsubishi shall have the right to terminate the Lease and the Sublease at any time without cause by giving ninety (90) days written notice of such termination to Lessor and Lessee. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the term of the Lease shall run and expire concurrently with the term of the Sublease, including the Extension Term, ifany, and that no separate notice from Lessee shall be required or be effective to terminate the Extension Term as to either the Lease or the Sublease. 4. Representations and Warranties of Lessee. Lessee hereby represents and warrants that as of the date hereof, (a) Lessee is not in default or breach of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease, and (b) Lessee has not committed any act or omission which, after notice or the passage of time, or both, would constitute an event of default under the Lease. G: \ TEMVAlAUTO\GENERAL \AGT\LEASEAMDl.DOC Page 2 of3 5. Event of Conflict. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the Lease and the terms and conditions ofthis Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. 6. All Other Provisions of Lease to Remain in Effect. All of the other remaining provisions of the Lease, and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein, do hereby remain in full force and effect and shall not be amended, modified or in any way affected hereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written. "Lessor" : "Lesseell : REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic Shawn Nelson, Executive Director THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED JULY 25, 1990 .' ... .' ......-] /-:.~:-"~.> . .-.- -'"") .~ / /..... ~;;;.~~~-_...- "b'o' ~ '- -- -- -- .. Donna 1. Reeves, Trustee By: ATTEST: Susan Jones, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney G: \TEMV AlAUTO\GENERAL \A.GT\LEASEAMDI.DOC Page 3 of3 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as ofthe day of ,2002, by and between DONNA 1. REEVES, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED JULY 25, 1990, as sublessor ("Reeves") and TEMECULA VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE, a California corporation d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi, as sublessee ("Mitsubishi"), with respect to the following facts: RECITALS A. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, a public body corporate and politic (the "Agency"), and Reeves entered into that certain Standard Industrial/Commercial Single- Tenant Lease - Net dated as of March 30, 2001 (the "Lease"), whereby the Agency leased to Reeves that certain real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California and the three commercial buildings located thereon (the "Premises"), commonly known as 27500 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, California, for use as an automobile dealership with a retail sales and service center, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease. B. Reeves then subleased all of the Premises pursuant to that certain Agreement of Sublease dated as of August 2001 (the "Sublease"), by and between Reeves, as sublessor, and Mitsubishi, as sublessee. The Agency granted its consent to the Sublease and its approval of Mitsubishi as a subtenant of the Premises, as required under Section 12 of the Lease. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Sublease. C. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Sublease, Reeves assigned to Mitsubishi the option to purchase the Premises set forth in an Addendwn to the Lease dated April 1, 2002 (the "Purchase Option"). Mitsubishi must exercise the Purchase Option by giving written notice of such exercise to Reeves during the period from April 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002 (the "Option Period"). D. Pursuant to Section 1 of the Sublease, the term of the Sublease is due to expire on. March 31, 2003. Reeves and Mitsubishi desire to amend the Sublease in order to grant Mitsubishi t.l:1e option to extend the term of the Sublease for two (2) successive six (6) month periods, and to extend the term of the Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. E. Reeves and Mitsubishi hereby acknowledge that on or about the date hereof, the Agency and Reeves executed an amendment to the Lease which granted Reeves the option to extend the term of the Lease for a twelve month period beyond the original expiration date of March 31, 2003, and also extended the term ofthe Option Period for exercise of the Purchase Option, subject to the terms and conditions more specifically set forth therein. Reeves and Mitsubishi desire that the terms or the Sublease run and expire concurrently with the terms of the Lease, as it may be extended or earlier terminated. Reeves and Mitsubishi further acknowledge that they have obtained the prior written consent of the Agency for this amendment to the Sublease, which consent is required to be obtained pursuant to Section 12 of the Lease. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein by this reference, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Grant of Option to Extend Term. Unless the Sublease is terminated prior to expiration ofthe original term as set forth in Section 1 of the Sublease, Mitsubishi shall have the privilege and option of extending the term of the Sublease (the "Extension Option"), for an additional term of twelve (12) months (the "Extension Term"), to commence upon expiration ofthe original term, only so long as Mitsubishi is not in default or breach under the Sublease at the time of exercise of such Extension Option and at the time such Extension Term commences. Mitsubishi shall exercise such option by delivering written notice thereof to Reeves and the Agency no later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the original term, sent in the manner and to the address of Reeves set forth in Section 23 of the Sublease. The parties acknowledge and agree that upon the effective exercise of option by Mitsubishi, that the Lease shall automatically be extended for an additional twelve (12) month period, and that no separate notice from Reeves shall be required or be effective to extend the term of the Lease to run consecutively with the Extension Term. Iffor any reason Mitsubishi fails to timely and properly exercise the Extension Option as aforesaid, then the Extension Option shall automatically terminate. In addition, in the event of termination of the Sublease for any reason, then the Extension Option, if not yet exercised, or if exercised but not yet commenced, shall automatically terminate. The terms and conditions ofthe Sublease shall be the same during the Extension Term as during the original term, as provided in the Sublease. The "Term" as used in the Sublease shall be deemed to include the original term and the Extension Term, if any. 2. Extension of Option Period for Purchase Option. In the event that Mitsubishi validly and timely exercises the Extension Option, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 1 hereof, then the term of the Option Period in which to exercise the Purchase Option, as set forth in paragraph (b) of the Option to Purchase Standard Lease Addendum attached to the Lease dated April 1, 2001, which was assigned td Mitsubishi pursuant to Section 6 of the Sublease, shall be extended so that the Option Period shall expire on December 31,2003 (i.e., ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Extension Term) or upon the earlier termination of the Sublease. 3. Termination of Extension Term. For the duration ofthe Extension Term, Mitsubishi shall have the right to terminate the Sublease at any time by giving ninety (90) days written notice of such termination to Reeves and the Agency. The parties acknowledge and agree that the term of the Lease shall run and expire concurrently with the term of the Sublease, including the Extension Term, if any, and that no separate notice from Reeves shall be required or be effective to terminate the Extension Term. 4. Termination of Sublease. Mitsubishi hereby acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstanding Sections 1 and 2 hereof or anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Sublease, the Sublease and the Purchase Option shall automatically terminate upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Lease regardless of the cause therefor. G:\TEMV ALAUfO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEASEAMDl.DOC Page 2 of 5 5. Representations and Warranties of Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi hereby represents and warrants that as of the date hereof, (a) Mitsubishi is not in default or breach of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Sublease, and (b) Mitsubishi has not committed any act or omission which, after notice or the passage oftime, or both, would constitute an event of default under the Sublease. 6. Event of Conflict. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the Sublease and the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. 7. All Other Provisions of Sublease to Remain in Effect. All of the other remaining provisions of the Sublease, and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein, do hereby remain in full force and effect and shall not be amended, modified or in any way affected hereby. 8. Guarantv of Sublease. The Guaranty of Sublease executed by Southern Automotive Marketing, Inc., a California corporation d/b/a San Bernardino Mitsubishi ("Guarantor"), of even date with the Sublease, is hereby deemed to cover this Amendment to Sublease, and Guarantor consents thereto below. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Reeves and Mitsubishi have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written. "Reeves": "Mitsubishi": THE DONNA 1. REEVES TRUST DATED JULY 25,1990 /<::::-::'.::::..:" -'-I ~. ~) <~-'.._:~~5:~'" By:- __ ~____ Donna LReeves, Trustee TEMECULA V ALLEY AUTOMOTIVE, a California corporation d/b/a Temecula Valley Mitsubishi A I ~~ '/"/1/1,,, JI/ A By: ru,<<;UU/'r~t....- Michael R. Graeber, President "Guarantor" : SOUTHERN AUTOMOTIVE MARKETING, INC., a California corporation d/b/a San Bernardino Mitsubishi By: ~~ Michael R. Graeber, President G:\TEMV ALAUTO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEASEAMDl.DOC Page 3 of5 CONSENT TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE The undersigned as Lessor under that certain Lease between the undersigned, as Lessor, and Donna L. Reeves, as Trustee ofthe Donna L. Reeves Trust dated July 25, 1990, as Lessee, dates as of March 30, 2001, hereby consents to the foregoing First Amendment to Sublease, without waiver of any restriction in the Lease concerning further assignment or subletting or further amendment or modification of the Sublease. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a public body, corporate and politic By: Shawn Nelson, Executive Director G:\TEMV ALAUTO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEASEAMDl.DOC Page 4 of5 ATTEST: Susan Jones, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney G:\TEMV ALAUTO\GENERAL\AG1\SUBLEA$EAMDl.DOC Page 5 of5 ITEM 4 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT FROM: Executive Director/Agency Members John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manage~ July 23, 2002 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Revision of the Facade Improvement Program RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Agency Board approve the recommended revisions to the Facade Improvement Program, extending the list of eligible improvements to include hardscape and landscaping. BACKGROUND: The Facade Improvement Program (Program) was originally approved in April 1995 and last amended in July of 1999. The Program is designed to enhance the visual attractiveness of buildings in Old Town by providing financial assistance to reinforce the Old West design theme and to reduce non-conforming conditions. Participation in the Program greatly increased after the completion of the Streetscape Improvements. The scope of work has ranged from large projects like the conversion of the Long Branch Antiques from the Napa Auto Parts store, to smaller individual business signs. The overall impact on the physical environment has been significant. Currently, eligible improvements include physical improvements such as paint, windows, signage, etc. New construction and building additions are not eligible. We have had recent interest in expanding the program to include landscaping and hardscaping such as fountains, trellis's, wind barriers and patios. ANALISYS: The majority of buildings in Old Town have taken advantage of the Fa9ade Improvement Program. In many cases, there still exists unimproved areas between the buildings and the streetscape improvements. By expanding the eligible improvements and thus extending the financial assistance, property owners will have more incentive to complete this next level of improvements. The proposed revision of eligible improvements will include the hardscape improvements discussed above, but only 25% of the cost of landscaping. The reasoning behind this is that if a building becomes vacant or a property owner defers maintenance, the new paint job or fountain remains in place. However, landscaping if not watered may die and need to be replaced. Therefore, the chance of the Agency's investment being lost with landscaping is greater than other physical or hardscape improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 1999-00 budget for the Fa9ade Improvement Program is $75,000 (account number 280-199-813-5804). R:\PowersjIFacadelmp'Amendment Staff Report 7-25-02.doc RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ,..J APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members FROM: John Meyer, Redevelopment Director DATE: July 23,2002 SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of July 23, 2002 for the Redevelopment Department. First Time Homebuvers Proaram Funding in the amount of $200,000 is available for FY 01-02. Residential Improvement Proarams The program budget for FY 01/02 was $250,000 and $237,192 was funded on 57 units. The program budget for FY 02/03 is $250,000. Affordable Housina The Agency has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Affirmed Housing to develop a 17 affordable single-family housing project. Construction will begin in late August, 2002, with homes available for purchase in early 2003. Affirmed will market the homes during the construction period. Senior Housina Agency staff is negotiating with a development partner to rehab units for an affordable senior housing project. Old Town Communitv Theater The Architect is working on the Construction drawings and is scheduled to complete them in August. 1 R:\SYERSK\MONTHLL Ylreportjuly2002.doc J' The Mercantile Buildina Retrofit Staff anticipates bringing a contract for Council consideration within 30 days. Staff estimates about a 90-120 day construction period. Facade ImprovementINon-Conformina Sian Proaram The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been completed: . Welty Building Sign Program . Country Porch Fire Suppression System . La Table De Provence Sign Program . Del Rio Cakes & Supply Sign Program Old Town PromotionslMarketina . Great Race and Street Paintina Festival - Once again, the Great Race returned to Temecula. This event was held in conjunction with our Street Painting Festival on June 22 & 23,2002. The City of Temecula, along with The Temecula Chamber of Commerce, hosted a luncheon with the arrival of vintage cars driving through Old Town on Saturday, June 22. Three participating restaurants provided lunch to the Great Race drivers served by the Drifters Car Club, Temecula Valley Car Club and Temecula Valley Model A Car Club. In addition, the Agency sponsored the 2nd Annual Street Painting Festival, which featured over 100 artists painting murals ranging in size from 4 foot by 6 foot to a 10 foot by 12 foot blocks on the asphalt. Street painting originated in Italy with the artist gaining the title "Madonnari" after their historical practice of creating chalk paintings of the Madonna. Now the name Madonnari implies Italian Street Painting that expands beyond the scope of its original religious nature. Children participated in the street painting fun at the Children's Art in the Park events held in Sam Hicks Park at the northern edge of Old Town Temecula. While a variety of programs were offered at the park, youth Street Painters were able to try out their creative talents on the sidewalks as part of the street Painting Festival. The event was free to the public and artists. . Summer Niahts - "First Friday Summer Nights" kicked off on July 5 in Old Town. It was Old Town Temecula's "Hot First Friday Summer Nights" which featured a variety of live bands and a different theme will be used each first Friday night. 2 R:\SYERSK\MONTHLL Ylreportjuly2002.doc -'~ , The First Friday Night, July 5, was themed Red, White & Blues. The evening featured blues by Aunt Kizzy's Boyz, Rocky Zyarp & the Blues Crackers, and Gypsy Jazz by Club Django. This included games for the kids, jolly jumps, craft and food vendors. 3 R:\SYERSKIMONTHLL Y\reportjuly2002.doc FROM FRX NO. Jul. 02 2001 03:41PM P2 tithe. ianlBitgoUnion.f€ribune. Thursday)jun~,7, 200~ '-.. . '. .' ..... ._---'\. I Ternecula Fa rrn ers Marketpushesthe envelope ' By Lynn Alley . TEMECUlA~Th~Temecu- Ia Farmers Market isn't like the tanners markets I've . seen ill my own neighborhood. . Oh,.sure,it'hasnne.fresh.:' . fruit and piuduce. Bill it al~ . bas a goodly $hOt (J~locaI crafts andcolOi-. .. . . . .... "Th~;;anitthefarnierSinar, . keto but'r... neveractnally seen . tannersforsale here; quipp"'d TemecuJaresident David.Crob, sllln<!ing Iiearthe Black Sheep' . preserves stand'on arecent. . .' SatnrcJay mOrnilig.. 'Theymay not seU tlnners, . but they've.gotplenty of eNery. thing else.' '. .'. Th~gottheTraditiOXlSof ProvenCe bakery guy, who ,. bringS fresh croissants, hreads ! and tarts do'Wtl from Studio . . .' /. City each week. : .... .. Th~e gotGEil>r,ge and Gale Cunningham:;' lltVme.<:ilrus . friiit,s; sapOtes,d1~oyas,!G- . quaIS, dried.ftuiIS~<!'jilices . fiOin.De Luz~yOn.-GaIe is. '. also.theniarkehl1~..She" andGe6rge grow~eniypeS . of~~.~;metfortto ,':' '.supiiIYnWk~:demandyear'-:' . round. :Ibeit~ysci\l,Cezed :juices~fu)l!'it.tIavoi.'.'., . . "~egi:it Qi.gamc straw.. beirlesfroni-CtoW's Pass'Fann .in:'TemOcula;.Sfriiwberries:are -JlOioWland re3.jily absOrb aliy che~.usedonj:hem,so . . when tlindgooil oi-~sInIw- . Denies, I cin'i iliIY eti~ of . '.them;Ai1d6elilMi'me;.i:hese: areg.,oit'''.i;.,'.:/::,'':.': ,,",-. .' . Thiwv": gQtDaIe ~dLauren Stafford; W!ththeirlove]y ~y of~ llo~ laW>DS,.&tiam.. .. P90;<3n'il8~ #id~.wiil>iiII':: n.att:zra(.. dieiilS8.iidka- "~5\~'~':::'~::.:~::: ". ;:.' ". ...o'.' 'H~""""'" - One "'gular lIendo.r.at the TelllGcula FlIrmftrS Market Is Maribeth . Harrison, who. with her husband. Tom, produces"plckles and.pre- . serv.e$~nder theBla.ck $h.eep Goilr:met foods label. LJmnAIky : gJ;UlCe!l. . olive.oll ma4e in San Diego by . '. And atWy's SaUS3&es his father, George Petrol{. (bratwurst, lamb Satisage. llt.. . Thel'l' 8<6 quilts: wat.er~I. . douiDe, ClIilin.1talian country ors,.hand-pain!ed law!dry tubs, llnd POrtltguese-HalVaiian), . huge ornamenlal gourds,live . . made in. Teni.eai1a: BUziy will . orchids, Mricait violets, pome- spIit'~ ~or you on the spot for' ~te bushes, bOugainvillea, .. easy grilling. ..bamboo anil,.weII; more kinds . You can't iwerlook the Wm- ofplantsth"'l:Icannatlie,.. chesll:r chtleses made by Jules' There~s.even a woman'selling . Wesselink. He traveled bomebird cages and'livebirds. .to'HoUandto learn the Brtof . The.Teineaua Fanners Mar-. . . makingfarntsteadGoudaSou' ker;~sti'om8a.m.uD.til canviS4.his'factoryin'Win-. '. llClon;isiocatedinOldTown . . chester, juSt a IS-minute drive Temecula.,Takel-l.5:north:and from the farmers inarli.et, but r. gei west'on Rancho California . : fOr those otus pressedfor' . Road, then turri left on Front lime, it's great to be able to ~eetto the Stlge Stop park_ . pick up his cheeses here. ing Iotal 6th and Front streets. You certainly won't want to There's aIso a Wednesday . missAndrCasPetrou,whoseUs famiersmarketfeaturingmany'.. . some of the best sheep's milk . '. of the sanie \'endors.lfsfroin9' . : teta;made hy his uncle in Del.,. ".a.m'-to.lp,i1i.al;i:he~ phi, tIiat.you're likelY tq:fi!>c! '.: ....: nade.MaU;igo~1i:mD the Ed. " anywhcire:He also ""Ds'deli." -: w.n'd;. Theat.e(S.~' . ciouS~~le9Ji,;esan!i....:..\: Iii I CI bail It . . .... . ....~: .~.s'~ ~r.s. ~ ~r.. ;. ITEM 17 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City~~ Debbie Ubnosk~i~ector of Planning DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Remove a Condition of Approval on Amendment No. 7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Planning Application 02-0299) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02 -_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REMOVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT NO.7 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0285 (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0299) BACKGROUND: The Paseo del Sol Specific Plan was first approved by the County of Riverside in 1988. Since that time, the Plan has been amended several times. Amendment No. 7 was considered by the City Council on October 19, 1999 and November 9, 1999, and eventually approved on November 16, 1999. The Corona family had expressed a concern that the continued development by Newland would cause harm to their property located east of Butterfield Stage Road. In response to the concerns of the Corona Family, the City Council added Condition of Approval Number 7 to Amendment 7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan that required Newland Communities to attempt to address the drainage issue with the Corona family in a good faith effort. The actual Condition of Approval placed on Amendment No. 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan by the City Council is as follows: "7. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Council has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B), consisting of 508 multi-family units. The City shall process the request for a public hearing, if needed, as a "no fee" application. (Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council November 16, 1999)." R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of ApprovaJ\Staff Report CC2.doc 1 /v" ',,- .~ Following this decision, representatives from the City, County, Newland Communities, and the Corona Family have meet many times to try to resolve the issue. Representatives of Newland Communities state that they have met numerous times with members of the Corona Family, and staff members from Riverside County and/or the Flood Control District, and have been unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable reasonable compromise. Most of these discussions revolved around two key areas of difference: (1) the location of the future drainage channel and (2) who will pay for the improvements. Newland Communities wants to build the drainage channel within the Assessment District consistent with the approved master plan. The Corona Family wants to have the channel placed underground approximately Y2 mile east of its proposed location and well outside of the boundary of Assessment District 159. The easterly location, preferred by the Corona family, would cost substantially more than the available Assessment District funding. The Corona family also wants all of their property protected by the future channel but is unwilling to add their remaining properties to the Assessment District or to pay for the increased costs to fund the improvements. The Corona family has indicated a willingness to provide funding at some point in the future once their remaining property in the County has been entitled for development. It is important to note, that Newland Communities is not obligated to front the costs associated bringing the remaining parts of the Corona's property out of the floodplain for future development. On April 17, 2002, representatives for Newland Communities notified the City that they did not believe a reasonable compromise was possible and officially requested that the City Council remove Condition of Approval No. 7 for Planning Application 99-0285. A copy of this letter is contained in Attachment NO.2. The location of Planning Areas 6A and 6B, as well as the detention basin are shown in Attachment NO.6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City Council adopted Addendum No 3 to the Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan on November 9, 1999. The primary changes associated with Amendment No 7 involved modifications to the land uses in the southwestern portion of the Plan. Addendum No 3 did not identify any new or expanded impacts associated with Amendment NO.7 and concluded that the impacts to the environment were either the same or slightly less than previously identified in the original Final Environmental Impact Report and Addenda 1 and 2. Condition of Approval NO.7 was not identified in the previous environmental documents as an impact mitigation measure. Therefore, the removal of his condition does not change the underlying project or the environmental documents prepared for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines established criteria to assist the Lead Agency is determining when additional environmental review is necessary. The criteria are as follows: 1. Have substantial changes been made to the project that requires major revisions to the previous environmental documents? No. The removal of Condition No. 7 does not change the size, scale, or magnitude of the development envisioned with this project that was considered and evaluated in the previous environmental documents. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Slaff Report CC2.doc 2 2. Have substantial changes occurred in surrounding area that requires major revisions to the previous environmental documents. No. There have been no substantial changes to the project locale. The local setting has not substantially changed since the project was previously considered and evaluated in the previous environmental documents. Removing the condition allows the previously approved project to proceed as envisioned in the Specific Plan. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. 3. Is new information available that was not known when the previous environmental documents were prepared? No new issue areas or substantial changes in the facts have occurred since the project was previously considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Drainage and flood control issues were addressed in the original environmental documents. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. The removal of this condition of approval does not meet the standards of Section 15162 that would require that a new environmental document be prepared. As a result, no additional environmental analysis is required by the changes to the conditions of approval for Specific Plan Amendment No 7. FISCAL IMPACT: Removal of this condition of approval will have no direct financial impact on the City of Temecula. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving modifications to the Conditions of Approval for Amendment 7- Page 4 2. Letter from Hewitt & O'Neil dated April 17, 2002-Page 9 3. Excerpts from the City Council minutes for Specific Plan Amendment No.7-Page 10 4. Additional Letters from Hewitt & O'Neil-Page 13 5. Meeting Chronology - Page 14 6. Map showing the location of Planning Areas 6A and 6B - Page 15 R:\S P AI2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\SlafI Report CC2.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO.1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Slaff Report CC2.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO.1 RESOLUTION NO. 02-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REMOVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT NO.7 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0285 (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0299) WHEREAS, del Sol Investment Company LLC by and through Newland Communities filed Amendment No.7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 99-0285), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 99-0285 on September 15, 1999, September 29, 1999, and October 6, 1999, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered this application on October 19, 1999, November 9, 1999 and November 16, 1999, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. 99-0285; WHEREAS, during the Public testimony, representatives of the property owned by Corona family testified about the potential for flooding impacts on their adjacent property; WHEREAS, the City Council added Condition of Approval NO.7 to encourage Newland Communities and the Corona family to pursue a solution to address the asserted flooding issues; WHEREAS, the City Council approved Planning Application 99-0285, subject to the Conditions of Approval on November 16, 1999; WHEREAS, Representatives of the City of Temecula, Newland Communities, and the Corona family have met on numerous occasions to discuss resolution of the flooding issue; WHEREAS, Newland Communities submitted a letter to the City of Temecula on April 17, 2002 asserting their belief that a mutually acceptable compromise was not possible and accordingly requesting relief from Condition of Approval No.7; WHEREAS, this amendment to the entitlement granted to the Applicant was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; R:\$ P A\2Q02\02.0299 PDS ConditiOllS of Approval\$laff Report ce2.doc 5 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application for relief from Condition of Approval No. 7 for Planning Application No. 99-0285 on July 9, 2002 and July 23. 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by Resolution No. 90-04, as amended, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify in regards to the matter: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. That the City Council, in approving the request for relief from Condition of Approval No.7 for Planning Application No. 99-0285, hereby finds that (1) Newland Communities has conducted negotiations with representatives of the Corona family as required by Condition of Approval No.7, (2) significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise, and (3) has been unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise. The City Council hereby terminates the restriction placed upon Newland Communities as is set forth in Condition of Approval No. 7 and repeals Condition of Approval NO.7 for Planning Application 99-0285. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council adopted Addendum NO.3 to the Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan on November 9, 1999. Addendum NO.3 addressed the issues related to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment NO.7. The primary changes associated with Amendment NO.7 involved modifications to the land uses in the southwestern portion of the Plan. Addendum NO.3 did not identify any new or expanded impacts associated with Amendment No. 7 and concluded that the impacts to the environment were either the same or slightly less than previously identified in the original Final Environmental Impact Report and Addenda 1 and 2. The Condition of Approval being considered for removal was applied to Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 to encourage a negotiated settlement to concerns raised by an adjacent property owner and is not a mitigation measure. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines established criteria to assist the Lead Agency is determining when additional environmental review is necessary. The criteria and determinations are as follows: A. Substantial changes have been made to the project that require major revisions to the previous environmental documents. The removal of Condition No. 7 does not change the size, scale, or magnitude of the development envisioned with this project that was considered and evaluated in the previous environmental documents. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. B. Substantial changes have occurred in surrounding area that require major revisions to the previous environmental documents. There have been no substantial changes to the project locale. The local setting has not substantially changed since the project was previously considered and evaluated in the previous environmental documents. Removing the condition allows the previously approved project to proceed as envisioned in the Specific Plan. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. RIS P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report CC2.doc 6 C. New Information that was not known when the previous environmental documents were prepared. No new issue areas or substantial changes in the facts have occurred since the project was previously considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Drainage and flood control issues were addressed in the original environmental documents. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. The City Council hereby finds that the removal of this condition of approval does not meet the standards of Section 15162 that could require that a new environmental document be prepared, and that the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan is consistent with the project considered in the previously certified environmental impact reports and addenda. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of July 2002. Ronald Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City ofTemecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk RIS P A\2002\02..Q299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Slaff Report CC2.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO.2 LETTER FROM HEWITT & O'NEIL DATED APRIL 17, 2002 R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions 01 Approval\StaH Report CC2.doc 8 rr n \-~'/ ",";:>,--\' .., ,,\ :l, ': I APR 1 8 2002 i:; HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP "j ArrORNEYS AT LAW TInA M. COCHRAN DEAN DUNN-RANJaN SANDRA A. GALLE WILLIAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARlZELL HUGH HEwm LAWRENCE J. HILTON WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798..0734 EMAIL: doneil@hcwittoneil.com JOHN D. HUDSON STEVEN B. IMHOOF DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAYF. PALOIIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WIWAM L. TwOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER 19900 MAcARTHUR BOULEVAlUl, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949) 798-0500 . (949)798-0511 (FAX) EMAll..: counsel@hewittoneil.com April 17 , 2002 '" Mr. Gary Thornhill Deputy City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Paloma del Sol Dear Mr. Thornhill: On behalf of Newland Communities ("Newland"), 1 am asking for your assistance in initiating a "no fee application" to request the City Council to have Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431 in the Paloma del Sol (now known as Paseo del Sol) project released from the hold previously included as Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7. (1 have attached a copy of that condition for your convenient reference.) The owners of the Corona Ranch located just easterly of Paloma del Sol across Butterfield Stage Road have objected to the City Council's approval of prior planning applications involving the Paloma del Sol project being developed by Newland. Despite evidence in the record to the contrary, the Coronas contend Newland is responsible for constructing a storm drain facility (Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel) to mitigate storm water flows that accumulate on a portion of their property during periods of heavy rainfall. The City has in the past approved Newland's planning applications for Paloma del Sol, but recognized the need for the County and the landowners included in Assessment District 159 to meet and work on implementing a plan to construct the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel. In an attempt to address the concerns raised by the Coronas and provide further incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council at its November 16, 1999 meeting as part of the approval of Specific Plan 219, Amendment No.7, placed a ''hold'' on issuing building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. Even though Newland was advised by counsel there was no legal obligation to accept this limitation, and the City staff found no nexus between the Specific Plan 219, Amendment No.7 entitlements and the condition, Newland acknowledged the need to show its good faith willingness to continue to work towards a resolution of dealing with storm 4/15/02 10019-{)0002 S:1152ICORRI02040004.L TR2.doc Mr. Gary Thornhill April 17,2002 Page 2 water drainage in this area. Newland accepted this condition and offered the collateral of an "equity holding" on Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. It was clearly the intent of the City and Newland as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim condition. (Copies of the City Council November 16, 1999 minutes are attached.) The condition placing this "hold" allows the City Council to process a "no fee application" to allow issuance of the building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 when "significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise." Since the imposition of this condition, numerous meetings have been held with the Coronas and the County to work towards a reasonable compromise. Most recently, the City Council appointed a subcommittee of Councilmembers Stone and Comerchero to look into the status. We believe they will affirm back to the full City Council the many actions taken and proposals submitted by Newland to address the drainage issue. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel facility is an improvement described as an Assessment District No. 159 project. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of SR 79, the modifications to Temecula Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage facilities have been built. AD 159 was able to construct these downstream facilities, but, unfortunately, did not build the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel which seems to have raised the storm water issue on a portion of the Corona Ranch. To date, the Coronas are apparently only willing to accept an alignment for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel at the most easterly portion of their Property outside of the boundary of AD 159. Newland does not object to this alignment, but the Coronas have failed to agree on a method of funding the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel at this location. Recently, the Coronas have filed a lawsuit naming the City and Newland as defendants and requesting a court to intervene in this dispute. Under the circumstances of the pending litigation, further negotiations cannot occur. You will recall, the Temecula City Council, on February 2, 1998, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182), added a Condition 40 requiring Newland to maintain a detention basin in an area entitled for 188 residential units. An interim detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Tract 24182 to satisfY this Condition 40. The detention basin must remain in place until such time as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel or some other adequate facility is built to convey off site storm flows to the Temecula Creek. This property has an estimated value of over $6 million. The City, therefore, has adequate protection against storm water flooding in this area until the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel or such equivalent facility is built. (A copy of Tentative Tract 24182, Condition 40 is attached.) It has been over two years since the hold was placed on Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. For all of the reasons stated in prior correspondence between Newland and Newland's legal counsel on file with the City and because of the pending litigation, Newland respectfully requests the City Council set a public hearing to remove, or if applicable modifY, Condition No.7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.7. Newland has acted in good faith to work out a solution with the Coronas. The Coronas have failed to cooperate and 4/15/02 10019-00002 S:\152\CORR\02040004.L TR2.doc Mr. Gary Thornhill April 17, 2002 Page 3 instead are now seeking relief through the judicial process. Therefore, it is no longer reasonable, nor would it be legally justifiable, to continue to enforce the condition to withhold building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. Please call Dean Meyer at Newland Communities if you need further information to support this request. Dean Meyer is in the Temecula office of Newland and can be reached at 694-5572. ~'&~ Dennis D. O'Neil cc: Shawn Nelson Peter M. Thorson Jim Delhamer Martha Guy Dean Meyer Sam Alhadeff 4/15/02 10019-00002 S:II 52\CORR\02040004.L TR2.doc CONDITION NO.7 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7 4/15/02 10019-00002 S:\152\CORR\02040oo4.L TR2.doc . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECUlA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by the City Council, November 16, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-02B5 - Specific: Plan Amendment No.7 Project Description: To smend Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) as follows: land uses within Planning Areas 1,6 and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration- of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 6 from 35:3 to 34.3 acres; the division of Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 5A (22.3 acres, high density residential, 9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of 258 dwelling units) and Planning Area 5B (12 acres, very high density residential,13- 20 dulac, with a msximum of 240 dwelling units), resulting in an oversll reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the provision to develop an active, privste, gated senior community within Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update of Specific Plan Design Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the senior amenities. Approval Date: November 16,1999 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements 1. The applicant snd owner of the resl property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, snd 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 sny of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, conwltsnts, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to sttack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, conceming 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. 2. The applicant shall comply with sll underlying Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No. 219 and its smendments unleu superceded by these Conditions of Approval. 3. The text of Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No. 219 shall conform with Exhibit No. 1B, "Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No.7" dated October 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions. R:ISTAFFRPT\28.lp.99.CC 11-9.99 ronnoned.doc 16 . . 4. The text of Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No: 219 Zoning Standards shall conform with Exhibit No. 2A, "Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Zone Ordinance, Amendment No. 7" dated October 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions. Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Ruding of the Ordinance Approving the Amendment 5. The applicant shall submit the amended Specific Plan text to the Community Development Department- Planning Division, in accordance with Conditions of Approval . and witli requirements by the City Council. 6. The applicant shall correct or modify the following: a. Page IV-85 b.2) a): The last sentence shall read: "A minimum of 10% of the net acreage at the Home Depot site shall be landscaped." b. Remove all references to the Major and Minor Commercial Entry and Shopping Cenler Identification signs, which shall be included in the Villages Design Manual, submiUed for review and approval by the Planning Manager prior to the issuance of permits. Prior to issuance of building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 68): 7. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City CounCl7, following a public heen'ng, determines that significant improvements have occurred In the negotiations for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Council has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B), consisting of 508 multi-family units. The City shall process the request for B public hearing, if needed, as B "no feeR application. (Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council November 16, 1999). 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 Signature R:ISTAFf1\PT\285p.99.CC \1.9.99 ronnoned.doc 17 4/15/02 10019-00002 S:\152\CORR\02040004.L TR2.doc CONDITION NO. 40 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24182 I/!I U4U/UU1 ..' ..- CITY OF TEMECULA ..~ . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96.0258'Vestlng TentB1ive Tract Mep No. 24182. Revised) . ProJect l?escrlption: '. The project consisti of 8 revised Vesting Tentative / Tract Map No. 24182 'the subdivision of 124.35 acres withIn creating 562 single family residentIal 'ots Md 31 open space lots). Paloma- del So, Various Fehrulll)' 2. 1998 To be determined by the Development Agreement .' Assessor's Parcel No.: ApprovlIl Dllte: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT . General 'Requirements 1; The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of CalifornIa Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No, 460. unless modified by the conditions listed below. ,A time extension may be ~pproved in accorda'nce with the State Map ACt and City Ordinance, upon written request, If made 30 days prior to the expiration date. . 2. The developer/applicant shall indemnity, protect, defend, and, hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, lIctions, or proceedings- against the City. or allY agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers. emplQyees lInd agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages reSUlting from an approva' of the City, or any agenCY.or instrumentality thereof, advisQry agency, appeal board or Jegislatlve bQdy including aC,tions apprQved by the Voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA96.0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182. Revised) which actlon is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations periOd and Public Resources Code, Dlvision'13. Chapter 4 'Section 21000'.at 211., inClUding but not by the'way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notity the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within thl, time period. City shall further copperate fully In the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify Or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to iPdemnity, defend, protect. or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers. employees, or ' agents. ) 3. If SUbdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Planning Manager for approve I, , 1 . "t::I""""'V' l- Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way. 32. All utility systems including gas. electric. telephone. water, sewer, and cable TV shall .be provided for underground, with easements provided as raquired, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and.the utility provIder. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the resIdence. 33. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Condu~t shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street Improvement', 34. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future. bus stops as determined by the Riverside Transit Authority and as approved by the Department Qf Public Works. 35. Pedestrian access with sidewalks shall /le provided from the cul-de-sac terminus of street 'u. G' to the adjacent public street. . 36. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Tr'ip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. . 37. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. t .'. 38. Easements. when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements. drainage facilities, utilities; etc., shall be shown on the final map.J.tt.hey are located within the land division boundary, .AII offers of dedication and conveyances.shall.be submitted for review and recorded 'as. directed by the DepartmentofPublic 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 shidl be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of bu,7dings and obstructions. " ) 39. If phasing of the map for construction is proposed. legal all-weather access as . required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tractb'oundary to a paved City maintained road. '. 40. An interim detention basin has been constructed on the southem portion of Phase 5 'and the Final Phase of Tentative Tract 24182.-The existing detention basin. or an equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that ~pstream drainage . facilities are constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet. Any revisions to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities shall be approved by the City. ' Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits . 41. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. the Developer shall receive . written clearance from .the fallowing agencies: . . .. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board . 8 . ATTACHMENT NO.3 EXCERPTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR SPA NO.7 R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Stafl Report CC2.doc 9 OCTOBER 19, 1999 R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions 01 Approval\Staff Report ee2.doc 10 At 7:36 P.M., the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:58 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. PUBLIC HEARING 10 Planning ADDlicetion No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No.7 to SDecific Plan No. 219- Paloma del Soil and Plannina Aoolication No. PA99-0283 (DeveloDment Aareement for the Villages @ Paseo del Sol - Community ShODDing Center) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and find that a subsequent EIR is not required; 10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98-G285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 10.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 99-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIRC PLAN NO. 219) AMENDING LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 1, 6, 8, 27, AND 36; AMENDING THE ALIGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDING THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35,0 ACRES; AMENDING ALLOCA nON OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34,3 ACRES; DIVIDING PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 9-12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 68 (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS) RESULTING IN AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 590 TO 508; AMENDING THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8 AND AMENDING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO INCORPORATE THE VILLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENITIES R:\Minutes\101999 5 10.4 Introduce and read by titie only an ordinance entitied: ORDINANCE NO. 99-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES @ PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREA 1(A) & 1(8) OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 AMENDMENT NO.7 Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff reports (as per written rnaterial), referencing a petition, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting, in opposition to the multi-family apartments that are part of the Specific Plan; advising that the multi-family areas were previously approved; and noting that the approval would actually reduce the density in the residential project areas by 82 units. Mr. Thomhill advised that Mr. Steve Corona had as well expressed issues of concern with regard to drainage and Its Impacts on the Corona Ranch; that Newland Communities and staff has responded to the issues of concern and that it has been determined that there is no nexus to Newland Communities and Corona Ranch as it relates to drainage. Mr. Thomhill noted that Mr. Corona has filed an appeal to the Planning Commission's approval and, therefore, staff recommends a continuance of the matter in order to thoroughly address the issues of concern with regard to drainage. Mr. Thomhill as well advised that staff has received written communication from Mr. Savala (property located north of the Corona property) in which he expressed similar drainage concems as those noted by the Coronas. At this time, Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. Mr. Barry Burnell, T&B Planning Consultants, 3242 Halladay, #100, Santa Ana, representing Newland Communities and Paseo Partners, relayed concurrence with staffs recommendation for a continuance. Mr. Robert Krieger, 3602 University Avenue, Riverside, representing the owners of Corona Ranch, addressed the issue and highlighted the following: that the proposed project is located in an area that is currently protected by an existing detention basin which was constructed in the absence of completing what is referred to as the Butterfield East Interceptor; that this Interceptor was part of a planned facility in Assessment District No. 159 but has not been built because of insufficient funds; that the Coronas are concerned with the potential flooding on their property in the event of a 1 OO-year flood; that the existing detention basin was not a reasonably designed facility; that it was intended only as an interim measure; that the Butterfield East Interceptor, if properly designed and built, would eliminate the Coronas' flooding concerns; that the design and construction of such a facility would cost approximately $5 to $10 million; that a 1 O-year flood would exacerbate the Coronas' flooding concems. R:\Mlnutes\101999 6 Ms. Michele Staples, 2100 SE Main Street, Suite 104, Irvine, referenced her detailed comment letter (copies provided to the Councilmembers) and noted the following: that as a result of development projects filling in the natural drainage channel and because of improvements to Butterfield Stage Road in order to accommodate the new channel alignment, a flood hazard, that originally did not exist, was created on Corona Ranch; that specific mitigation measures were imposed on the project with regard to flood hazards; that of these measures, two have not been met: 1) EIR prohibits increased flood hazards to adjacent and downstream properties; and 2) ErR requires an in depth analysis of the Temecula Flood Plane; that Assessment District No. 159 consists of four property owners with the applicant being responsible for over 90% of the cost of the interceptor facility; that all approvals for the project to date have been based on the assumption that the interceptor channel would be constructed and that 11. years after project approval, the interceptor channel has not even been designed; that the City is required to enforce mitigation measures imposed on a project; that this approval be conditioned that any future approvals for this project be contingent on the construction of the interceptor. Mr. Allan Davis, developer, 5051 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, noted the following: that the project is 9/10 of a mile west to the Corona property and, therefore, there is no nexus to this issue of flooding; that the project be approved in a timely manner. Mr. Dennis O'Neil, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvine, representing Newland Communities, addressed the issue, noting the following: that the Coronas' flooding concern has been addressed at each Specific Plan amendment and that each time it has been determined that there is no nexus with regard to Paseo and Corona Ranch; that there is no obligation on Newland Communities to resolve the flood control problems; that Newland Communities has a responsibility to be assessed to pay for improvements but does not have the jurisdiction or authority over building the improvements; that the building is the responsibility of Assessment District No. 159. Mayor Ford requested that the involved parties and staff discuss the matter of the Assessment District funding the interceptor with Mayor Ford and Councilman Undemans relaying a desire to be included in the discussions. R:\Minutes\101999 7 MOTION: Councilman L1ndemans moved to continue the matter to the November 9, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 11 Development Aareement with Eli Lillv & Companv - Approved Staff Recommendation (5- 0-0\ JSlKL RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0274; 11.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 99-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ELI ULL Y AND COMPANY FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF YNEZ ROAD WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0274) By way of overheads, Deputy City Manager Thomhill reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). Councilman Comerchero clarified that the City is not relinquishing control and that the ultimate decision on the use and zoning of the property will remain with the City. Deputy City Manager Thomhill concurred that any projed would have to proceed with the EIR process in order to assess any potential impacts. Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. Mr. Samuel Stall, 43824 Barletta Street, representing Eli Lilly and Company, spoke in support of staffs recommendation. At this time, Mayor Ford closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman L1ndemans and voice vote refleded unanimous approval. 12.1 Adopt the Negativ ration for 'ng Application No. PA99-0273; oduce and read by title only an ordinance. R:\Minutes\101999 8 NOVEMBER 9, 1999 R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 POS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report ee2.doc 11 PUBUC HEARING 12 Plamina Aoolication No. PA9S-0285 (Amendment No.7 to Soeclfic Plan No. 219 Paloma del Soil. Plannlna Aoollcatlon No. PA99-0283 (Develooment Aareement for the Villaaea at paseo del 501- Community ShooDinll Center). Plannina ADolication No. PA99-0284 (Develooment Plan - Alloeall and Plannlna ADolication No. PA99-0288 (Tentative Parcel MaD No. 29431 -ADoeall RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-104 A RESOLUnoN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECut.A FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT NO ADDmONAL ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMeNTS OF THE CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1170, AS AMENDED AND THE GUIDELINES PROMULGATED THEREUNDER REGARDING PLANNING APPUCAnoN NOS, PAlI.om (AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 211); PAII.o2l3 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL, COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER); PAlI.o21. (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PAII-0211 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29431) 12.2 Read by lilie only and introduce an ordinance entitied: ORDINANCE NO. 99-28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECut.A APPROVING PLANNING APPUCAnoN NO. PAlll-028S (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 211), WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS " 8, I, 27 AND 38i AMENDS THE ALIGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOlA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 36.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8 FROM 3U ACRES TO H.3 ACRES; DIVIDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA IA 1%2,3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAl., 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS). RESULTING IN AN OVERALl REDUCTION OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1180 TO IOli AMENDS THE TECT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNIlY WITHIN PLANNING AREA Ii AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO INCORPORATE THE VlUAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENlnES: BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK R:lMinutes\110999 6 12.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled ORDINANCE NO. 99-29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS 1(8) & 1(b) OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7 . 12.4 Deny the appeal of Planning Applicetion No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431); 12.5 Uphold the approval by the Planning Commission of Planning Application No. PA99- 0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431); 12.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0284 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-o286 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29431), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THESE PROJECTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per agenda materials); referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexus between the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor Channel and the four cases before the City Council this evening; advised that the Channel was to be constructed and funded through AD No. 159 and that Newland Communities has no control over the timing of this process; commented on the bonding capacity of the Assessment District; and noted that due the lateness in receiving Ms. Staples' fax, he has not had the opportunity to review the information (copies of which were provided to the Councilmembers). Mr. Thornhill relayed the Corona's concern that this project or any future project be approved without Newland Communities fulfilling its commitment to install the interceptor channel. Mr. Thornhill recommended denial of the appeal and approval of the remaining applications. City Attorney Thorson pointed out that because Mayor Ford does not own any properties within 2,500' of the subject site, because Mr. Ford's employer does not own any undeveloped property within the applicable 2,500' radius, and because of relationship of this project to AD No. 159, Mayor Ford may participate in the discussion and may vote with regard to this issue. In light of the lateness of some of these reports, City Attorney Thorson, for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, advised that staff's response to drainage issues on the appeal are summarized in the staff report; that the extensive Newland Communities submittal is summarized in a cover letter; and that the fax from Ms. Staples is, in large, summarized on pages 1 and 2 of the proposal. R:\Minutes\110999 7 In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD No. 159 and the reising of It by one or two feet was built according to plans and specifications and that the two 120. pipes do not adequately mitigate the concerns of both two basins. Councilman Lindemans referenced the May 26, 1988. (of record), particularly commenting, as per his interpretation. on the City's responsibility to ensure that the interceptor channel is constructed. By way of overheads. Mr. Barry Burnell, T&B Planning, 3242 Halladay, #100, Santa Ana, representing Newland Communities, reviewed the request; referenced and relayed his understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (of record); and noted the following: . That the maximum bonding capacity is $4.9 million; . Tha~ as requested by the Flood Control District, a drainage structure was designed to intercept a large amount of off-site storm runoff that approaches the project from the east; . That AD No. 159 was formed in 1988 with its own Environmental Impact Report (EIR) processed through the County; that a supplemental District formed in 1991 at which time the Butterfield Stage Road east interceptor channel was originally considered; · That the assessment. at that time, was determined at $2.2 million In order to protect the 38 acres owned by the Coronas/Savalas; that the cost of such a facility escalated to $3.5 million (Altemative No.1) which included a box culvert to protect future farming (38 acres); . That the current proposal requests the protection of 202 acres, which encompasses the entire Corona, Savala, and Lumsdaine properties for $5.8 million; that this recent proposal cost has been increased to $6.2 million; . That the conditions of approval for the Vail Meadows Specific Plan never intended the protection of 202 acres; . That the Assessment District was approved and the EIR was adopted prior to the approval of the Vail Meadows EIR; . That the Assessment District listed the 38 acres as undeveloped/unplanned land and the 202 acres as agriculture land; · That the construction of Butterfield Stage Road created an impact on approximately 5 to 6 acres of the Corona property; that such construction did not create flooding to the east of the Assessment District; that the interceptor channel was Intended to mitigate concerns with regard to the 5 to 6 acres; . That the area to the east of the Assessment District (140 acres) has historically flooded. Mr. Rich Robato, representing Newland Communities, further clarified the location and hydrology of the two existing basins and advised that the two 120. pipes were installed by Nelwand Communities to assist with the water flow for Basin No.2; and that Newland R:\Minutes\110999 8 Communities has been assessed 82% of Basin NO.1. In closing, Mr. Robato noted that the Assessment District has failed to fulfill its function. Ms. Michelle Staples, 2100 SE Main Street, Suite 104, Irvine, representing the Coronas, reviewed the request; referenced and relayed her understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (of record); commented on the Coronas' compromise (as per faxed material) which would allow the Home Depot project to proceed; and noted the following: . That a new flood hazard has been created at the commercial comer (79 South) as a result of the new building in and developing on the natural channel; . That the City has never relieved the developer of the condition (as per the May 26, 1988, letter) to construct a permanent facility prior to development of the downstream areas; . That it is a legal responsibility of this developer to consllUcl a permanent facility; that any approval should be based on the construction of an interceptor chamel before the issuance of development permits; . That the lateness of her faxed letter was as a result of waiting for information from the County, which was not received; . That the project cost of approximately $6.2 million (Alternative No.3) does include the underground interceptor and the open channel to the east; . That although only 5 to 6 acres of the Corona property are impacted as a result of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, in order to construct facilities In a manner which will allow the Coronas to continue their current and future land uses of the property without further severence damages to them, the facility which was constructed in the middle of their property must be buried by 4'; it was suggested that a smaller facility be constructed in its place and that a larger facility be constructed to the east; Councilman Undemans suggested that, in order to meet with the County and the developer, the matter be continued to the November 16, 1999, City Council meeting. Ms. Staples noted her concurrence with a continuance. Mr. Allan Davis, Del Sol Investment, Carls bad, requested that the City Council take action as recommended by City staff. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Newland Communities, 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 203, referenced and quoted City Condition NO.27 on Map No. 24182, as follows: an inferim detention basin has been constructed on the southem portion of Phase IV and the final phase of Tentative Tract No. 24182; the existing detention basin or an equivalent facility should mmain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities am constructed to convey off-site storm "ows to an adequate outlet; any mvision to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities should be approved by the City. Further addressing the matter before the City Council, Mr. Alhadert noted the following: . That there is no nexus to the Corona property and Home Depot; . That there would be no objection to including Condition No. 27 (as noted above) with the approval of Home Depot. R:\Minules\110999 9 · That the appeal be denied and that the remaining issues be approved with the imposition of Condition No. 27. Ms. Staples noted her opposition to the approval of Home Depot as well as any other approval under Specific Plan No. 219 without the imposition of a condition requiring the construction of the interceptor channel. She supported the approval of the Home Depot project contingent upon withholding building permits for Newland Communities. Mr. Bob Krieger, representing the Coronas, further commented on Altemative NO.3 (submitted to the County); addressed the water flow; the 2120" pipes Installed for Basin No.2; and the construction of a facility upstream on the easterly portion of the Corona property. By way of overheads, Mr. Sam Alhadeff reiterated his request that the City Council deny the appeal due to lack of nexus and approve the project At 10:05 P.M.. the publiC hearing was closed and a recess was taken. The Council reconvened at 10:14 P.M. In light of this evening's discussion, Councilman Comerchero noted that the noted drainage issues will obviously not be resolved today and, therefore, suggested the following: . That the Home Depot project be approved; . That all building permits for Map No. 24182 with the exception of Phases 1 and 2 be withheld until this issue is resolved or the matter is addressed by the City Council in a public hearing. City Attomey Thorson introduced and read by tiUe only Ordinance No. 99-28 and Ordinance No. 99-29. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with amending the Specific Plan as it relates to Home Depot as follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans continue to serve on the subcommittee that is to meet with the proponents and opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; that the City will have the ability to withhold approval of building permits within Tract No. 24182, with the exception of Phases 1 and 2, as identified by Deputy City Manager Thomhill; that once a reasonable compromise has been negotiated, the matter would be addressed at a City Council public hearing; and that the subcommittee will report to the City Council at its November 16, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For Ms. Staples, it was noted that Phases 3 and 4 of Tract No. 24182 would withhold approximately 400+ building permits. R:\Minutes\110999 10 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of ApprovaJ\Staff Report CC2.doc 12 RESOLUTION NO. 99-111 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TE ULA VACATING A PORTION OF NORTH GENE KEARN AD FROM MARGARITA ROAD TO EASTERLY 0 GARlTA ROAD MOT! . Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. . emans seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16 Oral ReDort from Subcommittee Second Readina of Ordinance No. 99-28 (SDecific Plan No. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (DeveloDment Aareementl- Home DeDot Proiect (located north of State Hlahwav 79 South. south of Monteleare Wav. east of Maraarita Road. and west of Meadows Parkwav RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Receive an oral report by Subcommittee Members Mayor Ford and Councilmember Lindemans; 16.2 Adopt an ordinance entitled: R\Minutes\111699 9 ORDINANCE NO. 99-28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219), WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 1, 6, 8, 27 AND 36; AMENDS THE ALIGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES; DIVIDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS), RESULTING IN AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWELUNG UNITS FROM 590 TO 508; AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO INCORPORATE THE VILLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENITIES; BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 16.3 Adopt an ordinance entiUed: ORDINANCE NO. 99-29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS 1(A) & 1(8) OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98- 28 (Specific Plan no. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (Development Agreement.) Councilman Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. With respect to the dispute between the Corona Ranch properties and Newland Communities, Mayor Ford relayed that although there had been discussions, at this point in time no final agreement had been reached. Ms. Michele Staples, attorney for the Corona Ranch properties, specified the issues of dispute; relayed that the Corona family did not oppose the Second Reading of the Ordinances; and thanked Mayor Ford, and Councilman Lindemans for their assiduous efforts spent over the weekend, working with the parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. R:\Minutes\111699 10 Councilman Lindemans relayed that the Council had previously placed a hold on 218 lots in Tract 24182-3, and 4, associated with this projec~ noted that due to this property currently being in escrow, Newland Communities had offered in its stead, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units, requesting that there be a substitution of the parcels being held; and recommended that due to the situation, that the parcels be substituted. Mr. Alhadeff, representing Paseo Del SoVNewland Communities, relayed gratitude to Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans for thair time and consideration in attempting to aid the parties in the dispute; relayed that although there was no mandated requirement, Newland Communities had agreed to place a hold on the aforementioned properties in an attempt to be amenable with respect to settling the dispute; noted the specifications of the existing Development Agreement; reiterated Councilman Lindemans' recommendation to substitute the held parcels; in response to Mayor Ford's comments, relayed assurance that If the City Council approved the proposed substitution of parcels, that there would be continued efforts to attempt to come to a resolution with the Corona Ranch properties; for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, specified that if the Council did not approve the substitution of holdings, that the property owner would not be able to sell the property; and noted that there was, additionally, a risk of a lawsuit. Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family opposed the proposal to substitute the property holdings, providing the rationale for the opposition; and specified that the Brown Act regulations would prohibit a ruling on the matter at this time due to this meeting being a Special meeting. City Attorney Thorson offered the following clarification: 1) noted that this was not a Special meeting, but an adjourned regular meeting, 2) relayed that the Agenda did specifically reference the project; 3) provided additional information regarding the Development Agreement; and 4) specified the Council's purview with respect to the releasing of the property hold at this time, and in the future, if requested. For Councilman Lindemans, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the rationale for the Condition restricting the parcels was to ensure that there would be attempts to resolve the issues of dispute; and relayed that the holding may not have been placed on the property if Newland Communities had not been agreeable. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to have the City, hereby, release the 218 lots in Tract 24182-3 and 4, as desClibed in the Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on November 9, 1999, and substitute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 68 of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6, and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units. Councilman Comerchero seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately passed; see page 12.) In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's querying, Ms. Staples relayed that her client would request a week's time to consider the new proposal. Mayor Ford specified the location of the originally held properties, and the properties proposed to be substituted; advised that since Newland Communities had offered the collateral on good faith at the time, and due to the substitution proposal still maintaining an equitable holding, which would continue to encourage efforts to reach a settlement, recommended that the substitution proposal be approved. Recognizing the unusual circumstances of the matter, Councilman Comerchero reiterated that Newland Communities had offered the parcels currently being held; noted that at the time of R:\Minutes\111699 11 approval, the Council was not aware of the fact that the parcels were in escrow; and recommended that the Council approve the substitution of the parcels. After further consideration of the matter, Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family had no objection to the proposal to substitute the parcels. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. In light of the time the Council that had devoted to the discussions, Mayor Ford implored the parties In dispute to make efforts to come to a resolution. For informational purposes, Councilman Lindemans relayed that after much deliberation, Newland Communities was willing to post a $3.5 million bond, noting the efforts to cooparate in raaching a resolution. eceive and file a report regarding GST Telecom fiber optics. GST Fiber Optics By way of overh d maps, Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff ort (of record) as an info tionalltem per the City Council's and City Manager Nels 's request; specified the location the telecommunication facilities installation; noted e concessions GST had made to mitigate the affic impacts associated with the project; rela that the City would be monitoring the installatio roject; and for Councilman Comerche ,advised that solely the area within the Commercial DI .ct would have the installation po oned until January 3, 2000, (after the holiday season.) Mr. Joe Ferrill, representing GST Fibe ptics, relayed for uncilman Comerchero, that the applicant would be willing to, additionally, elay the pro in the southern area until January 3, 2000 if that was the desire of the Council; a in re se to Mayor Ford's request that a minimum of two lanes of travel be open for ve affic during Installation, provided assurance that GST would adhere to all of the traffic guld n dictated by the Department of Public Works, and the Council. For Councilman Roberts, Director of 8 lic Works Hughe dvised that although there were no required cash deposits, or bond ho Ings, the City's standa ncroachment pannit spacifies that the applicant would be held spoosible for any damage to bllc property, private property, or any other utilities, relaying at the City would not be liable for aforementioned damage. City Attorney Thorson r yed that the encroachment permit was inclus requirement, noting t the City would be made an additional Insured. In response to uncilman Roberts' concems with respect to adept flagmen, ro closure tI severed telephone cables, Mr. Ferrill reiterated that GST would st Iy adhere to the traffic Idellnes provided by the City; noted that if necessary, the flagmen woul retrai to meet the City's specifications; and clarified the issue of the cut GTE cable i Ci f Murrieta associated with their project, relaying that GTE had taken responsibility fo e tter; and noted that GST would take every precaution to prevent the severing of utility line . R:\Minutes\111699 12 ATTACHMENT NO.4 ADDITIONAL LETTERS FROM HEWITT & O'NEIL R:\S P A\2002\02.0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report CC2.doc 13 HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP C(())/P/f TliIA M. COCHRAN DEAN OUNN.RANKIN SANDRA A. GALLE WILUAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWJTT LAwRENCEJ. HlLTON JOHN D. HUDSON ArrORNEYSATLAW I 9900 MAcARlHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CAlIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX) EMAIL: cOWlse1@hewittoneil.com WRITER'S DIRECT tHAl: (949) 798..0734 EM AIL: doneiJ@hewittoneil.c:om STEVEN B. lMHOOF DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAULA. ROWE WIWAM L TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER OrCO\JNSEL AMYW. LARKIN July 1, 2002 RECEIVE JUL 0 8 2002 Honorable Ron Roberts City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 IF~Y': ,.. Re: Paloma del Sol Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Newland Communities ("Newland''), I am submitting this letter in support of Newland's request that the City Council release Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431 in the Paloma del Sol project from the hold previously placed on these parcels and included as Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7. (Copies of the condition and the minutes of the November 16,1999 City Council meeting are attached.) We believe it was the intent of the City as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this condition was imposed as additional incentive for Newland to continue to work on a plan to resolve storm water drainage issues. At the time, Newland was advised by counsel there was no legal obligation to accept this limitation, and the City staff found no nexus between the Specific Plan 219, Amendment No.7 entitlements and. the condition. Neverthe]ess, Newland acknowledged the need to show its good faith willingness to continue to work towards a resolution of the problems associated with storm water drainage in this area and accepted the condition. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel facility is an improvement described in Assessment District No. 159 as a facility designed to collect storm waters to the east and upstream from the Paloma de] So] project. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of SR 79 and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage facilities have been built. AD 159 was able to construct these downstream facilities, but, unfortunately, did not build the Butterfie]d Stage Interceptor Channel prior to construction of Butterfield Stage Road to divert storm waters flowing from the east into Temecula Creek. 712/02 10019-00002 H&O: #324 v3 Honorable Ron Roberts July 1, 2002 Page 2 The original location of the Butterfield Stage Interceptor was planned to be built adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road on the Corona property. To date, the Coronas are only willing to accept an alignment for the Butterfield Interceptor <;hannel at the most easterly portion of their property outside of the boundary of AD 159 which would drain all 160 acres of their land. Newland does not object to tbis alignment, but the Coronas have failed to agree on a method of funding the additional cost of the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel at this location. Recently, the Coronas have filed a lawsuit naming the City and Newland as defendants and requesting a court to intervene in this dispute. Under the circumstances of the pending litigation, further negotiations have ceased. The Temecula City Council, on February 2, 1998, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. P A96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182), added a Condition 40 requiring Newland to maintain a detention basin in an area entitled for 188 residential units. An interim detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Tract 24182 to satisfy this Condition 40. The detention basin or an equivalent facility must remain in place untjl such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet. Newland is therefore satisfying its obligation to deal with any storm water coming onto their property from the east, and the City has adequate protection against storm water flooding in this area. (A copy of Tentative Tract 24182, Condition 40 is attached.) It has been over two and a half years since the hold was placed on Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. Newland has acted in good faith to meet and confer on many occasions to work out a solution. Condition No.7 states the Butterfield Interceptor Channel must be built or . significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise before building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map No. 29431 will be issued. The Coronas have failed to cooperate and instead are now seeking relief through the judicial process. "Significant improvements" in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise have therefore been thwarted and through no fault of Newland cannot occur. It is no longer reasonable, nor would it be legally justifiable, to continue to enforce the condition to withhold building permits for Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 2943 I . Newland Communities respectfully requests the City Council to remove this condition from Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7 and reinstate Newland's property rights as vested in the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement. Very truly yours, ~~N cc: Shawn Nelson Peter M. Thorson Dean Meyer Dennis D. O'Neil 712/02 10019-00002 H&O: #324 v3 Honorable Ron Roberts July 1,2002 Page 3 bee: Jim Delhamer Martha Guy Sam AlhadefI LaDonna K. Monsees Michelle Ouellette Bill Curley 7/2/02 10019-??oo2 H&O: #324 v3 HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP THlA M. COCHRAN DEAN DUNN-RANKIN SANDRA A GALLE WILLIAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEwITT LAWRENCE J. HILTON JOHN D. HUDSON A ITORNEYS AT LAW . 19900 MAcARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050 IRvINE. CALIFORNIA 92612 (949) 798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX) EMAIL: counsel@bewinoneil.com STEVEN B. IMHOO"F DENNIS D. O'NEIL }AYF. PALCHIKDFF PAUL A ROWE WILLIAM L. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798..{1734 EMAlL: doncil@bewittoneil.com OF COUNSEL AMY W. LARKIN July 9, 2002 Honorable Ron Roberts City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Paloma del Sol Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Council: You are in receipt of my letter dated July I, 2002 which is included with the July 9, 2002 City Council agenda materials pertaining to Item 18. My letter is submitted on behalf of Newland Communities requesting the City Council to release Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 2943 I in the Paloma del Sol project from the hold previously placed on these parcels and included as Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7. My letter further discusses the City Council action in placing Condition 40 on Vesting Tentative Tract 24182 requiring Newland to set aside the southerly portion of Phase 5 and Final as a detention basin to remain in place until such time upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsite storm flows'to an adequate outlet. Newland Communities has not in the past, nor does it now seek to have the City Council remove Condition 40 from Tract 24182. Newland clearly understands that the detention basin or an equivalent facility must remain in place and is necessary to satisfy its obligation to protect property in the area from flooding caused by storm waters originating from the east. The staff report has alternate resolutions on the agenda for consideration by the City Council to retain or remove Condition of Approval No. 40 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182. This is not the request being made by Newland and should not be considered by the City Council. 7/8/02 10019.00002 H&O: #635 v2 Honorable Ron Roberts July 9, 2002 Page 2 Therefore, Newland is respectfully requesting the City Council to continue this matter to their next meeting in order to properly agendize and document the appropriate request for action by the City Council addressing only the release of Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B) of Parcel Map 29431 from the "equity hold" Condition No.7 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.7. Very truly yours, ~~~ Denni~'N~il- . cc: Shawn Nelson Peter M. Thorson Dean Meyer 718102 IO019~0002 H&O: #635 v2 Jul 15 02 01:41p ALHADEFF8.S0LAR ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED llA8lUTY PARiNERSH1P 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 270 TEMECUlA, CAltFDRNlA 92590 MAlN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACS~~E:(909)699c6191 Offices in San Diego and Temecu/a, California July 15,2002 SAMUEl C. AllWlEFF SAlHI\DEFF@ASlAw1.coo 9103.0002 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Planning Director City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Modifications of Conditions of Approval for Amendment No.7 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Dear Ms. Ubnoske: This letter is a follow up to Mr. Dennis O'Neil's correspondence of July 1,2002, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit I, concerning the agenda item listed above. Pursuant to our discussion and at your request. enclosed is certain information which may be helpful to you in sununarizing the issue before the City Council at its next meeting on July 23, 2002. One of the qucstions asked of Newland was to address the issue in Condition No.7 that was amended by the City Council on November 9, 1999 and modified on November 16, 1999. If you will recall prior staff reports indicated there was no nexus between the Improvement and the Newland application. However, as a sign of good faith Newland accepted Condition No.7 to show its willingness to work with the City Subcommittee. In fact in discussing these matters the City Council was specifically advised by the Deputy City MllIl~er,_ Gary Thomhil1, that there was ". . . no nexus between the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor Channel and the four cases ------before-theGity-Councilthis-evening._._.,,__That_CQndition re~$_l!1>_p.l!!l_lISiol1ovvs: _______ "the Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise..... The purpose for requesting the motion under consideration is to remove Condition No.7. Newland has acted in good faith over a two-year period in meeting and conferring with the Coronas, their representatives and County and District representatives. Unfortunately, the Coronas have elected to file litigation and therefore there is no further effort that can be made for C:\WTNDOWS\Desktop\Dam\Clien1S\Ncwland Cooununitic:s\910).OOJ\UDNOSKE 7.I0-02,doc Jul IS 02 01:41p ALHADEFFI!.SOLAR ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Ms. Debbie Ubnoske July 15,2002 Page 2 reasonable compromise. Newland therefore seeks to remove this condition to be able to proceed with the property righls that were vested under the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement. To assist you in your evaluation of these issues we have attached certain exhibits including Exhibit 2 which lists the frequency of meetings with the Coronas and a chronology as to certain of those meetings. After November 19, 1999 and simultaneously with the meetings that occurred with the Subcommittee from the City Council, then Councilmembers Lindemans and Ford, Newland began a series of meetings and exchanges of documenls with various parties at the County of Riverside who are involved either on behalf of the County or managing Assessment District 159 (herein "District"). Participating in those meetings at various times were the following persons representing the County and/or the District: 1. Tony Carstens from the County Administrative Office; 2. Linda Thomason from Finance; 3. George Jolmson from Transportation; 4. Stewart McKibbin from Flood' Control; 5. Dave Stahovich from Supervisor Buster's office; 6. Tim Davis, County Counsel. In addition to those individuals, there were other persons representing the County from oUlside consulting firms including Paul Thompson from Webb & Associates and a number of other colleagues from his staff. There were also at various times other representatives of the County CowlseJ's office, Transportation Department and Engineering Department who took an active role in these -discussions. The Coronas were represented by their counsel, Michelle Staples and their engineer Mr. James Krieger. In addition, various members of the Corona family attended the meetings - who Ir kIth c ffi _m__._o__ rc too p ace at e - ounty-o lces,------------------------------------------ _______uu___________________ Attorney Darren Stroud representing the Corona family also summarized those series of meetings in his letter of August 13,2001 to Supervisor Venable. George Johnson from County Transportation Department summarizes those meetings in a December II, 2001 letter to your City Engineer, Mr. Hughes. Those meetings span a period of over two years. Newland was also represented by Mr. James Delhamer, the President of Newland California, Mr. Dean Meyer and then other consultanls inciuding Rob Brown, Dennis O'Neil and myself. In order to assist the parties, Newland also had its OUlside engineers present for various meetings. Those engineering representatives included agents from the Keith Company. The C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Data\Clients\Ncwland Communitics\9103.00J\UBNOSKE 7.10-OZ.doc Jul 15 02 01:41p ALHADEFF8.S0LAR ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Ms. Debbie Ubnoske July 15,2002 Page 3 purpose of having those persons at the meetings was to interface with the suggestions of Mr. Krieger representing the Corona family and to review those suggestions. It should be stated here that, even after these meetings, the ultimate recommendation of the County and District did not change. That recommendation was the original alignment that had been proposed and discussed in an April 2000 staff report by the County is the recommendation the County has continued to give with regard to the construction of the improvement. Item 3.6 was placed on thl! Riverside County Board of Supervisors' agenda for a meeting dated April 18, 2000. The staff report had a recommendation to the Board. in part, to approve" . . . the original Assessment District concept for the construction of the Butterfield East Channel and direct staff to return to the Board in thirty days with an implementation plan. . ." To date, the County has not taken action of the staff recommendation because of the unwillingness oilhe Coronas to dedicate the needed right-of-way. Notwithstanding this the parties continue to work on alternatives that the Coronas would support with regard to any improvement. The Coronas have always suggested their only acceptable alternative they would support consisted of an improvement that would be constructed at the far easterly end of their property to protect not only the 19+/- acres in the District but also their entire 160 acres under their owm:rship. We believe the purpose for the Corona's suggestion is because they are continuing to advocate and in fact the draft RCIP shows a density of2-5 units per acre for this property. This density has not yet been challenged by any agency although it would extend the urban limit line approximately 4800 feet of where it now exists. We do not know whether the City ofTemecula is supportive of extending this urban line limit but the draft RCIP provides for the extension of this urban line limit. Accordingly, we believe that is why the Coronas continue to request an improvement that would protect all their property. While the property owners in the District including Newland have been supportive of working on the alternative suggested by the Coronas and their engineer, Connty r.o'.1l'sd through - ---Tim Davis has advised there are insufficient funds available for such an Improvement. For whatever reason the Coronas at this time are unwilling to proceed to any amendment to the -- - ---- ----financingorto-pledge-their-additionalproperty_fQLSU..Q!l.llI!IIDRt:.()v~.!"~Ilt.___ ___ __________ In addition to the meetings that took place at the County, there were a number of public hearings on this matter. At each of those public hearings, the City staff as well as the County staff has suggested the District is responsible for the Improvement and the Improvement should be located as it was originally planned. The Coronas have continued to reject this location. In fact, the April 2000 staff report from the County recommended the District and County proceed with the construction of the Improvement at its original location. It was only through continuing legal threats and now legal action brought by the Coronas that the project has not gone forward. Attached as Exhibit 3 to this letter are summaries of the public hearings held with regard t6 this particular issue. C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Data\Clicnts\N'c:wland Communitics\9tOJ.OOl\UBNOSKE 7 -1 0-02.doc Jul 15 02 01:42p ALHADEFF&SOLAR ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Ms. Debbie Ubnoske July 15, 2002 Page 4 Finally, we have tried to give you a flavor ofthe various discussions, technical reports and correspondence included between the parties. Exhibit 4 gives you a summary of certain of those discussions, technical reports and correspondence. A summary of those docwnents as well as the actual documents are included. We believe that the docwnentation, the chronology of meetings and the efforts on behalf of Newland clearly satisfy the condition that was imposed upon Newland in November of1999. Finally, there is adequate collateral and security for this requested action with Condition No. 40 of Vested Tentative Map 24182 which requires the interim detention basin remain on the Newland property until such time as this matter is resolved. That condition reads as follows: "40. An interim detention basin has been constructed on the southern portion of Phase 5 and the Final Phase of Tentative Tract 24182. The existing detention basin or an equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsjte flows to an adequate outlet. Any revisions to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities shall be approved by the City." We have previously advised this Council that this interim detention basin presently affects approximately 188 lots and represents collateral security. Newland is not asking for the removal of this detention basin. Sincerely, JO..-Qt..I.,~ Samuel C. Alhadeff of Alhadeffand Solar, LLP SCA:dll Enclosures cc: Mr. Dave Hogan Mr. Gary Thornhill C;\WINOOWS\Desktop\Dato\Clients\Newltand Conununilies\9103.00 I \UBNOSKE 7~1 0-02.doc SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL with regard to Public Hearing Item No. 17 (Planning Application No. 02-0299) Information was received after the Monday afternoon Council delivery deadline! CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the City Council David Hogan, Principal Planner Cf4 July 23, 2002 AdditionallnforTnation for Agenda Item No. 17 The purpose of this memorandum is to forward information to you that has been provided to Mary Corona. On July 2200, Mary Corona came to the Planning Department, asked to see, and later requested copies of, the information contained in Exhibits 3 and 4 to Sam Alhadeff's July 15, 2002 letter. (A copy of the July 15th letter is included in Attachment No.4 of the Agenda Report.) The reason this material was not originally included in the Agenda Report package was primarily that it is already in the public record and did not provide new information on this matter. Staff is providing it to you, in case the Corona family wishes to discuss some of this information. R:\S P A\2002\02-Q299 PDS Condnions of Approval\Supplemenfal Memo to the Council.doc r.l;'-- EXHIBIT 3 ..... 11-04-99 co~srO~DE1'lCE S""'" D,ron "",""~' bct,,,~ fu' R"a>id' coun" floo' co~"o, ond w~a CO-.." D,",i" ,ho Ci' o[T""~u" ond ",w,,,,d ""o"'~~ ""'" 0"'00 Lo"" fro'" Roo ,,,",, '" US ^""Y Con> of Bn';''''' "'~, ",W,"" "" . dun' ",,,,,",,0' '" fuci' 'OW" \0 ,N"" ", "i"~' pN''''''~ " , ,od of "," d"oI""'''''. Th"" i' 00 ",,,,,, '" wi_ld ,oq",,"'oo ,_,ta 0< "",0\0'''''''' a rova1s as the affect the paloma Del Sol roo ect. lffiM fro'" Dom" 0'''00 " "un "",,,un '" """" ' oU of'" Co<on" Wl" fro'" 0"'" M'Y" '" C~o, Do'ohO' ",goW\nll ",,-" '''~, "00 by the Corona's Lo"" fro'" ,,,d ThO""'" " ",,"'''' """n "",d"" ", b""""und of ", Butterfield East 1nterce tor Channel . .. L"'" fNm Ri'''''' Rob'''' '0 D"" M'Y" ",~diog fu'" o"",un fu<>' """,,,,d " i, ~mP1-' wit' ,\1 d",,,,,m~' "''''''' ond 00"",.00> ."",,,,,,,1Y 0> fu'Y ",1'"' ,,\100d'" 0< ""'un ,"",~ ~ BU""'''''' ta ,R",d "" "' w. " L,\1" fmm """g' '0_' '0 c,m" _, "",di" Nocl\nll ofD"""bo< 10, 1999 . LoU" fro'" s,m A''''''''''' To'Y Co>- ond """go 'olm"o ",,,d'" meetin on March 1, 2000 L'"'' On'" Son> AI"""'" '0 G""'" '0_' "goWi" com'o" '''''' d~oo March 14,2000 re ardin inaccurate statements L"''' from Goo'g' ,,_, " S",'''' com" """d",g furtb" ,tully 0' additional 0 tions re ardin draina e ,,,,uni' ",Ii""" "",nn ,In'"'' ,0< "",,,fBU.,,,,,,"'ta ,RO'" . Wl" from ,,,, Thomp'" \0 JAi'bo"' S,.,'~ """di,g oX- ".d' ",,""1' ,. AD \59 . Lo"" from Mi",\1' Sta, '" " T ooY C'^""'" ",d G""" '0"",," "gmd"" flndin a suitable flnaflcin Ian Lo"" from Son> A""'''''' Tony C",,,,,, "" ](,lIT Dun"'" "g"ding AD ]59 ro ert owners meetin bein continued . . Wl" from D""" S""ud \0 'on>"" V"""" "","'.' ""do","'" w',"'" AD '" over a ear have been meetin re ular1 T _ri ", B'''' o<Su ""^",,, ,.,un " """" CO 'u,,",o ,,,,,, .. L'"'' from Son> A"""ft \0 '"'' 11"'''''. "g"ding dol",.g fu' COO".o. of A rova1 L'"'' from Son> AI,,,,,ff '" D,bbi' Dbno"" "goW",g ,,,"'" dnoomonta '" b' made a art of the record 12-\ 1-0' L"Ia fro'" Go"g' 101m'" " WlU"'" Hu,hoo ~,,><ling ,~"" "" . ,.'0"" di"""" botw"" th, Coooty "d fu' ,,,,ortY 0"'""" fo< .",'Y twO ears Wl" fin'" Lon""" S <"h \0 """" 10""'0' ",,,,,,,,,g ti,ting f"" -' draina e roblems ~EWLAND OtJTLl~E OF EV'E~TS / /' '/ / ~- DATE 01-22-91 01-23-98 11_01-99 11-03-99 11_04-99 02-11-00 03-16-00 04-04-00 \ I 04-11-00 04-26-00 06-06-00 08-03-00 01-10-01 08-13-01 , \ 09-25-01 11_06-01 11-29-01 \ 12-18-01 ,. ) . NEWLAND OUTLINE OF EVENTS / DATE CORRESPONDENCE 07-22-97 Storm Drain Agreement between the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the City of Temecula and Newland Associates Incorporated 01-23-98 Letter from Ron Parks to US Army Corp of Engineers regarding Newland has done everything in their power to protect the adjacent properties as a part oftheir development. There is no reason to withhold requested permits or development approvals as they affect the Paloma Del Sol project. 11-01-99 Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson regarding appeal of the Coronas 11-03-99 Letter from Dean Meyer to Carol Donahoe regarding response to appeal filed by the Corona's 11-04-99 Letter from Paul Thompson to Shawn Nelson regarding the background of the Butterfield East Interceptor Channel 11-04-99 Letter from Richard Robotta to Dean Meyer regarding their opinion that Newland is in compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 02-17-00 Letter from George Johnson to Corona Ranch regarding meeting of December 10, 1999 03-16-00 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Tony Carstens and George Johnson regarding meeting on March I, 2000 04-04-00 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto George Johnson regarding Corona's letter dated March 14,2000 regarding inaccurate statements 04-11-00 Letter from George Johnson to Stephen Corona regarding further study of additional options regarding drainage 04-26-00 Preliminary Estimate Drainage Interceptor East of Butterfield Stage Road 06-06-00 Letter from Paul Thompson to Michelle Staples regarding excess funds available in AD 159 08-03-00 Letter from Michelle Staples to Tony Carstens and George Johnson regarding finding a suitable financing plan 01-10-01 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Tony Carstens and Kelly Donovan regarding AD 159 properly owners meeting being continued 08-13-0 I . Letter from Darren Stroud to James Venable regarding landowners within AD for over a year have been meeting regularlv 09-25-01 Transcript of Board of Supervisors hearing regarding Colorado Pacific 11-06-0 I Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Peter Thorson regarding deleting the Condition of . Approval 11-29-01 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Debbie Ubnoske regarding certain documents to be made a part of the record 12-11-01 Letter from George Johnson to William Hughes regarding summarizing the . , ongoing discussion between the County and the property owners for nearly two vears 12-18-01 Letter from Leonard Savala to George Johnson regarding listing facts about drainage problems C:\Data\Clients\Newland\Newland Outline of Events.doc .:;., . \ . DATE CORRESPONDENCE 01-03-02 Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Mayor and Members of the City Council regarding outline of events 01-04-02 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Ron Roberts regarding deleting the Condition of Approval with manv attachments 01-07-02 Letter from Sherry Davis to Ron Roberts regarding typographical errors in the letter sent to Mr. Roberts dated Januarv 4,2002 01-09-02 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Mike Naggar regarding thanking him for examining the facts 02-05-02 Assessment District 159 Butterfield Stage Road East Interceptor Alternative Analysis 04-02-02 Memo from Dennis O'Neil to Jim Delhamer, Dean Meyer, Martha Guy and Sam Alhadeff regarding letter to be sent to Gary Thornhill regarding releasing the 508 multi-familv units C:\Data\Clients\Newland\Newland Outline of Events.doc \. . .' ,. 1 2 3 4 AGREEMENT . (Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185) The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the. CITY OF TEMECULA, 5 6 hereinafter called "CITY", and NEWLAND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED, a . 7 California corporation, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby 8 agree as follows: 9 10 11 .:.~. . RECITALS A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185 in the City of Temecula, and as a condition for approval 12 13 DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order 14 to provide flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development; 15 and 16 17 B. The required facilities include approximately 2,300 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe, hereinafter called "STORM 18 19 DRAIN", along with a certain interim retention basin, hereinafter. 20 called "BASIN", as shown in red and green~ respec;tively, on Exhibit '21 "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. STORM DRAIN and BASIN 22 are hereinafter altogether called "PROJECT"; and 23 24 25 will be dependent upon the functional operation and integrity of C. The functional operation and integrity of STORM DRAIN 26 BASIN. The BASIN wil~ be constructed outside of CITY street rights 27 of way, wi thin a drainage easement; and 28 -1- ~UL 2 2 1991. If./ EXHIBIT \0 .' 1 D. DEVELOPER desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and 2 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of STORl'-1 DRAIN. 3 Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and specifi- 4 cations 5 6 and , 7 and subsequently inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN; E. DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and 8 specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for STORM DRAIN, and is 10 9 willing to inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN; ~ DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership and 11 andresponsi- bility for the operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, excluding 12 13 inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of way, provided (i) 14 DEVELOPER complies with this agreement, (ii) DEVELOPER' pays 15 DISTRICT the amount 16 as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S construction inspection costs for PROJECT, (iii) DEVELOPER pays 17 18 DISTRICT the amount as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S 19 operation and maintenance costs for STORM DRAIN, (iv) PROJECT is 20 constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by 21 DISTRICT and CITY, (v) CITY and DEVELOPER assume ownership and 22 responsibility for the .operation and maintenance of BAS IN set as 23 forth herein, and (vi) DEVELOPER obtains and conveys to DISTRICT 24 and CITY all rights of way necessary for the inspection, operation 25 26 and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein; and 27 28 G. CITY is willing to (i)' accept and. hold faithful -2- .' , . '.' 1 performance and payment bonds submitted by PEVELOPER for PROJECT, 2 3 4 (ii) grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain. STORM DRAIN within CITY rights of way, (iii) accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of inlets and connector pipes within CITY 5 6 rights of way, and (iv) monitor and ensure DEVELOPER'S 'operation 7 and maintenance of BASIN as set forth herein, provided DEVELOPER 8 conveys all necessary rights of way and rights of entry to CITY as 9 set forth herein, and PROJECT is constructed in accordance with 10 plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY. 11 12 13 follows: NOW, THEREFORE, tr,e parties hereto mutually agree as 14 15 16 17 18 19 and specifications to DISTRICT and CITY for review and approval. SECTION I DEVELOPER shall: 1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit the plans 20 2. Pay DISTRICT, for DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the 21 plan review and approval of PROJECT, the applicable amount(s) as 22 provided for under Ordinance No. 671, including any amendments 23 24 and approval fees, as determined and approved by DISTRICT. 25 thereto, of the County of Riverside relating to such plan review 26 3. Pay DISTRICT, upon execution of this agreement, the 27 amount of $2,500.00, the agreed upon amount necessary to cover 28 -3- .. 1 DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the preparation, processing and 2 administration of this agreement. 3 4 4. Pay DISTRICT upon execution of this agreement (Zone 7 Maintenance Trust .Fund) , the one time cash sum of $3,500.00, the 5 6 agreed upon DISTRICT estimated cost for operation and maintenance 7 of STORM DRAIN through the year 1998. 8 5. Pay DISTRICT fOr the cost of providing' construction 9 inspection for STORM DRAIN, at the time of providing writ ten 10 11 notification to DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT construction. as set forth in Section 1.7. herein, in an amount as determined and 12 13 approved by DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinances 671 and 749, 14 including any amendments thereto, of the County of Riverside, based 15 upon the bonded value of STORM DRAIN facilities to be inspected, .. operated .and maintained by DISTRICT. 17 16 18 6. Secure all necessary licenses, -agreements, permits and 19 rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, 20 operation and maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish 24 map for Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185, or any phase thereof, whichever 25 26 occurs first, with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured 27 such nece.ssary licenses; agreements, permits and rights of entry, 28 -4- / I 1 as determined and approved by DISTRICT. 2 ,,/ >, I \.StePhen C. '" of cohstnic- Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention: 3 ;' ( '4 ..-.--.7. '\ I Thomas) at least twenty (20) days prior to the start tion of PROJECT. construction shall not begin on any element of 5 6 PROJECT for any reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued 7 to DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to 8 initiate construction. 9 10 11 8. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.7., with faithful performance and payment bonds, each 12 13 in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of 14 PROJECT as determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of 15 the bonds shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY. 16 The bonds shall remain in full force and effect until PROJECT is 17 accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond amount may 18 be reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any 19 20 defective work, labor or materials. 21 9. Obtain and provide DISTRICT, at the time of providing 22 written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as 23 24 25 Dedication to the public for flood control purposes, including set forth in Section I.7. with duly executed Irrevocable Offers of 26 ingress and egress, for the. rights of way deemed necessary. by 27 DISTRICT for the construction, inspection, operation and 28 -5- 1 maintenance of STORM DRAIN as shown in concept cross-hatched in 2 blue on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The 3 4 Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication shall be in a form approved by DISTRICT and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners 5 6 described in the offer (s) . 7 10. Obtain and provide CITY, at the time of providing 8 written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction of 9 PROJECT 10 as set forth in Section 1. 7., with duly executed Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of easements to the public for 11 12 flood control and drainage purposes, including ingress and egress, 13 for the rights of way deemed necessary by CITY and DISTRICT for the 14 construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of BASIN, as 15 shown in concept cross-hatched in green on Exhibit "B". The 16 Irrevocable Offer(s) .of Dedication shall be in a form approved by 17 - CITY and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners of the 18 19 property described in the offer(s). The IrrevocableOffer(s) of 20 Dedication. shall provide that if and when construction of 1,300 21 lineal feet of future storm drain as shown in concept in orange'on 22 Exhibit flAil is complete and accepted by DISTRICT, the Irrevocable 23 Offer(s) of Dedication shall be vacated by CITY. 24 25 11. . Furnish DISTRICT and . CITY, when submitting the 26 Irrevocable Offer.(s) of Dedication as set forth in Sections 1. 9. 27 and 1.10., respectively, with Preliminary Reports on Title, dated 28 -6- '. 1 not more than thirty (30) days prior to date of submission, for all 2 property described in the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication. 3 12. Construct., or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at 4 DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense in accordance with plans and 5 6 specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY. 7 13. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior 8 to DISTRICT acceptance of STORM' DRAIN for operation and 9 maintenance, convey, or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT flood 10 11 12 approved by DISTRICT, for the rights of way shown in concept cross control easement (s), including ingress and egress, in a form 13 hatched in blue on Exhibit "B". 14 14. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing 15 document (s) set forth in Section I .13., furnish DISTRICT with 16 policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than --17 fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for each parcel to be conveyed 18 19 to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said propertx as 20 befng free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, 21 easements, taxes and leases (recorded and unrecorded), and except 22 those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT are acceptable. 23 24 15. Assume ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of BASIN. Such operation and maintenance shall be 25 26 performed in such a. manner as to ensure the safe and normal 27 functional operation of BASIN in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY 28 -7- 1 standards and regulations, subject to the provisions of Section 2 IV.S. herein. 3 4 16. Pay where DISTRICT or CITY is successful in any suit under. this agreement or any action to enforce any bond guaranteeing .5 6 the completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and 7 fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, 8 upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees shall be 9 taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. 10 17. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for 11 PROJECT and assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start 12 13 of construction on any element of PROJECT. 14 15 16 17 SECTION II DISTRICT shall: 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, prior to the start of construction. 18 19 2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design 20 plans prior to DISTRICT final approval. 21 3. Upon execution of this agreement, record or cause to 22 b. recorded, a copy of this agreement in the Official Records of 23 24 25 26 the Riverside County Retorder. 4. Inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN. 5. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation 27 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN exclusive of inlets and connector 28 -S- 1 pipes within CITY rights of way, upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of 2 PROJECT construction as being complete, (ii) recordation of all 3 4 acceptance by CITY of all street rights of way as deemed necessary 5 conveyancing documents described in Section I; 13., and (iii) 6 by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT. 7 6. Furnish CITY with final reproducible "as-built" mylar 8 plans for all PROJECT facilities, upon DISTRICT acceptance of 9 PROJECT construction as being complete. 10 11 12 13 SECTION TIT CITY shall: 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared 14" by DEVELOPER for' BASIN, prior to the. start of construction of 15 PROJECT. 16 17 and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section 18 2. Accept CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance 19 1.8., and hold said bonds as provided herein. 20 3. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this agreement, the 21 right . to construct, inspect, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN 22 within CITY rights of way as set forth herein. 23 24 25 4. Inspect the construction of BASIN. 5. Consent to the recording of any Irrevocable Offer(s) 26 of Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER pursuant to this agreement. 27 28 6. If requested by DISTRICT, accept the Irrevocable -9- 1 Offer (5) of Dedication as set. forth herein,. and any other 2 outstanding offers of. dedication necessary for the construction, 3 inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and convey 4 suffiCient rights: of way to DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to 5 6 construct, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN as provided herein. 7 7. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, 8 accept ownership and responsibili,ty for the operation and 9 maintenance of all inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of 10 11 way. CITY shall further accept the added responsibilities associated with the continued operation and maintenance of BASIN as 12 13 set forth in Section IV. 8. herein. 14 8. Not grant any occupancy permits for any unit within 15 any portion of Tract No. 24182 or Tract No. 24185, or any phase 16 thereof, until construction of PROJECT is complete, unless 17- otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT. 18 19 9. Upon DISTRICT acceptance. of STORM DRAIN as being 20 complete, and upon DISTRICT and CITY acceptance of BASIN 21 construction as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the 22 adjustment of all STORM DRAIN manhole rings and covers located 23 24 within CITY streets and rights of way, at no cost to DISTRICT, which shall be performed at such a time that the finished grade 25 26 along and above STORM DRAIN is improved, repaired, replaced or 27 changed. 28 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 and accepted as complete by DISTRICT. SECTION IV It is further mutually agreed: 1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by DISTRICT and CITY and shall not be deemed complete until approved 7 2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect 11 control communications with the contractor during the construction of STORM DRAIN. 12 13 3. DISTRICT and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and 14 inspect all work being done on BASIN; but shall provide any 15 comments to CITY personnel who shall be responsible for all quality 16 control communications with the contractor during the construction 17 18 19 of BASIN. 4. Construction of PROJECT. shall be completed by 20 DEVELOPER within twel ve (12) consecutive months after execution of 21 this agreement and within oi,e hundred forty (140) .consecutive 22 calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT. It is expressly . 23 24 understood that since time is of the essence in this agreement. failure of DEVELOPER to perfqrm the work within the agreed upon 25 26 time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the 27 remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to CITY the 28 -11- 16 --17 18 ., 1 penal sum of any and all bonds. In such case, CITY shall 2 subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred. 3 4 5. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, waive the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.8, relating 5 6 to fees and charges. Such waiver is accomplished with the 7 understanding that DISTRICT' is voluntarily undertaking the 8 obligation to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation 9 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, and DEVELOPER is not required by 10 11 12 DISTRICT to enter into this agreement. 6. DEVELOPER shall during the construction period, 13 provide Worker's Compensation Insurance in an amount required by 14 law. A certificate of said insurance policy shall be provided to 15 DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant to Section I.7. 7. DEVELOPER. shall, commencing on the date notice is 19 given pursuant to Section I. 7., and continuing until. DISTRICT 20 accepts PROJECT as complete, and accepts STORM DRAIN for operation 21 and maintenance: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) Provide and maintain comprehensive liability insurance coverage which shall protect DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal injury, including accidental and wrongful death, as well as from claims for property damage which may -12- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -17 , 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 arise from DEVELOPER'S construction of PROJECT or the performance of its obligations hereunder, whether such construction or performance be by DEVELOPER, by any of its contractors, subcontractors, or by anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them. Such insurance shall name DISTRICT, CITY and County of Riverside as additional insureds with respect to . this agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for limits of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence. (b) Cause its. insurance carrier (sl which shall be authorized to transact business of insurance in the State of California to furnish DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7., with certificate (s) of insurance showing that such insurance is in full force and effect and that DISTRICT, CITY and County of Riverside are named as additional insureds with respect to this agreement and the obligations. .of DEVELOPER -13- . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) shall provide that the issuing company shall give DISTRICT and CITY sixty (60) days written notice in the event of any cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage of the policies evidenced by the certificate (s) . In the event of any such cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage, DEVELOPER shall, forthwith, secure replacement in8urance meeting the provision of this paragraph. Failure to maintain the insurance required by this 14 paragraph shall be deemed a material breach of this agreement and 15 16 -17 18 19 shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, at its sole discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to Section IV.4. 8. CITY, pursuant to Section III.7., shall have the. legal 20 right and responsibility to monitor DEVELOPER'S operation and 21 maintenance of BASIN, including, but not limited to, the right and BAS IN . DEVELOPER, by execution of this agreement, grants CITY all 27 including ingress and egress. CITY agrees to provide reasonable 28 -14 - 1 notice to DEVELOPER as to its intent to enter upon DEVELOPER'S 2 property for the purpose of such periodic inspection and to defend, 3 indemnify and hold harmless DEVELOPER, its officers, agents and 4 employees from and against. liability for injury or damages 5 6 occurring as a direct result of such periodic inspection. 7 DEVELOPER shall perform all corrective work within 8 BASIN as may be deemed necessary by 'CITY to ensure the continued 9 functional operation and integrity of BASIN and STORM DRAIN. 10 11 In the event of a flood emergency, if it should be deemed necessary by CITY that certain emergency actions must be 12 13 taken to ensure the functional operation of BASIN, and DEVELOPER is 14 unable to timely perform such necessary work, CITY shall have the 15 right to enter upon DEVELOPER'S property to perform such emergency 16 work as deemed necessary by CITY, at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and 17"-- expense. 18 19 ShoUld CITY, at any time in the future, determine that 20 DEVELOPER'S performance of operation and maintenance 21 responsibilities as set forth herein be insufficient to ensure the 22 functional operation and integrity of BASIN and STORM DRAIN, or 23 24 should CITY at any time determine DEVELOPER'S continued operation and maintenance of BASIN not to be in the best interest of the 25 26 public, then CITY shall accept the Irrevocable Offer(s) of 27 Dedication provided by DEVELOPER for BASIN pursuant to Section 28 -15- 1 I. .10., and assume ownership and responsibility for their operation 2 and maintenance. 3 9. 4 for BASIN, 5 6 nor within DISTRICT shall assume no responsibility, whatsoever, or for surface drainage, within DEVELOPER'S property, the' easement parcels shown in concept cross-hatched in 7 green or cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B". 8 10. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought 9 against DISTRICT or CITY in connection with this agreement because 10 of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER 11 12 shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, and CITY harmless 13 therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT or CITY. 14 failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled t6 recover Upon DEVELOP.ER I S 15 from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenses, including, but not 16 limited to, reasonable attorney's fees. 17 18 11. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY, their respective officers, agents, employees and 19 20 independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or legal 21 action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, 22 Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of 23 24 the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage whatsoever, for the 25 26 design, construction or failure of PROJECT or from the diversion of -"'"'==' 27 the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except 28 -16- 1 claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole 2 willful misconduct of DISTRICT or CITY. DEVELOPER shall defend 3 DISTRICT and CITY without cost to DISTRICT or CITY, and upon 4 5 DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled 6 to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenditures, 7 including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees. 8 12. DEVELOPER for itself, . its successors and assigns 11 suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, 12 13 present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or 14 liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section. 19 of 15 the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United 16 States 17 ._-- impose 18 Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design, 19 construction or failure of PROJECT, or the discharge of drainage 20 within or from pROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute 21 a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or CITY, their officers, agents 22 and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of 23 24 any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, for the negligent maintenance of . PROJECT, after the 25 26 acceptance of PROJECT by DISTRICT. 27 2,8 13. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any -17- lone or more of the terms of this agreement shall not be construed 2 to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of 3 any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to 4 require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this 5 6 agreement shall not be construed as. in any manner changing the 7 terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY. from enforcement 8 hereof. 9 10 11 14. If any provision in this agreement (with the exception of Section IV.5.) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will 12 '13 nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or 14 invalidated in any way. Should it be held by a court of competent 15 jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.5. is invalid, void, or 16 unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code 65913.8(b) shall 17 18 19 extended through the year 1998. apply. It shall, therefore, be determined that' this fee is. 20 15. This agreement is to be construed in accordance with 21 the laws of the State of California. 22 23 24 16. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this. agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: 25 26 27 28 -18- ;. . ' 1 RIVERSIDE CO~Y FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 1995 Market Street 3 Riverside, CA 92501-1770 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY HALL ' 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 4 NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230 5 La Jolla, CA 92037 6 7 8 17. Any action at law or inequity, brought by any of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by the agreement, shall be tried in a court of 9 10 competent jurisdiction, in the County of Riverside, State of 11 California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law 12 providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other 13 county. 14 15 16 the parties here'to, and the advice and assistance of their 18. This agreement is the result of negotiations between I} ,~espective counsel. The fact that this agreement was prepared as 18 a' matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or 19 significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement shall 20 21 not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared ,this agreement in its final form. 22 23 19. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to 24 and be binding upo~ all heirs! successors and assignees. 25 20. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any 26 of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or 27 28 -19- 15 II 16 II 17 18 19 20 21 1 entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto 2 being first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or 3 4 assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the obligations 5 ~ and duties contained in this agreement. 7 21. This agreement is intended by ,the parties hereto as a 8 final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject 9 matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the 10 11 terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in 12 13 connection therewith. This agreement may be changed or modified 14 only ~pon the written consent of the parties hereto. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -20- 1 2 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this /:'iiC{17, .' <ifft. 17)//, <:i 4'eO' &<:io!-... Clerk of the Board) <\:: <' 6Ye _~'!i 'S lOJ fet;T- IiiI'. O,*" ,f&1' LOO CONTRv~ ATI TRICT 6 o agreement on 3 (to be 4 By ,.....-- 5 RECOMl'lENDED FOR APPROVAL: : \ ' 7 8 Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: 9 ,WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN 10 County Counsel 11 By\L/JJd~t \I {11m 4//5/n FCt-Joe S. Rank 12 'Assistant County Counsel ATTEST: jUL 2 2 1997 GERALD A. M1.LONEY Clerk of the E~ard 13 14 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: B~~ Depi/' (SEAL) 15 16 --17- _A.J;:PROVED AS TO FORM: ' 18 By ,~- City Attorney 19 20 Dated'f~ t;, /19?- ~. CITY OF TEMECULA By ~o.uvz-~~ City Manager Ronald E. Bradley ::;;;~~.4L -~Clerk ' Engineer (SEAL) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SCT:mcv 28 rcfc\10808 4/1/97 NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Bd~/?),y~ Title C:~G7:. {/.? (NOTARY) JUl 2 2 1997 f I -21- JURATMTH AFFIANT STATEMENT STATE OF CAUFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO' ./ See Attached Document (Cross out lines 1-11 below) o See Statement below (Lines 1-11 to be completed by document signers only - NOT NOTARY) 1 Signature o~ Document Signer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I. ELIZABETH C. GROMAN I _' \ COMM. , 992753 ." S . 00 : NOTARY PUBLIC.CALlFORNIA S' ~ . SAN DIEGO COUNTY - I . .... My Comm. Exp. Apr. 2S. 1997 I d and sworn to (or affirmed) before me . this 23rd day of April, 199Z,_by (1) LaDoIU1a K. Monsees Printed Name oE Signer(s) Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable ersons relying on the . document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Further Description of Any Attached Document Right Thumbprint Title or Type of Document: Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District/ Alcoba Drive Storm Drain. Proiect No. 7-0-0046, Tracts 24182 & 24185-Cooperative Agr. Document Date: "to be filled in bv clerk of Board" Pages: 25 Other Signers:Temecula City ManalZer, City Engineer, City Attorne Riverside Co. Flood Control Dist. Signer Nt Signer #2 ~~~ ,.' ~ ", .. ~ . ~ r ~ j I , 0 C. ~ " , "'. . ~ ,~~~'>"" I,-, "Y"1J...'-. '.~ 9" Q ; (1,;.; ~ ,ii/I' 'V , / -.. .. r- ~ ,..",) ;-:~ ,<~,-/, 0:' //:-i',,,--;.R'ff' 'I I I I I i I \\'1 1-11111 1/7' ~.) FI )vj. ~' \..- / ~X..I' \.J.-I-~ i\ \ \ II f7Ir, ,..... I ITII17;~~k-~f..'/,A ~ . ~. ~ ~ Hill I JlTffi. iT \ I \ -"':' :<..~~[@ '~'V?"/;~"'~~ '" '-'-" -1-1 :,)"', ,'" ~ 0 ' '-, 11\\ rn ' --1-' " /;'.') X; . ;7<' > . '/1$':; ::::/-{ 'T1\\\~ C.\ t. \ :jty~\::t~~~",S<>:'A''-~ y~/,~, \.: _ '--1 L, vL \. ^-.;\'.~""'" /'1>.' 0,' \, I ':::':J LI fTl \\\1 ~ i.::: :>t~-">).> >~';':Jt.:.c.;:, .-:~\ \, P ~ ~~.. I ~:-'!- ,~", {~~C ":.." ),Y '-" ,'('~..- \:::~; C%\.\ . ~~~{).'" ... 1B - .,/ Y.n~~ .~\:),~/y<,\:~. ~ 1-+- c-- bll'll'Irb./ ~"Yk!J) "/~,,,<\'::"\-X~"'<:"":l ~ t::L b=l= nIT Y ~ )! ::: :: ,;,.'}~~>".<FI~L'!!)~~~'~'1111 r;n- - '"" ~'rr~7t E J- -, '''<;'''';;:\,~'>\'''' /,.<..i..I0r.i:s.. ~ D~"f-l..-l...< II ]". <}41'~4>-~.:;~,/14? !~'I" L- =.~...""''' 21 ,; tIiT..r T\ 2 .' I-I,/~< 'f>; ,).'>~ "'~ -4 /, ~ iJJJ1rp '- , '1! - FL- /.:-. 'S/ II .. ~ / \ l'~"'" ..t........kll ;J/~.::J ~ '.:'.\." ~UlUO~/'" . ,J..( @I ./la\ __ '/ . "~.. --.t) .:: '5:~,J '---=:;....-< >: 7, UI i". '::: ~,....,u" ~ ':t-1 -i '" ~U' ,~--1 . . '(-, l::. ./ I5i:;: ~:~"t['r/:::J - \\:'\ \ \ '(:;u:y i -.:: " ~ Ill))., .:!.: /' :J /: ' ~ " ITTl ~ ,-' '. ~~://;/l:Oi;. . , ~~~ l;q!llh~~-~~~~i~~~m ~'~g t:;J (:::1"'-J. 'J? 1\\ ~~ ' -3 '<;7,~ '!;:;<-tJ-l1T ~..-f~.. ::l '- '--- .' -=. ~ ((ffi\ liT i \' " ( ;.b, -:J {If.. \l) ~!f m 1-1'ffi.W' :::;::~ '~~~~ Iii /~~"l')~ ~ s~n" ~~~;:A ~RIIIIIfllT\I\ITIKt~ ~ -rim TTIIII'II~ ,J'<'>- :..... ~ WI:: ,III ",;Vlm" "c, i \1 \J or--': I.': \V3;-- \-' f....' ?JFlt''1,''-.. ~/.\ ,;;; _.>->-"...--- Cfl' ": ,.:.' <::1",;;t f- I- LI/) f\~; ~Ip \---;...! \i ~ ..F -'~ -I'lJ Iffr"J-.. I- -~' \" I-H ,f- :Ar1'~:/. ,- :::d-::\:, . -It::;t Iii 1-1 .. ~ I- c:\v~ "l.."'\ \ \ I \ \---1 ,,-If3-tJ S~ E t t _~~:Y(,'mllll (::; ,l) 'll:.';_:~,,,,_~..,?~ 1I!11.\~"rllll "~' l~iJJ' Jni-n@/flllllll v " r . -. ST....n:: t-IQiWAY 7. .- ..-. "w - .- --'" EXHIBIT "A" ~ ' ~Jf '. . .' b I ~ . ~~ '':~'~ I ..\ .' ..r'~~~-@1 . '\".\ 'i ~,) (1!:' ilif%. "~'-~ --\~/..f' i~~':::;ma~\\ /n.' - \ \ \ 111111li! N~~~FfNM~"ll ~\\- . (j :"':'''-'-fT\ \ L..L11 II I ~ ,/\'; ^ ...'1' J: ''\.''. /"< -1 T LY-; \llliW rr '~-(I \ \ ~: U2~~ /'<: if~ ~ \"'" . a ~ F:c ml \ LlIIII .H"~ \ \\)"'^'<?')~>i%l~~'\. lye::: ~m\ 1\/ I-I -~\::J, -..:.H ~.':~~'<::''>'~~b>,'(, ~t;:>:'~..,\ /!~ --+:::f { rT\ \1-D 8 @ ~ / -\\\;"0 ~'" ~~~ A' r1 ~\~~'\ . ~~t'r.....-r; ,......) ';:''.''1 ,,I", \'\! uJ--v-... ''\\ !--J-? ~~"~::c0'~~~~, . '\ ....;.;'~~, / ~ ,...~\~ fTrni } ~). xs 'J'!~~. ~~1~W1'\'\--::X:::: 1-1- ~'~~II- t1I.Y ~~ . ~ l: .. . '" "_70 '\ 1>./. '1:;.x.......... r:.-t=.. 1--1- r-- ~ -.. ,K> \)" :>'\"-." ':',':>~~p'~:r:. '-.L. cr- I J ll' ;..... I- ~ - .;'<;~~'~\':<FlNAt~;:I), J,!-\(;llllll I i7-- '@i'(1J..1LIT-Ji1l ) ," '/;, .. '. \.',... /', -../) - "" -...., "f=:I 24184" :.....,......}{t,) '. I--~.~~,~ ^-, ,if., .LJ!f7T I- ~ ~~J.; '. \ \..'\" ':~_~~f1 -4 ~/ H ~jj 111m j:::. I>, 'r-- '-I--J~' . .\::5,"~ /'1 '1-1 ~.' NIIJJr ",...1'::!,,>__ /: "I -,-- "'1"" """"'WOO<>a.h " ~ I#~ 1-/ -., . '.;';. \., ~:;:! ~I'. .....::/ c- . ,i, '" III -j...,), '--11 'I I/}l-( - '"} '\ - . ",.~ ~ .---=::: , . ,>_'i..J..J.. (/ '~~'.'.. "./x ": -! ;-'1:::, '-. 0-~7i ,BI: U 111 f::r~'<'l _~)~:;/! /4 ~~ g . -...' ..., J'--tlj-- '. \2, . M0-1' .,..';ZJ.. 'III r.- .. r;;::~~.;j?,:<?d r: \ ~ w/a ~~{J,~~;;Z~~00r' u 1)~t, ,c--- \~o;~"-LIIIII (\ ~C1~;Q,>/. '~'f?..'<< IU~~ Y. '-... ~ 'DE ~llr\J.t>~~):> j',' rr;. NUf:: I ~fh-; U, ^ \\ ~Ll~~J: S,t,r-lfY~~;;!zif!1 }:0;:1'K S1.::r:?j&iIA~YI~~U >~ ;;h~-3j~li(~!:a)]m ~3'. :: =i:=\ ~T::-~' (11111 i II \ ~~/,;; ::<:::J.7ix(J;50j '1::/3 ~ ~~ \1=" ~ d::i_""" ~ ~ t~ / <-~~)::/ tiLL/1[]jjjjlnILk:. " \/T\\Tt:\ 'u~r'$' /.~ ~ i= ~0.11 \ 1'1~~ 10 8 ~ ( \ III III LlW I Lll.';:.y.. j . W! '-1-= . I- I- 'I '). \'/ i1iri~f....Vj~..... ,~ -'- I "". -' 0'- c,;;'{(. 1-,- I- _~. (o;.~. ~"'16 \:=\:= = ,[Q:)J... '-~ f...i .L 'II, _ ^' n..' _ 'l},wa ;:J , "-1-" - ~..-'; /'-..'" or: f-- ,... 'aHr- -I de: ~ Pc tf:; y:::, f:: JJ W --j (,5T ~ vm \ \ t= , 't: -J} -:' ~ - :-i ~-<\t::J t _~ ~..J.~WlIII ~ \= ,~,,-!_..I;-,~~,-:::,;~-=..,_~..II_~.- ..Ll~llIill (,Qi \I~C!;~::.I'I'.II~I..,_..~- , , \, See Exhibit "B" See Exhibit "B" 2 of 3 Line "e" 2 of 3 Line "AU EXHIBIT "B" 1 OF 3 /?/rI ;;: ~ ~ \ ( \ ~ l/r-INTER'MBAs'N.....' .III \)JY'i/JL ~_ 11'11 y~ ~ Jl -ti-H ~ ~ LINE "A" , < ~ ' t( - o ~ 5'01/ 'ON'WW '1S' - - - - - ~ ~ Ei'1'Z: Cf::.. HIGHWAY79 I .:>. 6> ';>0. ? , >< ~.;> FH 12. - FHtO- C;i.-G FMZO ~ - =---- 0. ,~ ~~. " .9.9 >< "? '. EX'. M,II.N!. 2 LINE "ell HICHWA Y 79 EXHIBIT"B" 2 OF 3 J '- \ ~\'.,; \ ---I o '" I ex: ~ I I ~'" 1#2 J [ftJ(9g[b ~fP !M@. ' 1J~@~1J - ROAD - - ---S,. AGt eIJTTERt\tLO N 22. 55'2:>W ~ ...,.-.... .-. ...... \ , I 0'1 r--. 71' >-. I~, ::I:. t:) :J: I w ..... 0<( .... V) . , e" 3e',0.W 805.59' :e.,... ~~tfJ EXHIBIT-"B" 30F3 - w r 02 05:07p p.2 ~ RitllVlD JAN 28 1998 ..Citj(ofTemecula", , " .IIGULATORYIIANCS": 43200 Business Pa1c Qive. Temecu/a. CA 92590. MalT"",,,,,,,=: P,O, Ila1< 9033. TemecuI.. CA 92589,9033 , 1909J 694-6444 . Fax 19(9) 694-1999 January 23, '1998' US Army Corp of Engineers P. O. Box 532711 , Los, Angeles, CA 90053 " Attn: Spencer McNeil; EnVironmentarCompIiance Specialist Re:, NewlandPropertyAnnualPermit Corona Ranch Issue ' Dear Mr, McNeil: , , , , ' , , You have requested clarification of an issue raised by Mr: Steve Corona regarding potential flooding of the CorooaRanch property as it relates ,to the construction of the Paloma Del Sol. _, project owned by the Newland Corporation. The Paloma Del Sol project was originally approved as a Specific Plan,by,thecounty of Riverside before the.city of'Iemecu1a Incorporated. There havebeen..several revisions, to the Specific Pian through the city1)fTemecuht'which have been reviewed, anaapproved 'by thiS:agency,.' In' ' addition,. severalTentative Tract Maps have been processed through.the. city of Temecula as. a part cfttJs Specific Pla..,. Th~ qu~ons cfflooding and draL.....aage contrcl are always a concern and,addressed..whendevelopmenlplansare. processed-through tbe',city..:'. .,' " The city staffh'as evaluated the problems identified by Mr. Corona as they relate to the Paloma DelSol project. Thethreatofflooding,ofthe Corona Ranch has always been, present due to the " fact that it lies within thi: flood plain, ' The issue was addressed with the design studies associated' withCountyAssessment District.159in which an'interceptor channel was proposed at the easterly boundary of the Corona Ranch'property., This was'supposed'to be built iil conjiinction with 'other .. major stonn drain improvement!> built within Butterfield Stage Road to intercept the storm runoff from the east and, direct it to Temecula Creek, As of this date the major storm drain- improvements have been installed in Butterfield Stage Road and DePortola Road and Butterfield Stage Road has been fully improved which raised the elevation about one foot above the previous grade, This work was approved and constructed by County Assessment District 159 and was not the responsibility of the Paloma Del Sol.project. It is further the responsibility of AD 159 to complete the construction of the interceptor channel ' r:':r,', ~,~~~ftT ~L? b~...'7.'~01I1 l ~ rij i ..,. Il.~ARXSR.\t.JI9N.EI'tE\AJt.MYCOllPJ.nt. 'rirIc~~ Ilecyd~"~ ^" I". '10.._" -- 2 05:08p p.3 \\ , Newland Propeny Page Two" .. . .',.' which would provide the ultimate protection of the Corona Ranch property as well as the southeast comer of the Paloma Del Sol project, The developer of the PalomaDeI Sol project b,as .' constructed a retention/detention basin on the southeast comer of their project to protect their property as an interim measure until the interceptor channel is built. One could argue that the Newland property is also being held hostage until AD 159 completes the interceptor channel.,' , The,city of Temecu1a,staffl1as thoroughly investigated these issues and is of the opinion that the Newland' Corporation' has 'done-everything in theirpower,to'protecuhe adjacent, properties as'a' . part of-their developme'nt; There is no reason to withhold ,requested pennits or development approvals as they affect the Paloma Del Sol project. If you have any questions or, need further information, please give me ,a call. ' Sincerely, ' ;fJ;I~ Ronald J. Parks Principal Engineer, Land Development cc: Joe Kic~ CityEilgineerlPublic Works Director R;\PAIU(SRIlnIlll.EITEJl.\ARCORl'.LTR. nl/0AI?nn? WT 1"f..ft"f r"''YJn" 1l.ln ft...... no......... . HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP DEAN DUNN-RANKIN - CHARLES S. EXON WILUAM E. HAllE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWllT JOHN D. HUDSON ATTORNEYS AT LAw 19900 MAcARnRJR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1050 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612 (949) 798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX) EMAIl: counscl@1lewiltmq;uirc.com WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798-0734 EMAIL: doneil@hCwiumcguirc.com MARK R. McCUII", DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PAlCHIKOFF PAULA. Rowe WILLIAM L. TwOMEY JOtIN P. YEAGER November 1,1999 . '" Peter M. Thorson City Attorney City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 " , , Dear Peter: Re: Planning ApplicationP A99"9284 (Development Plan), PA99~0286(Tentative Parcel MapNo. 29431), Plarming, Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific PlanAmendment) and Plaiming ApolIcitti()n No. pA99-0823 (DeveJoDmenl Agreement) ..... . " Our law firm repre~ents Ne~landC()mmunities, the developer of the Paseo del Sol Master Planned Community. Newlan!lhas receivedniltice that the owners of the Corona Ranch have appealed some or all of the applications referenced in this letter. The stated grounds for the appeal are: (i) "the applicanlhas failed to, come into compliance with the development criteria and conditions placed on the project'1; (ll) "the project itselfis oui of compliance with conditions ofits approval"; and (iii) " . .'. the California Environmental Quality Act requires preparation of a subsequent EIR for a project, and precludes reliance on an addendum, when substantial changes occur to the circumstances under which a project is to be undertaken, or new information shows that project impacts will be substantially more severe." As they have in the past with prior Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Amendments, the Coronas contend that the construction of Butler field Stage Road has effectively blocked drainage through this area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to upstream properties than was previously identified in the EIR for (Paloma) Paseo del Sol. Furthermore, they point out, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility ("Butterfield Interceptor Channel") to mitigate this problem has not yet been constructed. However, even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a Supplemental EIR ("SEIR") should be prepared in connection with the pending planning applications. This is 11'()1-99 IOOl9.()()O()2 - S;\I52\CORR\99IOOOO8,lTR,wpd Peter M, Thorson November I, 1999 Page 2 r' because the development of the Pasco del Sol commercial site and the Specific Plan No. 7 Development Plan will have no imoact on uostrearn orooerties or their exoosure to flood control hazards. This follows from the fact that no stonn water from the Paseo del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.7 and related development applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there.are absolutely no new significant adverse envirorunental effects to analyze in a SEIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus or relationship to the pending planning appli!;ations and drainage issues on Corona Ranch. , ~ AD 159 has provided many public improvements of regional siinificance in the South Temecula area. Thus, the construction ofBulterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South hi 1993 was not intended to benefit solely one property owner, but rather to'improve the overall traffic circulation of the region to the benefit of all people living in this end of~own. ,The Corona Ranch is included within AD 159 and along with Paseo del Sol and otherpropecties,havebeen assessed to pay for these regional publi~ improvements. , ',' ,.' . Butterfield Stage Road, which is already completed: and the Butterfield Interceptor, Channel facility, ,which lias not yet been constnicted, are improvements under the control of the' County of Riverside and/or Assessment District No; 159,not Newland C9mmtinities. EIR No. 241, ' was certified by the RiverSide County Board of Supervisor when AD 159was formed in 1988. Any issues tlie Coronas have regarding flood concerns should be directed to'Assessment District No. 159 and the County. " ", , .' :' '. ". I The Butterfield Int~rceptor Channel istobe built to the east and upstream from the Paseo del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas ' and divert them into Temecula Creek. Newland has been working diligently with both AD 159 and the County of Riverside for over three year:; in analtempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield InterceptorCh~el. The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor because they must agree on its location and the cost AD 159 will pay for their land, Newland will continue to cooperate with the County and the Coronas to insure this flood control channel is constructed. _ . In the meantime, in satisfaction of the development conditions required by both Riverside County Flood Control and the City ofTemecula's Public Works Department, Newland' has constructed an approximately twenty acre interimdetention basin at the northwest corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. South. This basin was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Flood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. Further, the basin fUlly protects the Paseo del Sol community during rare stonn events in which water may enter from areas to the east. To give you a sense of the rarity of the stonn event that might cause water to enter the basin, you should know that during El Niiio of recent years this twenty acre facility remained dry. 11-01.99 10019-??oo2 - S~IS2\CORR\9910000S.I.TR.wpd Peter M. Thorson November 1,1999 Page 3 On February 2, 1998, the Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 ("VTM 24812") and, based upon staff analYSIs, found the project to be in conformity with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The' continued presence of the detention basin was assured in the conditions of approval for VTM 24182 to remain in place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows. In general, CEQA limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues orimpacts which were not addressed in prioE environmental documentation. The intent of CEQII. is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documeJ;ltation, unless the , project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changeS ' have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources' Code Section 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR asa result of: " " ' (a) substantial changes in the"projectwhich have an increasednegative ' , impact on the environment; (b}substantial changes in the circumstances of the projectwhichhave an,' i~creased neg~tive impact on the environment; or ' new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared which indicates that the pfoject has a substantial adverse, imPllcl ~hich cannot be mitigated. ' The CEQA statutes and guidelines are, very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required ' unless one of these specified triggering events occur. (c) ....... A public agency's'discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language:- An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fufld for Eflviroflmefltal Defeflse v. COUflty of Oraflge (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, LOflg Beach Saviflgs afld Loafl AssociatiOfl v. Long Beach Redevelopm,efll Ageflcy (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowmafl v. City Of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065), CEQASection 21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an envirorunental impact does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of 11.01.99 10019.??oo2 ,S:\I S2\CORR\991 oo008,L TR.wpd Peter M. Thorson November 1,1999 Page 4 insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights If') (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Caurt cases uphald the presumptian against the preparatian af subsequent EIR. (Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco, 1999 Daily Jaurnal D.A.R. 9211.) Ifimpacts resulting fram changes to. the praject do. nat differ significantly fram thase described in the project ErR, a further EIR. is nat required (Bowman). A city may nat, therefore, require a furtherE.IR unless it finds, an the basis af substantial evidence, that ane af the three exceptians to. the'rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case there is no. evidence to. suppart such findings. All reasanable daubt will be decided in favar afthe city (Laurel Heights). A city may prepare an addendum to. a priar EIR to. dacument its decisian that a subsequent EIR is nat required. CEQA Guideline Sectian 1 5164(b)( e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use af an EIR addendum to. detennine whether a'subsequerit ar supplemental EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the caurt upheld the City's use af an EIR. addendum to. evaluate changes to the praject.' The caurt held that using an adden'dumas a mechanism far detennining whether a furtherEIR shauld be required was an appropriate way to. fill in a pracedural ' ! gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nathing in CEQA ar the Guidelines requires that the city canduct an investigatian to. ferret aut changes in circumstances ar new infannatian. CEQA and the Guidelines do. nat man(late any specific procedure far cities to. fallaw in detennining whether a supplemental ErR is required. The Guidelines simplypravide that a brief explanation afthe decisian nat to. prepare a supplementalEIR pursuant to. CEQA Guideline Seytian 15162 shauldbe included in an addendum to. anEIR., the city's required findings an the project, ar elsewhere in the record. Newland has provided you with legally suppartable evidence af campliance with all drainage and flaad cantral canditians. 'The appellants have affered no. evidence af nancampliance with the canditians af the praject appraval, any significant changed circumstances, ar new infannatian which was nat cansidered in the ariginal project EIR. as further reviewed in priar and the current Addendum. Finally, there is absalutely no. cannectian between the planning 11.Q1-99 IOOl9.()OOO2 'S:\H2\CaRR\991 00008,L TR.wpd I r' \ , ! . ~ . Peter M. Thorson November 1, 1999 Page 5 applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues impacting the Corona Ranch. Therefore, we submit there is no need in the case of the pending planning applications to consider adding new conditions or conduct further envirornnental documentation. Very truly yours, ~&~ Dennis O. O'Neil DDO/mer cc: James M. DeIhamer Mayor and Members of the City Council . " . IHlI-99 10019-??oo2 .s:\~S2\CORR\991 OOOOS,L TR.wpd " ) ITlES November 3, 1999 Carol K. Donohoe, AICP Associate Planner CI1'Y OF TEMECULA Planning Deparbnent 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA92590 Subject: Paseo del Sol - Plaruring Applicarron: P A99 - 0284 (Development Plan), P A99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), P A99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment) and PA99-0283 (Development Agreement) :NI..\ 1.-1tiO:i Dear Carol: ;,I..:om A~ a follow up to the information forwarded to you,9n October 26,1999 and subsequent meetings ,with City Staff and City Atiorriey, we hereby submit the following correspondence in response to the ,appeal filed by Corona Ranch: ' 1. Letter from Dennis O'NeiIto Peter Thorson dated November 1, 1999 stating Our positions. i) The develop~ent of the Paseo del Sol conunercialsite and Specific Plan NO.,7 will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. ' om ii) Newland'has:provided evidence of compliance with all drainage and flood control conditions.. iii) There is no need to conduct any further environmental review or prepare any subsequent reports. 2. Letter from Paul Th6mpson of Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment Engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson dated Novem15er 1, 1999. ' i) This letter indicates there is an authorized "$2.2 million for design and construction of the Interceptor Channel or a substitute facility" through AD 159. . ii) In addition there is authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property, '. '"' . ~~ Carol Donohoe November 3,1999 Page two ' 3.', Letter from Richard T. Robotta of The Keith Companies dated October 29, 1999 which summarizes the technical history of Specific Plan 219 (Vail Meadows) and EIR 235 as it relates to drainage issues. . In summary: 1. The Paseo del Sol project has met all the conditions placed on the project throughout the entitlement process and more specifically as it relates to drainage. ' ", 2. The Paseo del Sol project has constnicted;an,ipterim detention basin and has been conditioned that the basin or equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time, that upstream drainage facilities are constructed. 3. There exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds through AD 159 for the design and construction of the Butj:erfie1d Interceptor Channel. 4. Newland Conununitiessupports the use of authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property. 5. ' There is no evidepce to support the appeal of the pending applications nor need for any neW:COnditions or the preparation of further envirorunental documentation. We thank the Gty Staff for their efforts and time spent on these matters. We are respectfully requesting that this correspondence, along with the compilation of reports and analyses as submitted to you under cover letter dated October 26, 1999, be filed with the Gty Clerk and made a part of the official record of the City Council relating to the subje;:t planning applications and appeal. ~ Very truly yours, NEWLAND COMMUNmES, LLC ~ -->-- Dean R. Meyer Director of Engineering & Development CC: Jim Delhamer <, "'ii, WEBB ASSOCIATES ENClNEDUHc; COllSIlLTM'TS o CoIp<nIa~ 31U Mccra)'Su= l!iw:l>idc. CA 92Sll1i (90916&6-10111 Fox (909) 1a8-12S6 C Rtj;ionaI Olr= 2Z481 RIlldlo Cali!. Road, SIe. 10& T=b,. CA V2S90 (909) 69f-9"'..50 . fax (909) 699-1032 W.O. 89-4308 File No. 3851.08 Nuvembc:r4, 1999 Mr. Shawn Nclso.l1 City MllI1lIger City ofTemecula 43200 .BlI~ilJ(,sS Pll!k Driv~ Temecula, CA 92590 . , RE: Assessment DistrictNo. 159- Butterfield,East JD,t,etceptor Channel Dear Mi. Nelson: fi w., T am the Assessment. I:l1VisiollManager with Alben A. Webb Associates, , , Assessment Engineers forAssesSl:DentDisirictNo. 159 (A. 0.159")., I am proviclingibc ' , , following infomuition to assist~ CitY ofTc:mccula. in understanding the background ,of the Butterfield &st Interceptor Chunnel(the "Interceptor ChAl1rie!") and to hclp to identify potential fup'Hl1J;: for itsconstructioil. . . .~_. A. D. 159 was originally fonucd in 1988 to fund certain regional public Unprovemenrs and oIber ~'within the District Boundaries.. IIi 1991, a supplemental district was foImed to in=e the fimds available for the cost of the . original A. D. 159 improvcm"'lt'l, and to add new District improvpm"njS such as the-- Interceptor elmnn..! AppIOXimntely $2.2 million was specifically identified by the supplemental district lIS necess3ly for th~ de:,ign and CODStruCtion of the Interec:ptor ChAnnA! This $2.2 million was lISSesBcd to four of tho propllrty owners within the Di$trict and ~ead to these owners based on benefit received and allocated on acreage. Consequently, Paseo del So! received ahom 82% of the AS~""'TTJent wi1h the rem!lining three owners n:cciving about 18%. "_"r..'rt-t~Q;l::D "''''('''iAiJtDJ;I''_'Q.A)t''"'r;Q.1.~'Q]:~1 b 'l.J ~ ovn. ENGINEERING · PLANNINO · A.SSESsMENr I sPECIAL TAX CONSULTING · W^TER RESOURCEs ENOINESUNa , ..- -; At this date, there is authorized but'tmissued bond capacity on the Pasco del Sol property toraling!lpproxitnately $4.9 million. Under ,AOOP'N'llen1 District law, authorized bonds can only be released by !be agency admiDistering the District and any actual assessment debt issued 8gllinst II property mnoins an obligation of the property Until paid. Fuzther, an AssesSllIent District may build improYellle11ts oUl.side Or its botUldllries if those improvements are to the benefit ofpropl:lties within the District . , In On going meeting.~ wi!b Riv~c1e COllll1y omciaJs, Newland .ColIUllunitics indicated that they would suppori ~;ng a portion of the aulhorlzed but unissued bOnd capacity 011 its property to provide fimds in e."{~ of tbc authorized $2.2 million for the design /Illd <:<n1SlnIction of the Inlen:eptor Channel or a substitute fuciJity such as' a detention has in.; " 1 trust this information has been helpful to you and I am available to answer any questions you may have. PiCas!} freetocal1 me at (909) 781-6190. SinCerely, , ALBERT A. WEBB,ASSOCIATES "'~~ Paul Thompson PTlis 1\..\SSE.o;sMlWrlAsSE"I.~MENT_D.U.\\R1VCa..-\ll~I~.R..O;\""_ .... Co '". "''', ,.m'""""/n<c::: November4,1999 ~ Mr. Dean Meyer NEWLAND COMMUNITIES 27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253 Temecula CA 92591 Re: Paseo del Sol: Appeal of P.A. 99-0283, 99-0284, $9-0285, 99-0286 Butterfield Stage Road at Highway 79 Drainage Issues , Dear Mr. Meyer: The Keith Companies has been informed that the aforementioned planning applications for the commercial development within Pas~o del Sol near l-jighWay 79 and Margarita Road have been appealed by the Corona Ranch owners. Further, it is our understanding that the appeal is based on issues involving compliance with develOPment criteria and conditions as they relate to flooding concems at the northeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and : Highway 79 approximately 1 mile to the east upstream of the referenced applications. It is the intent of this correspondence to define the development criteria and conditions as they , relate to drainage for Paseo del Sol (formerly Vail Meadows )by rela~ng the history of the drainage approvals and thereby show compliance with said development criteria and conditions. In 1988, the Engineer of Work for Vail Meadows, Robert Bein, Wif/iam Frost and Associates, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District engaged in correspondence dated April 6, 1988; May 16, 1988; and May 26, 1988 which discuss and developed the master plan of drainage for the Vail Meadows project. As a part of the approved master plan of drainage a large off site basin immediately to the east (approx. 1190 acres) was identified as a partofthe Vail Meadows approval (refer to attachment 1, 2 and 3). The oftsite basin's drainage was mitigated by the construction of twin 120-inch culverts. Which exist today in Butterfield Stage Road and easterly in DePortola Road. ' Also in 1988, Assessment District 159 , which constructed many substantial regional facilities in the south Temecula area, was approved and its E./.R. No, 241 was certified. This E.I.R. and the aSSOciated AD. 159 documents identified a large basin (approx.2239 acres) further to the east which would require the construction of a channel. This channel known as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel diverts flows upstream of Butterfield Stage Road to the south towards Temecula Creek. As you know, AD. 159 has Provided many public improvements of regional significance in the south T emecula area inducting Butterfield Stage Road. Highway 79 and T emecula Creek. However, the Inland Empire Division 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 Moreno Valley California 92553-9024 t 909.653,0234 I: 909,653,5308 WWW.l<eilhco.com .. , .. Page 2 N~_', "'lTKC construction of the Butterfield interceptor channel was never accomplished ~y the A.D. In 1996, when Newland Communities purchased the Paseo del sol project, The Keith Companies discovered that the Butterfield interceptor channel had not been constructed. With Newland wanting to move forward with the development of Paseo del Sol and " evidence that the construction of the interceptor channel improvements were subject to delay, interim flood mitigation aKematives were identified and approved on the Newland property to protect it and potentially other downstream properties from flooding. Ultimately an interim detention facility was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Rood Control and City ofT emecula review and approval. (see attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7). On February 2, 1998 the City of T emecula Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 (VfM 24182) and confirmed the continued presence ofthe interim detention facility with Condition 27 stelting that"... the basin or an equivalent facility shall remain in' place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed..: ( see attachment 8). ' '. hi conclusion, 'and in our opinion eviden~d by the aforeme'ntfonel approvals, Newland is in ' compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79.' Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, . THE KEITH COMPANIES,'INC. /2V/~':' Richard T. Robotta, P.E. President-Inland Empire Division RTR:ml Enclosures cc: Mr. James Delhamer \lJ<E.rn<<)J01INET_0\911.01~J..dlx ~" :- a:/2~j2eee 16:62 8776395559 Frn-,::4-00 THU 02: 54 PM R I V CfQ:CUTI VI: O~ r 1\;<. f...: . RR BROWN CO Joflll NU. 1 ,".. :..:<! "'lZ.r;:o:''':,,'/' .. '." "PAGb.'",a?,, ' , qtO'J'OO/f."Uc."" ~'", COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Dltvld E. Barnhart Dir<<h1,o/1'I'4#fSJlon..t;O'I February 17, 2000 CERTIPIED MAIL Ip 310 675 430 Corona Ranch 33320 State Highway 79 Ternecula, CA 92592 Attention; Steve Corona RE: Butterfield East rnterceptor StQrm Drain Dear Mr. Corona: I am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10,1999 meeting we had at the Flood Control DistrIct offices, The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various alternatives we studied for the Butterfield East InterceptQr Storm Drain Facility, I appreciated the opportunity to hear your concerns, and as a result, I gained a better understanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives. Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. As you are well aware, Ihe Butterfield Interceptor was incfuded as an Assessment District No. 159 facility, to be located atihe eastern Assessment District boundary, tq intercepttho tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road. State Route 79 South. and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of theAD boundary, you requested we stUdy other altematives. You are currently farming all of your property and,advised the Interceptor would disrupt your farming operation. With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. Let me summarize the two other options we discussec;i, whIch seemed po1entially feasible: Alternative No.1 examined the possibility Qf constructing the Interceptor on the same alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the channel and conslructing a box under your property. YOU expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could COntinue your farming operations Uninterrupted, and 2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solulion: Theintent was to provide four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top of the facility, During our meeting. Flood Control District representatives questioned the feasibility of this option. First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be properly coflecled by the underground box. Secondly, by fowering the facility to place it 4080 Lr:mod Srr~t:t 8tb floor. Rro:uidc. Clrifocnl.1 ~2S01 . (909) 955-67.10 P,Q. Bux 1090' Rn.mido. C.B/o,".. nSOH090 . FAX (909) 9S5,6nl 02/2.;0<600 15: 02 87763'35,55~.. . :E~-:~4-UU THU UC::,:, Yn !UV I.:U ",tI.:U 11 VI:. UH 11.:1:. RR BROWN CO rHA NU. I PAGE r. u.:) . "::'3 63.... ".;. - Mr. Steve Corona February 17.2000 Page 2 underground makes the slope of the box culvert too flat and creates ongoing maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical. The other option we discussed was Alternative No.5. a dual system with an open channel located along your easterly property boundary to intercept a majority of the drainage from the east, along with a smaller underground system at the eastern AD boundary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, abov~ De portora Road and east to Calle CQntento. You expressed your preference for this alternative. Under Alternative No.5, all of your property will be flood protected. The property you OWll outside the AD bounda/)' Would benefit under this altemative and would therefore be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. You discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your properly until your farming operation develops into some other use. This would require some other,party to advance your costs. While I unde~tand your desire. the County doesn't have the financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs is to dedicate the right-of-way needed to COnstruct the facility. Other than that, I have not been able to come up with any other cost saving solutions. . If you are Willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of your property outside the current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need your written concurrence, Your cooperation is needed to make the Interceptor a reality. I look forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative manner. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additiOnal information. . Sincerely. 4d~ George A. Johnson Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Supervisor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Cars1ens Dave Barnhart Kelley Donovan Fmnk Peairs "0"/24/2088 15:82 8775335553 :'tl:h'q-UU lHU UL;~~ rn "IV (;L' '~(;UIJV~ urrJI,;~ i I .... .. ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ e: '" .. ... ~ ::: 8 ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ l': :: ... '" g .., '" '" .. '" ~ ~ ~ .... .. :z ~ if .. .. .. !:' .. J:: .. ~ .. '" .. .. " H . E- ~'JI ~~~~. E -' E.2- 00 '" _ ~ ~tJ ~_c: ~~ !:;:~ ~ f Ij ~ ~Q. ~s;zi 2'.1:: c: WI ~ ~H!iH ..! "",..B < e8 (!z]:!IaJ~ HH .~j'" -0 - - t >< - '"' C'o 0_ ~ . " ~ .. ~j ~Il S 8 "'.. " . "" 'v2 -0 ><0. ~ . ~~ , t 80 =-N ~ s ~ .. .t: ~ i' . i ~ e ~ ~ ~ e "- g~.g "'~'11 uti.. ~ ..fi~ >< ,- HU olio,!; =Zn~ RR BROWN CO t'M I'lV. ! 10'01""10 G..l~i~.8 l"!~:~!g ;;;,f'oo........... ;:f;.... - ..,. , I ~ .. i ~ E :f ~..~ig:~I:e "''',T:lS _ s..g:~'; 8"! g' UlI "'",' _ ... ,.,", .e.,..... _ I... ".3 . I i'D : ,", g; .: i. !Ii :~ ~ .. ... ~ 'i , , I I , J , ~I~I'~I~I~ ,,!~ ;;I'ii% ;; :.&.-''" -I" roil "I'..;.... .. ..' I r , I I , , I ii' '" 5 .. .. .. z 0 I" " z '" 0 'I:; " ;!; .. '" .. ~ .... .... :0: " .., w .w '" ~ :Ii 0 Z w :',j ~ 0 '" ... " ;1i ., < .. 8 .. f' 0 :0: '" .. :; 0 ., ... '" t; ~ " ,. or ~ a .. 0 '" "' ... u 0 ii: w :" 82/24/2888 15:82 f]l/i~:L: .:.:."j PAGE 84 r. U'f 0~/24/20~0 16:02 87763'3555'3 RR BROWN & CO, LLP RR BROIAN co PAGE 01 CERTIHED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS *** FAX *** DATE: z/~c.f-<:?Q S \....... ()~~ TO: FROM: Rob Brown ~e:A.J I NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: -1.- ~g(\l <~~J):;ff-- 950 S Ch~,.ry Street., Suite 716 Denver, CO S02~6 275S5 Y nc< Road, Sui", 407 Temecul2, CA 92591 Phone (877) 639-5565 FAX (877) 639-5559 e.nlall robbrown@rrbrownco.com .... 613 West Valley Parkway Suite 345 -~ido, CA 92025 ~ephone: (760) 743--1201 ..csimile: (760) 743-9926 ALHADEFF & SOLAR 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 203 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591~46n MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699,9088 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-9878 550 Corporate Center 550 West C Street 19lhFIoor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-8700 Facsimile: (619)231-8323 Offices in San Diego, Escondida and Temecula, California March 16, 2000 SAMUEl. C, AlHADEFF SAlHADEFF@ACRSP,CQM (909) 699-9088 9103,001 Mr. Tony Carstens County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Mr. George Johnson County of Riverside Transportation Department P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Re: Assessment District 159 ("District") and Specific Plan 219-Paseo del Sol ("Project") Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson: I wanted to thank you, Ms. Thomason, and Mr. Donovan for meeting with Newland Communities and myself on March 1st to discuss the District and Project. We appreciate the time and consideration each of you and a nwnber of other members of County Staff have given with regard to the issues that we discussed at that meeting. As discussed in our meeting, we think that the District has reached a critical crossroad regarding the funding for and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Drainage Channel ("Interceptor Channel"). Consequently, we believe that the County and the District should recommend a solution to the County Board of Supervisors and seek direction in facilitating and completing this improvement as provided for in Assessment District 159. This letter is really intended to be a summary of the current status of both the District and the Project as it relates to the Interceptor Channel. The delay in the construction of this facility is not only having a serious adverse impact on Newland's Project, but also on the District, its owners, and the integrity of State Route 79, Butterfield Stage Road and other regional improvements constructed by Assessment District 159. Assessment District 159 was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other infrastructures within the District boundaries. In 1991 a Supplemental I\SLDlC_DRlVElDATAICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3,6REVISED,DQC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16,2000 Page 2 District was formed to fund the increased cost of the original District improvements, and to add new District improvements such as the Interceptor Channel. Specifically our client's Project had original assessment debt of$I1.9 million. When the supplemental assessment was adopted another $13,8 million was added to the original assessment debtincreasing the total debt to $25.7 million, To date, our client has always kept both its real estate tax obligations and assessment debt obligations current. The Interceptor Channel was to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District boundary. This channel would pick up storm water entering the Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19.17 acres) and divert the drainage southerly to the District improved Temecula Creek. The estimated cost of the Interceptor Channel was in the range of 1.8 million and was to be shared on an allocated basis with four (4) different owners. The current estimate is 3.5 million or more. As you know, the Corona family has resisted the original design of the Interceptor Channel and has suggested different alternatives that would not only protect their property within Assessment District 159, but a larger Corona parcel outside of the District as well. In order to resolve these issues, a number of discussions took place between the District and the Coronas. To date, those discussions have not resulted in any agreement. Accordingly, on February 17,2000, the County sent a letter to the Corona Ranch asking that they select one of two alternatives for the Interceptor Channel. Specifically, the County suggested that if the Coronas wished to adopt a significantly more expensive storm water channel that would benefit their entire property, they should be willing to include all of their property within Assessment District 159 to assist in its funding. The reason we are again bringing this matter to your attention is because, quite frankly, this issue needs to be resolved for several very important reasons. First of all, the delay in the construction of the Interceptor Channel has caused our client to incur additional costs of $860,000 for the construction of an interim detention basin that protects not only their property, but property owned by others to the west. These costs would not have been incurred if the Interceptor Channel had been built in a timely fashion as were other District funded improvements. Second, this interim detention basin prevents Newland from developing forty acres (approximately 188 lots) of their residential property. While these lots continue undeveloped, Newland is shouldering the burden of tens of thousands of dollars of interest costs, property tax, and assessment expense. Third, the Coronas are raising the question of liability arising from the damming of storm water on their property as a direct result of the District's design and construction of an elevated Butterfield Stage Road without building the Interceptor Channel to divert this water into Temecula Creek. Finally, the Coronas and others believe that in certain storm events both Butterfield Stage Road and State Route 79 will be flooded because of the failure to construct the Interceptor Channel. As you probably know, the significance of I\SLDlC_DRlVElDA TAICUENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETIER 3,6REVISED,DOC '; ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 3 Butterfield Stage Road as a circulation element is growing as a number of parties both in the City of Temecula and at the County are considering Butterfield Stage Road to be a major loop-road in this area. In swnmary, it is now time to seek a final solution to this matter and to prevent any further adverse impacts to the District, the County, and the owners in the District. As previously stated, Assessment District 159 assessed Newland and three other property owners for the construction of the Interceptor Channel. Further, this original assessment is believed to be inadequate to fund the channel's construction. Newland has volunteered to allow any remaining authorized but unissued assessment debt currently on its property to be identified and sold to raise additional funds for the construction of Alternative No. I of the Interceptor Channel. However, it is important to fully understand that the District's ability to raise additional assessment funds through Newland's cooperation diminishes each time Newland sells property to others. Therefore, it is now imperative that the District act quickly to help us make all of this happen. In addition, we believe that the County needs to act upon its letter of February 17,2000 and if no timely response has been received from the Coronas, to proceed with the final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Interceptor Channel. This matter has gone on for some time now, and we just simply need your assistance to resolve these issues and respectfully request that this matter be discussed with the Board of Supervisors. In summary: I. the Paseo del Sol project has participated in Assessment District 159 and through its assessments has paid for many regional infrastructure improvements; 2. our client has installed the required storm drain facilities throughout the Project to satisfY its drainage requirements; 3. certain public improvements already completed by both the District and our client were designed and constructed in reliance on the completion of the Interceptor Channel; 4. our client is willing to cooperate with Assessment District 159 to allow additional indebtedness that could be placed on the property in a fair and equitable allocation to provide for construction of the Interceptor Channel; 5. there currently exist adverse conditions on our client's property, which are working in an unnecessary hardship. The hardships can be resolved by the County proceeding to act upon its letter of February 17, 2000; and I\SLDlC_DRlVElDA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETTER 3,6REVISED,DOC '. ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 4 6. we are asking that you take our request to the County Board of Supervisors for direction in facilitating and completing the Interceptor Channel, pursuant to the authorization provided for in Assessment District 159 and we in turn pledge our client's cooperation to working with the County and District to reach a solution. S=~I c. AI"",~fUl-- ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP SCA:sld cc: Mr. Dave Stahovich C:\DAT AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3,6,DOC I\SLDIC _DRIVElDA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3.6REVISED.DOC . , , " 1e.st Valley Parkway , _ 345 ,"candido, CA 92025 Telephone: (760) 743-1201 FaC3imile: (760) 743-9926 ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP IW~;t) =::r=7 , \..,) jvY' , 27555 YNEZ ROAD. SUITE 203 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591-4677 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-9088 FACSIMilE: (909) 699-9878 550 West C Street 19th Fioor ,San Diego. CA92101 Tgiephone: (619) 231-870( Facsimile: (619) 231-832: OffIC8S in San Diego, Escondida end Temecula. California April 4, 2000 SAMua. C. AlNAoeFF SAuwleFF@ACRSP,COIoI (909)699-9088 9103.001 Mr. George Johnson County of Riverside Transportation Dept. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501, Re: Newland Communities - Butterfield Interceptor Channel- Assessment District 159 Dear Mr. Johnson: On March27, 2000, I received a copy of a March 14, 2000 letter that was directed to you by Steven Corona concerning the above-captioned matter. Mr. Corona's letter contained certain inaccurate statements. Two of those statements are as follows: In the third paragraph of his letter he references your correspondence of February 17, 2000 and goes on to state "In your letter you rnistakenly state, 'As you are well aware, ,the Butterfield Interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the Eastern ASsessment District Boundary, to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and down stream properties.'" Your letter of February 17, 2000 is correct. Mr. Corona's assertion is incorrect The original improvements for Assessment District 159 (the "District") contemplated an interceptor channel to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District boundary. The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by the Rancho Villages Assessment District ("EIR 241 ") addresses the area wide drainage. Exhibit IV - V (State Highway Corridor Drainage Study) calls out for a permanent interceptor located on the easterly boundary of the District. The facility as 'originally contemplated would have picked up the drainage entering the Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19.17 acres) and diverted the drainage southerly to the District improved Temecula Creek. This original concept consisted of an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona property at the eastern edge of the District. This specific channel design was included as part of the SupplementalAssessment in the District, The costs were first anticipated to be approximately $2.2 Million Dollars in the District and then escalated to approximately $3.5 Million Dollars. including right-of-way acquisition when the Corona's refused to participate in dedicating the right-of-way. This fact becomes important on further analysis in this letter. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Mr. George Johnson April 4, 2000 Page 2 The next inaccurate statement in the letter relates to the assertion made at the bottom of page 2, in the next to the last paragraph, where Mr. Corona states "According to all the documents which we reviewed (and I am sure there is much more), the developer remains ultimately responsible for the cost of constructing the Interceptor Channel. The developer has never been relieved of this obligation by the City ofTemecula or by County Flood Control". This statement again is also incorrect. In fact, on November 9, 1999, in a staff report prepared for the City Council of the City ofTemecula, the staffreport and the Deputy City Manager submitted their report and the minutes of that meeting reflect the following, and I wish to make a verbatim quote, so that there can be no misunderstanding that one public agency has already reviewed, in detail, this matter and clarified the issue. "Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per agenda materials); referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexus between the Butterfield Stag:e Road Interceptor Chan,\'1el and the four cases before the City Council this evening:: advised that the channel was to be constructed and fundedthroug:h AD 159 and that Newland Communities had no control over the timing: of this process; (emphasis added) " . Mr. Thornhill recom!nend denial of the appeal and approval of the remaining applications." The appeal was brought by the Coronas and obviously, the staff was recommending the denial of that appeal. As a result of that hearing, Newland and the City Council reached an. amicable accord to again iIlow for continued development of the property, while at the same time trying to resolve issues with the Co~onas. In fact, then Mayor Ford, and then CoUncilman Lindemans, proposed a solution. The solution was agreed to by Newland Communities ("Newland") and the Corona Ranch ("Corona") on Friday November 12,1999. However, at the City Council meeting on November 16, 1999, the Coronas withdrew their approval to the solution. In part, because the Coronas again refused to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the County Flood Control District without compensation. I find this odd because of the Commercial zoning on that portion of the subject Corona property located in the City ofTemecula and any development would include dedication requirements. ' In summary, to set the record very clear, your letter of February 17,2000 was accurate with regard to the facts that you recited, The Coronas have, for whatever reason, been unwilling to cooperate with the other property owners in AD 159 and continue to assert, mistakenly, conditions that do not exist, nor have ever existed with regard to alleged requirements imposed upon Newland. [n order that this record may be complete, I have attached the following documents: l. Your letter of February 17,2000. 2. Our letter of March 16.2000. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Mr. George Johnson April 4, 2000 Page 3 and 3. Newland's co-counsel, Hewitt & McGuire's letter of November I, 1999; 4. The minutes of the Temecula City Council dated November 9, 1999. If! can offer any further information to you, please do not hesitate to contact us, Enough time has transpired with regard to the delay tactics of the Coronas. We believe, as we have stated, the time has come to adopt a reasonable alternative and move forward with this project We look forward to the..,April18 hearing at the CoUnty Board of Supervisors. ' Sincerely, ~ tlett~9:~ JC. , Samuel C. Alhadeff, of Alhadeff & Solar, LLP SCA/sld Enclosures as noted cc: Supervisor Bob Buster (via U.S. Mail and facsimile) Supervisor Jim Venable (via U.S. Mail and facsimile) Mr. Tony Carstens (via U.S. Mail and facsimile) Mr. Dave Barnhart (via U.S. Mail) , Mr. Kelley Donovan (via U.S. Mail and facsimile) Mr. Frank Peairs(via U.S. Mail) Mr. Dave Stahovich (via U.S. Mail and facsimile) Mr. Rick Hofflnan (via U.S. Mail), The Honorable Jeff Stone, Mayor (via hand delivery) , Mr. Jeff Cornerchero, Mayor Pro Tern (via hand delivery) Mr. Albert Pratt, Councilmember (via hand delivery) , Mr. Michael S. Naggar, Councilrnernber (via hand delivery) , Mr. Ron Roberts, Councilmember (via hand delivery) Mr. Gary Thornhill (via hand delivery) , C:IDATAICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNlTIESVOHNSON LETTER 4.4,DQC ~i/24/2000 16:02 87763355- 11:6-24-00 THU 02:54 Pl1 RIV C~' ,{ECVflV!: O~r ll;l:. PR BROWN CO JoM NV. I '.-:?/','I":<~:'.:',~.i :::',::;r~ PAGq77~3'J'5=: (!"'q/O:poorCb'joJ<!11 rol'l \;fJ : '.' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTAnON AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 'fransportation Department DlfYld It. B4Tnh4rt Dir=Nr tJITI'4IU~II'O#t February 17, 2000 CERTIFIED HhIL tp .310 675 430 Corona Ranch 33320 State Highway 79 Temecu/a, CA 92592 Attention; Steve Corona' RE: Butterfield East Interceptor Storm Drain Dear Mr. Corona: ) am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meeting we had ~t the' Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various alternatives we studied for the Butterfield East Interceptor storm Drain FaclJity. I appreciated the opport1JJ1ityto hear your concerns, and as a resuft. I gained a better understanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives. Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. As you are weJ/ aware. the Butterfield Interceptor was included as,an Assessment 'District No. 159 facility, to be located at the eastem Assessment District boundary, tq intercept the tributary drainage flows and proVide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road. State Route 7S South, and downstream properties_ The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 15S boundary. Because You own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of theAD boundary, you requested we stUdy other alternatives. You are currently fa/Tl1ing alf of)lOUr property and, advised the Interceptor would disrupt your fanning operation. With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. Let me summarize the two other options We discussed, which seemed potentially fea;;ibJe: Alternative No, 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the channel and eonstructing a box under your property. Yoo expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could continue your farming operations uninterrupted, and 2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The,intent was to provide four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top of the facility, During our meeling. Flood Control District representatives questioned the feasibility of Ihis option. First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be' properly coflected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it .LOBO lemo'l Screec. Sfh Floor. Ri..-,:oidc. Cllifornlo1 92501 . (909) 955-67-1Q P.O. 8\1;( 1090 .. P;ivcHiJ~. CAli/oml.} 91502.109Q ~ FAX (909) 9S5.6Tlt ~272d/2~~8 l~:82 ij77~)~5~ H:.!h~4-UU THU IJI.:~~ rn Yol'! Wl.tl;Ull 'It Utt ll;t, RR epOyJtI co '.";:12"/';"': tH^ flU. 1 ~-;'_;J.-.,.~~~-T.:_: PAGE ~1', r." .u,J Mr. Steve Corona Februar/17. 2000 Page 2 underground makes the slope of the box culvert too flat and creates ongoing maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical. The other option we discussed was Altemative No.5. a dual system with an open channel located along your easterly propertyboundal)' to intercept a majority of the drainage from the east, along with a smaller underground system at the eastern AD boundary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, above De Portola Road and east to Calle Contento. You e:xpress~d your preference for this alternative. " . Under Alternative No, 5, aU of your property will be flood protected. The properly you own outside the AD boundal)' WOuld benefit under this altemative and would therefore be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. You discussed YOUr desire to defer any assessments on your property uritil your fanning operation develops into some other Use. This Would require some other party to advance your costs. While I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs is to dedicate the right-of-Way needed to construct the facility. Other than that, I have not been able tocome up with any other cost-saving solU1ions, If you are wjJling to place lile required financial burden on the remainder of your property outside !he current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need your written concurrence. Your cooperation is needed to make the Intercepfor a reality. I look forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative manner, Please feel free to contact me if you Have any questions or require any additiOnal information. ' Sincerely. 4cd~ George A. Johnson Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: SUpervisor Bob Buster Sob Krieger Tony Carstens Dave Barnhart Kelley Donov.:3n Frank Peairs , . ...V.."..YP:vlrw..Y ...., ~.CA!J'202' r,~ f76017.tJ.oI201 FlIC.lIlrnil<r. (7~) 7"J.o9925 ALHADEFF & SOLAR 27555 YNEZ ROAD. SUITe 203 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591--46n - MAIN TeLePHONe: (909) 699-9088 FACSIMILe: (909) 699-9878 S50~. c.n.., 550 w.,c C Sftet ,...""'" . s., Cleoo. CA 92101 T~(51912J1-6700 F~iIe: (619) 2J1-8323 Offices in San Diego. escondida and Temecula. Califomia March 16, 2000 ~C.Aw.ceFl' SAuwlEFl'@ACRSP.COM (909) 699-9088 9103,001 Mr. Tony Carstens County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 9250 I Mr. George Johnson County of Riverside Transportation Department P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Re: Assessment District 159 ("District") and Specific Plan 219-Paseo del Sol ("Project") Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson: I wanted to thank you, Ms. Thomason, and Mr. Donovan for meeting with Newland Communities and myself on March 1st to discuss the District and Project. We appreciate the ' time and consideration each of you and a number of other members of County Staff have given with regard to the issues that we discussed at that meeting. ' As discussed in our meeting, we think that the District has reached a critical crossroad regarding the funding for and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor'Drainage Channel ("Interceptor Channel"). Consequently, we believe that the County and the District should recommend a solution to the County Board of Supervisors and seek direction in facilitating and completing this improvement as provided for in Assessment District 159, This letter is really intended to be a summary of the current status of both the District and the Project as it relates to the Interceptor Channel. The delay in the construction of this facility is not only having a serious adverse impact on Newland's Project, but also on the District, its owners, and the integrity of State Route 79. Butterlield Stage Road and other regional improvements constructed by Assessment District 159. Assessment District 159 was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other infrastructures within the District boundaries, [n 1991 a Supplemental I\SI.U\(.'_IlIIIVl:IIMTAICLlI:NnINcWI.ANIl COM~IUNITIE~'\C<IIlSTEN JOIINSON LErrell ),6IleVIScD.DOC < ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 2 District was formed to fund the increased cost of the original District improvements, and to add new District improvements such as the Interceptor Channel. ' Specifically our client's Project had original assessment debt of$11.9 million. When the supplemental assessment was adopted another $13.8 million was added to the original assessment debt increasing the total debt to $25.7 million. To date, our client has always kept both its real estate taX obligations and assessment debt obligations current. The Interceptor Channel was to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District' boundary. This channel would pick up storm water entering the Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19.1 7 acres) and divert the drainage southerly to the District improved Temecula Creek. The estimated cost of the Interceptor Channel was in the range of 1,8 milIion and was to be shared on an allocated basis with four (4) different owners. The current estimate is 35 million or more. As you know, the Corona family has resisted the original design of the Interceptor Channel andhas suggested different alternatives that would not only protect their property within Assessment District 159, but a larger Corona parcel outside of the District as well. In order to resolve these issues, a number of discussions took place between the District and the Coronas. To date, those discussions have not resulted in any agreement. Accordingly, on February 17,2000, the County sent a letter to the Corona Ranch asking that they select one of t'..vo alternatives for the Interceptor Channel. Specifically, the County suggested that if the Coronas wished to adopt a significantly more expensive storm water ,- channel that would benefit their entire property, they should be willing to include all of their property within Assessment District 159 to assist in its funding. The reason we are again bringing this matter to your attention is because, quite frankly, this issue needs to be resolved for several v.ery important reasons, First of all, the delay in the construction of the Interceptor Channel has caused our client to incur additional costs of $860,000 for the construction of an interim detention basin that protects not only their property, but property owned by others to the west. These costs would not have been incurred if the Interceptor Channel had been built in a timely fashion as were other District funded improvements. Second, this interim detention basin prevents Newland from developing forty acres (approximately 188 lots) of their residential property. While these lots continue undeveloped, Newland is shouldering the burden of tens of thousands of dollars of interest costs, property tax, and assessment expense, Third, the Coronas are raising the question of liability arising from the damming of storm water on their property as a direct result of the District's design and construction of an elevated Buttertield Stage Road without building the Interceptor Channel to divert this water into Temecula Creek. Finally. the Coronas and others believe that in certain storm events both Butterfield Stage Road and State Route 79 will be flooded because of the tGilure to construct the Interceptor Channel, As you probably know, the significance of \l~I.Il\l'_'l/(IVI,~/)AT,\lCLIENTS\NEWL,\N[) CUMMIINrrIE~~CAIISTEN JUIINSON Ll,nm J,6RcVIScD,DOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 3 Butterfield Stage Road as a circulation element is growing as a number of parties both in the City ofTemecula and at the County are considering Butterfield Stage Road to be a major loop-road in this area. In summary, it is now time ,to seek a final solution to this matter and to prevent any further adverse impacts to the District, the County, and the owners in the District. As previously stated, Assessment District 159 assessed Newland and three other property owners for the construction of the Interceptor Channel. Further, this original assessment is , believed to be inadequate to fund the channel's construction. Newland has volunteered to allow any remaining authorized but unissued assessment debt currently on its property to be identified and sold to raise additional funds for the construction of Alternative No. I of the Interceptor Channel. However, it is important to fully understand that the District's ability to raise additional assessment funds through Newland's cooperation diminishes each time Newland sells property to others. " Therefore, it is now imperative that the District act quickly to help us make all of this happen. In addition, we believe that the COWlty needs to act upon its letter of February 17,2000 and ifno timely response has been received from the Coronas, to proceed with the final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Interceptor Channel. This matter has gone on for some time now, and we just simply need your assistance to resolve these issues and respectfully request that this matter be discussed with the Board of Supervisors. ' ' In summary: 1. the Paseo del Sol project has participated in Assessment District 159 and through its assessments has paid for many regional infrastructure improvements; 2, our client has installed the required storm drain facilities throughout the Project to satisfy its drainage requirements; J. certain public improvements already completed by both the District and our client were designed and constructed in reliance on the completion of the Interceptor Channel; 4. our client is willing to cooperate with Assessment District 159 to allow additional indebtedness that could be placed on the property in a fair and equitable allocation to provide for construction of the Interceptor Channel; 5. there currently exist adverse conditions on Our client's property, which are working in an unnecessary hardship. The hardships can be resolved by the County proceeding to act upon its It:ttcr of Febnlury 17,2000: ano \\.'tI.D\C_DltJVDOAT,\\ClIENTS\NEWl.,\NO (,O^"MUNITIE~'CI\IL"TcN JOIINSON Ll.;Trl:R 1.6IlEV1SEO.OOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens , Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 4 6. we are asking that you take our request to the County Board of ' Supervisors for direction in facilitating and,completing the Interceptor Channel, pursuant to the authorization provided for in Assessment District 159 and we in turn pledge our client's cooperation to working with the County and District to reach a solution. SCA:sld cc: Mr. Dave Stahovich C:IOA TAICLlENTS\NEWlAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETl'ER J,6,OOC \\SI.I)\t.'_tmIVE\IMT/\\CLlENTS\NEWl...\NO COM"'HJNITIE~"\C,\RS'TEN JOtlNSON Ll:Tn:R J.6RIZVISEO.OOC "J;1'l} 24/ 210'1"1'-1 1':': W2 877f; ]')')'). PP BPO,..Jt I OJ RR BROWN & CO, LLP DATE: TO: FROM: *** F ~"{ *** z...- ,'b<f' - 00 S \ ""- D~~ ~~A.J I Rob Brown NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: + 950 SCheff")' Stne-t.. Suitt: 7tG D~Il"or. CO ~n.1.16 !7SSS Yllc~ Ro~uJ. Suitt: 407 Tcmccul.:a. c.-\. '::.591 CER11Freo PUBLIC ACCOUNTA,Yrs PAGE '11 ~~1 ~~ ~tttF- PhlJnC (811) 6)9~S565 FAX (R71) &39.5559 ...n,all robbrown@rrbrowr'\Co.cOIl'l , ~2/2~/2~8~ l~:~2 ~77~J~?5 :.t.H-"c::q-UU IHU uc;~:, rn Kt'J ~U -"t'..UIlYC UrrJl,,;c. f -'" ~ ~ 5S a ;;0 el I:G,.. c: a b ~i IH ': q, :h '5 ":'-E :is" " C : $ !c- .. H;; :: ~ c 4. ell. '1;f ..g ~.3<e~ , 5: -= ~ :>.. i" 2i .. ..)5 A 0 \U S~.. r"'8 ~,H.Jgll " z ~H ea- "= ~ ,.._c ~o~ ~.. u e ,. ~ .. ~~ a>J :; ~ "r:a'Q u. a: C ~:! -u >Co. ~- "'C; .c C ~ It .!I 0 -- -~ e ~ " l g .9 '" l! u :j 2 e ~ e .. g~g ..~" u ~ a ~ aH :JiC'% Q.~ H~~ o:so,!; ='ZN'O . '" .. ~ ;! ...,.., ".." 0 ~_I ~ i ~. ~ ,..IOI.....jo 'T'-"",o <0.""._..... ~. i'" -." : o'C.iO:~I'" oq . <0: ..... ~. 'ti 1.....: .. "":. ",.~.~,g!8 01 ........._ _ . C ,_. _ 1_ " . a . I ... U : i a: I ... . .8 ; } ;. 'l:! .! ." : ... ' , . , ! ; , , , i I ; I J :l! I .. ' 51 151 I:::! .... g CD' (S ... ~!~'IE"I~'I;{' ~..! - I.. .... ... ~. I i r , .J I , . I iI' I I ! " ~ z '" ~ '" ~ <= ~ ;;; '" >- '" ... ~ g 'g, a: .. ~ " '" :: '" a. .. .. a. ~ ~ '" ... !: ~ ci .... :3 u; z ~ '" .w >: '" '" '" ~ ~ !!: 0 z w '" ... ... >: ~ 0 .. <;) .. ~ ;; " ;:: ;:; '" 0 ... '< :;; < 3 v " v '" is '< a: z 0 ~ ~ w , ~ ~ '" " ~ ~ :" !;; ~ w ~ IU 0 '" ,. ,!;! ~ ~ " ~ ~ IU ~ /: ~ ;:; ',< ~ ~ u '" '" .. IU '" ;; u. :0 :> ~ '" '" ~ E 0 0 ~ IU IU t: ~ " ... a: I;; ~ ... '" '" -< ... " >: a ,. '" ~ .5 ... '< .. v '" ir 0 u '" w ... ... PP BRO/,Jt I co rM nv. t ....;:.! ~ :: ~ ~ E :: '! ~ ... "t 3 ''i g ~ :! .. -< - , ". ...., .1)' I" "--," ..l-.... ~J.. PAGe: f J;J4' j""'. r. U't couNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRAN8PORTATIONAND . LAND MANAGEMENTAGENCY Transportation Department David E. HarnlJnrl Dirt:c(or (If TrampnrlariOfl April 11, 2000 Mr. Stephen Corona Corona Ranch 33320 State Highway 79 Temecula, CA 92592 RE: Bullerfleld Interceptor Dear Mr, Corona: I am in receipt of your leuer dated M~rctL14,:2000. Th'lO.!5 you for taking the time 10 r:e~pond to my previous letter. The additional information you provided is needed so we can make a fully informed decision, '. .' . , . . . . . . . - In your leller you requested we stu5lwSne other option,not Included Inmy jeit~~, Your' suggestion is to construct some sort of east to west drainage facility.through Butterfield. Stage Road and then extend the facility to TemeculaCr~,~~~I<;>ng the west side of Butterfielq SJageRoad. You also indicated Mr, Savala had been studying the feasibility of this option and lie would submit this suggestions, ):>.:: . .. ...,.. . '. ,,~ :~. ~ ..; ;, ".;. . ~ "'. , .'- . '.'. . -' .' . . .; ,. ,.,.." ., ...... , "'~." -"'- . " ..,'. .~. .: '. .'. . I had an opportunity to meet with Mr,$av;il~onFriday,rVfarch 31, 2000: Alterdfscussing the' constructibilily of this option with Mr.J~,vala; ~e C!greed)cistudy ii further. . Atjached are two cost estimates, The first one contemplates t~~lh9Jb~ drain<1lge from east to wesllnjo'a QEltention basin on Newland's property with an aPPrOpr}ate;tiptlet structure. The estimat~i"Ciidt of this option is $6,OOO,000,./:!,. .' ,.... /1 The other possibility is to extend a f[iPI~:.~;~. :\.0,' box structure along the Vie.st~r1ystde,Of BUtlerfiel~ \ Stage Road to Temecula Creek, a'~:~~0~bm~t~d cost of $5,000,000. . .' ?r:;;;:;:;,>",~... ) It As we discussed earlier today, I am::aI~ofotV?<lrdin9 youa qqpy .of the $taff report MjoS presented to the Board of Supervisors on April1$;20PO, Please cO~tlSict me if you wahl io discUss this item any further. " '. .,... . . Sincerely, /cZyr- c;:7Y~ George A. JOh~~ Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ/pd xc: Dave Stahovlch Tony Carstens Dave Barnhart Kelly Donovan , '. . 40Rn l.'In'm Slre.l, ~th~~r -..Riverside. CalifoJitia 92501 . (909) 955-6740 )'.0, lJux JUYU . Rivers,ide, Otliforni. 92502,)090 ' FAXE(9) 955.6nl J.. '.! . ..' X' Nil ""IDIT '.,... -..' .. U QPR 1? '~~ 1S;?g 61 PAGE,09 "'~ :,:;; , :'r: : ::"'~ ." -.' , ..... ; !.:-; ",.:; .;"\.;: """, . . . .:...~, "";".' ':~, ::. -~~; . ,"\' ::',',i'. ;.t'.t ...... :" '~!;j' , ., ~. '.; :'?~! ~. . .:~\ : '=:I;~ '~:::;'::~ ;....~; . :':~':2 .i ",~. :....:...j ":-':~: : '~.'; ., ;.;'.~ ,:,: ~.: : .~:; t : .>;~ .:' '\'.,~ . ';.:~ ~ ::,,: ^ ..": ,,-,,, . ~..~ "':."" . ~>~ ..t)) '1 .~.;~ :. :~t: " :~~~ I. ). ..r, '" .- .. . " '. , , . .... :;~ '. <( .; ..":' ":'f" ....; , :.?~ ."; '.::.~~ .r:}::: ';.?i: ,'P" '. ~.;. ~ ~~~ ":::.J. \ .~.;.;: .' ~.~, .' ~;>4 .....) ; ;;~ .~. ..'.~: =..:.....-: ~'1~ . ~:..:' ',' SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD ()F SUPERVISQ5" COUNTY OI'.AIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. {.'t~ .l3,:~~~' :~/~i . ''it!,: .,>~'.t.~ ".:::'.r- ".'r;~ . '.;.~' . . ,~.~.::lJ!: :' '1:':S~~ . . -. . FROM: County Executive Office,fjnd ..sUBMITTAL DATE: April 1 a, 2QCP, '. TLMAfTransportation Depart... .' ..... SUBJECT: Butterfield East InterQeptQr Storm Drain, AssessmentPistiicfNQ. 159 2, . . . ." RECOMMENDED MOTION: That th~eoai'd approvei:he Original AsseSsrn$r\tDistrict Concept for the construction oftf1~ Butterfield East Channel and dii'e'ct "~taff to return to , . the Board in 30 days with an in1Plementlltionplah,to include:' .' ... .. . .' . 1. A reimbursement agreemeotbetween the County, on behalfofAo159, the Flood Control District and Newl~nd for' construct!onof the Butterfiel?'ER~tChannel; A right-of-way acquisitior{~9reement between the County and Ney:iland, in order that right-of-way be1dehtlfjed'iirid obtained from affected lilnd':OWDers; A calendar and processfqrtln AD 159 Change Proceeding toJri'oie~,se authorized funding for the Channel tO~3;5 hlillion; '. .' . ' A schedule for issuance ohidditional bonds in~D 159 Supplemental. <.:\f; '.~ o!~";j Ji Ii .' .:~'.~:9 3, 4. .' . . . BACKGROUND: Assessment DisiricUljo.159 was formed in 1988t(dI;JAd,certain regional public improvements in the south Temecula area.Jn1991, a Supplt;!'it)eofa!'District was .~ formed to fund the increased cq~(cOfthe origiriaLOis' t imRrovemi:mtr~hd fund additional ~ -crt .,' 0-- Tony Carstens Deputy County Executive Officer, .' GAJ :sa attachments cc: County Counsel . :J'.~{!. ~;',~~ ":.X~ : ~"j.~ . .~:..~~ '.:-:t~!', .J . .. : '~~i "; .....~: .. "r: . X~~ t...~J . ....~ 'i~ 'f'f~ .:t.~l( ..,,~ .-:'t.~ .' . . . .'. ,>.~ ANNUAL COST $ ~lA.." " ::;i~ IN l>,URRENT YEAR 8lJDG$T~' ... YES! NO! X ;: ~"~: aLipGET ADJUSTMENT: YES/Ndiic FOR FY: 99!OO}~~ ::':::::::An:~:- No_ IS' ... .. -JI . County Execiltiil,Offic'er Slgnaturji' '. ..' . ,1 '" ',::;',i . ....t~ :r.I.;'I.:" t]~ ....~ ;r~ ~. .:(; h1.'" .~: ~_:~!: .,.){ David E. Barnhart ", ........ . .' Director of Transport6li()h' . ", i, (OO~tlnued on attach~dpakes) '". ...., FINANCIAL DATA: CURRENT YEAR COST NET COUNlY COST -! $ 100 ;Q'OO . . $ 0 :: >- o '"' o Cl o ~ Vl C o () U ii IE o ~ ~ " '-, , :' ".,' . . ".- ~ " 1. Prevo Agn. ref. , i; . '...Dl$i. 1st .. AG'6NDA NO. "" ," D:""LU.\Wfl\U.CKVI'\FO"MII~TPlF.WPO .;.- .' " "t.:,:-"..:,.':. . ,'. APR 12 '00 15:24 PAGE. 05 . "1" The Hbnorable Board of Supervisors.. ", RE: Butterfield East Interceptor:$tQrm Drain, A.D. 159 April 18, 2000 Page 2 of 4 . - . . . " . improvements. The Butterfield ~Eastlnterceptor' was included asps!'! !if ~t)e Supplemental District. The But~tirfi~ldEast Interceptor was intend6,~t()'bean open. channel located at the eastern Assessment Distrl.c:tboundary toii'\ter'ooptthe tributary drainage flows and prqv.ide flood protection to Butterfiefd~t~~eRoad, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The originallnt~'rp,qptor was estimated to cost $2,200,000,"'" . . There are four downstream prop,t;lrtiesthat will r~ceive flood protectiQ!'1,ffQm the Interceptor and will be assesse~fortheflood benefit received. ,Thefqur property owners are identified on the attached hiap as being Corona, Sava1a,Wiwatiis, and Newland. . . . ... The benefit is spread to the pr6~rtlesbased onlicre!ige as follows; .' Prooertv Owner A~r~aoe Percentage .... .r. i',' . '. 1:9~17 1~A9 18.91.' 25" r .4A;j3 ..... -:-_._ '_ ..... I 3j~..lOafresi ^.1,~9:o.(),%, .. . County staff has held numerousi'AP1 ~$ prop~rtyo.wner meet'ings'OVerth~ past. . several years .In various meetil'\9s,afffjcted property owners havi:q)ro\il~ed input. To date, County staff and thep~.op,ertyowners have not come tOll coose!1Sus on the Butterfield Interceptor. .,. '. . Corona' Savala Williams Newland .~ . 6.14 % 6.24 % .6.06% 81.56 %. 'I.. Total , . , '. . . , . . . .' . ..... . Newland Communities has appr~achedCounty st~ffand requested we bring this item to the BOilrd for. direction irifacilitating andcoinpleting the Int~rceptpr.' See attached letter from Samuel C; Al,hadeff of Alhadeff&: Solar, LLP~dat~~March 16. 2000 representing the Newlandpioperty.' . .' While Newland supports the Intf;lrceptor. the Corona and Savala bwna.rkt)aVe ." '. ..' .' . ..' c.... . expressed concerns. .'. . . . . "/ ."'.' The Corona's, through their engln'~er,8db Kriegar}' approached the Trc(Mi,ortation Department and requested alterli~tive Il1tercepto(alignments becOnsider:~d. . The Transportation Department agreddand has studied the suggested~lteinativ.es. Attached is a letter to Mr. StevaCorona from GeQrge, Johnson, Di:lpu\yOi($ctor of Transportation. dated February 1'7,2"000, which Summarized the \T/I(19U~.: alternatives studied. Reference fS'madeto the February 17 letter (or:s disoussion of the alternatives, summarized asfotlo~s: ' '. '. . . .' ....:'.,. '. ):. ',; I ... .,..... '... - ..... '.: .,. . ". . D:'#ILn\Wr\8ACI(l.If'\..D,....,1\8TRf:wP''' .':". " ,..'" '.' .,;. '.~:\;~ T~~ L ,,~_~; ..... \~~ . >~.~! . ...~..~~ '. ;.~::t :J.~~ t~ .The' Honorable Board of Supervi:S:qrs .. . RE: Butterfield East Interceptor StormcDiain, April 18, 2000 . '. Page 3 of 4 A~D. 159 . Original Alternative: ~:~~..~..~.:.i~ie~t:~rti~~,~.,;t,:;;~~P~~~~~;;~J~) COSt Estimate: $ 3 ,5 mIllion.,.. .. ...' ldj ",". . . ,'. " '; , -' .. . :" . "":", Alternative 1: Underground dQ.14b1e7' x 14' box culvert on Cor.ona.~nd Williams. Cost Estimate -J4/500,OOO 1,. ". ..' ; . ...... Alternative 5: Dual System. Open ell'annel from Temecula Creeft~i!'dOutile 7' x 12' box culvert'underState Route 79 South and Qpen oNmnel continued alon9~"Cqion:a's easterly ptoperty bounda;Y;PIt;is7' x 12' box from TemecliJa Creek alongWlIIiams, underStStll.Fioiite 79 : .' '. '. . . ;.-. .' " ~, ", '. South and continuing under Coronaelong Assesstnt'in-r'Dlstrlct boundary wittioft~n,i;h~nnel alori,g $lIvala.' .' '. Cost Estimate.- !$'6,SOO,OOO . . " . . Alternative 6: Triple 6' x 1 O'boxe'a'Stto west under ButterfiEdd:S~~.~R..oad ,the'l1 \extended/alongth~Westerly side' of Butterfield Sfli9.eRoa'd to / Temecula Creek: ;".: ..' .' Cost Estimate .$p,OOO,OOO '.' ..... ", ..', Several other alternatives were~t~d.ied, but weredrcipped as notbejrig,p'r~ciical. Mr. Corona responded with a letter dated March 14, 2000 (copy atUehe'd); . '..~. '~", . ,":: .' . . . ~. ." . :" .', .' :. .' :. ";', . Mr. Corona states his preferen~~fijrAltemative5-ifthe Intercept9r.ch~i:i~al. facilities are on his property, butjal$ost~tes thaUiis'farming could nl>t-SU$taln that level of funding. '. ,., ': '" .:.. :.... ,', . .. " . . ...... ",. Mr. Corona also requested another. 'optioh be consider'ed;referred tQ,:a$,Alternative 6. His suggestion is to construcfilO1:io){culverteast to west und~rB~tt~rli$ld Stage Road and then extend the draina{lefacility on Newland's land toT~n:i~Qi.iI~;~reek along the westerly side of autterfiefti Stage Road: He states this 6ptlonWciuld solve the problems, the water wquldflQW as it originally flowed, andthe . responsibility to construct the In~arpeptbr wlll goto the Developer,NeWJatio. The Transportation Department tb~h .met with Mr.S:avala to seek hls :Ihput Into this last suggestion. During our disclis$ionS,we concluded this optionwasf~aSlbfe, but would not provide any protection'tcrtheSavala, Corona or Williams'propefties. We have since estimated the cost tOibe approximatefy $5,000,000, ar\d:~~Is':QPtion would require the costly relocatid~:r.)feJdsting unaerground utiiiti$sineU(iMfield Stage Road. Any development o{'the above noted properties wouldr;e~o!.rethe extension of the drainage facilitie(Upstream along with the constr\Jct1ol\ofSome type of drainage interceptor, addlhgto th.e $5.0 million coSt estimate.. . . '. . . b' .~ ,,-. . ..... . I 1 " D:\MI.!.'\wPlaAc:KUN=O"Mll\8TRF.WPP : ,', ~ .~ Inn .~.~ .', . ," .," 'r.. " :.., :.,.:'~.: '. . .' ,. ....,...>! ,:~t~ , ~.t-lii ..~t~ ':":l.;~ -)j;~ ...r; ..,' ':'-'~ .J.I ;'.r.~ .';T~ <<~~ ".,:..?~ .,;~ ;':',~ .};~ .t~. ."",,, ."tr . ~")~~ .~ "-";~ ..~ ....~ ,~,~ . "~o;O :{~~ '("~ ....~ ":~.:~1 . 'T~1lJ .~':'l":l :-:~4:~ ,J. ~.:;~ . ";,,:':!~~ . ......... ":".r~~ ~~f~~ ....... ..:;:f Ji 't~~~ "'~'/~ .;:~ '11 .,:', :{~ .. The Honorable Board of Superv(sorE; RE: Butterfield East Interceptor Siorm Drain, A;D. Hi9 April 1 S, 2000 . Page 4 of 4 '.,," The Assessment District is curret\tlyauthorizedtoissue $2.1ri1i11ion kdjbhded debt for the Interceptor. Newland h~$st!lt~d a willirieoessto plaoe '8~C!itlb081 indebtedness on its property through an AD 159 change proceedlng,'brlnging the total authorization to $3.5 milliCiri. .'. ".' . '. ..,: ... ~~~~~::h~:~;:I~::;,:~;%1i~~:~:":~~~~t." ", ooly lJ"h~,nyi''';b1' J : ~ .'.;. '. ' .'; ;.. 1:'" t..:' , .. '. ," " , .. ," ",'. j. '.. 'I. ~; '. ',i:::.. -, " " . '!'." '., 11 '..1 D;ll"~(:S\Wl"\64C:It~"M'l"TN.WM) . ":'I',i", '.i," ...; ..... ..:;1.... 7.... ". ..... ,.,.... . :'~: . APR 12 '00 15:28 ~nn ~ ~<Y: .~ t:...Y-: 'j.~i.~ . .~... .~.f!i . ~{~~ (~i ..~ . ..~.t~~ :;f'~::~ "\.;j . ~~'m tl .", >i?:1 ',~'q~~ .~~;j j';~ /.e~ r~~ .(::~ ~.~~ ,.,...... ,,!,'~k:l . 'f=:-'~ 'II ~~~.Jf "n~~ . . .~~~. '"''1''' .~. '~ .+~t~ ...'..... '. '('1" ,.......,..* ,':ki . -!.':f~ > t~;; "." .:::;?'~ JI f~ ~ MrK-':O-UU WtU Uq,u: r11 \.JV rl.l v I!\MI'i.)rUl\II1IIVn r n^ nu, i:JUvv:)J.:' 1 U'1 I. VII V~ '. ' .. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD COMPANION STORM DRAIN ON NEWLAND & MDC April 26, 2000 A, CONSTRUCTION !iTEM Cl[iSCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAL! 1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $20,000,00 120,000,00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $10,000.00 110,000,00 3 >'URNISHING AND APPL YWATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 EXCAVATION & COMPACT EMBANKMENT 44,444 Cy $4.00 $177,777.78 5 TRIPLE 6' X 10' RCB 2,250 LF 11,000,00 $2,250,000,00 6 JACK ~ BORE TRIPLE 6' X 10' ReS 100 LF $5,000,00 5500,000.00 7 MANHOLE NO, 3 20 EA 11,200.00 524,000.00 a SEWER SIPHON 1 LS 5200,000,00 5200,000.00 9 HEADWALL 2 EA 510,000,00 120,000,00 . 10 RIPRAP PROTECTION 50 CY' $40,00 $2,000.00 12 DETOUR PHASING , LS S50.000.00 550,000.00 13 WATER RELOCATION 1 LS 5' 00,000,00 5100.000.00 14 ROAD RECONSTRUCTiON 1 LS 5100,000.00 $100.000,00 '5 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS 510,000,00 $10,000,00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $346,677.76 SUBTOTALICONSTRUCTlON) $3.815,655.56 B, DRY UTILITY RELOCATION IiTE~_[?.!'SCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAL! '5 GAS LS $20,000,00 520,000.00 16 ELECTRIC LS $50,000.00 550,000,00 ,7 TELEPHONE LS $50,000,00 550,000,00 SUB-TOTAL lORY UTILITY RELOCATION) 1120,000,00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION 16 NEWLAND '9 SWANGER 20 SAVALA 50"300 50 x 600 30X30 ; 65,000 40,000 900 sf sf sf $4.00 $'5,00 $1.00 5260,000,00 5600,000,00 $900,00 ; ; SUBTOTAL (RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS) 1860,900.00 D. ENVIRONMENTAL liTEM ClESCRIPTlON 21 Proces~in9 22 Mili93lion 5 5 50,000.00 SUBTOTAL rENVIP.ONMENTAL) E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION ~TeM riESCRfPTrOt!._ 5 50,000.00 -.J 2) eM & I S 520.31~ S20,316,67 SUBTOTAL [CM & I) s '\-it,. Fax NOIC 7671 2- ROJECT TOTAL $5,366,872.22 /1'~8-4f:"' mJ.;:~~ C~JDl~pt. Co. Nlnnl'l/l Phono IJ t'IlltR ~ .... 77:2 - a~;P?- F;JX Ii r "~,I' ~ nO' '.'0 IT I!,~ j:-,,:, l~" - ~ ~~ IC1 , 1i,..ul:, II ~, 6~ "'~,......I.'.'",, ,~'"~.. ~'......,;~~.>><,..w..I__~. _..:,........ ......:.. ........ ,..,.. coo ~~ ,~~ 1C~~~ aClQQC::~~1C/l 00;';1:' I'iH '1rK-~()-UU WW Uq. a rn vu KJV IKHI~;,rUKIHI!UN rH^ NU, ~U~~oojJbq .,. .,- PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD NEWLAND/SWANGER OPEN CHANNEL April 25, 2000 A. CONSTRUCTION liTEM DESCRIPTION 1 MOBILIZATION 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 3 FURNISHING AND APPLY WATER . JACK & BOI~E 10' X '15' BOX CULvERT 5 DETOUR PHASING 6 ROAO RECONSTRUCTION 6 SEWER SIPHON 7 WATER RELOCATION n E.XCAVATIONn~XPORT 9 RECTANGULAR 10' X IS' CONCRETE CHANNEL & APPURTENANCES '0 EROSION CONTROL CON1'INGENCY (10%) QUANTITY UNIT 1 LS 1 LS 1 lS 100 LF 1 lS . 1 lS 1 LS 1 LS 58,333 CY 2,000 LF 1 LS SUBTOTAL {CONSTRUCTION} B. DRY UTILITY RELOCATION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT 11 GAS 12 ELECTRIC 13 'ElEPHONS LS LS lS SUB,TDTAL lORY UTILITY RELOCATION) C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRJPTIOH 15 NEwLAND 1<1 SWANGER 16 SAVALA 75 X 1200 75 X 800 30 X 30 90,000 60.000 900 sf sf Sf < , SUBTOTAL (RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS) D. ENVIRONMENTAL lITEM DESCRIPTION COST/UNIT S20,000.00 SI0,OOO.00. S5,000.00 $3,000.00 SSO,OOO,OO S100,OOO,OO S200,000.00 S100,OOO,OO $4.00 5650.00 SI0,OOO.00 COST/UNIT S20,OOO.00 S50,OOO.OO SSO,OOO.OO S4.00 $15.00 S1.00 r. uc./uc TOTALI S20,OOD.00 S10,OOO,OO S5,OOO,OO S300,00D.00 S50,OOO,00 $100,000.00 S200,OOO.00 S100,OOD,00 $233,332,00 51,300.000,00 S10,000,OO . $232.a33.20 $2,561,1&.5.20 TOTAll S20,OOO.00 S50,OOO 00 S5D,000,00 $120,000.00 .J S360,OOO.00 S900,000.00 . 1900.00_ $',260,900.00 , 7 Proces~ing 16 MitjD~Hon SUBTOTAL (ENVIRONMENTAl) E, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION liTEM 1iESCRiPTlON S 50,000.00 S S 50.000.00 I 5 34f.l.2<l9.eo . 349,249.80 -.-- . $4,J41.J1s.DO 19 eM & I SUBTOTA~ ICM B. I' PROJECT TOTAL ceo "1: tl'A~ ;c.~.,., ,..,~,..,.................,... " j1JfO A 'L E, E R T A. :: ~(EBB ASSOCIATES ENGll'ltERlNG CONSULTANTS o Corporate Headquarters 3788 McCray Street Riverside, CA 92506 (909) 686-1070 Fax (909) 788-1256 o Regional Office 28481 Rancho Calif, Road, Ste. 106 Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 694.9250 Fax (909) 699-1032 W.O. 00-103 File No. 3043.49 June 6, 2000 Ms. Micheiie A. Staples Jackson, DeMarco and Peckenpaugh 4 Park Plaza, 16th Floor , Irvine, CA 92623-9704 RE: Assessment District No. 159 - Excess Funds Dear Ms. Staples: Mr. Rob Brown, representative of Newland, and I have calculated the total amount of excess funds available for a changed proceedings in Assessment District No. 159. It would be approximately $300,000. These excess funds are represented by authorized but unissued bonds that were intended for other facilities such as Highway 79, (the second phase), the on and off ramps at Interstate 15 and Highway 79, and other facilities that have been constructed. The $300,000 excess funds have been assessed against only those properties that are within the original benefiting area for the Butterfield East Storin Drain Interceptor. . As you recall, originally there was approximately $3.5 million availabl~ in authorized but unissued bonds, but a good portion of this was represented by properties that were not in the originally assessed benefit area, and were represented 9Y properties owned by Newland Communities that were north of DePortola Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road. Because those properties do not benefit from this improvement, these properties can not be included in a changed proceedings within Assessment District 159 and be assessed for that facility, '. . ~ {i~l:'j~i?P, r;! ~ n f1T r;'~ ','" ,.-'-... "I;" .;iJ"\ ~ tl ~_ J/~~L\ tr~J g ~'-:~;) H Q 4lP CIVIL ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ASSESSMENT I SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING . WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING''''' m -.._ .....;,... ," . ......_~..~'^'". "" """n'" ,. IN~Pl'rTl()N . TRAFFIC ENGINEERING c. 1 . Ms. Michelle A, Staples June 6, 2000 Page 2 We are in the process of evaluating the formation of a Commllllity Facilities District for the purpose of funding the Butterfield East Storm Drain Interceptor,' We should have those costs and numbers available shortly. If you have questions regarding the above, please call me. Sincerely yours, ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES Yt>vv-L :) ~(\D~ Paul Thompson PT:kg (:c: George Johnson, Riverside County Transportation Department Kelley Donovan, Riverside County Transportation Department Tony Carstens, Riverside County Executive Office Robert Krieger, Krieger & Stewart Dusty Williams, Riverside County Flood Control Department Steve Corona ... 0:\2000100-() 1031MAS,doc MARc D. A!m1tltlE1 BJ.lAN'Wc...ss:UUl' JOHNC.COJll),l.5 ~R.D2.MAlICO JOl"K.EGEKfSm~ KwMt. S.Ft'fE RoGEIIM..FM'<<5 Hnw1 Z. PIW'fSZ EOWoUDA.GAu.ow..u MlCHA!L S. HnlDU50H WtwAM M. HENSlEl F. SamJACDJtl ~W F. I...o.iiDMIM JOfIH M. Irro:trT M. AuM MAult SHW 1.. MAaYltl Sm'HEN G. M\5OH \ JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH. ^ L^W CORPOR^TION -~ nAvtDA.OSSENtJI,IX THOMA.$D.~ JOKH P"lmt.uiclI GnGOJIfEREGIU CmttsrorHExMRoGElIS CMuK.R~ CutoL P. SOWfEII -..we. SOM% M1aIw A. Swus SIWION 1.. TAMlYA JU5m'x. T1roMrsoH MicLw.LTmus WII.l.I.AM J. Tumr PA.tILE.VJtlfHOOMiS~ J!Nf M. WIlAmI W!'snAK.! VnLAGl OrrICi 4 PARK Pl..AzA. 16TH FLOOR IRVINl!. CALlPORNlA 92614 31365 OAX CRfiT DRMI. SUm! 200 WUfUJCl! VUJ.AGa. CAwOil'IlA 91361 TEI..818.874.1270 PAX 818.874.l272 ^ P. O. Box 19704 lRVlNE. CA1.n:oRNIA.92623-9704 TEL 949.752.8585 FAX 949.752.0597 www.jdplaw.com uWIJllica R. RESNtCK orcolJNsl!1.. REx A. McKrrnucx umooD \ OtJ'lt PlUI MJMBII~ 28878 August 3, 2000 I-MAlL: mstaples@jdplaw.com Wmu.'s DDl.!CT 1)LU. NlJMBU: (949) 851-7409 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Tony Carstens, Deputy County Administrator Mr. George A. Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation County of Riverside Post Office Box 1090 Riverside, California 92502-1090 Re:. Butterfield InterceRtor Storm Drain. Assessment District No. I59 Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson: This letter is submitted on behalf of James and Mary Corona, their family, and relat,~d business entities, in response to the funding stmcture proposed by Newland Communities for the Butterfield Interceptor Storm Drain, The Coronas appreciate your 'efforts to identifY a plan for financing the mutually- agreeable alternative for the interceptor channel facilities. The Coronas remain agreeable to finarlcially participating in a plan that fairly allocates the costs of the facilities and bases the Coronas' repayment obligation on their ultimate development approvals. The financing plan proposed by Newhind Communities fails to achieve either of these goals. However, the Coronas support continued discussions among the County and affected property owners to identifY a suitable financing plan. Summary of Alternatives The County has identified three basic aligrunents for the proposed Butterfi<:ld Interceptor Storm Drain: (I) a channel on the Newland land at the west side of Butterfield Stage Road; (2) a channel through the Coronas' land at the eastern boundary of AD 159; and (3) a dual channel facility with one channel at the eastern-most boundary of the Coronas' land with a EXHIBIT 63 / / JACII:SON DEMARco &PECKENPAUGH Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George A. Johnson August 3, 2000 Page 2 sm~Lller, buried, intermediate facility through the Coronas' land at the eastern boundary of AD 159, The Flood Control District has confirmed the feasibility of installing and maintaining adequate facilities at all three alignments, The first alternative is the most cost effective for the County and the assessment district. Any shortfall in funding would be borne by Newland as a condition of its development project, Specific Plan 219. Since the interceptor facility is a land use condition appurtenant to the Newland property, the necessary right-of-way through Newland's land could be acquired without the need for condemnation proceedings, As more fully discussed in our letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 13, 2000, when the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the entire dev1elopment project requiring Newland's predecessor-in-interest to construct a flood control "int'erceptor" channel to mitigate project impacts resulting from its blocking storm. flows that used to pass through the project site to Temecula Creek. Since the City of Temecula was incorporated, it has approved the same requirement as a project condition each time it has IlPproved amendments to Specific Plan 219, most recently in 1999. Thus, to this day, the requirement to construct an interceptor channel adequate to transport the flood flows formerly conveyed in the natural drainage filled by the project remains the responsibility of Newland as the master developer of Specific Plan 219. Through a series of events documented in our April, 2000 letter, AD 159 was used as a vehicle to attempt to benefit the development project and shift the burden of constructing the interceptor channel to other landowners adjoining the development project, including the Coronas. Prior to constructing the necessary flood control channel, improvements were made to Butterfield Stage Road and the development project, resulting in blocking the natural drainage without creating an alternate route to Temecula Creek, As a result, a flood hazard was created on the Coronas' land within AD 159 that did not previously exist. Recent studies by the Flood Control District confirm that the hazardous condition is not irreversible. The problem can be corrected by restoring the natural drainage through the com;truction of culverts beneath Butterfield Stage Road. A flood control channel can be installed on Newland's land to the west of Butterfield Stage Road to divert the flood water to Temecula Creek. This alternative would alleviate the current flood risks to Butterfield Stage Road and the Coronas' land within AD 159, and would restore the Coronas' and Savalas' land to the condition that existed prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road. This alternative also has the benefit of relying primarily on vacant larid under the possession and JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George A. Johnson August 3, 2000 Page 3 control of Newland that is alreadysubject to a rand use condition that requires Newland to constmct the interceptor channel facility, Of course, since this alternative would have no flood control benefit to the Coronas beyond restoring their land to its original condition, the Coronas would not participate financially in such facilities. Newland opposes this alternative. The second alternative involves construction of a 70-foot wide open channel extending all the way through the Coronas' property, Newland calls this alternative the "original" AD 159 concept, even though the assessment engineer has confirmed that no facility concept or design was disclosed at the time that the assessment was imposed. This alternative is the most burdensome possible alternative, It would take productive farmland out of production, and would physically bisect the Coronas' land impairing their current farming operations and future development of their land. The Coronas and the Savalas oppose this alternative. Neither the Coronas nor the Savalas are willing to convey the rights-of-way necessary to install such a burdensome facility. Unlike Newland's land, the Coronas' and Savalas' land has no associated condition requiring construction of the. flood . control facility as a condition of their land use. The cost projections for this alternative do not include the costs of eminent domain proceedings, fair market value of the land to be acquired, and severance damages. The third alternative is the only feasible alternative identified to date that is supported by Newland, the Coronas and the Savalas. This alternative involves constructing an open channel on the eastern-most boundary of the Coronas' land with a smaller, buried facility through the middle of the Coronas' land at a sufficient depth to allow farming and eventual construction over the top of it. This altern~tive is the most costly alternative. This alternative would capture the same storm flows that formerly drained through the Newland project. Since the interceptor channel would be constructed farther to the east, it would benefit a larger area than the land originally assessed for the interceptor channel under AD 159, including (but not limited to) additional acreage owned by the Coronas, The Coronas have offered to enter into a standard reimbursement agreement whereby they would pay their fair share of the costs of this facility as a condition of developing their land in the future. However, Newland is unwilling to construct the facility on such terms. Instead, Newland has proposed a financing mechanism whereby the Coronas' land would be subject to bonded indebtedness, with the repayment obligation deferred for up to ten years. JAClCSON DEMARco &PECKENl'AUGH Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George A. Johnson August 3, 2000 Page 4 Analysis of Newland's Financini:! Proposal The Coronas have extensively evaluated the Newland financing proposal. Their due diligence has resulted in the conclusion that the Newland financing proposal subjects the County and the Coronas to umeasonable risks of default. That is because, unlike the Newland pr05ect which has been built out with attendant profits realized, the Coronas' land is currently farmland with no development entitlements. Under the Newland financing proposal, Newland's share of the $5.6 million Mello-Roos Community Facilities District bonds would be under $1.6 million while the Coronas' share would be over $3.5 million. Although the fair market value of the Coronas' land is much higher, investors will evaluate the bond offering based on the assessed valuation of their land. Under the Newland proposal, the assessed value to lien ratio of the Corona land is upside- down (a ratio less than I) (reference attached Table I). Even if the bonds could be sold based on the investment potential of the Corona land, the Coronas would be forced prematurely into building on their fann]and. ]n just] 6 years under the Newland proposal, assuming an interest rate of7.75%, the Coronas' debt obligation on their 161 acres would soar to almost $7.5 million (reference attached Table 2), with payments totaling well over $400,000 per year thereafter (reference attached Table 3). The Coronas remain willing to support flood control facilities that accomplish the developer's land use obligation while allowing the Coronas to continue their current agricultural land use and future development. They also remain willing to pay their fair share of flood control facilities that accomplish mutually be.neficial goals. However, the Newland financing proposal would impose an umeasonable financial risk on the Coronas. The Coronas request that this matter be continued off the Board of Supervisors' agenda to accommodate'further study and discussion of financing mechanisms. If the board take:s action, the Coronas urge the County and/or Newland to fund the cost of the flood cOhtrol facility alternative that is mutually supported and achieves the mutually-beneficial purposes of the affected landowners, subject to a standard reimbursement agreement by the Coronas. In the alternative, the Coronas urge the County to pursue construction of the interceptor channel on Newland's land. The Coronas' land has been placed in a flood risk condition that did not exist prior to the development of Specific Plan 2]9 and construction of the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. By contrast, Newland has benefitted from the devdopment of Specific Plan 219 and construction of the Butterfield Stage Road improvements.. The County has identified as a feasible alternative the construction of culverts through , JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George A. Johnson August 3, 2000 Page 5 Butt'erfield Stage Road and siting the interceptor channel on the Newland land, That alternative would relieve the existing flood risk to Butterfield Stage Road and the Coronas' land, place the facility on vacant land instead of taking.productive farmland out of production, and obtain a right-of-way on land that is already subject to a land use condition requiring the owner to construct the flood control facility without the need to condemn the land from unwilling sellers. Your efforts toward identifying and implementing a mutually-agreeable interceptor channel alignment are greatly appreciated. We look forward to further discussions to attain that goal. Sincerely, Michele A. Staples MAS/jaa EncJ osures 376223,1 cc: Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside (w/encls.) . City Council, City ofTemecula (w/encls.) Mr. Stephen Corona (w/encls,) Tim Davis, Esq., Deputy County Counsel (w/encls,) TABLE 1 BUTTERFIELD EAST INTERCEPTOR VALUE TO LIEN RATIO Assessed Value Assessment Assesse.d . Assessor's (RCAR) (Lien) Value to Owner Parcel No. Acres ($) ($) Lien Ratio Corona 952-150-002 20.34 200.512 505,105 0.40 952-190-001 20.21 186.092 501,877 0,37 952-190-002 20.95 207,476 520,253 0.40 952-190-003 20.05 198,545 497,903 0.40 . 952-140-001 19,81 175,688 491,943 0,36 952-140-002 .21.04 186,371 522.488 0.36 952-140-003 19,56 172,880 485,735 . 0,36 Lumsdaine 952-130-002 22.01 . 151,132 . 491,695 0.31 Notes: RCAR: . Riverside County Assessor's Records: RAKlblt C500/Bczy01_.xlsNtoL (8/3/00) TABLE 2 CORONA'S SHARE OF MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT DEBT BURDEN $3,525,300 7-3/4% Compound Interest Year Principal Interest Amount Due 1 3,525,300 273,211 3,798,511 2 3,798,511 .. 294,385 4,092,896 3 4,092,896 317,199 4,410,095 4 4,410,095 341,782 4,751,877 5 4,751,877 368,270 5,120,147 6 5,120,147 396,811 5,516,958 7 5,516,958 427,564 5,944,522 8 5,944,522 460,700 6,405,222 9 6,405,222 496,405 6,901,627 10 6,901,627 534,876 7,436,503 11 7,436,503 576,329 8,012,832 12 8,012,832 620,994 8,633,826 13 8,633,826 669,122 9,302,948 14 9,302,948 720,978 10,023,926 15 10,023,926 776,854 10,800.780 16 10,800,780 837,060 11,637,840 17 11,637,840 901,933 12,539,773 18 12,539,773 971,832 13,511,605 19 13,511,605 1,047,149 14,558,754 20 14,558,754 1,128,303 15,687,057 21 15,687,057 1,215,747 16,902,804 22 16,902,804 1,309,967 18,212,771 23 18,212,771 1,411,490 19,624,261 24 19,624,261 1,520,880 21.145,141 25 21,145,141 . 1,638,748 22,783,889 26 22,783.889 1,765,751 24,549,640 27 24,549,640 1,902,597 26,452,237 28 26,452,237 2,050,048 28,502,285 29 28,502,285 2,208,927 30,711,212 30 30,711,212 2,380,119 33,091.331 NOTES: 1. 2. With Compound Interest, principal amount increases by interest amount and amount due increases with increasing principal and interest amounts cumulated through any particular year. Corona's share of $5,615,000 in Meilo-Roos Community Facilities District bonds is $3,525,300, Lumsdaine's share is $491,700, and Newland's share is $1,598,000. RAKlbII CSOO/Sfz:101_,xlsI3525300 (813/00) M W ..J lD < .- 0' w .- 2t;;5ci~ZOo a:::Ze z.::; ~ 00 .,<:JO.- ....m...J!:!:!..J...JaJCk:: Q.Z~t:;::"":I:< (j')W-Z..JW<t:Q. W~OWUZZ::J i=w8::<(oO....< ~.... u:J~w lL I- a: cn 0:: WZ~~>-1-0Wffi o..-Q)~a..I-ZUO:::l.L O.........::JZWOWUJ ~ ~ .... rn ::t, :E I- !Z C WO:C:i!",--o: <OOw:E:U')W:Z~< z u.. 0 w. O...Jw:J rn:!:::!~ O::.~O~O~(/)r'?1l) OL1.S:-(I) en..... UO::e::ZQOWC"" WW::JogcnZO:: I:.,OO:'.Ul<< :::JI-ZO~<Oe:. CDm<(..J~Ool- wrn...JT'"g-z 0(1') w'" ...0:: w w:E r--w:= o ~o.>- ><~ ~~f-<( WO ....Za.. zg we ;;u; :Ew 0"" ~a:: c-tD .....0:: ~v; fuw 0.... u.. M O:w N 0::0 .... < w >- o ~ o ~E N ., gl!!. ... '" 8E N ... 0- o~ N '" gE N '" 8E N '" g~ ... M 0- o~ N ... 0- 0.... N- ~ 0- o~ N c " E ~~ " '" '" < .~ ci oZ ~Gi : ~ '" .. <Q. '" ... '" ., o.:i"", co~ l.O U)~ '" ... "'0> o:i-.:i- '" "'''' trJ"trJ" "',... ",0> cci-ti -'" '" "' 1.tilti .", ,... "'0> "''' '" "' "' tr)-tri '" ,... ",0> a::i-.i -'" "' "' trit.ri "',... "'0> cci"; -'" "' "' ll)-ll'i "',... "'0> cO"; '" "'"' tri 10- "',... '" 0> ai..j- ;;;~ Ll'ill'i '" ,... '" 0> ai"; '" '" "' tn- Ili "',... '" 0> o::i"<i -'" "' '" IO-Il'i '" ~ ., < ~u; enol N '" ~ 0). co-<f ou; ",.....- "'''' '1ij <:'0 Q) C. M E(Qf/.Ioo 3~-gqo a.cuooo g-uCDIL}ll) cnx"O~T"" WQ)NN ~~~:g~ o.!!! '2 <C:J N '" M '" "', - - N '" M "' "'. - N '" M '" "', - - N '" M '" "', - - N '" M '" "', - - N '" M '" "', - - N '" M '" "'. - - N '" M '" "'. :: N '" M '" "'. - - N '" M '" "'. - - ,... - oi - ,... 0> .,; 0> '" .,: '" e> '" - '" ~ .13 ~ ~.~ ~ f/.I >- c: 1.0 0:::: 0 T"" o C CD I 0: "E"O ~ .ge:5Cl Q) 0 .!a :i!uo o < '1ij ~ 0000 .,0 0000.;'0 tciciMo.....c:ici ,..."'''' ",N_ NON....; "''''''' 0000000 0000000 tcicic<ioooc:i ,.....,.'" "'N C'j-N--.:t- "''''''' 0000000 0000000 u::lo<'icicicic:i ,.....,.'" '" N_ NC';~- '" '" '" 0000000 0000000 crio<'ioc:i00 ,.....,.'" '" N_ ",-C'i-.:i "''''''' 0000000 0000000 <ciocoiocioo ...."'''' "'N_ ",-",-~ '" '" '" 0000000 0000000 oooodcici 0000000 0000000 ooooocici 0000000 0000000 cicic:icicicici 0000000 0000000 ooooocici 0000000 0000000 cicicicicidci -.;f.....L{')!.O.....-.;fCO MNO'lOCOOlO ocicicir.>>"":r.>> "'C\lNN.....N..... ,....r--l.OCOMC")CO O')CO.....M-.;f.......... -.i<OM C"icoicOl.ri o t--1.O O-.;f COM ..... co. N 0'1 0'1 "'it r-- 1.0..... ci ~ - N. t()- OONO'lO')NCO t()t()t()-.;f-.;ft()"'it _ N 00 99 00 e>e> - - , , N N "'''' e>e> M..... N M 0000 0900 0000 O'l-.;f oq- <o:t ............... ..... I I I . NC\lNN to l,() to l,() O'lQ)cnO'l o o oi (Q 0> ,,; '" N '" N '" (Q o ,... - o o oi '" 0> ",' '" - N '" N '" '" o ,... - o o oi (Q 0> ,,; '" - N '" N '" '" o ,... - o o oi (Q ., ,,; '" N '" N '" '" o ,... - o o oi '" 0> ",' '" - N '" N '" '" o ~ o o c;; N '" M '" "'. - ~ o o c;; N '" M '" "'. - o o c;; N '" M '" "'. :: o o c;; N '" M '" ~ - ~ o o c;; N '" M '" "'. - ~ '" "! - ..,. - '" - u; ~ 0> '" " o '" .,; N '" cO '" '" c;; o o o .'" '" ",. o u.. U 0: ::< '1ij ~ '1ij ~ '0 " '" ~ :0 " '0 '0 " o CD '0 " " '" '" '2 :J 'OM ,,0 '" 0 ",6 '" '" ,,- ., ,. xN w:ll u- 'C ~ ;;; - a [ - ~ rn 0 - - " ... E~ ~;g 8: CO_ "", CIJ'" 0>09 '" .... -'" Oai <0> a. ....... ~~ x'O " " . .. ,., - - Co 00 ,,6 "'''' :J, '1ijN C'" ~O> ~~ ~ '" ,Eo. E.2 "", 'g", EO; 0- E "'. "", :i!'" 0;,.9 ..IN ..J..,. ~ci 0'" u": ""~ C E ;: 0 2,; CD '0 0: " 0:: .~ E i!! e " - ., g '1: d. m ;,; 15 z '" a ~ '" rn Q. i3' o i3 ~ i::. on X '0 ~ " .!! ~ Q o X " o ,., J:! =<ll 'U o w .... <( u i5 '" Z ::> -...J ...J "'<( Q.Ui <0:: U)C1 ,,0:: Cz ZW 20 _u. Oal ",W CO.... ::>0 "!- () ~ ~ c:: !,1;;:; -:;<( ~ <( W cn~t; 0(1)>- O '" - 0'. tf.l 0 0 -0 ::1:Z..... a::ZCCl)Z~OI- OO.-Jw:5-ltDo:: t;:~~!:::;:o1l:C;:: U)UJ-Z-1W<(t: _ WUOWUZZ3:..J i=ffig:E<ool-~ D:::l-rsJ-Wu.I-a:::(I) WZ~...J>-....OW"' M o.-O!,~~ZUO::~ ~ O~""':JZWOWUJ OJ g:<~Cf)::>~I-~C <C w 0== I--et: I- ~c~UJ:E~ffi~< o ..J W ~ 0 "en -= ~ ~ W Cl)Ucn'::OM...... O:::-UCl) <ecn' LO Ou..s:-CIJ en..... Un:::o::ZQOWCI- WW:JogCf.lZO::: ~ Ul 0 0:: . en <( <( :J1-::ZO~<Ce:. mlD<..Jlottgol- WU)..J"I"'" -z C en LLJ ~ 0.0:: w w:!': .....W:: u ~o. ><~ ~I-~ WO ~Zo. ZO Wo _0 :; o"n >W 0..... <(0::: 0(0 0.0:: ~lli' WW ~W ~~ ('1- 0::: c ... <( W >- o ~ o ~~ '" '" ~E '" '" ~... ~- ... ~'" ~- '" ~ - 0'" ",- '" o~ '" ... ~- 0'" ",- M ~- 0'" ",- '" ce '" ~ ~- 0'" N- c '" E ..- ..... ",- .. .. <( ~ 0 oZ :g'ii " u .. ~ '" .. <a. .. " ~ u < '" ... "'0> a::iooi <0 OJ. co. '", '" "'... <0 0> cO- gj-.:i ~"' '" '" 1/')- 1/')- ,'" ... ",0> a:i-.:i ~"' '" '" Ii'l-I.O- "'... ",0> c:i..f "' '" '" l.O-u;j '" ..... ",0> a::i~ ~"' "'''' \tiui '" ... ",0> a::iv ~"' "'.'" \t)-t.ti '" ..... ",0> cO ..,f" "' '" '" lrJ- tn- '" ... ",0> a::i-.:i ;;;~ ..r.o'.I.C:i "'... ",0> a::i..,:. ~~ 1(; If) <0 "'"' aim N '" "0> ~.f '" 0", 1"'---1'...: <0", ro c'C " c E .. " .. - .. 1l::'.l ~ x "'w ~o .....:5 . ~ '" "00 -g99 000 <0"'''' -0"7..... CD N N' ""'''' "0>0> .. o .!!! 'E <0::> N "' ~ '" "', ;: 0'000 0'00'0 WOMM .........;-U1CQ LON.....,.... NN..,r~- l,()l{)l.O(() -'0 ~ 0 bQ;8 OO>N "V-r-.:(""J- ",",<0 N "' ~ '" "', ~ ~ 0000 0000 <riciMM /""-Vl.OaJ "'N ..... N N-..j'Cf" U1tOl.O(() 000 o~o l:5~g OO>N '<t- r-: ri ",",<0 N <0 n '" <0, ~ ggg8ggg <riciMM'r---:....:ci r---Vl.OaJOCOO I/') N.....,..... 0(1) N N"N'Cf- '<t- v",....- c,.; l.t'>l.t'>l.t'>l.OW(OW N <0 ~ '" <D. ~ 0000000 oooooC!o ~~~g~;ng l.t'>N.....r---OOlN NN-~-V'...fr----ri ll)l.t'>l.(')(O<O<OW N <0 ~ '" <0, ~ ~ 0000000 oooooC?:o <riOC1'iMr--:~O .C;~l.(')~80l~ N'N-~'...fv-r-.:ri l.t'>ll)ll)l.Oc.ococ.o N <0 ~ '" <0. ;: 0000000 0000000 <.ciOMMr-..: '0 r---~I.C')COOCOO I,(') N.....r---OcnN r;ffiii~.to-&t N <0 ~ '" "', - - 0000000 OOOO,=!OO <ciOMMr--"":O r---~l.(')COOCOO lON.....r---OOlN NN-.;j...fV.r----ri I,(') l.(')l.(')W l.O<O (0 N <0 ~ '" <0, ~ ~ 0000000 ooC!oo~o ~~~g~a;g l,()N.....,....OOlN N'N-~.~-";r-.:~- l.(')\{)I,(')WCO(OCO N <0 ~ '" <0, ~ ~ 0000000 OOOOOC?:O ~~~g~;ng LON.....r---OcnN N-N'-.;j"'<'iV.r-.:ri LOlOl.O<O (0 l.O<O N <0 ~ '" <0. ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 u:iciMM""":"":ci r---~l,()COOtOO l,()N.....r---OOlN N'N-.;j-.;j...ir--:ri l.n1.Ol.n<OCPt.O<O ..... ~ 0; ~N~~;;;~~ ~~~~ci~~ ..... 0> <ri 0> <0 ... ",. ~ ,..........I.OCOC")t"')<O Ol<O.....M'V.......... <ci<ciMMMcOui O.....l,{)O-vCOt"') ......tONOlO'l.~,.... to -cir-.:~N.16 OONO>O'lNCO I.OtOl.O~'VtO"'" 0> '" ~ .. ~ '0 ~ .. 0 LL~o r.I) >- C I,() o ._ 0 ..... OCCON ~~:2~ =E.;; IV 0 ._ ::Euo .....NC").....NM 000000 999999 000000 cncnC'l-v'OCT~ .......................- ..... NNNNNN 10\0 lO\OlO lO C)C)cnO)mC) o < ro ~ o o o ... 0> a5 ~ ... N <0 ~ '" <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ~ ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ~ ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ~ ... N <0 ~ N' '" 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ~ ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ~ ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 :;: N <0 ~ '" <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... o o o ... 0> a5 ... N <0 ~ N <0 0' '" ... '" "1 ~ ... - '" ~ ~ '" ~ 0> '" .f o '" .0 N '" ri <0 '" o o o 0' <0 <0 ri o u. U 0: ::;: <0 (; I- ro (; .... 'C C .. <3 :c " 'C 'C C o <0 'C " ~ '" .. '2 ::> 'Cn cO ",0 ..6 .."' ,,~ o.N x", Wo> :g.~ -.; - a :! rn2 c ,,'" E~ ~<o 2: co. ~ "'. ",'" 0>.2 "' ... '" 00; <(0) c.. ...-. ~~ x'C " c' , '" '" Co 09 "0 ..'" ::>~ -c< "'", Eo> " :s ~ ~ " .s c. E .S ~'" -g<o ~ ai o ~ E "'. "", ::;:.. o 0.- ...J N ...J'" .: 0 0", u~ ~g c E ;: 0 e.:: <O'C 0:: " 0: ,!:11 > E e g B .s '2:' '" " 0" ;,; (; Z '" '0 N " C> .. a. 6' o ;; 'C:! ~ "' >< '" ~ 2 " o 0; x " ;; >- ,.t! "'<0 .eo .~:i\ o::u 0' w .... <c () ~ O:i ..J ~<( ~v; (1)0:: "'0 <ca: o Z C)" ~ zo zw o III ;;:;0 Ill.... ~ .....U ~~O:: 0- _.....<( -" <<W U)~~ ~C",::E> CI (f) - 0 (f) 0 0::: 2:-0Z:EC..... OC,O"'<::>Z"" 1-' 0:1 ..J W .J ..J 0 0:: Q. ;O:E3:"'Ill< cnw~:z~w<(:::r:': w U C'. UJ U Z Z .... ..J ;::: a: cc:::E <0 0;;: < o::~ ~wu......o::>O:: WZ~:..J>l-O""O:: M D..-Q'~~t:ZUf3~ W O.....,...::>ZUJOo::W ..J O::VJv.:Cf.I::>":EI-W.o ~ a.. L5 0;. c :E en ........... a:::: < Ow:E(I')ZZ< ZOll., WW- oLrlu.r~8~:E*~ ~U:!:::~U)<~~ll) utX:~:Zoow~"'" wu..i=>Ogcn 0:: ~u:,C~oi(f)~~ ::>"',%00)<(<- "m a:1 <(..J "lO ..... lLl (f)..J T'" g Co Z CI(f)~4o'I-r:_W w..::; ....0:::: Uz ow> x_ -.:r-c.< Wo """t-D. ZO Z.o _o~ Ww g~ :EO:: ctQ >0:: ~'Il)~' <( W 0""" o..u.. '" wW N 0::.0 '" a: <( w > o ~ '" o~ .... o g~ '" '" '" - 0" ",- '" ~E '" I<- ~~ '" "' ~E '" '" ~~ '" ... .~E '" '" '" - 0" ",- '" ~~ '" ~ ~e '" c " E ~E " '" '" <( .~ ci oZ :g'ij " V '" - '" '" <0. '" " - V < OJ C:'C " C E fa 'in " '" 'C - '" C 2}:4l0 :::l ~ CD enw'C '" -" ~:S~ o.~ 'c <0::> 00 '" ~ aiai '" ..,. "'''' '<;f-Ifi I<- I<- ~ ~ "'I<- <0 '" cci-.i <0 "'''' trJ-lli "'I<- <0'" cci"<i .<<) ~ 1.0- Iri "'I<- <0'" cD"; ~<O "'''' lrilt'l- "'I<- ~'" "'..; ~~ I()-I.{)- "'I<- <0'" cci."f <0 "'''' l(j'1ri "'I<- <0 '" a:i"'; ~ <0 '" '" l,()-t,()- "'I<- <0'" cO -.:t' ~ <0 '" '" ..n1rJ- '" I<- <0'" cO"'; ;;~ It'illi "'I<- <0'" ai...r a;~ lli~ "'I<- <0 '" cO-O:; ~<O '" '" tDlrj <O~ "'<0 cioi "'''' "'" <<;-.i 0<0 ~. ,....: <0<0 M 00 99 00 '" '" ~ ~ , , N N "'''' "'''' N <0 M '" . <0, ~. ~ N <0 M '" <0. ~ o <0 oj o '" o '" M 0000 '0 0000 0 dcil.C'ici.. ..0 OON(O'q'NO vOQJCO......<DO 'V. <0- Ml(') 0 cri"<:f- o lflCJ) a)lflCO '(",).C"')..C"I.N.N.C"l.N. ~ N <0 M '" <0, ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 tOOMMr--:""':d r--vI.OCOOCOO lON......,....OO>N N.N.....;~"'"I:1'-r-"("'). to 1.0 to (0 (() (0<0 0000000 ooooo~o ~~~g~rog 1.ON......,....OO>N c-iN" -.:r""<t-<<:t-r----"," 1.0 1.0 Lt'l<D <OCO<D N <0 M '" <0. ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 <cic:icoicoir--:.,..;ci ,....~\Ocoocoo l.ON......,....OO'lN NN-.q""<t".q.,.....ri l.01.OtOCO(()CO<O N <0 M '" <0. ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 00 coicoir--:.,..;ci l""-"<tLt'lCOOaJO l.ON......,....OO>N N.N..q."<i"<i,.....("'). t,()lOLt'l<O(()(O(() N <0 M '" <0, ~ ~ 000,0000 ooooo~o 0ocoicoir--: ci l""-'"I:1'tOaJOaJO lON......r--.OO>N N.N....r~.O(ir-"("')- 1.OlO\OI.OCOtoCO N <0 M '" <0. ~ ~ 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0c:icoicoir--:......:o ,....-.:r1DCOOaJO t,()N...........OO>N NN'.q..q."<ir-"ri 1.0 to to co <0 co <0 0000000 0000000 <cic:iMcoir--:.,...;o ,....~1DCOOaJO 1.0 N......,....OcnN N N <o:t-"'; "<t'r-"ri l.OtOLt'l<oco<oco N <0 M '" <0.' ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 <cidri<"'.ir--:.,..;o l""-'"I:1'tOcoocoo Lt'lN.......,....OOlN N. N- .q- ~. "<i ,..... ri l.OLt'lI.O<OCOf.OCO N <0 M '" "'. ~ ~ 0000000 0,0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~~~~~~g Lt'lN......r--.OOlN N' N. '"1:1'.,~. oci'''': ri 1.0 I.n 1.0<0 CO co co N <0 M '" <0, 0000000 oooo~~~ <0 0 Mcoi,...........o r---oc:rLt'lCOOCOO to N.....,....omN ('\l. N -.i "<t. "<t. r-" ri li"lli"llO<OCOCOCO ~ ,.;. ~ ai' ~ ocr...... lOl.O.....ocrtO (",)Nmoc:o~l.O dcicicicri......cri NNNN......N..... I<- '" ,,; '" <0 ..j '" ~ ......,....ll1CO("')C"l(() O'! (O......C"l '"1:1''''''''''' '"I:1'cciri("')("')'gji.O Ol""-lOO'"l:1'COC"l ,.... co N 0) 0). oct......._ to ci,..... NtO OONO)CTlNCO tOl.Ol.O~'"I:1'lOocr '" '" ~ '" ~ '0 ~ t1J ctl 9 u.'Co ctl >0 e 1.0 o ~ 0..... oeco' O;::Eti~ ~E:SOl Q) 0 .!!! ::Euo ~ N M 000 000 000 "''''''' ~ ~ ~ , , , N N N "''''''' "''''''' N M 000 000 000 .....,. ..,. ~ ~ ~ , , , NNN '" '" '" '" '" '" o <:: OJ o .... o o ,,; ..,. <0 ri I<- ~ ,,; o o o ... '" <0 ~ ..,. o o o ..,. '" <0 ~ ..,. o <0 M ",. ~ ..j N '" ",' N <0 M N <0 0' M ... N <0 <'i N <0 o '" ..,. N <0 M N <0 o M ..,. N <0 M N <0 o '" ..,. o o o ..,. '" <0 ..,. o o o ..,. '" <0 ;; o o o ... '" <0 ~ ..,. o o o ... '" <0 ..,. o. o o ;J; <0 ~ ... N <0 M N <0 o '" ..,. N <0 M N <0 '0 M ... N <0 M N <0 0' '" ..,. o o o ..,. '" ",' ~ ... o o o ... '" ",. ;; N <0 M N <0 o M ... N <0 M ~ o M ..,. o o o ... '" <0 ~ ... N <0 M N <0 o M ..,. <0 "! ~ ... ~ '" ~ co ~ '" '" ..; o '" ,,; N '" ri <0 '" o o o o <0 <0 ",' o u. U Cl: ::;; iii o .... OJ ~ 'C C '" i3 " u '~ " '" 15 " '0 '0 C o 0) '0 " " '" '" '" ::> 'C C '" '" '" "<'i Vo tljo o .g It) fii;::: o~ coQi c: V " - E i:'t .S! _ l5:.E "I<- en'" "'..; ",<0 ~'" 0"; <'" 0..9 "l<- v'" ~ ~. :>....... c:~ 0'0 " C '" '" ::>~ cog Eo .s!'" c~ :::N .E~ ~] C '" ~ 0. o ~ E.2 "'" ::1:.~ Q. ...J <<l. ..J", , '" . 8 .9 "'~ Co ~'" 05:6 a:'" a: E E,g .g-c " '" '" ro os: o ~ iti o Z M '0 '" ~ '" '" Il. '" 62 '" N t:. '" '" 'C ~ ..!! " o ;;; ;< " ;; >- ,~ ~05 .0 _ ~o C2~ .....~'" ~. ................. t.... "'0"'''' O. ...1.~>C......0l!.. ~ '- .......0.....(1 .jII'...........e..."c...'.... ..0..... e. eON0.0.5 ........~,... o.........eo ..ON ". ~~C'"'O"' ..OCl~...... ...........03 ...~I,.c....C Z. ~........5;~ CO.........O ..., 0.......0.......... ...'e.....c.. s, "CI'";)'~''.sO''' ....,....,........ "C",S"C'" ". 'O::OTT......O::..'C". OOVCH....' ... ........O..V.. .,,10.... ... "CY1;"II:T"~ .......,...........,.. ...C.............."".. ..JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH 'T!:....C... O. ......0.. ..U,.... ... M....U'..O"',O:: 0...""0 ..., 05'CN'l'",U" ,...0......' Q. ..1;O::..C........UO.. ..0..... ..cr.....,,,::.. O"C.OQ"Y ". ..COliC" O::......::OTO....C.. .... "OOC'" C................"......... e......o....., se.......!!;.. .......o..!!;We 'C"'U'l':C: 0....""0 c. ::0"''''''' ....e...c...I:.... .$T.......C.S ::0........0.. '._ T.......'...... JUST... >C. ,....0....50.. M.O::.....C....... -r'el"" W......'....M..I. TU.....'... ......U.. 11:. "...... "00""55C" ..e..... M. w.....,.,.. A LAW CORPORATION 4 ~Ai:n. ~I.AZ,", . 16'" ~1.00R POST O,,",,"ICC BOX 19704 IRVINE, CAt.IFOANIA 926Z3-9704 (9....9l 752-8!585 "'AX; 19491 752-0597 yI!;Nru"'.... <::Ol,ll'H-r O"""CIt 280 N. WI!;STI..AKI!; 9I..VO. SU1T~ 200 wCST\...AKIt Vll..\...AOC:: C....l..t"'O"'NIA 91382 . leOSl 230-0023 "'....x; reosl 230-00e7 ...c".... ........,.,...'c;... . "CT'.CCl WRITIt....S O."'CCT OlAI.. NUMSC.A. (949)...m;.u09 mstaoleslnljdp law .com OUR ~i..c NUMl!Il!:R: 28878 COMMENT LETTER FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING -- APRIL 18, 2000 REGARDING BUTTERFIELD EAST INTERCEPTOR STORM DRAIN, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 Submitted by Michele A. Staples, Esq. on behalf of James and Mary Corona and the Corona Family April 13, 2000 / JACK50N, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I. INTRODUCTION ' . .. .. ' .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . ' .. , . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . , . . . .. . . I II. THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL'S DESIGN IS NOT PROPERL Y DICTATED BY THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE IN AD 159 SINCE NEWLAND IS RESPONSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCEPTOR CH.Il"NNEL TO MITIGATE THE FLOOD HAZARD CREATED ON THE CORONAS' LAND. ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I III. THE CORONAS ARE NOT PROPERL Y ASSESSED FOR THE COST OF THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL ,.............,.............,.......,......... 3 IV. APPRO V AL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE EMINENT DOMAIN LAW. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. , . . .. . .. . .. ' . . .. ' . .. . .. .. , .. . 4 V, APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..,...,.,.....,...........5 VI. CONCLUSION, . . . . . . . , , . , . . , . ' . . . . , , , , , ' . , . . . ' , . . . . . . . . , . . , . ' , . . . , . . , ' 6 JACKS.ON, DEMARCO & PECKENt"AUGH 1. INTRODUCTION We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the "Coronas"). The COTonas own land at the northeast corner of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. The Coronas' land straddles the boundary between the County and the City of Temecula. About 20 acres of the Coronas' land is within Assessment District 159 ("AD I 59") and the remaining 145 acres is outside of ADI59 On April 12,2000, the Coronas received the Submittal to the Board of Supervisors in which the Riverside County Transportation Department requests that the Board of Supervisors initiate proceedings to approve the construction of a 70-foot wide open flood control channel all the way through the Coronas' property and authorize additional funding for the facility, The channel would bisect the Coronas' land, severely impairing both their ongoing farming operation and eventual development of the land. The recommended motion is the latest in a series of actions taken by AD 159 to benefit a Temecula developer at the expense of the Coronas. By this letter, the Coronas urge the Board to deny the recommendation and instead require development in the City of Temecula to pay its own way. As discussed below, the Coronas specifically request that the Board of Supervisors deny the request to pre-approve the recommended alignment and design of the interceptor channel. Approval of the interceptor channel at this time would effectively predetermine the outcome of mandatory hearings and environmental proceedings, thereby subjecting the County to legal liability for violating the California Environmental Quality Act and the Eminent Domain Law and for damages to the Coronas. II. THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL'S DESIGN IS NOT PROPERLY DICTATED BY' THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING A V AILABLE IN AD 159 SINCE NEWLAND IS RESPONSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL TO MITIGATE THE FLOOD HAZARD CREATED ON THE CORONAS' LAND Prior to the construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road improvements, stonn water flowed to the north of the Coronas' land . . Butterfield Stage Road, and through the Specific Plan 219 prope see Document 6, attached. As a result, when the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the project requiring the developer to construct a flood control channel either on-site or off-site to intercept those flows ~ Documents 3, 4 and 10, attached[)The County likewise imposed mitigation measures on the project to prohibit increased flood hazards to adjacent or downstream properties and require that all flood-related hazards must be adequately mitigated (reference EIR 235, pp. 315-321, incorporated by reference). The City of Temecula adopted the County's condition ofapproval for Specific Plan 219 that the developer construct the interceptor channel either on-site or off-site, The City first adopted the condition in 1991 -- the same year that the County approved the supplemental JACK::',O N, DEMARCO & PECKEr-. PAUGH assessment for AD ]59, Each time the City ofTemecula has approved amendments to Specific Plan 219 since then (most recently in ] 999), it has conditioned its approval on the pre-existing conditions, and has never released Newland of the responsibility to construct the interceptor facility, Instead of constructing the interceptor channel, the record indicates that the Newland's predecessor included the facility on the "wish list" for facilities to be constructed with' funding from the AD ] 59 supplemental assessmen (see Documents 6 and 9 attachedbDevelopment of the Specific Plan 2]9 has resulted in filling the natura ramage course t at formerly flowed to the north .of the Corona Ranch property within AD] 59, across Butterfield Stage Road, through Specific Plan 219, to Temecula Creek. Butterfield State Road improvements were constructed by AD 159 to accommodate the development's alteration of the natural drainage pattern, Newland proceeded to fill and construct homes on land that once served as the drainage area for the upstream properties, including Corona Ranch., Those improvements now act,as a dam blocking storm water that once flowed across Buttl~rfield Stage Road and Specific Plan 219, A flood hazard has been created on that portiQn of the Coronas' land within AD ] 59 where none previously existed. The interceptor channel will serve only to mitigate the hazardous condition created on the Coronas' land by construction of Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. It would not benefit the Coronas' land. Newland realizes a significant financial benefit by having the facilities funded and constructed by AD 159 and by shifting a disproportionate portion of the financial burden .onto adjoining property owners, including the Coronas. The staff report wrongly considers the funds remaining in AD ] 59 to be the sole SQurce of ' . funding for the interceptor channel. As a result of this error, staff concludes that there is only one ::inancially feasible option fQr cQnstructing the interceptor channel. . The alternative recommended is the most burdensome alternative PQssible to the Coronas. It consists of a 70-foQt wide;] ,ODD-foot long open channel bisecting the Corona Ranch. No bridges are proposed t.o "link" the severed lands as necessary to mQve farm equipment and other vehides from one side to the other, No consideration is given to the severance damages that would be due to the Coronas for the adverse economic impacts to their present and future uses .of the land. As stated in the correspondence from Newland's attorney, Newland is quickly selling off i':s remaining land holdings, Who will be resPQnsible for the costs of severance damages to the Cororias after Newland is gone? Other feasible alternatives exist that would reduce the burden tQ the Coronas. If the facility must be placed on the Coronas' land, the impacts to the Coronas would be minimized by burying the channel at least four feet below ground to allow the Coronas to farm over the top. The County has rejected one such proposal (Alternative I) as technically infeasible because the proposed double b.ox culverts buried four feet deep would n.ot have enough "fall" to efficiently transport sto'rm fl.ows to T emecula Creek. 2 .JACKSON. DEMARCO& PECKEi'<PAUGH The adverse impacts to the Coronas would be aneviated if the interceptor channel is constructed on the Newland property. In its staff report, the County has concluded that such an alignment of the interceptor challllel would work, but rejected one such proposal (Alternative 6) as too costly in light of the available funding in AD 159. However, those costs could be significantly reduced if an open channel was to be constructed on the Newland property similar to the open channel proposed to be sited on the Corona property. No such analysis has been made. Instead, Alternative 6 cans for construction of more costly buried triple box culverts on the Newland property. Clearly, there are feasible alternatives to the one that is recommended for approval that would reduce the burden to the Coronas. Newland remains legally responsible for constructing the interceptor challllel as part of Specific Plan 219. Newland is not entitled to the least expensive alternative for the storm drain, especially where the least expensive alternative is also the most burdensome to the Coronas. Therefore, there is no basis for the County to restrict the design of the facility to the amount of funding available in AD 159. III. THE CORONAS ARE NOT PROPERLY ASSESSED FOR THE COST OF THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL The recommended motion would authorize commencement of a change proceeding to increase the authorized funding for the interceptor channel and issue additional bonds in AD 159. For 1he following reasons, the Coronas oppose the assessment of costs against their land for the interceptor channel. Special assessments cannot be levied against real property that does not benefit from the improvement being financed. Each property within the area subject to the assessment may only be assessed a share of the costs of the improvements that is proportional to the benefits it receives from those improvements, Any supplemental assessment imposed under AD 159 will need to comply with the substantiv~ and procedural requirements of Proposition 218 (California Constitution Articles XIII C, XIII D), including notice and election, Since Newland has sold much of the land it formerly owned within AD 159, there are now numerous landowners within the area subj ect to the supplemental assessment -- not just the four landowners listed at page 2 of the staff report. For several reasons, any assessment imposed on the Coronas' land for the costs of the inter<:eptor channel under AD 159 is illegal. First, the proposed interceptor channel does not benefit the Coronas' land, Rather, it would restore the Coronas' land to the condition that existed prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and the improvementsto Butterfield Stage Road that were designed to accommodate Specific Plan 219, As a result, the Coronas are not properly assessed for the costs of the ~ ~ JACK50N, DEMARCO & PECKE1<<>'AUGH interceptor storm drain. Second, the cost allocation among the landowners proposed to contribute toward the costs of the interceptor channel is unfair. All of the Coronas' acreage wIthin AD 159 would be assessed for the costs of the interceptor channel. Virtually none of that acreage was ever subject to flooding in a 100-year storm event prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road improvements that blocked the natural drainage channel. The Coronas therefore bear a disproportionate share of the costs of the interceptor channel. IV, APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE EMINENT DOMAIN LAW By approving the interceptor channel as proposed, the recommended motion would effectively predetermine the outcome bfthe mandatory hearing required to be conducted by the County prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land'pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law, Before it can adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County must conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a finding that the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, Code of Civil Procedure section 1245,230. By approving the siting and design of the interceptor channel on the Coronas' land at this time, the County will illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatofy hearing. Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on the Coronas, The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created on their land and would not benefit from the interceptor channel. The Coronas would be burdened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing farming operation and related commercial land uses. The channel would effectively sever their landholding into two separate parcels. Newland would realize an undue benefit. Newland would be relieved ofits obligation to construct the flood control channel as part of Specific Plan 219. A portion of the facility has . been subsidized by the Coronas who will realize no benefit from it, In addition, Newland has already profited by building on and selling land that previously provided drainage for the Coronas' property. Approving the recommended moiion would preclude public notice and comment on other feasible alternatives that could accomplish the greatest public good with less private injury. For example, restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road and siting the interceptor facility on Newland's property would restore the Coronas to the condition they were in prior to development of Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. It would also impose the burden for complying with the flood control condition of Specific Plan 219 where it 4 JACKS 0 N. DEMARCO&. PECKEN PAUGH belongs _ with the developer of that project. And it would accomplish the goals set forth in the staffreport to "provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties," The Coronas have repeatedly requested that the County consider the alternative of restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road. The Coronas and Leonard .. Savala, another landowner within AD 159, have provided the County with analyses demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of such an alternative. However, the County has failed to consider the alternative until a few days ago and, although concluding that it would work, summarily dismissed it as economically infeasible, Upon closer examination, it is evident that the County is not comparing "apples to apples," In estimating the costs of "Alternative 6" that would restore the natural flow through Butterfield Stage Road, the County proposes. a costly underground triple box culvert running through Newland's property. However, in estimating the costs of the so-called "original alignment" of the interceptor channel, the County proposes a relatively inexpensive open ditch running through the Coronas' land. As a result, the lopsided comparison artificially inflates the costs of restoring the natural drainage as com;Jared to the proposed facility. The only cost difference between siting the facility on the Coronas' land and on Newland's land is the incremental difference of restoring the flow through .. culv,erts in Butterfield Stage Road, That cost was recently estimated by KEC Engineering to be $41],352. In order to ensure that the project is properly planned and sited in conformity with the requirements of the Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be considered at the public hearing. Without considering other feasible alternatives, at the mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find that the proj ect is sited in the manner that will be jIloSt compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. V, APPROV AL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Approvalofthe motion would predispose the outcome of mandatory environmental proceedings under the California Environmental Quality Act. It is' illegal for the County to approve the location and design of the interceptor channel without first preparing a subsequent environmental impact report. A subsequent environmental impact report is required when a proj ect may have a significant adverse effect on the environment and when there are substantial changes to a project for which an environmental impact report was previously prepared. When it authorized the supplemental assessment in 1991, the County did not specify the location or design of the storm drain and other modifications to the original AD 159 facilities. Rather, it only generally described the facilities to be funded by the supplemental assessment and indlded funding for environmental impact reports, feasibility studies and engineering plans (reference Resolution ofIntention No, 91-553, page 6). The modifications to the AD 159 . facilities, including the proposed interceptor channel, constitute substantial changes to the 5 JACK:30 N. DEMARCO &. PECKENPAUGH orig:nal project necessitating the preparation of an EIR. The project, as proposed, would have significant adverse environmental impacts, including (but notlimited to) altering natural drainage patterns, redirecting flood flows, and converting existing farmland to non-agricultural use. Our research indicates that no EIR has been prepared to date for the proposed interceptor charmel. CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects (Public Resources Code section 21002), Projects to be carried out by public agencies are subject to the same level of review and consideration under CEQA as private projects required to be approved by public agencies (Public Resources Code section 2100 l.l). By eliminating from further consideration all other potentially feasible alternatives except. the proposal to construct the storm drain as an open channel through the Coronas' land, the recommended motion would illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatory alternatives analysis required to be conducted by the County pursuant to CEQA, VI. CONCLUSION The recommended action effectively removes from public review and comment any altemative to the interceptor channel besides the proposed project. It also imposes undue. hardship on the Coronas and undue benefit on Newland. The Coronas urge the Board to deny the recommended action and instead require development within the City of Temecula to pay its own way instead of shifting that burden to the County and adjoining landowners, Approval of the motion would subject the County to legal liability for violating the Eminent Domain Law and the California Environmental Quality Act, and for damages resulting to the Coronas from the proposed interceptor channel project. Respectfully submitted, \"--~-YJii/iP-d,-{l ~pJ-d Michele A. Staples MAS/jaa Enclosures 3587,,9.1 cc: Mr. Stephen Corona Mr. George A. Johnson Tim Davis, Esq., Deputy County Counsel 6 . JACKSO N. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH CHRONOLOGY AND SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS Submitted on Behalf of the Coronas No, Description I Date 1. The Developer submitted Specific Plan 219 to the County of Riverside 1987 and omitted the largest drainage flow that existed on BedfordlNewland development, east to west, between Highway 79 & DePortola Road in Temecula, CA. 2. The Flood Control advises the Developer that based upon areal 4/6/88 photographs dating back 39 years and topographic mapping dating back 49 years, the drainage plan regarding DePortola and Butterfield . ,VI Stage Road "should be reexamined. These matters should be settled before this specific plan is approved." . 3. The developer's engineers propose an earthen "trapezoidal channel" 5/16/88 ,'^ along Butterfield Stage Road on the Coronas' property. The Coronas were not informed of this "plan." 4. The Flood Control District advises the developer that its representation 5/26/88 , ,'^ of the trapezoidal channel "should be considered conceptual with regard to location and design and the design flow rates and sizes should be regarded as estimates. This facility should be constructed as a . permanent facility either onsite or offsite before development of the downstream area it is meant to protect." 5. A letter from the Flood Control District to the County Road 9/1l/89 Department commenting on the hydrology calculations for the project stating that "A storm drain will have to be installed from the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road to Temecula Creek since Assessment District 159 is no longer building a facility in this location." . 6. The District acknowledges "that drainage thought to drain in a 1118/89 southerly direction actually drains onto Bedford's [now, Newland's] property. The CFS flow for that area needs to be upgraded because the ,Flood Control did not define direction of flow earlier on. An open channel will be designed for that area." Although continuing to mention an open channel as a solution, the location is not determined, 7. The Flood Control District informs the developer that "the storm drain 1l/13/89 system in the southeast comer of the [Specific Plan 219] will have to be completely re-designed due to the absence of an outlet point." 1 JACK~,ON. DEMARCO & f:>ECKEN PAUGH 8. The developer resubmitted the Master Plan of Drainage, still excluding 1/4/90 the southern watershed, 9. Deadline for the "wish list" for the Supplemental Assessment. 1/17/90 10, The City ofTemecula adopts the County Flood Control requirements 1991 for drainage facilities as a condition of approval for amendment to Specific Plan 219. II. A letter from the Flood Control District to the City ofTemecula -- 9/23/96 . "Our district is wrestling with the disposition of approximately 3000 cfs. This is the result of an omission from the infrastructure constructed by assessment District 159. This flow was planned to be intercepted upstream from Butterfield Stage Road and routed to Temecula Creek, across Highway 79, in an open, conCrete lined channel facility. Consideration must be given to the conditioning of Tract 24182, and whether these County conditions would require that '. tract to solve the problem, provided the necessary facility had not been constructed by Assessment #159." (Coronas were not advised of this "plan."). 12. A letter from the Flood Control District to the City ofTemecula. 10/16/96 Pressure is being placed on the City and County to allow the developer to continue their development with the interim basin without mitigating the flooding hazard created on the Coronas property, 13. RanPac requested a meeting with the Coronas and submitted a plan to 11/8/96 place the channel in the middle of the Coronas property which would cut the Corona's farm in half. 14. A letter from the Coronas' engineers, Krieger & Stewart, to the 7/30/97 Department of Transportation outlining alternatives for an interceptor channel that would minimize impacts to the Coronas' current and. future land uses. Two of the alternatives were ultimately rejected by the County and one was not studied until a few days ago (restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road with the facility on Newland's property), 2 JACK50N. DEMARCO&. PECKENPAUGH 15, A memorandum to John DeGange, City of TemecuIa, Project Planner, from Gerald Alegria, Asst. Engineer. "Conditions of Approval -- Item 32 -- "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 stomi 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. Anv upgrading or uosizing of drainage facilities necessarY to convev the stonn water runoff shall be provided as oart of develooment of this oroiect. The basis for analysis and design shall be astonn with a recurrence interval of one hundred years." 16. . Letter from Coronas' attorney to County requesting CEQA notices and 7/17/97 documents. 17. Letter to the Coronas from George Johnson rejecting two of the 2/17/00 alternatives, and failing to address the alternative of restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road previously requested by the Coronas. 18. Coronas' letter responding to George Johnson's correspondence 3/14/00 requesting that the County consider the proposed alternative to restore the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage road with the channel on the developer's property.' , .J ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAl. CORPORATIONS 41530 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH. SUITE 120 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590-4677 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 296-5000 FACSIMILE: (909) 296,5006 OffICes in San Diego, and Temecula, CaHfomia ;":." '~:-l ~''-'iC~'~'~: . [-, C,'()~:'l:! r:.',' c'. in /-.lhf.:/,'Ji; January 10,2001 :<,i.:: U:'"ic!aie SAMua C. AuwlEFF ".. SAliiADEFF@A$i).w(C(Jl;l'~-~'" . (909) 296-5000 Yesterday &Ji:<2m . . 9103.00~ t O' . --.: """Y<: on ~':;C>SS')1Qn' Is'r ,. - -' -.. ',:!.... . ~._"-' I....... . l . . . ":,-,.,~- '''', 's I t"e c re ' -.." . ,..,...I",..,on e L r on.. r C'.::: \':e. wiil nothavea proper ,': ~',:,~~'\:' 17th. I am supposed 1 .. [;,:;!h::mlmer on Tuesday. I Mr. Tony Carstens County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Mr. Kelly Donovan County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Butterfield Interceptor Channel '..", Dear Gentlemen: As you know, we have been working with you concerning the Butterfield Interceptor Channel ("Channel"). I'know that the Assessment District 159 property owners meeting has been continued. However, in discussions with Dean Meyer yesterday, we would like the opportunity, on behalf on Newland Communities, to meet with the appropriate people to discuss the new alternatives that have been suggested with regard to the Channel. We are hoping that we c~m have this meeting in the next few days, Please feel free to contact either Dean Meyer or myself to arrange for the meeting. We assume that the County would want to have the three of you involved in the meeting and perhaps, any other person that may be necessary in reviewing this matter. We would IDSO like to suggest that Mr. Stahovich be present for this meeting. ~~ Samuel C. Alhadeff, of "--- ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP SCA:sld cc: Mr. Stuart McKibben Mr. Dave Stahovich .\DA T A \CLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIES\CARSTENS LETTER 0 1.1 O.DOC .8-2z..D1 M.....Ct>.J\J.a.,...DC. ANOUW r'.llu.......nUl' BIlJ....."W.CA:.slAl.... J"...",C.'CI~"1"J J...,.'Ufl;.Dllr>IA,Jl," KAIu..\..!;. FIJI! Jtuc.UM.FWJ;S HfU,,",ll.FIU..""SZ ED"'~'~ G>.1.u)W"... M.Ol...n S. HlroI~tAS<.\" . WIL.\'.u.t M. Htw....n f.5cftnJ..cun", !klU(;Wf.LV'oJl"'II'I J,>H:-IM..L.l..U.ln "'.AU.., M.W1I 5.HINL.M..y"".. S"'''"EI'lG.'''''''U''; . I 0:48am From-Buchalt- ~emer,Fieldi & Younaer T-8BS P.007/028 F-OBS +B48 2S1 1707 JACKSON DENUillCO & PECKENPAUGH ... 1.,\\'" ,:OK,'OK.\T'O:O; Wun...xl~l'-""tOt'ltE L"""""K,MI;A""Y D"V>IJA.OSSt:<TJUoC lM~l.UD.PICIU~""Uc.>1 J\lIt~~,.C" G"'c.o),,\".~c.at. ^"':Mof'll.Jllln_ c..Ja,..o.It.R"'MAL J[NOJt<lASc..o.u"l N<lDIU:WC.$(:Ml"TZ MKHlLlA.SfAhIS D-.lI1NW.ST",wlJ S"uUl'll. T.v.lnA ~Cr<.<..l!LL.TIDIIS WllLWIJ.lulIll ,...uLJ;.VA/OH.......ISU,. JLa.tIIM...W....n.. 4 P.l,JUi: PI.AZA. J61'H FlOOA IItVI~E.C.u.lfO~lA 92ftH )I)n O,oxCuuD,,,,-I.SlIllllOD ~'B'lAJtt V'Luo'LC........'II."'.. 91)61 Tnfl'.,1?6.1210/IOUJO.OO1) fA.1l "U..."..1171IJOUlO,OOIl7 P.O. Box U704 lp.vlN't.CA1.IFOlU<llA (262).97D4 HL 949.7S1.8saS f.u 949.752.DS!17 ww\oY.jdpl4\w.l:om L.\O'lUl<C;\R.tlf.S",ICIt 1>fC&>\n<lSlL fltllAMCKITI"'CII ll;[TlIlill Ou~ fIll tI",,,,U~ 28878 t-p.u.IL: August 13,200 I d,uoud@jdpl.w,com "'lUnll~ [IlueT DloU toIUM.U.: (949) 851-7404 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Chairman James A. Venable Riverside County Board of Supervisors 4080 Lemon Street, 14'" Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: Agenda Item 13.3 Comment5 on Proposed Colorado Pacific Commllnities Project and Requestfor Condition of Approval Dear Chairman Venable and Honorable Board Members: We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the "Coronas") with respect to their propenies located at the northeast eomer of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, We request thaI this lener be included in the administiative record for this matter, The Coronas own property on the north side of Highway 79 across from lhe Colorado Pacific.Project. The Coronas were informed of the Colorado Pacific Communities Project ("Project") for lhe first time only a few days ago. The Coronas are concerned about the lack of consideration being given in evaluating the impacts of the Project on the Assessment District J 59 Butterfield East Interceptor Channel flood conuol facility ("Inlerceptor Channel"), As discussed below, since the Project in ilS current form would creafe significant environrnenlal impacts and conflict with existing surrounding land uses, the Coronas request that any approval of the Project be conditioned upon dedication of an easement to the Riverside County flood Conuol Dislricl for the Interceptor Channcl. The requested easemenl could easily be accommodated while mainlaining lhe Project densities by minor revisions to ~B-Z2'OI .ID:49am From-Buchalter ~'mer,Filld, , Yaun'lr '141 251 1101 T-IIS P.00I/02B F-OIS .-' J....CKSO!'i DEMARCO & PECJ<EKPAUGJI Chainnan Jam~s A. Venable August 13, 2001 Page 2 roads On the eastern end of the Project, If the County is unwilling to incorporate the requested easement at this time, the County, at a minimum. should continue this matter to the next Board of Supervisors' meeting to allow the Coronas to further work with Planning Commission staff and the Project applicant to address their concerns with the Project, I. BACKGROUND The Project consists of subdividing 46 gross acres into 122 residential lots. In or about June 200 I, the Pianning Commission issued its recommendation that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Chan!o\e of Zone No. 06583. and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 30052, The Coronas did not receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing, For over a year, the Coronas and other landowners within Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for the Interceptor Channel flood control facility have been meeting regularly with representatives of the County of Riverside's Executive Office, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Flood Control District, and County Counsel's office to devise a mutually-agreeable Interceptor Channel design and alignment, One of the alternatives previously proposed by the County included an open channel through the Comnas' land 70 feet wide, 1,000 feet long. and 10 feet deep. This proposed alignment would effectively bisect the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing farming and commercial operations and eventual development, F onunately, twO other feasible alignments were de' eloped. However, one of them (on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road) was eliminated earlier this year by the County's approval of incompatible construction of Ralphs Store buildings across the proposed alignment. The Ralphs Store construction project, as originally pnlposed, could have accommodated the Interceptor Channel. However, the Project was revised to place buildings across the alternative Interceptor Cannel alignment without nOlice to the Coronas even though they had requested notice of any project revisions inconsistent with the Interceptor Channel alignments (see corrcspondence to the Board of Supervisors datcd October 2, 2000, enclosed and incorporated by this reference). The Coronas' engin""r, Bob Krieger, has been working closely with lhe County Flood Control District to analyze and confirm the feasibility of lotating the Interceptor Channel facility at an alignment approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of Bunerfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon by all oCthe panicipating ; z....----.-. / .OB-22-01 . 10:49am From-Buthalt~~emer,Field, , Younler t941 151 1707 7-B16 P.00I/01B F-016 .J,-\.('KSOK DJ,:M,'<RCO 6.:: PECKEI"P.-\.CGH Chairman James A, Venable August J 3.2001 Page 3 Assessment District 159 landowners. Maintaining the integrity of this alignment for a flood control facility is necessary to accomplish the purposes of Assessment District 159 without undue harm to the Coronas or any other propeny owner. Nevertheless, the Projec!. as proposed, would place homes across the alignment, effectively eliminating the alignment. II. REOUESTED MJTIGA TION MEASURE AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL Through the Project site, thc agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor ChalUlel flood control facility consists of an underground box culven, 30 feet wide, running north to south, The required setback necessary to accommodate the Interceptor Channel can be easily accommodated within the project densitics and without interfering with underground utilities by revising the roads on the eastern end of the Project. In order to alleviate the significant Project impacts that would otherwise require the preparation of an environmental impact repon ("EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Qaulity Act ("CEQA,") the Coronas recommend including an additional mitigation measure and condition of approval, as follows: A future nonh-sourh flood control structure is being planned through the Project site as the Assessment District 159 Buuerfield East Interceptor Channel at approximately 4,800 feel east of the intersection of Bunerfield Stage Road and Highway 79, The developer will provide a drainage easement to the Flood Control District for the flood control structure, The drainage easement shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions, III. VIOLATION OF NOTICE REOUlREMENTS The Coronas have spent dozens of hours and tens of thousands of dollars over the past year meeting regularly with County personnel and other landowners within Assessment District 159 to develop and evaluate the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel. COUnty personnel participating in those meetings, as recently as June 2001, include Dusty Williams and Stuart McKibbin of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Tony Carstens of the Executive Office, David Barnhart, George Johnson and Jerry Norris of the Transponation and Land Management Agency, and Tim Davis of the County Counsel's office, Many of these same individuals and entities were involved in planning and plan checking the proposed Colorado Pacific Project. Additionally, Trans-Pacific Consultants, the engineer for the Colorado Pacific project, developed the conceptual plans for the eastern alignment of the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel just last year. Yet. the Project calls for the incompatible construction of residences across the very alignment that has been the focus of the meetings and analyses on the Interceptor Channel facility. 08-ZZ"01 .10:49>. Fro.-Buch.lt.. ....r.Fi.ld.' You...r +141 Z51 IT07 T-816 POIO/OZ8 F-OI6 .J.-\.C.li:SON DeMARCO (\: PJ:;CKE1\."P.:\.UGH Chairman James A. Venable August 13. 2001 Page 4 Despite the Coronas' regular meetings wirh County staff and correspondence to the Board of Supervisors concerning the impacts that the Interceptor Channel's alignment has on their property, the Coronas received nO notice, written or otherwise, of the Project until a few days ago when they received notice of the AugUSt 14, 2001. Board of Supervisors hearing. Accordingly, the County has violated procedural due process requirements here by not providing the Coronas notice and the opportunity to be heard prior to the August 14,200 I Board of Supervisors hearing. Case law is clear [hat where a land use decision will "exceptionally affect" a property owner Or business user, the COWllY must provide that person with notice and the opportunity to be heard, Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 605, 615 (1979); Harris v. County of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497 (9" Cir. 1990), In theirleners dated April 18, 2000 and August 3, 2000, the Coronas detailed the impacts to their property rdared to the Interceptor Channel's alignment, The April 8 and August 3, 2000 leners are enclosed and incorporated by this reference. Moreover, one of the essential features ofCEQA is public involvement. 14 Ca\. Code Regs. S 15201', As stated by the California Supreme Coun, lhe public holds a "privileged poSition" in the CEQA process, Concerned Citizens ofCosla Meso v, 32"" Disirict Agricultural Association, 42 Ca1.3d 929 (1986). Therefore, it is of paramount in1portance that the public be meaningfully involved in the process, A review of recently obtained County records for this Project indicates that the Coronas' name appears on the County's list of landowners within 600 feet of the Project boundaries that were to receive notice of the COlUUY' s intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for this Project as well a, the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Project. However, in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Coronas never received notice of the MND for this Project, which is inconsiStent with the agreed-upon Interceptor Channel aligrunent. In fact, the Coronas did not become aware of the Project or the MND until only last week, well after the close of the public comment period on the MND and after the Planning Commission hearing where the MND and Project were recommended for approval. As a result of the lack of notice for this Project, the Coronas have been denied a meaningful opPortunity under CEQA and due process law to inform the County of the significant unmitigatt:d impacts of the proposed project and participate in the decision making process, Accordingly. the Coronas are hopeful that because the County has prejudiced them by waiting Hereafter citations to 14 Cal. Code of Regs, 9915000 er seq, shall be referred to as the CEQA Guidelines. DI-U-Ot IO:SO.m Fr~m-Buchalt~~ ~8m8r.Fi8IdE , Yaun,ar +949 151 ITOT T-196 P.OII/D1I F-096 J."-CKSON DEM,-'.RCO 6:: PECKENP..-\.t}GU Chairman James A, Venable August 13,2001 Page 5 until this late date to notify them of the Project, me County will include in me Project approval and adopted mitigation measures the dedication of an easement to me Riverside County Flood Control District for the Interceptor Channel. IV. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE COLORADO PACIFIC PROJECT SINCE THE PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LAND USE PLANNING AND UTILITIES The County's MND for the Project concludes that its impacts to land use planning and utilities would be less than significant, Accordingly, no mitigation is included for these Project impacts. However, from a fair reading of the MND, it is abundantly clear that the County's conclusions were based on cursory analyses of these impact arcas. Mr. McKibbin has confirmed that me MND's analyses do not consider the Project's in~onsistency with the Interceptor Channel's agreed-upon alignment or the resuhing impacts to the Coronas' land. Therefore, because a "fair argument" exists that me Project may have significant wunitigated ~nvironmental impacts. the Counry must prepare an EIR and cannOl properly adopt a negative declaration for the Colorado Pacific project, Public Resources Cod~ lis 21100,21151; CEQA Guidelines ~~ 15002 (k)(3), 15063(b)(I), 15064(a)(I) & (g)(I), 15362, As the lead agency for the Project under CEQA. the County "can and must, , . scrupulously enforce alllegislativcly mandated CEQA requirements," Citizens ofGolera Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553, 563 (1990). "Full compliance with the lettcr ofCEQA is essential to the maintenance of its important public purpose, . . ' " Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission. 191 Ca1.App.3d 886. 897-911 (1987), "If CEQA is scrupulously followed. the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees." Laurel Heighrs Improvements Auociarion. Inc. v. Regenrs of rhe Universify of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988). Moreov.:r~ according to San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water District, 71 Cal.App.4th 382 (1999): "the agency must prepare an fIR whenever substantial evidence in the record suppons a fair argument that' a proposed project may have a significant effect on the envirorunenl. [Citations.] 'If such evidence is found, it cannot be overCome by substalllial evidence to the contrary.' [Citations.) [~] 'The lead agency's determination is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support me prescribed fair argument.' OB-ZZ-)I IO:5Dam From-Buchalter ~em8r.Fiald, & Youn.ar +B49 Z51 ITDT H9S POIZlOZB HIS .T,'I.CRS01< DEM..-'I.R('O &. PECKE""_'I.UGH Chainnan James A. Venable August 13,2001 Page 6 [Citation,] The coun's 'function is to determine whether substantial evidence supponed the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be made.' [Citation.}" San Bernardino Valley Audubon Sociery, 71 Cal.App.4th at 389; quoting Gemry v, Ciryof Murriera, 36 Ca1.App.4th 1359, 1399-1400 (1995); See a/so Leagu,'for Prorecrioll ofOakland's ArchirecturQI & Historic Resources v, City Of Oakland, 52 Cal.App.4th 896 (1997); Ciri:;;ens' Committee to Save Our Village v, Ciry ofCloremonl, 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1167-1169 (1995); Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. Ciry of Encinitas, 29 Cal.App,4th 1597 (1994); Sundstrom v, COUnI of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Friends of "S" Street v, Ciry of Hayward, 106 Ca1.App,3d 988 (1980), Notably, the "fair argument" standard creates a low Ihreshold for requiring the preparation of an EIR. eitizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 22 Cal.App,3d 748. 754 (1990); Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App,3dat 310, quoting No Oil, Inc. v, Ciry of Los Angeles, 13 Cat.3d 68, 75 (1974) ("No Oil f'), This standard is founded on the principle that because adopting a mitigated negative declaration has a "terminal effect on the envirorunental review process," Citizens of Lake Murray, 129 Cal.App.3d at 440, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of cenainty , ' ," No Oil I, 13 CaL3d at 85, Accordingly, if substantia! evidence suppOrtS a "fair argwnent" that a project may have a significant environmental effect', the lead agency must prepare an EIR despite other substantial evidence which indicates that the project will not have a ,significant impact. Friends of"B" Streer, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1002, V, THE PROJECT WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED LAND lISE AND PLANNING IMP ACTS The MND slates that a significant impact could occur if the Project results in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, is inconsistent with existing and planned surrounding uses, or would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an , Public Resources Code S 21068 indicates that a .U significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." . CEQA Guidelines S 15382 further defines "significant effect on the environrnent"as a "substantial, or potentially substantial. adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance," OB-ZZ-Ol lD:5Dam From-Buchalle< ~emer.Fiald, , Youn,er +B4B 151 1707 T-BBS P.01llD1B F-096 J,~CJ;:50N U,,;MARCO <I< PECJffi~,"UGJ{ Chairman James A, Venable AugUSt 13, 2001 Page 7 established community, MND, pp" 19-20, However, the MND concludes that the Project's land use and planning impacts would be insignificant and no mitigation measures whatsoever were incorporated. Newnheless. there is overwhelming substantial evid~nce that says otherwise, The Interceptor Channel must be constructed to satisfy the purposes of Assessment District 159 for the orderly development of lands in the vicinity ofthe Project site, including the Coronas' property, In order to maintain the integrity of the Interceptor Channel flood control facility alignment. it is necessary that construction projects south of Highway 79 and nonh ofTemecula Creek be consistent with the Interceptor Channel's planning effon, The Project, as proposed, is inconsistent with, and would therefore eliminate, the only a1ignmem for the Interceptor Channel agreed to by the landowners in Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for those facilities. The County has eliminated another alignment for the Interceptor Channel by approving an inconsistent developmem project earlier this year. Therefore, if the COUnty approves the Colorado Pacific project as proposed, the only remaining Imerceptor Channel aligrunem which has been opposed by the Coronas and others, and would create a 70-foot wide chasm dividing the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing farming and commercial operations and eventual development. If, on the other hand, the County fails to construct the Interceptor Channel, it would fail to complete the Assessment District 159 facilities that are necessary to remove the flood hazard created to the Coronas' land and commercial buildings by construction of the Bunerfield Stage Road improvements and other development in the natural drainage channel. Therefore, approval of the Project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts and an EIR must be prepared. Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on the Coronas, The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created on their land and that the Interceptor Channel is to remedy. The Coronas would be burdened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing farming operation and related commercial land uses, The channel would effectivcly 'ever their landholding into two separate parcels, Therefore, the Proposed project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts. The lead agency musr accept conflicting evidence from a quali fied cxpen showing a significanl impact may occur, as the agency cannot weigh compcting evidence. See Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229,249 (1986); Brentwood ASSOCiation for No Drilling v. City of Los Angeles, 134 Cal.App,3d 491, 504 (1982) (emphasis added,) Also, statements made by members of the public supponed by adequate factual foundation constilUle substantial evidence. See Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, 225 Cal.App,3d 872. 882 (1990); Citi7.ens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Are" v. County of In yo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151. 173 (1985). OB-~Z-OI.IO:Slam From-Buch.ller -'mor.Fiold., Younur +949 ZSI 1107 T-B96 POl4/0ZB F-096 ~ J.\.ChSO": DEMARCO &. PECJU:NP_\.UGH Chairman James A, Venable August 13, 2001 Page 8 Additionally. the approval of the Project and adoption oflhe MND would effectively predetermine the outcome of the mandalOry hearing required 10 be conducted by the County prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law, As the County is undoubtedly aware, before it can adopt a resolution of necessiry to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County mUSt conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a finding that the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least'private injury, Code of Civil Procedure ~ 1245,230. By approving the proposed Project in its current form (which would result in causing the siting of the Interceptor Channel on the Coronas land), the County will illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatoI)' hearing. This approach is improper. In Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d 1121 (J 986)("Norm's Slauson"), the court held that an agency's contracts with a developer for construction of a condominium project, before instituting condemnation proceedings. was a gross abuse of discretion, and that the subsequent adoption of a resolution of necessity to justify the prior decision was an example of "rubber stamping": "1n the inStant case, it seems clear that the hearing "hich led to the adoption of the resolution of necessity was a sham and the Agency's policy making board simply' rubber stamped' a predetermined result. "By the time the Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the 'necessity' for taking the property in question. it had, by virtUe of its contract with the developer an issuance of revenue bonds, irrevocably commined itself to take the property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be present~d at that hearing. . . .n .. Norm Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d at 1127, In order to ensure that the project is properly planned and sited in conformity with the requirements ohh. Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be considered at the public hearing. Without considering other feasible alternatives. at the mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find thatlhe project is sited in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. .D8-~2-01 lQ:51am From-Bucnaltef.Nemer.Filldi , YounKer +849 251 1707 1-998 P.015/029 F-098 .JACKSO],,\ DEM.~CO ...\: PECE:E:!'o"P.-\.UGH Chairnlan James A, Venable August 13, 2001 Page 9 VI. THE PROJECT WILL CREA TE UNMITIGATED UTILITIES IMP ACTS The MND states that the Project' 5 impacts to storm water drainage facilities, services and plans would be less than significant, However, by proposing to site residences across the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel facilities on the eastern end of the Project, approval of the Project will jeopardize the construction of the Interceptor Channel and will have serious consequences to the Coronas' land, Last year, County staff requested that the Board approve staffs proposal to site the Interceptor Channel as an open ditch through the middle of the Coronas' land. The maUer was ultimately withdrawn from the Board's agenda due to opposition raised by the Coronas and lack of consensus among the Assessment District 159 landowners for such a burdensome facility (see correspondence to Board of Supervisors dated April 8 and August ~,2000). Earlier this year, the County approved an inconsistent development project thereby eliminating one of the two other alignments identified for the Interceptor Channel. If the Board approves the Colorado Pacific Project as currently proposed, it would eliminate the only other alternative alignment identified for the Interceptor Channel. and the only alignment that is agreeable to all of the Assessmem District 159 landowners who have been assessed for the flood control facility. Such a decision necessarily would result in the siting of the Interceptor Channel in a manner that bisects the Coronas' land as advanced by Coumy stafflast year, or else the failure to construct the facility as necessary to meet the requitements of Assessment District 159 and alleviate the flood risk created on the Coronas' land by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road improvements and other development in the natural drainage channel. As a result, approval of the Project would expose the County to significant severance damages Or inverse condemnation award due 10 the serious consequences to the Coronas' land. Since the Project. as proposed, conflicts with plans for necessary storm water drainage facilities, approval of the Project would create significant urimitigatcd utilities impacts and an EIR must be prepared. VB. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE WOULD REDUCE UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO INSIGNIFICANCE The Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts, including (but not limited 10) conflicting with surrounding land uses and necessary storm drain facilities, Accordingly, the County must either prepare an EIR for the Project or implement additional mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available ",hich would substantially lessen the significant envirorunental effects of such projects, Public Resources Code S 21000, The requested mitigation measure and condition of approval se! forth above can be implemented consistent with . 08-ll-1I1 '10:51... Fro.-Buch.1tor.No.or,Fiold. 'Younur '949 l51 1707 1-896 P.016/0l8 F-096 JAChSO!'O DEMARCO &: PECKJ'ro.-PAl.'GII Chaimlan James A. Venable August 13, 2001 Page 10 the Projecl objeclives by revising roads on the eastern end of Ihe Project site, By including the requested mitigation measure and condition of approval. thc Project's significant environmental impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. VIII, CONCLUSION In order \0 avoid significanl, unmitigated environmental impacts thaI would otherwise require the preparation of an EIR for Ihe Colorado Pacific project, the Coronas request mal the above requested miligation measure be incorporated in the MND and the Condirions of Approval for Ihis Projccl, Otherwise, the maner should be continued to allow for consideration and miligalion of the Projecl's impacts to the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel and the resulting impacts to the Coronas. Tbis is only fair, considering thai me Coronas only became aware of Ihis maner recently due the C<;>unt)l' s failure to provide adequate notice, Your efforts toward incorporating Ihe recommended mirigation in any Project approval are greally appreciated, We thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, ;/:~.~ DWS/jaa Enclosures 4222;..1.2 cc: Stephen Corona (w/encls,) Katherine Lind, Deputy County Counsel (via messenger) (w/encls.) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 ;: < " 2 " 11 0 u ~ < z 12 ~ o.w .J' .J~ 13 -. "'< <0 .Jz ,- 14 0 .\.&~ u..~ 15 u.. Ul- 0; <" "'~ 16 .J. <: > . 17 3 ;; < 3 0 18 w . :; 3 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 " Board of Supervisors Meeting September 25, 2001 . Item 13.1 Ron Goldman Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ron Goldman of Planning Staff. This is a change of zone in the tract map in the Temecula area, specifically located on the south side of Highway 79. It was continued from last month to discuss some issues with the adjacent property owner. The project proposes the subdivision of 46 acres into 120 lots. What's happened since the last hearing is that the map has been redesigned. Admitted No. 2 was submitted and the area in question has been redesigned in this area here and it resulted in a net reduction of two lots and with that we think all of the issues have been solved and we're prepared to recommend adoption of mitigated negative declaration, approval of the tract map and approval of the change of zone. Thank you. Supervisor Venable Okay any questions Supervisor, or you want to open for public hearing or what. Supervisor Buster Just a question about the two lot reduction. The developer is absorbing that. No County flood control involvement, or cost involvement? Ron Goldman That's my understanding, yes. 1 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , 0 10 ~ < - 2 - II 0 u " < , 12 ~ ~. ~. ~~ 13 ~< <0 ", Q 14 , ~ ~d . , ~- ~. 15 w- Q~ <- =~ 16 ~~ <: > ~ 17 3 ~ < 3 Q 18 . ~ . 3 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Venable Okay we'll open for public hearing. We have two speakers, the first will be Sam AIRadeff and following Sam will be Michelle Staples. Sam Alhadeff Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. We represent Colorado Pacific, the developer of this particular project. At the hearing on August 14 there was a request by the Corona family for a redesign ot this particular map to provide for some drainage. They raised some other questions in a letter of August 13 and would be my sincere desire that as a result of the revision of the map to accommodate their request for a certain drainage pattern and condition that they would respectfully withdraw their letter of August 13 concerning the issues that they had raised. Supervisor Buster you are correct, there is no additional cost to the County. This developer met on a number of occasions with staff at the County. I wish to thank Staff of the County met with the Corona family and their counsel and is agreeable to absorbing all of the costs. The only request we would have if, as and when. If, as and when this project is ever built that we would be, if there was an opportunity to be reimbursed through a financing mechanism, that's all we would request. If, as and when, but we're certainly, that's our modest request. I am happy to answer any questions. We think we've addressed all of the issues that were raised in the letter. Unfortunately, Ms. Staples sent a letter dated today to the Board. We did not get a copy, but the copy that was handed to me by Mr. Johnson it appears that we have done the revised lot 2 C:\Data\ClientS\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 :: 4 c' .' 6 ., , B 9 z 0 10 ~ < " 0 . " lJ. 0 0 " < z 1" ~ <. ... "'. "'~ 13 Ii: <0 ~z , . 14 Q ~ 'de: , z ... 1" ... Ill. " Q~ <" "'~ 16 "'" <~ . > " 17 ~ Jii < ~ Q 1B . " :; ~ 19 < 20 21 2" .. 23 24 2" ,} 26 27 2B configuration they requested and that's the revised map that Ron referred to. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Supervisor Venable I don't see any Sam so. I'll call you back, thank you very much. Michele. Michele Stap1e~ Good afternoon, Michele Staples representing the Coronas. We submitted two comment letters, so I'll keep my comments brief. Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the program, the project. We have put the interceptor channel in a road now, so It has minimum impact on this project. However, today I also requested, as I did in our last letter, that there will also be a condition of approval requiring that that area be kept free from obstruction and that an easement be conveyed to the flood control district for that facility. The first part of that request is vitally important. What happened with another of these interceptor channel alignments in the vicinity of the south of Butterfield Stage Road and on the southwest corner, was that a tentative map was approved for a project that did not show any obstruction, any lot obstructing the channel alignment. We submitted a letter supporting that project as proposed. However, it was later changed without notice to my client and buildings were constructed that precluded that alignment. We need to have a condition on this project that prevents that from happening again. I would request that the Board in approving this project also approve a condition that that area be kept free from obstruction. 3 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 " < " ~ " 11 0 u " < z 12 ~ ... "'" "'~ 13 -" "'< <0 -'z ,- 14 0 \d d , z ~- 15 ~" "'- o~ <" '"~ 16 "'" <~ > " 17 , . < , '0 18 . " Si , 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Venable Okay thank you Michelle. MiChelle Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Uh... ??? Ms. Staples can you come back to the microphone, I have a question for you. In your letter you asked for much more than just the drainage easement be kept free of building and obstructions, you're revising your request to simply indicate that today? Michelle Staples Yes, that's a minimum of what we absolutely what we need. ??? Does staff a problem with that sort of condition? Staff does not. So I don't either. Michelle Staples Thank you. Supervisor Buster I don't have any problem with that. Is that tantamount to saying we're going to select that as the drainage easement. ??? No, however, Supervisor Buster So we haven't done that? ??? No we have not. 4 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 " < " ~ " 11 0 u . < z 12 ~ ~w ~. ~~ 13 ~~ <0 ~z '0 14 0 ~d ~~ ~. 15 ~- Q~ <" ~~ 16 ~~ <~ > ~ 17 " . < " 0 18 w ~ i " 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Buster Haven't selected it yet. ??? No you have not and I would not recommend that you do that. Supervisor Buster Do you have a reason to attach a condition that would if in deed this has not been selected as the drainage easement. ??? As to the originally requested the wording it was fixing this is the option. But she's revised the request now to simply ask that this easement be kept free of building an obstructions, and that does not fix the easement. You may put this channel wherever you like. Supervisor Buster All right, in the alternative is it possible to have better notification procedures so if there is some proposal that does obstruct this area that there is notice to at least the neighbors. I mean, Corona her clients are just across the street, you know are across 79, so is that another possible way to handle this rather than a cumbersome method of. ??? Well the problem is that notice isn't always required for things like building permits. So my concern is that someone could actually build in there without this requirement and we would never be notified. ??? But it doesn't foreclose any option in a way that you've outlined Ms. Staples' request. 5 C:\Data\Clienta\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 " < " ~ " 11 0 u " < z 12 ~ . ~. 0-1' 0-10 13 " ci~ <0 o-Iz ,- 14 0 \d i...~ ~, 15 "'- 0;:; <" o:~ 16 0-1" <~ > " 17 , ;; < , 0 18 . " :; , 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Venable No it does not, not as it has been narrowed today. ??? Thank you Michele. Michele Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Next Sam. Sam Alhadeff Maybe it will help the Board, given the narrow construction I do want to thank Ms. Staples for her construction of this easement that the only thing we are going to build there is a road and I don't believe that's an obstruction, so we don't have a problem. Supervisor Venable Okay, does anyone else from the public like to speak on this item. If not we'll close the public hearing. Supervisor Buster Supervisor Buster I'll move approval with that additional condition, I guess it is. Supervisor Venable Please vote. That motion is carried 5-0. Takes us to item 13.2. 6 C:\oata\ClientS\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 , - 5 6 7 8 9 % 0 10 ~ < '" ~ '" l.l 0 u ~ < % 12 0 ... -' ... 13 01 <: -' , ~ 14 " l .u, u, " 15 III " <: '" 16 -' <: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting September 25, 2001 - Item 13.1 Ron Goldman Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ron Goldman of Planning Staff. This is a change of zone in the tract map in the Temecula area, specifically located on the south side of Highway 79. It was continued from last month to discuss some issues with the adjacent property owner. The project proposes the subdivision of 46 acres into 120 lots, What's happened since the last hearing is that the map has been redesigned. Admitted No. 2 was submitted and the area in question has been redesigned in this area here and it resulted in a net reduction of two lots and with that we think all of the issues have been solved and we're prepared to recommend adoption of mitigated negative declaration, approval of the tract map and approval of the change of zone. Thank you. Supervisor Venable Okay any questions Supervisor, or you want to open for public hearing or what. Supervisor Buster Just a question about the two lot reduction. The developer is absorbing that. No County flood control involvement, or cost involvement? Ron Goldman That's my understanding, yes. 1 C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 0 10 . < " ~ " 11 0 u ~ < . J.2 5 ~w ~. ~~ 13 ~< <0 ~. '3 14 " .d ~~ 15 ~. ~- Q~ <" x~ 16 ~~ <~ . > ~ 17 ~ ~ < ~ Q 18 ~ ~ i ~ 19 < 20 :~1 22 23 24 25 :!6 27 28 Supervisor Venable Okay we'll open for public hearing. We have two speakers, the first will be Sam Alaadeff and following Sam will be Michelle Staples, Sam Alhadeff Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. We represent Colorado Pacific, the developer of this particular project. At the hearing on August 14 there was a request by the Corona family for a redesign of this particular map to provide for some drainage. They raised some other questions in a letter of August 13 and would be my sincere desire that as a result of the revision of the map to accommodate their request for a certain drainage pattern and condition that they would respectfully withdraw their letter of August 13 concerning the issues that they had raised. Supervisor Buster you are correct, there is no additional cost to the County. This developer met on a number of occasions with staff at the County. I wish to thank Staff of the County met with the Corona family and their counsel and is agreeable to absorbing all of the costs. The only request we would have if, as and when. If, as and when this project is ever built that we would be, if there was an opportunity to be reimbursed through a financing mechanism, that's all we would request. If, as and when, but we're certainly, that's our modest request. I am happy to answer any questions. We think we've addressed all of the issues that were raised in the letter. Unfortunately, Ms. Staples sent a letter dated today to the Board. We did not get a copy, but the copy that was handed to me by Mr. Johnson it appears that we have done the revised lot 2 C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 ~ 0 10 " ~ ~ " 11 0 u " < ~ 12 5 ~. ~. ~~ 13 '. ~< <0 ~3 14 0 ~ Idd ~~ ~. 15 ~- Q~ <" ~~ 16 ~~ <~ > ~ 17 ~ = < ~ 0 18 . ~ i ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 configuration they requested and that's the revised map that Ron referred to. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Supervisor Venable I don't see any Sam so. I'll call you back, thank you very much, Michele. Michele Staple~ Good afternoon, Michele Staples representing the Coronas. We submitted two comment letters, so I'll keep my comments brief. Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the program, the project, We have put the interceptor channel in a road now, so lt has mtnimum impact on this project. However, today I also requested, as I did in our last letter, that there will also be a condition of approval requiring that that area be kept free from obstruction and that an easement be conveyed to the flood control district for that facility. The first part of that request is vitally important. What happened with another of these interceptor channel alignments in the vicinity of the south of Butterfield Stage Road and on the southwest corner, was that a tentative map was approved for a project that did not show any obstruction, any lot obstructing the channel alignment. We submitted a letter supporting that project as proposed. However, it was later changed without notice to my client and buildings were constructed that precluded that alignment. We need to have a condition on this project that prevents that from happening again. I would request that th~ Board in approving this project also approve a condition that that area be kept free from obstruction. 3 C:\Oata\Clients\BOARO OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 (COlorado Pacific) .doc 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 ~ < " ~ " l.l 0 u ~ < z 12 S o.~ ,.,- ,.,~ 13 ci~. "'0 -'z 0 14 ~ ,d ..~ ..- IS OJ" ,,~ "'" "'~ 16 ,.,~ <: > ~ 17 ~ ;; < ~ 0 18 ~ ~ . ~ 19 < ~:o 21 22 23 24 ~:5 26 2:7 28 Supervisor Venable Okay thank you Michelle. Miehel~e Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Uh.. 111 Ms. Staples can you come back to the microphone, I have a question for you. In your letter you asked for much more than just the drainage easement be kept free of building and obstructions, you're revising your request to simply indicate that today? Michelle Staples Yes, that's a.minimum of what we absolutely what we need. 117 Does staff a problem with that sort of condition? Staff does not. So I don't either. Michelle Staples Thank you. Supervisor Buster I don't have any problem with that. Is that tantamount to saying we're going to select that as the drainage easement. 11? NO, however, Supervisor Buster So we haven't done that? ??? No we have not. 4 C:\Data\Clients\BOARO OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 ~ < " 2 " 11 0 u " < z 12 0 ~ ... ..l" ..l~ 13 ci~ <0 ->z ';; 14 " ,d ."" ~ 15 ... "'- "'~ <" "'~ 16 ..l. <~ . > . 17 " " < " 0 18 . . i " 19 < ~~O 21 22 23 24 :~5 26 ~~7 28 1 Supervisor Buster 2 Haven't selected it yet. 3 _ 7?? No you have not and I would not recommend that you do that. Supervisor Buster Do you have a reason to attach a condition that would if in deed this has not been selected as the drainage easement. ?11 As to the originally requested the wording it was fixing this is the option. But she's revised the request now to simply ask that this easement be kept free of building an obstructions, and that does not fix the easement. You may put this channel wherever you like. Supervisor Buster All right, in the alternative is it possible to have better notification procedures so if there is some proposal that does obstruct this area that there is notice to at least the neighbors. I mean, Corona her clients are just across the street, you know are across 79, so is that another possible way to handle this rather than a cumbersome method of. 111 Well the problem is that notice isn't always required for things like building permits. So my concern is that someone could actually build in there without this requirement and we would never be notified. 111 But it doesn't foreclose any option in a way that you've outlined Ms. Staples' request. 5 c:\nata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , 0 ),0 " < " ~ " :ll 0 u " < , Jl2 ~ ..- .... ...0 ~~3 " ci~ <0 ..., ,- 14 0 ~ ,d I u. ~ ~. 15 "'- ,,~ <" "'~ 16 ...~ <~ . ~ ~ 1.7 ~ ;; < ~ 0 18 w ~ 'i ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~!6 27 28 Supervisor Venable No it does not, not as it has been narrowed today. ??1 Thank you Michele. Michele Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Next Sam, Sam Alhadeff Maybe it will help the Board, given the narrow construction I do want to thank Ms. Staples for her construction of this easement that the only thing we are going to build there is a road and I don't believe that's an obstruction, so we don't have a problem. Supervisor Venable Okay, does anyone else from the public like to speak on this item. If not we'll close the public hearing. Supervisor Buster Supervisor Buster I'll move approval with that additional condition, I guess it is. Supervisor Venable Please vote. That motion is carried 5-0. Takes us to item 13.2. 6 C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc .. .,-" ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED ltA8!lITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699,7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego and Temecula. California November 29, 200 I HA HAND DELIVERY SAMua C. AlHAllEFF SAUiADEFF@AslAw1.COM 9103.0001 Ms, Debbie Ubnoske Planning Director City ofTemecula P.O, Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Planning Application No. 01-0109 - General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 01-0102 - Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 Planning Application No. 01-0117 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No.4 (collectively, "Action") Dear Ms, Ubnoske: We want to thank you and your staff for working with us in the above-referenced applications, We appreciate the professional cooperation, patience and courtesy extended by every staff member, specifically Matthew Harris and Ron Parks in working through certain di fficuit issues. Last night I made reference to certain letters which I asked to be included within the record for the proceedings, First, I read from a letter dated February 17, 2000 from the County of Riverside to the Corona Ranch. A.copy of that letter is attached. Please include this letter to bt: incorporated in the record, Seco~d, I mentioned a series of letters that were referenced in the hearings that were held related to the Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 in Planning Applications as follows: P A99-0284 (Development Plan) PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431) P A99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment); and P A99-0283 (Development Agreement) There were a series of letters that I asked to be incorporated in the record last night from those particular planning actions and the proceedings that took place. The letters that I referenced were as follows: C:~Data\ClientslNewland\UBNOSKE LTR ((,29.()I.doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Ms. Debbie Ubnoske November 29, 2001 Page 2 1. November 3, 1999 letter from Newland Communities to Carol K. Donahoe; 2. November I, 1999 letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson; 3. November 4, 1999 letter from Paul Thompson of Albert A. Webb & Associates assessment engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson; 4. November 4, 1999 letter from Richard T. Robotta of the Keith Companies to Dean Meyer; and 5. A compilation of reports and analyzes that were submitted to Carol Donahoe dated October 26,1999. The above-referenced documents were the ones that I referred to and asked me made a part of the official record of these proceedings. For your convenience, I have attached the above- referenced letters with the exception of item no. 5, which was listed as attachment number 7 to the November 9, 1999 staff report. Sincerely, SL~~Of Alhadeff and Solar, LLP SCA:dll Enclosures MEMBER OF COMMERCIAl LAW AFFIUATES.lNDEPENDENrBUSlNESSAND l..mGA.OON LAw FIRMS IN PRINCIPAL CiTJES WORlDWIDE" . a~/24/2a"'''' 16: "'2 87763'355- FtS-2<l-IJO THU 02:5<\ PM RIV q. .<ECIff1V1: 01-1-11,1:. '.' RR BROWN OJ >;7!-z.- <'.'-;;; :;: >r;: PAGEj77!!~')')':: 1-/IlI tiU. I {i:"CJIO'qiOO'Vb':JJ<m. -r-t'l W COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE . TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 'fiansportation Department Dnfd Eo Bamh~ft . Dir<r:tor t1IT-.sf"'WIl.... Fe'btlJ3ry 17, 2000 CERTIFIeD HAIL #p 310 675 430 Cerona Ranch 33:320 State Highway 79 Temecula. CA 92592 Att'antion: Steve Corona' RE: Butterfield East Intercepwr Storm Drain De:lr Mr. Corona: J am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meeting we had ~t the . F10lJd Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various altematives we studied for the Butterfield East Interceptor ;5lorm Drain Facility. I . appreciated the opportunity.to hear your concerns, and as a result, J gained a better understanding of the history surrounding this project and lhe various alternatives. Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. . au' are well aware. the Butter1ield Interc:eptorwas included as,an Assessment . ~ict No. 159tacllil:v, to be located atihe eastern Assessment IStrict boundary, to i~cept the tributalY dralnaqe tlows arid provide 1Iood protection ~~ Buttar1ield Sta..,g,e . ~~. State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The onglOal AD 159 concept was to construct an open cnanne/ atthe eastem AU l~S boundary. Because you own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the'AD boundary, you requested we study other altematives. You are ctirrently farming all of your property and.,advised the Interceptor would'dis~pt your farming operation. With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. I,.et me summarize the two other options we discussed, whIch seemed potentially feasible: AltematJve No. 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the chanlnel and Constructing a box under your property. You expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could conlinue your farming operations uninterrupted, and 2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The,intent was to provide four feet of rover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top of the, futility. During our meeting. Flood Control District representatives questioned the. feasibility of this option. Firsl of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be' oroperly collected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it J.Ot\O LC'mOd S(recc. Sdl flo~r .. R~nidc:.. Clt.'ocnl.1. Sl!SOl .. (909) ?SS-61.l0 P.O. 8'.:1 1090" R.rvC'nUk. C.llJ'l,)l11i:.1 92502.1090 .. FAX (909) 9H-611l ~212a/2~~~ 1~:~2 ~776)1,)':: I-I'.lh~4-UU THU lJ~::,:, rn KI'II.\) .l.t\:UII VI:. Urr 11:1:. f'P. ePIJ~Jtl CIJ ,,;:1 ;:.:1;.",.. J"HA (ft). 1 :-i';;",.~,~-;_._' PAGE. "'.J. r. U.J Mr. Steve Corona Februar'l17.2000 Page 2 underground makes the slope of the box culvert too flat and creates ongoing maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical. The other option we discussed was Altemative No.5, a dual system with an open c:hanne' located along your easterly propertybo1JrJdary to intercept a majority of the' drainage from the eas~ along with a smaller underground system at the eastem AD t'oundary to called the smaller flows from the north and east, above De Portola Road and east to Calle Contento. You expressed your preference for this alternative. Under Alternative No.5, aIr of your property wifl be flood protected. The property you own outside the AD boundary would benefit under this alternative and would therefore b,;? required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. You discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your property until yourfarmiog operation develops into some. other Use. This would require some other party to advance your costs. While I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs is to dedicate the right-of-way needed to coiJstruct the facility. Other than that. I have not been able to come up with any other cost.saving solutions. !!iou a j.Jrt:' e outsi willin to recommend Altemative No.5. concurrence. - ~ Your cooperation is needed to make the Interceptor a reality. I lexlk forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative manner. Please feel free to contact me if you nave any questions or require any additional information. . Sincerely. ~~d~ George A. Johnson Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: SUpervisor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Carstens Dave B;:unhart Kelley Donovan Frank Peairs ~Gii!I NEWl AND COMMUNITIES ~ , ! j \\"L.\o'\O C.\LlrnR~L\ _..)9:1 Yna RoaJ '::"jje:!53 I "cula. n 9~391.4",)~ 9.1~.tj9..\.;l512 ro. 9119.,,~q':Jfi12 ,. .ie((tn paseocldsol.com r:,..,aS<oJ'I'OI.com f, L L I. November 3,1999 , Carol K. Donohoe, AICP Associate Planner CITY OF TEMECULA Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92590 Subject: Paseo del Sol- Planning ApplicatIon: PA99-0284 (Development Plan), PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), PA99-D285 (Specific Plan Amendment) and PA99-0283 (Development Agreement) Dear Carol: A~ a foIlow up to the information forwarded to you.on October 26, 1999 and subsequent meetings ,with City Staff and City Attorney, we hereby submit the foIlowing correspondence in response to the.appeal filed by Corona Ranch: 1. Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson dated November 1, 1999 stating our positions. i) The develoP!TIent of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and Specific Plan No.7 will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. ii) Newlandhasprovided evidence of compliance with all drainage and flood control conditions. iii) There is no need to conduct any further environmental review or prepare any subsequent reports. 2. Letter from Paul Th6mpson of Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment Engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson dated November 1, 1999. > i) This letter indicates there is an authorized "$2.2 million for design and construction of the Interceptor Channel or a substitute facility" through AD 159. ii) In addition there is authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property. ~.~ Carol Donohoe Nov~mber 3, 1999 Page two 3. Letter from Richard T. Robotta of The Keith Companies dated October 29, 1999 which summarizes the technical history of Specific Plan 219 (Vail Meadows) and EIR 235 as it relates to drainage issues. In Summary: 1. The Paseo del Sol project has met all the conditions placed on the project throughout the entitlement process and more specifically as it relates to drainage. . . 2. The Paseo del Sol project has constructed,anipterim detention basin and has been conditioned that the basin or equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed. 3. There exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds through AD 159 for the design and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor ChanneL 4. Newland Communities supports the use of authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property. 5. There is no evidep.ce to support the appeal of the pending applications nor need for any new:Conditions or the preparation of further environmental documentation. We thank the City Staff for their efforts and time spent on these matters. We are respectfully requesting that this correspondence, along with the compilation of reports and analyses as submitted to you under cover letter dated October 26, 1999, be filed with the City Oerk and made a part of the official record of the City Council relating to the subject planning applications and appeaL - . Very truly yours, NEWLAND COMMUNmES, LLC -~~ -- Dean R. Meyer Director of Engineering & Development cc: Jim DeIhamer ( f'. r': i, L r i. i., .. ..-, HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP ArrORNEYSAT LAw DEA..... DUifN-RANKIN . CHARLES:S. EXON WILLIAM E. HALLE .ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWllT JOHN D. HUDSON 19900 MAcARTIlUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1050 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500' (949) 798-0511 (FAX) EMAIl.:counsd@hewiu:mcguire.com MARK R. McGUIRE DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F_ PAlCH1KOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER WRITER'S DIRECT DiAl, (949) 79..0734 EMAll: doneil@hewiu:mcboWre.com November I, 1999 < Peter M. Thorson City Attorney City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application PA99-0284 (Development Plan), PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), Planning Application No. P A99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment) and Planning Apolication No. PA99-0823 (Develooment Agreement) Dear Peter: Our law firm repre~ents Newland Communities, the developer of the Paseo del Sol Master Planned Community. Newland has received notice that the owners of the Corona Ranch have appealed some or all of the applications referenced in this letter. The stated grounds for the appeal are: (i) "the applicant has failed to come into compliance with the development criteria and conditions placed on the project"; (Ii) "the project itselfis out of compliance with conditions of its approval"; and (iii) " . " the California Environmental Quality Act requires preparation of a subsequent EIR for a project, and precludes reliance on an addendum, when substantial changes occur to the circumstances under which a project is to be undertaken, or new information shows that project impacts will be substantially more severe." As they have in the past with prior Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Amendments, the Coronas contend that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road has effectively blocked drainage through this area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to upstream properties than was previously identified in the EIR for (Paloma) Paseo del Sol. Furthermore, they point out, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility ("Butterfield Interceptor Channel") to mitigate this problem has not yet been constructed. However, even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correcl, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a Supplemental ElR ("SEIR") should be prepared in connection with the pending planning applications. This is 11.01-99 10019-00002 - S'\152\CORR\9'lIOOOO8.LTR.wpd j' r" , ! i. L r L f" [ L [: ,. L I' ~ .. Peter M. Thorson November I, 1999 Page 2 because the development of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and the Specific Plan No. 7 Development Plan will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paseo del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.7 and related development applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a SEIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus or relationship to the pending planning applications and drainage issues on Corona Ranch. AD 159 has provided many public improvements of regional significance in the South Temecula area. Thus, the construction of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South in 1993 was not intended to benefit solely one property owner, but rather to'improve the overall traffic circulation of the region to the benefit of all people living in this end of town. The Corona Ranch is included within AD 159 and along with Paseo del Sol and otherpropei,tfes,have been assessed to pay for these regional public improvements. , . ,. Butterfield Stage Road, which is already completed, and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility, which has not yet been constructed, are improvements under the control of the County of Riverside and/or Assessment District No. 159, not Newland Communities. EIR No. 241 was certified by Ihe Riverside County Board of Supervisor when AD 159 was formed in 1988. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concemsshould be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paseo del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert them into Temecula Creek. Newland has been working diligently with both AD 159 and the County of Riverside for over three years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Inlerceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor be,cause they must agree on its location and the cost AD 159 will pay for Iheir land. Newland will continue to cooperate with the County and the Coronas to insure this flood control channel is constructed. ~ In the meantime, in satisfaction of the development conditions required by both Riverside County Flood Control and the City ofTemecula's Public Works Department, Newland' has constructed an approximately twenty acre interim detention basin at the northwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. South. This basin was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Flood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. Further, the basin fully protects the Paseo del Sol community during rare storm events in which water may enter from areas to the east. To give you a sense of the rarity of the storm event that might cause water to enter Ihe basin, you should know that during El Nino of recent years this twenty acre facility remained dry. 1I"1I-99 10019-??oo2 . S~152\CORR\99100008.L TR.wpd Peter M. Thorson November I, 1999 Page 3 .on February 2, 1998, the Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 ("VTM 24812") and, based upon staff analysis, found the project to be in conformity with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report. The l:Ontinued presence of the detention basin was assured in the conditions of approval for VTM 24182 to remain in place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows. In general, CEQA limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed in prior environmental documentation. The . . intent ofCEQA is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a result of: (a) substantial changes in the project which have aD. increased negative impact on the environment; (h) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; or (c) new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse imPll.ct>,yhich cannot be mitigated. . The CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required wlless one of these specified triggering events occur. A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language:- An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan Associatio1J.Y. LOEg.Beach Redevelopm.ent Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065). CEQASection 21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of 11-01-99 10019-??oo2 - s:\! S2\CORR\991 00008.L TR.wpd Peter M. Thorson November I, 1999 P2ge 4 insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights IF') (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR. (Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9211.) rfimpacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project ErR, a further ErR is not required (Bowman). A city may not, therefore, require a further EJR unless it finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the" rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt will be de,~ided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights). A city may prepare an addendum to a prior ErR to document its decision that a subsequent EIR is not required. CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)( e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a'subsequent or supplemental EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an ErR addendum to evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a mechanism for determining whether a further ErR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide that a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a supplementalEIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included in :m addendum to an EIR, the city's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. Newland has provided you with legally supportable evidence of compliance with all drainage and flood control conditions. The appellants have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of the project approval, any significant changed circumstances, or new info)rmation which was not considered in the original project EIR as further reviewed in prior and the current Addendum. Finally, there is absolutely no connection between the planning 11~1.99 IOOI9~OOO2 'S:\~5Z\CORR\<)<)IOOOO8.L TR.wpd ," ~ r r--~ J ~ -, J . P,eter M. Thorson November 1, 1999 Page 5 applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues impacting the Corona Ranch. Therefore, we submit there is no need in the case of the pending planning applications to consider adding new conditions or conduct further environmental documentation. DDO/mer cc: James M. Delhamer Mayor and Members ofthe City Council 11-01-99 10019-00002 -S:\IS2ICORR\99100008.L TR.wpd Very truly yours, ~<!)~ Dennis D. O'Neil fun. ~ . . . 1 r I n G U ["' .. o I ~ U ALBERT A. "'EBB A"S"!;oCIATES ENCINI:DW/C CONSIlLTM"TS [] Corpar2la He>dlj1lllnCn 37&8 McCr.l)'5llllel Riv=idc. CA 9ZS06 (909)686-1070 fa (909)1S8-12S6 [] Rq:ianaI OlrlC<: 21481 RaadJoClllif.Rooa.Sl8.I06 TtmCtUb, CA ru90 (llO?)694-nSD fax (9091 699-ID32 W,Q. 89-4308 File No. 3851.08 NIlVembt:T4,1999 Mr. Shawn Nelson City Manager City ofTemeculn 43200 BIl~inl'SS Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 . RE: '" ~""..m"nr District No. 159 - Butterfield East Intereeptor ChllIlnel Dear Mr, Nelson: T am the Assessment DivisiOn Manager with Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment Engineers for Assessment District No. 159 (A. D. 159''). I am providing the fc.lIowing information to assist the City ofTcmecula. in undetstatuiing the background of W.e Butterfield East Interceptor Cluumel (the ~1nterceptOr ChAnnel") and to help to identify potential fuIvHng for its construction. A. D. IS9 was originally fonned in 1988 to fund certain regional public [J ttnprovemenrs and other infrasuucrure within the Di~tric[ Boundaries. In 1991, a S\llpplementa1 district was fonned to increase the funds available for the cost of the I' I . otiginal A. D. 159 improVctnN1~. and to add new District improv,.",.-. such as the--- L Interceptor ChAnn,,1 ApPIOximatcly $2.2 million was specifically identified by 1he supplemr:ntal district lIS necessary for the de:.;gn and construction of the Inten::cptor ChAnnAl This $2.2 million was assessed to four of tIw property owners within the D:i$trict and spread to these 0VIllC%'S based on benefit received lltld allllCa1ed on acreage. Cl:msequemly, Paseo del Sol received about 82% of the "~~'~m....t wi1h the remllining three owners n:cciving about 18%. \. \~"~NQ:::D ..,..('."i;tl~l;u:rJ~IT...\R:"'GO' ~QJ~9'~","Ut J crvu- El'~OlHEEIUNO -PlANNING - ASSESSMarr, sPEaAL TAX CONSUI.TING - W^TER RESOUlI.CES ENGlNEaUNa At this date, there is authorized but' unissued bond capacity on the Pasco del Sol property totaling approximately $4.9 million. Under Assessment District law, authorized bonds can only be released by lhe agency administering the District and any actual assessment debt issued agWnst a property remains an obligation of the property Until paid. Further, an Asses!lIILent District may build improvements outside Or its bllund<lries if those improvements are to the benefit ofpropmies within the District. In tin going meelings with River$ide County officials, Newland .Communities indicated that they would support lISing a portion of me authorized but unissued bond capacity on its property to provide funds in excess of the authorized $2.1 million for the dtlllign and COJ1lllnlction of the Interceptor Channel or a :lUbstitule facility such as a detention basin. I trust this information has been helpful to you and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Pleas~freeto call meat (909) 781.619u. Sin=cly, ALBERT A. WEBB. ASSOCIATES ..~~ Paul Thompson PTJjs MSSESSMl1NnAssEll..~MENT_OAT"'IIUVCO\.W'S\AOIm.F.tTf.R."'_~ ..... I' I I f i i i I i L , I.. r . . The Keith Companies -n<:.c November 4, 1999 1VIr. Dean Meyer NEWLAND COMMUNITIES 27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253 Temecula CA 92591 Re: Paseo del Sol: Appeal of P.A. 99-0283, 99-0284, 99-0285, 99-0286 Butterfield Stage Road at Highway 79 Drainage Issues Dear Mr. Meyer: The Keith Companies has been informed that the aforementioned planning applications for the commercial development within Pas~o del Sol near HighWay 79 and Margarita Road have been appealed by the Corona Ranch owners. Further, it is our understanding that the appeal is based on issues involving compliance with development criteria and conditions as they relate to flooding concerns at the northeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 approximately 1 mile to the east upstream of the referenced applications. It is the intent of this correspondence to define the development criteria and conditions as they relate to drainage for Paseo del Sol (formerly Vail Meadows) by relating the history of the drainage approvals and thereby show compliance with said development criteria and conditions. In 1988, the Engineer of Work for Vail Meadows, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District engaged in oorrespondence dated April 6, 1988; May 16,1988; and May 26,1988 which discuss and developed the master plan of drainage for the Vail Meadows project. As a part of the approved master plan of drainage a large offsite basin immediately to the east (approx. 1190 acres) was identified as a part of the Vail Meadows approval (refer to attachment 1, 2 and 3). The offsite basin's drainage was mitigated by the construction of twin 120-inch culverts, which exist today in Butterfield Stage Road and easterly in DePortola Road. Also in 1988, Assessment District 159 ,which consbucted many substantial regional facilities in the south T emecula area, was approved and its E.I.R. No. 241 was certified. This E.I.R. and the associated A.D. 159 dounnents identified a large basin (approx.2239 acres) further to the east which would require the construction of a channel. This channel known as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel diverts flows upstream of Butterfield Stage Road to the south towards Temecula Creek. As you know, AD. 159 has provided many public improvements of regional significance in the south T emeu.lla area including Butterfield Stage Road, Highway 79 and T emecula Creek. However, the Inland Empire Division 22690 Cactus Avenue. Suite 300 Moreno Valley California 92553.9024 t 909.653.0234 f: 909.653.5308 www.keilhco.com . Page 2 -"ITKC ) construction of the Butterfield interceptor channel Was never accomplished by the AD. In 1H96, when Newland Communities purchased the Paseo del sol project, The Keith - Companies discovered that the Butterfield interceptor channel had not been constructed. With Newland wanting to move forward with the development of Paseo del Sol and evidence that the construction of the interceptor channel improvements were subject to delay, interim flood mitigation altematives were identified and approved on the Newland pmperty to protect it and potentially other downstream properties from flooding. Ultimately an interim detention facility was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Rood Control and City of T emecula review and approval. (see at1achments 4, 5, 6, and 7). On February 2, 1998 the City of Temecula Planning Commission approvEid revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 (VTM 24182) and confinned the continued pp3sence ofthe interim detention facility with Condition 27 stating that.... the basin or an equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed..: (see attachment 8). In condusion, 'and in our opinion evidenced by the aforementioned approvals, Newland is in OJmpliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, . THlE KEITH COMPANIES,INC. 7.~~$ -4.. RIGhard T. Robotta, P.E. President-Inland Empire Division . RTR:ml Enclosures -. cc: Mr. James Delhamer \lKBT}103011NET_0\911.o1~J.doc , , I I , I , ---. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEilJENT AGENCY ./ . ~,,'f OF RIVE"l.,r. -",/ ." o~""':---:" 0 {' ..,' .v.." ~ ". ,~. ,,,#1 ,.,. !:( //. \~ '~\~.'- ': r ," ". fti.... " ~I. ~ L~ ~. .,'0+':"011 ~r;.. . '~""'lANOlA"~" ---..;.c.;...:..--- . December 11, 200.1 Transportation Department DOI"itt E. Bamhan Dire(:tor of Transportation Mr. William G. Hughes, Director City of Temecula Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 RE: Butterfield Interceptor Channel, Assessment District No. 159 Dear Bill: ,:ler your request, I am sending you this letter to briefly summarize the on90in9 discussions, . between the County and the property owners affected by the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. For almost two years now, the County has been meeting with Newland Communities, the Corona Family, and Leonard Savala in an effort to come to an agreement on a preferred alternative for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Assessment District No. 159 contemplated placing the Interceptor at the easterly boundary of AD No: 159, which would. include the Savala property and only 20 acres of the Cororia's land.. The Corona Family and Mr. Savala indicated the' proposed AD No. 159 alignment was not. acceptable to them. Additional alignments were suggested by'the property owners and have subsequently been studied by the Riverside County Flood Control District. As a result of the study effort, it appears the property owners unofficially support an alternative' to place the . ' Interceptor along the east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately, to date we have not J . been able to develop a financing mechanism to construct the suggested Interceptor. '. If you are interested, we can forward you a copy of the Flood Control Report summarizing the alternatives studied. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 'v/:" a 1~JOh n Deputy Direct of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Sam Alhadeff, Newland Communities Michele Staples Steve Corona Leonard Savala Dusty Williams, Flood Control District Rhonda King, Executive Office r'{J.47~ ~~Um'"t"'" J--D. t8,": U :;~ '=~ ~ ~ '~~ fJ V ;,.'.;!,; \.1:, ~ l..:.. 1....:.); J 9 4080 Lt:mon StreeL.8th Floor. Riverside. California 92501 . (909) 953-6740 P.O. Bo.t 1090 . Riverside. California 92502.1090' FAX (909) 955.6711 Dee 21 01 03:26p SAVALR p.2 . Fax. :714-ESI-Q247 Dee 18 '01 14:48 P.01 . -...- !' 'i ....... ;; ..... , _'., ,_'. .d~ .' .~--.~:> -,"-" t: av~lit'.: ,: ::b6~STBJdil'6~.co;;:t~t... ';~E~EoR~i:."s::NGINEERING. . .~~ .i-".. . . ~ 1'- J .... '! .:. " ,".' ".:. .... .~ < ~" ,': :.',;" .. ~. .:. ... .;>.. ..,;; .', .;.- 'j J: :;. "..'.' -:~ " ::~.. !'-'''' ". ,. .'~ ",, ..,' ., .., ";" ., 4': '.-~ . '-- '.' , ~~ ~ ,':' . ". .~~~. f~ '. . ~. ...... ::..... : ;::F';' ....... : >-~::: .~, ." ~:~:..:~-i.,~ '~..' ,. i ~H.~; >, " "i -: " .. .., I'" '.' .' ~':. :. ~ . ./., ''',' . r." . . '.~. F:" .~.+:.....:::!--.:.~.~::..~.~ ,,:,.,~~'ri : .:.; I~ ;.~:"... ~:~ ~~ ~~'~~~r:~ .. ..... 'J r:lrr~l~ffi:..'ii?' I:"{ t>l"~ i, f"~'"Th '" ~ ~)i,., -il".:i ~ ~ ~lJ,:, .\1 ..' ~.~~. : , ' ':', i:; . ," ~ -,""..", ,ell':;" '5~ ,?I?lI?nnl kllT 15'17 T'l'I1RX NO 90681 1P:l002 Dee , , ,.; ,. " ". .. ,'. ..:~ ~: ;'-, .>' ~.. .:~. 1:. ,. ,,:' M ;,.. .' ,'" .:!. :;"; " ...:, " i" .' . ~~~ .; ::-:~ -, . -'.-. ':';''-:;"' :_'~~j~" .' ! ~ I." -, .:_:,' '. :ilf~I"#lt;ihf~~~~~-i~U.ld';~;~';;~ib..the~\iite:~d.f~d',~hjS'~rOjee;to'j~ co~~~~sio,~. .If' .' '.' 3heY.;ar~''al1'6}it.cd((}::coritJnue;huildi'r>g,'a'1a:wsuit{Herhaps ,8 ClaSs . actiorir""m, have -td' :."~egjRt!~:~01~i:~>:'-,>".. " ..........'....;'...1.. : . .'. ..' .:'; ,.' ". . . ::,;", :-,' :....:~ d ":;"'.-'.,-" . .. .' 21 01 03:27p SAVRLA Fax:714-6SJ-0247 . ! ".:,-~ , / .l . :.} . '.: :.:~>. ". .'. :j .!t:~.::; ,-".....1' ..'...:......:... .~ .~j~. " ....N :::.:" ....':;.: . ; . .'~;';~ ~{: ',; ". .," . ;,:~t:~'" c :." "." .-} .: .':.~.;;~-' ,-' .. ~ : :~;,~ .~r;r . ,. . r.... . ..... .', .'.; .:.'; :~: ::,.:;' '.' '. ". ..... ". ~ "- -:' -'-~'..', .~. ";."":.:;;.::.1'3' .'.' , {J.~;'~-: : ".1:' ::~) '.~ .V , M:~. ,'~ . ~. .:.' ~;..: .:'.:;. ..~~':.:Hri'; '.E, . lt~ ..~:' \;.,; :,. ..,..... ;:i<:~L:::. '" ;..': ~l ~, - .~~.':j/. ~: .;J.~;' :'.,' ..... '.'. ~ .1' ...3, . :'v,_ .' '.... ~ '. ..:....;,,' .' ~ :;r;~..~~:.:: ~~. ..," . .... .1." ...: .~ . ... .. "~'y; ) '. .;.- .~. . ". - !;...~,t. . .' ; :': : ~:~~ ;/.:. ..... :. .~; '. _," :~ ......, ;,:' ;'~' ., ....:",. . "', ,:, . ;: .'; '..;.' = ~-' . '. .," : . ~ .... . '.~ "f. I; 't.': ., - ,.. :".-= ., . ~~ .:. - . '~ '.', ,,' ~. /. ..;. Dee 13 '01 Ja:SQ I' ! ! ...... ..; "",--' ... ~ " ...-.' ., ,,::,';:g:f';. ~ f.'; % " ~. ~':..'~.':., ~.: ~>j~ .:' ~ 'f .... ~ 7.; , .~ ::~.:. . . ':~ ',... "f.:;:~ } .;...:, . . ;. ~ ...,...::....:.;.... .,: ";"f'): ,.'.; ....j....;. '. ~.' ,t' ... J f". .r.' , . '1,. 1"-: .... .~ . .. .~'. ;:; . ',' ,. '.. .~ ',t t.:': .~ ~~:; ~:. .:.;, :; f;.(-:.. : ': ,,';: "', .' .~.~.:....:~:~~~;:i -l. . ..,....:;i:.i. :i '~: <' ~ : !';.,{ :.. f . ~ i .,' .;-.' :.i'.':' .' .~ ;"f. ....: >: ....;.,. ....- .: ~ . ,~; :~_ ,i.' .r: . .'.,. . } . '.' ~: ':..."...... :':5::. ;. . -:: \: "!-" ~.,: .:,: .. .;. ~: .. , . ....:';... ,:-'.'. .:~.-:.; .",.' -j'. "". .t' ~ , . ,:~;}..~:..;: .-, , .' .. ..,~ . : : ~ ~. . ~ .~~;. '^ ;/.. .. ::';;'~. ;; ..'...: .'~ .::- . '.:'..': .'~ ':- ~...' . ~:',,~'i~. .'.. ": . .... '.-. . .~ :~,:.'. ~4.~.~ ; "" . 'r: , '!:<. " !.1:{;f "~ - ~ .~,.~~ ~.':':~: ~ ... ~J-,": ..,........ ....;':.;~:..~.~ ,.~t;!:~:..:..>. ':;';"~f ~ 0 ;i:~}'. .';'. ::;;;.:~:..~.\ ~,;. .":-'. .Jt~ \:..:~' i"., .~~,.' '. }". :;~ .~. .:~ .i~> "r: . :"~:' ':: ~ ',.i:':-) :\'l :~.J~?:f t.!. )'''. .::; :.:.~~AA~.~~1;' ,~-~: :{--:;". ',.' . ,;. .~::~...~(,~ ~ . '>.:-' 'f'::' .~ ._;.. : .'~~ _~F~~':. " ",' ',.:. ....... ,'.' .' ".:-t -' ';;~. . ~ ::. I ,,:. .', ~ i., " . ~ .,'::;: .r' i;-;~ L,,1 ",: '~~'l( 1 .' ";'l' ::/.",'.1.- ..,", :\~:: '-. ':~ :,~;.: '.". ..., ;--::. ~~: .' ; ..... ::'<i r"" 'J'.. '1' .':' ,.. ,~. - .' ~. -: <-. :. ~....: "," :.':';l.:... :;: ", )':'1 i' 'Xi: ~: ..i <, ';' ..;.... .' ,!'., ~." .;:. .... ~', -. .. .~.:. :. .~~; ~ .. .,......... P_O? ., " . ,. p.3 , .;.~. " '-.,..' "J -:; j~ .. "j' '. ',. ::::_ ;.~ i~'.,<. ::.' , y , , :, ;r~ ,,~ '". ..-. :':' ..;. .' (~ ~.. ':~ . '," .. ... '.,.' ., ;,; 'ilirl~ti}t;~: ::' .~\),r~;~Hf ~.i- '.':t~-'fi'~'1.f;:' :". J::....'~:.:. ~ ,. ~.; '.r .f ) ',{ ;:". " ,:: , ~j :. .' .~ '. ,,; f. ;:, '-:;,i- . ~.{ :.< . .~, .:.-~: f;. .', ..~'. '.\, . ~... . 'q' , :;~: ..!. <~ ,'.. !;',,; :,:i , ',,: . :. r ::':: ~'.';t, ',' ..: ~. ''; , :; . .:;:,.~..:!!;,~;"':.~;.t[.. .......... ,........ ...^ ........, f"),...-..... " IlEWITf & O'NEIL LLP TInA M. COCHRAN DEAN DUNN-RANKIN SANDRA A. GALLE WILUAJ..t E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWITT LAWRENCEJ. HILTON AITORNEYSATLAw WRITER'S DIRECT DIAC (949) 798-<>734 EMAIL: doneil@hewiuoneal.com JOHN D. HUDSON SlEVEN B. IMHOOF DENNIS D. O'NEIL - JAYF. PALOIIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILUAML TwOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER 19900 MAcAR11IUR BoULEY ARD, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CAUFORNJA 92612 (949)798-0500 . (949)798-0511 (FAX) EMAIL: OOWlSCt@bewjttonei1.com January 3, 2002 )lIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application No. P AOl-0109 (General Plan Amendment), Planning Application No. P AOI-0 I 02 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8), Planning Application No. PAOI-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No.4) , , Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Counci,l: cj This law firm represents Newland Communities ("Newland''), the developers of the Paloma del Sol Spedfic Plan No. 219 (now known as Paseo del Sol) master planned community. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219/EIR 235 and Development Agreement was originally approved by the Riverside Coimty Board of Supervisors in September of 1988. This was prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula and inclusion of the Paloma' del Sol property within the new Temecula municipal boundaries. Since the formation of the City of Temecula, the City Council approved an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for Paloma del Solon January 8, 1993 (the "Development Agreement''). Newland has processed a number of Specific Plan No. 219 amendments and tract maps and addenda to EIR 235 consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. Newland has now pending before the City Council the above- referenced Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and request for certification of Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. Newland is in receipt of copies of the letters to the Temecula Planning Commission dated November 7, 2001 and November 28, 2001 signed by Darren W. Stroud, an attorney with the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, representing James and Mary Corona and the Corona family objecting to Newland's pending Planning Applications. I have been given copies to read and asked by Newland to respond to the Coronas' assertions as spelled out in attorney Stroud's letters. Newland also wants me to make a request that the "hold" on the 508 unit multi-family tract in Paloma del Sol, as explained later in this letter, be released. January- 3. 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\152ICORRI/JI120003.L lRdoc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 2 The Coronas' Obiections and Newland's Response The Coronas object to the approval of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and pending land use Planning Applications on a number of grounds and request the City to: 1. Enforce the conditions of Specific Plan No.219 Amendment No. I requiring construction of flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits; and 2. Enforce the mitigation measures required by EIR 235. In the absence of such enforcement, the Coronas state that a subsequent EIR ~hould be prepared prior to consideration of the pending Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and I'lanning Applications. The Coronas want the hydrology and drainage for the area evaluated in order to mitigate the alleged increase flood hazards to the Coronas' land resulting from development of the Paloma del Sol project and construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The' Coronas object to Newland's Planning Applications because, they claim, development of Paloma del Sol creates a drainage issue for their property. However, all of the hydrology studies for Newland's property tell a different ~:tory. The facts are that the drainage on Newland's property runs from the northeas(to the wuthwest and is directed into the Temecula Creek, Channel through approved and AD 1 S9 <:onstructed storm drain facilities. Newland's property does not divert any drainage onto the Coronas property, which is located upstream of Paloma del Sol to the southeast. Rather the drainage affecting the CoronaS comes from the north and east of their property. The drainage pattern is also affected by Assessment District 159's construction of Butterfield Stage Road. , , AD 159 understood these factors and provided for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to direct the flow across the Coronas' property at the eastC)fly boundary of AD 159. AD 159 built the downstream facilities, but unfortunately did not build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. So, the Coronas complain of a drainage problem that arises from water flowing from east and not from Newland's property, which is located to the northwest. It is this failure on the part of AD 159 to construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel that constitutes the basis for the Coronas' storm water drainage problems on their property and really has nothing to do with the development of Paloma del Sol. the Coronas' Contentions and Newland's Response Admittedly, there is some evidence that during heavy storms the surface waters which have historically sheet flowed from the northeast to the southwest comer of the Corona property accumulate and cause a ''ponding'' condition to exist on an area at the southwest comer of the Corona property. TIlls is the area where the Butterfield Stage Road intersects State Highway 79. The Coronas contend that the construction of the Paloma del Sol project has {:ffectively blocked drainage across their property, creating significantly increased flood hazards to their and to upstream properties. They argue, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility (the Butterfield Interceptor Channel) to mitigate this flooding on their property has not January 3, 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\152ICORRIOI120003.LTRdoc , City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 3 yet been constructed. The Coronas claim Newland is responsible for solving this problem and the City should not approve discretionary land use entitlements for Newland until the Butterfield Interceptor Charmel is built. The Coronas continue to ,refer to an April 6, 1988 letter from the, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a May 16, 1988 letter from the developers' engineers (Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates) responding to the Flood Control April 6, 1988 and a letter from the Senior Civil Engineer at the County Flood Control District dated May 26, 1988. These letters were prepared at the time the developer of the Specific Plan No. 219 planned community was seeking the original entitlement permit approvals fi:om the County of Riverside. The April6, 1988 letter from Riverside County Flood Control raises issues regarding the potential for diversion of storm water from its natural tributary drainage course. lbe developers' engineers' response letter dated May 16, 1988 acknowledges the need for' construction of flood control facilities to intercept the storm waters tributary to this area. The May 26, 1988 letter from the senior civil engineer at the Riverside County Flood Control District ' to the Riverside County Planning Departinent states the problems raised in the April 6, 1988 letter have been largely corrected by the applicant. Further, the May 26, 1988 letter points out the need for a permanent flood control facility onsite or off site before development downstream occurs. It is this May 26, 1988 Flood Control'District "comment letter" the Coronas have' ' been' relying on to support their position. However, the Assessment District 159 EIR described tlle Butterfield Interceptor Channel as the mitigation' measure needed to resolve any flooding caused by the Construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Butterfield Interceptor Charmelis the "off site" solution to handling the storm water on the Coronas' property. An interim detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Paloma del Sol. Pursuant to Condition 40 of Tentative Tract 24182, this "onsite" detention basin must remain in place until such time that the Butterfield Interceptor Charmel or some other adequate facility is built to convey off site storm flows to the Temecula Creek. The 1999 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 Some members of the City Council will recall this is not the first time the Council, the CityAttomey and the City staff have reviewed these issues raised by the Coronas. In fact, the City has considered a number of applications for modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps over the years as chronologically listed in the staff report. As they have in the past, the Coronas, through their legal counsel, resubmit the same documents and arguments each time Newland's applications for Paloma del Sol are submitted to the Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Coronas continue to assert that it is illegal for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps without enforcing the purported conditions of approval requiring the construction of flood control facilities to protect their land. Nevertheless, the Plarming Commission and the City Council have in every case approved Newland's January 3. 2002 10019-??oo2 S,I I S2ICORRIOII20003.L TRdoc , City ofTemecula J:muary 3, 2002 Page 4 applications to amend the Specific Plan 219 and modify tract maps for Paloma del Sol because it has been determined that the Coronas' arguments are without merit. Most recently, in October 1999, the Coronas appealed the Planning Commission's approval of four planning applications submitted by Newland for Paloma del Sol. They based tlleir appeal entirely on their claim that Newland should be required to build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The staff deterinined that the EIR for Assessment District 159 had addressed the issue by requiring the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as a mitigation measure to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The staff further determined there was no nexus between the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and Newland's four planning applications. The staff was clear that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel was to be built by Assessment District 159, and Newland had "no control Over the timing of that process." Accordingly, the staff recommended deuial of the Coronas' appeal. On November 9, 1999, the City Council concurred with the staff's analysis and denied the Coronas' appeal. The Pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 On November 28, 2001, consistent with their prior actions involving revised entitlement permits for Paloma del Sol, the:; Planning Commission recommended approval of Specific Plan 219 Amendment .No. 8, the related Planning Applications and certification of Addendum No.4 to the final EIR. The Planning Coinmission accepted the staff's answer to , altorney Stroud's letters as stated in their November 2'8, 2001 report to the Planning Commission as follows:. "Public Works Department staff believes the issue of timing and construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed. Moreover, staff believes the current planning actions being proposed have no affect on the timing and' construction of the flood control' , improvements." The Coronas cannot point to any other significant difference or to any change in circumstances that would require the City to reach a different result. Newland's valuable dl~velopment vested rights set forth in the Development Agreement are being challenged becanse Assessment District 159 cannot, without the cooperation of the Coronas, construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel which is its responsibility to do. Because the City has already rejected the Coronas' objection to four nearly identical planning applications and the Coronas did not challenge the City's decision in court in timely manner, the Coronas are now estopped from making their objections anew before the City Council. Newland submits this matter and the issues raised by the Coronas have been thoroughly researched, analyzed and reviewed by the City Attorney and staff. The objections the Coronas raise to Newland's current Specific Plan Amendments and Planning Applications are almost identical to their objections to the four planning applications approved, by the City Council in November of 1999. Full environmental analysis in compliance with the California January 3, 2002 10019-00002 s,' 152\CORRIOI120003.L TR.doc City ofTemecuia January 3, 2002 Page 5 Environmental Quality Act has occurred, Notice,public hearings and due process has been satisfied. There is no evidence in fact or in law to support the Coronas' contentions. Assessment District No. 159 Assessment District No. 159 ("AD 159'') was formed in 1988 to fund certain' regional public improvements and other infrastructure systems within the AD 159 boundaries. In 1991, a supplemental district was approved to increase funds available for the cost of the original AD 159 improvements and to add new district improvements, including the Butterfield lllterceptor Channel. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel was planned to be constructed on the Corona property east of Butterfield Stage Road at the easterly boundary of AD 159. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paloma del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert ' them into Temecula Creek. Butterfield Stage Road was constructed above grade in 1994-1995 as an Assessment District 159 project. Contrary to the Coronas' contention, Butterfield Stage Road was not built by Newland. Butterfield Stage Road and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility are improvements under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and Assessment District No. 159, not Newland Communities or the City of Temecula. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of'SR 79, the modifications to Temecula Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage ulcilities, were dependent on the Butterfield intercePtor Channel being built. In hindsight, the' Butterfield Interceptor Channel probably should have been built before Butterfield Stage Road. For reasons not known to Newland and surely not under the control of Newland, this did not happen. As a matter of fact, once Butterfield Stage Road was built by AD 159, the ponding the Coronas complain about would occur after a heavy rainfall. This condition would exist on the Corona property regardless of whether or not any development ever happened on the Paloma del Sol land. As originally contemplated. the improvements AD 159 were to build cost about $1lO8 million. The Paloma del Sol, Specific Plan No. 219, property has been taxed to pay itS fair share of the improvements. To date,' the Paloma del Sol property has been assessed approximately $27 million for the improvements. This payment included construction of the portion of the Temecula Creek Channel that is designed to accept flow from the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland recognizes its obligation as one of the major landowners in AD 159 to participate in the completion of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland has remained willing to cooperate in any good faith effort to resolve outstanding design and funding issues associated with getting the Channel built. To date, the Coronas refuse to accept their fair share of this obligation. Butterfield Interceptor Channel All of the interested parties, including the Coronas, agree that AD 159 was, and is, responsible for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the January 3. 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\152ICORR'D1120003.L TRdoc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 I'age 6 construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel because they must agree on its location and make the land available for this improvement at a reasonable price. To this end, Newland has heen working diligently with the Coronas and the County of Riverside for over five years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The County has analyzed various alignments for the Channel and has examined additional alternatives at the request of the Coronas. The original design was an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona properties at the east end of the AD 159 boundaries. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel would then continue under SR 79 and extend south to Temecula Creek. The costwas estimated at $3.5 million. The Coronas have objected to and resist the original design because the facility, they say, would adversely impact their current farming operations. In an attempt to provide a system that would not interfere with the Coronas' agricultural uses, a subsurface covered box c.ulvert was studied but this was determined to be infeasible. The County Flood Control District looked at another design alternative suggested by the Coronas' engineers consisting of two channels. This dual channel system would include an open channel located along the easterly boundary of the Corona property to intercept the majority of the drainage from the east along with a smaller underground facility at the eastern boundary of AD 159. The dual channel system is estimated to cost $8.7 million and would benefit all of the remaining 160 acres of the Corona property not originally included in the AD 159 boundaries. ' The Coronas have stated their preference for the dual channel alternative, but maintain their current farming operations could not support this level of funding. Methods of providing deferred assessments have been offered and suggestions that the Coronas dedicate the necessary right of way for the dual channel system to reduce costs have been rejected. The goal sought to be achieved in the meetings with the County and the Coronas of finding a method to fund the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and then be able to apportion the costs of the improvements on an equitable basis has so far failed. This is due, in large part, to the Coronas' desire that they receive all of the benefits of a stonn water protection system for all of ' their property without being willing to accept any of the costs of constructing these facilities. Supplemental EIR The attorney Stroud for the Coronas argues that a supplemental EIR must be prepared to address increased flood hazards. In general, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed ill prior environmental documentation. The intent of CEQA is to allow' public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other c:ircumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources Code Section January 3. 2002 IV019.oo<102 S:\152ICORR\OJ 120003.LTR.doc ; City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 '!'age 7 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), 21 supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a result of: (a) substantial changes in the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; (b) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; or (c) new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse impact wIllch Cani10t be mitigated. lbe CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required unless one of these specified triggering events occur. A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language, An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the stlitutory exceptions exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the tinJe for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings a,~d Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065). CEQA Section 21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Frclncisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights Il") (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR if impacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project ErR, a rullther EIR is not required (Bowman). A city may not, therefore, require a supplemental or focused EIR unless it finds, 011 the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case as it was in November of 1999, there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt should be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights). A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a subsequent.EIR is not required.' CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)(e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR addendum to evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a January 3, 2002 IOC'19-OOOO2 S:\152ICORRIOI120003.lTRdoc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 :Page 8 mechanism for determining whether a fiu1her EIR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a. procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new :information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in detennining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide Ithat a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included in an: (i) addendum to an EIR, (ii) the city's required fmdings on the project or (iii) elsewhere in the reCord. On this point the planning staff report and position adopted by the Planning Commission states: "With regard to environmental analysis, Planning staff does not believe that the planning actions as-proposed have any significant environmental affect on flood hazard issues. Moreover, staff believes the proposed Addendum to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses potential -environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, staff does not believe that additional environmental analysis is necessary." Even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on eompliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a supplemental EIR should be prepared in connection with the pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment and related l'lanning Applications. This is because Specific ]'lan Amendment No.8 and the Planning Applications under review will.have no impact on upstream properties or therr exposure to flood f:ontrol hazards. The existing Paloma del Sol approximately 20-acre detention, basin in Tract 24182 will protect downstream properties from any storm water drainage entering from the toast. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paloma del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval' of Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a subsequent EIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus or relationship to the pending Paloma del Sol Planning Applications and drainage issues on the Corona property. Interim Detention Basin and Hold on 508 Multi-family Units On February 2, 1998, the City Council, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA 96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182), added Condition No. 40 rlealing with an interim detention basin located on approximately 20 acres at the southeastern portion of Tentative Tract 24182. The condition required Newland to set aside and maintain this area entitled for 188 residential lots as a storm water detention basin until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey off site storm flows to an adequate outlet l1ris condition constitutes Newland's "onsite" mitigation to protect properties to the west of Butterfield Stage Road in the event of an extreme storm episode when storm waters could breech Butterfield Stage Board. January 3. 2002 1(1019-00002 S:\152ICORR'01120003,LTR.doc City ofTemeclila January 3, 2002 Page 9 In an attempt to address the concerns of the Coronas and provide further . incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council on November 16, 1999 placed a "hold" on Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units in the Paloma del Sol project. Even though Newland was advised by counsel and the staff acknowledged there was no legal requirement to accept this limitation, Newland recognized the need to show its good faith willingness to continue the efforts to work towards a resolution of the storm water drainage problem in this area. Newland accepted this restriction and offered the collateral of 508 multi- family units as an "equity holding." It was clearly the intent of the City and Newland as :reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim cOndition. Newiand must now respectfully request the City Council release the hold on the :508 multi-family units in Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map29431. Newland has negotiated in good faith with the County and the Coronas on numerous occasions since the City Council imposed this development restriction on their property in November of 1999. As pointed out earlier in this letter, the Coronas have failed to agree on the various design alternatives and funding options for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland remains willing to work with the County and the Coronas to resolve the issue of building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. However, it would no longer be appropriate and constitute a <leuial of Newland's property rights protected by the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement to further interfere with Newland's opportunity to develop Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Conclusion The Coronas have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of the Paloma del Sol project approvals, any significailt changed circumstances, ornew information which was not considered in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR 235 as fiJither reviewed in prior and in' the current Specific Plan Amendment No.8" reiated Planning Applications and Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. The AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road construction, and not Paloma del Sol, has caused the storm drain ponding to exist on the Corona property. The Coronas have a remedy by taking action against the County or they can cooperate in allowing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to be constructed by AD 159. Nevertheless, the Coronas continue to pursue groundless efforts to manipulate the City's land use discretionary powers to their advantage while threatening the property rights of Newland. There is absolutely no connection between the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues raised by the Coronas. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns should be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County of Riverside, not the City and Newland. This has consistently been the position of Newland. Newland has been willing and continues to be willing to work with the Coronas and the County on a solution to the storm water drainage issues impacting the area, but the Coronas need to demonstrate a greater willingness to cooperate in the process. Newland has acted in good faith in the negotiations and under the circumstances must request the City Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family uuits imposed on Newland over two years ago. January 3. 2002 10019.()()()(J2 S:\IS2\CORR'D1120003.LTRdoc , . City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 10 While the issues of the design, funding and construction of the AD 159 Butterfield Interceptor Channel seem to be languishing, Newland is incurring significant costs of maintaining an interim detention basin that protects their and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road. This interim detention basin also prevents Newland from developing 188 lots already entitled under the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. It is this major restriction on Newland's development rights and not the hold on developing the 508 multi-family Units which will continue to provide the incentive for Newland to work towards a solution for constructing tile Butterfield Interceptor Channel. , In summary: . Newland has vested property and development rights under the tenns of the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement which is binding on the City. . Any flooding that might occur on the Coronas' property is caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD 159 and can be resolved by the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel by AD 159. The Coronas' remedy lies with the County and AD 159. . There is no caus,al relationship or "nexus" between Specific plan No. 219, Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and storm drainage, issues raised by the Coronas on their land. . There are no substantial. changes in the Paloma del Sol project, 'changed circumstances or new information having an adverse impact on the environment requiring a supplemental EIR. Newland has met with the County and the Coronas to work on solutions for construction the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, but the Coronas are ,unwilling to accept their fair share of the costs. . . Newland respectfully requests the City to release the hold on the 508, multi-family dwelling Units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Continuing the hold would provide no public purpose and is legally unsupportable. . Newland has satisfied its obligation to protect its and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road by maintaining the interim detention basin or equivalent facility which must remain in place until such time as upstream drainage facilities are constructed. January 3. 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\152ICORRIOI12000J.LlRdoc , Ci~y ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page II On behalf of Newland, I therefore submit there is no need to consider adding new conditions or to require further environmental documentation and respectfully request the City C01uncil accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Specific Plan 219 Amendment No.8, the related Planning Applications and certify Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. FUlther, Newland no longer consents to the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431 and requests to be released from this hold. Very truly yours, ~0)~ Dennis D. O'Neil DDO/c1t cc: James M. Delhamer Dean Meyer Sam Albadeff Peter M. Thorson ) Janumy 3. 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORR\OII20003.LlRdoc , , . '.. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP ) A LIMITED LlABa.J1YPARTNERSHIP INClUDING A PROFESSIONAl. CORPORAnoN 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE; SUITE 270 TEMECUlA, CAliFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909} 699-6191 Offices In San Diego and Temecu/a, Califomia January 4, 2002 SAI.IJEL C. AuwlEFF SAlHADEFFliilASLAw1.COt.l The Honorable Ron Roberts Mayor, City of Temecula Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 9103.001 Re: Planning Application No. P AOI-O 109 (General Plan Amendment) Planning Application No. PAOI-OI02 (paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8) Planning Application No. P AOI-O II7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment, No.4) (Collectively "Actions'') ~ Dear Mayor Roberts: The purpose of this letter is to support a request that we will make on behalf of our client Newland on the Actions referenced above at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 8, 2002. The request is that the City Council delete a condition that was imposed with regard to a prior application made by Newhind Communities (''Newland'') in November of 1999 involving what is generally referred to as Amendment No. 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The action was taken on November 9, 1999. A copy of the official minutes of that action is attached as Exhibit I herein. The specific condition read as follows: - - Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with amending the SpeCific Plan as it relates to Home Depot as follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans continue to serve on the subcollllllfttee that is to meet with the proponents and opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; that the City will have the ability to withhold approval of building permits within Tract No. 24182, with the exception of Phases I and 2, as identified by Deputy City Manager Thornhill; that once a reasonable compromise has been negotiated, the matter would be addressed at a City Council public hearing; and that the subcommittee will report to the City Council at its November 16, 1999, City Council meeting. C:\WINDOWS\DcsktopIDatalOientsINewland CommuniticslRoberts Ltr 01.03.iJ~.doc -. ~ ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 2 The transcription of the City Council meeting has been attached as Exhibit 2 to this letter. The transcription of the minutes of the meeting of November 9 provides clarification as to the ' specifics of the motion. There is a discussion by Councilman Comerchero that he believes the Council should hold up certain building permits on Map 24183 and 24182 with the exception of phases 1 and 2. His exact quote is as follows: "... We hold up building permits there until such time as this issue is resolved or comes back to the Council in public hearing for the Council to make a determination that there is sufficient progress made to release those building permits." Later in that same discussion Councilman Stone makes the following motion: ~ "I move that we approve the Specific Plan Anlendment (Amendment No.7) with respect to the Home Depot development that Mr. Lindemans and Mr. Ford continue to act as a subcommittee to meet with the proponents and opponents in coming to a reasonable compromise. The City will have the discretionary approval of building permits within the parcels that Mr. Thornhill will identify whereby the; either the ultimate improvements thatare negotiated are built or the City Council sees significant improvement in their negotiations to come up with a , reasonable compromise, where we will have a public hearing and the Council has the discretionary ability tO'go ahead and approve the building permits as the Council sees fit." Exhibit No.3. Subsequently on November 16, the City Council had another hearing to discuss this matter. At that hearing the motion was made to substitute certain parcels. The motion was made by then Councilman Lindemans as follows: "...moved to have the City, hereby, release the 218 lots in Tract 24182~3 and 4, as described in the Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council o~ November 9,1999, and substitute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7;consisting of 508 multi-family units." - - A copy of the November 16, 1999 minutes is attached as Exhibit 4. The transcript of the , November 16 hearing clarifies the situation and Councilman Lindemans points out that he now has two problems that the staff did not have or see any nexus and that 188 lots were sufficient and there doesn't need to be a hold on anything else. Please understand that he is referring to what the staff had suggested at those hearings. Mr. Thornhill goes on to state: "I think that's a legal opinion, but 1 think that's what we stated in the staff report that we felt there was no nexus and we, the only ,. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 3 reason we imposed that condition restricting those lotswas to insure that there would be some attempt to resolve these issues." Councilman Lindemans then goes on to make a motion to release the original 218 lots and put in its place the 508 multi-family unit lots iti Pllmning Area 6A and 6B, i.e., Lots 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. A copy of the transcription of those minutes is attached as Exhibit 5. , The request we make tonight is to modifY the conditions and remove the hold that was placed on the Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. There are three primary reasons that we make this request. '" (I) There continues to be no showing of any nexus between these actions and any impact on the Coronas' property. (2) Newland believes that it has met the test of "significant improvements in their negotiations to come up with a reasonable comptomise"; and ....., (3) , As Mr. Dennis O'Neil points out in his letter {a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 6), the Coronas and any other PartY are adequately collateralized with the hold on 188 lots of the Paseo del Sol Tract 24182. We will adopt, for purposes of this letter all of the staff reports and prior proceedings' involving the lack of nexus as to our first point ' As to the second point, we would respectfully submit thefoUowing in support of our request. (I) A copy ofa George Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation letter to William Hughes, the Director of Public Works Department of the City, dated December 11, ~1 (attached as Exhibit 7). The specific sentence is: "As a result of the stUdy effort, it appears the property owners unofficially support an.alternative to place the interceptor on the east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately i to date we have not been able to develop a financing mechanism to construct the suggested interceptor." (2) A copy of a George Johnson, Deputy Director ofTranspottation letter to the Corona Ranch dated February 17,2000 (attached as Exhibit 7a). The specific sentences are: "As you are well aware, "the Butte.rfield interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the eastern Assessment District boundary, to intercept the tributary , ~ ......, ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP ) The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 4 drainage flows and provide flood protel;tion to the Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 70 south, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at the eastern ADI59 boundaty. Because you own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the AD boundary, you requested we study other alternatives." "If you are Willing to place the req~ fll1lUicial burden on the remainder of your property outside the current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is willing to recomniend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we Will need your written concUrrence." . It is very clear from years of records and the o~ganization of Assessment District 159 ("AD 159") the cost for the construction of the interceptor channel was to be borne by those affected members of AD159, as proposed by the assessment engineer. There are a number of documents that have been previously submitted to the City and Mr. O'Neil's letter points out again; the amoUnt that Newland would be required to contribute under AD 159. It is undisputable that Newland has always been prepared to allow the appropriate liens on its property and the requisite bonds be sold for its financial share of the interceptor channel. As the attached February 17,2000 letter of George Johnson makes clear; the AD159 has only a limited amount of funds for the channel. The original channel design and construction has been rejected and continues to be rejected by the Coronas. They desire an alternative channel. When you review the transcript of the proceedings at the City you Will find that what they were requesting Was that Newland cooperate and agree With them as,to an alternative location for the channel. The challenge has always been the additional funding. Newland desires not only their 19.1 +/_ acres in AD159 be included but the balance of their entire property, approximately 145,+/- acres be included. As the letter of February 17,2000 points out, unless the Coronas are Willing to burden their additional property to get the financing necessary for such an improvement th~ are insufficient funds available in AD159. However, that is not the responsibility of Newland. (3) The basis fOr reason No.2 is a comml!llication form the Coronas and their representatives to other agencies, for Cixample a letter submitted by Michelle Staples dated August 13,2001 to Chairman Venable and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors discussing the same issue. Please note at the time Ms. Staples and her firm was trying to make the Same arguments on another project, which they are making on the Newland project. The project that they were discussing was a project being developed by Colorado Pacific, in the County of Riverside. 'The letter is instructive because it points out at Page 2, in part, as follows: "The Coronas' engineer Bob Kreiger has been working closely With the County Flood Control District to analyze and confirm the feasibility of locating the interceptor channel facility and an alignment approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of , ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 5 Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon by all of the participating Assessment District 159. owners." , A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 8. Finally, Michelle Staples at the hearing on the same item discussing the Colorado Pacific project Item 13.1 of the Board of Supervisors hearing on September 25,2001, states as follows: .' "Mr. Alhadeffis correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked Cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the program, the project." She then goes on to state that Colorado Pacific has agreed to assist to make a portion of its property available for this relocated alignment. We submit that the parties have cooperated and agreed to an alignment, that a project owned by Colorado Pacific alloWedli portion of its property to be burdened by such portion of the alignment and that all that remains to be found by the Coronas is the funding. This funding is not the responsibility of Newland except as is required for its pro rata share under the Assessment District. A transcript of Ms. Staples'comments is attached as Exhibit 9. Finally as to reason No.3 in support of our request we adopt Mr. O'Neil's letter, a copy of which has been previously attached as EXhibit 6. ~ If there are any questions, please do not he"sitate to contact me. Sinc7) {LtA..- Samuel C. A.lhadeff of '-^ Alhadeffand Solar, LLP SCA:sld Enclosures as noted CC: Mr. Gary Thornhill Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Mr. Mathew Harris - .. .. , . .Nolle~ber 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council ' " Home This is Temecufa Page I ofli= City Services Inside City Hall Recreation Help .~~........~ ". , City Council Minutes ~ ~ack to City Council Minutes M~in Index Page MINUTES OF A REGUlAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 9,1999 ,The Open Session of the City Council meeting convened at 7:00.P.M. Present: Council members: ComercMro, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Ford. Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Jennifer Taft. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Tim Buttrey of Temecula Valley Christian Center. ALLEGIANCE Thl3 salute to the Rag was led by Councilman Roberts. :......) PRESENT ATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Women's Club Million Dollar Goal A Certificate of Achievemenl was presented to Ihe Women's Club, which was accepted by Ms. Terry Blanton, President of the Women's Club, who briefly reviewed the organizations 1999 accomplishments. Introduction of Nakayama Delegates Mal/or Ford introduced the Nakayama delegates and presented to each a remembrance from the City of Temecula. , , PUBLIC COMMENTS A. JlJthough the Vail Ranch1Redhawk Annexation did not pass, Mr. Elton Ward, 45322 Callesito Burgos, relayed his dismay with the outcome but expressed appreciation to the City Council and City staff for the outstanding, effolrts put forth in order to apprise the residents of Vail Ranch and Redhawk of the annexation. Mt. Ward thanked those residents that voted in support of the annexation and extended a special thanks 10 the mell:ltlllrs of the T ernecula Annexation Group for their efforts and devotion. B. Ms. CeCe Axton, 30619, Sierra Madre Drive: representing the Temecula Valley Council PTA, introduced the Council PT A members in attendance and thanked the City Council for its support. Referencing the City's generous contributions, Ms. Axton briefly highlighted the'CounciI PTA's achievements and successes and extended appreciation 10 City staff for their continued assistance. On behalf of herself and the Council PT A, Ms. Axton thanked and extended appreciation to Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans for their invaluable contributions to the City. At this time, Ms. Axton introduced Ms. Cheryl Eckhardt who, in tum, presented to the City a Certificate of Apprecialion for its continued support. Councilman Lindemans suggested that the PT A Council explore the possibility of televising its Board meetings and encouraged the PT A Council to continue discussions with City staff regarding the installation of prefabricated overc:rossings. Because of her devotion, Ms. Eckhardl informed the City Council that that PT A Council honored Ms. Axton with the National Continuing Service Award. C. Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, relayed his support of the PT A as well as the installation of prefabricated overcrosslngs. Mr. Pratt expressed his opposition to the Johnson Ranch Project and encouraged the City Councilmembers to review relative information submitted. http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us!citvhall/minnt_/lo00U:_..<__.. . ^^^^ . . o . Nove'riJ.ber 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . , Page 2 of 1 i=:',-:: D. Mr. Chuck Blackedge, 40325 Windsor Road, owner of Balloons Galore, relayed his concerns with regard to Ordinance No. 98-10 which restricts the usage of balloons particularly as it pertains to height. Mayor Pro Tern Stone requested that the Council be provided a copy of this Ordinance and noted that Mr. Blackedge's concerns will be addressed. cn'Y COUNCIL REPORTS A Councilman Roberts commended Councilman Lindemans on his perseverance with regard to the Overland OVI~rcrossing and commented on the effectiveness of it. ' B. Advising that lAFCO has been contacted 10 discuss the possibility of solely proceeding with the annexation of VaU Ranch without the need for another election, Councilman CQmerchero relayed his support of such action, if possible, and requested that the matter be agendized for the December 7, 1999, City Council meeting., C. In an effort to promote driver/public awareness, Councilman Comerchero advised that a group was formed to address this Issue and that he will report to the City Council of the groull'S findings. .. D. Councilman Comerchero advised that the Temecula Valley School qistrict recognized the City, at a recent football game, for Its contribution to the Chaparral High School lighting project. E. From personal and recent experience, Councilman Lindemans encouraged all to get periodic health examinations. F. Echoing Councilman Lindemans' encouragemenl of periodic health examinations, Mayor Pro Tern Stone wished Mr. Lindemans a happy and healthy retirement. G. Commenting on the succesS of the City's Operation ERASIT Program, Mayor Pro Tern Stone commended the dedicated Police Officers ,on a job well done. ........J H. Mayor Pro Tern Stone as well commended Councilman Lindemails on his perseverance with the Overland ' Overcrossing. Although recognizing the frustrations of the residents Impacted by the construction of the Missing , Link, Mr. Stone reminded the residents that although the City will assist with'expediting the completion of this Improvement, this project as well as the new Pala Bridge Project are ,being handled by' the County. I. Mayor Pro Tern Stone advised of discussions with the City Manager, the Fire Department, and the County of pemlitting paramedics to perform ,the emergency procedure of a tracheotomy on an adult and/or child and that he will n~port to the Council of the outcome. J. Noting that the City had contributed $10,000 to Race for the Cure (Susan G. Kamen organization), Mayor Pro Tern Stone encouraged the public to attend and advised that 75% of local monies raised will benait the local arena. = K. Mayor Pro Tern Stone requested that slaff provide information with regard to student participation and potential continued City contributions and participation' In the Teen Project program. , . ~ L. To further address the expediency of the paramedic units, Mayor Ford requested that the use of Global Positioning System be immediately addressed. M. Roiterating Mayor Pro Tern Stone's earlier comments, Mayor Ford advised that the improvements at lower 79 South are being handled by the County of Riverside and that the City will assist the County, where possible, in order to assure expedient completion of the project. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. http://~NW.cLtemp.c:nl~I':~11c::,J,..;f,d.....l1/......:.....4-__/f n.nn. E~_u"'~ _ ,.. .. I'ol'o_~ . . Nove'mber 9. 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . . Page 3 ofll--- 2 Minutes ) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the lJ1inutes of October 5, 1999. 3 Resolution Approving I.Ist of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resoluiion entitled: .' RESOLUTION NO. 99.102 A RESOLUTION OF TllE CITY COUNCIL OF TllE CITY OF TEMECULA AU.OWING CERTAIN ClAIMS AND DEMANDS Ml SET FORTllIN EXHIBIT A 4 CUy Treasurer's Report as of September 30.1999 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1999. 5 Uability Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: ~ 5.1 Approve the City of Temecula Uability Insurance Policy Renewal with Insurance Company of the Wesl in the amount of $81,650 for'generalliability and automobile physical damage insurance for the period of December 1,1999; through December 1, 2000. ' 6 Extension of the prohibition on Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages to Bridlevale Homeowner's Association property pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.030 ' - . RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-103 _ A RESOLUTION OF TllE CITY COUNCIL OF TllE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENOING TllE PROHIBITION ON CO~PTlON OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGES TO BRlDLEVAlE HOMEOWNER'S MlSOCIA nON PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEMECULA MUNICIPAl CODE SECTION 9.14.030 ,', 7 Agreement affecting Real Property at 28820 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, providing for Deferral of Development Impact Fee .~ RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve an agreement with Chemicon Intemational, Inc. that provides for the deferral of Development Impact Fees over a fIVe-year period. 8 Reluase Faithful Perfonnance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 23371-1 (located northwesterly of the intersection of Rancho California Road at Meadows Parkway) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities for public improvements for the Interior streets in Tract No. 23371-1; http://www.ci.temecuIaca.uStcityha1llminUtesll9<JQMinllt...... 1 naoo ...... l'!"ov711lJ,~er~, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 4 of I i -::-:.~ 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety. . ) 9 Release Faithful Perfonnance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securilles In Tract No. 23371-2 (located northwesterly of the intersection of lIIIeadows Parkway at Rancho California Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Perfonnance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities for public improvements for the Interior streets in Tract No. 23371-2; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk 10 so notify the developer and the:surety. 10 Proposed State Sales Tax Shift (SMART Fonnula) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve and support the letter of opposition identifying the City's position to the proposed fiscal refonn plan by the State Controller. Because of the negative impact this Fonnula would have on the City, Mayor Ford relayed the City's opposition. 11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-27 RECOMMENDATiON: 11.1 Adopt an ordinance entiOed: ~ ORDINANCE NO. 99-27 AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE ciTY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA AND EU ULL Y AND COMPANY FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCA TED EAST OF ,YNEZ ROAD, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF'OVERLAND DRIVE (PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99.(274) MOTIION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar lIem Nos. 1-11. The motion was seconded ' . by CC1uncilman Roberts and voice vola reflected unanimous approval. At 7::;2 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Rede'ielopment Agency. After a short recess, the City Council reconvened at 8:20 P.M., and resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. ' PUBL.lC HEARiNG ~ .' 12 Pllanning Application No. PA99.()285 (Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No. 219 _ Paloma del 501), Planning Application No. PA99.()283 (De'ielopmentAgreement for the Villages at Paseo del Sol _ Community'Shopping Center), Planning Application No. PA99.()284 (Development Plan _ Appeal) and Planning Application No. PA99.()286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431 -Appeal) RECOMMENDATiON: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entiOed: RESOLUTION NO. 99-104 A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT NO ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO TIlE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED AND TIlE GUlDEUNES PROMULGATED TIlEREUNDER REGARIllNG PLANNING APPUCATlON NOS. PA99.Q285 (AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO SPEClAC PlAN NO. 219); PA99.Q283 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VIlLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL, COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER); PA99.Q284 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA99.Q286 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29431) 12.2 Read by tiOe only and introduce an ordinance entiOed: http://www.ci.temeculacauslcityhalUminutesll999MinuteslllOQQQ.htm NOVE'mber,9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the TemecuIa City Council . '. Page 5 of II-- ) ORDINANCE NO. 99-28 AN DRDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PAS9. 0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219). WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS I, 6, 8, 27 AND 36: AMENDS THE AUGNMENT AND CONFlGURAnoN OF CAllPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY: AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES; DMDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA SA (22.3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESlDEtmAL, 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 246 UNITS), RESULTING IN AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWEWNG UNITS FROM 590 TO 5IIlI; AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DevELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHlN PlANNING AREA 8; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO INCORPORATE THE VIlLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENItIES; BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 12.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled ORDINANCE NO. 99.29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMEClAA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED VIlLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS l(a) & l(b) OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. ,7 ' , 12.4 Deny the appeal of Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-:0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431); 12.5 Uphold the approval by the Planning Commission of Planning Application No. PA99-o284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431); 12.6 Adopt a resolution enliOed: y RESOLUOON NO. 99-105 A RESOLUOON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI.A DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPUCATlON , NO. PAS9.o284 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PLANNING APPUCAnoN NO. PAS9.o286 (TENTATIVE PARCEL'MAP NO. 29431), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THESE PROJECTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ' , Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per agenda materials); referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexu between the Buttemeld Sta e Road I erce tor Chann,el and the f,J ses bef e I nciI this even in . ac;lvised that the Channel was to be constructed and nded IfiroLlgh AD No. 159 and that Newlan ommumties has no control over the timing of this process; commented on the bonding capacity of the Assessment District; and noted that due the lateness in receiving Ms. Staples' fax, he has not had the opportunity to review the infonnalion (copies of which were provided to the Councilmembers). Mr. Thomhill relayed the Corona's concern that this project or any Mure project be approved without Newland Communities fulfilling its commilmentto install the Interceptor channel. Mr. Thornhill recommended denial of the appeal and approval of the remaining applications. _ - City Attorney Thorson pointed out that because Mayor Ford does not own any properties within 2,500' of the subject site, because Mr. Ford's employer dQlls' not own any undeveloped properly within the applicable 2,500' radius, and because of relationship of this project to AD No. 159, Mayor Ford may participate In the discussion and may vote with regard to this issue. .. In light of the lateness of some of these reports, City AttomeyThorson, for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, advised that staffl. response to drainage issues on the appeal are summarized in the staff report; that the extensive Newland Communities submittal is summarized in a cover letter; and that the fax from Ms. Staples is, in large, summarized on pages 1 and 2 of the proposal. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD No. 159 and the raising of it by one or two feet was built according to plans and speciI1cations and that the two 120. pipes do not adequately mitigate the concerns of both two basins. ) Gouncilman Lindemans referenced the May 26, 1988, (of record), particularly commenting, as per his ' lterpretation, on the CIty's responslbRity to ensure that the interceptor channel is constructed. By way of overheads, Mr. Bany Burnell, T&B Planning, 3242 Haltaday, #100, Santa Ana, representing Newland Communities, reviewed the request; referenced and relayed his understanding of a letter dated May 26,1988 (of http;//www.ci.temecuIacauslcityhalllminutesl1999Minuteslll0999.htm_ 1 ?Ir:./nl .N.oV~ll1b~r? 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council record); and noted the following: Page 6 ofll::::= That the maximum bonding capacity is $4.9 million; () That, as requested by the Flood Control Disbic1, a drainage structure was designed to intercept a large amount of off-sile storm runoff that approaches the project from the east; That AD No. 159 was formed in 1988 with its own Environmental Impact Report (EIR) processed through the County; that a supplemental Disbict formed in 1991 at which time the Butterfield Stage Road east interceptor channel was originally considered; That the assessment, at that time, was detennined at $2.2 million in order to protect the 38 acres owned by the Coronas/Savalas; that the cost of such a facility escalated to $3.5 million (Alternative No.1) which included a box culvert to protect future farming (38 acres); That the current proposal requests the protection of 202 acres, which encompasses the entire Corona, Savala, and Lumsdaine properties for $5.8 million; that this recent proposal cost has been increased to $6.2 million; That the conditions of approval for the Vail Meadows Specific Plan never intended the protection of 202 acres; , That the Assessment District was approved and the EIR was adopted prior to the approval of the Vail Meadows EIR; That the Assessment Disbict listed the 38 acres as undeveloped/unplanned land and the 202 acres as agriculture land; ~ That the construction of Butterfield Stage Road created an impact on approximately 5 to 6 acres of the Corona property; that such construction did not create flooding to the east of the Assessment District; that the interceptor channel was intended to mitigate concerns with regard to the 5 10 6 acres; That the area to the east of the Assessment Disbict (140 acres) has historically flooded. Mr. Rich Robato, representing Newland Communities, further clarified. the location and hydrology of the two existil1g basins and advised that the two 120. pipes were installed by Newland Communities to assist with the water flow for Basin No.2; and that Newland Communities has been assessed 82% of Basin No.1. In closing, Mr. Robato noted that the Assessment District has failed to fulfill its function. Ms. Michelle Staples, 2100 SE Main Streei. Suite 104, Irvine, representing the Coronas, reviewe~e request; referenced and relayed her understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (Of record); commented on the Coronas' compromise (as per faxed material) which wo~!d allow the Home Depot project to proceed; and noted the following: __ That a new flood hazard has been creat~d at the commercial corner (79 South) as a result of the new building in and developing on the natural channel; That the City has never relieved the developer of the cOndition (as per the May 26, 1988, letter) to construct a permanent facility prior to development of the downstream areas; That it is a legal responsibility of this developer to construct a permanent facility; that any approval should be based on the construction of an interceptor channel before the issuance of development permits; I That the lateness of her faxed letter was as a result of waiting for information from the County, which .' was not received; That the project cost of approximately $6.2 million (Alternative No.3) does include the underground interceptor and the open channel to the east; http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhaIYminuteslI999Minuteslll 0999 .h~ 12/6/01 , ~ov('mber 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . . , Page 7 of I r::: ) That although only 5 10 6 acres of the Corona property are impacted as a resull of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, in order to construct facilities in a manner which will allow the Coronas to continue their current and future land uses of the property without further severance damages 10 them, the facility which was constructed in the middle of their property must be buried by 4'; it was suggested that a smaller facility be constructed in its place and that a larger facility be constructed to the east; Councilman L1ndemans suggested thaI, in order to meet with the County and the developer, the matter be continued to the November 16, 1999, City Council meeling. Ms. Staples noted her concurrence with a continuance. Mr.. Allan Davis, Del SOllnveslrnent, Carlsbad, requested that the City Council take action as recommended by Ci~( staff. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Newland Communities, 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 203, referenced and quoted City Condition No.27 on Map No. 24182, as follows: an interim detenlion basin has been cOnstructed on the southern portion of Phase IV and the final phase of Tentative Tract No. 24182; the existing detention basin or an equivalent facility should remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey off-site storm flows to an adequate oullet; any revision to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities should be approved by the City. Further addressing the matter before the City Council, Mr. Alhadeff noted the following: That there is no nexus to the Corona property and Home Depot; ,That there would be no objection to including Condition No. 27 (as noted above) with the approval of Home Depot. ........, That the appeal be denied and that the remaining issues be approved with the imposition of Condition No. 27. Ms. Slaples noted her opposition to the approval of Home Depot as well as ,any other approval under Specific Plan No. 219 without the imposition of a condition requiring the construction of the interceptor channel. She supported the approval of the Home Depot project contingent upon withholding building permits for Newland Communities. Mr. Bob Krieger, representing the Coronas, further commented on Alternative No.3 (submitted to the County); addressed the water flow; the 2 120. pipes installed for Basin No.2; and the construction of a facility upstream on the easterly portion of the Corona property. By way of overheads, Mr. Sam A1hadeff reiterated his request that the City Council deny the appeal due to lack of neXIJS and approve the project = At 10:05 P.M., the public hearing was closed and a recesswaslaken. The Council reconvened at 10:14 P.M. " , In li!lht of this evening's discussion, Councilman Comerchero noted that the noted drainage issues will obviously not be resolved today and, therefore, suggest€d the following: , That the Home Depot project be approved; That all bUilding permits for Map No. 24182 with the exception of Phases 1 and 2 be withheld until this issue is resolved or the matter is addressed by the City Council in a public hearing. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 99-28 and Ordinance No. 99-29. Moi-ION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with amending the Specific Plan as it I relates to Home Depot as follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman L1ndemans continue to serve on the '~o . e that is to meet with the proponents and opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; thatllhe City will have e a i1ity to WI 0 ulldhlg pennlls Wlmln I ract No. 24182, with me exception of Phases 1 and 2, as identified by Deputy City Manager Thornhill; that once a reasonable compromise has been negc.tiated, the matter would be addressed al a City Council public hearing; and that the subcommittee will report http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminuteslI999Minuteslll0999.htm 1216/01 .l-{ov~~~b.er~, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 8 of 11 to the City Council at its November 16, 1999, City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman __ lind'emans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. ) For Ms. Staples, it was noted that Phases 3 and 4 otTract No. 24182 would withhold approximately 400+ building pemnits. 13 Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) a request to subdivide 6.31 acres of land into twenty.four (24) residential lots and Planning Application No. PA99-0238 (Development Agreement) a request for a Development Agreement to allow a minimum of five (5) foot side yard setback (for property located on the south side of Via La Vida between Margarita Road and Solana Way) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99.:10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND HIRAM-HILL, LLC FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1. 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORnON OF LOTS 16-20 AND 26-28 OF lRACT MAP NO. 20882.:1) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLunoN NO. 99.106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPUCAnON NO. PA984147 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1-4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORnON OF LOTS 16.20 AND 28-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882.:1) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY Councilman Comerchero noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue. ....., By way of overheads, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). , Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. An engineer (name inaudible and no speaker card submitted), representing the applicant, was present to concur with staff recommendation. Mayor Ford closed the public hearing. City Attomey Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 99-30. MOTIION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman lindernans and voice vote reflecleQ approval with the exception of Councilman Comerchero who abstained. . - - 14 DE.velopment Agreement with Pala Ralnli~w LLC (for property located near the intersection of Highway 79 SCluth and Pal a Road) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0273; 14.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99.:11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND PALA RAINBOW, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSEcnON OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PALA ROAD (PLANNING APPUCAnON NO. PA99.Q273) Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (of record). http://W1IVW.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminuteslI999MinuteslII0999.htm . 1 ?/MOl , ~ove~(lber .9, 1999 Regular 1)Ifeeting of the Temecula City Council . . . Page 9 ofl C::: Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. There being no public interest to speak, the public hearing was closed. ) City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 99-31. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. ' Councilman Lindemans thanked the Planning Commission for their expediency in addressing this issue. COllNCIL BUSINESS 151[999-00 Community Service Funding Program Committee Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Review and approve the 1999-00 Community Service Funding Program requests per the table outlining the Committee's recommendations of 32 organizations"totaling $102,000. Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to Escondido Community Health Center (No. 12). Finance Director Roberts referenced the staff report (as per agenda material), briefly highlighting the various organizations as well as the Committee's (comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Stone and Councilman Comerchero) funding recommendation which totaled $102,000. ' Mr. Hick Schultz, 31905 Via Cordoba, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Club, thanked the City Council for its continued support; referenced last year's funding from the City in the amount of $22,400; and requested that consideration be given to waMng the Club's $18,000 yearly building loan repayment to the City. ......, ; Finance Director Roberts advised that the next CDSG funding cycle will be, In JanucllY 2000 and that the Boys and Girls Club may participate in that process as well. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to No. 12 (Escondido Community Health Center). 16 Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee Appointment RECOMMENDATION: - - 16.1 Appoint two applicants to serve on the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee each a four-year term to expire September 26, 2003. Mayol' Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this matter. " City Clerk Jones briefly reviewed the staff reporl (of record). Councilman Comerchero suggesled that consideralion be given to requesting Court relief from the requirement that a member of this Committee must live and/or own a business in Old Town and requested that the matter be agenclized for a future meeting. Councilman Roberts requesled thai the need for this Committee be determined. ) tOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to appoint Mr. Arthur Yorke and to reappoint Committee Member Jenkins. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained. http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us/cityhall/minutes!1999Minutes!110999.htm_ 12/6/01 , November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting ofthe Temecula Cily Council Page to ofll.- 17 .Public Traffic Safety Commission Appointment ) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Appoint two applicants to serve on the PubliclTraffic Safety Commission each a three-year term to expire October 10, 2002. City Clerk Jones briefly reviewed the staff report (of record). Mayor Ford extended appreciation to Mr. Markham for his years of service to the City. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to appoint Mr. Mark Katan and to reappoint Commissioner Coe. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 18 Appointment of Representative and Alternate to the Riverside Transit Agency RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as the representative for the Riverside Transit Agency; 18.2 Appoint Karel Lindemans to serve as alternate for the Riverside Transit Agency through December 31,1999. City Clerk Jones reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). City Attorney Thorson advised that it is a requirement of the RT A to appoint a current City Councilmember. ~ AOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to appoint Councilman Lindemans as the City alternate to the RTA Ageno:y until December 31,1999, and to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Stone as the representative. The motion was' seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Because the Registrar of Voters wiU not be able to certify the November 2,1999, election results until November 18, 1999, City Manager Nelson advised that an adjoumed regular meeting has been scheduled for Monday, November 22, 1999, at which time the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, President of the Community Services District, and the Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency will be appointed. - CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT _ City Altomey Thorson advised that the City Council gave direction to staff with regard to the real property matter and all well provided direction to him as to the llefense of the legal matter. ADJOIlJRNMENT . . At 10:1i6 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, November 16, 1999, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: ":usan W. Jones, CMC/ME, City Clerk ) / EAL] http://www.ci.temeculacauslcityhaIUminuteslI999MinutesllI0999.htm , ,-- ~ ) -7 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council ~---_.- IB SlJ"E METER 2~ - .. http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhaWminutesl1999Minuteslll0999.htm Page II of II 12/6/01 .. ~ . % o " ~ 2 . o u '~ < % E ... ..... ....~ .. '"< <0 ....% Ojij ~O' '~ ~ r! ~... <,;( "'~ ...." <~ > " J ;;; < J o . " 51 J < ) 1 Comerchero 2 Mr. Mayor. 3 Ford 4 Mr. Comerchero.. 5 Comerchero 6 During the break Councilman Stone and I met with Gary Thornhill 7 and our City Attorney and our City Manager and I think we have 8 come up with something that can get tis off the dime here and 9 hopefully go home with everybody reasonably happy. It's becoming 10 apparent that we are not going to solve the drainage issues here 11 tonight and yet we don't want to postpone the issue and bring it up later and possibly have a new council deal with it or have it 12 13 be split between this council and another council. Gary if you 14 would put up that, thank you. What we are proposing is that we 15 go ahead and approve the Home Depot project tonight, but if we do that we recognize that we are taking'any leverage that the Corona 16 17 family may have and taking it off the t~ble and that may not be 18 fair to the Coronas considering that the issue still needs to be 19 resolved. So, what we are offering is that we take parcel, or 20 the map there that is 24183 and we hold up all buildThg permits 21 ,on that map and we take the one next to it 24812, with the 22 exception of Phases 1. ,and 2, which may already be too far along 23 in the process and we hold up building permits there until such 2'- ., 2'1 time as this issue is resolved or it comes back to the Council in 26 - public hearing for the Council to make a determination that there is sufficient enough progress made to release those bui ng 27 permits. And, I would be very interested to hear from both sides 28 as to whether or not we can all live with this. 67 C:\Oata\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-9-99 (Newland) .doc , x o ~ 2 K 8 ~ < z ~ ..~ ..J" ..J~ -" "'< . ,j~ 00 -. , . --Jl.. i~ Q~ -c" "'~ ..Jr <~ > r ~ ;; < ~ o ~ r ~ ~ < ) "~ 1 interested in standing in the way of progress. 2 Lindemans 3 Okay. 4 Staples 5 We are interested in having this channel built and we think the 6 proposal made by you, as amended by Councilman Stone is fair. 7 Lindemans 8 Okay, I will stay with it. 9 Stone 10 Can we as amended? 11 Lindemans 12 Yes. 13 Stone 14 Would you do me a favor then, would you restate the motion and 15 the amendment so that it's clear? 16 Lindemans 17 Could you withdraw my motion. Would you state the whole thing? 18 Speaker 19 You're good at that. 20 Lindemans - - 21 I can read in Dutch, H:Jaughter) 22 Stone . . 23 No Dutch. Okay 24 Speaker 25 Do you want to have it read to him? 26 Stone 27 I move that we approve the Specific Plan amendment with respect 213 to the Home Depot development that Mr. Lindemans and Mr. Ford 73 C:\Data\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-9-99 (Newland) .doc , '< . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 % 0 10 " ~ 0 ~ ~ 11 0 u ~ < % 12 5 ..~ ....~ ....:1 13 ,,~ ",< ....~ 0- 14 -"Ig ~ --i~ 15 "'- 0;:; "'~ "'~ 16 ....~ <~ > ~ 17 ~ ;; < ~ 18 19 20 :21 :22 23 24 25 26 :~7 28 continue to act as a sub-committee to meet with the proponents and Opponents in coming to a reasonable compromisk. The City I will have.the discretionary approval of building permits within the parcels that Mr. Thornhill will identify whereby the, either the ultimate improvements that are negotiated e built or the Cit Council sees significant improvement in their ~eg tiations to come up with a reasonable compromise, where we will have a ( public hearing and the Council has the discretionary ability to go ahead and approve the building permits as the Council sees fit. Lindemans And we are supposed to report to you on the 16th. Stone Yes. Lindemans I second that motion. (Voices) Alhadeff Excuse me, you also need to deny the appeal. Lindemans - Inaudible ,.' Thorson >> Mr. Mayor, we'll take, if I could, I would recommend that we take Thornhill I am sorry Peter, I think Councilmemher Stone said discretionary and I think he meant withhold. Stone Right, I meant _ . . 74 C:\Data\C1ients\CITY COUNCIL\11-9-99 (Newland).doc . . .No'(e~Clber 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 1 of 10 --.- 'Home This is Temecula City Services Inside City Hall Recreation Help I --2 '/~,.,..~..,..~ City Council Minutes ~ IIIBack to City council Minutes Main Index Page " MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGUlAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,1999 . The City of Temecula City Council convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 7:04 P.M., on Tuesday, Novl3mber 16, 1999, in the City Council Chambers ofTemecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROL.L CAlL Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, lindemans, Roberts, Stone, aljd Ford. AbsEmt: Council member: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Aaron Breid. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Youth Pastor Scott Treadway of Rancho Community Church. AlLl':GIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute Mayor Pro Tern Stone. ---1 , PRESENTATIONSIPROClAMATIONS National Family Week Mayor Ford proclaimed November 21-27 to be designated as National Family Week. On behalf of all the families in the City of T emecula, Ms. Denise Orne accepted the award, noting that it would be placed on display at the library. Certificate of Appreciation to AI Crisp and Larry Markham Presenting Permit engineer Crisp with a Certificate ,of Appreciation, Mayor Ford relayed the City's gratitude for Mr. AI Crisp's dedicated service, aiding the City in establishing a foundation for the Public Works Land,jlevelopment Divisi'on with his extensive engineering background. _ Mayor Ford presented Mr. LanyMarkham with a Certificate of Appreciation for his three years serving as a Publk:fTraffic Safety Commissioner, noting ttiat the City had greatly benefited from his invaluable service. For informational purposes, Mayor Ford relayed the success of the recent Race for the Cure Event which was held in the City of Temecula for the purpose of raising monies for breast cancer research; noted the inspiring feats of various handicapped participants in the race; and displayed the crystal plate that was presented to the City denoting the 1999 Temecula Race for the Cure Event. . . PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Maryann Edwards, representing the Assistance League of the T emecula Valley, relayed the various activities of the organization, inclusive of the provision of clothing for children; thanked the City for their generous support; invile,j the public to the 2nd Annual Holiday fundraiser, scheduled 10 be held on Sunday, November 21,1999 from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. at the Castaway's Thrift Shop located at 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula; and .l commended Councilman Lindemans, and Mayor Ford for their dedicalion to the City, as Councilmen. The following individuals relayed their support of the proposed permanent Community Theatre: Ms. Bobbi Boos, representing the Theatre Foundation, 27740 Jefferson Avenue htto:IJwww_cLtemP.r.1I1~ l'.~ 1I<:-/,..;hA,.,,1I/n-o;.....f-""'..../TOnOl...f.:....u..""'..Jl11 ~nn t_~ NQve:mber 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 2 of 10--- Mr. Dan Stephenson, represenling the Theatre Foundation, 27740,Jefferson Avenue ) Ms. Patti Drew, representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse, 45680 Muirfield Drive Ms. Julie Pitruzzello representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse, not given The, above-mentioned individuals relayed the fOllowing comments: Provided an overview of the proposal to construct the project in Old Town. Noted the commitment of a community group to fund a half million dollars of the project., Commended Councilman Lindemans, and Mayor Ford for their support. Relayed that the project would be a great assel in the community. Referenced the General Plan; and noted that the proposed project would fulfill the vision outlined in the goals. For Councilman Lindemans, Mr. Dan Stephenson confirmed that the preliminary plans were inclusive of utilization of llie Mercantile Building in Old Town, and that the City had designated funding in the amount of a half million dollars for the proposed project. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ....., A. Updating the Council with respect to the Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC), Councilman Roberts provided information regarding his opposition to the recent proposal presented to the Committee proposing 10 utilize the Discretionary funds from the years 2000-2008 (totaling $58 million), to fund two Measure A Projects (associated with the 91 Freeway Improvement Project); relayed that Discretionary funds were the sole , funds available for the southwest Riverside County area due to this particular area 110t being included in the Measure A Projects; noted that although approval of the proposal was recommended by staff, and the County Board of Supervisors, there was opposition from the Cities of Murrieta, Hemet, Temecula, and the majority of the Desert cities; advised, that the Committee denied the proposed funding; relayed that the Board of Supervisors then evoked the Division of the House Rule, v9tin9 (4-1) to approve the funding proposal, and thereby, rendered the issue mute; advised that it was agreed that in January there would be a Special Meeting scheduled to discuss the matter further; relayed additional information regarding the potential reduction Iii costs associated with the two Meclsure A Projects; advised that there was $67 million available in Rail funding which could potentially temporarily fund these two partiCUlar projects; noted that he would further update the Council in January, 2000; and provided assurance that he would continue to oppose the utilization of the Discretionary funds for the fundicg of the ' previously mentioned projects. - Councilman Roberts noted his disappointment'with the press continually publishing negative comments regarding the :lraffic situation in the City of T emecula; relayed the kudos the City had received from the public regarding the recent road improvements (Le., the Overland Bridge Project); and implored the press to acknowledge the improved circulation within the City ofTemecula. Since Councilman Lindemans would be leaving his seat on the Council in November, he requested that staff and the Council pursue the following matters: The paving of the Poole parking lot located in Old Town. The design and production of a scale model of Old Town. The permanent Community Theatre Project (proposed to be in Old Town). The Sports Complex, relaying the monetary benefits for the City if the complex is managed by an alternate entity. httn:lhlVWW_citemecllla_(".;:a_I1~r.itvh~11/minlltp<!/1QOaMin.nt~/l11 hao.............. "I "JU:U\1 NQvember 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . . Page 3 of 10 _.- For informational purposes, Councilman Comerchero relayed that the San Diego Padres Sports Project was near completion; and noted that there would be a Dedication Ceremony held on Thursday, November 18, 1999 at 3:30 ') P.M. (located on fields 1, and 2 of the Sports Park), Inviting the public to attend. Councilman Comerchero commended Mayor Ford for his excellent leadership skills exhibited while chairing the Council; and relayed that he would greaUy miss Councilman L1ndemans, noting that his participatiQn on the City Council had provided vision, contributing 10 the projects and policies of the City. With respect to the successful Race for the Cure Event recenUy held In Temecula, Mayor Pro Tern Stone relayed, kudos to the Pubic Works staff, and the Police Department for their diligent efforts associated with the activity. Commenting on the numerous improvements and the growth In the City of Temecula, Mayor Pro Tern Stone relaY'3d that the success was greaUy due to the assiduous efforts of staff, specifically, applauding Permit Engineer Crisp for his positive demeanor, and contributive achievement. With respect to Mayor Ford and Councilman L1ndemans leaving their Council seats on November 22, 1999, Mayor Pro Tern Stone relayed that Councilman L1ndemans' passion, devotion,.and commitment to the City would be greatly missed; commended Mayor Ford for his excellent work as Mayor, conslstenUy moderating the Council discussions without bias; relayed appreciation to Mayor Ford's wife, Ms. Mary Ford for her support; commented on the legacy that both Councilmen would leave, noting that the fruition of their accomplishments would continue. Regarding the proposed Sports Complex, Mayor Pro Tern Stone relayed that he looked forward to working with Mr. Undemans as an advisory counsel associated with the project. Rela};ng his gratitude for the accolades, Mayor Ford noted that he would withhold his comments until the November 22, 1999 City Council meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR , \ ....., 1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of an ordinances and resolutions included In the agenda. 2 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopl a resolution entiUed: - - RESOLUTION NO. 99.107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CllY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A ,. 3 Paramedic Program - October Statistics RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the report. Cons,mt Calendar Item No.3 was pulled for separate discussion; see page 8. } ~ Mar!~arita Middle School Sister City Trip to Nakayama .' RECOMMENDATiON: 4.1 Approve an expenditure of funds in the amount of $4,200 to provide twelve students and two http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcitvhalVminutes/1999Minnt.....lllllQQhhn 1 ,,",U:Ir.1 ,. November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . . Page40fIO.-- adults traveling to Nakayama, Japan, $300 per traveler to offset the trip expenses. ) It w.!s noted that the Recommendation associated with Agenda Item No.4 was amended. 5 Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintalned Street System within Tract Nos. 23220 and 24232 (located northerly of the Intersection of Calle Medusa at La Serena Way) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopl a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.108 .. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBUC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAlNTAlNED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT Nos. 23220 AND 24232) 6 Accept Public Improvements in Tract Nos. 23220 and 24232 (Ioca~ed northerly of the Intersection of Call13 Medusa at La Serena Way) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract Nos. 23220 and 24232; ,-,' 6.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance security to the 10% warranty level and initiation of the one-year warranty period; 6.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. - , ......, 7 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Santa's Annual Christmas Lights Parade on December 2, 1999, and delegate authority to Issue Special Events/Street Closures Permit to Director of Public Works/City Engineer ' RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES FOR JEFFERSON AVENUE AND ABUTTING STREETS FROM DEL RIO TO OVERLAND AVENUE FOR SANTA'S ELECTRIC UGHTS PARADE ON DECEMBER 2, 1999, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES I 8 Delegation of Authority to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to perfonn certain Administrative functions on behalf of the City Council .' RECOMMENDATION: >> 8.1 Adopl a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DELEGATING TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER THE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT PROJECTS AS COMPLETED, RELEASE PERFORMANCE WARRANTY SECURITIES FOR PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELEASE BONDS FOR SUBDMSION MAPS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ' 9 Amendment No.3 to Electrical Agreement for Maintenance of Signal and Lighting Systems on State Highways ) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Amendment No.3 to the Electrical Agreement for Maintenance of Signal and Lighting Systems on State Highways with the Slate Department of Transportation. http://\VlNW.ci.temecU);Lr.$l1I1i:/r.ihm!311/ft''1l~nllt_'''1000AA'";...n+...../111 t:nn L4.......... November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council ". '. Page 5 oflO== 10 First Amendment to Contract for Right-of-Way Weed Control Pre-Emergent and Post Emergent -Work Order No. 98-99'{)3 ) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Contract with Pestrnast~r Services, Inc. for a period of three (3) years beginning November 16, 1999,In an amount of $75,000.00. 11 Professional Services Agreement - Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall Pala Road Improvements _ Phase II, State Highway 79 South to Pechanga Road - Project No. PW99-11 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the agreement with Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) to provide professional engineering and design services for the preparatlon,of plans, specifications;and estimates to construct Pala Road Improvements - Phase 11- State Highway 79 South to Pechanga Road - Project no. PW99-11 - for an amount not to exceed $579,600.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract of $57,960.00; , 11.3 Accelerate appropriation of budgeted funds in FY2000-01 10 FY1999.{)0 in the amount of $250,000.00 to design Account No. 210-165-666-5802. 12 Completion and Acceptance of the Clty,Hall Remodel Project _ Phase II ......., RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the City Hall Remodjll Project- Phase II; 12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Perfonnance Bond, and accept a one-year (1) Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 13 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-30 .... RECOMMENDATION: r 13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: .. ORDINANCE NO. 99-30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE C,ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DevELOPMENT AGREEMENT BElWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND HIRAM-HILL, LLC FOR TENTAl1VE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1- 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A POR110N OF LOTS 16.20 AND 26-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882-3) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BElWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY It was noted that Councilman Comerchero would be abstaining with regard to this Issue. 14 S,econd Reading of Ordinance No. 99-31 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt ari ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-31 http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us/citvha1l/minutesl1999Minute.<:Illll.iQq hfTn 1"/~/n1 November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 6 of1()~'.: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA. APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND PAlA RAINBOW, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTlON OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PALA ROAD (PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99~273) ) MOTION: Councilman lindemans moved to approve Consenl Calendar Item Nos. 1-2 and 4-14. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception Councilman Comerchero' who abstained with regard to Item No. 13. ' Consent Calendar Item No.3 was considered at this time. 3 Paramedic Program - October Statistics RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the report. Providing an overview of the first six-week period of the Paramedic Program which began on September 15, 1999, City Fire Chief Brown presented the staff report (Of record); specified th.at the average response time was 4 minutes, 54 seconds; advised that the program had been successful, ptoviding improved emergency services for the City of T emecula; for Mayor Pro Tern Stone, relayed that a report had been submitted to staff, regarding the issue of tracheotomies, noting that this data would be presented 10 the City Council at a future point In time. Relaying thai he had attended a ride-along with the paramedic team, Mayor Pro Tern Stone commended the pan3medic staff for their diligent efforts associated with the emergency services; and with respect to the recent ballot vote (which did not pass), regarding the annexation of Redhawk, commented that the proviSion of these em'3rgency services would have benefited the area. MOTION: Councilman lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation, and that the Informational data regarding the issue of tracheotomies be broughl before the City Council within 30 days. Councilman Roberts seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately passed; see below.) ......, Mayor Ford requested staff to continue investigating the matter of the Global Positioning System (GPS) for ' utilization in the paramedic squads. " For Mayor Ford, City Manager Nelson relayed that staff would provide an update with respect to the GPS System with in 30 days, In conjunction with the presentation of the tracheotomy data. At tilis time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. At 7:55 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. JiJ. 7:58 P.M. a short recess was taken and at 8:15 P.M., the City CounciWesumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. PUBLIC HEARINGS . ' 15 "acate portion of North General Kearny Road In Tract No. 3334 (located at the southeast corner of realigned North General Kearny Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTlON NO. 99-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA VACATlNG A PORTlON OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD FROM MARGARITA ROAD TO 800 FEET EASTERLY OF MARGARITA ROAD I Director of Public Works Hughes provided an overview of the staff report (per agenda material.) Mr. Peter Sterling; 2398 San Diego Avenue, relayed concurrence with staff recommendation, requesting that the City Council approve the proposal to vacate the portion of North General Keamy Road (a portion of Lot ON in Tract http://www.ci.temecula.ca.~cityhalllminuteslI999Minuteslll1699.htm IV6/01 November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council No. 3334.) Page 7 oflO.--- At this time Mayor Ford closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. Councilman Lindemans seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COUNCil BUSINESS 16 Oral Report from Subcommittee, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-28 (Specific Plan No. 219) and Ordi'nance No. 99-29 (Development Agreement) - Home Depot Project (located north of State Highway 79 South, south of Montelegro Way, east of Margarita Road, an~ west of Meadows Parkway RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Receive an oral report by Subcommittee Members Mayor Ford and Councllmember lIndemans; 16.2 Adopt an ordinance entitled: "'"j ORDINANCE NO. 99.28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULAAPPROVlNG PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA99. 0285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIRC PLAN NO. 219), WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 1, 6, 8, 27 AND 36; AMENDS THE AUGNMENT AND CONRGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY 8ElWEEN DE PORTOLAAND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES: DIVIDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 68 (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS), RESULTING IN AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWEWNG UNITS FROM 590 TO 508; AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO INCORPORATE THE VILLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENmES; BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND RNDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDmONS OF APPROVAL ON RLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK . 16.3 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99.29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PA$EO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS l(a) & l(b) OF SPECIRC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7' MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98-28 (Specific Plan no. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (Development Agreement.) Councilman Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. : With respect to the dispute between the Coronlj Ranch properties and Newland Communities, Mayor Ford relayed that although there had been discussions, at 1I11s point in time no final agreement had been reached. Ms. Michele Staples, attorney for the Corona ~nch properties, specified the issues of dispute; relayed that the Corona family did not oppose the Second Reading of the Ordinances; and thanked Mayor Ford, and Councilman Linde mans for their assiduous efforts spent over the weekend, working with the parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. ' Councilman Lindemans relayed that the Council had previously placed a hold on 218 lots in Tract 24182-3, and 4, asso(;iated with this project; noted thai due to this property currently being in escrow, Newland Communities had offered in its slead, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units, requesting that there be a substitution of the parcels being held; and recommended that due to the situation, that the parcels be substituted. ',1r. .AJ'hadeff. representing Paseo Del SoVNewland Communities, relayed gratitude to Mayor Ford and Councilman )Lindemans for their time and consideration in attempting to aid the parties in the dispute; relayed that although there was no mandated requirement, Newland Communities had agreed to place a hold on the aforementioned properties In an attempt to be amenable with respect to settling the dispute; noted the specifications of the existing Development Agreement; reiterated Councilman lIndemans' recommendation to substitute the held parcels; In response to Mayor Ford's comments, relayed assurance that if the City Council approved the proposed http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us!cityhalVrninutesll999MinuteslII1699.htm 1",U/1\1 November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council substitution of parcels, thai there would be continued efforts to allempt to come to a resolution with the Corona _ Ranch properties; for Mayor Pro Tern Stone, specified that if the Council did not approve the substitution of - holdings, that the property owner would not be able 10 sell the property; and noted that there was, additionally, a risk of a lawsuit. Page 8 oflO, , . ) Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family opposed the proposal to substiMe the property holdings, providing the . rationale for the opposition; and specified that the Brown Act regulations would prohibit a ruling on, the mailer at this time due to this meeting being a Special meeting. City Allomey Thorson offered the following clarification: 1) noted that this was not a Special meeting, but an adjourned regular meeting, 2) relayed that the Agenda did specifically reference the projecl; 3) provided additional information regarding the Development Agreement; and 4) specified the Council's purview with respect to the rele'asing of the property hold althis time, and in the future, if requested. For Councilman lindemans, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the rationale for the Condition restricting the parcels was to ensure that there would be allempts to resolve the issues of dispute; and relayed that the holding may not have been placed on the property if Newland Communities had not been agreeable. MOTION: Councilman lindemans moved to have the City, hereby, release the 218 lots in Tract 24182-3 and 4, as des,cribed in the Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on November 9, 1999, and substttute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6, and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units. Councilman Comerchero seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately passed; seepage 12.) In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's querying, Ms. Staples relayed that her client would request a week's time to consider the new proposal. Mayor Ford specified the location of the originally held properties, and the properties proposed to be substiluted; advised that since Newland Communities had offered the collateral on good faith at the time, and due to the substitution \)roposal still maintaining an equitable holding, which would continue to encourage efforts to reach a settlement, recommended that the substitution proposal be approved. ~ Recognizing the unusual circumstances of the maller, Councilman Comerchero reiterated thai Newland Communities had offered the parcels currenfiy being held; noted that at the lime of approval, the Council was not aware of the fact that the parcels were in escroW; and recommended that the Council approve the substitution of the parcels. ' After further consideration of the maller, Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family had no objection to the proposal to substitute the parcels. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. - In Iighl of the time the Council thai had devoted to the discussIons, Mayor Ford implored the parties in dispute to makll efforts to come to a resolution. " For informational purposes, Councilman lindemans relayed that after much deliberation, Newland Communities was willing to post a $3.5 million bond, noting tt\e efforts to cooperate in reaching a resolution. 17 <:;ST Fiber Optics RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Receive and file a report regarding GST Telecom fiber optics. By way of overhead maps, Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff report (of record) as an infomlational item per the City Council's and City Manager Nelson's request; specified the location of the I telecommunication facilities installation; noted the concessions GST had made to mitigate the traffic impacts ./ associated with the project; relayed that the City would be monitoring the installation project; and for Councilman ComE:rchero, advised that solely the area within the Commercial District would have the installation postponed until January 3, 2000, (after the holiday season.) http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhaIllminuteslI999Minutesll11699.htm_ 1"""01 November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 9 of 10 .:~ ) - Mr. Joe Ferrill, representing GST Fiber Optics, relayed for Councilman Comerchero, that the applicanl would be willing to, additionally, delay the project in the southern area until January 3, 2000 if that was the desire of the Council; and In response to Mayor Ford's request that a minimum of two lanes of travel be open for vehicle traffic during installation, provided assurance that GST would adhere to all of the traffic guidelines dictated by the Department of Public Works, and the Council. For Councilman Roberts, Director of Public Works Hughes advislld that although there were no required cash deposits, or bond holdings, the CIty's standard encroachment permit specifies that the applicant would be held responsible for any damage to public property, private property, or any other utilities, relaying thai the City would not be liable for the aforementioned damage. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the encroachment permit was:inclusive of an insurance requirement, noting that the City would be made an additional Insured. in response to Councilman Roberts' concerns with respect to adept flagmen, road closure guidelines, and severed telephone cables, Mr. Ferrill reiterated thai GST would strictly adhere to,the traffIC guidelines provided by the City; notEld that if necessary, the flagmen would be retrained to meet the City's specifications; and clarified the Issue of the cut GTE cable in the City of Murrieta associated with their project, relaying that GTE had taken responsibility for the matter; and noted that GST would take every precaution to prevent the severing of utility lines. Mayor Pro Tern Stone relayed that he could support the project due to the applicanfs desire to cooperate with the City's guidelines, which was supported by stall's comments. Mayor Ford recommended that the concerns expressed by the Council be incorporated into the City's guidelines. MonON: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. Councilman Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 18 Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose TraillTEA Grant Application ~ RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Receive a report regarding our City's proposed Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) Grant application for a Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose Trail and authorize the Director of Public Works to submit said application on behalf of the City of Temecula. Reviowlng the Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose Trail Project, Director of Public Works Hughes apprised the Council of thE' City's efforts to qualify for the Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) Grant; noted that the plan would be Inclusive of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian routes; and specified the location of the proposed trails, and the provision of connectivity to the Old Town area, the Commercial area, as well as, the Industrial Parnreas the plan would provide. In light of the timeframe of the application due' d~te on November 1 g, 1999, CoUncilman Comerchero relayed that it would have been more appropriate to incorporate suggested modifications into the projecl if il had been presented to the Council at an earlier date; noted that although the project was meritorious, as proposed, he recommended the addition of a bicycle trail from the residential areas (i.e., Winchester Hills, Rodpaugh) to the sport!; park, due to the proximity of the sports park to the trail, and to provided access for children bicycling to the park. Notinnthat the plan appeared to have adequalely met the qualifications of the grant, Councilman Roberts advised that the Council approve the proposal at this time, in light of the timeframe for the grant application deadline; relayed the feasibility of a multi-purpose trail along Temecula Creek, noting that there was an area In the proximity of the 1-15 which could provide a tie into the connector to Old Town; recommended that the plan be modified to provide additional access points, and that staff investigate the utilization of dedicated land in the southern area if it was d'3termined that it would be needed for the future enhanced trail plan. )In response to the Council's comments, Director of Public Works Hughes advised that the proposed plan would be supplemented with additional connection points; noted that at this point in time, stall's efforts were focused on meeting the criteria for qualifying for this particular grant; and relayed that the Community Services Department would be conducting additional studies in an attempl to investigate the feasibility of a Citywide trail system, which http;//www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhall/minuteslI999MinuteslllI699.htm _ 1? 11;/(\1 November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council .' .. wo'ul d be incorporated into this particular project. Page 10 of 10,.,. -- -- ,'-\ , ) Relaying concurrence with Councilmen Comerchero and Roberts, Mayor Ford advised that there be provision of additional connectors to the bicycle trails, and the creeks; noted that with th,e addition of a short route from the Ynez Road area to the Winchester Road area, the Santa Gertrudis Creek could be utilized as a connector; and . recommended amending the plan, suggesting that red dotted lines could be added to the proposed plan to denote the previously discussed extensions. For Mayor Ford, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed assurance that the connector routes would be denoted on this particular application. For infonnational purposes, City Manager Nelson relayed that $70,000 had been included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the purpose of funding the trail's master plan, querying whether that should be included in this application's proposed plan to demonstrate the City's commitment to provide connectivity and trails within the City of Temecula. MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to receive, file, and endorse th,e proposed plan. Mayor Pro Tern Stone' seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENT REPORT No oJmments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson noted that at the next regular adjourned meeting which would be held on Monday, November 22, 1999 at 6:00 P.M. that the election results would be certified, the new Councilmen would be sworn in, and the following appointments would be made: the new Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tern, the President of the Temecula Community Services District, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Presidenl; and with respect to Mayor Ford, and Councilman Lindemans leaving their seats on the Council, relayed his appreciation for their support; and noted that the legacy that they have leflthrough theiraccomplishmenls would provide the City of T emecula with continued benefits. ' ....., ADJOURNMENT At 9:'12 P.M., Mayor Ford formally adjourn,ed the City Council meeting to an adjourned regular meeting on Tues,jay, November 22,1999, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. StevE,n J. Ford,Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, AAElCMC, City Clerk - [SEAL) .. fif.m~ L..32.~ , J / http://W1IVW.ci.!emecuIaca.uslcityhalVminuteslI999MinuteslII1699.htm 12/6/01 " T % o ;: ~ ~ . o u ~ < % 5 ... .... ...~ .. "'< <0 ...% 0-< lI)g~ 'cj:;: ,~ ~ ---! ~ ~ Ai; <" ",. ...~ <~ . > ~ :; ~ < :; o . ~ " :; < .1'" j .,"" 1 and move to close session. I'd like to have a closed session. 2 Can we adjourn to closed session Mr. City Attorney? 3 Thorson 4 I believe we can, we received information from the developer'S 5 attorney that there's some legal issues involved here. 6 Stone 7 Yes why I think we need to move to a closed session. 8 Thorson 9 I could respond to some of those issues. I don't think theY're 10 quite as complicated as they've been made out to be. 11 Ford 12 Could you give us some, shed some 'light on the action item and 13 the Brown Act and agenda, special meeting, that was brought up and what you're, interpretation of that would be. 14 15 Thorson 16 First of all, with respect to the procedural matters, you do have 17 an agenda report or an agenda item that ,does talk about the 18 project, the Home Depot Project~ You have a condition that was 19 imposed at the last meeting on that project and the request 20 tonight is to modify a condition that was imposed ptior to that ~:1 by substituting one. set of properties for another. You do have 22 the fact that the pr0~osed agreement between the two parties did 23 include this as a term. They may not have agreed to it but there 24 was notice that this was going to occur. And second of all,you 25 do, and third of all you do have you're not in a special meeting. 26 You're in an adjourned regular meeting so that the rules that 27 require that there be adequate notice apply, you don't have that 209 special rule that says that limits the types of items that you 11 C:\Oata\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-16-99 (Newland) .doc . , 1 ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 % 0 10 ~ < " 0 ~ " 11 0 u J < % 12 E ~~ ~~ ~o 13 " ~~ <0 ~% 0-< 14 .~g J ~ ~; 15 ~~ <" ~~ 16 ~~ <" ~ > ~ :L7 3 G < 3 c 18 ~ ~ ; 3 19 < 20 21 22 23 2~ 2~ ~ 26 27 2<: may speak to. Second Mr. A1hadeff raised the issue of the Development Agreement. There is a Development Agreement that does Cover this property, but the developer agreed to the condition as was imposed at the last meeting that put a hold on the bUilding permits so that that is a valid condition because they have agreed to it and they have agreed to the substitution. So I don't see any issues arising from the Development Agreement. The other point that I think is sig~ificant is the fact that that condition in a sense was imposed in the last minute on the developer at which time they omitted, or they neglected to raise the issue that these properties were in escrow. So it's not as if they are coming here trying to shift around property so that they avoid their obiigations, there was an actual fact that was not brought out at the last hearing as to why that occurred. You also have the discretion under the condition that was imposed at the last meeting not to release properties. So if they come in again in a month or two months and try ahd change things around because they don't want to comply with the requirements that they have you can say at that time, this is not right we're not going ... ... to release it, you need to continue with the process. And I think that responds t6 the questions that were raised. Ford ~ Thank you. Mr. Lindemans. Lindemans Mr. Mayor, I have now two problems. First of all staff initially did not see any nexus, initially said, look you don't have to change nothing, the 188 lots are sufficient, you don't have to put a hold on anything, and that was the opinion of staff. Was 12 C:\Data\Clients\CITY OOUNCIL\11-16_99 (Newland).doc e, , ). % o ;: < ~ o ~ ~ o u ~ < % ~ ... ....~ ....~ .~ "'< j!l ~g~ .1 ; -,/ <:2 "'~ ....r <~ > r ~ ;; < ~ o . r :; ~ < " . .. 1 that opinion researched well enough that you can still state that 2 same case? 3 Thornhill 4 I think that's a legal opinion, but I think that's what we stated 5 in the staff report that we felt there was no nexus and we, the 6 only reason we imposed that condition restricting those lots was 7 to insure that there would be some attempt to resolve these 8 issues. 9 Lindemans 10 Do you agree with the hold on these few lots, in addition to the 11 188. 12 Thornhill 13 We agree as a mechanism to help resolve the issue. Whether you know, theY've agreed voluntarily, .Newl and , to those conditions. 14 15 Now if they had stood on the record anq said we don't agree to 16 this, it could've been a different situation. 17 Lindemans 18 Right. Now I've learned that they are in escrow, they can be 19 sued for nonperformance, ,so I'm going to make the motion because 20 I'm proper in making the motion to release those 218 lots and 21 take in it's place th~ 408 multi-family unit lots on parcel 6 and - - 2:2 7. .' 23 Thorson 2,\ Mr. Mayor if I could put that into the language that we could use 2~; as a motion. 26 Lindemans 27 Please do. 28 Thorson 13 C:\Data\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-16_99 (NeWland) .doc o i ) ~ o u " < z ~ ..w ...,. ...,~ .. "'< <c ..>z ~g ~. ~dr.: z~ --J ~r ~.~ ""r <~ > 5 ;; < ~ c w r i ~ < ~' 17 18 19 20 \, ,1 It would be that the City hereby releases the 218 lots in Tract 2 24182-3 and 4 as described in the Condition of Approval, approved 3 by the Council on November 9, 1999 and substitutes iii their place 4 Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 5 consisting of 50 mu ~ ----- Lindemans units for this conditio 6 .. -------- -- -.., 7 That's my motion. 8 Ford 9 Is there a second? 10 Comerchero 11 I'll second that for discussion. 12 Stone 13 I'd like to ask Ms. Staples to come up to the microphone again, 14 if I could ask her a couple more questions. 15 Clerk 16 Mr. Mayor I also have one other slip that I'd like to mention. Ford Oh I'm sorry. Clerk Allen Davis. - :21 Stone :22 Ms. Staples the Council has a concern that we are going to cause :n undue legal ramifications not only to the developer, but 24 ultimately the City could be named in a lawsuit. What is your 25 objection to tying up the multi-family lots. Is there a 26 disadvantage for the Coronas that may not be readily apparent to 27 this Council. We want to do our best to expedite these 28 improvements that are going to mitigate the concerns of the 14 C:\Data\ClientS\CITY COUNCIL\11-16_99 {Newland)~doc . HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP A rrORNEYS AT LAW THIA M. COCHRAN DEAlI DUNN.RANKIN SANDRA A. GALLE WIU1AME. HALLE ANDREW K.. HAR.12ELL HUGH HEwm LAWRENCEJ. HILTON WRl]ER'S DlRECf DIAL: (949) 798..0734 EMAIL: doneiI@hewittoncil.com JOHN D. HUDSON STEVEN B. IMHOOF DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALOUKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WIWAM L TwoMEY JOHN P. YEAG.ER 19900 MAcARTIlURBoULEVARD, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500 . (949) 798-05 II (FAX) ElvIAD..: coW1$Cl@hewinoncil.com January 3, 2002 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Mayor and Members ofthe City Council City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application No. PAOI-0I09 (General Plan Amendment), Planning Application No. PAOI-0102 (paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8), Planning Application No. PAOI-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No.4) ~ Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Newland Communities ("Newland''), the developers of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 (now known as Paseo del Sol) master planned community. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219/EIR 235 and Development Agreement was originally approved by the Riverside CoUnty Board of Supervisors in September of 1988. This was prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula and inclusion of the Paloma del Sol property within the new Temecula municipal boundaries. Since the formation of the City of Temecula, the City Council approved an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for Paloma del Solon JaIluary 8, 1993 (the "Development Agreement"). Newland has processed a number of Specific Plan No. 219 amendments and tract maps and. addenda to EIR 235 consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. Newland has now pending before the City Council the above- referenced Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and request for certification of Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. Newland is in receipt of copies of the letters to the Temecula Planning Commission dated November 7, 2001 and November 28, 2001 signed by Darren W. Stroud, an attorney with the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, representing James and Mary , Corona and the Corona family objecting to Newland's pending Planning Applications. I have been given copies to read and asked by Newland to respond to the Coronas' assertions as spelled out in attorney Stroud's letters. Newland also wants me to make a request that the "hold" on the 508 unit multi-family tract in Paloma del Sol, as explained later in this letter, be released. Janll3l)' 3, 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\IS2\CORR'<l1120003.L TRdoc . /- , ) ....., City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 2 The Coronas' Objections and Newland's Response The Coronas object to the approval of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and pending land use Planning Applications on a number of grounds and request the City to: 1. Enforce the conditions of Specific Plan No.219 Amendment No.1 requiring construction of flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits; ,and 2. Enforce the mitigation measures required by EIR 235. In the absence of such enforcement, the Coronas state that a subsequent EIR should be prepared prior to consideration of the pending Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications. The Coronas want the hydrology and drainage for the area evaluated in order to mitigate the alleged increase flood hazards to the Coronas' land resulting from development of the Paloma del Sol project and construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Coronas object to Newland's Planning Applications because, they claim, development of Paloma del Sol creates a drainage issue for their property. However, all of the hydrology studies for Newland's property tell a different story. The facts are that the drainage on Newland's property runs from the northeast to the southwest and is directed into the Temecula Creek Channel through approved and AD 159 constructed storm drain facilities. Newland's property does not divert any drainage onto the Coronas property, which is located upstream of Paloma del Sol. to the southeast. Rather the drainage affecting the Coronas comes from the north and east of their property. The drainage pattern is also affected by Assessment District 159's construction of Butterfield Stage Road. AD 159 understood these factors and provided for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to direct the flow across the Coronas' property at the easterly boundary of AD 159. AD 159 built the downstream facilities, but unfortunately did not build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. So, the Coronas complain of a drainage problem that arises from water flowing from east and not from Newland's property, which is located to the northwest. It is this failure on the part of AD 159 to construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel that constitutes the"basis for the Coronas' storm water drainage problems on their property and really has nothing to do with the development of Paloma del Sol. . The Coronas' Contentions and Newland's Response Admittedly, there is some evidence that during heavy storms the surface waters which have historically sheet flowed from the northeast to the southwest comer of the Corona property accumulate and cause a "ponding" condition to exist on an area at the southwest comer of the Corona property. This is the area where the Butterfield Stage Road intersects State Highway 79. The Coronas contend that the construction of the Paloma del Sol project has effectively blocked drainage across their property, creating significantly increased flood hazards to their and to upstream properties. They argue, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility (the Butterfield Interceptor Channel) to mitigate this flooding on their property has not January 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\IS2\CORR\01120003.LTR.doc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 3 yet been constructed. The Coronas claim Newland is responsible for solving this problem and the City should not approve discretionary land use entitlements for Newland until the Butterfield Interceptor Channel is built. The Coronas continue to refer to an April 6, 1988 letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a May 16, 1988 letter from the developers' engineers (Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates) responding to' the Flood Control April 6, 1988 and a letter from the Senior Civil Engineer at the County Flood Control District dated May 26, 1988. These letters were prepared at the time the developer of the Specific Plan No. 219 planned community was seeking the original entitlement permit approvals from the County of Riverside. The April6, 1988 letter from Riverside County Flood Control raises issues regarding the potential for diversion of storm water from its natural tributaIy drainage course. The developers' engineers' response letter dated May 16, .1988 acknowledges the need for construction of flood control facilities to intercept the storm waters tributary to this area The May 26, 1988 letter from the senior civil engineer at the Riverside County Flood Control District to the Riverside County Planning Department states the problems raised in the April 6, 1988 letter have been largely corrected by the applicant. Further, the May 26, 1988 letter points out the need for a permanent flood control facility onsite or off site before development downstream occurs. ~ It is this May 26, 1988 Flood Control District "comment letter" the Coronas have been relying on to support their position. However, the Assessment District 159 EIR described the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as the mitigation measure needed to resolve any flooding caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is the "off site" solution to handling the storm water on the Coronas' property. An interinJ detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Paloma del Sol. Pursuant to Condition 40 of Tentative Tract 24182, this "onsite" detention basin mnst remain in place until such time that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel or some other adequate facility is built to convey offsite storm flows to the Temecula Creek. _ The 1999 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.7 Some members of tqe City Council will recall this is not the first time the Council, the City Attorney and the City staff have reviewed these issues raised by the Coronas. In fact, the City has considered a number of applications for modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps over the years as chronologically listed in the staff report. As they have in the past, the Coronas, through their legal counsel, resubmit the same documents and arguments each time Newland's applications for Paloma del Sol are submitted to the Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Coronas continue to assert that it is illegal for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps without enforcing the purported cOnditions of approval requiring the construction of flood control facilities to protect their land. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission and the City Council have in every case approved Newland's January 3, 2002 100 19-??oo2 S:\IS2\CORR'Dl J20003.LTR.doc ;. .. City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 4 . applications to amend the Specific Plan 219 and modify tract maps for Paloma del Sol because it has been determined that the Coronas' arguments are without merit. Most recently, in October 1999, the Coronas appealed the Planning Commission's approval of four planning applications submitted by Newland for Paloma del Sol. They based their appeal entirely on their claim that Newland s!1ould be required to build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The staff determined that the EIR for Assessment District 159 had addressed the issue by requiring the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as a mitigation measure to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The staff further deterinined there was no nexus between the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and Newland's four planning applications. The staff was clear that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel was to be built by Assessment District 159, and Newland had "no control over the timing of that process." Accordingly, the staff recommended deuial of the Coronas' appeal. On November 9, 1999, the City Council concurred with the staffs analysis and denied the Coronas' appeal. The Pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 On November 28, 2001, consistent with their prior actions involving revised entitlement permits for Paloma del Sol, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Specific Plan 219 Amendment No. 8, the related Planning Applications and certification of ---! Addendum No.4 to the final EIR. The Planning Commission accepted the staff's answer to attorney Stroud's letters as stated in their November 28,2001 report to the Planning Commission as follows: "Public Works Department staff believes the issue of timing and construction of the flood control facilities has already been actdressed. Moreover, staff believes the current planning actions being proposed have no affect on the timing and construction of the flood control improvements." - The Coronas cannot point to any other significant difference or to any change in circumstances that would require, the City to reach a different result. Newland's valuable development vested rights set forth.m. the Development Agreement are being challenged because Assessment District 159 cannot, with put the cooperation of the Coronas, construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel which is its responsibility to do. Because the City has already rejected the Coronas' objection to four nearly identical planning applications and the Coronas did not challenge the City's decision in court in timely manner, the Coronas are now estopped from making their objections anew before the City Council. Newland submits this matter and the issues raised by the Coronas have been thorougWy researched, analyzed and reviewed by the City Attorney and staff. The objections the Coronas raise to Newland's current Specific Plan Amendments and Planning Applications are almost identical to their objections to the four planning applications approved by the City Council in November of 1999. Full envirorunental analysis m. compliance with the California January 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\IS2\CORR'4l1120003.LTR.doc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 5 Environmental Quality Act has occurred. Notice, public hearings and due process has been satisfied. There is no evidence in fact or in law to support the Coronas' contentions. Assessment District No. 159 Assessment District No. 159 ("AD 159") was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other infrastructure systems within the AD 159 boundaries. In 1991, a supplemental district was approved to increase funds available for the cost of the original AD 159 improvements and to add new district improvements, including the Butterfie~d Interceptor Channel. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel was planned to be constructed on the Corona property east of Butterfield Stage Road at the easterly boundary of AD 159. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paloma del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert them into Temecula Creek. Butterfield Stage Road was constructed above grade in 1994-1995 as an Assessment District 159 project. Contrary to the Coronas' contention, Butterfield Stage Road was not built by Newland. ' Butterfield Stage Road and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility are improvements under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and Assessment District No. 159, not Newland Communities or the City of Temecula. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of SR 79, the --i modifications to Temecula Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage facilities, were dependent on the Butterfield Interceptor Channel being built. In hindsight, the Butterfield Interceplor Channel ,probably should have been built before Butterfield Stage Road. For reasons not known to Newland and surely not under the control of Newland, this did not happen. As a matter of fact, once Butterfield Stage Road was bnilt by AD 159, the ponding the Coronas complain about would occur after a heavy rainfall. TIlls condition would exist on the Corona property regardless of whether or not any development ever happened on the Paloma del Sol land. As originally contemplated, the improvements AD 159 were to b1!ild cost about $108 million. The Paloma del Sol, Specific Plan No. 219, property has been taxed to pay its fair share of the improvements. To date, the Paloma del Sol property has been assessed approximately $27 million for the improvements. TIlls payment included construction of the portion of the Temecula Creek Ch~el that is designed to accept flow from the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland recognizes its obligation as one of the major landowners in AD 159 to participate in the completion of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland has remained willing to cooperate in any good faith effort to resolve outstanding design and funding issues associated with getting the Channel built. To date, the Coronas refuse to accept their fair share of this obligation. Butterfield Interceptor Channel All of the interested parties, including the Coronas, agree that AD 159 was, and is, responsible for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the Janulll}' 3, 2002 10019.??oo2 S:\IS2ICORR'D1120003.LTRdoc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 6 construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel because they must agree on its location and make the land available for this improvement at a reasonable price. To this end, Newland has been working diligently with the Coronas and the County of Riverside for over five years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The County has analyzed various alignments for the Channel and has examined, additional alternatives at the request of the Coronas. The original design was an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona properties at the east end of the AD 159 boundaries. The Butterfield Interceptor Chann~l would then continue under SR 79 and extend south to Temecula Creek. The cost was eStimated at $3.5 million: The Coronas have objected to and resist the original design because the facility, they say, would adversely impact their current fanning operations. In an attempt to provide a system that would not interfere with the Coronas' agricultural uses, a subsurface covered box culvert was studied but this was determined to be infeasible. '-7 The County Flood Control District looked at another design alternative suggested by the Coronas' engineers consisting of two channels, This dual channel system would include an open channel located along the easterly boundary of the Corona property to intercept the majority of the drainage from the east along with a smaller underground facility at theeastem boundary of AD 159. The dual channel system is estimated to cost $8.7 million and would benefit all of the reinaining 160 acres of the Corona property not originally included in the AD 159 boundaries. The Coronas have stated their preference for the dual channel alternative, but maintain their current farming operations could not support this level of funding. Methods of providing deferred assessments have been offered and suggestions that the Coronas dedicate the necessary right of way for the dual channel system to reduce costs have been rejected. The goal sought to be achieved in the meetings with the County and the Coronas of finding a method to fund the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and then be able to apportion the costs of the improvements on an equitable basis has so far failed. This is due, in l3!Je part, to the Coronas' desire that they receive all of the benefits of a storm water protection system for all of their property without being willing to accept any of the costs of constructing these facilities. Supplemental EIR The attorney Stroud for the Coronas argues that a supplemental EIR must be prepared to address increased flood hazards. In general, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed in prior environmental documentation. The intent of CEQA is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources Code Section January 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\lS2'CORR~1120003.LTR.doc , City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 7 ) 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), . a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a result of: (a) substantial changes in the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; (b) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; or (c) new information which was not available when the origina! EIR was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantia! adverse impact which cannot be mitigated. The CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required unless one of these specified triggering events occur. ~ A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language. ,An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Ca!. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Ca!. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Ca!. App. 3d 1065). CEQA Section21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v., Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights If') (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR if impacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project EIR, a further EIR is not required (Bowman). A city may not, therefore, require a supplemental or focused EIR unless it finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case as it was in November of 1999, there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt should be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights). A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a subsequent EIR is not required. CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)(e). 'This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR i addendum to evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a .~ January 3, 2002 10019-??oo2 S:1I52ICORRIOI120003.LlRdoc ; City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 8 / ) mechanism for determining whether a further EIR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide that a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included in an: (i) addendum to an ErR, (ii) the city's required findings on the project or (iii) elsewhere in the record. On this point the planning staff report and position adopted by the Planning Commission states: "With regard to environmental analysis, PI<UIDing staff does not believe that the planning actions as proposed have any significant environmental affect on flood hazard issues. Moreover, staff believes the proposed ,Addendum to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, staff does not believe that additional environmental analysis is necessary." '-I Even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a supplemental EIR should be prepared in connection with the pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment and related Plarming Applications. This is because Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and the Planning Applications under review will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. The existing Paloma del Sol approximately 20-acre detention basin in Tract 24182 will protect downstream properties from any storm water drainage entering from the east. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paloma del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applicatious will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a subsequent ErR. Simply stated, there is no neXus or relationship to the pending Paloma del Sol Planning Applications and drainage issues on the Corona property. _ Interim Detention Basin and Hold on 508 Multi-family Units On February 2, 1998, .the City Council, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA 96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182), added Condition No. 40 dealing with an interim detention basin located on approximately 20 acres at the southeastern portion of Tentative Tract 24182. The condition required Newland to set aside and maintain this area entitled for 188 residential lots as a storm water detention basin until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet. This condition constitutes Newland's "onsite" mitigation to protect properties to the west of Butterfield Stage Road in the event of an extreme storm episode when storm waters could breech Butterfield Stage Board. January 3, 2002 IOO19~2 S:\IS2\CORRIOI120003.LTR.doc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 9 ......, In an attempt to address the concerns of the Coronas lI!ld provide further incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council on November 16, 1999 placed a "hold" on Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units in the Paloma del Sol project. Even though Newland was advised by counsel and the staff acknowledged there was no legal requirement to accept this limitation, Newland .recognized the need to show its good faith willingness to continue the efforts to work towards a resolution of the storm water drainage problem in this area. Newland accepted this restriction and offered the collateral of 508 multi- family units as an "equity holding." It was clearly the intent of the City and Newland as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim condition. Newland must now respectfully request the'City Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family units in Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. Newland has negotiated in good faith with the County and the Coronas on numerous occasions since the City Council imposed this development restriction on their property in November of 1999. As pointed out earlier in this letter, the Coronas have failed to agree on the various design alternatives and funding options for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland remains willing to work with the County and the Coronas to resolve the issue of building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. However, it would no longer be appropriate' and constitute a denial of Newland's property rights protected by the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement to further interfere with Newland's opportunity to develop Planning Areas 6A and 6B' Conclusion The Coronas have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of the Paloma del Sol project approvals, any significant changed circumstances, or new information which was not considered in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR 235 as further reviewed in prior and in the current Specific Plan Amendment No.8, related Planning Applications and Addendum No.4 to EIR235. The AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road construction, and not Paloma del Sol, has caused the storm drain ponding to exist on the Corona property. The Coronas have a remedy by taking action against the County or they.r.an cooperate in allowing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to be constructed by AD 159. Nevertheless, the Coronas continue to pursue groundless efforts to manipulate the City's land use discretionary powers to their advantage while threatening the property rights of Newland. There is absolutely no connection between the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues raised by the Coronas. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns should be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County of Riverside, not the City and Newland. This has consistently been the position of Newland. Newland has been willing and continues to be willing to work with the Coronas and the County on a solution to the storm water drainage issues impacting the area, but the Coronas need to demonstrate a greater willingness to cooperate in the process. Newland has acted in good faith in the negotiations and under the circumstances must request the City Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family units imposed on Newland over two years ago. January 3, 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\IS2'CORRIOI12000J.LTR.doc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 10 ) While the issues of the design, funding 4Uld construction of the AD 159 Butterfield Interceptor Channel seem to be languishing, Newland is incurring significant costs of maintaining an interim detention basin that protects their and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road. This interim detention basin also prevents Newland from developing 188 lots already entitled under the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. It is this major restriction on Newland's development rights and not the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units which will continue to provide the incentive for Newland to work: towards a solution for constructing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. In summary: . Newland has vested property and development rights under the terms of the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement which is binding on the City. . Any flooding that might occur on the Coronas' property is caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD 159 and can be resolved by the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel by AD 159. The Coronas' remedy lies with the County and AD 159. . There is no causal relationship or ''nexus'' between Specific plan No. 219 Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and storm drainage issues raised by the Coronas on their land. ~ . There are no substantial changes in the Paloma del Sol project, changed circumstances or new information having an adverse impact on the environment requiring a supplemental ErR. . Newland has met with the County and the Coronas to work on solutions for construction the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, but the Coronas are unwilling to accept their fair share of the costs. . Newland respectfully requests the City to release the hold- on the 508 ,multi-family dwelling units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Continuing the hold would provide no public purpose and is legally unsupportable. . Newland has satisfied its obligation to protect its and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road by maintaining the interim detention basin or equivalent facility which must remain in place until such time as upstream drainage facilities are constructed. .lanuary 3, 2002 10019-??oo2 :l:\IS2ICORR'DII20003.LTR.doc ~ -' City ofTemecula January 3,2002 Page 11 ) On behalf of Newland, I therefore submit there is no need to consider adding new conditions or to require further environmental documentation and respectfully request the City Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Specific Plan 219 Amendment No.8, the related Planning Applications and certifY Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. Further, Newland no longer consents to the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 2943 I and requests to be released from this hold. Very truly yours, ~6)~ DennisD. O'Neil DDO/clt cc: James M. Delhamer Dean Meyer Sam Alhadeff Peter M. Thorson - January 3, 2002 10019.()()OO2 S:\IS2ICORRIOI120003.LTR.doc .. . 'c#' - : Pf RI""". ." ~.---...:~.~ / ~ "~(f' :" .1/ ".oJ _ .\~ i~/./ - \:z: ;3~-' ,~ \~ , ;.. -. ~ .' ')\ l!.,~~$ ,~+ ~G/ ,.-,., ......~/ ~.~--~ December 11, 2001 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY = '~~~,_.\~o" "~h "'/,>" ~ .;'..~/ ~-tnO~ of.'t~.. DOl'id E. Barnhart Di~ctor of Transponatioll Transportation Department Mr. William G. Hughes, Director City of Temecula Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 9033 ' Temecula, California 92589-9033 AdJ<OJ~ RE: Butterfield Interceptor Channel, Assessment Dl1'ltrict No. 159 Dear Bill: ~ Per your request, I am sending you this ,fetter to briefly summarize the ongoing discussions between the County and the property owners affected by the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. v For almost two years now, the County has -been meeting with Newland Communities, the Corona Family, and Leonl;!rd Savala in an effort to come to an agreement on a preferred alternative for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. . Assessment District No. 159 contemplated placing the Interceptor at the easterly boundary of AD No. 159, which would. include the Savala property and only 20 acres of the Corona's land. The Corona Family and Mr. Savala indicated the proposed AD No. 159 alignment was not acceptable to them.. Acfcfi<<onaf alig'1ments were suggested by.the property owners and have subsequently been studied I:Jy the Riverside County Flood Control District., As a result of the study effort, it appears the property owners unofficially support .an alternative ,to place the Interceptor along the east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately, to date we have not been able to develop a financing llJec::hanism to CO!}struct the suggested Interceptor. If you are interested, we can forward you a copy of the Flood Control Report summarizing the alternatives studied. If you haveimy questions, please contact me. ' . Sincerely, ' , 'i" a i~Oh n', Deputy Direct of Transportation . " . - GiAJ:sa . cc: Sam Alhadeff, Newland Communities Michele Staples Steve Corona Leonard Savala Dusty Williams, Flood Control District Rhonda King~ Executive Office , 4080 lemon Slree!. 81h Floor' Riverside. California 92501 . (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090. Riverside. California 9~50~.1090 . FAX (909) 955.6721 ll2;'~:M2llall 16: 82 8776395559, .'ttrrd<l':'OO THU 02:54 rN RIV Cf ~ClJflVl: U~I-Jl;l:. '.... . RR BROWN co I-llX tiU. I . '".'- , ,'.. : ',:: "':1 dH.2J;3'>C':.':" 'qlo:i08ti,l'lJ~:~\a?U '. COUNTy OF RIVERsIDE TRANSPORTAT.lON AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 'fransportation Department Dnfd E. B~rnh~" Dir<r:tor t1fT<QouPOI7<<ti"" February 17, 2000 cERTIFIED HA1I. tp 310 675 430 Corona Ranch 33320 State Highway 79 Temeeu/a, CA 92592 t(Q)~1r Attention: Steve Corona H.E: Butterfield East Interceptor Storm Drain Dear Mr. Corona: ~ J am Writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meeting we had ~t the Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various aflernatives We studied for the Butterfield East Interi::eptor Slorm Drain Facility. I appreciated the opportunity to hear your concerns, Bnd as a result, I gained a better understanding of the history surroUnding this project and the various alternatives. Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. .... . As you are welf aware.)he Butterfield Interceptor was included as an Assessment District No. 159 facility;to be located atthe eastern Assessment District boundary, I.Q in~:;!rcept the tributary drainage 1I0ws and provide tIood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept was to construcl an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own pmperty upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the'AD bOUndary, you requested We study other alternatives:" You are currently farming all of your propen,o and. advised the Interceptor WOuld disrupt your farming operation. With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. let me summarize the fwo other options we diSCUssed, whIch seemed potentially feasible: AlternatIve No. 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same alignment as the original OPtion (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the 'channel and constructing a box under your property. You expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could continue your farming operations Uninterrupted, and 2) the FlOOd Control District Would accept this option as a solution: The.intent was to provide four feet of COver Over the box, so you could continue your fanning over the top of tha facility, During our meeting, Flood Control District representatives questioned the feaSibility of this option. First of all, they doubt the tributary /lows can actually be properly COJ/ecled by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it . 4080 L<moa Sc",,- SIh f1ooT. Ri"'''idc, uliroTal.1 92501 . (1)09) 955.67"0 p.o. Box 1090. R..."jd,. C.IUocai, 92502,1090, FA)( (909) 9S5.672! !l2124/2eee '16: 62 877639555~.. I: ' :-'EJ/'-/.4-UU HIU If.!:bb I'n KIV l.1J . ltl;U 11 VI: UI-I-I I:. .~ -".. . RR BROWN CO l"/llIlllJ. I PAGE: 83. ,,' T. U~ Mr. Steve COrona February 17. 2000 Page 2 ~ undergrOUnd makes the slope of the box culvert too ffat and creates onsoing maintenance Problems. Therefore. this optIon doesn't seem practical. The other option we discusSed was Alternative No. .5, a dual system with an open channel located along your eastetly property boundary to intercept a majority of the drainage from the east, along witl1 a smaller underground system at the eastem AD boundsI}' to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, abov~ Oe Portela Road and east to Calle Contento. You expressed your preference for this alternative. Under Altemative No.5, all of your Property will be flood pmtected. The Property you own outside the AD bOUndary Woufd benefit Under this alternative and would therefore be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. 'fou diScussed YOUr desire to defer any assessments on your Property until Your farming 'Jperation develops info some otl1er Use. This Would require some other: party to adVance YOllr costs. WhHe I understand your desire. the County doesn't have the financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to redUce your COSls j:; 10 dedicate the right-of-way needed to construct the facility. Other than that. I have not been able to come up with any other cost saving solutions. '\lfyOU are Willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of your pr'Operty 'Outside the current AD f 59 boundaries, the Transportation Department is Willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we wi/( need y.ourWritten ce.ncurrence.// YClur COOperation is needed to make [he Interceptor a reality. I kICk forward to receiving your Positive respanse sa We can proceed in a COoperative m<l!nner. Please feel free te contact me if you have any questions or tequke any additional information. , Sincerely. - ~~~ George A. Johnson DeplJty Director of T ranSportalion GAJ:sa CC: SUperviSor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Cars1ens Dave Barnhart Kelley Donovan Frank Peairs ---7 ." '-~~u LO;~~ 87763g555g :'1:.Il,'''q-uu II1U u;::::,:, rn KJV 1.1.' \I:\;UIIV/: Urrl\;/: r e: ~ ~ ... u 15 " Q ~ ~ ... ... ::: "'< .... ~ '" il u 0: ~ .. ... ... 15 ... ~ .. .., i:l ~ ~ '" 1: " .. -. .. ~ .... :;! "" ... .., 8 ~ I: ~ ~ .... '" .... ~ '" ~ '. -':if . ft 1: H HI ;;! eSG go ~::~ B] i:~ o:;~ ~Q" ~i Jo& ~e '.g~ .CL ""S~'E :tHi.=~f ~8l~ffj g ~ :loo_,BoI(gB ~~~:HtJ~ HiR .~l -0 - -!" - "f'fu.... H 001 lili "'>; o~ o:;c v2 -0 >C. 0. ~ - ~~ ~!: 80 ::::-;:::- ~ .2 ~ .. . l :& u x . ~ ~ e Yi ,: ~ e " ~o>g "~'Il (J i ~.. ~ CII~~ lIC'%, Q,i .. s H!o. c ~o~ =-ZN~ x o '" .. ~ '" ... o ~ < ., '" '" ~ - E - >< 3: . 0101""0 :l :;:,8,:;.8i.... ~..fO:~iD.i. ;:~'-:2': :i:~.-'''l i E:"jig;Sl/le ClI.ti......i~ ..... r:'sJ::S"JS'" ta: ........_... "9. <e.,.,..... (.. ... (J : . ....: I i I g . ~. I . B! 1 i i. 11' ';8 : , ! i I I I I J ~,J&I'~I~I~ 51 " -/ll' _ :.;I~':t._,::: ".-......, .. -' I 1 r : ! , iI' : r I . I ! I I ' z o Ii '" "I:; :; '" .. 0- 0- X '" '" . w " '" 5 ~ ~ >=:i ." ~ ~ g ~ ....;~ ~ kl ).0 C(.~ t; ~ ~ i'~ E ~ ~ .:= ~ fn 5 .... ~ 1; ::l:' >- a ~ 3; 8 ~ g; ~ u RR IlROWN co rllh nv. I ~ E :f t w " ... 5 ~ <: .. ~ '" .. ~ >- .. 8 ~ ~ t= '" w ... .. 0- o 0- ~~/24/2eee 16:"'2 f3l~' ::::.:-~ '~;-_ ::.:.'-:i PAGE 84 r. U'f - . "''l'. ;"~~"Ol "'-'lcD..utx..o..'<V>t'. ...,..UW r. atb'St1:I!< ......."W.CA:J:Ul..\. .k~,.C.Clo:.")4.' WlnIfl.Ol"'~' kAlt!"folL,.S.FIP'l ll.oCilaM.'..."t;S HlliI.Efo/lZ.F.....otU &Qt.:AMlA.G4L.W~,,\" "MI'l:K.ol:L$. ltbtDU.k'" . WU.\,W<4M.1tC;fe&.lY f.ticn1TJ4CU<\f1; fk\l'Ci&.ASf.lAIwo~"" .......NM.L,.tvtun M..lU..tMMowI: '"I AI t.. ,.\Mv&s STI"Mlfolv.tot..uur: , 10:48... F,om-Buch.lt. "'!.... .Fi.ld. & Youna.' +141 251 1707 " HIS P,007/028 f-OIS ~ACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH "' t..\"' ':OlCrOIC..T.O~ l"","K.Mc.A~1'l' DA....oA,.OSu;<o."I'./IJl( TH\J&U,Sb.PIClC(N".wG" J.I"....~ltCJC GAlUA\' p, RtClo. AUIUfil.l\fln_ CNILA It.I\\llAL J[>>lJId....SC....l..u.. ^",ouwC.Sau."Tt MIOltu A. $U..\LS D.o.MLN'W.sr._ 5nUUl<ll. T.v.sn... ""'c-.f..l. TIOU1 Wu.UAIoIJ.T""" ,..un.E.VAl"H..........sU,. JLuI M. WI.AIt-' wun.....ICf,Vtl.l..,lOCO"lCf 4 P,tJU.; PlAZA. 16rH fLoo. lll,Vlt((.C.u.lf~1A '26U "'6S 0....: CusrD",.t.SUttl, Joo WtS1l,.o,UVtI.UCLCAL'k'll....... '1)61 l(~ 1I1U74.U70/'05.1)O.oclJ) f...x a'I."'.1271 IItIS.UQ.OO,7 P. O. Box 19704 1'l.VJw[. C.u.IFOlltfLA 9162).'170. HI. ,.9.7SUSlS f.u. 9C9.1UGS?7 : www.jdpla...~ L"""Ut<tIl.tl.f.ba(l( '''CoWJtSU l!.I:llAMcKlnaM;1l ~fI-.tU OU.feu It''''''lU: 28878 (.M.4ft,.:; August 13,2001 dstroud@jdplaw.com ".lImon DtUU DIAl. tlUM'u.: (949)851.7404 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Chairman James 1\. Venable Riverside County Board of Supervisors 4080 Lemon Street, 14'" Floor Riverside, California 92501 I - Re: Agenda Item 13.3 Comments on Proposed Colorado Pacific Commlln"ilies Project and Requestfor Condition of Approval Dear Chairman Venable and Honorable Board Members: We representJames and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the "Coronas") with respect to their propenies located at the northeast ('orner of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. We request that this letter be included in the adminisliative record for this matter. The Coronas own property on the north side of H~hway 79 across from the Colorado Pacific Project. The Coronas were informed of the CoJoratlo Pacific Communities Project ("Project") for the first time only a few days ago. The Coronas are concerned about the lack of consideration being given in evaluating the impacts of the Project on the Assessment District 159 Bunerfield East Interceptor Channel flood control facility ("Interceptor Channel"). As discussfd below, since the Project in its current fOIlTl would crea!e significant envirorunemal impacts and conflict with existing surrounding land uses, the Coronas request that any approval of the Project be conditioned upon dedication of an easement to the Riverside County Flood Control District for the Interceptor Channcl. The requested easement could easily be accommodated while maintaining the Project densities by minor revisions to , : .9B'22;01 .10:480" Fraa-B.chalt., '....II.Fi.l" & V...." +849 251 1707 1-B96 P.ODB/DIB F-096 J.-\.CIi$O~ DEM.'\RCO & PECKEr."PAUGH ) Chainnan Jam~s A. Ve.nable August 13, 2001 Page 2 roads on the eastern end of the Project. If the County is unwilling to incorporate the requested easement at this time, the County, at a minimum, should continue this matter to the next Board of Supervisors' meeting to allow tbe Coronas to further work with Planning Commission staff and the Project applicanr to address their concerns with the Project. I.. BACKGROUND The Project consislS of subdividing 46 gross acres into 122 residentiallolS. In or about June 2001, the Planning Commission issued its recommendation that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Mhigated Negative Declaration, approve Change of Zone No. 06583. and approve Tentative"Tract Map No. 30052. The Coronas did not receive notice of the Plawing Commission hearing. ---; For oVer a year, the Coronas and other landowners within Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for the Interceptor Channel flood control f:lCility have been meeting regularly with representatives of the County of Riverside's Executive Office, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Flood,Conlrol District, and County Counsel's office to devise a ,mutually-agreeable Interceptor Channel design and aligmneot. One of the alternatives previously proposed by the County inCluded an open channel through the Corunas' land 70 feet wide, 1,000 feet long, and 10 feet deep. TItis proposed alignment would effeCtively bisect the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing fanning and commercial operations and eventual development: '. Fonunately, two other feasible ,alignments were de, eloped. However, one of them (on the west side of Butterfield Smge Road) was eliminatedearlkr this year by the County's approval of incompatible construction of Ralphs Store buildings across the proposed alignment. The Ralphs Store constrUction project, as originally proposed, could have accommodated the Interceptor Channel. However, the Project wa.< revised to place buiitrings across the alternative Interceptor Cannel alignment without notice to the Coronas even though they had requested notice of any projeCt revisions inconsistent with the Interceptor Channel alignments (see correspondence to the Board of Supervisors daled October 2, 2000. enclosed and incorporated by this reference). " The Coronas' engineer, Bob Krieger. has been working closely with the County Flood Control District to analyze and confinn the feasibility oflocating the Interceptor Channel faciliry at an alignment approximately 4.800 feet eaSl ofthe inters<ction of Bunerfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon by all of the participating , ps..zZ-OI '-- . ,10:49.. F,..-Such.II' '~...,.Fi.ld., Vou..., +949 Z51 1707 T-8SS P.OOS/OIB F-OSI .1.-\.C..501'< Dk:M.~co 6: PECJU:r-""l".....GGH ) Chairman James A. Venable August 1.1.2001 Page 3 Assessment District 159 landowners. Maintaining the integrity of this alignment for a flood control facility is necessaIy to accomplish me purposes: of Assessment District 159 without undue harm to the Coronas or any other property owner. Nevertheless, the Project. as proposed, would place homes across the alignment, effectively eliminating me alignment. n. REOUESTED MJTIGA nON MEASURE AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL Through the Project site., thc agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel flood control faciliry-consisrs of an underground box culvert, 30 feet wide, running north to south. The required setback necessary to accommodate the Interceptor Channel can be easily accommodated within the project densities and without interfering with underground utilities by revising the roads on the eastern end of the Project. (n order to alleviate the significant Project impacts that would othezwise require the preparation of an environmental impact repon ("EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Qaulity Act ("CEQA,'') the Coronas recommend including an additional mitigation measure and condition of approval, as fo1\ows: ~ A future north-south floOd control structure is being planned through the Project site as the Assessment District 159 Buuerfield East Interceptor Channel at approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, The developer will provide a drainage easement to the Flood Control DistriCt for the flood conlrOl'strUcture. The drainage easement shall be kept fre.e of buildings and obstrUctions. III. VIOLATION OF NOTICE REOUlREMENTS The Coronas have spent dozens of hours and tens of thousands of dollars over the past year meeting regularly with County persolUlcl and other landowners within AsseSliiUent District 159to develop and evaluate the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel. COUnty personnel participating in ~O'se meetings, as recently as June 200 I, include Dusty Williams and StUart McKibbin of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Tony Carstens of (he Executive Office, David Bamhai1', George Johnsan and Jerry Norris afthe Transpanation and Land Management Agency, and Tim Davis of the County Counsel's office. Many afthese same individuals and entities were involved in planning and plan checking the proposed Colorado Pacific Project. Additionally, Trans-Pacific Cansultants. the engineer for the Colorado Pacific project, developed the conceptual plans far the eastern alignment of the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel jusllast year. Yet. the Project calls far the incompatible consnuction of residences across the very alignment that has been the facus of the meetings and analyses on the Interceptor Channel facility. Oll-U-OI ---.:. r_ ' . 10:48am F~om4Buchalt.r ~amlr.Fi.ldE , Youn,er +948 l51 1707 T-896 P.010/Ol8 F-086 JACliSON DEMARCO t.: PECIiENPAUGH Chairman James A. Venable -August 13.2001 Page 4 Despite the Coronas' regular meetings wilh County staff and correspondence 10 the Board of Supervisors concerning the impacts that the Inlerceptor Channel's alignment has on their property, Ihe Coronas received no notice. written or otherwise, of the Projecl until a few days ago when they received notice of lhe AUgusl 14, 200 I, Board of Supervisors hearing. Accordingly. the County has violated procedural due process requirements here by not providing the Coronas notice and the opponunity 10 Ix: heard priOrlO the:AugustI4, 2001 Board of Supervisors hearing. Case law is clear thaI where a land use decision will "exceptionally affect" a propelt)' owner Or business user, the Counl)' musI provide that person with notice and the opportunity 10 be heard. Horn v. CountyofVen/ura, 24 Cal.3d 605. 615 (1979); Harrisv. . County of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497 (9" Cir. 1990). In their leners dated April 18, 2000 and AugUSt 3, 2000, the Coronas detailed the impacts to their property relaled to the InterCeplor Channel's alignment. The April 8 and August 3, 2000 leners are enclosed and incorporated by this reference. , ~ Moreover, one of the essential features ofCEQA is public involvement. 14 Cal. Code Regs. S 15201'. As Slated by the California Supreme COut!, the public holds a "privileged pOSition" in the CEQA process, Concerned Citizens o/Cosla Mesa v. 32"" DistricI Agricultural Association, 42 Cal.3d 929 (1986). Therefore, it is of paramount imp9rtance that the public be meaningfully involved in the process, A review of recently obtained County records for this Projecl indicates thaI the Coronas'name appears on the County's list of landowners within 600 feet ofthe Project boundaries that were to receive notice of the COUI}ty's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration'(-MND") for this ProjeCt as well a~ the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Project. However, in violation ofCEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Coronas neveueceived notice of the MND for this Project, which is inconsistent with the agreed-upon Interceptor Channel alignmeill. In fact, the Coronas did not become aware of the Projecl or the MND until only last week, well after the close of the public comment pez:lZfd on the MND and after the Planning Commission hearing where the MND and Project were recommended for approval, , I As a result of the lackobf nOlice for this Project, the Coronas have been denied a meaningful opponunity under CEQA and due process law to inform the County oftbe significant unmitigalo:d impacts of the proposed project and panicipale in the decision making process. Accordingly, the Coronas are hopefullhat because the County has prejudiced them by waiting Hereafter citations to 14 Cal. Code of Regs. ~ ~ 15000 el seq. shall be referred to as the CEQA Guidelines. , PB:Z2.-01 ~.' 10:50.. F~~uch(illttl" .-'tamar .FieldE , Younllr +S49 251 1101 "' T-9SS P.011/029 f-09S J.~CK50N DEMARCO 6:: PECIiENP.-\.{'Glf Chairman James A. Venable August 13, 200 I Page 5 until this late date to notifY them of the Project, me County will include in me Project approval and adopted mitigation measures me dedication of an easement to me Riverside County Flood Control District for me Interceptor Channel. IV. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE COLORADO PACIFIC PROJECT SINCE THE PROJECT MAY HA VI!: SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS TO LAND USE PLANNING AND UTILITIES ~ The County's MND for the Project concludes that its impacts to land use planning and utilities would be less than Significant. Accordingly, no mitigation is included for these Project impacts. However, from a fair reading of the MND, it is abundantly clear that me COUDty'S conclusions were based on cursory analyses ofthese impact areas. Mr. McKibbin has confinued that me MND's analyses do nOl consider the Project's in.:onsistency with the Interceptor Channel's agreed-upon alignment or me resulting impacts to the Coronas' land. Therefore, because a "fair argwnent" exists that me Project may have significant wunitigated environmental impacts, the County must prepare an fiR and cannot properly adopt a negative declaration for thc Colorado Pacific project. Public Resources Code ~S 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines ~g 15002 (1<)(3), 15063(b)(J), 15064(a)(l) & (g)(I), 15362. ' As me lead agency for the ,Project under CEQA, the Coun\)' "can and must. . " scrupulously enforce alllegisJativelymandated CEQA requirements." Citizens of Goleta Valley v, Board of Supervisors, 52 Ca1.3d553, 563 (1990). "Full compliance wim the letter ofCEQA is essential to me maintenance of its important public purpose. . . . " Q,esource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 191 CaI.App.3d 886, 897-911 (1987). "If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know me basis On which its responsible officials either approve or rejeCt environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly infonned, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees." Laurel Heights Improvements Auoci01ion. Inc. v. Regents of the UniversilyofCalifornla, 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392 (l988~ Moreov.:r, according to San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water District, 71 Cal.App.4th 382 (1999): ,. "the agency musl prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument mat' a proposed project may have a significant effecl on lhe environment. [Cilations.] 'Jf such evidence is found, it cannot be ovetcome by substantial evidence to the contrary.' [Cilations,] (~] 'The lead agency's determination is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in me evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support me prescribed fair ,argument.' , . J\8-ZZ-01 ~ ) . ~ .10:50... From-Buchilt.~ ~...r.Fi.ldi , Younalr t848 251 1707 1-886 P.012/028 F-08S J....cJ-<sor< DEM..-\.RC:O c.\:: PEClU:r.-p....UGH Chainnan James A. Venable August 13, 200 I Page 6 [Citation.] The coun's 'function is to determine whether substantial evidence supponed the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be mad.:.' (Citationr San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, 71 CaJ.App.4th at 389; quoting Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359,1399-1400 (1995); See also I,eagu"for Protection ofOak/ands Architectural & Historic Resources v. CiO' Of Oakland, 52 CaI.App.4th 896 (1997); Citizens' Committee to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1167-1169 (1995); Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Ene in it as, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994); Sundstrom v, COUnt of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Friends of"B" Street v. City of Hayward, 106 Ca1.App.3d 988 (1980), NOlably, the "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring the preparation of an EIR. Citizens Action /0 Serve All Students v. Thornley, 22 Cal.App.3d 748, 754 (1990); SundStrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 310, quoting No Oil, inc. v. City of Las Angeles, 13 CaJ.3d' 68,75 (1974) ("No Oil f'), This standard is founded on the principle that because adopting a mitigated negative declaration has a "terminal effect on the eilVirorunental review process," Citizens of Lake Murray, 129 Cal.App.3d at <140, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncenaint'y created by conflicting assenions" and to "substitute some degree of certainty. . ." No Oil I, 13 CaLJd at 85. Accordingly, if substantial evidence SUppollS a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant environmental effect', the lead agency must prepare an EIR despite other" substantial evidence which indicates that the project will not have a"significant impact. Friends of"B" Street, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1002. ' V. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACTS - - The,MND states that a significant impact could occur if the Project results in a substantial alteration of the present ,or planned land use of an area, is inconsistent with existing and planned surrounding uses, or ";"ould disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an . . , Public Resources Code S 21068 indicates that a .U significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." , CEQA Guidelines S 15382 further defines "significant effect on the environment"as a "substantial. or potentially substantiaL adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. inclUding land, air. water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance," ' !l8-t~-OI -. ) ~ 10:S0ilD FrOtll:..Buchalte.......mu.Fialds & Younclr +UO 251 1101 T-OOS P.013/0Z0 F-OOS J.\.(;KSON })I:;M.-\.RCO <" PECKE:'<P.\.UGJf Chainnan James A. Venable Augusl13.2001 Page 7 established community. MND, pp., 19-20. However, the MND concludes thaI the Project's land use and planning impaclS would be insignificant and nO'mitigation measures whatsoever were incorporated. Nevenheless. there is overwhelming substantial evidllnce thaI says otherwise. The Interceplor Channel must be constructed to satisfy the purposes of Assessment Dismc,t 159 for the orderly development ofIands in the vicinity of the Project site;, including the Coronas' propeny. In order to maintain the integrity of the Interceptor Channel flood ct'ntrol facility alignment, it is necessary that construction projeclS south of Highway 79 and nOM of Temecula Creek be consislent with the Interceptor Channel's planning effon. The Proj~.ct, as proposed, is inconsistent with, and would therefore eliminate, the only alignment for the Interceptor Channel agreed 10 by the landowners in Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for those facilities. The County has eliminated another alignment for the Interceptor Channel by approving an inconsistent developmem project earlier this year. Therefore, if the County approves the Colorado Pacific project as proposed, the only remaining Interceptor Channel alignment which has been opposed by the Coronas and others, and would create a 70-foot wide chasm dividing the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing fanning and commercial operations and eventual development. If, on the other hand, the County fails to construct the Interceptor Channel, it would fail to complete the Assessment District 159 facilities that are necessary to remove the flood hazard created to the Coronas' land and commercial buildings by construction of the Bunerfield Stage Road improvements and other development in the natural drainage channel. Therefore. approval of the Project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacls 3nd an EIR must be prepared. Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on the Coronas. The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created on Iheir land and that the Interceptor Channel is to remedy. The Coronas would be burdened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing fanning ~tion and related commercial land uses. The channel would effectively sever their landholding into two separate parcels. Therefore, the Proposed project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts. The lead agency musr accept conflicting evidence from a qualified expen showing a significant impact may oeCur, as [he agency cannot weigh competing evidence. See Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229. 249 (1986); Brenlwood Ass'ocialion for No Drilling v. City of Los Angeles. 134 Cal.App.3d 491. 504 (1982) (emphasis added.) Als!l. statements made by members of the public supported by adequate factual foundation constitute substantial evidence. See Ora Fino Gold Mining Corpororion v.. County of El Dorado. 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882 (1990); Citizens AS.fOeiolionfor Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County oflnyo. 172 CaI.App.3d 151,173 (1985). :.~l8-;~-01 ,10:510.. From-Buchaltor ....or.Fi.ld.' Youn..r tUS 251 1101 '. T-18S P.Ol4/021 F-QU JAChSOro: DEMARCO & PECKENP."UGJI ) Chairman James A. Venable AugUSt 13.2001 Page 8 Additionally. the approval of the Project and adoption of the MND would effectively predetermine the OUtcome of the mandatory' hearing required to be conducted by the COUnty prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law. """'"1 As the County is undoubtedly aware, before it can adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County rpust conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a flDding that the project is planned or located in the manner that ",ill be most compatible with the greatest public good and the leastJ>rivate injury. Code of Civil Procedure ~ 1245.230. By approving the proposed Project in its cUrrent form (which would result in causing the siring of the Interceptor Channel on the Coronas' land), the County will illegally predctermine the outcome of the mandato/)' hearing. This approach is improper. In Redevelopment Agencyv. Norms Slauson, 173 CalApp.3d 1121 (1986) (UNorm's Slausolt''), the coun held that an agency's contracts With a developer for construction of a condominium pro jeer, before instituting condemnation proceedings, was a gross abuse of discretion, and thai the subsequent adoption of a resolution of necessity to justify the prior decision was an example of "rubber stamping"; -In the instant case, it seems clear that the hearing \\'hich led to the adoption of the resolution of necessity was a sham' and the Agency's policy making board simply 'rubber stamped. a predetermined result. "By the time ihe Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the 'necessity' for taking the propeny in question. it had, by vinue of its contract with the developer an issuance of revenue bOJlds, irrevocably commined itself to take the property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be presented at that h. .. canng. . . . - - Norm Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d at 1'127. . . In order to ensure that the project is properly plannL'(\ and sited in confonnity with the requirements of the Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be considered at tbe public hearing. Without considering other feasible alternatives, allhe mandato/)' public hearing, the COUnty cannot find that the project is sited in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. ,OS-ZZ-Ol 10:51.. Ft~-Buchiill t~lIIer .Fieldi , lounlsr +S49 ZSI 1101 T-SS! P.OIS/OZS f-016 .. ~ ~. .JACKSOl" DEMARCO <\: P,;:CIi:F.NP....UGH ') Chaimlan James A. Venable August 13. 2001 Page 9 VI. THE PROJECT WILL CREA n: UNMITIGATED UTILll'lES IMP ACTS The MND states thai the Project's impacts to stonn water drainage facilities, services and plans would be less than significant. However, by proposing to site residences across the agreed-upon alignment for the IillerCeptor Channel facilities on the easlern end of the Project, approval of the P~iect will jeopardize the construction of the -Interceptor Channel and will have serious consequences to the Coronas' land. ~ Last year, County staff requested that the Board approve staffs proposal to site the Interceptor Channel as an open ditch Ihrough the middle of the Coronas' land. The matter was ultimately withdrawn from the Board's agenda due to opposition raised by the Coronas and lack of consensus among the Assessment District 159lando~ers for such a burdensome facility (see correspondence to Board of Supervisors dated April 8 and August ~,2000). Earlier this year, the County approved an inconsistent development project thereby eliminating one of the two other alignments identified for the Interceptor Channel. If the Board approves the Colorado Pacific Project as currently proposed, it would eliminate the only other alternative alignment identified for the Interceptor Channel, and the only alignment that is agreeable to all of the Assessment District 159 landowners who have been assessed for the flood control facility. Such a decision necessarily would result in the siting,ofthe Inierceptor Channel in a manner that bisects the Coronas' land as advanced by County staff last year, or else the failure to .constrUct the facility as necessary to meet the reqUirements of Assessment District 159 and alleviate the flood risk created on the Coronas' land by the consrruption of Butterfield Stage Road improvemenls and other development in the natural drainage channel. As a result, approval pfthe Project would expose 'the County to significant severance damages or inverse 'condemnation award due io the serious consequences to the Coronas' land. Since the Project, as proposed, conflicts with plans for necessary storm water drainage facilities. approval of the Project would create significant urimitigatcd utilities impacts and an EIR must be prepared. VII. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE WOUL)) REDUCE UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO INSIGNIFICANCE - - The Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts, including (but nOI limited to) conflicting with surrounding land uses and necessary storm drain facilities. Accordingly, the Count):' mUst either prepare an EIR for the Project or implement additional mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. CEQA prohibits public agencies ftom approving projects as proposed if there are feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures available which would subStantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. Public Resources Code ~ 21000. The requested mitigation measure and condition of approval set forth above can be implemented consistent with DB-2Z-DI . " .. -;:--.. ) ....., . 10:510", F'om-Buch.lt."N..."Fi.ldc I V....., '949 251 1101 r-m P.016l0%8 F-ODS JACKSO!<: DEMARCO 6; PECKEI'o"PAl."GH Chaimlan James A. Venable August 13, 2001 Page 10 the Project objectives by revising roads on the eastern cnd of the Project site. By including the requested mitigation measure and condition of approval. the Project" 5 significant environmental impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. .. VIII, CONCLUSION In order to avoid significant, unmitigated environmental impacts that would otherwise require the preparation of an EIR for the Colorado Pacific project, the Coronas request that the above requested mitigation meaSure be incolJ'orated in the MND and the Conditions of Approval for this Project Otherwise, the matter should be continued to aIlow for consideration and mitigation of the Project's impacts to the Assessment District t591merceptor Channel and the resulting impacts to the Coronas. This is only fair, considering thaI the Coronas only became aware of this maner recently due the CC;lUnty's failure to provide adequate notice. Your efforts toward incorporating the recommended initigation in any Project approval are greatly appreciated. We thank you for your consideration ofthis request Very 11lIly yours. /:-~.~ DWSljaa Enelosures "22254,2 cc: Stephen Corona (wlenels.) Katherine Lind. Deputy County Counsel (via messenger) (w/enels.) - ~ f . ",' 1 ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ . 11 0 u ~ < z 12 5 ..m ....~ ....~ 13 -~ "'< <0 ....z ,- < 14 o~ -"d~ , ?: ~ ~. 15 ...- ,,~ <" "'~ 16 ..... <~ ~ . 17 ~ ~ < ~ 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting September 25, 2001 Item 13.1 Ron Goldman Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ron Goldman of Planning Staff. This is a change of zone in the tract map in the Temecula area, specifically located on the south side of Highway 79. It was continued from last month to discuss some issues with the adjacent property owner. The project proposes the subdivision of 46 acres into 120 lots. What's happened since the last hearing is that the map has been redesigned. Admitted No. 2 was submitted and the area in question has been redesigned in this area here and it resulted in a net reduction of two lots and with that we think all of the issues have been solved and we're prepared to recommend adoption of mitigated negative declaration, approval of the tract map and approval of the change of zone. Thank you. Supervisor Venable - Okay any questions Supervisor, or you want to open fOr public hearing or what. .. Supervisor Buster . . Just a question about the two lot reduction. The developer is absorbing that. No County flood control involvement, or cost involvement? Ron Goldman That's my understanding, yes. 1 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific).doc ) x o ;:: ~ o ~ ~ o u ~ < x 5 ..~ ...~ ...~ .~ "'< <0 ~x ~ Q j ~;d~ ~ %:1 ;:.. ,;; ,,~ <~ :Ox ..... <~ ~ > .. ~ a <' ~ o ~ .. ii ~ < 1 Supervisor Venable 2 Okay we'll open for public hearing. We have two speakers, the 3 first will be Sam Alhadeff and following Sam will be Michelle 4 Staples. 5 Sam Alhadeff 6 Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. We represent 7 Colorado Pacific, the developer of this particular project. : At 8 the hearing on August 14 there was ~ request by the Corona family 9 for a redesign of this particular map to provide for some 10 drainage. They raised some other questions in a letter of August 11 13 and would be my sincere desire that as a result of the revision of the map to accommodate their request for a certain 12 13 drainage pattern and condition that they would respectfully 14 withdraw their letter of August 13 concerning the issues that they had raised. Supervisor Buster you are correct, there is no 15 16 additional cost to the County. This developer met on a number of 17 occasions with staff at the County. I wish to thank Staff of the County met with the Corona famiiy and their counsel and is' 18 19 agreeable to absorbing all of the costs. The only request we - - 20 would have if, as and when. If, as and when this project is ever 21 built that we would:be, if there was an opportunity to be 22 reimbursed through a:financing mechanism, that's all we would 23 request. If, as and when, but we're certainly, that's our modest 24 request. I am happy to answer any questions. We think we've 25 addressed all of the issues that were raised in the letter. 26 Unfortunately, Ms. Staples sent a letter dated today to the :27 Board. We did not get a copy, but the copy that was handed to me 28 by Mr. Johnson it appears that we have done the revised lot 2 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.2S.01 trn'^r3A~ n_~.~!_, ~ 'r ~ ," ) % o ~ ~ o ~ o " ~ < % .g ... :1~ ti:C j~ "Q j -......1.:: ~ ,,~ :x ::: " :<: 3~ <~ > . ~ " < ~ o . . ;; ~ < 1 configuration they requested and that's the revised map that Ron 2 referred to. I'd be happy to answer any questions. 3 Supervisor Venable 4 I don't see any Sam so. ___ I'll call you back, thank you very 5 much. Michele. Michele Staple~ 6 7 Good afternoon, Michele Staples representing the Coronas. We 8 submitted two comment ietters, so I'll keep my comments brief. 9 Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked 10 cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the 11 12 program; the project. We have put the interceptor channel in a road now, so lt has m{nimum impact on this project. However, 13 today I also requested, as I did in our last letter, that there 14 will also be a condition of approval requiring that that area be 15 kept free from obstruction and that an easement be conveyed to 16 the flood control district for that facility. The first part of 17 that request is vitally important. What happened with another of these interceptor channel alignments in the vicinity of the south of Butterfield Stage Road and on the southwest corner, was that a 18 19 - 20 tentative map was approved for a project that did not show any 21 obstruction, any lot,.'obstructing the channel alignment. We 22 submitted a letter supporting that project as proposed. However, 23 it was later changed without notice to my client and buildings 24 were constructed that precluded that alignment. We need to have :25 a condition on this project that prevents that from happening :26 again. I would request that the Board in approving this project j 27 also approve a condition that that area be kept free from 28 obstruction. 3 C:\Data\Clip,nt-"'-\'RI"Ill.1:In n.... <.!nn""..u.....^..I'O, _ __ _. ,__ , . , ) x o ;:: ~ o . " o u ~ < . ~ ",w .... ...~ .. "'< <0 -'X ,- < 0" ~. ~H~; '. -~ . ~ ...- <" "'~ ...~ << . > ~ :; :; < :; o 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 Supervisor Venable 2 Okay thank you Michelle. 3 Michelle Staples 4 Thank yOU. 5 Supervisor Venable 6 Uh... 7 ??? 8 Ms. Staples can you come back to the microphone, I have a 9 question for you. In your letter you asked for much more than 10 just the drainage easement be kept free of building and 11 obstructions; you're revising your request to simply indicate that today? Michelle Staples Yes, that's a minimum of what we absolutely what. we need. ??? Does staff a problem with that sort of condition? Staff does not. So I don't either. Michelle Staples 19 Thank: you. 20 Supervisor Buster - - 21 I don't have any proolem with that. Is that tantamount to saying 22 we're going to selec~ that as the drainage easement. 23 ??? 24 No, however, 25 Supervisor Buster 26 So we haven't done that? 27 ??? 28 No we have not. 4 C:\Oata\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVY~OR~\q ?~ nl 1~~1~_~~_ ft__~~~_. . ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ < ~ 5 ... ...~ ...~ .~ "'< <0 ...~ ,- < o. ~ > L..........J.I... ---; 1. ! ~ '. ".I =.~ .... <~ > . ~ ~ < ~ o . .' ~ ~ < ) 1 Supervisor Buster 2 Haven't selected it yet, 3 ??? 4 No you have not and I would not recommend that you do that. 5 Supervisor Buster 6 Do you have a reason to attach a condition that would if in deed 7 this has not been selected as the drainage easement, 8 ??? 9 As to the originally requested the wording it was fixing this is 10 the option, But she's revised the request now to simply ask that 11 this easement be kept free of building an obstructions, and that 12 does not fix the easement. You may put this channel wherever you 13 like, 14 Supervisor Buster 15 All right, in the alternative is it po~sible to have better notification procedures so if there is some proposal that does 16 17 obstruct this area that there is notice ,to at least the JL8 neighbors. I mean, Corona her clients are just across the 19 street, you know are aCross 79, so is that another possible way 20 to handle this rather than a cumbersome method of. - - 21 ??? 22 Well the problem is tffat notice isn't always required for things 23 like building permits, So my concern is that someone could 24 actually build in there without this requirement and we would 25 never be notified. 26 ??? 27 But it doesn't foreclose any option in a way that you've outlined 2:3 Ms. Staples' request. 5 C:\oata\C1ients\8OARD OF SUPERVT~n~~\Q ?C n, I~_,___~_ _ 0_. . "" ,~ 1 ~ ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 % 0 10 ;: < K ~ K 11 8 ~ < % 12 ~ ..~ ..I~ ..12 13 o:~ :: <0 ..1% "'o<C 14 " ~1(j , .?i ~ 15 ~ K .~ x% 16 ..I~ <~ ~ >- ~ 17 ~ iii < ~ 0 18 ~ ~ i ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 :28 ., -::: :: Supervisor Venable No it does not, not as it has been narrowed today. ??? Thank you Michele. Michele Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Next Sam. Sam Alhadeff Maybe it will help the Board, given the narrow construction I do want to thank Ms. Staples for her construction of this easement that the only thing we are going to build there is a road and I don't believe that's an obstruction, so we don't have a problem. Supervisor Venable Okay, does anyone else from the public like to speak on this item. If not we'll close the public hearing. Supervisor Buster Supervisor Buster I'll move approval with that additional condition, I guess it is. Supervisor Venable Please vote. That motion is carried 5-0. Takes us 1;0 item 13.2. '. .. 6 C:\Oata\Clienta\BOARD OF SUPBRVlSORS\9.25.01 (Co~orado Pacific) .doc " ,. , '. i ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP ) A lIMITED LlABIUTY PARTNERStuP INcl.UOIHG"A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270 TEIlECUtA, CAlIFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699.7556 FACSIIlILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego ant;1 Te.mecula, California January 7,2002 SAMuEL C. AuwlEFF SAlHADEFFtalASlAW1.COM The Honorable Ron Roberts Mayor, City of Temecula Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 9103.001 Re: Planning Application No. PAOI-0109 (General Plan Amendment) Planning Application No. Ii AO 1-01 02 (paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8) Planning Application No. PAOI-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment, No.4) (Collectively "Actions") ~ Dear Mayor Roberts: I apologize for the typographical errors continued in Mr. Alhadeff's letter of January 4, 2002, on Page 4. Please note that I have made the following changes to that page. The changes have been underlined and boIded in this letter for your convenience. I have also enclosed additional corrected Page 4' s for the original letters submitted to you. I. "As you are well aware, the Butterfield interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the eastern Assessment District boundary, to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood jjtotection to the Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the AD boundary, you requested we study other alternatives." 2. "It is very clear from years of records and the organization of Assessment District 159 ("AD I 59") the cost for the construction of the interceptor channel was to be borne by those affected members of AD159, as proposed by the assessment engineer. There are a number of documents that have been previously submitted to the City and Mr. O'Neil's letter points out again, the amount that Newland would be required to contribute under AD159. It is undisputable that Newland has always been prepared to allow the appropriate liens on its property and the requisite bonds be sold for its fmancial share of the interceptor channel. As the C:IWINDOWSlDeslctoplDataIOientslNcwl3lld Communitics\Robcrts Ltr 01.07.02.doc " ? \ i ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP ) The Honorable Ron Roberts January 7, 2002 Page 2 attached February 17, 2000 letter of George Johnson makes clear, the AD 159 has only a limited amount of funds for the channel. The original channel design and construction has been rejected and continues to be rejected by ,the Coronas. They desire an alternative channel. When you review the transcript of the proceedings at the City you will find that what they were requesting was that Newland cooperate and agree with them as to an alternative location for the channel. The challenge has always been the additional funding. The Coronas desire not only their 19.1 +/- acres in AD159 be included but the balance of their entire property; approximately 145 +/- acres be included. As the letter of February 17,2000 points out, unless the Coronas are willing to burden their additional property to get the financing necessary for such an improvement there are insufficient funds available in AD159. However, that is not the responsibility of Newland." Again, I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Sincerely, PL- ....., Sherry L. Davis, Secretaryt() , Samuel C..Alhadeff of Alhadeffand Solar, LLP SLD:sld Enclosure as noted CC: Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager" Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Mr. Mathew Harris, Planner - " . 'r t'" - .-:.. ) ALHADEFF& SOLAR, LLP A LIIMIED llABUTYPARTNERSHlPINCWllINGA PR<lFESsIOtw. CORI'OAATlON 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270 TEMECUlA, CAUFORIlIA 92590 MAIN TElEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE (909) ~191 Offices in San Diego and Temecula, Cardom/a January 9, 2002 Councilmember Mike Naggar CounciImember, City ofTemecula' TemeculaCity Hall 43200 Business PaIk Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SAuuaC. Auwm ~.oou 9103.001 Re: Council Meeting of January 8, 2002 Dear Councilman Naggar: , ~ I want to thank you for talcing time to oObjectively examine all the facts concerning the applications of Newland Comm\lnities last night I truly mean it when I say that I thought you did an excellent joOb,inevaluating the issues. At one.point, I discussed with the Council the issue involving the urban limit line. iryou l-ecaIl, a discussion of the urban limit line as it related toO , the Butterfield Stage Road and CTAP corridors occured at a City Council meeting I believe on September 29, 2001 as Iteml8. I have a copy oOfthe oOfficial Council ininutes from that particular meeting., In that regard; if you will note Mr. Corona appeared on behalf of his property to comment on densities, General Plan aesignations and the CoOunty General Plan proOcess. He was asking the CoOuncil to not adopt a proposed resolution prior to discussing the matter with the General Plan Advisory Committee of the CoOunty. He indicated that he was oOn that Cbmmittee. He very succinctly stated that the proposed resolution should be discussed with ".. . effective proOperty owners east oOfButterfield Stage Road or suggest that if approved, higher density be permitted." Larry Marldwn also appeared and concurred with Mr. CoOrona on this particular matter. A CoOPy of the September 29, 2001 rninutes is attached. Again, we need for everyone to understand that what the Coronas are seeking in my .opinion is to protect the entirety oOftheir property with an improvement that controls drainage on :all of their property. I understand that particular approach. You asked me a very important question, "would I ask my clients to dedicate property for such an improvement?" In fact, that's what tl;1e City does all the time with regard toO projects because it is incumbent upon developers to be willing to work with City agencies and in fact dedicate property for public improvements. YoOU need only toO take a look at Wolf Creek and HarvestoOn and other projects in which they dedicated portions of their property for public improvements and in addition funded those \\SLD\DA T A\C1ients\Newland Comnwnitics\Naggar Letter OI.09.02.doc ,. 1- ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Coimcilmember Mike Naggar January 9, 2002 Page 2 " improvements. This is a requirement that is imposed upon developers and yOil have pointed this out on a number of occasions. , ........, I simply bring this matter to your attention because in my view one of the fundamental challenges that exists is who should bear the cost for the additional improvements to protect the other 145 acres of the Corona property. The Coronas seem to suggest that it should be Newland. My view is that the impacted property owner should bear that cost. The Coronas and 'other property owners to the east ,of the Coronas and to the north of the Coronas should enter into a new financing mechanism to do that very activity. Where the Coronas have a challenge in my view is that they are concerned that right now their property would not and could not bear the cost of any such assessments since it is not yet been developed comme~cially. I point this out to you because I think this is one of the areas that we will need to have insightful thinking. The Assessment District only has certain funds. available. If you have any suggestions for us with regard to your thoughts on how we could emirate that particular difference, or if you disagree, I would like very much to get any of your ,thinking as we go through tIiis next30 day period to see how we can resolve these matters., I know that Mr. Delhamer and Mr. Meyer are firmly committed to working to see if there is a solution. They have been working on this for two years. Where I thinkI have a fundamental difference with the Coronas is I don't believe that our ' , client or any other propertyowners'iil Assessment District 159 should have to bear costs for significant improvements that would protect the entirety of the Corona property. I appreciate ' your thoughts. I certainly would be willing to receive any information you wish to give meso that I could pass on to ~. Meyer and Mr. Delhamer. Sincerely, 1'0- ~ - Samuel C. Alhadeff of A1hadeff and Solar, LLP . SCA:dll I h ", COUNTY OF,RlVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND lAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY lransportationDepartrnent David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation February 5, 2002 Samuel C. Alhadeff Alhadeff & Solar, LLP 41530 Enterprise Circle South, Suite 120 Temecula, California 92590 H Dear Mr. Alhadeff: ..,R,.......,>ii-'~'_... "" . " _,.-=-'>, . ".,'..... :z'" ",:-,;",_,;~,.,~ Enclosed is the As~essriiint.pis{riGt~r59{B'6tterfi~~'Stqge Road East Interceptor Alterny~JIV~~~L'al~"-_,,,,""""~'.,,>~;, >, If you have a~Y't~st~~~~~Please call me at (909))5i:~:,~~\ f"\', ....,..,...,~"-..'.,...~....~..,h...."-""'"."':~"""...c,,r.,,......'t:"," ~~,_~..,.A \ ' Sincerely, (;j ,.--..~--~- ._,~.~--;' , \\\;" " <-, . \ Q'iT44IW '.~/)' Ge~nf6nf';; /~' . ,'~, ,}L~ *, ~'; Deputy Diie~t(){ ~~Trarisii0rt"1T& ,f"'_";') t' 1 GAJ:sa ..:t) ;~\ ./''/ ,-/'i~" 4 <.~ c' }, "'?)' ~;;:. f./ ^"~. ,,' !!J ,j~,;,:" Enclosurest:,; , /~li /' ,~/ i ,~l// ' ',l~]/,.~, ~.~~~ '/ .~.;.:.._"..._- ,...,~.-.'-''''' ,-;><,--. . "'",;:.p' '" ..- <, ,'~-~""'",,,,.,. . .._~ ,~;.,,:~ ..<"'~"''1: f.:';'f!J -'i. .'-' .;~}*Wrr~;~i~t, " ;..,'-" ,: ~.;>rJ_. ". ) 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor. Riverside, California 92501 . (909) 955-6740 PO Rny IOQO. Rivp.ro:;,-I", r"lif"rni"" Q,)<;IY>_lt\O{\.. CAY IC1l\Q,\ 0<:<: '::"7')1 -. , ~. ( ) ......j " ,'0" '\, Assessment District 159 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD EAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS . ,SUMMARIES AND COST ESTIMATES Prepared January 28, 2002 ?R e}>~D ~?' ~ /<"/ V~ > /l:>8' Cd C//'V7;Y ri!. OOD C6/1/TK'd'L. ~/rr-R/cr Final , .. 't Butterlield Stage Road East Interceptor Alternative Analysis - Executive Summ ,- This report presents alternative solutions to flooding problems expected to occur along the eastern side of Butterfield Stage R between De Portola Avenue and Highway 79. Approximately 2,2n acres is tributary to the eastern side of Butterfield Stage Road (I · ~)'oad). Two culverts, a 36" RCP and a 72" RCP, constructed as a portion of the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor Storm Drain 0 ' ~O" CIPP), collect a small portion of these flOws at the road's eastern edge. Excess flows pond behind the road embankment eventucilly weir over Butterfield Stage Road at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. Most of the weir flows captured by an existing interim basin located within Tract 24182. The remaining weir flows escape westerly within Highway 79 rig! way. The existing storm drain in Butterfield Stage Road was originally designed to capture a 1,150 acre watershed tributary to northern side of De Portola Road and easterly of Butterfield Stage Road. Appendix "A" contains a hydrologic watershed map delinea the two watersheds. Three s'eparate hydrology studies have been prepared for this watershed. The first was prepared by the Keith Companies for Newt Capital and used to size the interim detention basin within Tract 24182. The analysis represents the existing flooding condition. ' second study, prepared by Trans-Pacific Consultants (TPC) for the Transportation Department, was intended to represent the ultln condiliol1. Facilities were sized to accept both existing condition and ultimate condition peak flows. It should be noted that the slue were based on existing land use maps. Area Tributa to the Low at the 72" Culvert Conlrollin Rainfall Event Peak Flow Rate: Rainfall Volume: Elevation of Existin Low at 72" Culvert Elevation of Low Point at Butterfield Stage Road: Existin Swale Bank Elevation: Ca aci of 72" RCP at 1112.3: Ca ad of 36" RCP at 1112.3: Acrea eofTr24182 Acreage of Existing Tr24182 Interim Basin ondin area a roximate: ~ ',ird study, undertaken by Krieger and Stewart, Inc., entitled Corona Ranch Hvdroloov and Hvdraulic Analvsis of Basins 1 and 2 .sessment District 159, was submitted on August 14, 2001. This study, prepared at the request of Mr. Corona, re-analyzed t tributary watersheds, assuming that the prior studies were conservative. The study revises the drainage boundaries to account. current flow patterns and adjusts land use to reflect actual development within the watershed. 2 277 Acres 6 Hour 100 Year Storm 2060 CFS 426 Acre Feet 1107 1112.3 1111.6 172 CFS 23.6 CFS 44 Acres 24 Acres The District has prepared a summary list of solutions to the Butterfield Stage Road inundation problem. Five of these altematives , from the above mentioned studies. The existing condition, Alternative A, was analyzed by Keith Companies as a part of the developml of TR24182. The Keith Company analysis was used to size an interim detention basin located downstream of Butterfield Stage ROE Alternative B was analyzed by the Transportation Department. Alternative C was analyzed by Trans Pacific Consultants as a part 01 supplemental hydrologic analysis requested by Assessment District No. 159 in October of 1999. Alternative 0 was suggested by ti Corona's and analyzed by the Flood Control District in May of 2000. Alternatives E throughG are new and are analyzed as a part of II study. A1t,ernative H is based on the Krieger and Stewart; Inc. hydrology study. The proposed costs are preliminary in nature and a only for order of magnitude comparison purposes. Each altemative presented in this report contains a brief summary of the proposed altemative, a cost estimate, and an exhibit depictil . the propolled facility locations. Parcels discussed in the summary are followed by a number in parenthesis. These numbers COrrespol to the numbering system used to identify parcels in the Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal prepared on November 30, 2000 f the Transportation Department. The parcel summary table from the appraisal is provided in Appendix "B". The alternative exhibits ai, use this numbering system to identify parcels. 2 , :l , "'""-oj , , 1 .r:. rn ~ ClI ~ ::s rn I/) "i, iU ~ ~ +:I. ell E .$ <( '" g>~~.>:8 ]l~i~~-~ ".,1-'-0"'- w_-o &I) E c: ~ '" -c. ~~ .,,,, ~:a ::J en 00.- o~ (l)S! (:j.!; .>: ~ o '" '3 lrl ~ ~ u ~ E ~ ~ ~ o c o o o ~en ...,~ '" on ... ~ ~ o c o 8 ",en "'~ '" a o e: o e: g 8 o Ol en "'~ Ol <Xi ... o e: !. o e: g o cSll! ~ >- <Xi '" ~ en ~ o e: o g - '" ~~ .,. cD '" en ~ ~ o e: 8 o :5l~ on M '" en ~ ~ o c 00 ",e: I >- o e: o e: c ~ ~ (Q ~ o o ~ ., S c ]j e: 8 S! b '0 ! ~ .t:: 15 e: '" 8 '0 '0 (Q o a::; CD j' (I) '0 Q; 'E CD '"' ::J 00 S! - en m CD :; ~ ~ "" f e: 8 -5 j ~ ~ l'l I 11 ! f! J J!! .!; '0 & ~ I >- '0 ai i ~ 8l .; '0 CD Eo~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 8. "' 0:.. 8 Kll 8,S s 11li ~~ jd,f& ill! '3l!!"''l! ~.!; ~l~~i !; ao~",o !\i~ .!!l~~.!!~1<l Xle: o.."a::;- ;::8 ~:a&~ ~~ ~eCD.!!l"", a<i: o~-st{jjr::: ~li'''l!~ ~~ l!~;,ill ;;'l! ~~~s~ CU::J !l!1!!;gOO1i) 0.8 ~o..Oo= c_ ~li:cDCcE!! ~~ ~ f~~~! -g ~ E a~<>:CD-g'5 Em lJ 11c:::JO .-c 0'" ~ti::J.!;~ -g~ .~no*ll~ ~ ,s~c.e:cE 'is..f:- ~8~~nl 8-'* 8:QgJ~a.~ aim o ~91o'l!s fi.. ~-.'2~"'.s cS c.~.e~-GE ~g> cas ~o [0 a.'fi~B~1ii S!1ii ~8-2!~.g-c;::,: .E~ I-;:'''''c "',I:; ..:.lS'.l'J~~ 11:; '0 ~. e ~ " fl 15 lil 11 ::J!iil~~ li~ ~.8]j e:0il:!. ~.:o CD ~e:8s" ",'0 .~ 8.1*~~ ~8 II) 2o.mOCG) -:; - a.~a..Q)Ch :t:!_ -8 CU::J 0 OJ,!'g t:CV 'l! ~~ e~~ ~S_ '" 8,sF'OQ; as! 6 FS.S:Gi~ "Om ~~~~~s !\ic 6 "'.s::.s:: S 00 ~8 OCDcnfDaJO 8,fD CD gt~=;;~ el5 a - 0 &0 I.C) I) jq a.U ~ ~ ~~~~i ~~ .!!~!II~~~~:5 CDca;fcocaC;::o!co .. 11 ~tlllill.!!l91~ i I~Jt~~j!~ <( ~ mG'6'wlL 65: .... . , . tr", R'.,:~_~'.~.~~;d~A-'~:J .;. ~9 4~, (:,,~,' ~. - '_4,,;,. " - . ,- ? ... ", . q' ... .....~. ... ~......... ~ ~"'~l' >-< Q ,""'"ll... g . ':;.-~ - ;-'-1 ,',. '-. - _:.,. .~. . ,'--. .... ~.. . L<~~.~.:. . Ill'" .;~~.....\J..~~ :Q" !' ~.1lI0 :.~.... . a.~......,. , . ~ - ~ ..~ . "i -0 -0 . 11.#'< ....:0 ,..t). , .. t" ..."' t... <!> '~;")N. ~ !! . "'2 ..... ~~ .. '. . '''''Ih " ..'~' . ;A..~.I~. " . ~~ ~ I ~ ,0 IIJ lr ~Q ~4: c ", ~J' ~. .'~ . . "~' :".J L\:. . ;J:'-:"'... '. 'f'.' . ." '~... - - . -.. ~.'.....::.'. .;...... .. ~..' ....,. .' n. "~ )J . .~ ......, r -, - . --'-~,. ~~.;...:>%:..~~ ";=::;. .. ;'~j,..,. ,~--:;.t > .-- . ..., .:---;- ~'i;ri!'~'_~9-" c~, , .. :'''W.~'t;1, >....~ . . . ~:--r-...\ '~__ -' ~ ~~ ~!.~.I.~..~. ~.]"" . ~"-~~ ;..~..:-::i:.'".~~ ,,;:,,,,; -1. r.t. J."4-+. .. ~.~ _ Ji..j.'.:.. ~S~.:t':S~ . .. ':~'.:"'t.,:~ 1\ _ :~.. .",.,.,... /.. .. lA '\. ..~..,~ ~~ I . ',.1'. . _""" f j _....0....,... .'.", ~~:r":::'~~......~~~ .....- ~:\:::-~:3f(~~-~; . . ';:~-" . ~-i~~'~~ : ~~:~~. ~ ~~ ~:t~ N 20illG Q 'CD ~ -....co ;.. I Veil..., ('\J :;::...: t ct '" ~ i- ~ '- -s::: loc lJ..J =~ ~I:~::m .~ < ~~ ~ ~ 1 . , '1 '. 1": l ': ...;-,. .; ': \ :i' , I~ i iE~ ] ! :; ':~ ~i i~ if I I ; i!:: ! l..;' . I ~,~- '..,- ,- ,-, H. !1-1!1 ~ it 4::-,': '.!:".. It "Ii p!L, i Ii ~11. .. 'I 1 ~~h<J g:;,/, ,:1 _j" otf := -. .~:! h,.:, ...-,.Jll nf.!i~ P~p;~ & !hfn ; :-~ . .-:.; : IH~{~ f h~::;: . , Altemati~ Description: Analyze existing Flooding Condition and determine ex1ent of overtopping. The "Do Nothing" altemative. . ) 'proximately 2,060 cfs is tributary to Butterfield Stage Road at the existing low between the Savala (2) and Corona (7) propertiE . ..JUT, 100 year rainfall event). The total volume of rainfall produced by this event is 426 acre-feel The existing natural chaMello Butterfield Stage Road is at elevation ~107. The existing low at Butterfield Stage Road is at elevation 1112.4. An overtopping analysis entitled Interim Detention Basin in Tract 24182, prepared by Keith Companies and received by the Distrk November 13, 1996 analyzed the overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road. Their analysis demonstrates that during the 6 hour event maximum water surface elevation reached at Butterfield Stage Road was 1114.3. The intersection of Butterfield and HighwaJ remained overtopped for approximately 6 hours and passed a maximum of 1758.6 cfs. The balance of the flows were passed intc 120" CIPP by existing 72" and 36" inlets located along the eastern boundary of Butterfield Stage Road. Summary of Existing Condition Flooding and Detention Basin: ~ Maximum WSE over B.S. Road: 1114.3 PonCtng Elevation over Butterfield 2 feet Stage Road: Ponding Elevation over Highway 79: 1 foot Duration of Overtopping: 6 hours Peak Flow in 36" RCP: 54.6 cfs Peak Flow in 72" RCP: 229.2 cfs Peak Flow Over Highway 79: 263.3 cfs Peak Flow Over B.S. Road: 1495.3 cfs Area inundated East of Butterfield 17.5 acres Stage Road at Maximum StaCle(1114.3): Storage Volume Available East of . 24 acre feet Butterfield Stage Road at Elevation 1112.3: Area of existing Tract 24182 Interim 44 acres/24 acres Basin (facility + spoils pile! facility onlvl: Number of Lots affected by Tract 18810tsl125 lots 24182 (facility + spoils oile! facility) Average lot size within basin site: 5,000 S,F. minimum The flows (1495 cfs) overtopping Butterfield Stage Road are currently collected in an interim basin located on the northwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This basin will also capture an additional 253.6 cfs of onsite flows from the north. Rows escaping onto Highway 79 (263 cfs) travel southwest and eventually enter Temecula Creek. Exhibit" A-l" delineates the existing FEMA Floodplain around Butterfield Stage Road. The blue hatched area represents Zone' A" floodplain, The lighter blue fill area Represents Zone "B" Floodplain. Exhibit "A-2" represents the ex1ent of ponding to occur in a 100 . year event as a result of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. 6 , , \ \ , i ~ , /" o eH .~- ~ ~ 'i' @)~ ::: ... , " o , . @ ~" r.b , ~"f' ,l I , i 2. o. - t:(~ ~I ~:.! l-. II) ~ \U ! wi'!' , . ) PRELIMINARY ESTlMAlE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUITERFIELD STAGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE A. DO NOTHING AL lERNATIVE JANUARY 6 2000 A. [j'EM CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION 1 MOBILIZATION 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WAlER 4 DOUBLE 8'X14' BOX CULVERT 5 MANHOLE #3 . 6 DETOUR PHASING 7 GRADING 8 WATER RELOCATION 9 CONCRETE CHANNEL WI APPURT. 10 EROSION CONTROL CONTINGENCY (10%) QUAN1I1Y o o o o o o o o o o SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION B. DRY UTILITY RELOCATION [ITEM DESCRIPTION 11 GAS 12 ELECTRIC 13 PHONE 14 SewER 15 WATER QUANTITY o o o o o ~ SUBTOTAL DRY UTILITY RELOCATION - C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS IITl:M DESCRIPTION 16 WILLIAMS(6) 17 CORONA(7) 18 SAVALA(2) QUANTITY o o o UNIT S LS LS LF EA LS LS LS LF LS UNIT LS LS LS LS LS UNIT SF SF SF SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS D. ENVIRONMENTAL @:M DESCRIPTION 19 PROCESSING 20 MITIGATION 21 OTHER' 22 OTHER QUANTITY o o o o UNIT LF LF LF LF COSTIUNIT $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $850.00 $1,200.00 $65,000.00 $30,000.00 $200,000.00 $600.00 $10,000.00 COSTIUNIT $20,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 COSTIUNIT $0.38 $3.00 $1.00 COSllUNIT $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL E, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION mM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT 23 eM & I 0 LS $331,470.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION IPROJECT TOTAL TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0,00 8 $0.001 Altemath. . _Oescrlpllon: Construct a channel along eastern Corona property boundary. The channel would collect and convey flows direct ) mecula Creek. This altemative consists of a double 8x14 RCB from Temecula Creek to the North side of Highway 79. The RCB would be located a the east,ern boundaries of the Williams (6) property. A concrete channel would be constructed along the eattern boundary of the Co (7) and Savala (2) Properties from Highway 79 to De Portola Road. This alternative prevents overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road and prevents flooding of the Corona (7) and Savala (2)' property. II w allow for the abandonment of the Tract 24182 basin (1). H 9 ) ~ . 5- .~ a;;CIl II I" IL ~ e>~ ~ ~~ r:! - 'i' @>~ . '" '" .... \ \' ~ <+> .1 I wi I ) PRBJMlNARY ESTIMATE DRAINAGE II'lTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFlBJ> STAGE ROAD AlTERNATIVE B - ORIGiNAl CHANNa CONCEPT JANUARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION lITEM DESCRIPTION 0llANTl1Y UNIT COSTAJNIT TOTAl I 1 MOBIlIZATION 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 DOUBLE 8')(14' BOX CULVERT 1,100 LF $850.00 $935,000.00 5 MANHOLE #3 4 EA $1,200.00 $4,800.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 7 GRADING 1 LS $30,000.00 . $30,000.00 8 WATER RELOCATION 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00 9 CONCRETE CHANNEl. WI APPIJRT. 1,550 LF $600.00 $930,000.00 10 EROSIONCONlROl 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 CONTlNGENCY (10%) $220,980.00 SUBTOTAl CONSTRUCTION $2,430,780.00 B. DRY UTIUTY RELOCATION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAl I 11 GAS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 12 ELECTRIC 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 13 PHONE 1 LS $50,000.00 . $50,000.00 14 SE\>\IER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 15 WATER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 , , -, SUBT01Al DRY UTIUTY RELOCATION $120,000.00 C, RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl I 16 Savala (2) 952-130-001 2.001 Ac $ 28,000.00 $56,028.00 17 Corona East (4) 952-140-003,952-190-003 0 Ac $ 15,000.00 $0.00 18 Williams/Bultertield Station (6) 952-2OQ.OO2,011,Ol2,C 1.294 Ac $ 98,010.00 $126,824.94 19 Corona West (7) 052-150-001,003 1.760 Ac $206,910.00 $364,161.60 20 Somma (8) 952-21Q..010 0.000 Ac $26,000.00 $0.00 21 Mirabal (9) 952-210-011 0.000 Ac $25,000.00 $0.00 22 WilliamsJButtertield Station (6) 952-2OQ.OO2,011,012,C 0.273 Ac $20,000.00 $5,460.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $552,474.54 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAl 23 PROCESSING 1 LS ,000.00 ,000.00 24 MITIGATION 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 25 OlliER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 26 OlliER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $100,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST /UNIT TOTAl I 24 CM& I 1 LS $331,470.00 $331,470.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION $331,470,00 IPROJE'CT TOTAL I $3,534,724,54 , 11 Alternative DeSCrlptiOI~: Construct Line A and Line 0 per A1temative 5 of the Supplemental HYdrology Study for Assessment District NO.1 . ryared by Trans Pacific Consultants in October 1999. . L A would be located at the easterly boundary of AD159. Line A consists of a 7x12 RCB, beginning at Temecula Creek, continuil along the William's property (6), crossing under Highway 79 and terminating at the northeasterly comer of the Corona property line Co From the northern boundary of the Corona Property (7) to De Portola Rolfd, the system would consist of a concrete lined open channel feet deep and 15 feet wide. Line A would convey 724 cfs. Line D would be located at the Corona's easterly property line (4). The facility would consist of an 8 foot deep, 20 foot wic concrete channel, from Temecula Creek to just south of De Portola Road. A 7x14 RCS would cross under Highway 7! The project runs along the western boundaries of APN's 952-150-010 (8), 952-150-011 (9), and the Corona Property (4 Line D would convey 1582 cfs. This alternative could collect the flows tributary to the low at Butterfield Stage Road and prevent ponding on the Corona and Saval property as well as overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This proposal would also allow the abandonment of the Tral 24182 Interim Basin. It Should be noted that only one access road is shown on the easement for the channel sections of these llnel The District would recommend that access roads be placed on both sides of the channel to facilitate maintenance of these facifities. Further, It should be noted that tentative tract map 30052 has been filed across APN 952-150-011 (9). This could recjuire the propose, open chann.ll below Highway 79 to be converted to an underground storm drain. This would significantly increase the costs of thi, alternative. This could also significantly increase the right of way costs for this parcel. H 12 '. , b ,~ r:~ S. !C ~U' )l;l~ II: . K1~~ I~' ,.. '~I f~ ~I I OfllN ]~ .' 0 :~:~ ! .h tu tl f~ 1 ) II' is , . _L. ::r;.: . . .,.~. , . 'rf'; L. '-', --'$ !.o- , .'z; ~f~ , . .' .~ i. . ... .. : 'I o , ~ :::;::;:;' , L .... '. !: t1 :~ .' or.1 "':~. " .~ (- 'It ~:fi . 'j;; I :i~J I , 11::,1 ~111i .mlll .~.u . , )1; ; i~d I 1'1 ; I "lJ1tiiNoi ~ ~ I U). I ~: ~ 1, ~' ~' ~' =' \ \ \ . . ,. oJ ',_./ 3: + . ., l . B . .. .-....'I!.. ___ .' i I ~~,B, . .. . f l , ~ PRBJMlNARY ESllIMTE ) DRAINAGE INI t:KU:J-'1 OR EAST OF BUTTERFlB.O STAGE ROAD AlTERNATIVE C- FROM ALT. 5 OPTION 1 OF 1PC STUDY January 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION lITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl .1 1 MOBIUZAllON 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 ClEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000.00 3 FURNISHINGANDAPPLYlNGWATER 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 4 EXCAVAllONANDCOMPACllONOFEMB. 90,000 CY $5.00 $450,000.00 5 SINGlE '7 X 12' RCB 1,800 LF $500.00 $900,000.00 6 MANHOlE 113 5 EA $1,200.00 $6,000.00 7 HEADWALl 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000.00 8 RlPRAP PROlECllON 3,000 CY $40.00 $120,000.00 9 CONCRETE OlANNEL WI APPURT.-UNE A 775 LF $450.00 $348,750.00 10 CONCRETE OlANNEL WI APPURl.-UNE D 3,193 LF $550.00 $1,756,150.00 11 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 . 12 WATER RELOCAnON 1 LS $400,000.00 $400,000.00 13 DOUBLE 7')(12' RCB 173 LF $800.00 $138,400.00 14 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10'''") $44Q,33O.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,843,630,00 a ORY unUTY RELOCAllON liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 15 GAS 2 LS $20,000.00 $40,000.00 16 ELECTRIC 2 LS . $50,000.00 $100,000.00 17 PHONE 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 ......, 18 SEWER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 19 WATER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 . SUBTOTAL DRY unUTY RELOCA nON $240,000,00 . C, RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL Savala 952-130-001 (2) 1.429 Ac $28,000.00 21 Corona East 952-140-003,952-100-003(4) 4.731 Ac $15,000.00 $70,965.00 22 WilliamslButterlieJd Station (6)952-200002,011,012,0 0.906 Ac $98,010.00 $88,797.06 .23 Corona West (7)052-150-001,0Q3 0.587 Ac $206,910.00 $121,456.17 24 Sommo (8)952-210-010 1.575 Ac $28,000.00 $44,100.00 25 Mirabal (9)952-21().()11 1.573 Ac $25,000.00 $39,325.00 26 WilliamslButter1ieJd Station (6) 952-200002,011,012,( 0.191 k $20,000.00 $3,820.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $408,475.23 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT 27 PROCESSING 2 LS $50,000.00 28 M1llGA llON 2 LS' $50,000.00 29 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 30 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT 31 CM&I 1 LS $727,000.00 $200,000.00 TOTAL I $727,000.00 $727,000,00 $6,419,105.231 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCllON MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION IPROJECT TOTAL 14 Alternative, Oescription: Modify Alternative B to reduce or eliminate Line A by increasing the size and length of Line D. (-) ~lternallive diverts flows from Line A to Line D. The diversion would be accomplished by extending Line 0 north across and the ~ .'. along De Portola Road. Although it is not economically feasible to capture all flows tributary to Line A, it is possible to callee approximatllly half (37O-cfs). A fill pad encompassing 25 acres would be required on a privately owned 37 acre parcel (5) locate easterly of Linda Rosea and northerly of De Portola. The pad grading would take flows tributary to Linda Rosea (lending westward in If1, existing condition) and divert them eastward towards a proposed inlet structure at the parcel's southeast comer. A 7x7 RCB woul. convey the llows from the parcel, under Calle Contento and De Portola, and into an enlarged Line 0 system. Improvements to Line 0 would include 5 feet of additional channel width and replacement of the proposed double 7x12 RCB under ~ 79 with a triple 7xl0 RCB. Approximately 150,000 CY of material would be required to construct the fill pad necessary to divert thl flOws. 700 LF of 7x7 RCB would be required to convey the flows from Calle Contento to Line D. The diversion would allO\< approximately 1800 feet of 7x12 RCB in Line A to be reduced to 7x7 RCB. No changes are proposed to the Line A collection channe located along the Savala property (2). This alternative would produce some savings on construction and easement costs for line A, but would also significantly increase the costs of Line D. . This alternative would prevent ponding on the Corona and Savala property, prevent overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road, and allow for abandonment of the Tract 24182 Interim Basin Sile. Peak 100-year flow rates were taken from the study submitted by Trans Pacific Consultants for Alternative 5 Supplemental Hydrology of the Butterfield Stage Road drainage study. The area tributary to Line A was identified as Subarea lA in the Trans Pacific Consultants study. The District used an estimated yield of 1.8 cfs/acre to analyze Subarea lA. Further, It should be noted that tentative tract map 30052 has been filed across APN 952-150-011 (9). This could require the proposed open channel below Highway 79 to be converted to an underground stOm1 drain. This would significantly increase the costs of this alternative. This could also significantly increase the right of way costs for this parcel. ~ 15 ,'--)'; ! l:I I: I ~. .. - J' aJ .~ ';C ~ ~15 ~:~5. . t. 1i1.~ ~" >0 g. ~~:f J,; 'iIl II: II! """ .... xiiiz Cl'~ r:; ~~~ ., ., :I ,t., I g i .. z 1iI.i! . ;" & Ufj ~ II 0 f.:.t Il. I.. ,..-:-.... ,. 'It ~.. 1_ . ~VY~. ~. ..;c 'J ,. .:......J . / ",: . ., \ """:t V- i:). + . ,~ -J: I ) . .11: IllB I Rh I . RU I I~ : r.t ':llf . "1111 o 'R I I ,@'.' j~; ~ '. l.l~ I .. .sh \ Ii \ ~I \ I . 10 I ~ I> _ Bhl ) PREUMlNARY ESTlMt>. TE DRAINAGE ImERCEPTOR EAST OF BU1TERFIao STAGE ROAD AL TERNAllVE D - MINIMIZE UNE A OF ALTERNAllVE C JANUARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANllTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 1 MOBIUZATlON 1 LS $Xl,OOO.OO $30,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000.00 3 FURNISHINGANDAPPLYlNGWATER 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 . 4 EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION OF EMS. 238,000 C'( $5.00 $1,190,000.00 5 SINGlE7'X7'RCB-UNEA 1,800 LF $359.44 $646,992.00 6 WlNHOlE #3 7 EA $1,200.00 $8,400.00 7 HEADWAll 6 EA $10,000.00 $60,000.00 8 RlPRAP PROTECTION 3,000 Cf $40.00 $120,000.00 9 CONCRETE CHANNel WI APPURT.-UNE A 775 LF $450.00 $348,750.00 10 CONCRETE CHANNEl WI APPURT.-UNE D .3,193 LF $565.00 $1,804,045.00 11 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 12 WATER RELOCATION 1 LS $400,000.00 $400,000.00 13 TRJPLE7'X1a RCB- UNE D 173 LF $1,408.90 $243,739.70 14 TX:l RCB - N. OF UNE D TO W. OF CAlLE CONT. 700 LF $359.44 $251,608.00 15 INlET/OUTlEl STRUCTURES 2 EA $40,000.00 $80,000.00 16 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10"k) $539,753.47 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,937,288.17 B. DRY UTIUTY RELOCATION lITEM DESCRIPTION OUANllTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 17 GAS 2 LS $20,000.00 $40,000.00 ~ 18 ELECTRIC 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 19 PHONE 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 20 SEWER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 21 WATER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL DRY UTIUTY RElOCATION $240,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 22 Savala (2)952-130-001 1.429 f>c $28,000.00 $40,012.00 23 Corona East (4)952-14M03,952-190-003 4.731 f>c $15,000.00 $70,965.00 24 WilliamslButterfield Station (6)952-200002,011,012,0' 0.900 f>c $96,010.00 $88,797.06 25 Corona West (7)052-150-001,003 0.587 f>c $206,910.00 $121,456.17 26 Somma (8) 952-21()'{)lO 1.575 k $28,000.00 $44,100.00 21' Mirabal (9) 952-210-011 (note $8,850 added for fence) 1.573 f>c $25,000.00 $46,175.00 28 WilliamsIButterfield Station (6)952-2CJO.OO2,011,012,0 0.191 k $20,000.00 $3,820.00 29 POkrajac (5) 952-120-012 - Fee purchase 37.100 f>c $15,000.00 $556,500.00 30 Other 0.000 k $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL RlGIfT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $971,825.23 D. ENVIRONMENTAL liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANTrIY UNIT COSTIUNIT lOTAL I 31 PROCESSING 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 32 MITIGATION 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 33 OTIiER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 34 OTIiER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $200,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION lITEM DESCRIPTION OUANllTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 35 CM&I 1 LS $891,000.00 $891,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION $891,000.00 IPROJECTTOTAL $8,240,113.40 I 17 '. , AlternativE Cescnplion: Construct a culvert under Butterfield Stage Road to prevent inundation the road and adjacent properties. t) ;even ,cell 10'x5' reinforced concrete box (10x5 RCB) culvert would be required to pass the flows tributary to the low between I ':'avala (2) and Corona (7) properties at Butterfield Stage Road. This lOx5 RCB would be approximately 140' feet IongJRoad RM 110'). It would outlet into the existing mterim basin in Tract 24182 (1). Approximately 100 feet of existing dual 120" CIPP in Butterfi -Stage Road would need to be removed and replaced with dual 12'x6' RCBin order to allow the proposed 10x5 RCB culverts to p, over the ,~xisting 120" Interceptors. Relocation of approximately 100 foot of 18" sewer and 36" Water lines would also be required. EMWD re-claimed water lines may also need to be relocated. The CUIVllrt would be located at the existing low upstream of Butterfield Stage Road. An additional 300'x250' strip of land at t northeast comer of the existing basin (1) would be required to accept the flows from the proposed RCB. This extension would expensivE' due to the existing spoils pile located north of the basin (approximately 90,000 yds would need to be removed), Rip r protection would also be required to allow the flows to make a 90 degree turn to enler the existing basin site, Small levees may be required at the downstream end of the existing low to ensure that flows in the channel do not escape to the sou An easement of about 200 feet square would be required from the Savala parcel (2) to adequately capture and convey the flows. The Tract 24182 basin (1) does not have capacity for the peak flows from the proposed culverL This basin is sized to mitigate a pe flow of l,S27 cfs generated from the combination of onsite flows and Butterfield Stage Road weir flows. The proposed 10x5 RCB WOl increase the peak flow rate by 616 cfs and Increase the volume tributary to the basin site. A second 84" RCP outlet pipe would I required to make the basin function properly. The outlet would extend from the basin outlet to Temecula Creek (3,500 It), parallenng U existing outlet pipe. Alternatively, the basin could be excavated to increase storage volume. Costs are estimated to be comparable. This altemative would also require field investigation prior to design to ensure that the as-built lines and grades of the existing faciliti. would allcw for the proposed structures. As proposed, the seven cell 10x5 RCB will be placed directly on top of the proposed tv ce1l12x6 RCB. Costs for utility conflicts that could arise with the extension of the 84" RCP were not analyzed. This altemative would lower the WSE upstream of Butlerfield Stage Road to approximately 1111.7. This would prevent overtopping Butterfield Stage Road and would protect the Corona and Savala Properties. This altemative assumes that the existing low east of U /'~rona palrcel (7) has capacity to convey the flows tributary to this watershed. If not, then additional levees along the existing low wou ~ equir€d to protect the Corona Property.' This alternative would make the Tract 24182 interim basin site a part of the ultima ..;..inage system for this watershed. . .j 18 Cj PRElIMINARY ESTlMAlE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE RQI\D AlTERNATIVE E - tfN'f 79 CULVERTTO 1R24182 BASIN DECEMBER 8, 2000 Altemativ, :,\eSCrlptlon: Collect flows tributary to Butterfield Stage Road into a storm drain system that would parallel the existing dual 120" C l )1 outlet the flows directly into Temecula Creek. . . This proposal would collect flows tributary to the low between the Corona (7) and Savala (2) Property into a proposed storm drain sys that parallels the existing dual 120" CIPP storm drain. The proposed alternative requires a second set of 120" CIPPIRCP (minirr diameter) storm drains to be installed, effectively creating a quad storm drain in Butterfield Stage Road. This alternative requires relocation of 600' of 8" sewer, 2000 feet of 18" sewer, 100 feet of 36" waterline and approximately 1,000 feet of 24" reclaimed waterlin< The flows Viould be collected at the existing low with a 7 celll0x5 RCB. The RCB would then drop the flows into a chamber In the cet of the road. The chamber would convey the flows to the newly constructed dual 120" CIPP. The 120" CIPP would parallel the exist system to Temecula Creek. The existing dual 120" CIPP would have to be removed and replaced with dual12x6 RCB at the 7-<:el111 box crossing. This alternative would require that Rancho Califomia Water District reduce their standard clear distances between sewer, storm dr and water facilities. It should be noted that these requirements have been established to protect public health and safety. If they, unable to do this, or they cannot remove their existing reclaimed line from service, then this alternative would not be feasible. T alternativ,e would also require field investigation prior to design to ensure that the as-built lines and grades of the existing facilities wo allow for the proposed structures. This alternative lowers the WSE upstream of. Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 1111.7. A 200 foot square easement at 1 southwest comer of the Savala property (2) would be required' to accommodate facilities to capture and contain the flows. T alternativ'l presumes that the existing low has the capacity to convey the flows tributary to the culvert If not, additional levees along 1 existing IclW would be required to protect the Corona Property (7). This alternative would allow for the abandonment of the Tract 241 Interim B,lsin site. H , ) '~j 21 ,.--, PRalMlNARY ESTlMI\lE , ) DRAINAGE INlERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTlERFIELD STAGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE F - QUAD 120" CIPPIRCP JANUARY 282002 A. CONSTRUCTION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANT1lY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 1 MOBlUZATlON 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 ClEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPlYING WATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 DUAl 120" RCP -IN PlACE 4,000 LF $450.00 $1,800,000.00 5 MANHOlE 14 EA $3,310.00 $46,340.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 7 INLET STRUCTURE 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 8 (7) 10'X5' ReB RCB 00 LF $4,200.00 $378,000.00 9 ASPlW.TPAVlNG 18,000 SF $1.40 $25,200.00 10 DROP BOX FROM 100 RC8 TO 120" RCP 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 11 EXCAVATION I BACKFILL 5,000 CY $5.00 $25,000.00 12 OEMOUSH 120" OPP 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 13 1ZX6' RCB STRUClURE (2) 120 LF $2. 100.00 $252,000.00 14 lZX6' RCB TRANSITION TO 120" CIPP 2 EA $46,000.00 $92,000.00 15 OUTlET SlRUClURE 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 16 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $312,854.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,441,394,00 B. DRY l1TIUlY RaOCATlON liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANT1lY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl I 17 GAS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 '--1 18 ElECTRIC 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 19 PHONE 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 20 SEWER - 18" RaOCATlON 2500 FEET 1 LS . $185,000.00 $185,000.00 .21 WATER - 24" AND 36" RELClC. IN HWY 79 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00 SUBTOTAL DRY l1TIUlY RaOCATION $605,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl I 22 W1WAMS (6) 0.000 SF $0.00 $0.00 23 CORONA (4) 0.000 SF $0.00 $0.00 24 SAVI'J.A (2) 0.918 SF $28,000.00 $25,704.00 25 OlHER O.OlX) SF $0.00 SUBTOTAl RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $25,704.00 D. ENVIRONMENTAl liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTIlY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl I 26 PROCESSING 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 27 MITIGATION 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 28 OlHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 29 OlliER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAl $100,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTIlY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl 30 CM&I 1 LS 16,000.00 $516,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSlRUCTlON MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION $516,000.00 ) IPROJECT TOTAL $4,688,098.00 I 23 Alternative G Description: Purchase the Savala properly (2) and convert it into a detention basin to prevent overtopping and inundation of adjacent pC) 1ies. The Savala parcel (2) encompasses 19.49 acres and contains a portion ofth~ existing low. The Savala basin (2) would outlet into a 120" located on the westerly right-of-way line of Butterfield Stage Road. The basin site would be excavated 7 feet below the existing low (1100 invert). The 120" RCP would parallel the existing dual 120" CIPP and outtet into Temecula Creek. The new facility would be located eastllrly of the existing storm drain, partially outside of road R1W. An easement would be required from the Corona's and other downstream properly oWners in order to place the storm drain outside of road R1W. The maximal Water surface elevation in the basin would be 1115', allowing for one foot of freeboard below the road finished grade. The basin requires approximately 350,000 CY of excavation. Flows from the existing channel would be collected at the northeast comer of the Corona property (7). The flows would be conveyed by a 30Q..foot channel to the Savala Basin. This channel would be either rock or concrete lined. ThIs alternative prevents overtopping' of Butterfield Stage Road and prevents flooding of the Corona property (7). This alternative assumes that the existing drainage swale east of Butterfield Stage Road has capacity to convey all flows tributary to it. It should be noted that an existing Rancho California Water District Pump Station located near the intersection of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Road. Construction of the proposed storm drain could require significant modifications to the pump station. This estimate doe:; not include the costs associated with relocating the affected facilities, which include the surge protectiqn system and electrical serliice for the pump station. Costs may also include the acquisition of additional RIW to relocate these facilities and the cost9f downtime for the pump station. Appraisal costs for the rights of way required for the proposed storm drain are estimated based on the Perdue Real Estate Appraisal prepared November 30, 2000. , \ ......., j 24 . , -; ) PR8JMNARY ESTlIM1E DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BlIT1ERAELD STAGE RQI\D AllERNA11VE H - KRJEGERAND STEWART AllERNAllVE JANLl<\RY 28, 2002 A CONSTRucl1oN II1EM DESCRIPTlON 0Ll<WlTTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl J 1 MOBIUZA l10N 1 lS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 ClEARING AND GRlJ881NG 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 3 FURNISHING ANDAPPL Y1NG WATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 EXCAVA110N AND COMPAC11ON OF EMS. 90,000 Ci $5.00 $450,000.00 5 lRlPlE r X 10' RCB UNE D 175 LF $1,410.00 $246,750.00 6 rxrRCB-UNED 150 LF $360.00 $54,000.00 7 HEAlJNAlL 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000.00 8 RlPRAP PROTECllON 3,000 Ci $40.00 $120,000.00 9 AOOI11ONAlINlETATB.S.RQI\D 1 EA $75,000.00 $75,000.00 10 CONCRETE CHANNa VII APPURT.-lINE D 3,375 LF $565.00 $1,900,875.00 11 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 12 CtWlNB.INlET 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 13 CtWlNEL 0U1lET 1 LF $25,000.00 $25,000.00 14 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 15 66" STORM DRAIN - UNE D 2,700 LF $185.00 $499,500.00 16 STORM DRAIN M'INHOlES 9 EA $1,200.00 $10,800.00 COIffiNGENCY (10%) $360,792.50 SUBTOTAl CONSlRUC11ON $3,968,717,50 B. CRY lInUlY RElOCATION IllEM DESCRIPTlON OUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNlT TOTAl I 17 GI\S 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 18 ElECTRJc 1 lS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 19 PHONE 1 lS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 20 SEV\.ER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 21 WATER 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000.00 SlJBTOTAlllRY lInUlY RElOCATION $370,000,00 C, RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTs jllEM DESCRIPTlON OUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNlT TOTAl I 22 Sav.lIa 952-13O{J()1(2) 0.918 I>c $28,00100 $25,704.00 23 Corona East 952-14lJ.OO3,952-19().{X)3(4) 4.731 I>c $15,000.00 $70,965.00 24 wniamslButter1iel Station (6)952-200-002,011,012,0 0 I>c $98,010.00 $0.00 25 Corona V<kst (7)052-150-001,003 0.000 I>c $200,910.00 $0.00 26 Somno (8)952-21Ml0 1.575 I>c $28,000.00 $44,100.00 Z7 Mrabal (9)952-21(}'()11 1.573 I>c $25,000.00 $39,325.00 28 Pokrajac (5) 952-12Q.{)12 - Fee purchase 2.300 I>c $15,000.00 $34,500.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY Am EASEMENTs $214,S94.oo D, ENVIRONMENTAL IllEM DESCRIPTlON OUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNlT TOTAl I 29 PROCESSING 1 lS $50.000.00 $50,000.00 30 MITIGATION 1 lS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 31 OTHER 0 lS $0.00 $0.00 32 OlliER 0 lS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $100,000.00 E. CONSlRUC11ON MANAGEM:NT AmINSPECllON 1l1EM DESCRIPTlON OUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNlT TOTAl I 33 CM&I 1 lS $594,500.00 $594,500.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRIJCT1ON MANAGEM:NT AND INSPECTION $594,500.00 IPROJE'CT70TAL $5,247,811.50 I 29 t~) . PRELIMINARY ESTIfoMlE DRAINAGE ImERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AlTERNATIVE G - SAVf>J.A BASIN CONCEPT JAUARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION IIlEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl I 1 MOBIUZATION 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 ClEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 3 FURNISHINGANOAPPLYlNGWATER 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 4 120" RCP" IN PLACE 2,100 LF $450.00 $945,000.00 5 MANHOlE 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 7 EXCAVATIOIWACKFILL 400,000 CY $5.00 $2,000,000.00 8 INLET STRUCTURE - TO BASIN 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00 9 OUTlET SlRUCTURE-FROM BASIN 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 . 10 120" RCP CllJIlET SlRUCTURE 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 11 FENCING 4,000 LF $8.15 $32.600.00 12 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10"10) $342,980.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,772,780.00 B, DRY unUTY RELOCATION lITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 13 GAS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 14 ELECTRIC 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 15 PHONE 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 r-j 16 SEWER 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 17 WATER 24" REa..AIMED, 36" PRIMARY 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00 SUBlOTAL DRY unUTY RELOCATION $470,000.00 C, RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIl TOTAl I 18 WILLIAMS (6) 0.752 Ac $98,010.00 $73,703.52 19 CORONA (4) 0.689 Ac $206,910.00 $142,560.99 20 SAV/lJ.A (2) 19.490 Ac $28,000.00 $545,720.00 21 CORONA 0.486 Ac $206,910.00 $100,558.26 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $862,542.77 0, ENVIRONMENTAL lITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT lOTAl I 22 PROCESSING 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 23 MITIGATION 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 24 OlHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 25 OlHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAl ENVIRONMENTAL $160,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION [ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAl I 26 CM&I 1 LS $566,000.00 $566,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECllON $566,000.00 ) I PROJECT TOTAL $5,831,322. 771 " 26 . . Alternative nescrlptlon: Construct a Line trending southerly from the northerly end of Calle Contento, crossing and turning easterly on : i)r10Ia Road and then continuing southerly along the easterly Corona parcel (4) boundary to Temecula Creek. Also, construct .,at into the Butterfield Stage Road interceptors at the existing low at the northwestern boundary of the Corona property (7). This alternative is based on a revised hydrology study submitted by Krieger and Stewart tiUed Corona Ranch Hvdroloov and HvdraL Analvsis of Basins 1 and 2 for Assessment District 159. dated August 14, 2001. The study suggests that the existing Butterfield Sta Road Interceptor hydrology study is conservative and that excess drainage capacity may exist in the easterly Butterfield Stage Ro Interceptor, The study proposes adjusting the drainage boundaries of the system such that flows tributary to the eastern boundary of ButterfiE Stage ROlld would be within the limits of the existing easterly interceptor to accept. This is accomplished by diverting a large portion the drainage area northerly of De Portola Road into a facility that would parallel the eastern boundary of the Corona property (7) 1II outlet direl~y into T emecula Creek. This altemative would require an inlet into the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptors at the existing low northwest of the Corona parcel ( capable 01 accepting approximately 400 cfs. Further, It should be noted that tentative tract map 30052 has been filed across APN 952-150-011 (9). This could require the propoSE open channel below Highway 79 to be converted to an underground storm drain. This would significantly increase the costs of th alternative. This could. also significantly increase the right of way costs for this parcel. / ' -, 27 r l;. w i:' I FJ i:' << i:' FJ ~ ~S u u u . . ~ :: ~ :;; Ii! ::. ::. Il !- ~ ~ .~ :? ~ g ~ (-) N ><. :! li ~ ; N .. a d ::. d ~ . ~ ':I ~ % ~ % ~ ~ ~ , , '! ~ ~ 8 ~ ,; ~ 1 ~ u < < N C << C .. ~ ~ z .: ... b ::. ~ u . << :;; l'l z ~ % << ... 'i :3 ~ N ~ ~ ~ 8 N . ~ % m I 10 ~ ~ ,; w ~ m m ~ u ~ ~ u m N % << ~ ~ ~ ;;; ~ N N N -' ~ ~ '" .: .: .: % . I '" '" ~ % Z ~ ~ ':l ':l ~ ~ ~ 10 10 ~ u ii ~ eeeee eeeeee H ~ ..... ....-) ....:.~.: "<~0_~~!):~j<~r :,~~/,.:: ~:<:l"~r'\;f: ".:,' .;. !~ ., >""'::-"_":"" C} .- l' , .. . ?-/;?.._"~..- ,-:;;..~< .- , ::iio:~;.~i~~~iJ~~';J~~);'~;3f;: -",' :...~~-)" '. " c:..... .c ".-::-.;.' '~'."'. . . . '. .. .,;:f:~";i:"'l:"... ""'f. ".-,:-_. "i-:" /~" .'.tr~ <,-.. ..,; ".:.:"...' ..- .>.:.', z ::..~ -', ""./'.-" . '..:.; .!~:~~:.;.;., \:.:.7" . ,.. ''"E" :..' ,.,"..- .....r N " z.... ~~i..-. r ~\:. (J') "'<C ,~:;ro' ... .~....- . '~ :. ''': 101 g C\1 ;;: ~ . , w f;; ~ '" ,.., ... 0 0 0 " c>: <>: Eo< ... Z .. 0 z u 0 ~I <>:z l=> 00 0 0- ~ 0 I:: m ~ "'''' I ClZ "'0 >- "'u Eo< ~~ Z ::> 0 ij u ~~ ~ l=> Ii - U en r:: ~ c>: ~ > '" Q i>: Cl ~ :;; <>: ~ '" ~ , i ~ - i ~I . f .. ~ e ~ i a f a l><l I IM.._'~ Hydrologic Drainage Boundary Map - Appendix (-) ~ ....-.; . -oj, .' . I ~f'N~ II Ill..<;) \l ~ -'l.~..' o ~~(t ~ I It- U r.1ii . 011' 0 'Ill p~.;: "I- J - ~ q: -IL ~ ~~ · I l- < - '"' . J · ~.. :r. I: <:::. I kG;. \1 ~ <- lU<!)O<!'l~ . ;; i \ .. - !i ~ ~ " l 1/ -~~V" Ji" ....~: J i .~. ..-- :'~:4-0i._ y ~ ..; , : { '. t i .-.". -." . ~. "." r. ~ S i : -. " { L{ u ,..: / ,/ '{ .-' ,; .:. '\.<. .1 :' I..... - . - \ .~ ! /. '1 !I 4--. I 1 .1 i') '"""":l I I , ". Newland Tract 24182 Interim Basin Site - Appendix' ) G)-; 3>]0 ~'" 2 .s:." - 00) ~ f" I ~. ...; II I .....'r '~I'~MI;;'I',Y ~1~.I~.I~.I'.i:.llal':" ~~~" i':;\~~:', ~,~~~~.......'\ ',-)\ .._ ~::. :-- . . .~ I'M- -,,",'-, ~ ~),i ','& ""o!I'"^'''<:<~''' ') ._ ,1',1 -,S ' ,".6'" ','''' ""I/~"".~' '-'/.~?Ak~ ,~',:::-,'. J 1i't)1 / Q · ~ Ii ;;'~-0 ~ i @- . '\I' - 0:': i\ -~c~~:\i:<!j!t,(~ ~,g IIr" - ~ :: :: :: ::~:: : ~: ~ .~,.;:' .~ .~ ...~ !ih\ ..:l- 0..~~~~.. -,:.;.,..~ . _'. ....--~:::t9 !'r' .:;j -, "~- u:' .~.g . - N . ':" :. li\' ":'1 :'j~' '~.4 i"'..." ~.. .." \., L~: -.;} , ',! I ~:jij,~" N:: \}Jl l~ .~ ..' lA', :- m '~~:O'~'E/~1~1: J'" rr-r-']. > : '4 1'1'1 I:; 'Ib...rJ~~ biJ . ~ .~<lti>. '0 r~~ ~ ~.... 1!~:@J.' ~/;"*,:...:" ::;' !-t~1~' ,,'1 t'; 01 ~. ; ~ l'J W fil '" 19. "'- ~ ,~ '. ..~', 1:/,.. '~r~" ,~.Ii; d j jfl '1 .\"X j~l 1;J.:1 11._ )Q"W. -'P_i;:'r'~~ '.L.0-/. 4\~- ..,.&.1 ..." \. /1 ' I' ." ~~: 'c.ij) P' .. - $If~et ,.,. I g !a]....l 'tl .. ,', --""~J/.I 11'1 ~'I~ ~%"@ ~~~'L~ ~.~~ ~:~f::@~>~~~!l!-j'i~~t~.!:' ,~O.I/;rJ ::1'1 '~~ . X~ "'- ~n. ,." r:J...../'N\;'j/t~".'~[ ~i1~ ~ "11 I~ I . ,,,., . "" "k~ r: "'''!::t:C~ ~-, .. ." .. ...' ... , . >" "I( . 'C=>("~Y".". , ) ">,,--. I ~-....... ...fI,',' ~ ~ ill- "tffil" ~,~,~~,;;-"~~-1k'-~"~~"-~ I!!~~i ~ ,;; :<. ~t/::@"'~t'.0:~ ~':"Y~"~ ,II' :l .If'. '-'J ~ ::~" '~f, ". ...... ."a r~" '~~l!ii.i' . _"~~"~"'" ' , l!. u ~ u ~ ;:.:. 1\\- ~ ~ ';" U '0" .. -4.,. I 0' 0' :,......-0:-: ~ I~'-"", ~.. I'. 'l ' .!' . " ~:: ~ @ '(9 ~ ," ~ .::" . . -' t' ~ '-'~-6' ~, . "~. . . ' ;.., ~:~J.t...("'~" N..... . '~@!j ~ ,,"'If9~'~ .;~~ lZ.g)~.:-J!,.l- ~"1J..l ~l '.' fl ~ 1 ,) ......~. . ...... ...,.... / i~::N..' " , .~\~ ~~~-~" @~. ;f~-(f1: ~.~:~f-~' 4J!/~~l"':' ,d ' -;= i \- W@H .jJ7i,~ - . ': ~ ~ j, :\~~, ~. ~ 01l~ . ~ UIlL ~~--: is}'' 1 ~'.;-; ~ ~ t: .Cot 'iJ ~ ~'Y::; 1'1, u~.. ',~. ...'IJ1.J--;;,;;.,,>:- ~ . ',' 'l~_\~. ., .It}:; u :::.:;:' ~'. . .. ::: '. 'i~Ii':t~~ u@..~~'.hEll--;'Y-' fIr- L ~. ~ .::.&: "",,- "" ~ " ~ ',,1::/ t.. ~ ; >!J' \. 'J:.,., , _=."".. ", 1" ' -~," ""~ 1 :: . '" .. '<' (!) '\ @": :Ii. " I rl){ ~ .I'I',;~'f.~,U" "f8o.~ .....u@-.~- .@I!I~ u . ~~'~',j'{t f~~J.. ~ ~"I r~.u ~@, '1< @c u'll' ::.'t @~; ..,". .. ~ y ~J)! r . ~ '-/... @ .: :;'I'~", :l:./'iI" , : ".' 0~ . ~~~ ~ . l": :i;ll:' I;' , . f r~~rJ' I' I". u '<:I~ ~~" u_. r~I.." \;roo -" , L ~ . [', ,l"':: @,' ~'<. Ii\ :~"I{\,,,,'';'J%'k..}tf~1/ _ -t ,. .t1~\';\i '.n I~' ~ .' Ou :. 'eJCoI." \."""'-.~~~~~.. CoI , I jl,ol~ (V~_' .... II \:;J' c::Ji. I II"~':@ ... (\) ~;i -. ~~i!i ...1~t: "l: :. -< 'J.~ I J."';,.u '/AP/. ..", "IN ':U:;.,.~ "." ;-1.:,J", ~ ~..@.g:-.: /'\,.~~. t' ",~~" ':ftc~; '\ ~ '..",: t: @' ,1:1 .;:~ "!. ,'1~..... ,", ~f~ ....'....'. :\.;..1';;: '! r,\i =>--1\ : I. 'If ..."",'. . ~ u :.! II\. . ':" \ u"... "1; -" f : 2 ~." .~S, . ":;r _ .) -Jt'J .:~,@ ~-"~",.;: '9;:'"'' '. ..,~~.(:'" .f~ c,~~~ . -- ,..~..', --r,,' , ~l I ~ '-j,\ u u ~~. " : ..~ ~,... ' I \ __ 1::. \ \ . it: , . ~;".@:g ,.y ..;: .~, . - ~ : : l.:a' ~,: n~! h~' .1 " ., ~r.>- I !i! " "; ~ u "Ii\. . ""'.1"1 A . ".'. ., . I } IS' \ 1.t..J! . :'*. "@~ -" ..W. .,iJ ::: nW" 7. it:. @ @:l ~ J I': ~. . t, ,@ 'ii.' '-,- \1 :r"--i-' \ ''''.f,''II; .~:@.r .tdJ .~. .:-::.~ di i~~.@~ t.1@.,..(J. r ~1";1 . , . ~ LU U Ii l::, ..J... d ,- "-. . ... . \\\ I:l '~I}. , ,!'.@~' \ '(;\;-.: : ..~ J ~'1 S~(~~'jJ~~":~;@"lf' ~ @ ~< Y':l(('\\'r-\-'1@[' '1<1 f;D I%\t !6'~; 1:.1:Y . fit '..~ ~~..! :l.. .. . . : ~ 'f'. , "'" r. . g, iii '.. . ,f;;P..... . N i>\ . , \" ~, 1';, i (j)"It.': ~ @ : . :;"J} ~,$-@' .~\ ~ .,~' "'.tr':'9~ '@; ~';! -,'. ~t-r;~ ,111 :: f: . ~~h~ @ :;i'.::.~ i1P.'!-:~ ,,~. . .&~~". -.' '" ~.. ~ " '\ ~~~) JI.:':\i.:=,i"tb(, "r-"- ~. -.. - - _.oil I:: ';'''~' .f J;.' .' ~,., _'~ \, ~/ : fjl-'i! ";'\":', ",.: --.I--.:.:t=.- u~. 1::." ~ o. ." /;?...- '.. oS).~' ~; , - "v' 1\1 ; jl,.J I'---.....i!: '-A'~ I'~ I'~ ~~...~ J ~:"~_i.J-'-S:..J~ ~"~. ~~~ ' '\tl. :;d., " : . ~ . I ~'fr..! &- ~ .'..u,. -- .. :.,..-, . '" '. ';:. '. J, \ 'I- L <; '.':;:/Iii , ~ 'r<:"wo:~ '" ~ @~@~.~J/ ~,: . '~@r': @~.;~~ Y', 11 I . ~: ~.. fA 'r - \ \ h\\ fill 1 ~ ~ ~~ lit. JIo.fl.:o. ~.o Ie.~' t,). -;-J..--. --'" r ,. , :. 1J1~ 'Vt:i/'~ffilZ. i'i$lh\2.lI~ ~:-.+ ': ~.~ ,:,. \..; .. .y_ \! .~. ,.$..?----- "cO RJ. ~i'rl5'''~o....o 'f L<l'"...,<.. .... "'-: _ \_ " 'l~'~.u' -:0\ -=;:.0:'>"/1-"'" ~~. , . :\':.1" I ill .... ~.~":~,.-;r~- ' . r'v'\,' /.. .;/".r.oF'....~ ~ . '. ...~" ft-. _. =" . If' I .;: .t.' 2 V'~'.. '..-- ..-- 7-'-'. ~ I~ .~\ _~Rodd- . .~. -, . '... \'\1\: II ,,,... - 1>. ~'!li '" Sl.ne........ . ,. ) \.~, "\ " " t::: . "t.- "', -h- ~'. _Q~'erneld- -1'--.''' !: I \"':. .~ '. r "1-.':' . ~ ~ ;.-.,. It-( I \\ : / j\ \..>\\ $ . - ;:" ,,-', \ \ (j) )~/ \\\'\ .. : i.. , \ \ J l~) ~ \ ~~ ..".\ l~ h ~~g~~ ::;i-l . r- . 'b i!::!: rn -::):D~m 1'""'\ .. .. .. ': :! :!: :!: '! -: , _nm e>~ t! . .. Ii? ~ @)~ . .. '" ... C-) H , ) . ~ . 0~ l:l \ l ~ + -1 i .;"'. s' ~~ ~~. II IL. ; . M..i .,. " Larger Parcel Appraisal Summary Sheet- Appenui}( , C) H' \ . ) " .. .~~) I . H _nm. t! 9 @>~ ~ , \' ::! ~. 2lol II i~ a. l!Ii l'-) H I ) o ~H .t_,_~ !: CO ' ... @)~ ... '^ .,. . , . , . , \' o , ~ ~' -s: + . .1 I I s', ~~ II '., I~ II. \. lIIi '., . .f' - () . I . . . I . ~ Ii I I . I: I , . .1 INTRODUCTION Identification of Larger Parcels to be Appraised . A sununary of the Larger Parcels impacted by the proposed project is presented below: BUITERFlELD STAGE ROAD INTERCEPTOR. STORM DRAINAGE I BASIN IMPROVEMENTS Summary of Larger Parcels (Grouped by Property Type) Ownership I Laad Locatioa I 5'... Zooia, I Exlsda, Ukdy .- No. APN (Acs) Geaei-.J PI.a LaDd Use H8<B Use Remarks P4rfi4I1J'lml'"..d Rc,u/<lfJUdlo/r_..MIIp. I. Newlaad 42.64 Tcalalivc Mop Vaaat R<sidcatial Por. Paloma Del Sol NWCSR 79S&:BSR (VIM 24182) Subdivision SpecifIC PI..; 188 101S wi 9SQ.020~19 &: 020 (acw) S.OOOSFmin.lotsizc.. 926-130-003 (old) R_ RaU/entW.v;" CiIJ' ofTent<<Uk Juris4'<dl4n 2. Savala 19.49 Low &: Medium Vaaat Rcsidcatial Split zoning; avg.. target see Dc Portala Rd &: BSR Dcasity Subdivision dCllsity of 8.25 DUlAc. 952-130-001 Residential RIIW ResikntUd wM C... IIf lliPudJe JllrlsrlCtiiJn 3. Lumsdaine 20.62 RR. Rural Vaaat Hold for SWAP allows 2-4 DUlAc; SIS Dc Portala Rd, E ofBSR Rcsidcatial Future Zooc ehaage accded for 952-130-002 RcsidcatiaJ dcasity ia excess of 2 Subdivision DUlAc. 4. Coroaa (East) 39.61 RR - Rural Vaaat Hold for SWAP allows 2-4 DUlAc E ofBSR bctwcca SR 79 S &: Dc Residential Future oa APN 9S2-1~3 aad Ponola Rd Rcsidcatial 2.5 acre minimum -lot on 952-140-0038<952-190-003 Subdivision APN 952-140-003. 5. Pokrajac 37.10 RR. Rural Vacaat Hold for Zooing &: SWAP NEe liada Rosea Rd 8< Residential I'u1urcrunl inconsistent Probable De Portola Rd n:s1dcatial dcasity is 2.5 acre miD. 952-120-012 development based oa SWAP aad SUITOUI'lding land use. R_ Comtner<W ..... CiIJ' IIfT'!IUcbd4 rruis4U:ti4n 6. Williams I Bullctfield Station 18,9\ NC. Vacant Fulute Ownership has applied for SEQSR 79S&:BSR Nei~' Commcrcia1 ZOlIC chaagc Eo CC . 4 parcels (4.46- 4,99 Acs) Commercial Conmmity CoITllllet'CialEo 9S2.2~ Oil, 012 &: 013 _.,..d.1e so.ooo+ SF "big box" -.1, 7. Coroaa (West) 19.17 ce. FarmS_ Iatcrim. "As Ownership 1w\ property 952-1SG-0018<003 Community (1aad oaIy) Is" =ed Eo ce sevcnl)'<US COlm1Cl'CiaI H&B. FuturO ago. No developmeat plaos Commercial pending. Smll/1 Rtnf1 Residential / C.mm.ert:ltd NVfn Co. of /liPasUle Jllris4ictio" 8. Sommo 6.22 RR - Rural Vacaat Hold Jor 393' of SR 79 S fi'oal2gc; SIS SR 79 S., E of BSR Residential (..-<ok) Fulute 393' of fi'oal2gc along 952.210~10 Dcvelopmcat T<m<<ula Cn:ek Rd (a non- dedicated 60' wide R-o-W. 9. Minbal 6.23 RR. Rural Stable Hold (or Mirabal ownership extends SIS Tcmecula Cn:ck Rd, Residential (1aad oaly) Futun: west to include Ihn:<: E ofBSR Dcvclopmcat additional parcels (16.63 952.210~1I acs) under same county RR. zoning. Introduction P!la~'t ,.. . , .... (~) ~ IPR-Ol-Ol 11:57 From:HEWI77 O'NEil llP .1 949-798-0510 7-089 P.OI/IT Job-STS HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP 'nll~M.C'()CHRAN DI"J\N DtJMH.bNlC.lW SA.iDAA A. GALLe WI1.t.lflM (;:. HA.U,(! ^N'!)JU~W K. HARTUsLl Hi)':.H HeWITI LA'NMlNC$ J. "ILTON ATtORN~VS AT L4w 19900 M...,AarnuRllOULEVAR", SUITE 1050 IRVINe, CA~lfO'NrA 92612 (949) 798-0500 . (949) 798-0511 (FAX) EM^Il..~ eQ\lft$c~jllMlcil.rom JOliN D. IlUDSllI/ STEVI:..~ D. IMIUK)f OENNIS D. O'NbIL JAYf. PAI-c..,.,'KOPP PM.Il A. ~OWE WILLt^M 1... TWOMey JOHN t'. YeAGER WRtTe1t'S OI!lOCT DIAL: (949) 79'.0714 RM^lL: doneil@hrwilUl1\CiI.wm April 2, 2002 THISIS PAGE 1 OF ll.. PAGES. TO: Jim Delhamer Dean Meyer Manha Guy Sam Alhadeff FAX NO: (858) 674-1301 (909) 694-36iz (858) 455-6142 (909) 699-6191 FROM: Dennis D, O'Neil SPECIAL NOTES: IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL (949) 798-0500. ..*.......*........ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA nON INTENDED ONLY FOR THE REVIEW AND USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE, IF THE READER OF nIlS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INT~ED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NotIFIED THAT ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, USE OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRlCfLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HA VB RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDJATEL Y NOTIFY US BY THE TELEPHONE. THANK you. , ....., AYK-Ul-UZ 11:~r fr..:H(WITT g'NEll llP 949-798-0510 T-089 P.Ol/ll Job-8IS , ) HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP ATTOllNl:VS AT LAW April 2, 2002 10019-00002 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Delhamer Dean Meyer Martha Guy Sam Alhadeff FROM: RE: Dennis D. O'Neil Paloma del Sol I have talked to Peter Thorson and Shawn Nelson regarding Newland's. request to be released from the hold on the 508 multi-family units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. Shawn thought it would be best to have the request sent to Gary Thornhill, who was the most knowledgeable about the condition, Shawn thought that Newland may need to submit an application to place this issue before the City Council. I have tried to limit the information in the letter to the release of the hold on the multi-family units without including all of the docwnentation supporting the efforts of NewlllIld to work through this matter with the Coronas and the County Flood Control Agency. Gary is very familiar with all of the facts and I did not believe that including the additional infonnation would be helpful, If a separate application is required to initiate the process, I suppose we could, at an appropriate time, file all of the support data we may think is necessary at that time. However, I believe the staff and City Council grow weary of this issue and are prepared to grant Newland's request. Please review the letter and provide comments. ) 10900 MACAilTIMlBOVU!VAtw, sum. 10'1l I&VI}<,'J,CA.9Kn ('49'1T9t.4SOO (94'1)'NI.O)ll FJdAIL: ("'OVNSIittdH2WlnONen..cow 412/02 1 00 19.ooon2 So\152\CORRIj)2040005.Ml!M.doc APR-Ol-Ol II :57 From:HE1IITT O'IIEIL LLP 949,198-0510 T-089 P.D3/11 Job-616 , DRAFT ITO BE TYPED ON NEWLAND COMMUNITIES LETTERHEAD) ) April_, 2002 Mr, Gary Thornhill Deputy City Manager City ofTemeGl!la 43200 Bu&ine.. Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Paloma del Sol Dear Gary: "'"""::i I am writing this lener on behalf of my company, Newland Communities, developers of Paloma del Sol, to request you agendize for City Counoil consideration Ihe release of the hold On tile 508 multi-family units in Planning Area 61\ and Planning Area 6B of Paroel Map 29431, If Newland must file an application to initiate the process, please so advise me or Dean Meyer in our Temecu(a Oftice. Dean can be reached at (909) 694-5572. You will recall the Temecula City Counoil on February 2, 1998 in approving Paloma del Sol Plarming Applioation No. P A 96.02~8 (V csting Tentative Tract Map 24182) added a condition requiring Newland to maintain a detention basin on a 20 acre area entitled for 188 residential lots. This condition is to remain in place ililtil SilCO time upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsite stonn flows 10 an adequale outlet. The following year lhe City Council at its meeting on November 16, 1999 approved PIa.'ll1ing Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment No.7) and relatel1l1evelopmem pennit appliCations for Paloma del Sol and added the restriction on developing the 508 multi-family units, Legat ooun.el for the owners of the Corona Ranoh located just easterly of Paloma del Sol across Butterfield Stage Road appeared at both hearings, as Ihey had in the past when modifications to the Paloma del Sol development plan were processed, and objected 10 the City Council's approval of these Paloma del Sol planning applications. The Coronas contend Newland is responsible for the construction of a stonn drain facility (Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel) to mitigate stonn waler flows that acoumulate on a portion of their property duting periods of heavy rainfall. It has consistently been the position of Newland and the County of Riverside that the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel is an Assessment District No. 159 improvement and the Obligation of the County to build. The City has in the past agroed and approved Newland's planning application but recognized the need for the County and the landowners in ADI59 to meet and work on implementing a plM to construct the 8unerfield Stage Interceptor Channel. In an attempt to address Ihe concerns of the Coronas and provide further incentives for Newland to cOfitinue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council at its Novernber 16,1999 meeting placed a "hold" on issuing building pennits for Ptanning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, PlU'Cels 6 llJId 7, consioling of 508 4JI/W 10010-??oo2 S!\152\COR.PJ01()4:O()(W..L Ttl_doe , y I,PIl-DZ-DZ II :58 F,...:HEWITT O'NEIL LLP , ) "Im 10019-00002 SoII12ICon'>II2040004.1tt.dac 949-TBB-D51D MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16, 1999 T-D89 P.D4/ll Job-SIS lIylt"Ut-Ut II :~I HOlII:ltI:WITT O'NEIL LLP 949-798-0510 T-m P 051ll Job-616 , No'"ember J 6, 1999 Regular Meeting ot"lhe TemecuJa City Council Page 1 ot"lo --- Hon.. Thla hi TemtKulD CIIY M1YlCOt ....'do\;llJ_. RKfUllon . , Help ) :. ~~p.e"".~ ~e, " Ci!y Council Minutes y LCk 10 City Council Minute. Main tndex Palle .' MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA crrv COUNCIL NOVEMBJ!R 16. 1;&1 Tile City of Temecula Clly Council convened In en lldJoumGd flIII!.!ler m99!!ng at 7:04 P .1.1" on TUGsday, November 16. 1999, In the City CouncD Chambars of Temecula CIty HaD, 43200 Business Perk Drive, Temecule, f;:OLL CALL Present: Council members: Comerchero, Llndeml!lll, Roberti, Slane. al)d Ford. Absent: Councllmember: None, PRELUDE MUSIC lhe prelude music wes provided by Aaron Breld, IUVOCATION _ . The Invocation was given by Youth Pastor ScOtt Treadway of .~nc:ho Commllnlty Chllrch. ......., AllEGIANOE The audience was led In llie F1agliB!ule MaYOr Pro T em Slone. . PRE6ENTAnON~PROC~TIONS NallunalFlImllyWeek .... . .,' . Mayor Ford proclaimed November 21.27 to be deslgnalild liB NallOl1llI Famny WeeIL C1n behalf of all tha families In Ihe Cily of T e1necule, Ms. DeoIae Orne accepted Ihe award, notlns thalli wOll!d be pllaced on display et Iha library, .' . . . Certificate of AppreciatIon to A1Crlap and Larry Markham Presenting Permit EngIneer CriSp with a Cer1lflCBle'.of Appreciation. Mayor Ford relaved the Clly's gratitude for Mr. AI Crisp's dedicated service, aiding the City In estebllshlng a foundation for the Public Works LancUlevelopment [) Ivislon wnh his extensive enOlneerlngllaGkllfllllnc:t _ lIIIayor Ford presented Mr. Larr)'Markham with 11 C&J1iflC8le of Appreciation for hi. three year. servinQ a. a PUbllclTraffic Safety Commissioner, noting Diat !he City had greally beneflted from his Invaluable service, F Dr Informational purposes, Mayor Ford relayed the success of U\8 recent Race for the Cure Event which was held Ir, the City of T emeoule for Il1e purpose of ralelng monies for braest ""noer re.....rch; noted \he Inepiring feal. of various handicapped participants In the race; and displayed the cryslal plete that was presented to the City d snoting the 1 Mil T amacula Race for \he Cure Event .; " PUElblO OOMMENTS IIIIs, Maryann Edwards, representing the Asslslance League of !he T emecula Valley, relayed \he various activities of the organization, inclusive of the provision of clothing for chUdren; thanked the City for their generous support; ilwlled the publK: 10 the 2nd Annual Holiday fundralser, sd1eduled III be held on Sunday, November 21, 1999 from 4:00 P.M. 10 7:00 P.M. at the Castaways Thrift Shop located at 2a720 Via Montezuma, Temecula; and clQmmended Cllun~i1man I.lndemans, and Mayor Ford for their dedication to the City, as Coun~iIm_ The following individuals relayed their support of the proposed permanent Community Theatre: Ms, Ilobbl Boas, representing the Theatre FOllndation, 27740 Jefferson Avenue htfn'II~UI'.i fJl:mlli'.l,lo ""'6 "bf...;"M!tn""'hmt~I1QQO)'Ail\ntpJ:/l11I:QO ,,""". r,rl\-V"-V" 11...1:1 rrOlll:r&'11111 UntiL LLt' 848-m-om T-oa8 P.D6/11 Job-616 , . November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting orlbe Temecula City ColDlciI No, 3334.) Page 7 of! 0::: ) I>J. 'thIs time Mayor For" cIosecllhll public """""" MC)TION: Mayor p", Tem etono mDYCcl to appmve atoff reoommcndellon, COUncIIm8ll LInlIeman& lIllCll1ldad the m~,Uon Bnd voice vote renected unanimOUs ~provaL CCIUNCIL BUSINESS 16 Ora. Report 'rom Subcommittee, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 811-28 (Specific Plan No. 219) end Orl~lnance No, 88"28 (Development Agreement) - Home Depot Project (located north of State Hlehway 78 South. south of Montelegro Way, east of MlII'garlte Road, 8~ west of Meadows Parkway RECOMMENDATION: 16,1 Receive an oral report by SubcommlUee Members Meyor Ford end CovOGllmember lIndemans; . 16.2 Adopt an ordinance entiUed: ~. OIlDlNANCE NO, "41 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CllY COUNCIL Of TIlE CIlY OF'mGCULAAPPROYlNG /'I.NlHlNG APPIoICA'l1ON NO, PA8t- 0285 (AM"NIlM"NT NO. llO SJ'l!CIflC PlAN NO. 211). WHICH AIIEIlDS lAND US"S W1llllN Pl.ANNINO _S I, .... 27 AHD 31: AMENDS TIlE AUllHImiT AND CllM'IIllIRA1IllH Of CAMPMUi.A WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLAAND . MEAIlOWO PAftKWA..: AMI!NDa ntC.......0CA11OIlQf AGllfAGE _ PIoANNlNG AREA 1 FROM 32,3 "CREll TOu.o ACRES: AMENDS THE AUOCAnoN OF ACREAGEWITHIH PLANNIHG_ 1 fROM au ACRES TO :14.3 ACRE&; DMPES PLANNING AREA IIIhtl PLANNING _IA (22.S ACRD. WIlH A _11M OF 2" UNITlII AND PLNlNlNO AREA '" Ita ACRU. VERY H!llIlIlf;HllITY RESlliElmA1.1_ DIIIAC, WmlA.MAlClM\IM OF 240 UNIT6},IWiULl1NG IN AN OWllAll REDucnON Df IlW~NG UH/T8 FROM no TO IOS;'AlIEHDS TIU! TEn lO PROVIllIi tOR THE DEVl!l.OI>MEHI' OF A SEMOllC_UNIlY WInlIN.P\.ANNINo AREA'; _ANeIlDa Tile D~IIGN GUIO~N~a TO INCORPORATE TH! VILlAGE VlGIlEllU ANIl8lNlOR AMEIIn1ES:.llAUllUPON TIlE ANALYlllB AND 'INDlIlOI . CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO ltlE CONPmOHS (lP,APPROVAL ON flI.f IN THE OFFICE (lP TIlE CITY CLERK .~ . '6.3 Adopt an ordlnanc-l! enlilled: ORDINANCE NO. 8149 . . AH ORDINANCE Of THE CIlY COIINCll 0' 'hiE CI'n' O!'-'IEMECUlA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGIl'.MENT ENTlTu:D........_ Al ~EO DEL sOL ~ l'ORUMENT,l'LANNINO AIW<~ '(11)' '(II)OP SPECIFIC PlAN NO, 218, AMENDMENT NO. l . MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stllllll moved to approve.lhe SeGond Reading of Ordlnanw No. 99"29 (Specific Plan no. 219) and Ordinanco No.llD-211 (Development Agresmanl.) CounoUmen Roberts aesendad the moUon and volc:e vole reflected unanimous approval, : WiU, respecllb the dispute between ihe CorOI14 Rllnch properties and Newland Communities, Mayor Ford relayed thai although there I\..a been dlotu....ions, eltl11.. point In time no flnal agreemenl nao Deen reacnoo, . ., Ms. Michele Staples, attorney for the Corona Ranch propertIes, specif1l!d lhe issues of disllute; relayed that the Corona family did not oppose IIie Serona Reildli1il of lIlil Ordinances; and thanked Mayor Ford, and Councilman '-Inclemans fOf their aSSiduous eftens spant over 1118 weakend, working with the parties In an aUempllo reach IIn agl'llemenl. Councilman L1ndemans relayed that the Council had previously placed a hold on 218 lots In Tract 24182-3, and 'I. ass oelated wllh this proJect; noled thaI due 10 this property currently being In escrow, Newland Communltles had offered In Its stead, Parcels 6 and 7. consisting of 608 mulll-famlly unUs, requesting that there be a substitullon of the parcels being held; and reCOi'tlMilnlled thai due to the sftualion, that the parcels be sub,tltuled. Mr, AllJ.adeff, rcpresenUng Paseo Del SollNewland Communltie$, relayed gralilude to Mayor Ford and Councilman Undemans for their time and consideration In attempting to sid the parties in the dispule; relayed that although there was no mandatad requirement, Newland Communllles ha<l agreed 10 place a hold on lIle aforementioned pro,leI1les In an altemptlo be amenable With respect to settling the dispute;. noted the specifications of the existing Development AgreeMent; relieraled Councilman Undemans' recommendabon to subsl~ute the held parcels; In response to Mayor Ford's comments, relayell assurance I/1at If 1M city Councllappltlved the proposed http://.www.ci.tcmecula.ea.uslcilybaIVminuteslI999MinutesllI1699.htm _ ."",,,.. ~r"-v~-u. 11.~g rlum;~ftlll u "elL LLr 949-m-U5IU 1-089 P.OT/II Job-GIS NQvember 16. 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City CoUQCil Page 8 of 10..- ti ub$U1ulion of pan;els, that there would be continued effons 10 attempt to come to a resolullon with Iho Corona _ ftench propenles; for Mayor Pro Tern Slone, apeclf'lfld that If lhe CoundI did not approve tI1a substlluUon of -- holdings, that the property owner would not be able to sell the property; and noted thBlIhere was, eddKlonelly, 8 risk of .. lawsuit. ) , Ms. Stapleti relaYfld thet the Corona fumly OppOlied tho propo,allo subsiltute the prop8l1y holdings, provldlng the ~atlonale for the opposlUon; and specified thet the Brown Act regulations would prohibit e ruling on. the matter at ~,Is lime due 10 thIs meeUng beIng a Special meeting, emy Atlorney Thorson offered the followlng clerlficelfon: 1) noted that thIs was not a Special meeting, but an II djourned regular meeUng, 2) relayed that the Agenda did SPedflC8lly reference the project: 3) provided erldillonal blformellon regarding tho Development Agreement; end 4) specified the CounCil's purview with respect to tho mleasing of the property hold at thlti lime, end In the future,lf requested, . H For Councflmen Llndemans, Deputy CIty Manager ThomhIU CIar1fjed thet the raUonete for the Condition retilricling the parcels was 10 ensure that lhere would be BIlempts 10 resolve tho Issues of dlspule; and relayed that tho ' h!lidlng may not have been placed on the property IfNewIencI Communities had not been agreeable. . '1II0TION: Councilman Llndemans moveclto haVlllhe CIty, hllreby, rele3te the 218 lob In Treot 24182~ end 4, as described In the Conditlons of Approval, approved b}ilhe CltyCOUncll on November 9, 1999,lInd substltute,ln lis place, Planning areas 6A and 68 of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6, and 7, c:onslcUng of 608 multl-femlly units. Councilman Comerehero seconded the motion. (ThIs motion uttlmately pIssed: 58e page 12,) In response to Mayor Pro rem Slone's querying, Ms, Staples relayed that her Client would request a weak's time tCI consider the new proposal, . Mayor Ford sp90lfierl the locellon of the orlglnally held propert~s, and the properties Proposed to be substitutad: advlsed that since Newland ComniimlUes had offered lhe coIIaleral on gOOd faith at tho Ume; !lnddue to tho slJbstilutlon proposal cUll maintaining an eq'uHablo holding, which would continue 10 encourage efforts to reacn a sl~nJement, recommended that the substitution proposal be .ppr~ed, . ;.", . p Recognizing the unusual cIrCumstances of the inall!lr, Co\lnCIIm;m Comercne(O r.alterated that Newland . Communities h..d offeredthll pilri:ela clllnli1Uy being held: nQtad that at thelll\1l! of approval, . the CouncU wiIs not aware of the facl thallhe parcols were In' escrow; and recommende<lthat the Council approve the subslltullon of the parcel.. . '. . . After further conslderallon Of the maller, Ms: Slsples relayed that tha Corona family had no objection to the proposal to substilute the parcels, AI this time voice vote was takan reflecllng unanlll10us approval, - . - In light of the time the Council that hed devoted to the discussions. Mayor Ford Implored the partill6 in di.pule to make efforts to come 10 a resolution. .' Fl)r Informallonal purpo&es, CouncUman Llndamans relayed thaI after much deliberation, Newland Communlllea was willIng to post a $3.5 million bond, nollng f1\e efforts to cooperate In reaching a resolution. " 17 GST !'"Ibe. Optics RECOMMENDATION; 17.1 Receive aM file a report regarding GST Telecom fiber optics. B:I way of overhead maps, Director ofPubfic Works Hughes presented the staff report (of record) as an informational item per the City Council's and City Maneger Nelson's reQuesl; specified Ihe Iocalion of.lhe telecommunicetioD racilities Inslallalion; noted the concessions GST had made 10 millgale Ihe traffIC IIIlpactJ; at;socialed with Ihe project; relayed thai the City would be monitoring the mslallalion project; and for CouncUman Comerchero, advised that solely the area within the Commercial Dislrict would have (he iIlstallallon postponed until January 3, 2000, (after the holiday season.) hllp:/Iwww.ci.temecula.ca.uslcilyhalVminutesll999MinUleslII1699.htm. t'l//;/nt H l\rll;-U'-u, 11::1~ rrOll:rt.1I111 UntiL LLI' 949-798-0510 ) CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 16, 1999 411102 10019.00002 $:\1 ~2\c:on\02040004.hr.doe T-089 P.08/11 Job-51 5 ,,,rl\-uc.-u, II.Ot" trDllla1twlll UNtiL LLP 949-798-0510 T-OI9 P.09/11 Job-GIG ~ , ) EXHIBIT A CI1Y OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL . . Revised by tIN City Couno/l. November 11. "" Planning Application No. PA99-1lZa5 - SpeGiliG Plen Alnendment No, 7 Project Description: To amend Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) e. follows: land uses wilhtn Planning Areas 1,8 and 8; the reaUgnment and reconfiguration of campanllla Way between De portala Road and Meadows Parkway, the reallocation of acreage within P\annInQ Area 1 from 32,3 acres 10 35,0 acres; the reaRoc:ation of acreaga WIthIn PlaMlng Araa 8 from 36:3 to 34.3 acres: the division of P1aMing Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22,3 aaes, high density residential. 9-12 dwelDng unl1s per 8CI1I, v.ith. maximum of2S8 dwellinll units) and Planning Area 68 (12 acr85, very high density residenlial" 13- 20 dulac, with a maximum of 240 dweUin9 units), resulting In an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508 dWeRlngs; th8 provision to develop an active, private, gated slnlor community within Plennin9 Area a that includes a private recreation area; and an update of specific Plan Design GuldeDnes that incorporate the village vignettes end the aenior amenities, H Approval Date: November 16.1999 PI-ANNING DlVISION General Requirements 1. The applicant and owner of the reel property subjeclto this condition shall hereby agrll8 to indemnify, protect, hold harmless. and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection. the City shall be deemed for purposes of thIS condition, to include any agency or InSlnlmentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed official$, officers, empJoyees, . coosllllants, contractors, legel counsel, and agents from any and aU claims, action., awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to anack. SIlt aside, void, annul, seek monotary damagel relultlng, d"rrectly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, Of any agency or InstNmentality Ihereof, advisOry agancy, appeal board or legislative body including adions approved by th8 voters of the City, conceming the Planning Application, City shall promptly notify the both the appfieant and landowner of any claim, adion, or prcx;Deding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves ill right to take any and all action the City deems to be In the best inte,.st of the City and its citizans in regards to such defense. 2. The applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No, 219 and hs amendments unless superceded by these Conditions of ApprOVal. 3. The text of Amendment No, 7to SpecifIC Plan No. 219 shall conform wlth i:xtllbit No, lB, "f'aloma del SOl spel;illc Plan, Amendment No.7" dated October 11,1999, or as amended by these conditions. R:lSTj\ff1lPI\1Up.99.CC lJ.9.99 10_,.... " .____ . ._.._..... V'_'" ...., """I'Il-U~IU T-DI' P.ID/II Job-BIB ) DECEMBER 11,2001 LETI'ER FROM GEORGE .JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. TO BILL HUGHES H , ~ 41\102 10019-00002 S:\152\con\02040004.1n .due ~rK.Ut-Ut It:UU ~rom:ntwlll U"NtIL LLP 949-198-0510 T-089 P.II/II Job-SIS De.. S 2SBl ee:;,u'l'l 1'3 ..", "" . FA)( Kl. : 9B9-694-3612 10'\ 1l6LlMl "0 Illi '" u... 011" ~, ' llf.!!!.!' :(~',,'~ .,.~J .. .~~", [lacembtr 11, 2001 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGBMENT AGENCY 'IransportaUOIl Departmellt D...oM l. .....,..,. DI_'tf~"'" Mr. WIUllm G, Hughel. Dire. c~ of Temeoula Public Works Dept. 1).0. Box 8OS3 'remllllUl., Callfornl. 82688-GOSS IRE: luttel'llllld Intaroep1Of CIlannel, Auaument Dlatrtat N..111 0., alii: PIlf your requolt. I am sending you thII kltIer Ie briefly eummartze the angaIng dIIauII/onI betwalll\ tla County and !he pmperty ownera ."Geted bf lhe BUIIeltIMi InteraepIOr ctlannll. For almoat two yeara now" the CoImty hu lIMn mellllng wIlIl NIIWIW oammun. Ihe Conlna Family, and Leonard Savala In an etIorllD come CO an aglMllleltt on . prefanad alternative for the Butterfield lmen:eptor ChlnIllL \ '. i-7 ,....IIY1.nt Dltlllct No. 1 &8 conlemplatad placing tI\a Intan:aptar at thII IUIIrIY boundalY CII AD No, 1159, whlch wau/d.lnclude the Savala praparty end only ao lena'" tht Corana',1and. The Corona Family and Mr, Ba. IndlClled lhe propelled AD No. 168 alignment wu nat 1I0ll8p1llbla to \hem, Addlllonal allgnnwma _. IUlIlIMtad by'tha property awn.,. ifill haVI tllbaaqullnUy been ,Wed by the R1vallllde CouIllY Flood Contnll DIatrfat. M. rnUlt III thII ItulIy aflOlt, It appnnl Iha property ownllll unoIfIclIeIly IIIppolt an aItlHnaIIvI to ptaol IuI Interceptor along the eut edgl Gf the Ccmma praperty. Untonun.. 10 dllt we haw not beln able 10 develop a ltnanclna Il\IIOh8nlllTl to IlOnllrlld lha auggntlld lntoroeplDt" II you ara Inlamtad, we can lolWlld you . copy of thl AllOd Contllll Report aummaNlng Itle e1t.rnallvea studied. "you hive any C1ueatlon1, plea.. contact me. ~Jnoer , . , ~ lor Joh . DepUly DIrICt 01 Trenllpllflallon GAol:. cc: 68m Nhadafl. Newl8nd communltl_ MIchele SlISllsl steve corona Leonard Ballala . Duety wtlllama.. F\oCld ConItOl OIalrlct Rhondl l<Ing, EluIc:utlw 0fl1c6 j -IMO ....1\lIl. ~1r"L IIll ..... . Ill......., CtIIllOIIl\& 92501 " C9lIII "~l'" ". - ____ _. ___0.1. _......._l-It'YM.,NIift.S...GAllt5J.6U:' -.1 J -,. EXHIBIT 4 - .~ . DATE 07-22-97 01-23-98 11-01-99 11-03-99 11 -04-99 11 -04-99 02-17-00 03-16-00 04-04-00 04-11-00 04-26-00 06-06-00 08-03-00 01-10-01 08-13-01 09-25-01 11 -06-0 I 11-29-01 12..11-01 12..18-01 NEWLAND OUTLINE OF EVENTS CORRESPONDENCE Storm Drain Agreement between the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the Cit of Temecula and Newland Associates Inco orated Letter from Ron Parks to US Army Corp of Engineers regarding Newland has done everything in their power to protect the adjacent properties as a part of their development. There is no reason to withhold requested permits or development a rovals as the affect the Paloma Del Sol ro' ecl. Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson regardin appeal of the Coronas Letter from Dean Meyer to Carol Donahoe regarding response to appeal filed by the Corona's Letter from Paul Thompson to Shawn Nelson regarding the background ofthe Butterfield East Interce tor Channel Letter from Richard Robotta to Dean Meyer regarding their opinion that Newland is in compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to floodin or draina e issues at Butterfield Sta e Road and Hi wa 79 Letter from George Johnson to Corona Ranch regarding meeting of December 10, 1999 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Tony Carstens and George Johnson regarding meetin on March 1,2000 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto George Johnson regarding Corona's letter dated March 14,2000 re ardin inaccurate statements Letter from George Johnson to Stephen Corona regarding further study of additional 0 tions re arding drainage Prelimin Estimate Draina e Interce tor East of Butterfield Sta e Road Letter from Paul Thompson to Michelle Staples regarding excess funds available in AD 159 Letter from Michelle Staples to Tony Carstens and George Johnson regarding findin a suitable financin Ian Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Tony Carstens and Kelly Donovan regarding AD 159 ro ert owners meetin bein continued Letter from Darren Stroud to James Venable regarding landowners within AD for over a ear have been meetin re larl Transcri t of Board of Su ervisors hearin re ardin Colorado Pacific Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Peter Thorson regarding deleting the Condition of A roval Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Debbie Ubnoske regarding certain documents to be made a art of the record Letter from George Johnson to William Hughes regarding summarizing the ongoing discussion between the County and the property owners for nearly two ears Letter from Leonard Savala to George Johnson regarding listing facts about draina e roblems C:\Data\Clients\Newland\Newland Outline of Events.doc DATE 01-03-02 01-04-02 01-07-02 01-09-02 02-05-02 04-02-02 ..CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Dennis 0 'Neil to Mayor and Members of the City Council regarding outline of events Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Ron Roberts regarding deleting the Condition of Approval with many attachments Letter from Sherry Davis to Ron Roberts regarding typographical errors in the letter sent to Mr. Roberts dated January 4, 2002 Letter from Sam Alhadeffto Mike Naggar regarding thanking him for examining the facts Assessment District 159 Butterfield Stage Road East Interceptor Alternative Analysis Memo from Dennis O'Neil to Jim Delhamer, Dean Meyer, Martha Guy and Sam Alhadeff regarding letter to be sent to Gary Thornhill regarding releasing the 508 multi-family units C:\Data\Clients\Newland\Newland Outline of Events.doc ..... '\ .\ , . . ~ 1 2 3 4 AGREEMENT . (Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185) The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the CITY OF TEMECULA, 5 6 hereinafter called "CITY", and NEWLAND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED, a .. 7 California corporation, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby 8 agree as follows: 9 10 11 .:. . '.. RECITALS A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185 in the City of Temecula, and as a condition for approval 12 13 DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order 14 to provide flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development; 15 and 16 17 B. The required facilities include approximately 2,300 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe, hereinafter called "STORM 18 19 DRAIN", along with a certain interim retention basin, hereinafter. 20 called "BASIN", as shown in red and green, respec;tively, on Exhibit '21 "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, STORM DRAIN and BASIN 22 are hereinafter altogether called 'PROJECT"; and 23 24 25 will be dependent upon the functional operation and integrity of C, The functional operation and integrity of STORM DRAIN 26 BASIN, The BASIN will be constructed outside of CITY street rights 27 of way, within a drainage easement; and 28 -1- .!1.UL 2 2 199'L 1./ EXHIBIT \0 .' 1 D, DEVELOPER desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and 2 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of STORl'1 DRAIN, 3 Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and specifi- 4 cations 5 6 and 7 and subsequently inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN; E, DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and 8 specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for STORM DRAIN, and is 10 9 willing to inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN; and ~ DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership and responsi- 11 bility for the operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, excluding 12 13 inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of way, provided (i) 14 DEVELOPER complies with this agreement, (ii) DEVELOPER pays 15 DISTRICT the amount as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S 16 17 18 19 operation and maintenance costs for STORM DRAIN, (iv) PROJECT is construction inspection costs for PROJECT, (iii) DEVELOPER pays DISTRICT the amount as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S 20 constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by 21 DISTRICT and CITY, (v) CITY and DEVELOPER assume ownership and 22 responsibility for the .operation and maintenance of BASIN as set 23 24 forth herein, and (vi) DEVELOPER obtains and conveys to DISTRICT and CITY all rights of way necessary for the inspection, operation 25 26 and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein; and 27 28 G, CITY is willing to (i) . accept and. hold faithful -2- .' 1 performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, 2 (ii) grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain. STORM DRAIN 3 4 operation and maintenance of inlets and connector pipes within CITY 5 within CITY rights of way, (Hi) accept responsibility for the 6 rights of way, and (iv) monitor and ensure DEVELOPER'S operation 7 and maintenance of BASIN as set forth herein, provided DEVELOPER 8 conveys all necessary rights of way and rights of entry to CITY as 9 set forth herein, and PROJECT is constructed in accordance with 10 11 12 13 follows: plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY, NOW, THEREFORE, tlJe parties hereto mutually agree as 14 15 16 17 18 SECTION I DEVELOPER shall: 1. Prepare plans and'specifications for PROJECT in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit the plans 19 and specifications to DISTRICT and CITY for review and approval, 20 2. Pay DISTRICT, for DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the 21 plan review and approval of PROJECT, the applicable amount(s) as 22 provided for under Ordinance No, 671, including any amendments 23 24 and approval fees, as determined and approved by DISTRICT. 25 26 thereto, of the County of Riverside relating to such plan review 3 , Pay DISTRICT, upon execution of this agreement, the 27 amount of $2,500.00, the agreed upon amount necessary to cover 28 -3 - 1 DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the preparation, processing and 2 administration of this agreement, 3 4. Pay DISTRICT upon execution of this agreement (Zone 7 4 Maintenance Trust .Fund) , the one time cash sum of $3,500,00, the 5 6 agreed upon DISTRICT estimated cost for operation and maintenance 7 of STORM DRAIN through the year 1998, 8 5, Pay DISTRICT for the cost of providing construction 9 inspection for STORM DRAIN, at the time of providing written 10 11 notification to DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT construction. as set forth in Section 1,7, herein, in an amount as determined and 12 13 approved by DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinances 671 and 749, 14 including any amendments thereto, of the County of Riverside, based 15 upon the bonded value of STORM DRAIN facilities to be inspected, 16 ._ operated .and maintained by DISTRICT, 17 18 6. Secure all necessary licenses, agreements, permits and 19 rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, 20 operation and maintenance of PROJECT, DEVELOPER shall furnish 21 DISTRICT, at the time.of providing written notification to DISTRICT 22 of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1,7, herein, 23 or not less than twenty (20) days prior to recordation of the final 24 map for Tract Nos. 24182 and 24185, or any phase thereof, whichever 25 26 occurs first, with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured 27 such necessary licenses, agreements, permits and rights of entry, . 28 -4 - / 1 as determined and approved by DISTRICT, 2 " /,/ , ( Stephen C. '" Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention: 3 ( '4 ..----..7 , 'j 1 Thomas) at least twenty (20) days prior to the start of"'cohstnic- tion of PROJECT. Construction shall not begin on any element of 5 6 PROJECT for any reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued 7 to DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to 8 initiate construction, 9 10 11 8. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7., with faithful performance and payment bonds, each 12 13 in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of 14 PROJECT as determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of 15 the bonds shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY, 16 The bonds shall remain IT accepted by DISTRICT as in full force and effect until PROJECT is complete; at which time the bond amount may 18 19 be reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any . 2.0 defective work, labor or materials, 21 22 23 24 9. Obtain and provide DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7. with duly executed Irrevocable Offers of Dedication to the public for flood control purposes, including 25 26 ingress and egress, for the. rights of way deemed necessary' by 27 DISTRICT for the construction, inspection, operation and 28 -5- 1 maintenance of STORM DRAIN as shown in concept cross-hatched in 2 blue on Exhibit "Bn attached hereto and made a part hereof. The 3 4 Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication shall be in a form approved by DISTRICT and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners 5 6 described in the offer (s) . 7 10. Obtain and provide CITY, at the time of providing 8 written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction of 9 PROJECT 10 as set forth in Section 1. 7" with duly executed Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of easements to the public for 11 12 flood control and drainage purposes, including ingress and egress, 13 for the rights of way deemed necessary by CITY and DISTRICT for the 14 construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of BASIN, as 15 16 shown in concept cross-hatched in green on Exhibit IIBII. The. Irrevocable Offer(s) .of Dedication shall be in a form approved by 17 - CITY and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners of the 18 19 property described in the offer (s). The Irrevocable Offer (s) of 20 Dedication. shall provide that if and when construction of 1,300 21 lineal feet 'of future storm drain as shown in concept in orange on 22 Exhibit II All is complete and accepted by DISTRICT, the Irrevocable 23 Offer(s) of Dedication shall be vacated by CITY. 24 11. . Furnish DISTRICT and . CITY, when submitting the 25 26 Irrevocable Of f er.( s) of Dedication as set forth in Sections 1. 9, 27 and 1.10., respectively, with Preliminary Reports on Title, dated 28 -6- 1 not more than thirty (30) days prior to date of submission, for all 2 property described in the Irrevocable Offer{s) of Dedication. 3 12, Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at 4 DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense in accordance with plans and 5 6 specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY, 7 13. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior 8 to DISTRICT acceptance of STORM' DRAIN for operation and 9 maintenance, convey, or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT flood 10 11 control easement (s), including ingress and egress, in a form approved by DISTRICT, for the rights of way shown in concept cross 12 13 hatched in blue on Exhibit "B", 14 14, At the time of recordation of the conveyancing 15 document (s) set forth in Section 1.13., furnish DISTRICT with 16 policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than '---17 fifty thousand dollars ($50,000,00) for each parcel to be conveyed 18 19 to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said propertx as 20 betng free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, 21 easements, taxes and leases (recorded and unrecorded), and except 22 those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT are acceptable. 23 24 25 15. Assume ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of BASIN, Such operation and maintenance shall be 26 performed in such a. manner as to ensure the safe and normal 27 functional operation of BASIN in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY 28 -7- 1 standards and regulations, subject to the provisions of Section 2 IV,8, herein. 3 4 16, Pay where DISTRICT or CITY is successful in any suit under. this agreement or any action to enforce any bond guaranteeing .5 6 the completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and 7 fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, 8 upon entry of judgment~ all such costs, expenses and fees shall be 9 taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered, 10 11 17, Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT and assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start 12 13 of construction on any element of PROJECT, 14 15 16 17 18 19 SECTION II DISTRICT shall: 1, Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design 20 plans prior to DISTRICT final approval, 21 3, Upon execution of this agreement, record or cause to 22 b~ recorded, a copy of this agreement in the Official Records of 23 24 25 26 the Riverside County Retorder. 4, Inspect the construction of STORM DRAIN, 5, Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation 27 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN exclusive of inlets and connector 28 -8- 1 pipes within CITY rights of way, upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of 2 PROJECT construction as being complete, (E) recordation of all 3. 4 conveyancing documents described in Section 1.13" and (iii) acceptance by CITY of all street rights of way as deemed necessary 5 6 by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT. 7 6. Furnish CITY with final reproducible "as-built" mylar 8 plans for all PROJECT facilities, upon DISTRICT acceptance of 9 PROJECT construction as being complete. 10 11 12 13 SECTION I IT CITY shall: 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared 14" by DEVELOPER for' BASIN, prior to the .start of construction of 15 PROJECT. 16 17 2. Accept CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section 18 19 I,S., and hold said bonds as provided herein, 20 3, Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this agreement, the 21 right to construct, inspect, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN 22 within CITY rights of way as set forth herein. 23 24 25 4, Inspect the construction of BASIN. 5, Consent to the recording of any Irrevocable Offer(s) 26 of Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER pursuant to this agreement. 27 28 6. If requested by DISTRICT, accept the Irrevocable -9- 1 Offer(s) of Dedication as set 'forth herein, and any other 2 outstanding offers of dedication necessary for the construction, 3 4 5 inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and convey suff icient rights. of way to DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to 6 construct, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN as provided herein, 7 7. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, 8 accept ownership and responsibilhy for the operation and 9 maintenance of all inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of 10 11 way, CITY shall further accept the added responsibilities associated with the continued operation and maintenance of BASIN as 12 13 set forth in Section IV.8. herein, 14 8. Not grant any occupancy permits for any unit within 15 any portion of Tract No. 24182 or Tract No, 24185, or any phase 16 thereof, until construction of PROJECT is complete, unless 17 - otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT, 18 19 9, Upon DISTRICT acceptance of STORM DRAIN as being 20 complete, and upon DISTRICT and CITY acceptance of BASIN 21 construction as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the 22 adjustment of all STORM DRAIN manhole rings and covers located 23 24 within CITY streets and rights of way, at no cost to DISTRICT, which shall be performed at such a time that the finished grade 25 26 along and above STORM DRAIN is improved, repaired, replaced or 27 changed, 28 -10- 1 2 3 4 SECTION IV It is further mutually agreed: 1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by DISTRICT and CITY and shall not be deemed complete until approved 5 6 and accepted as complete by DISTRICT, 7 2, CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect 8 all work being done on STORM DRAIN, but shall provide any comments 9 to DISTRICT personnel who shall be responsible for all quality 10 control communications with the contractor during the construction 11 12 13 of STORM DRAIN. 3. DISTRICT and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and 14 inspect all work being done on BASIN; but shall provide any 15 comments to CITY personnel who shall be responsible for all quality 16 control communications with the contractor during the construction - 17 18 19 of BASIN. 4. Construction of PROJECT. shall be completed by 20 DEVELOPER within twelve (12) consecutive months after execution of 21 this agreement and within one hundred forty (140) consecutive 22 calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT, It is expressly , 23 24 understood that since time is of the essence in this agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed upon 25 26 time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the 27 remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to CITY the 28 -11- 1 penal sum of any and all bonds. In such case, CITY shall 2 subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred. 3 5. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, 4 waive the provisions of Government Code Section 65913,8, relating 5 6 to fees and charges, Such waiver is accomplished with the 7 understanding that DISTRICT' is voluntarily undertaking the 8 obligation to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation 9 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, and DEVELOPER is not required by 10 11 12 DISTRICT to enter into this agreement, 6, DEVELOPER shall during the construction period, 13 provide Worker's Compensation Insurance in an ambuntrequired by 14 law. A certificate of said insurance policy shall be provided to 15 DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant 16 --17 18 to Section I.7. 7. DEVELOPER' shall, commencing on the date notice is 19 given pursuant to Section I. 7" and continuing until. DISTRICT 20 accepts PROJECT as complete, and accepts STORM DRAIN for operation 21 and maintenance: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) Provide and maintain comprehens i VEe liability insurancEe covEerage which shall protEect DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal injury, including accidental and wrongful dEeath, as WEeII as from claims for property damagEe which may -12- ., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 arise from DEVELOPER'S construction of PROJECT or the performance of its obligations hereunder, whether such construction or performance be by DEVELOPER, by of its any contractors, subcontractors, or by anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them. Such insurance shall name DISTRICT, CITY and County of Riverside as additional insureds with respect to . this agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for (b) limits of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence, Cause its insurance carrier(s) which shall be authorized to transact business of insurance in the State of California to furnish DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written -13- . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 hereunder, Further, said certificate (s) shall provide that the issuing company shall give DISTRICT and CITY sixty (60) days written notice in the event of any cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage of the policies evidenced by the certificate (s) , In the event of any such cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage, DEVELOPER shall, forthwith, secure replacement insurance meeting the provision of this paragraph. Failure to maintain the insurance required by this 14 paragraph shall be deemed a material breach of this agreement and 15 shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, at its sole 16 discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to -17 18 19 Section IV.4. 8, CITY, pursuant to Section III,?" shall have the legal 20 right and responsibility to monitor DEVELOPER'S operation and 24 25 26 rights necessary to perform such onsite inspection of BASIN, BASIN, DEVELOPER, by execution of this agreement, grants CITY all 27 including ingress and egress. CITY agrees to provide reasonable 28 -14- 1 notice to DEVELOPER as to its intent to enter upon DEVELOPER'S 2 property for the purpose of such periodic inspection and to defend, 3 indemnify and hold harmless DEVELOPER, its officers, agents and 4 employees from and against. liability for injury or damages 5 6 occurring as a direct result of such periodic inspection, 7 DEVELOPER shall perform all corrective work within , 8 BASIN as may be deemed necessary by 'CITY to ensure the continued 9 functional operation and integrity of BASIN and STORM DRAIN, 10 In the event of a flood emergency, if it should be 11 deemed necessary by CITY that certain emergency actions must be 12 13 taken to ensure the functional operation of BASIN, and DEVELOPER is 14 unable to timely perform such necessary work, CITY shall have the 15 right to enter upon DEVELOPER'S property to perform such emergency 16 work as deemed necessary by CITY, at DEVELOPER I S sole cost and 17--- expense, 18 19 Should CITY, at any time in the future, determine that 20 DEVELOPER'S performance of operation and maintenance 21 responsibilities as set forth herein be insufficient to ensure the 22 functional operation and integrity of BASIN and STORM DRAIN, or 23 24 should CITY at any time determine DEVELOPER'S continued operation and maintenance of BASIN not to be in the best interest of the 25 26 public, then CITY shall accept the Irrevocable Offer(s) of 27 Dedication provided by DEVELOPER for BASIN pursuant to Section 28 -15- 1 I.~O" and assume ownership and responsibility for their operation 2 and maintenance. DISTRICT shall assume no responsibility, whatsoever, or for. surface drainage, within DEVELOPER'S property, the' easement parcels shown in concept cross-hatched in 7 green or cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B". 8 10. In the event that any claim or legal action is br'ought 9 against DISTRICT or CITY in connection with this agreement because 10 of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER 11 12 shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, and CITY harmless 13 therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT or CITY, Upon DEVELOP.ER' S 14 failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled to recover 15 from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenses, including, but not 16 limited to, reasonable attorney's fees. 17 11, DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT 18 and CITY, their respective officers, agents, employees and 19 20 independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or legal 21 action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, 22 Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of 23 24 the United States Constitution, Or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage whatsoever, for the 25 26 design, construction or failure of PROJECT or from the diversion of -"'"== 27 the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except 28 -16- 1 claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole 2 willful misconduct of DISTRICT or CITY, DEVELOPER shall defend 3 4 5 DISTRICT and CITY without cost to DISTRICT or CITY, and upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled 6 to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenditures, 7 including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees, 8 9 hereby releases DISTRICT and CITY, 10 11 12 12, DEVELOPER for itself, .its successors and assigns their respective officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, 13 present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or 14 liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section. 19 of 15 the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United 16 States 17 .~-- impose 18 Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design, 19 construction or failure of PROJECT, or the discharge of drainage 20 within or from PROJECT, Nothing contained herein shall constitute 21 a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or CITY, their officers, agents 22 23 24 25 and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, for the negligent maintenance of PROJECT, after the 26 acceptance of PROJECT by DISTRICT. 27 2,8 13, Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any -17- lone or more of the terms of this agreement shall not be construed 2 to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of 3 any other term hereof, Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to 4 require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this 5 6 agreement shall not be construed as .in any man~er changing the 7 terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY from enforcement 8 hereof, 9 14, If any provision in this agreement (with the exception 13 nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or 14 invalidated in any way. Should it be held by a court of competent 15 jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.5. is invalid, void, or 16 unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code 65913;8(b) shall 17 apply, 18 19 extended through the year 1998.. It shall, therefore, be determined that' this fee is. 20 15. This agreement is to be construed in accordance with 21 the laws of the State of California, 22 23 24 16. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: 25 26 27 28 -18- 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 1995 Market Street 3 Riverside, CA 92501-1770 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY HALL . 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 4 NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230 5 La Jolla, CA 92037 6 17. Any action at law or inequity, brought by any of the 11 California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law 12 providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other 13 county. 14 15 18. This agreement is the result of negotiations between 16 the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their 1~~espective counsel, The fact that this agreement was prepared as 18 a' matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or 19 significance, Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement shall 20 not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared.this 21 agreement in its final form, 22 23 19, The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to 24 and be binding upo~ all heirs! successors and assignees, 25 20. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any 26 of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or 27 28 . -19- 15 II 16 II '17 18 19 20 21 1 entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto 2 being first obtained. 3 In the event of any such transfer or assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it 4 5 shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the obligations 6 and duties contained in this agreement, 7 21. This agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a 8 final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject 9 matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the 10 11 terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in 12 13 connection therewith, This agreement may be changed or modified 14 only upon the written consent of the parties hereto. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -20- 1 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 1011 ..' IifI.CIS7I7i/1. .s-,,-./-t<2~r:f6,"& 8~ Clerk of the Board) ,. F 'SlOJ C/~/;\- IIJr, O~~I' LOa CONTRv~ ATI TRICT Ii o agreement on 3 4 (to be 5 RECOMj"lENDEp FOR APPROVAL: \ 6 7 8 Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: 9 . WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN 10 County Counsel 11 Byc..!>>-rk 1/ (Aim 4/15/q7 fi:;t-Joe S. Rank 12 Assistant County Counsel 13 14 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 15 16 --17' _AEPROVED AS TO FORM: . 18BY~ City Attorney 19 Dated ~N1Ab t ~ 1f9r 20 {/' I 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SCT:mcv 28 rcfc\10BOB 4/1/97 By ATTEST: jUl 2 2 1997 GERALD A. M1.LONEY Clerk of the Eoard B~~ DepuV (SEAL) CITY OF TEMECULA By ~a&l/Z~ City Manager Ronald E, Bradley ::;;~~.4L - EWClerk . (SEAL) NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Bd'~~/?),y~ Title .c:~&C. f/.?, (NOTARY) JUl 2 2 1997 f I -21- JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO' ./ See Attached Document (Cross out lines 1-11 below) o See Statement below (Lines 1-11 to be completed by document signers only - NOT NOTARY) 9 Signature 0.[ Document Signer d and sworn to (or affirmed) before me 1~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Sub this 23rd day of April, 199Z,_by I ~ ELIZABETH C. GROMAN I _' , COMM. . 992753 "0 S . ~ 00 -. ; NOTARY PUBlIC.CAlIFORNIA 8 Q.. . SAN DIEGO COUNTY - I .. . My Comm. Exp. Apr. 25, 1997 I (1) LaDorma K. Monsees Prinled Name of Signer(s) TIlough the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable ersons relying on the . document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Furth"r Description of Any Attached Document Right Thumbprint Title or Type of Document Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District/ Alcoba Drive Storm Drain, Proiect No. 7-0-0046, Tracts 24182 & 24185-Cooperative Av:, Document Date: "to be filled in bv clerk of Board" Pages: 25 Other 5igners:Temecula City Manager, City Engjneer, City Attorne Riverside Co. Flood Control Dist. Signet #1 Signer #2 ~ '1 &:~i ~ G I ~ lUg .~ I , ~\ .~~~~ il'A . ~ -- ... ~ J.~/",_,f" 1 \?;'<S~~\ \. II,. '....._. 'II \ III if I IT! I I I I I \ II J ~~-:>FfN If. .\\- /;.~ ITI 0.-\.L . '11 I II .).G~ ,^ '",,< . //--1.\..."- i/P-...lfI}';" \ \ \ \ \ I Il/ri ..\ \ I r{;~~~.' ~ :~~" . 1f::! 1 ti\:I\ I III /I I . _ \))....X'Y)~ ~ . ~ ....... '/.. I II \ I TI c-'1'\ -I ::i=\ '.\ ~,;;:J,'.:\J );;K'>" I -j =:J Li r 1\11 -'. ~ -:\ ::',.9 \.~~. ~.~ .. \/: ~ 'IJ1Y (',\ ~\ ~./Lt~~, ';?3'q~#f~C ':. ":18'~}~ -;;:.\::: ~,(,(i :\ r-~""-4:~f:!~ ... _",;), \~: /', '.~~~\J~,. ~.< '- n'l '>"f' L, .\ ~ ...' );:? ".'\. ".",::~/,."<", . '\ y '- _ I- _ III I II -'" ~ .:-. ._..,.: ~,~",(:\'\:.,:->,'(<.Y:''>'" . ~ B. LL. t:; I- - ri n I' :.- :j )~ :- f-'f.;,<{~~::'.\:Flf:lAt.'i~))2 cr..l.(.; IIII r~ ,...., Pf r ~ 1_ _::-.~^ (.\\~. \. '-. /'. <-1../;:' . 'e-, '. LL [[ I~I:- ~-}~5~h,~':'~0i~'~811 =;..,.~'="~ 3i~Jr 2 1~nt.7 -,--1 ls{<>5. "'0i _I' -4 ~ /' ~~'TT7-r'r-- ~ =;.\ /;!~ ~m ,'., \.''-';:' . ......,~,~~ ",. / ""-'-f-1-l,.Ilr ~ ....". ,l '.....; Io-o.t .~~, ~ -m::. J;;'; .....-:: J:.-l1-f"\. II r ", .___ "" ... ~.._._ )' .\ r<=~. --::; ~ .;...."::'-!J .-" . ~'~..",f7> B\-\ ~ts-';:;/, )7'f? Y..( /.i I; f..:. ~I 7f-,.::.{,~ ~c..;~ '\ \ r 7if%::"'<,J I.rr T r\ \ ~ t6[i:;:>:'~ <./!:1/{?;-~!.!0 ;<))j' ~ :, ~IIJ~j\\Njjr -};:l~~~~:m "'r;\~ Ifj tI:!: '(rr::;;;;J{/ ; \ \ ~ ~ 'J ~3'-':~~ ~?J ~ =---1 '~(m1\I:I' \\\ ~~;I~:\!' ;.h.":J>rR. './ 0::-..@TTrr1l:' 1;:..J...J-' .~-"'~.,~ ~c..~1'- - :::: c:::::l' _. ?, J>-" '<// ~ '-1 ITl ~ NY:r !Ill' \ \1/ \.I. ~_ () )<;I.> [\1:.< J'W 0' . (,I \ \ '1l1111 rlTIll.~' . ~ I--- ,<......I'T1I'FJJ!(.:."JllfZ\.,'~ ~Y\\\ ~.~. /I . h _)P^\'YJE-II''1f.v.., n iD'7\/ J-.~ . . ~ .",:'" I:::J rf:/I/\'>-.L(>.,' ~I~.--t-l 'f.\ ~D :... =- 't::t-i . ,q:" f--[\'u 11'1,' _ . ~ =1IT ?/..~.~. :-H ~ 'f1\1r-: _ ;:: t =11::t;f~ l::J:1'flJ - rrn ,- r:A ",,"-" i\\ 1-"1) ,~ f'- t =3 f3 --tJ . '--\. [i...:1 c4 q- f-~ _ K. i:'t71 cY...:<..{1TI1111 I:: . N . ~ -r-'..f-t:J '-"-- '-, -:r: ----....'<;;1. - ./ ^- h ,'> I ~.I.~~~.-:__:-~_ ___?I~ ~~:jl~llli II~~~I ~'_ ST:;':~::.I~I m_~ .~..___~ EXHIBIT lIAlI 0',. ~-~ -::iq (..-\.4G.: ~ ~ r ~ .~.~ o,~ I . . r.0>Y....-<1 ~ ~\~~~))~-@.,' :\ Af'A' "~'- ~~_.f'i~~\S.,,\ /.f.-"..-. '\-11111 II "IT!' 1111/ ~~~~ffN~,j ~~).,~ . .J,{ r iI. .,.. \ \ I! II I f"~~~ 'v )).", . 'fjf-..,,- uJ\lIII'ITr \\II\\U/~'~~~');'~~ ~ (f:: ;:::--1::::.. nil \ II I I (\::)',,,$)\~~.,Y,'\\..'" I~~ ~ '~~t J\rl$,~Z~~~'~~'>;~~~ ~~(~' ."'\, /i$ mLv---\--,\;:-.v~'\~);.-:) ;;'.t' \. . ffiTTlIITb\t; V~~$'X>/, '..', .;y.~,,? /-,\,' i--::;'';;~'C~~~~, ~!C-:\. ....f.K'.\~~'C~ --'~:8 rTtm$L _' . ," XW/~~. ',-;; '.. V y ,..-\--- -'I\\-- l'\W['1~' . '. .~ .' :', ...,X. '. /'(/' \.. . ~ --\ t:..-i=- i-l- ;.-' ~" J K".\('.":".\,>.':'.<"'. 1I~ II-j '-L C-- ~11t- I I I' \- ~ - ,;,<;~\(~':<FlNAt~j>>1:,(ifl' "Ci IIIII ~~8 ~: 1 IT ~\\ ) . 2~~~)1(:'~::';{;f~~~;1 =';"~'=n I :::'rJTrr~ B .'t::! ::t '~-';'~"~~~~ ''''';'iz:1Fi -4 ~ ..~ ~ ~8 IJ4G{$ :;~~\\m': '~I'({ .~=-~~~,:-,7~JL ~ -~~" ~1~lS. ..:; t'1:: .r0-\' , lIT 1\ \ WD-~~.};'i~ ~ . ,. -i;....J-J f. - A,~ ":( 1==1 0,-1 .A(-';',..~ 7Wf};S .. ~~Q~~o r- \ i-Ir~ I: 6:JJ~~~~9$~ 1l ~~~ 'i, \ ~:-:::::~~-'-,j I n \ __ . ?!~,?)>;, , /:~/i I' ~~ ) ,,,I/~::- . DE ~,:,-:jlh.1{;.,,\~~~;;; '/-;:: 1);~::.- ~~I))l ill~~::-"" "- '2:rfY~; 'Jrrr ID jj.S ~_r:::'lllr: I~T";i\ I ..JYoh-~<I~D~lm ~~.~ =1. --t--l ~...:~~,((ITttmr\\ ,. "<y' .I ~( ):::.J- ~ . ~ --t::J "'" 1; ,Y r0N ;.... - tfJl/1ITfrf)1 ~. -::-0.-.--. r'9.&~~"" ~ \~ 11~~'~ ';": (\ \ 1\ 11111 W II JJ. ,II.' I.' .~." _ . '::j L...; .1' ^ ,1~ ~ t:;.) :-er:.:,' '.::?-.", /I ::j (<Y.-<\\(''''IP CB ::. \~.., ',. -i 1j 111/ I- =:~.\ )~^' =- , - -{ t:: '-1-/' y..:; -~. - . :::j, VA::: \: 411 \ --I:: , -l'r- -I.. . '-I f- '--/)..~' (I h<\\.Y,. I TIlII -:.. , c- -l t- ':' z6 '- - - -..,:; ~ "-' l).~ ::: ,~,~I II~~~~ T1~ .111111 II 1)1, 1III1Iilll~~~ \' --jJ -'/llrt\Ylnllllllll 21 o_...~__..o._~____... __.' ..- ... .-. ,'_. STATEH<1H'NAY79. ...- ....,..- .. ~ I I. See Exhibit "s" See Exhibit "s" 2 of 3 Line "e" 2 of 3 Line "An . EXHIBIT liB" 1 OF 3 ~ , LINE" A" < "';:: . r( - o "l , . \ 5011 'OI'l'WW '.l~ - --- - - - ~ ~ ~ HIGHWAY79 6'b'Z FMZO .:>. &- ';>0. ~ . x ~.? R/N ~ FH1Z - FHtO- Cj-G - =-" EX, M.H.N!. Z t-- ~ .~ LINE "ell " HICHWA Y 70 EXHIBIT liB" 2 OF 3 ., .' . , --- - :-. ROAD _ - ----Si AGE - eUT\ERf\t.LO - t< 22" 55'23"'11 .....,--.'-" ...-.~ .\ . , <:n ~ r--. I I 7\' .~ -'" {f2 J [fJ(f;@[l fl#JffJrP [J!)@. ~ .fffJ. V~@J~V . , eo 3e'40'W 805.59' ;,Q.'''" ~~DrJ J . I >-. I~ :I: . (;) :I: ! I w .f- oe( l- ll) 71' '. I EXHIBIT-liB" 3 OF 3 .' 02 05:07p p.2 ~ of' KEClIVID JAN 2 8 1998 . City' ofT emecula'.. .IIGULATOIY IIANCH": 43200 ~ Park ()ive. TemecuIa. 0'.92590" MaHingAd<>=; P.O. Box 9033. TemecuJa, CA 92589-9033 . 1909J 6~4 . Fax 1909J 694-1999 . .. January 23, '1998' US Army Corp of Engineers P. 0_ Box 532711 . Los Angeles, CA 90053 .' Attn: Spencer McNeil; EnVironmental'Compliance Specialist Re:. NewlandPropertyAnnual Permit. Corona Ranch Issue Dear Me McNeil: ) You have requested clarification of an issue raised by Mr: Steve Corona regarding potential . flooding of the Corona Ranch property as .it relates to the constrUction of the Paloma Del Sot". .. project owned by the Newland Corporation. .. 'The Paloma Del Sol project was originally approved as a Specific Plan.bythe.county of River side .Ibefore the~city of Temecula Incorporated, There havebeen.several revisions- to the Specific.J?1an IthrOUgh thecity'OfTernecula'which have: been reviewed and'approved 'by thiS:agency.' In: addition,. several'Tentative Tract Maps Iiave heen processed through the. city of T emecula as a part cf tl-Js Specific Plan.. The <r...:~Jons of fIoodL"ig and drah"iage control are aIv'lays a. concern mui.addressed..wbexrdevelopment:plans.are processed through the.city.:', .' The city staffh'as evaluated the problems identified by Mr. Corona as they relate to the Paloma DelSol project. The.threat.offlooding.of the Corona Ranch has always been. present due to. the. . fact that it lies within the flood plain. . The issue was addressed with the design,studies associated' with County. Assessment DistricU59in which an interceptor channel was proposed at the easterly boundary of the Corona Ranch'property., This was supposed' to be built in conjUnction with 'other. major storm drain improvements built within Butterfield Stage Road to intercept the storm runoff fieom the east and. direct it to Temecula Creek. As of this date the major storm dramimprovernents have been installed in Butterfield Stage Road and DePortola Road and Butterfield Stage Road has been fully improved which raised the e:levation about one foot above the previous grade. This work was approved and constructed by County Assessment District 159 and was not the responsibility of the Paloma Del Sol.project. It is further the responsibility of AD 159 to complete the construction of the interceptor channel . lprinl~on 1l=Yd~ ,.~~ r:.,l!~r,~~mT t.f? t~~-~~ ~..:~8 R.'\PAJUtSR.\199W..EtTEJt\A.lu.tYCOltP.LTR. nl'n~/~nnn ~T __ .' 2 05:08p p.3 .' Newland Property Page Two" . . . .. which would provide the ultimate protection of the Corona Ranch property as well as the southeast corner of the Paloma Del Sol project. The developer of the Paloma Del Sol project has .- constructed a retention! detention basin on the southeast corner of their project to protect their property as an interim measure until the interceptor channel is built. One could argue that the Newland property is also being held hostage until AD 159 completes the interceptor channel. .' . The city of Temecu1a.staffhas thoroughly investigated these issues and is of the opinion that the Newland' Corporation has'done-everything in theirpower.to'protect.1be adjacent properties' as-a part of their deve1opmeirt. There is no reason towithhold.requestea pennits or development approvals as they affect the Paloma Del Sol project. If you have any que~ons. or. need further infonnation, please give me.a call. . Sincerely, . D;I~ Ronald J. Parks Principal Engineer, Land Development cc: Joe Kicak, CityEilgineer/PubIic Works Director R.:\l"ARKSR\l998\l..ETl'E.R\ARCORP.LTR 01/04/1.OO? I<'llT 17.n7 Pl'TJ'DT "-Tn n"J'fo. IAInn.. . , HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP DEAN DlR./N.RANKIN . CHARLES :i. EXON WIWAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWllT JOHN D. HUDSON AlTORNEYS AT LAw 19900 MACARTHUR BOULEV ARO, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500' (949)798-0511 (FAX) EMAIL: counscl@hewittntcpi:n:.com WRITER'S DIRECT DIAl.: (949) 798-07J4 EMAlL: doneil@hCwiUJnq;uirc..com MARK R. McGUIRE DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PAlCHlKOFf P AUt A. ROWE WILLIAM l.. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER ,-. , November 1,1999 . r j, P,eter M, Thorson City Attorney City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning ApplicationP A99-0284 (Developme. nt Plan), P A99~0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), Planning_ Application No, PA99-0285 (Specific PlanAmendment) and Planning Apolication No.PA99-0823 (DeveloomentAgreement) --, De:ar Peter: . . Our law firm represents Newland Communities, the developer of the Paseo del Sol Master Planned Community. Ne:Wlan~has received notice that the owners of the Corona Ranch have appealed some or all of the applications referenced in this leiter, The stated grounds for the appeal are: (i) "the applicant has failed to. come into compliance with the development criteria and conditions placed on the projett'1; (Ii)- ''the project itselfis out of compliance with conditions of its approval"; and (iii) " . . . the California Environmental Quality Act requires preparation of a subsequent EIR for a: project, and precludes reliance on an addendum, when substantial changes occur to the circumstances under which a project is to be undertaken, or new information shows that project impacts will be substantially more severe." As they have in the past with prior Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Amendments, the Coronas contend that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road has effectively blocked drainage through this area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to upstream properties than was previously identified in the EIR for (Paloma) Paseo del Sol. Furthermore, they point out, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility ("Butterfield Interceptor Channel") to mitigate this problem has not yet been constructed. However, even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a Supplemental EIR ("SEIR") should be prepared in connection with the pending planning applications. This is I HlJ..99 10019-00002 .. SoI152\cORRI99100008.LTR.wpd f" , ! i. I' -' ., Peter M. Thorson November I, 1999 Page 2 because the development of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and the Specific Plan No. 7 Development Plan will have no imoact on uostream orooerties or their exoosure to flood control hazards. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paseo del Sol project is directed upstream, The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No, 7 and related development applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are absolutely no new significant adverse envirorunental effects to analyze in a SEIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus or relationship to the pending planning applil;ationsand drainage issues on Corona Ranch, , AD 159 has provided many public improvements of regional siinificance in the South T(:mecula area, Thus, the construction of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South in 1993 was not intended to benefit solely one property owner, but rather to"improve the overall traffic circulation of the region to the benefit of all people living in this end oftown. . The Corona Ranch is included within AD 15~ and along with Paseo del Sol and otherpropepties,havebeen assessed to pay for these regional public improvements. ' . ,.. Butterfield Stage Road, which is already completed; and the Butterfield Interceptor. Channel facility, ,which has not yet been constructed, are improvements under the control of the' County of Riverside andlorAssessment DistrictN(),159,not NewlandCommunities, EIR No, 241 . was certified by the Riverside County Board ofSup~rvisor,when AD 159 was formed in 1988. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns should bi: directed to'Assessment District No. 159 and the County. '. ". . . . The Butterfield Int~rCeptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Pa:;eo del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas . and divert them into Temecula Creek, Newland has been working diligently with both AD 159 and the County of Riverside for over three yearS in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Ch~eL The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor because they must agree on its location and the cost AD 159 will pay for their land. Newland will continue to cooperate with the County. and the Coronas to insure this flood control channel is constructed. ~ . In the meantime, in satisfaction of the development conditions required by both Riverside County Flood Control and the City ofTemecula's Public Works Department, Newland has constructed an approximately twenty acre interim'detention basin at the northwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. South. This basin was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Flood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. Further, the basin fully protects the Paseo del Sol community during rare storm events in which water may enter from areas to the east. To give you a sense of the rarity of the storm event that might cause water to enter the basin, you should know that during El Nino of recent years this twenty acre facility remained dry. 11.01-99 IOO19.()()QQ2 - S~15:!\CORR\99100008.LTR.wpd Peter M, Thorson November 1,1999 Page 3 On February 2, 1998, the Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 ("VTM 24812") and, based upon staff analYSIs, found the project to be in conformity with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report, The continued ptesence ofthe detention basin was assured in the conditions of approval for VTM 24182 to remain in place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows. In general, CEQA limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues orimpacts which were not addressed in prio~environmental documentation, The intent ofCEQA is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documelltation, unless the' project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes . have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated, Under Public Resources' Code Section 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs, 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required tethe original EIR as 'a result of: > .. (a) substantial changesinthe"project which have an increased negative- impacton the environment; (b)substantiat changes in the circumstances of the project whichhave.an . . increased negative impact on the environment; or . , . ; . . (c) . new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared wruchindicates that the project has a substantial adverse imp!icl 'Yhich cannot be mitigated.. The: CEQA statutes and guidelines are. very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental Ern., Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required . unlc:ss one of these specified triggering events occur. A public agency's' discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared fora project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language;- An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The polky behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopmf!nl Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cal. App, 3d (065). CEQASection 21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of a subsequent ErR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of 1I~1-~19 10019-??oo2 . S:U S2'~ORR\991 oo008.L TR.wpd Peter M. Thorson November 1,1999 Page 4 insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the Un.iversity of California ("Laurel Heights IF') (1993) 6 CaI.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the pre.mmption against the preparation of subsequent EIR. (Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v, City and County afSan Francisco, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 921 I.) lfimpacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project EIR, a further EIR is not required (Bowman). . A city may not, therefore, require a furtherE.IR unless it finds, on thebas.is of sub::tantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the"rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case there is no evidence to support such findings, All reasonable doubt will be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights), A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a subsequent EIR is not required, CEQA Guideline Section I 51 64(b)( e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a'subsequerit or supplemental EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR addendum to evaluate changes to the project.. The court held that using an addendum as. a mechanism for determining whether a furtherEIR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information, CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide that a briefexplanation of the decision not to prepare a supplemental ElR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sec;tion 15162 should be included in an addendum to anEIR, the city's required findings on the project; or elsewhere in the record, Newland has provided you with legally supportable evidence of compliance with all drainage and flood control conditions.. Theappellants have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of the project approval, any significant changed circumstances, or new infomlation which was not considered in the original project EIR as further reviewed in prior and the current Addendum. Finally, there is absolutely no connection between the planning 11-01.99 10019-00002 'S:\H2\CORR\99100008.L TR.wpd l ~. ,.. ,~ ~ . Peter M. Thorson November 1, 1999 Page 5 applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues impactinl}the Corona Rmlch. Therefore, we submit there is no need in the case of the pending planning applications to consider adding new conditions or conduct further environmental documentation. DDO/mer James M. Delhamer Mayor and Members of the City Council cc: 1I~1-99 10019.??oo2 -S:\~S21C()RR\991 00008.L TR.wpd . Very truly yours, ~&~ Dennis D, O'Neil . . , ITIES November 3,1999 Carol K. Donohoe, AICP Associate Planner CITY OF TEMECULA Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Paseo del Sol - Planning ApplicatIon: P A99 - 0284 (Development Plan), P A99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), P A99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment) and PA99-0283 (Development Agreement) ::\1..\ l-tn/)ll Dear Carol: Jl.com Al? a follow up to the information forwarded to you.9n October 26, 1999 and subsequent meetings ,with City Staff and City Attoriiey, we hereby submit the following correspondence in response t~ the 'appeal filed by Corona Rcmch: om 1. Letter from Dennis O'NeiIto Peter Thorson dated November 1, 1999 stating our positions, i) The develop,ment of the Paseo del Sol commercial site' and Specific Plan No, 7 will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. . " , I ii) NewIandbascprovided evidence of complicmce with all drainage cmd flood control conditions. iii) There is no need to conduct any further envirorunelltal review or prepare any subsequent reports. 2. Letter from Paul Th6mpson of Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment Engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson dated Noveml5er 1, 1999. ' i) This letter indicates there is an authorized "$2.2 million for design and construction of the Interceptor Channel or a substitute facility" through AD 159. . ii) In addition there is authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property. .. ~~ Carol Donohoe November 3, 1999 Page two . 3.'. Letter from Richard T. Robotta of The Keith Companies dated October 29, 1999 which summarizes the technical history of Specific Plan 219 (Vail Meadows) and EIR 235 as it relates to drainage issues, " In summary: , 1. The Paseo del Sol project has met all the conditions placed .on the project throughout the entitlement process and more specifically as it relates to drainage. . .' 2. The Paseo del Sol project has constnicted;an .41terim detention basin and has been conditioned that the basin or equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time. that upstream drainage facilities are constructed. 3, There exists $22 million of authorized bonds through AD 159 for the design and construction of the Butterfield interceptor Channel. 4. Newland Communities supports the use of authorized but unissued bond capacity on the PaSeo del Sol property. 5. . There is no evidepceto support the appeal of the pending applications nor need for any new:tonditions or the preparation of further enVironmental documentation, We thank the City Staff for their efforts and time spent on these matters. We are respectfully requesting that this correspondence, along with the compilation of reports and analyses as submitted to you under cover letter dated October 26, 1999, be filed with the City Oerk and made a part of the official record of the City Council relating to the subje;:t planning applications and appeal. . Very truly yours, NEWLAND COMMUNmES, LLC /~~ Dean R. Meyer Director of Engineering & Development cc: Jim DeIhamer ,,~ >::-- t "'EBB AS"'l;oCIATES iNCiiiDUNC COlIStlLTM'TS [) Cotporaa~ 3m MtcraySll\lCl Riv=Uk. CIl92Sll6 (909) 6ll&ol1ml F"" (909) 1sa-12S6 [) Rq:ionaIOlru:c :2Z48t Raacbo Calif.!tond. SuI. t06 T=b,CAm90 r,lll?) 694-9"..50 . Fax (~09) 699-10]2 r-" , \ ! W.O, 89-4308 File No. 3851.08 I" I i NovembE:r4.1999 Mr. Shawn Ncl.!lon City MllJUIgcr City ofTemecula 4:3200 .B1l~inrss Park Drive Tmlecula. CA 92590 . '! .j RE: A ~-..inellI District No. 159- Butterfield East Inleleep10r Cluulnel '. D,~ Mr. Nelson: " ;... T am the A$sessment. Di\ijsionManager with Aibert A. Webb Assoclates, As sessment Engineers forAssesSffient Di$ictl:'J'0.lS9 (A. I).lS9'')~ I am proViding the following information to assist~ CitYofTCinccttIa in understanding the backgrouricfor the Butterfield East. InterceptorChmmel (the "Interceptor ~hn'llie1") and to hclp to ide[1tUy potential funciing for its COnstiuciion.. A. D. 159 was originally fOnned in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvemenrs and other infrasttucrure within the District Boundaries. JJi 1991. a sup:plementa1 district was fonned to im:n:ase the fimds available for the cost of the . original A. D, 159 improvem",,~. and to add new District improvpmpnts 3UCh as the-- Interceptor Ch"nnpl Apprmt;mnteiy $2.2 million was specif1C3l1y identified by 1he supJllemtntal district lIS necessary for the lbign and CODSIn1Ction of the Interceptor Channel This $2.2 million was assessed to four of the proporty ownars within the D~rict and :spread to these owners based on benefit received and allocated on acreage. Conseq\lfnIly, Paseo del Sol received about 82% of the A"O...,Om"I!t with the renuUning threll owners receiving about 18%. \, I t~~~1 $Q""p .& ...~.\:;tJ gr=r t\tTJt~"'r;;Q'.'~\-Q)=~d:....dl..b-. avu. ENCl:~EElUNO . PLANNlNii · ASSEssMENr I sPEaAL TAX CONSUl1lNG · W^1Ea RESOtlllcrS ENGINEERING 1 At this date, there is autho1fu:d but 'unissued bond capacity on the Pasco del Sol property toraling!lpproximately $4.9 million. Under .A'''''''.mmt Distri.:t law, authorized bonds .:an only be released by the agency adnrlDistcring the District and any actual assessme.nt debt issued /lgllinst a propmy remains an obligatian of the property until pIlid. Funher. an Assessment District may build impro\'elllents outside Or its boundaries if those improvements are to the benefit ofpropcnies within the DistIict . In On going meeling.~ with Riversil!e COunly omciiUs, New/and .Communities indic:ated that they would support ~;ng a portion of the authorized but unissued bOnd capacity on its property to provide funds in e.'tccss oflhc authorized $22 million for the design and COl1Slnu:tion of \he Inlcn:eplor Channel or a bllbstitate 1ilci1ity such as. a detention hasin., " I trust: this information haS. bceri JreJpful to you llIld I am available to answer any questions YOU mayhavl:, Please free to calI meat (909) 781-6190. Sin=cly, ALBERT A. WEBB,ASSOCIATES 'i~~ . Paul Thompson PTlis \\.-\S:IE.'1SMmnAsSE..t~MEm'_DATA\RlVCOl~IS!1IlF.lTf.R..~ " I' I r i i' L I I , . ; I ,"0 Ko'" oom'""'o./n<c: November4,1999 Mr. Dean Meyer NEWLAND COMMUNITIES 27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253 Temecula CA 92591 . He: Paseo del Sol: Appeal of PA 99-0283, 99-0284, 99-0285, 99-0286 Butterfield Stage Road at Highway 79 Drainage Issues Dear Mr, Meyer: , The Keith Companies has been infoniled that the aforemen~ioned planning applications for the commercial development within Pas~ del Sol near HighWay 79 and Margarita Road have been appealed by the Corona Ranch owners. Further, it is our understanding that the appeal is based on issues involving compliance with development criteria and conditions as thl3Y relate to flooding concems at the northeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 approximately 1 mile to the east upstream of the referenced applications, It is the intent of this correspondence to define the development criteria and conditions as they . relate to drainage for Paseo del Sol (formerly Vail Meadows )by rela~ng the history of the drainage approvals and thereby show complianCe with said development criteria and conditions, . In 1988, the Engineer of Work for Vail Meadows, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District engaged in correspondence dated April 6, 1988; May 16, 1988; and May26,1988which discuss and developed the master plan of drainage for the Vail Meadows project As a part of the approved master plan of drainage a large off site basin immediately to the east (approx, 1190 acres) was identified as a part of the Vail Meadows approval (refer to attachment 1, 2 and 3). The offsite basin's drainage was mitigated by the construction of twin 120-inch culverts, which exist today in Butterfield Stage Road and easterly in DePortola Road. . Also in 1988, Assessment District 159 , which constructed many substantial regional facilities in the south T emecula area, was approved and its E.I.R. No. 241 was certified. This E.I.R. and the associated AD. 159 doaJlnents identified a large basin (approx, 2239 acres) further to the east which would require the construction of a channel. This challnel known as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel diverts flows upstream of Butterfield Stage Road to the south towards Temecula Creek. As you know, AD, 159 has Provided many pUblic improvements of regional significance in the south T emecula arecl including Butterfield Stage Road, Highway 79 and T emecula Creek. However, the In/anc1 Empire Division 22690 Cactus Avenue. Suite 300 Moreno Valley California 92553-9024 t 909.653.0234 f: 909.653.5308 WWW.keithco.com t Page 2 N_"w" 'ITKC ~ , construction of the Butterfield interceptor channel was never accomplished ~y the A.D, In 19S'6, when Newland Communities purchased the Paseo del sol project, The Keith Companies discovered that the Butterfield interceptor channel had not been constructed. With Newland wanting to move forward with the development of Paseo del Sol and - evidence that the construction of the interceptor channel improvements were subject to delay, interim flood mitigation altematives were identified and approved on the Newland property to protect it and potentially other downstream properties from flooding. Ultimately an interim detention facility was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Rood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. (see attaGhments 4, 5, 6, and 7). On February 2, 1998 the City ofTemecula Planning Commission approveid revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 (VTM 24182) and confirmed the continued presence of the interim detention facility with Condition 27 st<iting that..., the basin or an equivalent facility shall remain in piace until such time that upstream drainage facilities are com;tructed..." (see attachment 8), _,. hi conclusion, 'and in our opinion eviden~d by the aforeme'ntlonel approvals, Newland is in . compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79,' Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, . THE KEITH COMPANIES,-rNC. ~0~:. Rlchclrd T. Robotta, P.E. President-Inland Empire Division RTR:ml Enclosures -- cc: Mr. James Delhamer \'KEffi<<)JQ1\1"ET"-<)\9f1.01~3.doc 'tI\:!24J~a00' 1&: 02 877&395559 i-t13~.::.4~(I0 THU 02:54 PM RIV CfIECI.H1VI:. UHJI;l:. RR BROWN CO ~1lX !iU. I . : '-.; ',.: H'77!):::'::'-;~_~> . ., "PAI':i6:", 02 , ' . q /0'] - 001 r, "oc " ., : .- COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 'Iransportation Department Dltvld E. Barnbart Dirttror 01 Tl't3tUporhl./iOlf. F!!bruary 17, 2000 CERTIFIED HAIL IF 310 675 430 Corona Ranch 3~,320 State Highway 79 T~'mecula, CA 92592 Attention: Steve Corona REO: Butterfield East Interceptor Storm Drain De,ar Mr. Corona: J am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meeting we had at the Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various alternatives we studied for the Butterfield East Interceptor Storm Drain Facility, I appreciated the opportunity to hear your concerns, and as a result, I gained a better understanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives. Al1ached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. As you are well aware. the Butterfield Interceptor was incruded as an Assessment Dh;tnct No. 159 facility, to be located atthe eastern Assessment District boundary, to inl1~rcept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Roa1:l, State Route 79 South. and downstream properties_ The original AD 159 concept was to canstruct an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own pre'perty upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of theAD boundary, you re~luested we stUdy other alternatives. You are currently fanning all of your property and. advised the Intel'l:eptor would disrupt your farming operation, With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. Let me summarize the two other options we discusseo, whIch seemed potentially feasible: Aftllmatlve No, 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same aliSlnment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the Ch~tnnel and constructing a box under your property. YOU expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could continue your farming Operations uninterrupted, and 2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The.intent was to provide four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your fanning over the top of the facility. During our meeting, Flood Control District representatives questioned the fea"ibility of this option. First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be properly collected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowerin9 the facility to place it 4080 LemQII S[r~cc. 8(h Floor . R~rsidc. Clfirornla 92501 . (909) 955-6740 P.O. B",,, 1090 ~ Rivcnid~. C~ti!Q(oi:l 92502-1090. FAX (909) 5155.6121 "p'lI"a/21380 15: 132 87753'3555~.. . . cEI:F~4"-lIU lHU U~: ~~ Pn IUV l;U .tl;U 11 Vt UH Il;t RR BROWN CO tHA NV. 1 ...-=' PAGE El3 r. U.J ~ Me. Steve Corona Fl~bruary 17.2000 Page 2 underground makes the slope of the box culvert toa flat and creates ongoing m.aintenance problems, Therefore, this option doesn't seem practical. The other option we discussed was A1temative No, 5. a dual system with an open channel located along your easterly property boundary to intercept a majority of the d~3inage from the east, along with a smaller underground system at the eastern AD boundary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, above De Portola Road and east to Calle Contento. You expressed your preference for this alternative. Under Altemative Np, 5. all of your property wiff be flood protected, The property you 01''1'11 outside the AD boundal)' WQuld benefit under this altemative and would therefore be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. You discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your property until your farming op'~ration develops into some other use. This would require some other. party to ad'/ance YOllr costs, While I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the financial capaclty or ability to ad'lance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs is to dedicate Ihe right-of-way needed 10 construct the facility, Other than that, I have no1 been able to come up with any other cost saving solutions. If you are willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of your property outside the current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need your written concurrence. Your cooperation is needed to make [he Interceptor a reality, I look forward to receiving your positive response so We can proceed in a (:()Operative manner. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sinc:erely, ~~d~ George A. Johnson Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Supervisor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Carstens DaVe Barnhart Kelley Donavan Frank Peairs .fl~/Q4(2,~<}.1'l 16: <}2 877633555'3 :tjj-:'q-'-UU IHU UL::>:> rn KJV L;l' \CL;UIIVC UrrlL;c 'j' I ~I ." 'l! .. :;j ~ \.J ~ ~ :;,! e: '" .. ... ~ ... .. d ... :3 =>: :;; ... ... ~ u ~ ~ j:: ... ~ ~ ., is :j ~ ~ ~ ... .. :z ~ ... ., '" '" .., ~ .. t: .. ~ .. " '" .. u i~ .. liii ~h ~a E~- ""'0 ~ - ~ B1 ~~~ ~ f jj & ';Q. ,.. '5 ~f ~.1:con i.*;o ~g Hf~i .g300.g<gB ~Z:~J5~ SHr~j 'O'U_~J", - ...........- E ~ " ~ .. ~i ail S I; "''' " . .~ ; -u "'.. ~ ~ ~~ , " ~o eN" ~ .2 ;:- ~ 1 l! .". U :0: . i ~ e 'I; ::: ~ LJ ~-... () i2~ ~",H KX Q,~ Hi~ cliO.!> ;:'ZN'O RR BROWN CO I:'NIl. I'iV. ! 0,01>010 ~18j~.B ..: I c:i : ~ i ti ~:~,-:~ ;ij.....-."'" ! ::: i ~ E = ~ ..8 i g : ~ l:e ~'~i-':':~ ~ :g' ;;0 : ;; ~ ~ ! ~ r{. ~ ,... . ... I ... .. 0 . I ::'. o' " .8 } i ~ ::8 '" ~ ... 3 ;f , . i I i I J ~:!I'!I~I~ ". ~ ,,18 n ~j-jlO']'-ln N.-...... .. ..' I ' I , , I , , I i I . I I I ! g ~ :! .. " - z <> '" <.> z '" 0 '1:; ;:: :; "- ., .. ~ ~ ~ :0: '" ~ w .w '" ::E ;,; 0 z w :>5 ~ 0 ., .... ;:: ;:i .. .: <C S = J :0: 0 ~ ~ '" ... g z w '''' '" 0 >- .... a: .g ~ ;:: /: f. '" u ~ u 1= '" '2 u. " .. f 0 :0: '" '" S 0 ~ ... a: t; ~ >: ~ I "" <> a: <'> ~ a <> u 0 ir '" .... 8</24/2<}<}0 16:02 fJl/C<L .:_:_"j PAGE 04 r.. U'f a2/24/.2fJl~fJ 15: fJ2 '. . 8775335553 ~. 1- RJR. BROWN & CO, LLP RR 8ROWN co PAGE fJ1 CERTIFlEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS *** FAX *** DATE: z/'Z,r.{-oo S \....... C>€'-~ TO: FROM: Rob Brown ~~~.) I NO, OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: -4-- ~g(\l c;~~J)5f- 9505 Chury Strt:e1., Suite 71G Denve r, CO 80246 27555 Y nez Ro;wd, Suite 407 Temecula9 CA 92591 Phone (877) 639-5565 FAX (877) 639-5559 e-.mall robbrown@rrbrownco.com .. , 613 West Vahey I:>afkway Suite 345 -~oondjdo, CA g:~025 'ephone: (760) 743-1201 A:Simile: (760) 743-9926 ALHADEFF & SOLAR 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 203 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-4677 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-9088 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-9878 550 COIpOfale Center 550 West C Street 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone; (619) 231-8700 Facsimile: (619) 231-8323 Offices in San Diego, Escondida and Temecula, California March 16, 2000 SAMuEL C. AuwlEFF SAuwlEFF@ACRSP.COM (909) 699-9088 9103.001 Mr. Tony Carstens County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Mr. George Johnson County of Riverside Transportation Department P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Re: Assessment District 159 ("District") and Specific Plan 219-Paseo del Sol ("Project") D(:ar Messrs. Carstens and Johnson: I wanted to thank you, Ms. Thomason, and Me, Donovan for meeting with Newland Communities and myself on March 1st to discuss the District and Project. We appreciate the time and consideration each of you and a nwnber of other members of County Staff have given with regard to the issues that we discussed at that meeting. As discussed in our meeting, we think that the District has reached a critical crossroad regarding the funding for and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Drainage Channel ("Interceptor Channel"). Consequently, we believe that the County and the District should recommend a solution to the County Board of Supervisors and seek direction in facilitating and completing .this improvement as provided for in Assessment District 159. This letter is really intended to be a summary of the current status of both the District and the Project as it relates to the Interceptor Channel. The delay in the construction of this facility is not only having a serious adverse impact on Newland's Project, but also on the District, its owners, and the integrity of State Route 79, Butterfield Stage Road and other regional improvements constructed by Assessment District 159. Assessrnent District 159 was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other infrastructures within the District boundaries. In 1991 a Supplemental I\SLDlC_DRlVE\DA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3.6REVISED.DOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 2 District was formed to fund the increased cost of the original District improvements, and to add new District improvements such as the Interceptor Channel. Specifically our client's Project had original assessment debt of$I1.9 million, When the supplemental assessment was adopted another $13.8 million was added to the original a::sessment debt increasing the total debt to $25.7 million. To date, our client has always kept both its real estate tax obligations and assessment debt obligations current. The Interceptor Channel was to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District boundary, This channel would pick up storm water entering the Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19.17 acres) and divert the drainage southerly to the District improved Temecula Creek. The estimated cost of the Interceptor Channel was in the range of 1.8 million and was to be shared on an allocated basis with four (4) different owners. The current estimate is 3.5 million or more. As you know, the Corona family has resisted the original design of the Interceptor Channel and has suggested different alternatives that would not only protect their property within Assessment District 159, but a larger Corona parcel outside of the District as well. In order to resolve these issues, a number of discussions took place between the District and the Coronas. To date, those discussions have not resulted in any agreement. Accordingly, on February 17,2000, the County sent a letter to the Corona Ranch asking that they select one of two alternatives for the Interceptor Channel. Specifically, the County suggested that if the Coronas wished to adopt a significantly more expensive storm water channel that would benefit their entire property, they should be willing to include all of their pmperty within Assessment District 159 to assist in its funding, The reason we are again bringing this matter to your attention is because, quite frankly, this issue needs to be resolved for several very important reasons, First of all, the delay in the construction of the Interceptor Channel has caused our client to incur additional costs of $860,000 for the construction of an interim detention basin that protects not only their property, but property owned by others to the west. These costs would not have been incurred if the Interceptor Channel had been built in a timely fashion as were other District funded improvements. Second, this interim detention basin prevents Newland from developing forty a.;res (approximately 188 lots) oftheir residential property. While these lots continue utldeveloped, Newland is shouldering the burden of tens of thousands of dollars of interest costs, property tax, and assessment expense, Third, the Coronas are raising the question of liability arising from the damming of storm water on their property as a direct result of the District's design and construction of an elevated Butterfield Stage Road without building the Interceptor Channel to divert this water into Temecula Creek. Finally, the Coronas and others believe that in c,ertain storm events both Butterfield Stage Road and State Route 79 will be flooded because of0the failure to construct the Interceptor Channet As you probably know, the significance of \~;LD\C_DRlVE\DATA\CLlENTS\NEWLAND COMMUNITIESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LETTER 3.6REVISED.DOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr, George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 3 Butterfield Stage Road as a circulation element is growing as a number of parties both in the City of Temecula and at the County are considering Butterfield Stage Road to be a major loop-road in this area. In summary, it is now time to seek a final solution to this matter and to prevent any further adverse impacts to the District, the County, and the owners in the District. As previously stated, Assessment District 159 assessed Newland and three other property owners for the construction of the Interceptor Channel. Further, this original assessment is believed to be inadequate to fund the channel's construction. Newland has volunteered to allow any remaining authorized but unissued assessment debt currently on its property to be identified and sold to raise additional funds for the construction of Alternative No.1 of the Interceptor Channel. However, it is important to fully understand that the District's ability to raise additional assessment funds through Newland's cooperation diminishes each time Newland sells property to others. Therefore, it is now imperative that the District act quickly to help us make all of this happen, In addition, we believe that the County needs to act upon its letter of February 17,2000 and if no timely response has been received from the Coronas, to proceed with the final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Interceptor Charmel. This matter has gone on for some time now, and we just simply need your assistance to resolve these issues and respectfully request that this matter be discussed with the Board of Supervisors. In summary: 1. the Paseo del Sol project has participated in Assessment District 159 and through its assessments has paid for many regional infrastructure improvements; 2, our client has installed the required stann drain facilities throughout the Project to satisfy its drainage requirements; 3, certain public improvements already completed by both the District and our client were designed and constructed in reliance on the completion of the Interceptor Channel; 4. our client is willing to cooperate with Assessment District 159 to allow additional indebtedness that could be placed on the property in a fair and equitable allocation to provide for construction of the Interceptor Charmel; 5. there currently exist adverse conditions on our client's property, which are working in an unnecessary hardship. The hardships can be resolved by the County proceeding to a'~t upon its letter of February 17,2000; and IISLDlC_DRlVE\DA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNITIESICARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3.6REVISED.DOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 4 6, we are asking that you take our request to the County Board of Supervisors for direction in facilitating and completing the Interceptor Channel, pursuant to the authorization provided for in Assessment District 159 and we in turn pledge our client's cooperation to working with the County and District to reach a solution. 4A~w- Samuel C. Alhadeff J)Y , ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP SCA:sld . cc: Mr. Dave Stahovich C:IDA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNmESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3.6.DOC I\SLDlC _DRJVE\DA T AICLlENTSINEWLAND COMMUNmESlCARSTEN JOHNSON LEITER 3.6REVJSED.DOC " ',i . '~~ ;J j'</--~ '/e3t Valley Parkway ~ _ 345 escondido, CI\ 92025 Telephone: (1'60) 743-1201 Facsimile: (71,0) 743-9926 ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 203 TEMECutA, CALIFORNIA 92591-4677 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-9088 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-9878 550 West C Street 19th Floor ~San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-8701 Facsimile: (619) 231-832: Offices in San Diego, Escondida Bnd Temecula. California April 4, 2000 SMwa C. AoooEFF SI.uWlEFF@ACRSP.cou (909)699-9088 9103.001 Mr. George Johnson County of Riverside Transportation Dept. 4.080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 9250 I . Re: Newland Communities - Butterfield Interceptor Channel - Assessment District 159 Dear Mr, Johnson: On March 27, 2000,1 received a copy ofa March 14, 2000 letter that was directed to you by Steven Corona concerning the above-captioned matter. Mr, Corona's letter contained certain inaccurate statements. Two of those statements are as follows: . In the third paragraph of his letter he references your correspondence of February 17,2000 and goes on to state "In your letter you mistakenly state, 'As you are well aware, .the Butterfield Interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the Eastern ASsessment District Boundary, to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide naod protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and down stream properties.'" Your letter of February 17,2000 is correct. Mr, Corona's assertion is incorrect. The original improvements for Assessment District 159 (the "District") contemplated an interceptor channel to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District boundary. The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by the Rancho Villages Assessment District ("EIR 24 I") addresses the area wide drainage. Exhibit IV - V (State Highway Corridor Drainage Study) calls out for a permanent interceptor located on the easterly boundary of the District. The facility as 'originally contemplated would have picked up the drainage entering the Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19. I 7 acres) and diverted the drainage southerly to the District improved Temecula Creek. This original concept consisted of an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona property at the eastern edge of the District. This specific channel design. was included as part of the Supplemen.tal Assessment in. the District. The costs were first anticipated to be approxirnately $2.2 Million Dollars in the District and then escalated to approximately $3.5 Million Dollars. including right-of-way acquisition when the Corona's relused to participate in dedicating the right-of-way. This fact becomcs important on lurthcr analysis in this letter. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Mr, George Johnson April 4, 2000 Page 2 The next inaccurate statement in the letter relates to the assertion made at the bottom of page 2, in the next to the last paragraph, where Mr, Corona states "According to all the documents which we reviewed (and I am sure there is much more), the developer remains ultimately responsible for the cost of constructing the Interceptor Channel. The developer has never been relieved of this obligation by the City of Temecula or by County Flood Control". This statement again is also incorrect In fact, on November 9, 1999, in a staff report prepared for the City Council of the City ofTemecula, the staff report and the Deputy City Manager submitted their report and the minutes of that meeting reflect the following, and I wish to make a verbatim quote, so that there c an be no misunderstanding that one public agency has already reviewed, in detail, this matter aad clarified the issue. , ) "Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the detailed staff report (as per agenda materials); referenced staffs opinion that there is not a nexus between the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor Chann.el and the four cases before the City Council this evening; advised that the channel was to be constIUcted and fimdedthrough AD 159 and that Newland Communities had no control over the timing of this process; (emphasis added)... Mr, Thornhill recommend denial of the appeal and approval of the remaining applications." The appeal was brought by the Coronas and obviously, the staff was recommending the denial of that appeal. As a result of that hearing, Newland and the City Council reached an. amicable accord to again allow for continued development of the property, while at the same tim:e trying to resolve issues with the Coronas. In fact, then Mayor Ford, and then Councilman Lindemans, proposed a solution, The solution was agreed to by Newland Communities ("Newland") and the Corona Ranch ("Corona") on Friday November 12, 1999, However, at the City Council meeting on November 16, 1999, the Coronas withdrew their approval to the solution, In part, because the Coronas again refused to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the County Flood Control District without compensation. I find this odd because of the Commercial zoning on that portion of the subject Corona property located in the City ofTemecula and any development would include dedication requirements. In summary, to set the record very clear, your letter of February 17,2000 was accurate wi th regard to the facts that you recited. The Coronas have, for whatever reason, been unwilling to cooperate with the other property owners in AD 159 and continue to assert, mistakenly, conditions that do not exist, nor have ever existed with regard to alleged requirements imposed upon Newland. In order that this record may be complete, I have attached the following documents: t. Your letter of February 17.2000. 2. Our letter of March 16,2000. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Mr, George Johnson April 4, 2000 Page 3 3, Newland's co-counsel, Hewitt & McGuire's letter of November I, 1999; and 4, The minutes of the Ternecula City Council dated November 9, 1999. If I can offer any further information to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Enough time has transpired with regard to the delay tactics of the Coronas. We believe, as we have stated, the time has come to adopt a reasonable alternative and move forward with this project We look forward to the April 18 hearing at the County Board of Supervisors. . Sincerely, f'~ tletr~ ~/tJ Samuel C. Alhadeff, of Alhadeff & Solar, LLP SCNsld Enclosures as noted cc: Supervisor Bob Buster (via U.S. Mail and facsimile) Supervisor Jim Venable (via U,S. Mail and facsimile) Mr, Tony Carstens (via U,S, Mail and facsimile) Mr. Dave Barnhart (via U.S, Mail) . Mr. Kelley Donovan (via U,S, Mail and facsimile) Mr, Frank Peairs(via U.S. Mail) Mr. Dave Stahovich (via U.S, Mail and facsimile) Mr. Rick Hoffman (via U.S. Mail) The Honorable Jeff Stone, Mayor (via hand delivery) Mr. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Pro Tern (via hand delivery) Mr. Albert Pratt, Councilmernber (via hand delivery) Mr, Michael S. Naggar, Councilmember (via hand delivery) Mr. Ron Roberts, Councilmernber (via hand delivery) Mr. Gary Thornhill (via hand delivery) C:\DA T A\CLlENTS\NEWLANO COMMUNITIESVOHNSON LETTER 4.4.DOC a2/24/2a~~ 16:~2 87763~55- FEB-24-1l0 THU 02:54 PM RIV C~. ,{EclffIVl; O~~ Jt:l:, PR BROWN CO ~M tiU. 1 , "'//;,'/:",:>: ;=,:<: PAGg77ej~'J~" {i'::CjIOliOO,/,Cv:lJ<m ",1'/ ()) . '." COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY llinsportation Department DofYld E. Barn.Qn DirJ:c:tg, O{Tl'tJ#fSpo.n..liO#t Fe'bruary 17, 2000 CERTIFIED Mt\lL Ir 310 675 430 Corona Ranch 33320 State Highway 79 TemecuJa. CA 92592 Attention; Steve Corona' ~E: Butterfield East Interceptor St.orm Drain De:~r Mr. Corona: J am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10. 1999 meeting we had ~t the' Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various alternatives we studied for the Butterfield East lnten:eptor Storm Drain Facility. I appreciated the opportunityto hear your concerns, and as a result, I gained a better understanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives. Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we discussed. As rou are well aware. the Butterfield Interceptor was included as.an Assessment 'D~ict No. 159 facility, to be located atthe eastern Assessment District boundary. to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road. State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept W~s to construct an open channel at the eastem AD 159 boundary. Because you own property upstream of the AD InterceptOr alignment east of the AD boundary, j'QU requested we study other altematives. You are ctJrrently farming all of your property and, advised the Interceptor would disrupt your fanming operation. With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. l..et me summarize the two other options we discusse<;l, whIch seemed potentially feasible: Altemative No.1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the chan,lel and Constructing a box under your property, You expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could continue your farming operations Uninterrupted, and 2) Ihe Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The,intent was to provide four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top of the facility. During our meeling. Flood Control Dislrict representatives questioned the feasibility of this option, First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be' properly coflected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it 4080 Lemou Scrcl:t Slh floor. Rj..,:nidc. Cllirocnl.l 92501 . (909) 955.61..10 P,O. B\l~ 1090 10 p'ivcrtiJ.~. Cltli/l,)([Jl.:1 9!50!-l090 ~ FAX (909) 955-6721 w2124/2"J"J~J 1~: ~J2 s:j77J;T'J5~ rI:.lh~II-UU HIU IJ~:~~ m l!l'/ l.1J ,l.tt;UI1Vt. Uttlt;t. PP. BPO',itl CO '5;'I2,;i;'" tH^ tlU. 1 i~_iJ'-'(:~-;.:-: Mr. Steve Corona Februar/17.2000 Page 2 , underground makes lhe slope of the box culvert too flat and creates on9oin9 maintenance problems. Therefore. this option doesn't seem practical. The other option we discussed was A1temative No.5, a dual system with an open c:hannellocated along your easterly property boundary to intercept a majority of the c1rainage from the east, along with ;3 smaller underground system at the eastern AD t'oundary to coIled the smaller flows from the north and east, above De Portofa Road and east to Caire Contento. You expresstld your preference for this alternative. ) Under Alternative No.5, aU of your property will be flood protected. The property you O'NTl outside the AD boundary would benefit under this alternative and would therefore b,;! required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. YQU discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your properly until your farming operation develops into some other use. This would require some other party to advance YOlJr costs. WhHe I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the financial capaclty or ability to advance fund your share. One way to reduce your costs is to dedicate the right-of-way needed to COi,struct the facility. Other than that, I have not been able to come up with any other c:ostsaving solU1ions. If you are willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of your property outside the current AD 159 boundaries, the Transportation Department is Willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need yourwritlen concurrence. Y'olJrc:ooperation is needed to make the Interceptor a reality. J 10IJk forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative manner. Please feel free to c:ontact me if you nave any questions or require any add'itional information. ' Sincerely, ~~d~ George A. Johnson Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Supervisor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Carstens Dave Barnhart Kelley Donov3n Frank Peairs PAr,s ~3' r.- U.:J I..V....,P:w~...."Y ..... JCOndIdo. CA 9za:l5 rMphonor. (780J 7"J,.12Q1 hClmilor. (7/JOI 143-9926 ALHADEFF & SOLAR 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 203 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-46n . MAIN TELEPHONE' (909) 699-9088 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-9878 S50~.CllJ1tlJf" 550 'Mtst C SItMl l!llhFloo< San 0'-00,. CA 92101 T.~ (819) 2J1.../J100 Facsimile: (619) 2J1~ Offices in San Diego, Escondida and Temecula, California March 16,2000 SAMIa C, AuwleFF SAuwlEFF@ACRSP,CO/./ (909) 699-9088 9103,001 Mr. Tony Carstens County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Mr. George Johnson County of Riverside Transportation Department P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Re: Assessment District 159 ("District") and Specific Plan 219-Paseo del Sol ("Project") Dear Messrs. Carstens and Johnson: I wanted to thank you, Ms. Thomason, and Mr. Donovan for meeting with Newland Communities and myself on March 1st to discuss the District and Project. We appreciate the time: and consideration each of you and a number of other members of County Staff have given with regard to the issues that we discussed at that meeting. ' As discussed in our meeting, we think that the District has reached a critical crossroad regarding the funding for and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Drainage Channel ("Interceptor Channel"), Consequently, we believe that the County and theDistrict should recommend a solution to the County Board of Supervisors and seek direction in facilitating and completing this improvement as provided for in Assessment District [59, This letter is really intended to be a summary of the current status of both the District and the Project as it relates to the Interceptor Channel. The delay in the construction of this facility is not only having a serious adverse impact on Newland's Project, but also on the District, its owners. and the integrity of State Route 79, Butterlield Stage Road and other regional improvements constructed by Assessment District 159. Assessment District 159 was formed in [988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other inlrastructures within the District boundaries, In 1991 a Supplemental \\.'\1.0\(.' _(lltl VI~I)ATA\Ct.IENTS\NEWL,\Nll CO"'I~IUNrnl;~\Ct\It."iTEN JOIIN,SON LI:TrER J.6RUVISED.OOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 P~ge 2 District was formed to fund the increased cost of the original District improvements, and to add new District improvements such as the Interceptor Channel. ' Specifically our client's Project had original assessment debt of$I1.9 million. When the supplemental assessment was adopted another $13.8 million was added to the original assessment debt increasing the total debt to $25,7 million. To date, our client has always kept both its real estate tax obligations and assessment debt obligations current. The Interceptor Channel was to be constructed at the eastern edge of the District. boundary. This channel would pick up storm water entering the Savala property (19.49 acres) and the Corona family property (19.17 acres) and divert the drainage southerly to the District improved T emecula Creek. The estimated cost of the Interceptor Channel was in the range of 1.8 million and was to be shared on an allocated basis with four (4) different owners. The cmrent estimate is 3.5 million or more. As you know, the Corona family has resisted the original design of the Interceptor Channel andhas suggested different alternatives that would not only protect their property within Assessment District 159, but a larger Corona parcel outside of the District as well. In order to' resolve these issues, a number of discussions took place between the District and the Coronas. To date, those discussions have not resulted in any agreement. Accordingly, on February 17,2000, the County sent a letter to the Corona Ranch asking that they select one of two alternatives for the Interceptor Channel. Specifically, the County suggested that if the Coronas wished to adopt a significantly more expensive storm water channel that would benefit their entire property, they should be willing to include all of their property within Assessment District 159 to assist in its funding. The reason we are again bringing this matter to your attention is because, quite frankly, this issue needs to be resolved for several very important reasons. First of all, the delay in the construction of the Interceptor Channel has caused our client to incur additional costs of $860,000 for the construction of an interim detention basin that protects not only their property, but property owned by others to the west. These costs would not have been incurred if the Interceptor Channel had been built in a timely fashion as were other District funded improvements, Second, this interim detention basin prevents Newland from developing forty acres (approximately 188 lots) of their residential property, While these lots continue und'~veloped, Newland is shouldering the burden of tens of thousands of dollars of interest costs, property tax, and assessment expense, Third, the Coronas are mising the question of liability arising from the damming of storm water on their property as a direct result of the District's design and construction of an elevated Butterfield Stage Road without building the Interceptor Channel to divert this water into Temecula Creek, Finally. the Coronas and others believe that in cer(~lin storm events both Buttedield Stage Road and State Route 79 will be flooded because of the tGilurc to construct the Interceptor Channel. As you probably know. the significance of \\.'\U)\C_I)l{IVI:\DAT:\\CLlENTS\NEWLANU COt.It.lllNIT1ES\C,\ItSTEN J01INSON U:-!TER J.6REVISED.OOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 3 Butterfield Stage Road as a circulation element is growing as a number of parties both.in the City of Temecula and at the County are considering Butterfield Stage Road to be a major loop-road in this area. In summary, it is now time.to seek a final solution to this matter and to prevent any further adverse impacts to the District, the County, and the owners in the District As previously stated, Assessment District 159 assessed Newland and three other property o\\rners for the construction of the Interceptor Channel. Further, this original assessment is , believed to be inadequate to fund the channel's construction. Newland has volunteered to allow any remaining authorized but unissued assessment debt cUrrently on its property to be identified and sold to raise additional funds for the construction of Alternative No. I of the Interceptor Channel. However, it is important to fully understand that the District's ability to raise additional assessment funds through Newland's cooperation diminishes each time Newland sells property to others. " Therefore, it is now imperative that the District act quickly to help us make all of this happen. In addition, we believe that the County needs to act upon its letter of February 17,2000 and if no timely response has been received from the Coronas, to proceed with the final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Interceptor Channel. This matter has gone on for some time now, and we just simply need your assistance to resolve these issues and respectfully request that this matter be discussed with the Board of Supervisors, ' ' In summary: I. the Paseo del Sol project has participated in Assessment District 159 and through its assessments has paid for many regional infrastructure improvements; 2. our client has installed the required storm drain facilities throughout the Project to satisfy its dniinage requirements; 3, certain public improvements already completed by both the District and our client were designed and constructed in reliance on the completion of the Interceptor Channel; 4, our client is willing to cooperate with Assessment District 159 to allow additional indebtedness that could be placed on the property in a fair and equitable allocation to provide for construction of the Interceptor Channel; 5, there currently exist adverse conditions on our client's property, which are working in an unnecessary hardship, The hardships can be resolved by the County proceeding to act upon its letter of February 17,2000; and \\.sI.D\C..I)llIVL:\U,\"rA\CUI:N"rS\NEWl.AND COMt..llJNITII:S\C,\RSTEN J()IINS{)N LETIl:R ).6REVlSEO.DOC ALHADEFF & SOLAR Mr. Tony Carstcns Mr. George Johnson March 16, 2000 Page 4 6. we are asking that you take our request to the County Board of Supervisors for direction in facilitating and completing the Interceptor Channel, pursu.mt to the authorization provided for in Assessment District 159 and we in turn pledge our client's cooperation to working with the County and District to reach a solution. SCA:sld cc: Mr. Dave Stahovich C:IDA T AICLlENTSlNEWLAND COMMUNITlESlCAltSTEN JoHNSON LEITER 3,6,DOC \l'\I.1 )\C..llI{IVE\lJATA\CLlI:NTS\NI:WLANLJ C()Mf\ltJNlT1E~\CAItSTEN JOIINSON LL:T1TR J.6RfvISED.OOC ~7.;24/.2(;J..J... l~: W2 877f; )')55" HR BROWN & CO, LLP DATE: TO: FROM: PP BPr.JM I co *** F ~~ *** z...-,~<f-c?() s \""- D~~ Rob Brown ~;;:;A.J I NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: + 9505 Chc..ry Street. Sui I-=: 71(, Den-"ur, CO .'SO!-.6 27S:SS Yun RO;IJ. Sttih: 407 Tc:mcc:ub. CA 91591 Plf,c: l'll CERUFlI!D PUBLIC ACCOUNrNrrS . ~gb\1 C;-~ ~J)6=f- Ph"nc (877) 6J9-5565 FAX (877) 6.39.5559 ",-null robbrown@rrbrownco.com " ~2/2d/2888 16:82 87761155 :"t.H-L4-Utl It1U U~:,:):J rn KI'I \.,;U -1ic:.l....Ullvt. UrrlL..c. '- I .~ H !is a ~o e] ;f i~t& )( 1:: ~- ';q, ",,5~ -.cc::.~ ~~ KIt-::" '" . 0 '" '" < c 4. c a. (d i ~ ,...,3-<gJS ~z]:!ree s,;"r"'i: ~!L-~gll . :ii ~H eo- . = ~ >-_c Co'- ~..u 11 "' ~ .. ~~ ~.. :;g "CD Q " < "'c -2 -OJ "'.. -- ~~ ~ !:. .!!o -~ e ~ . 1 ~ s '" l! " ~ '2 e ,: e ~ ,g~g ~-." (J ~ a" HH )l:J: a.~ HI~ c:;c~ :=,:z:r;o . '" " ~ PI" BPOW I CO t"M nv. 1 ",,;'-) o,,,lonlo ;18j:O.g ,.."!~: ~ i ~ ~If'o'_''''' :i;~'-'- r ~ :: f ~ E :: ! a C ~ ,2 i:~ "-. g ~ OJ j'D " '8 li II 3 :] &iSlIl!: ....<:5 _ :'; g., 8- ....-.- _'_1_ , , ~ " '"t 3 ''j; , , I I , I I Slg's:IS1I~ .... u CII' <S .. aH~'!::f I ~'I~' ~~-l-i"',- , I I . . I ii' 1 I I ! l! H 'f: :< - '. ~ :z: ... ~ " ... c:: ~ ;;; '" ,. '" U ~ g 'It 0: ~ " '" :: ~ '" ~ .. ... ~ ~ ~ ... ., !: ,.. " '-' a w " ::; '" ,w >: ... :> '" ~ ~ ~ " :z: w ... ... u ~ ~ 0 .. '" ., ~ .. r:: r:: ;:i << 0 '" < 3 ., ., '" ~ u " u is '" '" g ~ @ ... t ;;: ~ ,~ Iii :z: '" ;" S ~ w " '" ,. ,q ~ ... < ~ " ~ ~ '" :;; '4 U /:: ,. ~ u c:: -. " ~ ;:; "- :> ~ ~ '" '< I!' " 0 ~ w ... t: " ., :; ... a: In J ., ~~ '" ~ ., '" (; ~ ~ .5 '< .. i.:i " '" " u a or w " ,.-....., ;"J',..... .. >-~. ~)... PAGE" ij;i4; r. v..... .. " couNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATIONAND ' LA1VD MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department DQvid f:, Rarnllnrt ", Dirc;;,or of TrampnrUlriofl April 11 , 2000 Mr. Stephen Corona Cowna Ranch 33320 State Highway 79 Temecula, CA 92592 RE: Butterfield Interceptor Deer Mr. Corona: I am in receipt of your letter dated M~rch) 4,2000, Th,!l)~ Yc>u for taking the time to r:espond to my previous letter. The additional infol11'iatl9n you provided}s needed so we can make a fullY informed decision. , , ' " , " '.- . In y'Jur letter you requested we studf/Clne other option, not Included in my letter; Your suggestion is to construct some sort of east to''Westdralnage facilitylhrough Butterfield Stage Road and then extend the facility to TemeculaCrEl,~~?Ic>ng the west sIde of Butterfielq Stage Road, You also indiGated Mr. Savala had been studying the feasibilityoflhls option and tie would submit this suggestions,t;, " " " ' . "<~;~"^~';',,:,:'i'.>:"'_, ;,);,,"~:'''.', .~. ..,h....:-: _. .': , had an opportunity to meet with Mr,savafilonFriday.March 31, 2000:A1t~rdiscussing the' , constructibility of this option with lvIr.J~,vala; vye agreed;tcistudy it further, 'Attached are two cost estimates, The first one contemplates t~~lhgJhe drainGlge from east to wes,llnto'a detention basin on Newland's property with an aPPr9prjate:~ptlet structure. The eslimatei;l'Ci:i~1 ofttlis option is $6.000,000"i{", .', '. ' /l ' The other possibility is to extend a t[iP,I~-,~~\'~' box structure along the we.s\~i1YSldeOf BUtlerfiel~ \ Sta!)e Road to Temecula Creek, al,aR.~tfm!!lted coslof $5,000,000.' ,'r;:,'>,'''", ) I . .:;:r..:;f> .'''' <:' ~":"':'~-'\", '. t As we discussed eartier today, I am,-aI~OfOiVi~rdin9 you a ~pyof the st3ffreport being presented to the Board of Supervisors on April 18,J!OOO: Please cOf)ta'ct me if you want (odi~cUss this item any further, ','" ' SinGe rely, /7 ~d /(..A~y( C1,~ ~ George A, Joh /n Deputy Director of Transportation GA.l/pd xc: Dave Slahovlch Tony Carslens Dave Barnhart Kelly Donovan 000 4~ '~a i~!?O , . "." . . 40RU L"Jn"OI ~lrt'l, ~lh~JoOr -..Riverside, Califolilia !ii501 . (909) 955.6740 ),,0, Un, IOYU . Rwe:r' c.lifornl. 92502,1090 'FAXexiilo IT 61 PAGE. 09 ,:''':';': , :.-:;' .". (C" :;'~ "';' -'::;'. ;'r'~; ..,;.... "-:,:;. , 'r'; ., ~ '.;.::1'1: : .':l' ..,' . ....., ~ ~.,~~ . ~:: ....'i .' ~.,' , .'.". ::;:~ .....r. :._.;,'.1 :.-:.':;:"~~ : '~.': . '. .:;:~~ '".r : ::.Yi~ .' ',,'1, .f.'; ;:.:. , _v.~ . ~..~ , ~..... ",.; '. ~ -.~:;.~ 1 ~.')~ -:-:...,' ".:::-,.. <.,;. ..;-.". , :. ..-~ ',' "-l..: '. I ," :.';:~ ", '.<{ ":".. ". "'.~,; ,';: '.::~~,: '. .... ~ .-" '~'::';~. ,.,1" ~\~. .:....... }~1 . ~. X~~~ ~ -..:~; .:,......-...: . .:....-. ~:~? . ~..I ~ >. , 0 ~ "= ) 0 .0. 10 i~ , '" : c: . 0 'u o ii Ie o ~ ~ ~I " ." . '. . - . . SUBMITTALTOTI-IE BOARD OF SUPERVISOS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNiA .. - -, . - '. . (t~ 'ir~~f' . '~., :*.~~ :,:~:!i. :'.'...._;.~,', . . .. FROM: County Executive Office,ljnd, SUBMITTAL DATE: April 1 a, 2QbQ " TLMAlTransportation Depart. , . '" ',",,' SUEUECT: Butterfield East InterqaptQr Storm DraIn, AssessmentOistdcfNq. 159 ", .r;:~"$ .? :~)~ . . .--i ':.~:i. ",'.. : ~ "'. .~ . ..(;~~~. ..;/~~ .. .~ ~.{~ , , . ", .' ,- RECOMMENDED MOTION: That thE/Soard approve the Original Assessrn~n't District Concept for the construction of:tf1l113utterfield East Channel and dIrect Jitaff to return to . the Board in 30 days with an implerhentetion plan, to include: ' ,. A reimbursement agreemer'ltbetween the County, on behalfofAD159, the Flood Control District and Newl~nd for construction of the Butterfiel!itl!s,tChannel; A right-of-way acquisition agreement between the County and Ne~land. in order that right-of-way be 1dentlfled ~ridobtained from affected 1~r'1d::owriers; A calendar and process fqran AD 1 59 Change Proceeding to: inoiea,se, authorized funding for the Channel to~3;5hii"ion; ',,'..,', '. ',' '." ,.,.." ' A schedule for issuance o(additional bonds inAD 159 SuilpJelpental. . .;-)<~ i:.~~ 'H~, .' :.,... .'tl~ .' ':.~':o> ...;,.... ..:.... ...:~'i~ 2. 3, 4. . .' . . .... BACKGROUND: Assessment DistrictNQ,159 was formed in 1988to,.'fpnd.ce, rtain regional public improvements in the southjsmeeula area.'ln1991, a SUP8fE1riie,~fal District was.~ formed to fund the increased co'$t''()fthe originaLDis t imRrovEiments~hd fund additional ~~r;1 Tony Carstens Deputy County Executive Officer, ' GAJ:sa attachments cc: County Counsel :.{~~ . ;~'-~~ ":.xe~ , , : !'i~ .,.;..,'-, . ;:.:~r.~ ,.;.:~~~; J . '.-'. .. .~ :~~: .-. .'~.: .Xf~ lj .....~'::l'! , . YES! NO! X :.:;0 '';:'''' Noh! FOR FY: 99/00'.~:~ J(i '. :)-t, '. ','" .:~. ; ..j.:. . ......,.'.; .,:c~ J~ .;:.?~ .,.-.... . ;;..~~1ii :11 :' '~:;.: .~'lj ~. ~_:;:.: David E. Barnhalt . ", , ,',. .',. Dfrector of Transport~lioh' (Coritlnued on attacnedPapes) FINANCIAL DATA: CURRENT YEAR COST NET I~OUNTY COST $ lOO;QOO ' . $ 0 :, ANNUAL COST $ "/'4., IN CURRENT YEAR BUDGJ;T:' BVOGET ADJUSTMENT:, VESt SOUHCE OF FUNDS: A.D. No, 159 ' C.E.O. RECOMMENDATION: ". . , County ExecUtI~Off1c:er Slgnatufe' ..... , " ..:;' . , '.- Prevo Jlgn. ref. ,', Ol$t. 1 st A4~b~ NO. D:~U':S.\WP\aACKUNOAMI1\8T"F.WPD .: ~-' ..,..' , ';":'. ""l APR 12 '00 15:24 PAGE. 135 , .1' . . The Honorable Board of Super....isors " ' RE: Butterfield East Interceptor$tQrmorain, A.D. 159 April 18, 2000 ' Patle 2 of 4 , ' .' . . .' improvements. The Butterfield:E!i~tlntercePtor' vvasincluded aspart pf~he Supplemental District. The B(Jt~ei'fieldEast Interceptor waslnten,d~Cj'tCJDe ,an open, cha,nnellocated at the eastern A$s~ssment Distrlctl'ioundary tolrjteroop(tne tributary drainage flows and prbv,ide flood protection to Butterfield$t~,ijeRoad, State Route 79 South, and do#nstreain properties. The original1nterq,ElPtor was estimated to cost $2,200,000,'" . .' '." . . . -' . . ., . . , . . ,. . , . , , ThE:re are four downstream pr()p~rtiesthat will r~ceive flood prot~i::tiorr.from the Intorceptor and will be assessecl'foOheflood benefit received. Thefourproperty owners are identified on the attaChed friap as beil'lgCorona, Savala,Wiili~ms, and Newland. ' ' , . . .' . ' . . ,. , .... , . ',' '. ,.' The benefit is spread to the pr~~rtlesbased on)creage as follows; < " Propertv Owner A~i,iaae , .. Percentaae t',.,. .: 1;9,.17 6.14 % 1!lA9 ';' 6.24 % 18:91 ' " 6.06 % 2~4A;~/-:: ; 81.56 %, 31~.1<>a~res' 100.0.9.%, ,I , ' ",' ',',:: \ . ^..' ", ' " .' ~ .' '. .' '. County staff has held numerousA:l;> Hi9 property owner meetingsoirert.he past several years. In various meetin,gs,affElcted property owners hilve ,prolif~ed input, To date, County staff and thep~op~rty owners have n'ot come to a' i:itirisellsus on the Butterfield Interceptor. ' , ' Corona' Savala Williams Newland , ' Total , .. . . . . ..' , .'. .. , .. .,:." .' -" -' .', .. - . -'. ~", - .' Newland Communities has apprQachedCounty st,aftend requested we brJng this item to the BOilrdfor direction irifa6ilit8ting and completing the Interceptpr.' See attached letter from Samuel C, Al.hadeff of Alhadeff&. Solar, LLP~dat~d'March 16, 2000 representing the NeWlandp'toperty. . , While Newland supports the Inta~Ceptor, the Corona ahd Savala OWha,~{;'tla\re expressed concerns. .',.,' , , .'" " The Corona's, through their engl~~er,Bdb Krieger; approached theTraf\~:portation Department and requested altern~t1ve Intercepto(alignments becon~dElred. The Transportation Department agre$:land has studied the suggestedaJteil'latives. Attached is a letter to Mr. Steva:Corona from GeQrge, Johnson, Deputy Dir-ector of Transportation, dated February 1'7,2'000, which summarized the variqu~ "..', '. alternatives studied. Reference is made to the Febru'ary 17 letter for 'a disoussion of the alternatives, summarized ~Sf()lIoWs: ' , ". ',' " , : ',: ....:'... .' '. .',: "', '" at.s, D :\I"llES\WP\8ACI(Uf'\fOAM1HElTRF,wPO "', ','\:' ' '^,~ ! ,_.~ ~-. ,.-' ~:g~ ::<;~1 ','. ':t;a ',',..;'.,: ., '.','. . ".:: ..;~:rt. '. ~ ."!::'t 11 :..,.::{.~ .-:(~~ \'..r-~. '::;'~~ . f"~:~~ , :~~,,, 1'~t '.' .:~,~.: ( ',~',{o ,'il~ .'.:.:>~ ,;b:~ .J:'-~~~~. . <.<.}}, ,.,-.,. 'r:.;i,~ ,.;.':;~~~. ".:: ~~:~ ." .,,~';:To "(1~ )::t~ 7.".J , ':~ti , .....; r~} . . " ~ ......, .' ,'~",,-. . '~.::r;l: .~ ::...~.'::\ , r '.-';.~;::~ t :'.i~~ .', :.~'~%~ ;~~ . ',-.~ . 'ji0 :t~ . . ;-~:-- . ~'>..~; , j~J tl ~ .;:,..'!! ....;~:~ ......'.'. :'.~ ::~ , ",of , ...~ The Honorable Board of Supervl~9rs , ' RE: 3utterfield East Interceptor Storm cOra in, April 18, 2000 PagE! 3 of 4 A~D. 159 Original Alternative: :=:~i~".,~;~t:~,. 't~~rf~~~dT~~~\~~~~~P~U~~?f~~&~~:~~e~J~) Cost Estlmete: $3.5 million' ',', ", ,', ldj Alternative 1: Underground dqll,ble7' x 14' box culvert on Corona~nd Williams, Cost Estimate -J4,600,OOO ' , . Alternative 5: Dual System. Open channel from Temecula Cree(tOa-qO\JOle 7' x 12' box culvert\,i'hderState Route 79 South andQP~rioll11Mel continued alonii'Cofona's eastetly property boundilr.y:Pll,ls7' x 12' box from Temequla Creek alongWmiams, underS1a~~~OfJte 79 South and ccinthluihg~nder Corona along Assessmeryt'District boundary witlii::ipi:!n.channel alonE $avala. Cost Estimate. i$6,800;000 ' Alternative 6: Triple 6' x 1 O'b6xeaStto west under ButterfieldSt~~~R.()ad\the'17 \ extended/along the Westerly side' of Butterfield Sf8S'EiRoa'd to / Temecula Creek: ,: ,. ,.' , Cost Estimate -j5,OOO,OOO ',' , '. . .. . . . . : . .:.... '", :.": Several other alternatives werest~died, but were 'dropped as nOtbeirjj:U)f~btical. ' Mr. Corona responded with a le~~r dated March 14, 2000 (copy aft~~~e'<:i); . "... . . . ' , Mr. Corona states his preferenc~iorAlternative5'if the IntercePt9rCh~~r\.el . facilities are on his property, bUt'al$o states thathis 'farming could ri(}t-SU$taln that level of funding, · ;.. " '. .", ' '., ,.... .:. . . .." . . .'...... .": . ,',.,.. . '. . ,. ...... Mr. Corona also requested an9th~t Option be considered,refem~d to,:a$,Alternative 6. His suggestion is to construcf~)icixcuIVerte~st to west underalJ~t~rli$id Stage Road and then extend the draina{lefacility on NeW!;;lOd's land toTertiEl~hg:reek along the westerly side of ButterfIeld St~ge Road: He states this 6pilonwOuld ' solve the problems, the water W9ljld flow as it orlgiMlHy flowed, and the responsibility to construct the In~~rpeptOrwill go;tO the Developer, Newlimd, The Transportation Department tr8i1ll'iet with Mr. Savala to seek h1s Jnput into this last suggestion. During our disCUS$ibris,we concluded this optjonwasf~aSlble, but would not provide any protectioh'to'theSavala, Corona or Williamii'pr6~efties. We have since estimated the cost to ibe,approximateiy$5,OOO,OOO, ~lidt~!sQPtion woulcl require the costly relocati6ribf existing underground utilitiesiri$utterfield Stage Road. Any developmentottheabove noted properties wouldi',eqottElthe extension of the drainage facilitie~)Jpstream alonl:l, witli the consttllcti~n}ifsome type of drainage interceptor, addiNlto the $5.0 million cost estimate" .' " I 11 '.al O:V'llES\WP\&ACltUf'V'ORM11\B1'RF.WPO '. '''4. . "', ..~ ^nn ~~ Inn .~.~ f"\^....... ....r"t ", .....,.::.1 ':'!X~ , ~.w;; .~~~ ..:i::~ . ")\.\t -)":;~ 'C:;.;:,,; ,!ij~ }~ . .J:;~ '::'~'1~ ..<.;:V;~' ""(~ :}~_:~~ ~":~7;~ \j~ . ,t.... ."'~ . '.~ "..',~ .:', ~. . .(<~ ...~ ;r~'S :.r~~ '.:li~ 11 ....L~~ . .:.::~s .',it'~ >:~I~ . . ,J,'_:;"; . .'~.:'~~~ ::'~"'(~~ .:}'I~ ';'~f~~ ....,1 ': ~/~T;' ':~"'~~~ .'.;'i';~f~ , .;,-- ,;-~:--~~ :1 .,~~ . The Honorable Board of Supervi,sorEi RE: Butterfield East Interceptor S~ormDrain, A.O. Hi9 April 18, 2000 Page 4 of 4 ". " I";'" The Assessment District is curr$ntly authorized .toissue $2.1 rriillicininbbhded debt for the Interceptor. Newland hiisstat~d a wilHngnessto plaoe '8d(ji~ibflal indebtedness on its property through an AD 159 change proceecllng,;brlnging the total authorization to $3.5 mil,lidri. " ',,' , ',.' "':, ." In ~iew. of the ~n:'ount of fundln~,.,~a,' vaila,', ble, it appea,Jsthe OnIYfiril'lh,&i,anyieasibleJ option IS the onglnal Interceptor:Chann.el concept~ " ' ,'",'.""" .",. . . ~ ",', ..." ..,.., O:lI'IlU\WP\8.II.Cltl.ll"V'O"Ml1\'TI'lI',WPO ,":.j. .:,; -", CJPO 19 't::It::I 1C:!"X) . .: ..." :;} ~... : -<, '.- ~ . '. . ':.': , .. ,', ," ;; " .'.... ,"< T..\I",....- ..".... ~.~..;: .~ ~/i ..i:~;~ '>IF.-! ,;'5~,'.;- ;r~~ '{';~ '-~ ~~~ .; "('. . ,:~,{~ .....~i~ '.r~~ .: ~'-~~~~ . ~.~,..;: ".\;~ ," :~.~~ .:t..~. \~~ :~ ,f-~~ .~~:.~~ :: .~J', .';:~i~ r~ ,,[..~~, .~ ::;-.", ."........ i~ 'H~ .:J,~! J~~ -;"'."';'4 "';J.tJ . '-t.~t~ .:f~t. .. .::..,~'p' ..~;:~?~ . ':' S~:i ." .,'-~ ; \'~.~, :;ri . ..'," '. ....~. . .~. ~';::l r~~i '~~"~: . ~'UU WtU 4,': r \..IV r;. II If\l1I,.)rUf\1111 JVn r n^ nv. ClUO";):'>,} 11.,.'''t I. \",-..,...... ,:.. " PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD COMPANION STORM DRAIN ON NEWLAND & MDC April 26, 2000 A, CONSTRUCTION [ITEM ['€SCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAL ,-'MOBILIZATION , LS $20.000,00 $20,000,00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING , LS $10,000,00 510,000,00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLY WATER 1 LS 55,000,00 $5,000,00 4 EXCAVATION & COMPACT EMBANKMENT 44,444 CY $4,00 $177.777,78 5 TRIPLE G' X '0' RCS 2,250 LF $1.000,00 $2.250.000,00 6 JACK ~ SORE TRIPLE 6' X 10' RCS 100 LF 55,000,00 5500.000,00 7 MANHOLE NO, 3 20 EA 51,200,00 52',000,00 8 SF-WER SIPHON , LS 5200,000,00 5200,000,00 9 H EADWAL I, 2 EA $10,000,00 520,000,00 ,10 RIPRAP PROTECTION 50 cY 540,00 $2.000,00 12 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS 550.000,00 $50,000,00 13 ViA TER RELOCATION 1 LS $100,000,00 $100,000,00 '4 ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 1 LS 5100,000,00 $100,000,00 15 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS 510,000,00 $10.000,00 CONTINGENCY (10%) 5:)~G.877.78 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION) 53.BI5.655,56 B, DRY UTILITY REI.DCATION IITE~g,~5CRIPTION - QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT TOTAL! 15 GAS LS $20,000,00 $20,000,00 16 ELECTRIC LS $50,000,00 550,000,00 17 TELEPHONE LS $50.000,00 $50,000,00 SUB.TDTAI.IDRY UTILITY RELOCATION) $120,000.00 C, RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION = 65,000 40,000 900 sf sf sf $4,00 $15,00 $1.00 $260,000,00 5600.000,00 $900,00 Hi NEWUlND 1!1 SWANGER 20 ,SAVI'J.A 50<1300 50 x BOO 30X30 = = SUBTOTAL (RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS) 5660.S00,00 0, ENVIRONMENTAL IT]]^ DESCRIPTION 21 Procp':s~ing 22 MiliIJ31ion $ 5 00,000.00 SUBTOTAL (ENVIRONMENTAL) $ 501000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION ffiM'D'ESCRIPTION .. -.J SUBTOTAL (CM & I) 5 520,3.l~ 520,316,67 ;:) CM&I s Dt'\8t~it... F;.x Note 7671 ~ .c-- RO,IECT TOTAL $5.366.872.22 , /1'0'~;' (. 178,j:f,'5 C('l.Jr.ll~pr. r'hoM " Phono # -i2 - CJ..~;;?' Fax It EXHIBIT 60\ .,,~,... ,v.','" ""'~'" :..,...~~,;lIt1'~,"'l""-" ....~,..,.., ......:r, ..,..... "'If.. APR 25 '00 15:22 9099553164 PAGE. 01 ~rK 'O-UU WtU Uq." rn VU K I V II\HIX~ rUK I H I I UN .,~ "; rH^ NU, ~U~~~~jlOq PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE CAA1NAGE INTE.RCEPTOR. EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE. ROAD NEWLANO/SWANGER OPEN CHANNEL April 15, 2000 A. CONSTRUCTION lITEM IJESCR1PTION 1 M081LlZATION 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 3 ;URNISHING AND APPLY WATER 4 JACK & 801,E 10' X.15' BOX CULVERT 5 DETOUR PHASING 5 ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 6 SEWER SIPHON 7 WATER RELOCATION o EXCAVATION/EXPORT 9 RECTANGULAR 10' X 15' CONCRETE CHANNEL & APPURTENANCES 10 EROSION CONTROL CONTINGENCY (10%) QUANTlrt UNlT 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 100 L; 1 LS , 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 58,333 CY 2,000 LF 1 LS SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION) B. CRY UTILITY RELOCATION liTEM DESCRIPTION l' GAS 12 ELECTRIC 13 lELEPHONE QUANTITY UNIT LS LS LS SUB.TOTAL lORY UTILITY RELOCATION) C. RIGHT OF W^Y ANO EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRJPTION 15 NEWLAND 14 SWANGER 16 $AVAU 75 X 1200 75 X BOO 30 X30 . . , SUBTOTAL (RIG'lT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS) 0, ENVIRONMENTAL liTEM DESCRIPTION 90,000 60,000 900 sf sl sl COST/UNIT $20,000,00 $10,000,00 , S5,000,00 13,000,00 $50,,000,00 $100,000,00 $200,000,00 $100,000,00 $4,00 3650.00 $10,000,00 COST/UNIT $20,000,00 $50,000,00 150,000,00 $4.00 $15,00 $1.00 r. UOUi TOT ALl $20,000,00 $10,000,00 15,000,00 $300,000,00 150.000,00 1100,000,00 $200,000,00 $100,000,00 1233,332,00 51,300,000,00 510,000,00 ' $212.033,20 S2,5&1,165.20 TOTAL I 520,000,00 550,000,00 150,00.ChQ.Q.. $120,000,00 J $360,000,00 $900,000,00 . 1i900.00_ S',260.900.00 --~ $ 50,000,00 $ 5 so.aoo.oo I S 340,249.e.O . ~49/249.80 $4,34.1-:J1S:DO 17 Procesroing 1 a MiliQ.!lHon SUBTOTAL (ENVIRONMENTAL) E. CONSTRUCil0N MA.NAGEMENT & INSPECTION f'iTEM')ESCRlprloN '9 eM & I SlJSTOT A~ (eM & I) APR ,~6 '131316:22 PROJECT TOTAL 91399553164 PAGU12 ;:.'- }lJ1i / '-,J, W~ERBB 'AS'$ 0 C I ATE S ENCINE:~R1NG CONSULTANTS o Corporate Headquarters 3788 McCray Street Riverside. CA 92506 (909) 686-1070 Fax (909) 788.1256 o Regional Office 28481 Rancho Calif, Road, S(e, 106 Temecula, cA 92590 (909) 694.9250 Fax (909) 699.1032 W.O. 00-103 File No, 3043.49 June 6, 2000 Ms. Micheiie A. Staples Jackson, DeMarco and Peckenpaugh 4 Park Plaza, 16tl1 Floor Irvine, CA 92623-9704 RE: Assessment District No. 159 - Excess Funds Dear Ms. Staples: Mr, Rob Brown, representative of Newland, and I have calculated the total amount of excess funds available for a changed proceedings in Assessment District No. 159, It would be approximately $300,000. These excess funds are represented by authorized but unissued bonds that were intended for other facilities such as Highway 79, (the second phase), the on and off ramps at Interstate IS and Highway 79, and other facilities that have been constructed, The $300,000 excess funds have been assessed against only those properties that are within the original benefiting area for the Butterfield East Storin Drain Interceptor. , As you recall, originally there was approximately $3.5 million available in authorized but unissued bonds, but a good portion of this was represented by properties that were not in the originally assessed benefit area, and were represented l)y properties owned by Newland Communities that were north of DePortola Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road. Because those properties do not benefit from this improvement, these properties can not be included in a changed proceedings within Assessment District 159 and be assessed for that facility, -l ~"''1'ii'~ ~~n~"\i" ~,,;,>;~ 'r"! <",.f ':t.. 0,.;.<,,,[7 '\"1 11 Kl':.}':i\ f,(~~! k:1 ':.:] 1.1. I.:' ~,w--" .;A">< -., ,.. ....._ .. }.J Lilt> CIVIL ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ASSESSMENT I SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING. WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING''''' . _~___. _ .,... ...._. ._"._ to n..,..nr1""T1I"\1l..1 . TO ACt;"Ir CNr.1N1=~l:lTN(j. " 'i Ms, Michelle A. Staples Jme 6,2000 Page 2 We are in the process of evaluating the formation of a Community Facilities District for the purpose of funding the Butterfield East Stomi Drain Interceptor. We should have those costs and numbers available shortly. If you have questions regarding the above, please call me. Sincerely yours, ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES Q~ ') ~0D~ Paul Thompson , PT:kg cc; George Johnson, Riverside County Transportation Department Kelley Donovan, Riverside County Transportation Department Tony Carstens, Riverside County Executive Office Robert Krieger, Krieger & Stewart Dusty Williams, Riverside County Flood Control Department Steve Corona ... G:\2000100-o I031MAS,doc - M.uc D. Awt.\l'ItlEll BIUANW. c...ssUW' JOHN C. ComII's J-AAW R. DU.'j.:aro JOtf K. EGEKD)N ](..wNL. 5.Fli'i'! RoGu.M.FlV.~ HLl..!l'Ill.Fa..,m EOWAIlP A. G}UOWA)' M<<:K.w.S.Hl~ WIUJl,MM.H~stEY E Sam JIOjt)H Doucw.P.lJ.~ JORK M. lEvE:trn M.AuMM.o.1JK SHDILMAlll'U'f S~G.M.uoK \ JACKSON DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH, ^ LAW CORPORATION' -~ DA't1;D A. Ossnmux. TIJOMASD.P'Ecn:NP~K JOIOiPmo.Aslol GJlEGORfP.1Uc1l!ll CKlusrorHD. M. RoGERS CmAK.",,^,- CMoL P. Sav.ND.~ Nm_ C. Sonm: MJcmu: A. SlNUS SIWlOK L TAMIfA JO$lttfx. 'THoMnoff MlaLw. L Tmus WIllIAM J. T\ram PAUl.E. VAJfHOOMIml'f JENf M. WIWnI: WUTLAJCEVtu.ACIOrrlO1 4 PARK PlAzA. 16TH FLOOR IRVINE. CAllPORNlA 92614 J I J6'5 QAX CUST DRMl. Sum: 200 WU11.AJCE VlUAGl!. CAwOIU.ll.... 91361 TaL 818.574.1270 PAX 518.574.1272 ^ P. O. Box 19704 IRvtNE. CAul'oRNIA-92623.9704 Tu 949.752.8585 FAX 949.752.0597 www.jdplaw.com UWUNCE R. RzsmCK O'COI./NSEL REx A. McKrmuo:: """". \ Ot11ruJiNUMllI!K: 28878 August 3, 2000 I.MAIL: mstaples@jdplaw,com WUlER'S DOt.ECf DtAL 1'<<JMlIEA: (949) 851-7409 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr, Tony Carstens, Deputy County Administrator Mr. George A. Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation County of Riverside Post Office Box 1090 Riverside, California 92502.1090 Re:, Butterfield Intercel(tor Storm Drain. Assessment District No. 159 Dea:- Messrs. Carstens and Johnson: This letter is submitted on behalf of James and Mary Corona, their family, and related business entities, in response to the funding stntcture proposed by Newland Communities , for the Butterfield Interceptor Storm Drain. The Coronas appreciate your efforts to identify a plan for financing the mutually- agreeable alternative for the interceptor channel facilities, The Coronas remain agreeable to financially participating in a plan that fairly allocates the costs of the facilities and bases the Coronas' repayment obligation on their ultimate development approvals. The financing plan proposed by Newland Communities fails to achieve either of these goals, However, the Coronas support continued discussions among the County and affected property owners to identify a suitable financing plan. SummarY of Alternatives The County has identified three basic alignments for the proposed Butterfield Interceptor Storm Drain: (I) a channel on the Newland land at the west side of Butterfield Stage Road; (2) a chanriel through the Coronas' land at the eastern boundary of AD 159; and (3) a dual channel facility with one channel at the eastern-most boundary of the Coronas' land with a EXHIBIT 63 JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH , Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George A, Johnson August 3, 2000 P"ge 2 smaller, buried, intermediate facility through the Coronas' land at the eastern boundary of AD 159, The Flood Control District has confirmed the feasibility of installing and maintaining adequate facilities at all three alignments, The first alternative is the most cost effective for the County and the assessment di>trict. Any shortfall in funding would be borne by Newland as a condition of its development project, Specific Plan 219. Since the interceptor facility is a land use condition appurtenant to th~ Newland property, the necessary right-of. way through Newland's land could be acquired without the need for condemnation proceedings, As more fully discussed in our letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 13, 2000, when the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the entire development project requiring Newland's predecessor-in-interest to construct a flood control "interceptor" channel to mitigate project impacts resulting from its blocking storm flows that used to pass through the project site to Temecula Creek. Since the City of Temecula was ill':orporated, it has approved the same requirement as a project condition each time it has (jpproved amendments to SpecificPlan 219, most recently in 1999, Thus, to this day, the requirement to construct an interceptor channel adequate to transport the flood flows formerly conveyed in the natural drainage filled by the project remains the responsibility of Newland as th,: master developer of Specific Plan 219. Through a series of events documented in our April, 2000 letter, AD 159 was used as a vehicle to attempt to benefit the development project and shift the burden of constructing the interceptor channel to other landowners adjoining the development project, including the Coronas, Prior to constructing the necessary flood control channel, improvements were made to Butterfield Stage Road and the development project, resulting in blocking the natural drainage without creating an alternate route to Temecula Creek. As a result, a flood hazard was created on the Coronas' land within AD 159 that did not previously exist. , Recent studies by the Flood Control District confirm that the hazardous condition is not irreversible, The problem can be corrected by restoring the natural drainage through the construction of culverts beneath Butterfield Stage Road. A flood control channel can be installed on Newland's land to the west of Butterfield Stage Road to divert the flood water to Temecula Creek. This alternative would alleviate the CllITent flood risks to Butterfield Stage Road and the Coronas' land within AD 159, and would restore the Coronas' and Savalas'land to the condition that existed prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road. This alternative also has the benefit of relying primarily on vacant land under the possession and JACKSON DEMARco &PECKfu"'PAUGH Mr. Tony Carstens Mr. George A. Johnson August 3, 2000 Page 3 control of Newland that is already subject to a rand use condition that requires Newland to constmct the interceptor channel facility, Of course, since this alternative would have no flood control benefit to the Coronas beyond restoring their land to its original condition, the Coronas would not participate financially in such facilities, Newland opposes this alternative, The second alternative involves construction of a 70-foot wide open channel extending all the way through the Coronas' property. Newland calls this alternative the "original" AD 159 concept, even though the assessment engineer has confirmed that no facility concept or design was disclosed at the time that the assessment was imposed, This alternative is the most burdensome possible alternative, It would take productive farmland out of production, and would physically bisect the Coronas' land impairing their current farming operations and future development of their land, The Coronas and the Savalas oppose this alternative. Neither the Coronas nor the Savalas are willing toconvey the rights.of-way necessary to install such a burdensome facility. Unlike Newland's land, the Coronas' and Savalas' land has no associated condition requiring construction of the flood control facility as a condition of their land use, The cost projections for this alternative do not include the costs of eminent domain proceedings, fair market value of the land to be acquired, and severance damages, The third alternative is the only feasible alternative identified to date that is supported by Newland, the Coronas and the Savalas, This alternative involves constructing an open channel on the eastern.most boundary of the Coronas' land with a smaller, buried facility through the middle of the Coronas' land at a sufficient depth to allow farming and eventual comtmction over the top of it. This alternfltive is the most costly alternative. This alternative would capture the same storm flows that formerly drained through the Newland project. Since the interceptor channel would be constructed farther to the east, it would benefit a larger area than the land originally assessed for the interceptor channel under AD 159, including (but not limited to) additional acreage owned by the Coronas. The Coronas have offered to enter into a standard reimbursement agreement whereby they would pay their fair share of the costs of this facility as a condition of developing their land in the future. However, Newland is unwilling to construct the facility on such terms, Instead, Newland has proposed a financing mechanism whereby the Coronas' land would be subject to bonded indebtedness, with the repayment obligation deferred for up to ten years. JACKSON DEMARco &PECKEJ."'J?AUGH Mr, Tony Carstens Mr George A. Johnson August 3, 2000 Page 4 Amlvsis of Newland's Financing Proposal The Coronas have extensively evaluated the Newland financing proposal. Their due diligence has resulted in the conclusion,that the Newland financing proposal subjects the County and the Coronas to unreasonable risks of default. That is because, unlike the Newland project which has been built out with attendant profits realized, the Coronas' land is currently fannland with no development entitlements: Under the Newland financing proposal, Newland's share of the $5,6 million Mello-Roos Community Facilities District bonds would be under $1.6 million while the Coronas' share would be over $3.5 million, Although the fair market value of the Coronas' land is much higher, investors will evaluate the bond offering based on the assessed valuation of their land, Under the Newland proposal, the assessed value to lien ratio of the Corona land is upside- down (a ratio less than I) (reference attached Table I), Even if the bonds could be sold based on the investment potential of the Corona land, the Coronas would be forced prematurely into building on their fannland. In just J() years under the Newland proposal, assuming an interest rate of7,75%, the 'Coronas' debt obligation on their 161 acres would soar to almost $7.5 million (reference attached Table 2), with payments totaling well over $400,000 per year thereafter (reference attached Table 3), The Coronas remain willing to support flood control facilities that accomplish the developer's land use obligation while allowing the Coronas to continue their current agricultural land use and future development. They also remain willing to pay their fair share of flood control facilities that accomplish mutually beneficial goals, However, the Newland financing proposal would impose an unreasonable financial risk on the Coronas. The Coronasrequest that this matter be continued off the Board of Supervisors' agl:nda to accommodate 'further study and discussion of financing mechanisms. If the board takes action, the Coronas urge the County and/or Newland to fund the cost of the flood control facility alternative that is mutually supported and achieves the mutually-beneficial purposes of the affected landowners, subject to a standard reimbursement agreement by the Coronas, In the alternative, the Coronas urge the County to pursue construction of the int'erceptor channel on Newland's land. The Coronas' land has been placed in a flood risk condition that did not exist prior to the development of Specific Plan 219 and construction of the Butterfield Stage Road improvements, By contrast, Newland has benefitted from the development of Specific Plan 219 and construction of the Butterfield Stage Road improvements., The County has identified as a feasible alternative the construction of culverts through JACKSON DEMARco & PECKENPAUGH Mr. Tony Carstens Mr,George A. Johnson AUg'lst 3, 2000 Page' 5 Butterfield Stage Road and siting the interceptor channel on the Newland land. That alternative would relieve the existing flood risk to Butterfield Stage Road and the Coronas' land, place the facility on vacant land instead of taking, productive farmland out of production, and obtain a righ1:-of-way on land that is already subject to a land use condition requiring the owner to comtruct the flood control facility without the need to condemn the land from unwilling sellers. Your efforts toward identifying ,and implementing a mutually-agreeable interceptor channel alignment are greatly appreciated. We look forward to further discussions to attain that goal. Sincerely, Michele A. Staples MAS/jaa Enclosures 3762'3,1 cc: Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside (w/encls,) , City Council, City of Temecula (w/encls,) Mr. Stephen Corona (w/encls.) Tim Davis, Esq" Deputy County Counsel (w/encls,) TABLE 1 BUTTERFIELD EAST INTERCEPTOR VALUE TO LIEN RATIO Assessed Value Assessment Assesse,d ' Assessor's (RCAR) (Lien) Value to Owner Parcel No. Acres ($) ($) Lien Ratio Corona 952.150-002 20,34 200.512 505.105 ' 0,40 952.190.001 20,21 186.092 501.877 0,37 952-190-002 20,95 207,476 520.253 0040 952.190.003 20,05 198.545 497.903 0.40 ' 952.140-001 19,81 175.688 491.943 0,36 952-140-002 21,04 186.371 522,488 0,36 952.140.003 19,56 172.880 485.735 ' ' 0,36 Lumsdaine 952.130-002 22,01 ' 151.132 ' 491.695 0,31 Notes: RCAR: , Riverside County Assessor's Records: RAKlbIl C500/Bfzy01_,xlsNtoL (813/00) TABLE 2 CORONA'S SHARE OF MELLO.ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT DEBT BURDEN $3,525,300 7-314% Compound Interest Year Principal Interest Amount Due 1 ' 3.525,300 273.211 3.798.511 2 3,798.511 294.385 4,092,896 3 4.092,896 317.199 4,410.095 4 4,410.095 341.782 4.751,877 5 4.751.877 368,270 5,120.147 6 5,120,147 396.811 5.516.958 7 5.516.958 427,564 5.944.522 8 5.944,522 460,700 6,405.222 9 6,405.222 496,405 6.901.627 10 6.901.627 534,876 7,436,503 11 7,436,503 576.329 8.012.832 12 8.012.832 620,994 8.633.826 13 8,633,826 669.122 9.302,948 14 9.302.948 ' 720,978 10.023.926 15 10.023,926 776.854 10,800,780 16 10.800.780 837.060 11.637.840 17 11,637.840 901,933 12,539,773 18 12,539,773 971.832 13.511.605 19 13,511.605 1.047,149 14.558.754 20 14.558.754 1.128.303 15.687,057 21 15.687.057 1.215,747 16,902.804 22 16.902,804 1,309.967 18,212.771 23 18,212.771 1,411.490 19.624.261 24 19.624,261 '1.520.880 21.145.141 25 21,145.141 ' 1.638.748 22.783.889 26 22.783,889 1,765.751 24.549.640 27 24,549.640 1.902.597 26.452.237 28 26,452,237 2.050.048 28,502,285 29 28,502.285 2,208,927 30.711,212 30 30.711,212 2.380.119 33.091.331 NOTES: 1, With Compound Interest. principal amount increases by interest amount and amount due increases with increasin9 principal and interest amounts cumulated through any particular year, 2, Corona's share of $5.615.000 in Mello.Roos Community Facilities District bonds is $3.525,300. Lumsdaine's share is $491,700, and Newland's share is $1,598,000, RAKlbII C5001Bfzy01_,xlsl3525300 (813/00) M UJ -1' '" < ..., 0" UJ ... < () o '" 2 ::J --1 -1 "'< Q..(f) <0::: (/)0 00:: Oz ZW 20 _lL Om O:::W '" ::JQ .... wt-e:::: tJ~ 2<< -0: <::OUJ 0:::.... Ot/)>- ~~~o(J)Oo 0::: ZOO z :E Z. T" 00 ",<::JO'" ....m....Jw..J...Jmo::: a.z~E::06J:a: (/)W-Z...Jw<{t: ~ W~OUJuzz;:...J ;::wg:::<oo.....~ ez::....cD'wu..t-a::CI)o::: wz.....~>.....Oww o..-Q')a..I-Z0O::u. OI-~_zwOWw 0:::00....-- :: I- a.~o:::(/):J I-zO <(woo::~t--o:: zcu..w:Ew2:UJ""< o..Jw=>>OUJ:E~W "Wo(f)O(/) '1>- ou.::-~(/)<(~~LO oa:~zoowc"'" Ww:JogU'lZO::: I:",Q~.;"'<~ ::l....zocn<(c- ccm<...J~oOI- WU)..J..-g-z 0(1) LLf'" .0:: W w:: ,....W:: O2 gQ.>- X - .;.... <( Wo ...Za. ZO Wo _0 ::0 o '1)- >- UJ 0..... <(0:: o-cQ c..O::: .....-.0 w W ~~ o:::~ N a:: 0 ... < UJ >- o l2. o i;~ '" ao gE '" '" g~ '" ... 0- o~ '" '" 0- o~ '" '" 0- o~ '" '" g~ '" M 0- 0'" ",- '" 0- o~ '" ~ 0- 0'" ",- i: " E ,,- ,,~ " " " < .~ 0 02 . = "ii : e " .. <"- .0 ... <0 0> cO.v ~ <0 '" '" i.O 1.0- .0 ... <00> aj~ _<0 "'''' i.OLCi .0 ... <00> cri-.i ~<O '" <Xl to \0- '.0 ... <00> a::i~ '" '" <Xl U)- ll)- .0... "'0> ai-.i ~'" '" <Xl ILi \0- .0 ... '" 0> cri-.i -'" "'''' lri Lri '" ... '" 0> cO"'; -'" "'''' Ii")-..o "'... "'0> cOv ~ '" "'<0 .0 l/"j .0 ... "'0> cO-.i <<;~ Il')-Iri "'... <00> ro-<:i ~'" "'''' wiU"i " " ~ " < <0 ~ "'''' aiai N '" ",!o> ~..; ~U; ,....-.....- <0'" -a "'0 ~ fii -UJ"- ("') Q)fn'1;lOO -IJJc99 ~ G) 000 ~OCD\Olt) CJ))('t:l"7~ WGJNN mt):::J\OlO ......:s:cnm O.!!c <Q::J N '" ei '" <0. ~ - N <0 ei '" <0. ~ ~ N <0 ei '" <D. ~ ~ N <0 ei '" "'. - ~ N <0 ei '" <0. ~ ~ N <0 ei '" <0. ~ ~ N '" ei '" <0. ;:: N <0 ei '" <0. ;:: N '" ei '" <0. - ~ 0000 :>0 o 0 0 0 .;) 0 tOoC"io,-oo ..."'''' "'N ("'.iN....- "''''''' 0000000 0000000 cioc<iocjci6 ..."'''' '" N _ N"N'<t'- "''''''' 0000000 0000000 <Dot'icicicio ..."'''' '" N ~ NC'i-.:r- '" '" '" 0000000 0000000 <rioC"'iocicici ..."'.0 "'N_ NN~ "''''''' 0000000 0000000 <cicicoiocicic:i ..."'''' "'N_ N-N"'<t- "''''.0 0000000 0000000 c:ioooooo 0000000 0000000 oc:ic:icicicici 0000000 0000000 cicicicicicici 0000000 0000000 dc:icic:icicic:i N <0 ei '" <0. 0000000 0000000 cic:iciciddd ... ~ - ..;t.....IOIO.....V<O MC\lOlOlnOIO c:iciciciai~ai NC\lNN.....N..... oi ~ ... 0> .,; 0> <0 ~ f'f'-.lOlnMC"1(O (l)CO,...("')~.......... ...icDcoicoicoio:i..o ~~~gd';~~ an"':ci"':~C\I-ui OOC\lOlC>>Nln IOl.OlO..;t"l:f'l.O..;t 0> '" - " ~ .....N-.....N...... .U ~oooooo (QoU)OOOOOOO lL..-oooooooo U)>C::\OOlQ)Ol~~~ 0.-= 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,... ..... OC::~NNNNNNN O:::::I-lOl.OlOlOlOlOlO ~~~(J)OlQ)Q)OlOlcn ~ o.~ ~uo o <: -a ~ o o oi '" 0> ",' '" N <0 N '" <0 ci ... ~ o o oi <0 0> ai '" N <0 N '" <0 ci ... ~ o o oi <0 0> ai '" ~ N <0 N '" <0 ci ... - o o ai <0 0> ai '" N <0 N '" <0 ci ... ~ o o ai <0 0> ai '" ~ N <0 N '" <0 ci ... - o o o N <0 M '" <0. ~ o o o N <0 ei '" <0. - ~ o o o N <0 ei '" <0. ~ - o o o N <0 M '" <0. - - o o o N <0 ei '" <0. ~ ~ <0 "l - ;! M ~ ~ <0 - 0> '" ..; o M .; N '" M <0 '" o o o ci ,<0 '" .; Q u. U 0: ::0 a; ~ :s ~ " c: .. Ci 15 ID '0 '0 C o '" '0 ID ~ " " '2 ::J 'OM c8 .. . "'a "'''' " ~ ~ NO UJ~ ,g '8 t'i ro is a. m,E "... ~O"! ~;g c.", g.ui "," 01.8 '" ...' -'" Q , <~ 0. .....- 8~ x'C " C . .. >- - ~ Co 0<;> "0 ,,'" ::J,,;, (ij~ Eo> ,,- :n ~ .. ,Eo. E,g ~'" 1!<o EcO 0- E "'. ,,'" ::0'" o c.- -1N -1 ... :c:i 0'" u~. ..~ ~ E eg "'" " " ~ .~ E l!:! g fl S'~ Oom ;; 15 2 M '0 ID '" ~ c. 6' o ;;; <::! t::. '" X '0 l!:! l;, 'li Q " x " <; >- .t! "'l!! ~o ~~ o UJ ... <( u o en 2 ::> -...I ...I en<( Q..(J) <CO:: (1)0 GO:: Oz ZW 20 _LL OlD IrUJ CD.... ~C '... U UJ'" Ir U 2<(<( -n: <:!:W Ir", >- ~~5ci~~~ a::ZC(/)Z::JOI- QO..Jw:5...Jma:: ....00<(- <( Q..ZI-!::~~:Z: (/)W_Z...JW<el-o.. !!:!~gWUZZ;:J "'WOUJ::<OO...<( O::I-(D- LLI-a:::cno:: WZ,--'o.>t-OWO:: M Q.._Q'I I--ZUO::w W OI-,.:o..-WOWlL ...J o::tn.,.::>Z::......UJ Wa.<co::u>::J ZO <( <(WOO:E(/)I--O:: I- ZOu..W::~Z~<(W o ..J w ::J O"en w ~ O::~UcnO(/)::M>- OlL->~(/)<~r:.1l) OO:"",ZQOWOI- WW:JogcnZO:: I:",OIr .en<(<(o. ::q-Z6~<(c- aJm<..Ja,q,gol- ~~@Z;q~ffi W:: J-..W:: U ~a.>- )(~ ";1-<( Wo ~:Za. ~g ~C o~ >W o~ <(Ir 0<0 Ir "':ui fuW 0" lL M IrllJ N- 0:: 0 - <( UJ >- o ~ o ~~ ". a> o~ ". '" o~ '" .... ~~ ". <D t;~ ". '" ~E ". ... ~- oe ". .., ~- 0- ",- '" ~- 0- ",- ~ O~ ". c: " E ..- ..e " .. " <( ~ d 02 ::"ii : ~ " .. <(a. " " ~ " <( 'iii "'0 e:ii"cn " " '0 - " e 0."0 g.UQJ enx'O UJ " m:y~ .....,.l=fn C.!!c <(0::> '" .... <0 0> 05"'; _ <0 "'''' "I/')' u1 "'.... <0 a> cOv -<0 "'''' iii u"; '" .... <00> ai..r _ <D '" '" 1l).1rJ'" ,'" .... <00> cO"'; ~~ Ifi \0'" '" .... <00> cri- cO-.:i _<0 '" '" I.O-lt'l' "'.... <00> ai-ori _ <D "','" I(').~ '" .... <00> o:i ..r" <D '" '" l{)- to'" "'.... <0 a> cri..,j ~<O "'''' . .tri. tn'" "'''' <00> lXi-.i- _ <0 "'''' 1fi1L')- <O~ '" <D cno) N '" qa> ~'" ~U; r-:,...: <O<D '" 00 09 00 "'''' - - N N. "'''' a> a> N <0 "" '" <0. - - N <0 "" '" <0. - - '" <0 "" '" <0. - '" <0 "" '" <0, ~ - '" <0 M '" <0. - ~ N <0 "" '" <0. - - N <0 M '" <0. T-' ~ N <0 M '" <0. - N <0 "" '" <0. - ~ N <0 M '" <0. - - .... m - " a> .,; a> <0 ..r ..,. ~ a> '" - .. ~ 'ii .. u.!8 .. >- e o:=: 0 o e lD Ir"~ o E ~ ~!5:m ::;;CJO o <( 'iii o ... 0'0'00 00'0'0 0ciMM f"---q-l()a) t.t) N 'r" r--. C..iN V v" \Olt'll.O<O ")0 '0 b~g oa>". V r-'" M- <0<0<0 0'00'0'0'0'0' 0'0'0'0'0'0'0' u:iOMM""': '0 f"--"<Tl()aJOOJO ION ",",OalC\! NN-~""<T-..j"':M" l.t}1,()l.O <0 1.0 <0 co 0000'0'0'0 oooo~oo <ricicoiC"'i,...."":ci r-V\Oa:)OCOO l.(')N....,....omN ",iN.~.V~."""'ri 1.0 tOLO<O CO<O(l) 0000000 oooooc!o ~~f2g~rog lON....,....omN NN~4~-V-,.....rri 1.OI.OI.l)<O<O<O(O 0000000 oooooc!o a:ioMM,...:....ci t--~l.OtQocoa lON..-,....omN NN.-.;f_-.;f4-.;f-"":ri to LOI.l)<O C,O <0<0 0000000 ooaoo~a trioMM,...:....ci ,....~tOCOO(OO 1.l)C\l....t--omN N.N-.:t4V~4"':ri lOLOLO<O<O<O<O 0000000 0000000 a:iciMM"":""';ci r----.;fl.OtQoroo ION....f'-..OQ)N N. N- -q: -.i -.:t- ,.....-ri to LOI.O<O <OCO<P 0000000 ooooc?:c!o ~~~~b~g tON....,....OcnN NN-.i~.V"':ri 1.0101.0<0 co coco 0000000 0000000 t60MM"":"';O ,....~LO<OOCOO I.ON....,.....OcnN N-C'iVVV.r--:"ri 1.01.01.0<0 tD coco 0000000 oooC!o~o ~ciriM"':"""'ci ,.....-.:ttOcoocoo ION..-,....OcnN NN--q: ..,j..jr--:"ri I.OI.OI.OCOtD<Oco -.;f l,()l()....-.;fCO (")NcnO co 0\0 dciciciai""';m NNNN N.... ,....,....I.OCOMM<O O>(O....M"f ..- ~a:iriMMa:i..n Or-.I.OO-.rCOM tONcn-O)Vr- ~.....cir--:"~NIti OONO)(I)NtO LOI.OI.O'q"-.:tIO'o;I' N....NM 0000 0000 I I . . 0000 tOO)Q)C) .........-... ....... I I , I NNNN LO to to to CJ)mmm -"'''' 000 2:66 ;!;!;! , , , "''''''' "''''''' a> a> a> o o o ... 0> a; - ... N <0 "" N <0 6 '" .. o o o ..,. 0> a; ... N <0 M '" <0 6 M .. o o o ... 0> a; - ... N <0 "" '" <0 6 M .. o o o ... 0> a; ~ ... N <0 "" N <0 6 '" ..,. o o o ... 0> a; - ... '" <0 M N <0 6 M .. o o o ... a> a; - ... N <0 "" N <0 6 '" .. o o o ... a> a; ~ ... N <0 M N <0 6 '" ... o o o ..,. 0> a; ... '" <0 M N <0 6 M ..,. o o o ... en a; - ... N <0 M '" <0 6 '" ... o o ci ~ a; ~ ... N <0 M ". <0 6 '" ..,. <D "! ~ ... ~ '" ~ ~ <0 - 0> '" '" o '" .0 N '" ri <0 '" ci o o o <0 <0 ri o lL CJ a: ::;; 'iii ~ 'iii o ... '0 e .. (ij :c " '0 '0 e o CD '0 " " " " '2 ~ 'OM eO m 0 " 0 " '" " o . X,N UJ~ :g'a) (;j ~ o ~ ro~ '2 " " E ~ ~<O A.'" g. ui. "," a>.9 '" .... '" Om <{a> c.. -- 8~ X'O " e . m >- Co 00 ,,0 "'" ::>- N 'iii", ea> :;; :E @ .. .2 a. E 0 ,,- '0'" e<O E oi 0- E "'. ,,'" ::;;'" o 0.- ...IN --' ... :0 0'" CJ- ...~ e E " 0 o ~ cO:;; Ir " cr; "5 g ~ '" 8 ~ "2:' o :g ;,; o 2 M '0 N " 0> m a. 0- " <0 g on '" '0 ~ ~ " e " " " ;; ~ "'CD eo .~o CUl o w ... < o rn is- 3 z..J 0." - <( V) V)'" "0 <'" Oz cr~ 20 zw 01Il -",0 1Il... ....0 UJ:)~ 0- z....<( -'" <<w ::... 0::;;>- ~V)~cifJ)U)o o:::zooz:!:o,... oo."<::>z'" .....ro --!:!:..J...J 0 e:::: 0. <"'''''''IIl< (/)W~!z:J[U<(:cD: !!:!~OwoZz.......J "'w8::;;<00:E;2 o::....u:rwu.....O:: wz.....J>-t-o....a:: d.-Ol~t:zoffl~ O....,,=-zwoa:w ~~~cn:l:E....wo <( woo :E ~ .....!z e::: ZOl1.W~wffi-<( o..Jw:lO(t)-=:,~UJ a::~(,J(I')U(l)"::~>- OlL.;-!!2(/)<~MU) uo:::,>zooUJ' .... w!~:>og(/)""'o::: ~':rlZCO;:ftJ~~~~ :J' 0 <n........._ 'm:ii<(...JU'J~o"""'.... 1.1JU)...J'I"""gooz I:J (I) W.... w w w:E ~ii:::?E Uz ow> X - ~.a.. <( Wc) .......0.. ZO ZO -q, Ww g~ :EO:: 0<0 >0:: ~ui <W o~ n.lJ. M WW N a:O .. a: < W >- <> !2. .. o~ ... <> g~ N .. g~ N '" ~~ N .... g~ N '" ~~ N '" S~ N '" .~ ~. N M Se N N g~ N ~ ~~ N c .. E =~ .. " " < ~ ci oZ :4; .. u " ~ " .. <0. " .. ~ u < .. c'O ~ain ., ,,'0 -" c: ~ B 0 " x OJ "'W'O mo~ .....:5: 0" '- ,_ c: ...;0::> 00 '" - aiol '" '" "'''' -q-- to ...... - ~ "'... "'''' cci-o:i ~'" "'''' ln~ U)" "'... '" '" a:i~ , - '" '" '" ~-tO "'.... "'''' cri~ -'" "'''' to-lt')- "'.... <0 '" a:i~ ~ '" '" '" ..0 ..ri "'.... "'''' cO"; ~'" "'''' ..0 1O- '" .... "'''' cci~ _ '" '" '" ui li')- '" .... ~~ '" ",' ~ '" "'''' Iri' In- "'.... "'''' al~ '" "'''' 1.0- 10- "'.... "'''' cri-.i- ~'" '" '" .anlrf "'.... "'''' 0;"'; -'" '" '" lli 10- <0 "'''' cioi '" '" ~'" -.i '" - 0'" ,....-,....- "'''' ~M 00 00 00 '" '" ~ ~ . . '" '" "'''' "'''' o '" oj o on o "' M 0000 "0 OOCO 0 oouic:i.. ...ei OONU)'VNO vOCOtO tOO v'~C"iL.{)-6cri"V- o !.OC!'l co 1.(')<0 o(").(').("').""!N..C").N. '" '" M '" "'. - ~ 0000000 0000000 cDOr1M""':""":d r--v\t'Jcoocoo IO("\I.....,....OO)N ".; N -.i "Ct- "<T-""'- M- 1.010 10(0 (0 to (0 N '" M '" "'. ~, - 0000000 ooooo~o ~~~g~~g I,() N.......r---OCr>N N.N" '<:t'.V. "<J>.t-.: C""J. I,() I,() I,()CO<D<OCO N '" M '" "'. ~ 0000000 0000000 <ooMMr--:.....:o r---vlOCOOCOO lONT""r---OCr>N N.NV.V.oq:,....-ri I,()l,()lO<D<DCO<D N '" M '" "'. ~ ~ 0000000 ooooC!C!a c.6dc-i(l"jr---.......o I'vtt'laJOcoo l.ON.......r---OOlN N N. "<J>."<J>- oq:,....C"; tt'll.Ol.OtOCOCO<D N '" M '" "'. ~ ~ 000-0000 ooooC!~o criOMMr--- d I'vtt'lCOOa)O l.ON.......r-OcnN N. C"...i "-"<J>. v.,..: ri 1.0 I,() tt'l<O <0 <0<0 N '" M '" "'. :=: 0000000 0000000 criOMC"'i,....:~d r---vl.OaJocoo tnN.......I'OCr>N N.NV.VV."':C"'i \O\Otn<O<O<O<D N '" M '" "'. ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 cOdC"'iC"'ir--:~ci I'vtncoocoo l.ON.......r---OcnN e-,; N oq: '<:1'. v."': ri lOlOt.n<D<O<OtO N '" M '" "'- ~ - g"8 g g g 8 g tcicicoiC"'i"":""':d I''<:t'lOCOOCOO tnN.......r---OcnN N- N. -.:r.-v. ..,j""': ri LOlOlO<O<O<DCO N '" <<i co "'. - 0000000 0000000 c6cicoiC"'i""':"":d r--vIl)C:OOalO I{)N.......r--OcnN NN "'<t'"v. "'<t'.t-.:ri tntnl.O<D<DCO<O r'- ~ ai' ~ V.......lOl{) MNO"IO 0000 NNNN "'''' a)C!U') cri......cri ~N~ .... en .0 en '" -.i M I'r--lOa)("')M<D O! CO:.......C'1 '<:1''''''''""" 6~~g~~~ CONOl(J)-.:r,.... I,() 0'''': .N.\ri OONO)mNal I,() lOlO'<t'<:1'lO'<t '" "' - " ~ :a ~ " 0 U.{16 4'1 >- C U') 0:::: 0 ~ OCCDN a:;:::J_U') g~:Em ~8a c;~8o~8 000000 606666 mmmv"'<t"v ............................... T"" , , . . I I NNNNNN IOlOl,()ll)l()U'} mmm01O)01 o ...; <ii ~ o o .0 '" '" ri ... o '" M "', ",. '" '" 0'- ai o o o '" en oj' - '" N '" M N <0 ci M '" o o o '" '" oj' - '" o o o '" '" cO ~ v N '" M N '" o M '" N '" M '" co o M '" o o o '" .. oj' ~ v N <0 M N '" o M V '" '" M N '" o M '" o o o v '" cO - v o o o '" '" cO ;; N '" M N <0 '0 M '" 0, o o ~ oj' '" '" <0 M '" '" ci M '" o o o v '" cO ;; N '" M '" '" o M '" o o o '" '" oj' ~ '" N '" M l<I ci M '" o o o '" '" oj' ~ '" '" "! '" - '" '" M N <0 o M '" M ~ '" '" '" -.i o M .,;- N '" ri '" '" o o o o '" '" ri o u. o '" ::E <ii ~ m 15 ... '0 c: .. 5 ., " '2: ., " :0 ., '0 '0 c: o co '0 '" " " '" '2 ::J '0 " " " " 8M xO WO o :Qtn ~ - ~N o:g <ii-.; c 0 ., :;; E 0. .2 ~ 2:.E ".... "'''' ",-.i ",,,, ~'" 0.0 ...;'" 0...9 25 ~. "~ g ;:;,........ c~ 0-0 '" c: " " ::>~ rog c: . ~~ c:~ - . ~'" .e~ E .g~ c: '" f! 0. o ~ E.2 .,'" ~.~ o.~ -' "'. -'", '''' "8 .9 ""~ "0 ;:", o~ 05", ",'" a: E e,g g-o '" " " tii .;; o ~ ;,; o z M '0 M " en .. 0. o o iO N is "' X '0 ~ .l! " o <;; x ,.:, <> >- 'N =cc ~o i2~ ......0;1'011:. ................ 't "'. "'0""" o. ",..e"",,,ulI:" ~... .......0.....:1 "........ w, C...,.SIl:"...y .10.... C. CO"'0"'5 "'.....CS ", O.........~:O "'0" "'. CCC.....SO" ..ooe.... '.........1 "1[..II:"C:t. "......SL COW"'.O "'. O....l.l..I)W"''' ...C......C.. S. "C"C C"SO" _.............. ..C...SI.CY ,. S<;,0""".I",<;''''50'' 00"'0......" .......U.U... "'0....... """'C"C'''' ... .....,.........,'" $..e..... ...",.....,.. ,JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH A LAW CORPORATION ST!;~"C" a. ......0.. "",T" ... .....,...S...OVOC 0"'''''''' .... OSSI:NT.I..... T"0""'5 O. ..I:I:I'IC........"'O.. "'0..... ..t;T.....s.C.. a.Cooo"" ", .1:13'11I:" C....S'O'O....C. .... "'OGI:"'S c:.............. ............ c..."'a....,sc.......C'" ........o.Cw I: sc.."'TL 0.........0 C. s..,Y.. ...,C..C..C....ST........&S .......0.. '..' T.....'..... .lUST,..,.. T..O....SO.. ...,.:......11I:.. ....T'OU. ,...'....,....... "'. "V"'~'Y ....y.. C. "...... ..oa...,ssc.. "'C..........,........'T.. "" 1''''-'''1'1 p\.AZ.... . re'" ,,-OOR 1'0$1' O......lCe:: BOX 19704 It=lVINe:, CAl.lFORNIA 92623-97004 [9491 75z.eS6S FAX; 194'il1 75Z-0597 COMMENT LETTER FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING -- APRIL 18,2000 REGARDING BUTTERFIELD EAST INTERCEPTOR STORM DRAIN, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 Submitted by Michele A. Staples, Esq. on behalf of James and Mary Corona and the Corona Family April 13, 2000 \ll!:N'O'UAA COUNTT O"'''CI!: zeo N, WI!;$T\.AI'l!: e..vo. SUITE: 200 WI!;STl.....KIIt v''-l..Aoc:: c....\.r,..OAN... 'ill.3eiZ . 18051 Z30.002:3 ...""x: la051 ':!.30.0087 ..ex A. ..c..'Tl'....:.. .0;"'''<;0 WQIT1!:A'S OIQe::CT 01""1.. NUMl!Il!:"'. (949),.m~1~09 mstaolesln)jdp law ,com 6UR 'irLc: NUI'lB!:I'I: 28878 / ,/ JACKSON. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I. INTRODUCTION . . .. .. ' . . , . .. . , .. . , . . , . . . , , . . . . , ' . . , . .. . , . , ' , , . . , . . . , , , 1 II. THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL'SDESIGN IS NOT PROPERL Y DICTATED BY THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE IN AD 159 SINCE NEWLAND IS RESPONSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCEPTOR CHA.NNEL TO MITIGATE THE FLOOD HAZARD CREATED ON THE CORONAS' LAND. ' . , . . . . , . . . , . , . 1 III. THE CORONAS ARE NOT PROPERLY ASSESSED FOR THE COST OF THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL .........,.."........,.......,..,"",.....,' 3 IV. APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE EMINENT DOMAlN LAW, . . , . . . . . . . . . , . , . . , , . . . , . ' . . . . . . , ' , . . . . . . , . , . . , 4 Y. APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT "..,.,......""....,...,5 VI. CONCLUSION, . . . . , . . . . , , . . . . , . , . . . . , . , . , . , ' . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . , . . , , , 6 JACKSON. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUG H 1. INTRODUCTION We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the "Ccronas"), The Coronas own land at the northeast comer of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. The Coronas' land straddles the boundary between the County and the City ofTemecula. About 20 acres of the Coronas' land is within Assessment District 159 CADI 59") and the remaining 145 acres is outside of ADl59 On April 12, 2000, the Coronas received the Submittal to the Board of Supervisors in which the Riverside County Transportation Department requests that the Board of Supervisors initiate proceedings to approve the construction of a 70-foot wide open flood control channel all the way through the Coronas' property and authorize additional funding for the facility, The charmel would bisect the Coronas' land, severely impairing both their ongoing farming operation and eventual development of the land, The recommended motion is the latest in a series of actions taken by AD 159 to benefit a Ternecula developer at the expense of the Coronas, By this letter, the Coronas urge the Board to deny the recommendation and instead require development in the City of Temecula to pay its own way. As discussed below, the Coronas specifically request that the Board of Supervisors deny the request to pre-approve the recommended alignment and design of the interceptor channel. Approval of the interceptor channel at this time would effectively predetermine the out:ome of mandatory hearings and environmental proceedings, thereby subjecting the County to legal liability for violating the California Environmental Quality Act and the Eminent Domain Law and for damages to the Coronas, II. THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL'S DESIGN IS NOT PROPERLY DICTATED BY' THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE IN AD 159 SINCE NEWLAND IS RESPONSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL TO MITIGATE THE FLOOD HAZARD CREATED ON THE CORONAS' LAND Prior to the construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stage Road improvements, sto:rm water flowed to the north,ofthe Coronas' land . , s Buttertield Stage Ro;,d, and through the Specific Plan 219 propert see Document 6, attached, As a result, when the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the project requiring the developer to construct a flood control channel either on-site or off-site to intercept those flows ~~ Documents 3, 4 and 10, attachedprhe County likewise imposed mitigation measures on the project to prohibit increased flood hazards to adjacent or downstream properties and require that all flood-related hazards must be adequately mitigated (reference EIR 235, pp, 315-321, incorporated by reference). The City of Temecula adopted the County's condition of approval for Specific Plan 219 that the developer construct the interceptor channel either on-site or off-site. The City first , adopted the condition in' 1991 -- the same year that the County approved the supplemental JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH assessment for AD ]59, Each time the City ofTemecula has approved amendments to Specific Plan 219 since then (most recently in 1999), it has conditioned its approval on the pre-existing conditions, and has never released Newland of the responsibility to construct the interceptor facility, Instead of constructing the interceptor channel, the record indicates that the Newland's predecessor included the facility on the "wish list" for facilities to be constructed with funding from the AD ] 59 supplemental assessmen (see Documents 6 and 9 attachedbDevelopment of the Specific Plan 2 i9 has resulted in filling the natura amage course t at formerly flowed to the north of the Corona Ranch property within AD 159, across Butterfield Stage Road, through Spe:ific Plan 2]9, to Temecula Creek. Butterfield State Road improvements were constructed, by AD 159 to accommodate the development's alteration of the natural drainage pattern. Newland proceeded to fill and construct homes on land that once served as the drainage area for the upstream properties, including Corona Ranch" Those improvements now act,as a dam blocking storm water that o,nce flowed across Butterfield Stage Road and Specific Plan 219, A flood hazard has been created on that portion of the Coronas' land within AD 159 where none previously existed, The interceptor channel will serve only to mitigate the hazardous condition created on the Coronas' land by construction of Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements, It would not benefit the Coronas' land, Newland realizes a significant financial benefit by having the facilities funded and constructed by AD ] 59 and by shifting a disproportionate portion of the financial burden onto adjoining property owners, including the Coronas. The staff report wrongly considers the funds remaining in AD ] 59 to be the sole source of ' funding for the interceptor channel. As a result of this error, staff concludes that there is only one financially feasible option for constructing the interceptor channel. , The alternative recommended is the most burdensome alternative possible to the Coronas, It consists ofa 70-foot wide,' I,OOO-foot long open channel bisecting the Corona Ranch, No bridges are proposed to "link" the severed lands as necessary to move fann equipment and other vehicles from one side to the other. No consideration is given to the severance damages that would be due to the Coronas for the adverse economic impacts to their present and future uses of the land. As stated in the correspondence from Newland's attorney, Newland is quickly selling off its remaining land holdings, Who will be responsible for the costs of severance damages to the Coronas after Newland is gone? Other feasible alternatives exist that would reduce the burden to the Coronas, If the facUity must be placed on the Coronas' land, the impacts to the Coronas would be minimized by burying the channel at least four feet below ground to allow the Coronas to fann over the top. The County has rejected one such proposal (Alternative I) as technically infeasible because the proposed double box culverts buried four feet deep would not have enough "fall" to efficiently trarlsport storm flows to T emecula Creek. 2 .JACK50N. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH The adverse impacts to the Coronas would be alleviated if the interceptor channel is con~:tructed on the Newland property, In its staff report, the County has concluded that such an alignment of the interceptor channel would work, but rejected One such proposal (Alternative 6) as too costly in 1ight of the available funding in AD 159, However, those costs could be significantly reduced if an open channel was to be constructed on the Newland property similar to the open channel proposed to be sited on the Corona property, No such analysis has been made, Instead, Alternative 6 calls for construction of more costly buried triple box culverts on the Newland property, Clearly, there are feasible alternatives to the one that is recommended for approval that would reduce the burden to the Coronas. Newland remains legally responsible for constructing the interceptor channel as part of Spedfic Plan 219. Newland is not entitled to the least expensive alternative for the storm drain, espc,cially where the least expensive altemative is also the most burdensome to the Coronas. Therefore, there is no basis for the County to restrict the design of the facility to the amount of funding available in AD 159, III. THE CORONAS ARE NOT PROPERLY ASSESSED FOR THE COST OF THE INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL The recommended motion would authorize commencement of a change proceeding to incr'~ase the authorized funding for the interceptor channel and issue additional bonds in AD 159, For the following reasons, the Coronas oppose the assessment of costs against their land for the interceptor channel. Special assessments cannot be levied against real property that does not benefit from the improvement being financed. Each property within the area subject to the assessment may only be assessed a share of the costs of the improvements that is proportional to the benefits it receives from those improvements. Any supplemental assessment imposed under AD 159 will need to comply with the substantiv~ and procedural requirements of Proposition 218 (California Constitution Articles XIII C, XIII D), including notice and election. Since Newland has sold much of the land it formerly owned within AD 159, there are now numerous landowners within the area subject to the supplemental assessment -- not just the four landowners listed at page 2 of , the :;taff report. For several reasons, any assessment imposed on the Coronas' land for the costs of the interceptor channel under AD 159 is illegal. , , First, the proposed interceptor channel does not benefit the Coronas' land. Rather, it would restore the Coronas' land to the condition that existed prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and the improvements to Butterfield Stage Road that were designed to accommodate Specific Plan 219, As a result, the Coronas are not properly assessed for the costs of the " J JACKS ON, DEMARCO& PECKENI"AUGH interceptor storm drain, Second, the cost allocation among the landowners proposed to contribute toward the costs ofth<; interceptor channel is unfair. All of the Coronas' acreage wIthin AD 159 would be asse;.sed for the costs of the interceptor channel. Virtually none of that acreage was ever subject to flooding in a I DO-year storm event prior to construction of Specific Plan 219 and Butterfield Stagl: Road improvements that blocked the natural drainage channeL The Coronas therefore bear a disproportionate share of the costs of the interceptor channel. IV, APPROV AL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE EMINENT DOMAIN LAW By approviflg the interceptor channel as proposed, the recommended motion would effec:tively predetermine the outcome of the mandatory hearing required to be conducted by the , County prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land'pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law, Before it can adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County must conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a finding that the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, Code of Civil Procedure section 1245,230, By approving the siting and design of the interceptor channel on the Coronas' land at this time, the County will illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatory hearing, Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on the Coronas, The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created on their land and would not benefit from the interceptor channel. The Coronas would be burd,ened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing farming operation and related commercial land uses, The channel would effectively sever their landholding into two separate parcels. Newland would realize an undue benefit. Newland would be relieved of its obligation to construct the flood control channel as part of Specific Plan 219, A portion of the facility has , been subsidized by the Coronas who will realize no benefit from it. In addition, Newland has already profited by building on and selling land that previously provided drainage for the Coronas' property, Approving the recorIunended motion would preclude public notice and comment on other feasible alternatives that could accomplish the greatest public good with less private injury, For example, restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road and siting the interceptor facility on Newland's property would restore the Coronas to the condition they were in prior to development of Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. It would also impose the burden for complying with the flood control condition of Specific Plan 219 where it 4 JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH belcngs - with the developer ofthafproject. And it would accomplish the goals set forth in the staffreport to "provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and dov.nstream properties," The Coronas have repeatedly requested that the County consider the alternative of restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road, The Coronas and Leonard Sav:lla, another landowner within AD 159, have provided the County with analyses demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of such an alternative. However, the Comty has failed to consider the alternative until a few days ago and, although concluding that it would work, summarily dismissed it as economically infeasible, Upon closer examination, it is evident that the County is not comparing "apples to apples," In estimating the costs of "ALernative 6" that would restore the natural flow through Butterfield Stage Road, the County proposes, a costly underground triple box culvert running through Newland's property, However, in e5timating the costs of the so-called "original alignment" of the interceptor channel, the County proposes a rellltively inexpensive open ditch running through the Coronas' land. As a result, the lopsided comparison artificially inflates the costs of restoring the natural drainage as compared to the proposed facility, The only cost difference between siting the facility on the Coronas' land and on Newland's land is the incremental difference of restoring the flow through " culverts in Butterfield Stage Road, That cost was recently estimated by KEC Engineering to be $411,352, In order to ensure that the project is properly planned and sited in conformity with the requirements of the Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be considered at the public hearing, Without considering other feasible alternatives, at the mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find that the project is sited in the manner that will be roost compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. V, APPROV AL OF THE RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT Approvalofthe motion would predispose the outcome of mandatory enviroiunental proceedings under the California Environmental Quality Act. It is'illegal for the County to approve the location and design of the interceptor channel without first preparing a subsequent environmental impact repcirt, A subsequent environmental impact report is required when a project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment and when there are substantial changes to a project for which an environmental impact report was previously prepared, When it authorized the supplemental assessment in 1991, the County did not specify the location or design ofthe storm drain and other modifications to the original AD 159 facilities. Rat:ler, it only generally described the facilities to be funded by the supplemental assessment and included funding for environmental impact reports, feasibility studies and engineering plans (ref~rence Resolution ofIntention No, 91-553, page 6), The modifications to the AD 159 , facilities, including the proposed interceptor channel, constitute substantial changes to the 5 JACKSON. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH original projectnecessitating the preparation of an EIR. The project, as proposed, would have significant adverse environmental impacts, including (but not limited to) altering natural drainage patterns. redirecting flood flows, and converting existing farmland to non.agricultural use, Our research indicates that no EIR has been prepared to date for the proposed interceptor channel. CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects (Public Resources Code section 2] 002), Proj<~cts to be carried out by public agencies are subject to the same level of review and consideration under CEQA as private projects required to be approved by public agencies (Public Resources Code section 21001.1), By eliminating from further consideration all other potentially feasible alternatives except' the proposal to construct the storm drain as an open channel through the Coronas' land, the recommended motion would illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatory alternatives analysis required to be conducted by the County pursuant to CEQA. VI. CONCLUSION The recommended action effectively removes from public review and comment any alternative to the interceptor channel besides the proposed project. It also imposes undue hardship on the Coronas and undue benefit on Newland, The Coronas urge the Board to deny the recommended action and instead require development within the City of Temecula to pay its own way instead of shifting that burden to the County and adjoining landowners. Approval of the motion would subject the County to legal liability for violating the Eminent Domain Law and the California Environmental Quality Act, and for damages resulting to the Coronas from the proposed interceptor channel project. Respectfully submitted, ~IU~,j.,-,(l ~~;::Ud Michele A. Staples MAS/jaa Enclosures 358739,1 cc:Mr. Stephen Corona Mr. George A. Johnson Tim Davis, Esq., Deputy County Counsel 6 JACKSO N. DEMARCO & PECKEN PAUGH CHRONOLOGY AND SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS Submitted on Behalf of the Coronas No Description Date I. The Developer submitted Specific Plan 219 to the County of Riverside 1987 and omitted the largest drainage flow that existed on BedfordlNewland development, east to west, between Highway 79 & DePortola Road in Temecula, CA. 2. The Flood Control advises the Developer that based upon areal 4/6/88 photographs dating back 39 years and topographic mapping dating back 49 years, the drainage plan regarding DePortola and Butterfield ,0 Stage Road "should be reexamined, These matters should be settled before this specific plan is approved," , , The developer's engineers propose an earthen "trapezoidal channel" 5/16/88 ,'^ J. along Butterfield Stage Road on the Coronas' property. The Coronas were not informed of this "plan," 4, The Flood Control District advises the developer that its representation 5/26/88 , ," of the trapezoidal channel "should be considered conceptual with regard to location and design and the design flow rates and sizes should be regarded as estimates, This facility should be constructed as a, permanent facility either onsite or offsite before development of the downstream area it is meant to protect." 5. A letter from the Flood Control District to the County Road 9/1l/89 Department commenting on the hydrology calculations for the project stating that "Astomi drain will have to be installed from the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road to Temecula Creek since Assessment District 159 is no longer building a facility in this location," 6, The District acknowledges "that drainage thought to drain in a 11/8/89 southerly direction actually drains onto Bedford's [now, Newland's] property, The CFS flow for that area needs to be upgraded because the ,Flood Control did not define direction of flow earlier on, An open channel will be designed for that area," Although continuing to mention an open channel as a solution, the location is not determined. 7, The Flood Control District informs the developer that "the storm drain 11113/89 system in the southeast comer ofthe [Specific Plan 219] will have to be completely re.designed due to the absence of an outlet point." I , JACK50N,DEMARCO&PECKENPAUGH , 8, The developer resubmitted the Master Plan of Drainage, still excluding 1/4/90 the southern watershed, 9, Deadline for the "wish list" for the Supplemental Assessment. 1/17/90 10, The City ofTemecula adopts the County Flood Control requirements 1991 for drainage facilities as a condition of approval for amendment to Specific Plan 219, II. A letter from the Flood Control District to the City of Temecula -- 9/23/96 "Our district is wrestling with the disposition of approximately 3000 cfs, This is the result of an omission from the infrastructure constructed by assessment District 159, This flow was planned to be intercepted upstream from Butterfield Stage Road and routed to Temecula Creek, across Highway 79, in an open, conCrete lined chanhel facility, Consideration must be given to the conditioning of , Tract 24 182, and whether these County conditions would require that tract to solve the problem, provided the necessary facility had not been constructed by Assessment #159," (Coronas were not advised of this "plan,"), 12, A letter from the Flood Control District to the City ofTemecula, 10/16/96 Pressure is being placed on the City and County to allow the developer to continue their development with the interim basin without mitigating the' flooding hazard created on the Coronas property, 13. RanPac requested a meeting with the Coronas and submitted a plan to 1118/96 place the channel in the middle of the Coronas property which would cut the Corona's farm in half, 14. A letter from the Coronas' engineers, Krieger & Stewart, to the 7/3 0/97 Department ,of Transportation outlining alternatives for an interceptor channel that would minimize impacts to the Coronas' current and future land uses. Two of the alternatives were ultimately rejected by the County and one was not studied until a few days ago (restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road with the facility on Newland's property), 2 JACK50N. DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH 15, A memorandum to John DeGange, City ofTemecula, Project Planner, from Gerald Alegria, Ass!. Engineer, "Conditions of Approval .- Item 32 .- "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. Runoffshall 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 proiect. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years," 16, Letter from Coronas' attorney to County requesting CEQA notices and 7/17/97 , documents, , 17. Letter to the Coronas from George Johnson rejecting two of the 211 7/00 alternatives, and failing to address the alternative of restoring the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage Road previously requested by the Coronas, 18. Coronas' letter responding to George Johnson's correspondence 3/14/00 requesting that the County consider the proposed alternative to restore the natural drainage through Butterfield Stage road with the channel on the developer's property, ' ~ oJ ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED LlABllfTY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROfESSIONAl,. CORPORATIONS 41530 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH, SUITE 120 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590-46n MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 296-5000 F AC$IMILE: (909) 296.5006 Offices in San Diego, and TemecuJa, California ," c:n [-/i.:::\ '-.'. . b [,;'(i\,\;~'! F-'.,.-.. :, (":: ill /jh;-;/_,-~(f January 10,2001 ~ ~.r_:: lY)((cri~C SAMUEL c, AlHAoEFF .~. "sALiiAbEiF@7ISrA\'l1:em -,~ ~ (909) 296-5000 Yesterday "li:21'n( , ,9103,OO~ t D' , ' .., "'''Yi,: on ",,;r'SS"len' ICl'rl ..._ __. - '::_ 1 ..-,.\... II ..J , , , 'c'" , e. "Con's let"er conrer' , _.._, : i:U,llj)_l I t _ I ,:,::,- V:s willnbthavea pro perl .' ~',:i':~Y jfh. I am supposed t ','- "-"1' -Iln"n-r on'Tuns"ay' I _':.:: l...l:c[,id I Ie c; u . Mr. Tony Carstens County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Mr. Kelly Donovan County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Butterfield Interceptor Channel Dear Gentlemen: As you know, we have been working with you concerning the Butterfield Interceptor Channel ("Channel"). I know that the Assessment District 159 property owners meeting has been continued. However, in discussions with Dean Meyer yesterday, we would like the opportunity, on behalf on Newland Communities, to meet with the appropriate people to discuss the new alternatives that have been suggested with regard to the Channel. Weare hoping that we Clm have this meeting in the next few days. Please feel free to contact either Dean Meyer or myself to arrange for the meeting, We assume that the County would want to have the three of you involved in the meeting and perhaps, any other person that may be necessary in reviewing this matter. We would also like to suggest that Mr. Stahovich be present for this meeting. ~~ Samuel C. Alhadeff, of ~ ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP SCA:sld ce: Mr, Stuart McKibben Mr. Dave Stahovich :IDAT AICLIENTSlNEWLAND COMMUNITIESICARSTENS LEITER OI,IO,DQC :lO-C..-UI ) , ft,\A,IlCt). AJ.u.......D~. ~~'.aII,',~lUS BIU.......:~.(;.<>:.J(IU.... 1\aH",C.CIISIM.I W1Uf!.OIl-WO' KAN"\.~. F.,.t ltuC;U~,.f"""'KJ HlUf'IlZ.F........U ~_...uuJ'A.G.u.Ll)W..... . MtC14..n S. HblbUSo.'IO . WI~\.I"'" M. Htl'C""-'-U F.$c:"rrJ..c!tJ."" D.lUGUJ.'.l..o.r<DJl\1., J..";\I"'.~"(U" M-ALQ.lMoWIt So1tNL,,,,,,,,,,,,,, STt,,"(:~G. foi,.uU"; . IU:4lSam T-B96 POOT/02B F-096 ~rom-Buthalt- ~emer.Fieldi' Youn,er +949 251 170T JACKSON DE~CO & PECKENPAUGH ., t.., 'b' ,"'OK"OK.'TIO~ L...""",X..).tc.A",'" D.....DA.OHt:'>"T'VI( lK~ D.PfCU_...Uc:.tl JnN"'~lo(:tl GI.l!WAV'. Rtc.oO M.llu~l.""n_ c..,,:u.ILRnw. Jl.A1"U<tA..sc..u.\ _O!U.'Wc:.SatI"TZ. MJCNELtA.SUhlS D......,."NW'.$1....... $....Jl;u'" L. 1.....ln.. M1C:"~Ll.llDVI WIlLlAJ'lJ.IuvIT ,..VI.. f. V~ H......IUlfol JLuI to\. WI.U'T" W"[PlAXIVllv.GtO".C! 4 p,I,JkA F>LA2A. 16TH FLOOA III.VI,.n:.C.u.lfQ~1A 92614 ) 1)6' OAll CltI:n DIl...-l. SIItJllOD ~.fnt...kt....LI..4CLCA.L....'A.""'... 91)61 In "".114.U10( U5_2)0.OCI1:) FAll: 11.."".1.1:72 ,ao'.:U~.OOl'l P. O. JOlt: )9704 IJI;.\llJo:t. C.u.IFtllUoltA 92621.910" TEL 949.7S1.lSlIS tAx 949.752.0S,!7 www.jdpln.....cam L.....llll<\A. 1U.b.1C'( .lfCo)UJtSll Ilts.....MCKITUK.. lQ:,tUl) OUlfIUtoIU..Uk: 28B78 l.,,",L: August 13,2001 d<lroud@jdplaw.com .....""U-5 CillO DIAl. NU~I.[l; (949)851-7404 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DEL/VERY Chairman James A. Venable Riverside County Board of Supervisors 4080 Lemon Street, 14" Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: Agenda lIem 13.3 Comments on Proposed Colorado Pacific Commllnities Project and Reqllestfor Condition of Approval Dear Chairman Venable and Honorable Board Members: We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the "Coronas") with respect to their propenies located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. We request that this letter be included in the administrative record for this matter, The Coronas own property on the north side of Highway 79 across from the Colorado Pacific Projec!. The Coronas were informed of the Colorado Pacific Communities Project ("Project") for the first time only a few days ago. The Coronas are concerned about the lack of consideration being given in evaluating the impacts of the Project on the Assessment District 159 Butterfield East Interceptor Channel flood control facility ("Interceptor Channel"), As discussed below, since the Project in its current fonn would crea!e significant envirorunental impacts find connict with existing surrounding land uses, the Coronas request that any approval of the Project be conditioned upon dedication of an easement to the Riverside County Flood Control District for the Interceptor Channel. The requested easement could easily be accommodated while maintaining the Project densities by minor revisions to ,P8-l2-0\ ,10:49.. FrOM-Buth.lte- ".....Field., YOUD'" +949 25\ 1107 T-98S P,008/028 F-08S JACKSO!' DEMARCO 6: PECKEI'PAUGJl Chairman Jam~s A, Venable August 13, 2001 Page 2 roads 011 the eastern end of the Project, If the County is unwilling to incorporate the requested easemem at this time, the County, at a minimum. should continue tbis matter to the ne1<t Board of Supervisors' meeting 10 allow tbe Coronas to further work with Planning Commission staff and the Project applicant to address their concerns with the Project. I. BACKGROUND The Project consists of subdividing 46 gross acres into 122 residential lots. In or about June 2001, the Pianning Commission issued its recommendation that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Change of Zone No. 06583. and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 30052, The Coronas did not receive notice of the Plawing Commission bearing, For over a year. the Coronas and other landowners within Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for the Interceptor Channel flood control facility have been meeting regularly with representatives of the County of Riverside's Executive Office, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Flood Control District, and County Counsel's office to dcvise a mutually.agreeable Interceptor Channel design and aligrunent, One of the alternatives previously proposed by the County included an open channel through the Con>nas' land 70 feet wide, 1,000 feet long. and 10 feet deep. This proposed aligrunent would effectively bisect the Coronas' land. causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing fanning and commercial operations and eventual developmem, . '.----- Fortunately. twO other feasible aligrunems were de' eloped, However. one of them (on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road) was eliminated earli~r this year by the County's approval of incompatible construction of Ralphs Store buildings across the proposed alignment. The Ralphs Store construction project, as originally proposed, could have accommodated the Interceptor Channel, However, the Project was revised to place buildings across the alternative Interceptor Cannel aligrunent without notice to the Coronas even though they had requested notice of any project revisions inconsistent with the Interceptor Channel alignments (see correspondence 10 the Board of Supervisors dated October 2, 2000. enclosed and incorporated by this reference). The Coronas' engineer. Bob Krieger. has been working closely with the County Flood Control District to analyze and <;onfinn the feasibility ofloeating the Inter<;eptor Channel facility at an alignment approximately 4.800 feet east ofthe intersection of Bunerfie1d Stage ' Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon by all of the pani<;ipating 08-Z:!-01 .10:49am From-Buchalt' .~em8r.Field,' YOURler +848 m 1701 T-SS6 P,OOS/OZS F-086 .J.....CKSOr-: DI::MARCO .x PECKEr--y.....t.:GH Chairman James A, Venable August 13. 2001 Page 3 Assessmem District 159 landowners. Maintaining the integrity of this alignment for a flood control facility is necessary to accomplish the purposes of Assessment District 159 without undue harm to the Coronas or any other property owner. Nevertheless. the Project. as proposed. would place homes across the alignment, effectively eliminating the alignment. n. REOUESTED MJTIGA TION MEASURE AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL Through the Project site, thc agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor ChaMel flood control facility'consists of an underground box culvert, 30 feet wide, fUMing north to south. The required serback necessary 10 accommodate the Interceptor Channel can be easily accommodated wilhin the project densities and without interfering with underground utilities by , . revising the roads on the eastern end of the projecl, In order to alleviate (he significant Project impacts lhat would otherwise require the preparation of an environmental impact report ("ElR") pursuant to the California Environmental Qaulity Act ("CEQA,") the Coronas recommend including an additional mitigation measure and condition of approval, as follows: A future nonh.south flood control structure is being planned through the Project site as the Assessment District 159 Butterfield EastlmerceplOr Channel at approximately 4,800 feel east of the imersection of Buuerfield Stage Road and Highway 79, The developer will provide a drainage easement to the Flood Control Districl for the flood control struClure, The drainage easement shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions, Ill. VIOLATION OF NOTICE REOUlREMENTS The Coronas have spent dozens of hours and tens ofthousands of dollars over the past year meeting regularly with Coumy personnel and other landowners within Assessmem District 159 to develop and evaluate the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel. County personnel panicipating in those meetings, as recently as June 2001, include Dusty Williams and Stuan McKibbin of the Riverside County Flood Comrol District. Tony Carstens of Ihe Executive Office, David Barnhart, George Johnson and Jerry Norris of the T ransponation and Land Management Agency, and Tim Davis of the County Counsel's office, Many of these same individuals and entities were involved in planning and plan checking the proposed Colorado Pacific Projecl. Additionally. Trans-PacifIC ConsulIams. the engineer for the Colorado PacifiC project, developed the conceptual plans for the eastern alignment of the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel just last year, Yet. the Project calls for the incompatible consnuction of residences across the very alignment that has been the focus ofthe meetings and analyses on the Interceptor Channel facility, 08-2;!-01 ,10:49.. From-Buch.1 to' '..or .Fi.ld, , You..., +949 251 1101 T-896 P,OIO/029 F-096 .L~ChSON DEMARCO c.\: PECKEr-.-PAUGH Chairman James A, Venable August 13. 2001 Page 4 Despite the Coronas' regular meetings with County staff and correspondence to the Board of Supervisors concerning the impacts that the Interceptor Channel' s alignment has on their properTY, the Coronas received no notice. written or otherwise, of the Project until a few days ago when they received notice oftbe August 14,2001, Board of Supervisors hearing. Accordingly. the CO\ll1ty has violated procedural due process requirements here by not providing the Coronas notice and the opportUnity to be heard priOTtO the August 14,2001 Board of Supervisors hearing, Case law is clear that where a land use decision will "exceptionally affect" a properTY owner Or business user, the COlll1ry must provide that pers(\n with notice and the opporTunity to be heard, Horn v, CountyofVen/ura, 24 CaL3d 605. 615 (1979); Harris v, County a/Riverside, 904 F.2d 497 (9" Cir, 1990), In their leners dated April 18, 2000 and AugUSt 3, 2000, the Coronas detailed the impacts to their properTY rdared to the Interceptor Channel's alignment. The April 8 and August 3, 2000 Ieners are enclosed and incorporated by this reference, ' Moreover, One of the essential features ofCEQA is public involvement. 14 Cal. Code Regs, S 15201:, As stated by the California Supreme Coun, the public holds a ';privileged position" in Ihe CEQA process, Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v, 31"" Disirict Agricultural Association, 42 CaL3d 929 (1986). Tberefore, it is of paramount importance tbat tbe public be meaningfully involved in the process, A leview of recently obtained CO\ll1ty records for Ihis Projeel indicates that the Coronas' name appears on the County's list of landowners within 600 feet ofthe Project boundaries that were to receive notice of the COlmty's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for this Project as well ao; the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Project. However, in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Coronas never received notice ofthe MND for this Project, which is inconsistent with the agreed-upon Interceptor Channel aligmnent. In fact, the ,Coronas did not become aware of the Project or tbe MND until only last week, well after tbe close of the public comment period on the MND and after the Planning Commission bearing where the MND and Projecl were recommended for approval. As a result of the lack of notice for this Project, the Coronas have been denied a meaningful opPorTunity under CEQA and due process law 10 inform the County of the significanl unmitigated impacts of the proposed projecl and panicipale in the decision making process, Accordingly. the Coronas are hopefullhat because the County has prejudiced them by waiting Hereafter citations 1014 CaL Code of Regs, 99 15000 er seq, shall be referred to as tbe CEQA Guidelines, OB-Zl-DI 10:50,. F~~m-BuchaltP~ ~emer.Field,' Younaer +849 Z51 1701 T-B96 POII/OZB F-096 J~",CKSON' DEM.ARCO 6: PECKENP_-\.UGU Chairman James A. Venable August 13.2001 Page 5 until this late date to notify them of the Project, the County will include in the Project approval and adopted mitigation measures the dedication of an easement to the Riverside County Flood ConlIol District for the Interceptor Channel. IV. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE COLORADO PACIFIC PROJECT SINCE THE PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LAND USE PLANNING AND UTILI'fJES The County" s MNO forthe Project concludes that its impacts to land use planning and utilities would be less than significant. Accordingly, no mitigation is included for these Project impaCtS. However, from a fair reading of the MNO, it is abundantly clear that the County's conclusions were based on cursory analyses ofthese impact areas, Mr, McKibbin has confirmed that the MNO's analyses do nOt consider the Project's in.:onsistency with the Interceptor Channel's agreed-upon alignment or the resulling impacts to the Coronas' land, Therefore, because a "fair argwnent" exists that the Project may have significant urunitigated environmental impacts, the Counry must prepare an fIR and cannot properly adopt a negative declaration for thc Colorado Pacific project. Public Resources Code ~S 21100, 21151; CEQA ,Guidelines ~g 15002 (k)(3), 15063(b)(I), 15064(a)(I) & (g)(I). 15362, As the lead agency for the Project under CEQA, the County "can and must, , , scrupulously enforce alllegisJative1y mandated CEQA requirements," Cirizlms of Caleta Valley v, Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553,563 (1990), "full compliance with the lellcr ofCEQA is essential to the maintenance of its important public purpose, , . ' " Resource Defense Fund v, Local Agency Formalion Commission, 191 CaI.App.3d 886, 897-911 (1987), "lfCfQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis On which its responsible officials either approve or reject enviromnentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees." Laurel Heighrs Improvements A.uociation. lnc, v, Regents ofrhe University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988), Moreover, according to San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v, Metropolitan Water Disrrict, 71 Cal.App.4th 382 (1999): "the agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record suppons a fair argwnent that' a proposed project may have a significant effect on the envirorunent. [Citations.] 'If such evidence is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary.' [Citations,) [~] 'The lead agency's determination is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflictS in the evidence but detennines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.' 08-22-01 10:50.. Fro.-Boch.11e' ....r .Fi.ld. 1 You...r +848 251 1707 1-886 P,OlZ/028 F-086 .J,,,"CKS01< DEM.-u<CO 6:. PEChEh"P.-\.UGH Chainnan James A. Venable August 13,2001 Page 6 [Citation,] The coun's 'function is to determine whether substantial evidence supponed the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be mad.:,' [Citationr San Bernardino Valley Audubon Sociel)l, 71 CaLApp.4th at 389; quoting Gentry v, City of Murrieta, 36 CaI.AppAth 1359, 1399-1400 (1995); See also Leagu,'for Protection o.fOakland's Archirectural & Historic Resources v, Cio' Of Oakland, 52 CaLApp.4th 896 (I997); Cirizens' Commitree 10 Save OW' Village v, Cil)lofClaremont, 37 Cal.AppAth 1157, 1167-1169 (1995); Quail Boranical Gardens Foundation,lnc, v, Cil)l of Ene in it as, 29 CaLAppAth 1597 (1994); Sundstrom v, Count of Mendocino, 202 CaLApp.3d 296 (1988); Friends ofhB" Srreet v, Cil)lof Hayward, 106 CaLApp.3d 988 (1980), Notably, the '-fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring the preparation of an ElK Cirizens Acrion ro Serve All Students v, Thornley, 22 Cal,App,3d 748, 754 (1990); Sundsrrom. 202 CaLApp,3d at 310, quoting No Oil. lnc, v, Ciry of Los Angeles, 13 Ca1.3d 68,75 (1974) ("No Oil f'), This standard is founded on the principle that because adopting a mitigated negative declaration has a "terminal efTect on the environmental review process," Citizens of Lake Murray, 129 CaLApp.3d at 440, an EIR is necess.1)' to resolve "uncertainI)' created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of certainty, , ," No Oil I, 13 Ca1.3d at 85, Accordingly, if substantial evidence supports a "fair argwnent" that a project may have a significant environmental efTect', the lead agency must prepare an EIR despite other substantial evidence which indicates that [he project will not have a .significant impact. Friends of "B" Srreer, 106 Cal.App,3d at 1002, V. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED LAND llSE AND PLANNING IMPACTS The MND states that a significant impact could occur if the Project results in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, is inconsistent with existing and plalUled surrounding uses, or would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an , Public Resources Code S 21068 indicates that a -"significant effect on the environment' meanS a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines S 15382 further defines "significant effect on the environment"as a "substantial, or potentially substantial. adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air. water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance," ON2-01 10:50im From-Buchalte~ ~emer.Fiald, & Youn,sr +949 251 1707 T-996 P,Oll/029 F-096 J.'\.CJ>:SON DI;M,'\.RCO <\: PECKE::-n".'\.UGJt Chairman James A, Venable August 13. 2001 Page 7 established community, MND. pp" 19-20. However, the MND concludes that the Projec!"s land use and planning impacts would be insignificant and no mitigation measures whatsoever were incotporated, Newnheless. there is overwhelming substantial evid~nce that says otherwise, The Imerceptor Channel must be constructed to satisfy the purposes of Assessment District 159 for the orderly development of lands in the vicinity ofrhe Project site. including the Coronas' propeny, In order to maintain the integrity of the Interceptor Channel flood wmrol facility alignment. it is necessary that construction projects south of Higbway 79 and nonh ofTemecula Creek be consistent with the Interceptor Channel's planning effon, The Project, as proposed, is inconsistent with. and would therefore eliminate, the only alignment for the Interceptor Channel agreed to by the landowners in Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for those facilities, The County has eliminated another alignment for the Interceptor Channel by approving an inconsistem development project earlier this year. Therefore. if the County approves the Colorado Paci fic project as proposed, the only remaining Interceptor Channel alignment which has been opposed by the Coronas and others, and would create a 70-foot wide chasm dividing the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing farming and commercial operations and eventual development. If, on the other hand. the County fails to construct (he Interceptor ChaIIDel~ it would fail 10 complete the Assessment District 159 facilities that are necessary to remove the flood hazard created to the Coronas' land and commercial buildings by construction of the Bunerfield Stage Road improvements and other devdopment in the natural drainage channel. Therefore. approval of the Project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts and an EIR must be prepared, Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on the Coronas. The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created on their land and that the Interceptor Channel is to remedy. The Coronas would be burdened with the loss of use of acreage that is now devoted to their ongoing farming operation and related commercial land uses, The channel would effectively sever their landholding into two separate parcels, Therefore, the Proposed project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts, The lead agency musr accept conflicting evidence from a qualified cxpen showing a significant impact may occur, as the agency cannOI weigh compcting evidence. See Carmel.by.the-Sea v, Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 249 (1986); Brentwood Associationfor No Drilling v, City o.f Los Angeles, 134 Cal.App.3d 491,504 (1982) (emphasis added,) Also, statemems made by members of the public supportrd by adequate factual foundation constitute substantial evidence, See Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporarion v, Couney of El Dorado. 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882 (1990); Cirizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v, Couney of/nyo. 172 Cal.App.3d 151,173 (1985), OB-t2-01 .IO:5IatD. From-Buchalter 'l"mllr.FillldE & Younnr .949 251 1707 1-89S P,014/D28 F-09S J.'\.ChSOl': DEMARCO &. PECKENl"__"'JGJl Chairman James A, Venabk August 13. 2001 Page 8 Additionally. the approval of the Project and adoption of the MND would effectively predetermine the outcome of the mandatory hearing required to be conducted by the County prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law, As the Cowuy is undoubtedly aware, before it can adopt a resolution of necessiry to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County must conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a finding that the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least -private injury, Code of Civil Procedure S 124$,230, By approving the proposed Project in its current form (which would result in causing the siring of the Interceptor Channel on the Coronas' land), the County will illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatory hcaring, This approach is improper, In RedevelopmenT Agency v, Norm's Slauson, 173 CaLApp.3d 1121 (1986) ("Norm's Slauson"), the coun held that an agency's contracts with a developer for construction of a condominium project, before instituting condemnation proceedings. was a gross abuse of discretion, and that the subsequent adoption of a resolution of necessity to justify the prior decision was an example of "rubber stamping": "In the instant case, it seems clear that the hearing which led to the adoption of the resolution ofnecessi!}' was a sham and the Agency's policy making board simply 'rubber stamped' a predetermined result. "By the time the Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the 'necessity' for taking the property in question. it had, by virrue' of its contract with the developer an issuance of revenue bonds, irrevocably commined itself to take the property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be presented at that hearing, , , ," Norm Slauson, 173 Cal.App3d at It27, In order to ensure that the project is properly planned and sited in conformity with the requirements of the Eminent Domain Law, all potentially feasible alternatives must be considered at the public hearing, Without considering other feasible altematives, at the mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find that the project is sited in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least ptivate injury, ,08-ZHl IO:51am From-Buchalter.Namef.Filldi & YounKer '848 251 IT07 7-896 P,Ol5/028 F-096 .JACKS01"\ DEM_~CO & Pf.:C~:ro.."PAL1GH Chaimlan James A, Venable August 13.2001 Page 9 VI. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE UNMITIGATED UTILITIES IMP ACTS The MND states that the Project's impacts to storm \vater drainage facilities, services and plans would be less than significant, However, by proposing to site residences across the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel facilities on the eastern end of the Project, approval of the Project will jeopardize the construction of the Interceptor Channel and will have serious consequences to the Coronas' land, Last year. County staffrequested that the Board approve staffs proposal to site the Interceptor Channel as an open ditch through the middle of the Coronas' land, The matter was ultimately withdrawn from the Board's agenda due to opposition raised by the Coronas and lack of consensus among the Assessment District 159 landowners for such a burdensome facility (see correspondence to Board of Supervisors dated April 8 and August ~,2000), Earlier this year, the County approved an inconsistent development project thereby eliminating one of the two other alignments identified for the Interceptor Channel. If the Board approves the Colorado Pacific Project as currently proposed, it would eliminate the only other ahernative alignment identified for lhe Interceptor Channel. and the only aligrunent that is agreeable to all of the Assessment District 159 landowners who have been assessed for the flood control facility, Such a decision necessarily would result in the siting of the Interceptor Channel in a manner that bisects the Coronas' land as advanced by County staff last year, or else the failure to construct the facility as necessary to meet the requirements of Assessment District 159 and alleviate the flood risk created on the Coronas' land by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road improvements and other development in the natural drainage channel. As a result, approval ofthe Project would expose the County 10 significant severance damages or inverse condemnation award due to the serious consequences to the Coronas' land. Since the Project, as proposed, conflicts with plans for necessary storm waler diainage facilities, approval of the Project would create significant wimitigatcd utilities impacts and an EIR must be prepared. ' VB. THE PROPOSED MITJGA nON MEASURE WOULJ> REDUCE UNMITIGATED SIGNIFiCANT IMPACTS TO INSIGNIFICANCE The Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts, including (but nOllimited to) conflicting with surrounding land uses and necessary storm drain facilities, Accordingly, tho COWllY must either prepare an EIR for the Project or implement additional mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance, CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, Public Resources Code S 21000, The requested mitigation measure and condition of approval set forth above can be implemented consistent with 08-ZZ-01 '10:51.. From-Buch.1tor.No....Fiald. 8 VDunaor +949 Z51 110T T-811 P,OII/OZ8 F-OII . J'.-\.C1i:SO~ DEMARCO <\: PEC}U:l'o-PAl.'GII Chaimlan James A, Venable August 13,2001 Page 10 the Project objectives by revising roads on the eastern end of the Project site, By including the requested mitigation measure and condition of approvaL the Project's significant environmental impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance, VlII. CONCLUSION In order to avoid significant, unmitigated environmental impacts that would otherwise require the preparation of an EIR for the Colorado Pacific: project, the Coronas request that the above requested mitigation measure be incorporated in the MND and the Conditions of Approval for this Project. Otherwise, the maner should be continued to allow for consideration and mitigation of the Project's impacts to the Assessment Districtl591merceptor Channel and the resulting impacts to the Coronas, This is only fair, considering that the Coronas only became aware of this maner recently due the County's failure to provide adequate notice, Your efforts toward incorporating the recommended mitigation in any Project approval arc greatly appreciated, We thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours. /::::-:~.~ DWS/jaa Enclosures 42225's.2 ec: Stephen Corona (w/encls,) Katherine Lind, Deputy County Counsel (via messenger) (w/encls,) A ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED LIABilITY PARTNERStUP INCI..l..IllNG A PROFESSIONAl CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIvE, SUITE 270 TEMECULA. CAUFORNlA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-q191 . Offices in San Diego and Temecula. California November 6, 200 I SAMua C, AlHAoEFF SAUWlEfF@AslAW1,COM Peter M. Thorson, Esq. Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Re: Paloma del Sol Specific Plan 219 Dear Peter: As you know, a couple of years ago the City of Temecula in approving Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 to the Planning Application of Newland inserted a particular provision with regard to the Butterfield Interceptor Charmel. I have attached a copyofthe Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval. The one that was of interest was "The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise..." It is the last language which I wish to focus on. We believy that there was and has been significant improvements with regard to the negotiations for reasonable compromise, I would like to meet with you to discuss this issue because the way I read this condition, if the City Council is satisfied it has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431. We now have before the Planning Commission tomorrow evening a hearing involving another amendment tQ the Specific Plan and I believe that under that process since we will be going to the City Council that we have the ability, assuming that you agree with me, to simply see if we could have this condition deleted at the City Council level. C:'Data'CIientslNewland\LTR 10 THORSON,doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Peter M. Thorson, Esq. November 6,2001 J'age 2 I would like to visit with you on this issue. I know this is a busy time and I assume that perhaps next week would be appropriate to get together when you are here in the City of ' Temecula. Best regards. I appreciate always your help and guidance and wisdom. Sincerely, [J;L;tfrL Samuel C. Alhadeff of Alhadeff and Solar, LLP SCA:dll cc:: :Mr. Dean Meyer Enclosures . , MEUBEROFCOMMERCIAl LAW AFAUATES, 1NDEPENDENr" 8uswEss ANDlmGATION LAwFIRMS IN PR1NcJpAL CInes WORiDWIOE ... - EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by the city Council, November 16, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-0285 - Specific Plan Amendment No.7 Project Description: To amend Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) as follows: land uses within Planning Areas 1,6 and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration' of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and Meadows Pmkway; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36:3 to 34.3 acres; the division of Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density residential, 9-12 dwelfing units per acre, with a maximum of 268 dwelling units) and Planning Area 68 (12 acres, very high density residential,13- 20 dO/ac, with a maximum of 240 dwelling units), resulting in an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the provision to develop an active, private, gated senior community within Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update of Specific Plan Design Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the senior amenities. Approval Date: November 16, 1999 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements 1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, jUdgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, arrectJy or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landoWner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense' of the action., The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. The applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No. 219 and its amendments unless superceded by these Conditions of Approval. 3. The text of Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 shall conform with Exhibit No. 1 B, 'Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7" dated October 11,1999, or as amended by these conditions. R:1STAFFRPn28spa99.CC 11.9-99 rormalled.dcc 16 ~' .- --:.. r-:- 4. The text of Amendment NO.7 to Specific Plan No: 219 Zoning Standards shall conform with Exhibit No, 2A, "Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Zone Ordinance, Amendment No. T'. dated October ii, 1999, or as amended by these conditions. Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of the Ordinance Approving the Junendment ~j. The applicant shall submit the amended Specific Plan text to the Community Development Department - Planning Division, in accordance with Conditions of Approval and witli requirements by the City Council. K The applicant shall qlrrect or modify the following: a. Page IV-85 b.2) a): The last sentence shall read: "A minimum of 10% of the net acreage at the Home Depot site shall be landscaped," b. ' Remove all references to the Major and Minor Commercial Entry and Shopping Center Identification signs, which shall be included in the Villages Design Manual, submitted for review and approval by the Planning Manager prior to the issuance of permits. Prior to issuance of building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B): 7'. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate, improvements shall be built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Council has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B), consisting of 508 multi-family units. The City shall process the request for a public hearing, if needed, as a 'no feeD application.' ' (Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council November16,1999). By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understan::l that the property shall be maintained in conformance \'\~th these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Departmentapproval. ' Applicant Signature R:ISTAFFRPI'I28Spa99.CC 11.9.99 ConnaUod.doc 17 ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A WAITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCtt.IJING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIvE. SUITE 270 TEMECUlA, CAUFORNlA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 . Offices in San Diego and TemecuJa. California November 6,2001 SAMua C, AuwlEFF SAUWlEFF@A$LAwl,COM Peter M. Thorson, Esq. Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Re: Paloma del Sol Specific Plan 219 Dear Peter: ) As you know, a couple of years ago the City ofTemecula in approving Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 to the Planning Application of Newland inserted a particular provision with rc:gard to the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. I have attached a copy of the Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval. The one that was of interest was "The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise.. ." It is the last language which I wish to focus on. We believy that there was and has been significant improvements with regard to the negotiations for reasonable compromise. I would like to meet with you to discuss this issue because the way I read this condition, if the City Council is satisfied it has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431. We now have before the Planning Commission tomorrow evening a hearing involving another amendment t(l the Specific Plan and I believe that under that process since we will be going to the City Council that we have the ability, assuming that you agree with me, to simply se,e if we could have this condition deleted at the City Council level. C:\Data\Clients\Newland\L TR TO THORSON.doc , i i I '.. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP P,~ter M. Thorson, Esq. November 6, 2001 Page 2 I would like to visit with you on this issue. I know this is a busy time and I assume that perhaps next week would be appropriate to get together when you are here in the City of Temecula. Best regards. I appreciate always your help and guidance and wisdom. Sincerely, l);L;tftn- Samuel C. AIhadeff of Alhadeff and Solar, LLP SCA:dll cc: Mr. Dean Meyer Enclosures . , MEMBEROFCOMMERCIAl LAW AFALlATES. INDEPENDENT BusiNESS AND l.mGATlON LAwFIRMS IN PRiNCIPAL CfTlES WORLDwlDE" j EXHIBIT A , , CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by the CityCounci/, November 16, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-0285 - Specific Plan Amendment No.7 Project Description: To amend Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) as follows: land uses within Planning Areas 1,6 and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration' of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36:3 to 34.3 acres; the division of Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density residential, 9-12 dwelfing units per acre, with a maximum of 268 dwelling units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, very high density residential,13- 20 dUlac, with a maximum of 240 dwelling units), resulting in an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the provision to develop an active, private, gated senior community within Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update of Specific Plan Design, Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the senior amenities. ApprovalDate: November 16,1999 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements 1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, jUdgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectty, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body inclUding actions approved by the voters of the City, conceming 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 thedefense'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. 2. The applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan No. 219 and its amendments unless superceded by these Conditions of Approval. 3, The text of Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No. 219 shall conform with Exhibit No. 18, 'Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7" dated October 11,1999, or as amended by these conditions. R:ISTAFFRPn28Spa99.CC 11.9-99 fonnatted.doc 16 .".,-,. _.", r, ~. . 4. The text of Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No: 219 Zoning Standards shall confonn with Exhibit No. 2A, "Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Zone Ordinance, Amendment No. 7", dated October ii, 1999, or as amended by these conditions. Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of the Ordinance Approving the Amendment fi. The applicant shall submit the amended Specific Plan text to the Community Development Department - Planning Division, in accordance with Conditions of Approval and witli requirements by the City Council. €i. The applicant shall C9rrect or modify the following: a. Page IV-85 b.2) a): The last sentence shall read: "A minimum of 10% of the net acreage at the Home Depot site shall be landscaped." b. ' Remove all references to the Major and Minor Commercial Entry and Shopping Center Identification signs, which shall be included in the Villages Design Manual, submitted for review and approval by the Planning Manager prior to the issuance of penn its. ' f'riorto issuance of building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (planning Areas 6A and 6B): 7. The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, or the City Council, following a public hearing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiations for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Couocil has authority to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B), consisting of 508 multi-family units. The City shall process the request for a public hearing, if needed, as a "no fee" application.' ' (Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council November 16, 1999). E:y 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 1I\~th 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 Signature R:ISTAFFRP'N85pa99.CC 11.9.99 fonnaUod.doc 17 ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED lIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAl CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270 TEMECULA. CAliFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego and TemecuJa, California November 29, 2001 SAMUB. C, AlHADEFF SAlHAOEFF@A$lAW1.COM YIA HAND DELIVERY 9103,0001 Ms_ Debbie Ubnoske Planning Director City ofTemecula P.O, Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Planning Application No. 01-0109 - General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 01-0102 - Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 Planning Application No. 01-0117 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No.4 (collectively, "Action") Dear Ms, Ubnoske: We want to thank you and your staff for working with us in the above-referenced applications. We appreciate the professional cooperation, patience and courtesy extended by every staff member, specifically Matthew Harris and Ron Parks in working through certain difficult issues. Last night I made reference to certain letters which I asked to be included within the record for the proceedings, First, I read from a letter dated February 17, 2000 from the County of Riverside to the Corona Ranch. A.copy of that letter is attached. Please include this letter to be incorporated in the record, Second, I mentioned a series ofletters that were referenced in the hearings that were held related to the Specific Plan Amendment No.7 in Planning Applications as follows: P A99-0284 (Development Plan) PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431) P A99-0285 (SpecificPlan Amendment); and PA99-0283 (Development Agreement) There were a series of letters that I asked to be incorporated in the record last night from those particular planning actions and the proceedings that took place, The letters that I referenced were as follows: C:\])ata\ClientsWewland\UBNOSKE LTR 11-29"'()l.doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Ms, Debbie Ubnoske November 29,2001 Page 2 1. November 3, 1999 letter from Newland Communities to Carol K. Donahoe; 2, November 1, 1999 letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson; 3. November 4, 1999 letter from Paul Thompson of Albert A. Webb & Associates assessment engineers for Assessment District 159 to Shawn Nelson; 4. November 4, 1999 letter from Richard T. Robotta of the Keith Companies to Dean Meyer; and 5, A compilation of reports and analyzes that were submitted to Carol Donahoe dated October 26,1999. The above-referenced documents were the ones that I referred to and asked me made a part ofthe official record ofthese proceedings. For your convenience, I have attached the above- relerenced letters with the exception of item no. 5, which was listed as attachment number 7 to th(, November 9, 1999 staff report. Sincerely, S!~~Of Alhadeff and Solar, LLP SCA:dll Endosures MEMBER OFCOMMERCIAL LAW AFFILIATES. INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND LmGAOON LAw FIRMS IN PRINCIPAL CmES WORlDWIDE 82/24/2a~'-' 16: '-'2 87763~55- FES-24-1I0 THU 02:54 Pl1 RIV q-. ,{EClJfIVl; ~rlt:l:. .' '." P.R BPDlo.tlOJ "77':,'<',:';'; :=.: 'J:! PAGg77l!~'J,)';: ~M tiU. 1 (l:f'CjIO,?T()O'I:CV:J.l~I1- -"-1'/ \,1) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 'TRANSPORTAIION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY llinsportation Department DII>fd E. Barnho,., D~ QfTnJ<tt~no.. February 17, 2000 CERTIVIED Mt\lL Ir 310 675 430 Cotona Ranch 33~120 State Highway 79 Ternecula, CA 92592 Attemtion: Steve Corona' ~E: Butterfield East Interceptor St.orm Drain Dear Mr. Corona~ J am writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meetill9 we had at the Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meetill9 was to discuss the various alternatives we studied For the Butterfield East Imen:eptor ~torm Drain Facility, I ' appreciated the opportunity,to hear your concerns, and as a result, J gained a better unde'rstanding of the history surrounding this project and the various alternatives. Attac;hed is a tabre that summarizes the three options we discussed. , &.:a are welf aware. the Buttetfield Interceptor was included as.an Assessment ' Distric 0 1 cl to be oca a, e eastern Assessmen lstrict bounda 1 to interc:ept the tributary dralnaqe flows arid provide tloed protection to Buttetfield SU:se , ROad. State Route 79 South. and downstream properties. The originar AD 159 concept was to construClan open cnannel atthe eastern AU 1::J9'boundacy. Because You awn proP€'rty upstream of the AD Inlerwptor alignment east of lhe'AD boundal)', you requested We stUdy other alternatives. Yeu are currently farming all of your propsny and. advised the Interceptor woufd'disl'l!pt your fal17ling operation. With your input, we agreed to analyze several other alternatives. let me summarize the two other options We di~;cussed, whIch seemed po1entially feasibJe: AlternatIve No.1 examined the possibility of constructiog the Interceptor on the same alignment as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the chano,el and Constructing a box under your property. You expressed an openness to this option a~ long as 1) you could continue your farming operations uninterrupted, and 2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The,/ntent W<is to prOVidE: four feet of cover over the box, so you could continue your fanmin9 over the top of the facility. During our meeting, Flood Control District representatives questioned the feasibility of this option, First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be ,oroperfy corrected by the underground box. Secondly, by lowering the facility to place it J.Ot\O lC'mo'l $(ro:(. Sib flo,or . Rr...:nidc. uli:focnJ.t 92501 ~ (909) 9SS-ti7-lQ P.O. 8"1.1: 1090 ~ Rivcnidt:. CAli/l)(Di~ 92502.1090 . FAX (909) 9SS.612( ~212d/2~~~ 16:~2 ~776)~5~ ~r.lh~4-UU TlIU lJc::,:, m Yol'! l.lJf.tt,;UIlVt Uttll:t P.P. 8PQ~Jtl CI) '-';'/2':/;:':" tHA NU. I :.i'-!i.'<-~-:_..: PAGE, '33: r. U,J Mr. Steve Corona Februar'l17. 2000 Page 2 underground makes the slope of the box culvert too lIat and creates ongoing maintenance problems. Therefore, this option doesn't seem practical. T,he other option we discussed was Alternative No.5, a dual system with an open channelloeated' along your easterly propertyboundal)' to iritercept a majority of the ' drainage from the east, along with a smaller underground system,at the eastern AD boundary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east, abov~ De Portola Road and east to Calle Contento, You express~d your preference for this alternative. Under Alternative No.5, all of your property will be flood protected. The property you OVI11 outside the AD boundal)' WOuld benefit under this alternative and would therefore be required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. YOlll discussed your desire to defer any assessments on your property until your farming operation develops info some other use. This would require some other party to advance your costs. WhHe I understand your desire, the County doesn't have the financial capacity or ability to advance fund your share, One way to reduce your costs is tel dedicate the right-of-way needed to COf'/struct the facJlity. Other than that, I have not been able to come up with any other cost.saving solutions. Ifycu a l'rol'e outsi WiII.!!t to recommend Altemative No.5. conc:urrence. -- - cial burden on the remainder of your . s the Trans ortatlon Department is However, to rocee we will ne_ your written Your COoperation is needed to make [he Interceptor a reality. Iloof~ forward to receiving your positive response so we can proceed in a cooperative manner. Please feel free to contact me if you nave any questions or require any additional infunmation, ' Sincerely. ~~d~ George A. Johnson Deputy DIrector of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Supervisor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Carstens Dave Barnhart I{elley Donovan Frank Peairs ~~ NEWLA,ND COMMIJNITIES r~ , ! j \\"L.\Z\D C.-\L1FOR:q:\ ~'..l~l:l Yna Road ':;,-,I.te ~53 I ,'o<ul" L\ 9~591,'I"n, ~1I~'69-t';:i572 ro.. 9(19."~-t':HiI2 _..je't{nr.1seo(lt~lsol..::)m \"\\'w.[lJ.s.:oJelsol.com I' ~, r ! " November 3,1999 Carol K, Donohoe, AICP Associate Planner CITY OF TEMECULA Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92590 Subject: Paseo del Sol- Planning Applicatton: P A99 -0284 (Development Plan), PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No, 29431), PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment) and PA99.0283 (Development Agreement) Dear Carol: At! a follow up to the information forwarded to you ,on October 26, 1999 and subsequent meetings ,with City Staff and City Atioriiey, we hereby submit the following correspondence in response to the 'appeal filed by Corona Ranch: 1, Letter from Dennis O'Neil to Peter Thorson dated November 1, 1999 stating our positions. i) The develop~ent of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and Specific Plan No.7 will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. ii) Newlan&hasprovided evidence of compliance with all drainage and flood control conditions. iii) There is no need to conduct any further environmental review or prepare any subsequent reports, 2. Letter from Paul Thompson of Albert A. Webb Associates, Assessment Engineers for Assessment Dislricl159 to Shawn Nelson dated November 1, 1999. > i) This letter indicates there is an authorized "$2,2 million for design and Construction of the Interceptor Channel or a substitute facility" through AD 159. ii) In addition there is authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property, l,~ Carol Donohoe November 3, 1999 Page two 3, Letter from Richard T. Robotta of The Keith Companies dated October 29, 1999 which summarizes the technical history of Specific Plan 219 (Vail Meadows) and Em 235 as it relates to drainage issues. In summary: 1. The Paseo del Sol project has met all the conditions placed on the project throughout the entitlement process and more specifically as it relates to drainage. ' 2. The Paseo del Sol project has constructed: an ipterim detention basin and has been conditioned that the basin or equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed. 3. There exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds through AD 159 for the design and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. 4. Newland Communities-supports the use of authorized but unissued bond capacity on the Paseo del Sol property. 5. There is no evide;l1ce to support the appeal of the pending applications nor need for any new:conditions or the preparation of further environmental documentation. We thank the City Staff for their efforts and time spent on these matters. We are respectfully requesting that this correspondence, along with the compilation of reports and analyses as submitted to you under cover letter dated October 26, 1999, be filed with the City Oerk and made a part of the official record of the City Council relating to the subj~t planning applications and appeal.' .... . Very truly yours, NEWLAND COMMUNmES, LLC ~..~~ Dean R. Meyer Director of Engineering & Development Cc: Jim Delhamer r- . f' I.. lu. r r i, l._ ~. , HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP ArrORNEYSAT LAW DEAN DUNl'r-RANKIN . CHARLES S. EXON WilLIAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZEll HUGH HEWITT JOHN D. HUDSON 19900 MAcARnruR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1050 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500 . (949) 798.0511 (FAX) EMAIL: counscl@hewiltmcguirc.com MARK R. MCGUIRE DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PAlCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WJLlIAM L. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER WRITER'S DIRECT DIM" (949) 798,0734 EMAll: doneil@hewilttncgwre.com November 1, 1999 . Peter M. Thorson Ciity Attorney City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application PA99-0284 (Development Plan), PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431), Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment) and Planning Application No. P A99-0823 (Development Agreement) Dear Peter: Our law firm repre?ents Newland Communities, the developer of the Paseo del Sol Master Planned Community. Newland has received notice that the owners of the Corona Ranch have appealed some or all of the applications referenced in this letter. The stated grounds for the appeal are: (i) "the applicant has failed to come into compliance with the development criteria and conditions placed on the project"; (Ii) "the project itself is out of compliance with conditions of its approval"; and (iii) " . . . the California Environmental Quality Act requires preparation of a subsequent EIR for a: project, and precludes reliance on an addendum, when substantial changes occur to the circumstances under which a project is to be undertaken, or new information shows that project impacts will be substantially more severe." As they have in the past with prior Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Amendments, the Coronas contend that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road has effectively blocked drainage through this area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to upstream properties than was p)'l~viously identified in the EIR for (Paloma) Paseo del Sol. Furthermore, they point out, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility ("Butterfield Interceptor Channel") to mitigate this problem has not yet been constructed. However, even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a Supplemental ErR ("SElR") should be prepared in connection with the pending planning applications. This is 11~1I.99 10019-00002 - So'152\CORR\99100008,LTR.wpd r-' " r L , [ " Peter M. Thorson November I, 1999 Page 2 because the development of the Paseo del Sol commercial site and the Specific Plan No. 7 Development Plan will have no imoact on upstream prooerties or their exposure to flood control bazards. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paseo del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.7 and related development applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and thercare absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a SEIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus orrelationship to the pending planning applications and drainage issues on Corona Ranch. AD 159 has provided many public improvements of regional significance in the South Temecula area. Thus, the construction ofButterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South in 1993 was not intended to benefit solely one property owner, but ratherto'ifuprove the overall traffic circulation of the region to the benefit of all people living in this end of town, The Corona Ranch is included , . within AD 159 and along with Pas eo del Sol and otherpropei;tie~have been assessed to pay for these regional public improvements. , ' : Butterfield Stage Road, which is already completed, and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility, which has not yet been constructed, are improvements under the control of the County of Riverside and/or Assessment District No. 159, not Newland Communities. EIR No. 241 was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisor when AD 159 was formed in 1988. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns should be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paseo del Sol community and its purpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert them into Temecula Creek. Newland has been working diligently with both AD 159 and the County of Riverside for over three years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor because they must agree on its location and the cost AD 159 will pay for their land. Newland will continue to cooperate with the County and the Coronas to insure this flood control channel is constructed. __ In the meantime, in satisfaction of the development conditions required by both Riverside County Flood Control and the City of Temecula's Public Works Department, Newland has constructed an approximately twenty acre interim detention basin at the northwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, South. This basin was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Flood Control and City ofTemecula review and approval. Further, the basin fully protects the Paseo del Sol community during rare storm events in which water may enter from ar,eas to the east. To give you a sense of the rarity of the storm event that might cause water to enter th,e basin, you should know that during EI Nino of recent years this twenty acre facility remained dry. 1I.~1.99 10019-00002 - S~152\CORR\99100008,I.TR,wpd Peter M, Thorson November I, 1999 Page 3 On February 2, 1998, the Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 ("VIM 24812") and, based upon staff analysis, found the project to be in conformity with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report, The continued presence of the detention basin was assured in the conditions of approval for VTM 24182 to remain in place until upstream drainage facilities are installed to mitigate off-site flows. In general, CEQA limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed in prior environmental documentation. The intent ofCEQA is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated, Under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a result of: (a) substantial changes in the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; (h) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; or (c) new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse imP!ict \',Ihich cannot be mitigated. The CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required unless one of these specified triggering events occur. A public agency's' discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory language~ An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental D~fense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopm,ent Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065). CEQASection 21 166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of a ~ubsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of 11-01.99 10019-??oo2 - sou ;;2\CORR\991 00008,LTR.wpd Peter M. Thorson November I, 1999 Page 4 insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v, Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights IF') (1993) 6 CaI.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR. (Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City GIld County of San Francisco, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9211,) Ifimpacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project EIR, a further EIR is not required (Bowman). A city may not, therefore, require a further EJR unless it finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the' rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt will be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights), A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a subsequent EIR is not required. CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)( e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a'subsequent or supplemental EIR might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR addendum to evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a mechanism for del:ermining whether a further EIR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a supplemental EIR is required, The Guidelines simply provide that a brief explanation of the decision nol: to prepare a supplemental E1R pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included in 1m addendum to an EIR, the city's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. Newland has provided you with legally supportable evidence of compliance with all drainage and flood control conditions.' The appellants have offered no evidence ofnoncompliance with the conditions of the project approval, any significant changed circumstances, or new infimnation which was not considered in the original project EIR as further reviewed in prior and the current Addendum, Finally, there is absolutely no connection between the planning ~ 1I.j)1.99 10019-??oo2 -S:\~5.!\CORR\99 J 00008,L TR, wpd r--' Peter M. Thorson November 1, 1999 Page 5 " applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues impacting the Corona Ranch. Therefore, we submit there is no need in the case of the pending planning applications to consider adding new conditions or conduct further environmental documentation. Very truly yours, ~<f)~ Dennis D. O'Neil ODD/mer cc: James M. Delhamer Mayor and Members of the City Council J , , J , lI'()I.99 10019-??oo2 .s:\~S;!\CORR\991 00008,L TR.wpd roo, j . ' : r [ r: c u L " o u c I .~ "~BB 'A"SS; 0 CIA T E S iNCiNii:EllJHG CllNSllLTM"tS o Corparara Heldl)lllll1Or$ J7U~'SllCel Rivcmdc. CA 92S116 (909) 6116-1070 fa (909) 7ll8-12S6 o Rq:iana/ Oll"lCC 21481 Raacbo Cali! Rond. Sl8. 10& T=b, CA 91S9D (9Q?) 694-92SD fa>< (909) 699-1032 W.O. 89-4308 File No. 3851.08 Nuvembt:r4,1999 Mr. Shawn Nelson City Manager City ofT emecula 43200 13l1~in('ss Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 . RE: Assessment District No. 159 - Butterfield East Inlefceptor Chllllnel Diear Mr. Nelson: T am the Assessment Division Manager with Albert A. Webb Associates, AiISessment Engineers for Assessment District No.1 S9 (A. D.159'j. I am providing ibc following information to assist the City ofTcmccula in understanding the background of . , th,: Butterfield East Interceptor Channel (the "Interceptor Cllltune!") and to help to idi:ntify potential funding for its construction. A. D. 159 was originally fanned in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvemelWl and other infrasttucture within the Di~trict BoUndaries. Ili 1991, a 5\lpplemental dis1rict was foImed to increase the funds available for the cost of the ori:ginal A. D. 159 improvctllCIU!i. and to add new District improvPmpntq such as the--- Interceptor C/1l1nn"l ApPrOximnteiy $2.2 million was specifically identified by the sUJllPlemc:mal district lIS necessary for the del.ign and construction of the Interceptor CbaIlII&. This $2.2 million was assessed to four of the property owners within the Di$trict and spread to these owners based on benefit received and allocated on acreage. CC~y, Paseo del Sol received abom 82% of the lIsst'ocm"llt whh the remllining t1uee OWIlctS n:cclving about 18%. \. \r"'~"11Dh' ""'("'~JgR'..fWT..~".r;;g..~\gl:Q\b.~,,-L..rl.~~ ClvtI. ENIJINEElUNO · PLANNING · ASSESsMENr I SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING · W^TER IlESOUllCES ENGINEElUNG At this date, there is authori7A::d but'unissued bond capacity on the Pasco del Sol property toIaling approximately $4.9 million. Under Ass"..ment District law, authorized bonds can only be released by 1l1e agency administering the District and any actUal. assessment debt issued agWnst a property =ains an obligation of the propertY until paid. FUlther, an Assessment District may build improvements outside Or ilS boundaries if those improvements are to the benefit ofpropcnics within the District. In on going meetings with Riv~ide County officials, Newland ,Communities indicated that they would support u:.;1Ig a portion of the authorized but unissued bond capacity on its property to provide fimds in e.'tccss of the authorized $2.2 million for the design and COl1Slruction of the Tnten:eptor Channel or a substitute fucility such 11& a detention basin. I trust this information has been helpful to you and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Pleas;: frI'le to call meat (909) 781-6190. Sincerely, ALBERT A. WEBB,AS~OClATES .~~ , Paul Thompson :!>Tljs \\'\ssE!;SM&mAsSES.~MEN'O~.U.\\R1VCO\.'\{)'SIAllIS!1lLF.TTF.lt.'lI__ dnr I I ! i I' l. I I . i L I I" r' , i , . The Keith Companies TK:.C November 4, 1999 Mr. Dean Meyer NEWLAND COMMUNITIES 27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253 Temecula CA 92591 < Re: Paseo del Sol: Appeal of PA 99-0283, 99-0284, 99-0285, 99-0286 Butterfield Stage Road at Highway 79 Drainage Issues Dear Mr. Meyer: The Keith Companies has been informed that the aforementioned planning applications for the commercial development within PasC?o del Sol near HighWay 79 and Margarita Road have been appealed by the Corona Ranch owners. Further, it is our understanding that the appeal is based on issues involving compliance with development criteria and conditions as they relate to flooding concerns at the northeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 approximately 1 mile to the east upstream of the referenced applications. It is the intent of this correspondence to define the development criteria and conditions as they relate to drainage for Paseo del Sol (formerly Vail Meadows) by relating the histOlY of the drainage approvals and thereby show compliance with said development criteria and conditions. In 1988, the Engineer of Work for Vail Meadows, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District engaged in cQrrespondence dated April 6, 1988; May 16,1988; and May 26,1988 which discuss and developed the master plan of drainage for the Vail Meadows project. As a part of the approved master plan of drainage a large offsite basin immediately to the east (approx. 1190 acres) was identified as a part of the Vail Meadows approval (refer to attachment 1, 2 and 3)., The offsite basin's drainage was mitigated by the construction of twin 120-inch culverts, which exist today in Butterfield Stage Road and easterly in DePortola Road. Also in 1988, Assessment District 159 , which constructed many substantial regional facilities in the south T emecula area, was approved and its E.I.R. No. 241 was certified. This E.I.R. and the associated A.D. 159 dOOJments identified a large basin (approx.2239 acres) further to the east which would require the construction of a channel. This channel known as the Butterfield Interceptor Channel diverts flows upstream of Butterfield Stage Road to the south towatds Temecula Creek. As you know, A.D. 159 has provided many public improvements of regional significance in the south T emecula area including Butterfield Stage Road, Highway 79 and T emecula Creek. However, the Inland Empire Division 22690 Cactus Avenue. Suite 300 Moreno Valley California 92553-9024 t 909,653,0234 t: 909,653,5308 www.keithco.com . Page 2 N-~"ITKC construction of the Butterfield interceptor channel was never accomplished by the AD, In 1996, when Newland Communities purchased the Paseo del sol project, The Keith Companies discovered that the Butterfield interceptor channel had not been constructed, Wrth Newland wanting to move forward with the development of Paseo del Sol and evidence that the construction of the interceptor channel improvements were subject to delay, interim flood mitigation altematives were identified and approved on the Newland property to protect it and potentially other downstream properties from flooding. Ultimately an interim detention facility was designed and constructed pursuant to Riverside County Rood Control and City ofT emecula review and approval. (see attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7). On February 2, 1998 the City of T emecula Planning Commission approved revisions to Newland's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182 (VTM 24182) and confinned the continued presence of the interim detention facility with Condition 27 stating that.. .. the basin or an equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed..: (see attachment 8). hi conclusion, 'and in our opinion evidenced by the aforementioned approvals, Newland is in compliance with all development criteria and conditions particularly as they relate to flooding or drainage issues at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, . THI: KEITH COMPANIES, INC. ~~~.. Richard T. Robotta, P.E. President-Inland Empire Division ' RTRml Enclosures -- cc: Mr. James Delhamer \'.KEITH0301VET _ 0\911.010'0lXJC::l.:l)239992Nove-rber 3_dcx: ':\'4 OF RIVe/? ' ~t----=:....sIO / .~~/ ,../ ". "~. if//"/ "'. - \\ ~~l~ ' I~ 'r,j,'4[8i ~- ~. ,,-b-\-..... ~(j, ......,"tt I.ANO lo\p.~/ --..::..:.--- December 11, 2001 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGElvIENT AGENCY Transportation Department Darid E. Baml1arr Direc:tor of Transportation Mr. William G, Hughes. Director City of Temecula Public Works Dept. P.O, Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589.9033 RE: Butterfield Interceptor Channel, Assessment District No. 159 Dear Bill: Per your request, I am sending you this letter to briefly summarize the ongoing discussions' between the County and the property owners affected by the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. For almost two years now. the County has been meeting with Newland Communities, the Corona Family, and Leonard Savala in an effort to come to an agreement on a preferred aiternative for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Assessment District No. 159 contemplated placing the Interceptor at the easterly boundary of AD No: 159. which would, include the Savala property and only 20 acres of the Corona's land., The Corona Family and Mr. Savala indicated the' proposed AD No. 159 alignment was not acceptable to them. Additional alignments were suggested by the property owners and have subsequently been studied by the Riverside County Flood Control District. As a result of the study effort. it appears the property owners unofficially support an alternative to place the ' Interceptor along the east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately, to date we have not J ' been able to develop a financing mechanism to construct the suggested Interceptor. " If you are interested, we can forward you a copy of the Flood Control Report sumniarizing the alternatives studied, If you have any questions, please contact me. :~IY, a ~~Oh n Deputy Direct of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Sam Alhadeff, Newland Communities Michele Staples Steve Corona Leonard Savala Dusty Williams. Flood Control District Rhonda King, Executive Office r""f~, R ~ ri ~"l!!"1 ~o. t"c '".1 ,t 1.> ~ ~.,. i'J V i.,,',..l,-i -J:..I;! Iii<< L,;.:."" fliI 4080 L~mon Street. 8th Floor. Riverside. California 9250t . (909) 955-6740 P,O, Bo,\ 1090' Riverside, California 90502.1090' fAX (909) 955.6721 - - Dee 21 01 03:26p '" SAVRLR p.2 Fa~:71~-6S1-02~7 Dee 18 '01 1~:~8 P.Ol "I.',',' ..... .' ,'i: " '.' ':"1",'0""."" , " 'aVaa:) .,.'- ",J:" U>.::'..., ',". ~'.", . . .:'. .. , ';:i'- ,'I ..'. '....:.. ,..tn" ::.~ t;:, ..:-_';; !: .~ 'I.:::', :, ":,":.- .... '.:. 1;,-, '. :, ~ ,);:'::" , .'~ :,:", ':",:- ~ ,;. ~_ i, ",:; ( .,.:,~.". 2./:.'::'J-r~':l;'L\ ':(~'::'J,~,~:.: ':i:,",::~"?:' ,1*."\" ','--. '".'..---. .' ,.-.1 """ .:~ . ~. j.: , '1' ';"_ '," ...i';.......: '. '. ..Dcb~mliei:f8i20&i ' , , : ~':::-:", ;.;;" /:;;..':..~:;{.,.,. ,r:~ '~:;~ ;>,:~:'~." " ,n. ",';"," ,1'" ,".: ...,..' -"." j..:" .! ;.... _ ;. i. '. ....;;~:;.::-: ,"\:- .:. "., . . ., ';; ;:: " ... .. .. i' " -" . :: '~'; ..}i::",:"::" :'~!' :.. "". ." .' .,... ';'. .;f~f~~f~~~~~~;:il:i; J' ,::,;;'.i . : :!.;:;it.!~:~~s}1";:~t;:~~to:;L:)'c: r;;b:;-';;:,;JJ::<.;';',iL;;" ,:, ,i;':,:.,""" ,'; ,,: i;R~~ ~~u'tf,E)tF,~Ei;D,lNrF;RCEi:T6RCHAl\lNE'i;;ASSES~ME~1.'))1~RIct<, 0' .~; <~. ~"::":,;",'-:<,.:;..' .,.... .:';:~. " .: ";>.' .. ~. ", ;', \. . .... .1. . "," """, :.:,', ::.;. ~ ',> '. .~. ,",., . .. . ..' .',. : .: .. .' ..; ...,' .; d .- ,':~,!" 1. :' Th~:!V1~~f::?~1u~~~~'P;l~fo~,~~~~~cnt:Dis!ii~~ ~ i ~9cWIlS appi~",~~ ~~' th~,C~tiii!r :'.;;.:." , . '~'.': 4"", Noyemoer ,12:;:01-991; ,the:'SupplementaJ':ASSessmcnt'D,stnct #1:59, war.'''I'Pf'o~~d al!i/' :~~',1.:, -:'~~;t~~f~t~1-:~'~'1:ft~~{t{:[<it~:~t,::'~~'~r:~~,-rfW~c~~.:ir~t1~~~;tJ;~;c :;::,:~' " :.:- _~ ~.';;Vp.-tb.and:inCJuamg;1he9~e "':plan"sj:!iii:1\E;JiiJld;Co'rrrro(iJra.mage:flMcti$: V;erd:"ev~r~howif,:Qii: , ,',!,.;:'~.::\i~;'lt~~!;;~,{~';c(~y.1>~~y::!i~:~",Il.~l~~f?n;j:};.i~ri)#:'li~'e~i~' state:.!~~(~~(it:##~t'; ~k~i~i~ ~ , ':."'iuns:.do~iU. :\~1f?YQIi".bllild:(Dam(@litt~m:eJd'$!Jigi:.Rdtxou ~an"aev.~tpp;;S~!:'jInd' ..ii~J~i~~~~~!~~~iii;t ,~, : ';, ;. for :I\1,:r!Wl~:9:j,';i;:*uIJi~: bythep:iflll)ly'~(Riv.,;-~i<!i:;,tfJe Engineir.o'f: Reoord;;ai1d ihe ..,ni.oi'~~~iiit!?~~;'~~~!~g~~~YZ!i7,~Ht~~r~~~~q:~i,~~~gJy,: ' ;it; .~::: :':;;': :~ ::..'~ ...:....~:::. ";':',:"tc':,..:.,..". ~t"""...... ",;. <:~~." ":~!,.:,,',.;.,,. 'I '.'.):.~. "~:~:~:~;'" .~. K. :.;~~~:~;"~~t;;':;;~.'.::.:.1. .. ,,'." ,.:;. '.. ~t: ~.;. . . ':;'~ 1;::~.' r ~ ". : ::t. .:.; :'\ . I ~,~ . :', .,'. :,"::,., " :'.' ,.,,:;;,;,,';:~ i,'r :,:' '~.:' ~:: :::~"",.,(,',',,,',:',lr',:,;,~:_,,:::.'::,',:', :;,:,~~,';'~~:.^';'i--.;~:.:':~l ~";;""':'~"':':', ._.;;;..^:;.;,r~;.;,'~~~~ ; 'in~'" ac. n"'~" ,.;;~~;,~~n~!""~.~~? , ,', " _ ,.,' ", ,.',,, ""'."..,,-':.:;:,i>,';',",::',,~ . . " _. t:J[~:~:~ ~,tHT:' ' r::::.ci"'" ...' ,','., , r.)oj<.""r;""'~U1:>le,....:wB. -"";0 . .~ " , . , """'-'. -.".J ;: ..: :.: ,) r"_ ~.( i-. .." ~.. ~~ ..; . r, . ;, 'f ..., :... I'.~, '., '. :' ......,. . '~, " -, , n In, /"nn1 t'nT 11::. OJ.,. '''''Y IDT "7\Tn OnRR 1 JA1 nn? Dee " 21 o l 03:27p SRVALR .-,' ,~ , .j' ;",. " : ~... -.': ','. ~ :~;;.;. .~ : ~ .'.... . .! .~-\. ....,. '.' -'", ..' .;, "' '~'. ~ .; ~.; " , .~~ ;', '.:.~':. ". '.. ~ <.R . ;,;- .-.... :.-, ..... " )": :'-(~' :.'.'''1 ;, ; .~';.:;~.' . "'" . .... ;'. . .,";". '.' '-, .'.",.. ; ~ ':. ".t ," . .' \. ", .'~~.~ ~:'. ::i \';'~'.: . " .',; ,;. : ~;. ": '",:1 ,',) .; '.~ " ::.~; \:: ;;;; <, . ~ . . '..' i ".,. . ','. ~: " ".:"', "j t . '.~<i. :; ,." :':':':"'... i; .~ ~ q. '. . :i;~~ r,:,;;:." . ..." .,.......; ". <, :.'. . "",','"',',, ..;: ~~: ; , . :';':., ~'. . f;t; :r~..;.h :/ 1; ~ . _ 'f,';": ~ '. ." t'i~, :~:..:" ~- .:: . I ~. '. .~ ':' # ~.~ " ," " ...... .:1 ~ ,.!,' j ..;,-.: ..,.... ........ .... . .. . .~" Fax;714-651-0?47 " . :;, ...~.~ . .... ," " .~,:;t.' ,I i", !,r:,. ,"" ~. .- . '{"; ..",' '.'.- ~! -j"). ".:.,' ".:';.r;' .(:r i;f'~~':..-; ......,.. .,:,: ....: , - ~, -. ,'. ;'), '. ..-., " '; ~r: . ',,"'I:':r.':,; ;< ,.'; ~ ..:~<>~. \-..!:Jf' " . . ;:~ \ :<' " ';~ .. ,!'., " .' . Dee 18 !', I! " ~ ...~',:';' ~ .' I'. ;,:.' .~ I .. ,;,::,;~"i : ':: : ~':.:~:; " I ....';., " ,:~Ht:" : ,,:tV!. :i'f",' 4 ~i'; .:;{' .'..< ~;;' :,.:J- ;:.~, . ~ ~. .~....:. ;.'. ")1: '. " i" ~ c, '01 14;50 "'. ~, , .,. ... ~ ..,..'; ',. :: r_' .... ~:..' ~.:~ '.t;:' ~~i: ~~:t:.;. :~ ....! ..} ;>,:: '1 ~ '.; :\. ' .' '. ~"'~';':" ....;. ~~~ .{..:: ~ ~ , ',. ';','. '. . , .... ~ .' . '.' Yi.:'.:~: , " !'~: ' ::;,>,:;;:j ",;-.:: . 'L,'::~' :. ':',,,'): .' :\..--;; ,::..; ,'"..!.. .~ :; ':' ;:~' :<!~ :':,:\.~'. ~. ,t.{.l ':.\.;.{,,':',.: f;'r":.: , ~.~.~.. ~; ..,' .: ~.. ...., :::; ~~':; ~, ..,~ :..i ..", '; .~ ,', . . .' (~.r, , .... ~ .; :.,.:;". ,J ;;.~ '_oi '.' ~.~ ;~: ;~.~:, ,; f ....... ....,. ..,' ,.;.,.,' . . '. ~ ~ "".;.; (~: ;,. :;.f " .~: 7.] "<;'. .;';: : ~.~ ' .' , :,', ~,; ~:,:':: ., :.\.':' :I .. ~-:'~ ~.~:':',~. '.' . {. . . . ~ :~ " :~~ .;~;~.~ ; '.;- , ,~ ;,; .~~~':: ;i~it,:f\ ~ '._ ~. . ,', 'r" ~~ ".:" ~: :. . I" .~. :;.: <., :: ~ :1; :i~:{, :: .'" ' ~;:.- . '.;';- ..t;f;~:. .~",": ~~":I:': .~, . ~. .' AI ' . ,.:,. ......':...... ;-' ';.:,l ::,~'~,~~..;} :i :.~ "n :.,..... ~: :~ ::.~.;;, t.~.:~. ~'. ..J ::.~ ::f::" ' I":" .." ~ 1 ::(;~. :;: .;~' .".: \ > .~.; .,::. h-': ;',.' '.-' ','.' 'J. ; .~. .:'." ::-'"i ji....p '.' ,". ." " -:.( : ," ..:,:~~:. ..... , ~ .~~ ,':: .:.J' .1. " .. ::: I;.) ',' ... ,.} .. '. .;.:. .'.'. .. .:-~ '~.-'.. ',.. P,O? .... " .' ~7 . ~ p.3 :.':'. ," ,,: ~ .:.~ .' ,', ':.;:,~ ;..:....;..: . i. >., .'.,,,, .:' -;OJ. ;,; ....::-:';"' "J" ,'".', '" """":':':..',':';.:':'. ....J;... '.',:. '.i. ~.' ' ;:f' (. ,,' .., ., 1'-::' .-:: .~ ,~~ ~".. .... " ;'.' !;' ":.. ..: ~'.~' '", " '. . .'.'. ". .... ~.'.. \~:.'::.::'~( t::~;; r ~" >i;Y:::z:'\ ""j- ': " ;;:, '<:'~;'~~~~;J~~";.1~:.~, '.';. ':;. ", l' :.. ~.~: F,~': :7: /,';~;:: ~~;::;':.;> :~ '.. :;" :'~ ~,; :', '.r " ;: '.r " ... :;. " , ,;: "~' .:.'1. ..;.., :il :~;. .::> .i.{ . .~.~. "; ~: . -~( " '. :s' .\:, :,; ".f ;. :t: .j. : ~.~ ;: " ,,,. '.'J' ',', ,,' ';. .. !1~ ,. .-" " , ' .,~. ~'i.. 'M':,:,,~',:l:,:t:.~;:t~, ~A'''''' , :' IlEWIIT & O'NEIL LLP AlTORNEYS AT LAw TInA M. i:OOIR.AN DEAN DUNN-RANKIN SANDRA A. GALLE WILLJAM E. HAllE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HI;wrrr LAWRENCE J. HILTON WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 198-0734 EMAIL: oontJl@hcwittoneil.com JOHN D. HUDSON S11NEN B, IMHOOF DENNlS D, O'NEIL JAY F, PALOIIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WilliAM L TwOMEY JOHNP. YEAGER 19900 MAcARTHUR BoULEV ARO, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500 . (949)798.0511 (FAX) EMAIL: counsd@hewittoneJl.com January 3, 2002 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon.Mayor and Members of the City Council City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive lemecul~CJ\ 92590 Re: Planning Application No. PAOI-OI09 (General Plan Amendment), Planning Application No. P AOI-OlO2 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8), Planning Application No. P AOI-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No.4) Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Counci.l: (0) This law tirjn represents Newland Communities ("Newland"), the developers of tile Paloma del, Sol Spe<;ific Plan No. 219 (now known as Paseo del Sol) master planned community. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219/EIR 235 and Development Agreement was originally approved by the Riverside Coimty Board of Supervisors in September of 1988. This was prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula and inclusion of the Paloma del Sol property within the new Temecula municipal boundaries. Since the formation of the City of Temecul~ the City Council approved an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for Paloma del Solon January 8,1993 (the ''Development Agreement"). Newland has processed a number of Specific Plan No. 219 amendments and tract maps and addenda to EIR 235 consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. Newland has now pending before the City Council the above- referenced Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and request for <:ertification of Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. Newland is in receipt of copies of the letters to the Temecula Planning Commission dated November 7, 2001 and November 28, 2001 signed by Darren W. Stroud, an attorney with the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, representing James and Mary Corona and the Corona family objecting to Newland's pending Planning Applications. I have been given copies to read and asked by Newland to respond to the Coronas' assertions as spelled out in attorney Stroud's letters, Newland also wants me to make a request that the "hold" on the 508 unit multi-family tract in Paloma del Sol, as eXplained later in this letter, be released. January 3. 2002 lOOl9-OOOOZ ~;:\I 5Z\coRR'()1 IZOOO3,L lR,doc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 I'age 2 The Coronas' Objections and Newland's Response The Coronas object to the approval of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and pending land use Planning Applications on a number of grounds and request the City to: 1. Enforce the conditions of Specific Plan No.219 Amendment No.1 requiring construction of flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits; and 2. Enforce the mitigation measures required by EIR 235. In the absence of such enforcement, the Coronas state that a subsequent EIR should be prepared prior to consideration of the pending Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications. The Coronas want the hydrology and drainage for the area evaluated in order to mitigate the alleged increase flood hazards to the Coronas' land resulting from development of the Paloma del Sol project and construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Coronas object to Newland's Planning Applications because, they claim, development of Paloma del Sol creates a drainage issue for their property. However, all of the hydrology studies for Newland's property tell a different story. The facts are that the drainage on Newland's property runs from the northeas(to the southwest and is directed into the Temecula Creek Channel through approved and AD 159 constructed storm drain facilities. Newland's property does not divert any drainage onto the Coronas property, which is located upstream of Paloma del Sol to the southeast. Rather the drainage affecting the Coronas comes from the north and east of their property. The drainage pattern is also affected by Assessment District l59's construction of Butterfield Stage Road. , AD 159 understood these factors and provided for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to direct the flow across the Coronas' property at the easterly boundary of AD 159. AD 159 built the downstream facilities, but unfortunately did not build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. So, the Coronas complain of a drainage problem that arises from water flowing from east and not f]-om Newland's property, which is located to the northwest. It is this failure on the part of AD 159 to construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel that constitutes the basis for the Coronas' stonn water drainage problems on their property and really has nothing to do with the development of Paloma del Sol. The Coronas' Contentions and Newland's Response Admittedly, there is some evidence that during heavy storms the surface waters which have historically sheet flowed from the northeast to the southwest corner of the Corona property accumulate and cause a "ponding" condition to exist on an area at the southwest comer of the Corona property. TIlls is the area where the Butterfield Stage Road intersects State Highway 79. The Coronas contend that the construction of the Paloma del Sol project has eJIectively blocked drainage across their property, creating significantly increased flood hazards to their and to upstream properties. They argue, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility (the Butterfield Interceptor Channel) to mitigate this flooding on their property has not January 3. 2002 I01l9-OOOO2 S:\152\CORR\01120003,LTR,doc ~....... City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 3 yet been constructed. The Coronas claim Newland is responsible for solving this problem and the City should not approve discretionary land use entitlements for Newland until the Butterfield Interceptor Channel is buill The Coronas continue to .refer to an April 6, 1988 letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a May 16, 1988 letter from the developers' engineers (Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates) responding to the Flood Control April 6, 1988 and a letter from the Senior Civil Engineer at the County Flood Control District dated May 26, 1988. These letters were prepared at the time the developer of the Specific Plan No. 219 planned community was seeking the original entitlement permit approvals from the County of Riverside. The April6, 1988 letter from Riverside County Flood Control raises issues regarding the potential for diversion of stomr water from its natural tributary drainage course. 111e developers' engineers' response letter dated May 16, 1988 acknowledges the need for' construction of flood control facilities to intercept the storm waters tributary to this area. The May 26, 1988 letter from the seniorcivilengineer at the Riverside County Flood Control District , to the Riverside County Planning DeparlInent states the problems raised in the April 6, 1988 letter have been largely corrected by the applicant. Further, the May 26, 1988 letter points out the need for a pemranent flood control facility onsite or off site before development downstream occurs. It is this May 26, 1988 Flood, Control 'District "comment letter" the Coronas have' ' be:enrelying on to support their position. However, the Assessment District 159 EIR described the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as the mitigation' measure needed to resolve any flooding caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Butterfield Interceptor Channelis the "c,ffsite" solution to handling the stomr water on the Coronas' property. An interim detention b~sin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Paloma del Sol. Pursuant to Condition 40 of Tentative Tract 24182, this "onsite" detention basin must remain in place until such time that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel or some other adequate facility is built to convey off site stomr flows to the Temecula Creek. The 1999 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.7 Some members of the City Council will recall this is not the first time the Council, the City Attorney and the City staff have reviewed these issues raised by the Coronas. In fact, the City has considered a number of applications for modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps over the years as chronologically listed in the staff report. As they have in the past, the Coronas, through their legal counsel, resubmit the same documents and arguments each time Newland's applications for Paloma del Sol are submitted to the Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration, The Coronas continue to assert that it is illegal for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps without enforcing the purported conditions of approval requiring the construction of flood control facilities to protect their land. Nevertheless, th,~ Planning Commission and the City Council have in every case approved Newland's JanlJary 3, 2002 I ()('I9-OOOOZ S:\15Z\CORR\OII20003,LTR,doc " City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 4 applications to amend the Specific Plan 219 and modify tract maps for Paloma del Sol because it has been determined that the Coronas' arguments are without merit. Most recently, in October 1999, the Coronas appealed the Planning Commission's approval of four planning applications submitted by Newland for Paloma del Sol. They based th,~ir appeal entirely on their claim that Newland should be required to build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The staff determined that the EIR for Assessment District 159 had addressed the issue by requiring the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as a mitigation measure to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The staff further determined there was no nexus between the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and Newland's four planning applications. TIle staff was clear that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel was to be built by Assessment District 159, and Newland had ''no control over the timing of that process." Accordingly, the staff recommended denial of the Coronas' appeal. On November 9, 1999, the City Council concurred with the staffs analysis and denied the Coronas' appeal. The Pendin~ Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 On November 28, 2001, consistent with their prior actions involving revised entitlement pennits for Paloma del Sol, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Specific Plan 219 Amendment ,No.8, the related Planning Applications and certification of Addendum No.4 to the fIDal EIR. The Planning Coinmission accepted the staff's answer to attorney Stroud's letters as stated in their November 28, 2001 report to the Planning Commission as follows: . "Public Works Department staff believes the issue of timing and construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed. Moreover, staff believes the current planning actions being proposed have no affect on the timing and' construction of the flood control' improvements." The Coronas cannot point to any other significant difference or to any change in circumstances that would require the City to reach a different result. Newland's valuable development vested rights set forth in the Development Agreement are being challenged because A:;sessment District 159 cannot, without the cooperation of the Coronas, construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel which is its responsibility to do. Because the City has already rejected the Coronas' objection to four nearly identical planning applications and the Coronas did not challenge the City's decision in court in timely manner, the Coronas are now estopped from making their objections anew before the City Council. Newland submits this matter and the issues raised by the Coronas have been thoroughly researched, analyzed and reviewed by the City Attorney and staff. The objections the Coronas raise to Newland's current Specific Plan Amendments and Planning Applications are almost identical to their objections to the four planning applications approved by the City Council in November of 1999. Full envirorunental analysis in compliance with the California Jamlary 3. 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORRIOI120003,LTRdoc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Pa,ge 5 Enviromnental Quality Act has occurred. Notice, public hearings and due process has been 'satisfied. There is no evidence in fact or in law to support the Coronas' contentions. Assessment District No. 159 Assessment District No. 159 ("AD 159'') was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other infrastructure systems within the AD 159 boundaries. In 1991, a supplemental district was approved to increase funds available for the cost of the original AD 159 improvements and to add new district improvements, including the Butterfield Inlterceptor Channel. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel was planned to be constructed on the Corona property east of Butterfield Stage Road at the easterly boundary of AD 159. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paloma del Sol community and its pwpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert them into Temecula Creek. Butterfield Stage Road was constructed above grade in 1994-1995 as an Assessment District 159 project. Contrary to the Coronas' contention, Butterfield Stage Road was not built by Newland. Butterfield Stage Road and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility are improvements under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and AsseSSment District No. 159, not Newland COminunities or the City of Temecula. Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening ofSR 79, the modifications to Temecula Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage fac:ilities, were dependent on the Butterfield IntercePtor Channel being built. In hindsight, the Butterfield Interceptor Channel probably should have been built before Butterfield Stage Road. For reasons not known to Newland and surely not under the control of Newland, this did not happen. As a matter of fact, once Butterfield Stage Road was built by AD 159, the ponding the Coronas complain about would occur after a heavy rainfall. This condition would exist on the Corona property regardless of whether or not any development ever happened on the Paloma del Sol land. As originally contemplated, the improvements AD 159 were to build cost about $108 million. The Paloma del Sol, Specific Plan No. 219, property has been taxed to pay its fair share of the improvements. To date, the Paloma del Sol property has been assessed approximately $27 million for the improvements. This payment included construction of the pOltion of the Temecula Creek Channel that is designed to accept flow from the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland recognizes its obligation as one of the major landowners in AD 159 to participate in the completion of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland has remained willing to cooperate in any good faith effort to resolve outstanding design and funding issues associated with getting the Channel built. To date, the Coronas refuse to accept their fair share of this obligation, l All of the interested parties, including the Coronas, agree that AD 159 was, and is, responsible for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the Butterfield Interceptor Channel January 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\152ICORR\01120003,LTR.doc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 6 construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel because they must agree on its location and make the land available for this improvement at a reasonable price. To this end, Newland has been working diligently with the Coronas and the County of Riverside for, over five years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The County hal! analyzed various alignments for the Channel and has examined additional alternatives at the request of the Coronas. The original design was an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona properties at the east end of the AD 159 boundaries. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel would then continue under SR 79 and extend south to Temecula Creek. The costwas estimated at $3.5 million. The Coronas have objected to and resist the original design because the facility, th,~y say, would !ldversely impact their current farming operations. In an attempt to provide a system that would not interfere with the Coronas' agricultural uses, a subsurface covered box culvert was studied but this was determined to be infeasible. The County Flood Control District looked at another design alternative suggested by the Coronas' engineers consisting of two channels. This dual channel system would include an open channel located along the easterly boundary of the Corona property to intercept the m:~ority of the drainage from the east along with a smaller underground facility at the eastern boundary of AD 159. The dual channel system is estimated to cost,$8.7 million and would benefit all of the remaining 160 acres of the Corona property not originally included in the AD 159 boundaries. The Coronas have stated their preference for the dual channel alternative, but maintain their current farming operations could not support this level of funding. 'Methods of providing deferred assessments have been offered and suggestions that the Coronas dedicate the necessary right of way for the dual channel system to reduce costs have been rejected. The goal sought to be achieved in the meetings with the County and the Coronas of finding a method to fund the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and then be able to apportion the costs of the improvements on an equitable basis has so far failed. This is due, in large part, to the COrOnas' desire that they receive all of the benefits of a stonn water protection system for all of ' their property without being willing to accept any of the costs of constructing these facilities. Supplemental EIR The attorney Stroud for the Coronas argues that a supplemental EIR must be prepared to address increased flood hazards. In general, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed iJ! prior environmental documentation. The intent of CEQA is to allow' public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other circumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources Code Section JamJafY 3. 2002 100 ' 9-()()()()2 S:\152ICORRIOI120003,LTR,doc , City ofTemecula Jarmary 3, 2002 , l'Ege 7 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), a I>upplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a re:mlt of: (a) substantial changes in the project which have an increased negative impact on the envirornnent; (b) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an increased negative impact on the envirornnent; or (c) new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse impact which cannot be mitigated. ' The CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental ErR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further envirornnental review may be required unless one of these specified triggering events occur. ' A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. The statute is phrased in prohibitory larlguage. An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the sbitutory exceptions ex:ist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when envirornnental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental Difense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065). CEQA Section 21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and finality once environmental review has been completed for a prc~ect. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an envirornnental impact does not require the: preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San FrlIncisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court c~:es uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR if impacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project EIR, a further EIR is not required (Bowman). A city may not, therefore, require a supplemental or focused EIR unless it finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the rule against requiring a fiIrther EIR exists. In this case as it was in November of 1999, there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt should be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights). A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a subsequent,EIR is not required, CEQA Guideline Section 15164(b)(e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR might be required, In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR addendum to evaluate changes to the project, The court held that using an addendum as a Janumy 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORRIOI120003,LTR.doc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 8 mechanism for determining whether a further EIR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines. Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any speCific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide that a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included in an: (i) addendum to an EIR, (ii) the city's required findings on the project or (iii) elsewhere in the record. On this point the planning staff report and position adopted by the Planning Commission states: ' "With regard to environmental analysis, Plaiming staff does not believe that the planning actions as'proposed have any significant environmental affect on flood hazard issues. Moreover, staff believes the proposed Addendum to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses potential 'environmental impacts, associated with the proposed project. ' Therefore, staff does not believe that additional environmental analysis is necessary." Even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a supplemental EIR should be prepared in connection with the pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment and related Planning Applications. This is because SpeeificPlan Amendment No.8 and the Planning Applications under review will have no impact on uP'stream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. The existing Paloma del Sol approximately 20-acre detention, basin in Tract 24182 will protect downstream properties froin any storm water drainage entering from the east. This follows from the fact that no slormwater from the Paloma del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval' of Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are ahsolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a subsequent EIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus or' relationship to the pending Paloma del Sol Planning Applications and drainage issues on the Corona'property. Interim Detention Basin and Hold on 508 Multi-family Units On February 2, 1998, the City Council, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA 96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182), added Condition No. 40 dealing with an interim detention basin located on approximately 20 acres at the southeastern portion of Tentative Tract 24182. The condition required Newland to set aside and maintain this area entitled for 188 residential lots as a storm water detention basin until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey off site storm flows to an adequate outlet. TIns condition constitutes Newland's "onsite" mitigation to protect properties to the west of Butterfield Stage Road in the event of an extreme storm episode when storm waters could breech Butterfield Stage Board. January 3, 2002 J()(IJ9.{)O()()2 S:\:152ICORRIOI120003,LTR,doc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 9 In an attempt to address the concerns of the Coronas and provide further incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council on November 16, 1999 placed a "hold" on Planning Areas 6A and 6B of 'Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units in,the Paloma del Sol project. Even though Newland was advised by counsel and the staff acknowledged there was no legal requirement to accept this limitation, Newland recognized the need to show its good faith willingness to continue the efforts to work towards a resolution of the storm water'drainage problem in this area. Newland accepted this restriction and offered the collateral of 508 multi- family units as an "eqnity holding." It was Clearly the intent of the City and Newland as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim cOndition. Newland must now respectfully request the City Council release the hold on the, 508 multi-family units in Planning Area6A and 6B of Parcel Map29431. Newland has negotiated in good faith with the County and the Coronas on nwnerous ocCasions since the City Council imposed this development restriction on their property in November of 1999. As pointed out earlier in this letter, the Coronas have failed to agree on the various design alternatives and funding options for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland remains willing to work with the County and the Coronas to resolve the issue of building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. However, it would no longer be appropriate and constitute a denial of Newland's property rights protected by the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement to firrther interfere with Newland's opportunity to develop Planning Areas 6A and 6B. ConClusion The Coronas have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of the Paloma del Sol project approvals, any significant changed circwnstances, or new information which was not considered in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR 235 as fiurther reviewed in prior and in the current Specific Plan Amendment No.8, related Planning Applications and Addendwn No.4 to EIR 235. The AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road construction, and not Paloma del Sol, hliS caused the storm drain ponding to exist on the Corona property. The Coronas have a remedy by taking action against the County or they can cooperate in allowing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to be constructed by AD 159. Nevertheless, the Coronas continue to pursue groundless efforts to manipulate the City's land use discretionary powers to their advantage while threatening the property rights of Newland. There is absolutely no connection between the Paloma del' Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues raised by the Coronas. Ariy issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns should be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County of Riverside, not the City and Newland. This has consistently been the position of Newland. Newland has been willing and continues to be willing to work with the Coronas and the County on a solution to the storm water drainage issues impacting the area, but the Coronas need to demonstrate a greater willingness to cooperate in the process. Newland has acted in good faith in the negotiations and under the circumstances must request the City Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family units imposed on Newland over two years ago. January 3, 2002 W019.Q()()()2 S:\152\CORR\OJ J20003,LTR.doc City of Temecula J:muary 3, 2002 Page 10 While the issues of the design, funding and constniction of the AD 159 Butterfield Interceptor Channel seem to be languishing, Newland is incurring significant costs of maintaining an interim detention basin that protects their and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road. This interim detention basin also prevents Newland from developing 188 lots already entitled under the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. It is this major restriction on Newland's development rights and not the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units which' will continue to provide the incentive for Newland to work towards a solution for constnicting the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. JanUllrY 3, 2002 10019-00002 S,1152\CORRIOI120003,LTR,doc In summary: . Newland has vested property and development rights under the terms of the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement which is binding on the City. . Any flooding that might occur on the Coronas' property is caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD 159 and can be re:solved by the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel by AD 159. The Coronas' remedy lies with the County and AD 159. There is no causal relationship or "nexus" between Specific plan No. 219, Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and storm drainage ' issues raised by the Coronas on their land. ' There are no substantial changes in the Paloma del Sol projeet,'changed circumstances or new information having an adverse impact on the environment requiring a supplemental EIR. Newland has met with the County and the Coronas to work on' solutions for construction the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, but the Coronas are 'unwilling to accept their fair share of the costs. . . . . Newland respectfully requests the City to release the hold on the 508 ' , multi-family dwelling units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Continuing the hold would provide no public pwpose and is legally unsupportable. . Newland has satisfied its obligation to protect its and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road by maintaining the interim detention basin or equivalent facility which must remain in place until such time as upstream drainage facilities are constructed. City ofTemecula Jall'~ary 3, 2002 Page 11 On behalf of Newland, I therefore submit there is no need to consider adding new conditions or to require further environmental documentation and respectfully request the City COlmcil accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Specific Plan 219 Amendment No.8, the related Planning Applications and certify Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. Further, Newland no longer consents to the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units in Plaaning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431 and requests to be released from this hold. Very truly yours, '~6)~ Dennis D. O'Neil DDO/clt cc: James M. Delhamer Dean Meyer Sam Albadeff Peter M. Thorson JanU;:lry 3. 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORRIOII20003,LTRdoc .,. " t ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP A lIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INClUDING A PROFESSIONAl CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 270 TEMECUlA, CAlIFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego and Temecula. California January 4, 2002 SAMuel C, AlHADEff SAlHAOEFFtalASLAw1.COM The Honorable Ron Roberts Mayor, City ofTemecula Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive P,O. Box 9033 T,emecula, CA 92589-9033 9103,001 Re: Planning Application No. P AOI-0109 (General Plan Amendment) Planning Application No. P AO 1-0 1 02 (paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8) Planning Application No. P AOI-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment, No.4) (Collectively "Actions") Dear Mayor Roberts: The purpose of this letter is to support a request that we will make on behalf of-oUr client N~wland on the Actions referenced above at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 8, 2002. The request is that the City Council delete a condition that was imposed with regard to a Prlot application made by Newbind Communities (''Newland'') in November of 1999 involving what is generally referred to as Amendment No. 7 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The actionwas taken on November 9, 1999. A copy of the official minutes of that action is attached as Exhibit 1 herein. The specific condition read as follows: - - Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with amending the SpeCific Plan as it relates to Home Depot as follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans continue to serve on the subcolIlllifttee that is to meet with the proponents and opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; that the City will have the ability to withhold approval of building permits within Tract No. 24182, with the exception of Phases 1 and 2, as identified by Deputy City Manager Thornhill; that once a reasonable compromise has been negotiated, the matter would be addressed at a City Council public hearing; and that the subcommittee will report to the City Council at its November 16, 1999, City Council meeting. C:IVIINDOWS\DesktopIDataIClientslNewland CommunitieslRoberts Ur 01 ,03,Oz,doc " '" ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4,2002 F'age 2 The transcription of the City Council meeting has been attached as Exhibit 2 to this letter. The transcription of the minutes of the meeting of November 9 provides clarification as to the specifics of the motion. There is a discussion by Councilman Comerchero that he believes the Council should hold up certain building permits on Map 24183 and 24182 with the exception of pnases 1 and 2. His exact quote is as follows; "... We 'hold up building permits there until such time as this issue is resolved or comes back to the Council in public hearing for the Council to make a determination that there is sufficient progress made to release those building permits." Later in that same discussion Councilman Stone makes the following motion: "I move that we approve the Specific Plan Anlendment (Amendment No.7) with respect to the Home Depot development that Mr. Lindemans and Mr. Ford continue to act as a subcommittee to meet with the proponents and opponents in coming to a reasonable compromise. The City will have the discretionary approval of building permits within the parcels that Mr. Thornhill will identify whereby the; either the ultimate improvements that are negotiated are built or the City Council sees significant improvement in their negotiations to come up with a reasonable cOmpromise, where we will have a public hearing and the Council.has the discretionary ability to go ahead and approve the building permits as the Council sees, fit." Exhibit No.3. Subsequently on November 16, the City Council had another hearing to discuss this matter. At that hearing the motion was made to substitute certain parcels. The motion was made by then Councilman Lindemans as follows: "...moved to have the City, hereby,releilsethe 218 lots in Tract 24182~3 and 4, as described in the Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on November 9, 1999, and substitute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 ;consisting of 508 multi-family units." - - A eopy of the November 16,1999 minutes is attached as Exhibit 4. The transcript of the November 16 hearing clarifies the situation and Councilman Lindemans points out that he now has two problems that the staff did not have or see any nexus and that 188 lots were sufficient and there doesn't need to be a hold on anything else. Please understand that he is referring to what the staff had suggested at those hearings. Mr. Thornhill goes on to state: "I think that's a legal opinion, but I think that's what we stated in the staff report that we felt there was no nexus and we, the only " ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 3 reason we imposed that condition restricting those lotswas to insure that there would be some attempt to resolve these issues." Councilman Lindemans then goes on to make a motion to release the original 218 lots and put in its place the 508 multi-family unit lots i1i Pliuming Area 6A and 6B, i.e., Lots 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 29431. A copy of the transcription of those minutes is attached as Exhibit 5. The request we make tonight is to modifY the conditions and remove the hold that was ' placed on the Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. There are three primary reasons that we make this request.' , (I) There continues to be no showing of any nexus between these actions and any impact on the Coronas' property. (2) Newland believes that it has met the test of "significant improvements in their negotiations to come up with a reasonable compromise"; and ! (3) , As Mr. Dennis O'Neil points out in his lerier(acopy of which is attached as Exhibit 6), the Coronas and any other party are adequately collateralized with the hold on 188 lo;ts of the Paseo del Sol Tract 24182. We will adopt, for purposes of this letter all of the staff reports and prior proceedings involving the lack of nexus as to our first point. ' As to the second point, we would respectfully submit the following in support of our request. (1) A copy of a George Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation letter to William Hughes, the Director of Public Works Department of the City, dated December II, ~I (attached as Exhibit 7). ' The specific sentence is: .' "As a result of the sttidy effort, it appears the property owners unofficially support aIb'alternative to place the interceptor on the east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately, to date we have not been able to develop a financing mechanism to construct the suggested interceptor." (2) A copy of a George Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation letter to the Corona Ranch dated February 17,2000 (attached as Exhibit 7a). The specific sentences are: "As you are well aware, "the Butte,rfield interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the eastern Assessment District boundary, to intercept the tributary ~ ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 4 drainage flows and provide flood protection to the Butterfield Stage Road. State Route 70 south, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the AD boundary, you requested we study other alternatives." "If youare willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of your property outside the current AD 159 boundaries, the Trarisportation Department is willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need your written concurrence." . It is very clear from years of records and the o~ganization of Assessment District 159 ("AD 159") the cost for the construction of the interceptor channel was to be borne by those affected members of AD159, as proposed by the assessment engineer. There are a number of documents that have been previously submitted to the City and Mr. O'Neil's letter points out agaill; the amount that Newland would be required to contribute under AD 159. It is undisputable that Newland has always been prepared to allow the appropriate liens on its property and the rl~quisite bonds be sold for its financial share of the interceptor channel. As the attached February 17,2000 letter of George Johnson makes clear, the ADI59 has only a limited amoUnt offunds for the channel. Theoriginal channel design and construction has been rejected and continues to be rejected by the Coronas. They desire an alternative channel. When you review the transcript of the proceedings at the City you will find that what they were requesting was that Newland cooperate and agree with them as to an alternative location for the channel. The challenge has always been the additional funding. Newland desires not only their 19.1 +/_ acres in AD159 be included but the balance of their entire property, approximately 145+/- acres be included. As the letter of February 17,2000 points out, unless the Coronas are willing to burden their additional property to get the financing necessaryJorsuch an improvement thClt are insufficient funds available in AD 159. However, that is not the responsibility of Newland. (3) The basis for reason Nb. 2 is a commurtication form the Coronas and their representatives to other agencies, for ~xample a letter submitted by Michelle Staples dated August 13,2001 to Chairman Venable and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors discussing the same issue. Please note at the time Ms. Staples and her firm was trying to make the same arguments on another project, which they are making on the Newland project. The project that they were discussing was a project being developed by Colorado Pacific, in the County of Riverside. The letter is instructive because it points out at Page 2, in part, as follows: "The Coronas' engineer Bob Kreiger has been working closely with the County Flood Control District to analyze and confirm the feasibility of locating the interceptor channel facility and an alignment approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of . ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 4, 2002 Page 5 Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon bv all of the participating Assessment District 159 owners." A copy of the letter is attached as ExhibitS. Finally, Michelle Staples at the hearing on the same item discussing the Colorado Pacific project Item 13.1 of the Board of Supervisors hearing on September 25, 2001, states as follows: " "Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked Cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the program, the projeCt." She then goes on to state that Colorado Pacific has agreed to assist to make a portion of its property available for this relocated alignment. We submit that the parties have cooperated and agreed to an alignment, that a project o\\ned by Colorado Pacific allowed a portion of its property to be burdened by such portion of the: alignment and that all that remains to be found by the Coronas is the funding. This funding is nol: the responsibility of New land except as is required for its pro rata share under the Assessment District. A transcript of Ms. Staples'cpmments is attached as Exhibit 9. Finally as to reason No.3 in support of our request we adopt Mr. O'Neil's letter, a copy of which has been previously attached as Exhibit 6. If there are any questions, please do not heSitate to contact me. S7l e-- Samuel C. Alhadeff of '^ Alhadeffimd Solar, LLP SCA:sld Endosures as noted CC: Mr. Gary Thornhill Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Mr. Mathew Harris -- " " NO''',elllb~r? 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page I of ll--- Home This is Temecufa City Services Inside City Hall Recreation Help '/?fI'"~,",~~ City Council Minutes lmaack to City Council Minutes Main Index Paae MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 9,1999 . ,The Open Session of the City Council meeting convened at7:00.P.M. Pres.mt: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, and Ford. Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Jennifer Taft. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Tim Buttrey of Temecula Valley Christian Center. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Roberts, PRESENT ATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Wom'ln's Club Million Dollar Goal A Certificate of Achievement was presented to the Women's Club, which was accepted by Ms. Teny Blanton, Presic1ent of the Women's Club, who briefly reviewed the organizations 1999 accomplishments. Introduction of Nakayama Delegates Mayor Ford introduced the Nakayama delegates and presented to each a remembrance from the City of Teme.:ula. , , PUBLIIC COMMENTS A Although the Vail Ranch/Redhawk Annexation did not pass, Mr. Elton Ward, 1<\5322 Callesito Burgos, relayed his dismay with the outcome but expressed appreciation to the City Council and City staff for the outstanding, efforts put forth in order to apprise the residents of Vail Ranch and Redhawk of the annexation, MJ;" Ward thanked those residents that voted in support of the annexation and extended a special thanks to the me~rs of the T emectlla Annexation Group for their efforts and devotion. ' B, Ms. CeCe Axton, 30619, Sierra Madre Drive: representing the Temecula Valley Council PTA, introduced the Council PTA members in attendance and thanked the City Council for its support. Referencing the City's generous contributions, Ms, Axton briefly highlighted the"Council PTA's achievements and successes and extended appreciation to City staff for their continued assistance. On behalf of herself and the Council PT A, Ms, Axton thanke:l and extended appreciation to Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans for their invaluable contributions to the City. At this time, Ms. Axton introduced Ms. Cheryl Eckhardt who, in turn, presented to the City a Certificate of Appreciation for its continued support, Councilman Lindemans suggested that the PT A Council explore the possibility of televising its Board meetings and en,;ouraged the PT A Council to continue discussions with City staff regarding the installation of prefabricated overcrcssings. , Because of her devotion, Ms. Eckhardt informed the City Council that that PTA Council honored Ms. Axton with 'he National Continuing Service Award, C. Mr. Barn Prall, 40470 Brixton Cove, relayed his support of the PT A as well as the installation of prefabricated overcro:,sings. Mr. Pratt expressed his opposition to the Johnson Ranch Project and encouraged the City Councihnembers to review relative information submitted. http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us/cityhall/minutes/I999Minutes/ll0QQQ hfTn ' I. 'November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . . Page 2 of ll::,,~- D. Mr. Chuck Blackedge, 40325 Windsor Road, owner of Balloons Galore, relayed his concerns with regard to Ordinance No. 98-10 which restricts the usage of balloons particularly as it pertains to height. Mayor Pro Tern StonE' requested that the Council be provided a copy of this Ordinance and noted that Mr. Blackedge's concerns will bE> addressed, CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Roberts commended Councilman Lindemans on his perseverance with regard to the Overland Overcrossing and commented on the effectiveness of it. B. Advising that LAFCO has been contacted to discuss the possibility of solely proceeding with the annexation of Vail Ranch without the need for another election, Councilman C()merchero relayed his support of such action, if possible, and requested that the matter be agendized for the December 7,1999, City Council meeting, C. In an effort to promote driver/public awareness, Councilman Comerchero advised that a group was formed to address this issue and that he will report to the City Council of the group's findings. _ D. Councilman Comerchero advised that the Temecula Valley School qistrict recognized the City, at a recent football game, for its contribution to the Chaparral High School lighting project. E. From personal and recent experience, Councilman Lindemans encouraged all to get periodic health exam illations. F. Echoing Councilman Lindemans' encouragement of periodic health examinations, Mayor Pro Tern Stone wished Mr. Lindemans a happy and healthy retirement. G. Commenting on the success of the City's Operation ERASIT Program, Mayor Pro Tern Stone commended the dedicated Police Officers,on ajob well done. ' H. Mal'or Pro Tern Stone as well commended Councilman Lindemans on his perseverance with the Overland ' Overcrossing. Although recognizing the frustrations of the residents impacted by the construction of the Missing , Link, Mr. Stone reminded the residents that although the City will assist with'expedi\ingthe completion of this improvement, this project as well as the new Pala Bridge Project are being handled by'the County. I. Mayor Pro Tern Stone advised of discussions with the City Manager, the Fire Department, and the County of permitting paramedics to, perform ,the emergency procedure of a tracheotomy on an adult and/or child and that he will report to the Council of the outcome. J. Noting that the City had contributed $10,000 to Race for the Cure (SusanG, Komen organization), Mayor Pro Tern Stone encouraged the public to attend and advised that 75% of local monies raised will ben~ the local arena. : K. Mayor Pro Tern Stone requested that staff provide information with regard to student participation and potential continued City contributions and participation' in the Teen Project program. > , L. To further address the expediency of the paramedic units, Mayor Ford requested that the use of Global Positioning System be immediately addressed. M. Reitl~rating Mayor Pro Tern Stone's earlier comments, Mayor Ford advised that the improvements at lower 79 South a re being handled by the County of Riverside and that the City will assist the County, where possible, in order to assure expedient completion of the project. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standlard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1,1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda, http://WW1.V.ci.temecula.ca.usIcitvhall/minllt..ol1 OOOM;nlltpo/1 1 noon l.._ ' c , ,'November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council . . Page 3 of 11-"- 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the lJ1inutes of October 5, 1999. 3 Resolution Approving Ust of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resoluiion entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN ClAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of September 30,1999 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1999. 5 liability Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: fi.1 Approve the City of Temecula Liability Insurance Policy Renewal with Insurance Company of the West in the amount of $81,650 for,generalliability and automobile physical darriage insurance for the period of December l,1999,through December 1, 2000. ' , 6 Extenlsion of the prOhibition on Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages to Brldievale Homeowner's Association property pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.030 FtECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.103 .. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE PROHIBITION ON CO~PTION OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGES TO BRlDLEVALE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.14.030 7 Agreement affecting Real Property at 28820 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, providing for Deferral of Development Impact Fee >~ RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve an agreement with Chemicon Intemational, Inc, that provides for the deferral of D'9velopment Impact Fees over a five.year period. 8 Relea~;e Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities In Tract No. 23371.1 (located northWesterly of the intersection of Rancho California Road at Meadows Parkway) RECOMMENDATION: 8." Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and labor and Materials Securities for public improvements for the interior streets in Tract No, 23371-1: http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminutesl1999Minuteslll0999.htm ' '1....'r'^" " ,NoV7I11ber ~, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 4 of 11--,. 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the surety. . 9 Reh,ase Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities in Tract No. 23371-2 (located northwesterly of the Intersection of Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Materials Securities for public improvements for the interior streets in Tract No. 23371-2; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and the:surety. 10 Proposed State Sales Tax Shift (SMART Formula) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve and support the letter of opposition identifying the City's position to the proposed fiscal refonn plan by the State Controller. Becau8e of the negative impact this Formula would have on the City, Mayor Ford relayed the City's opposition. 11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-27 RECOMMENDATION: '11.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99.27 ~IN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT ~.GREEMENT BElWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND EU ULL Y AND COMPANY FOR PROPERTY (~ENERALLY LOCATED EAST OFYNEZ ROAD, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF'OVERLAND DRIVE (PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99-4274) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve ConsenlCalendar Item Nos, 1-11. The motion was seconded ' , by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. ' At 7:52 P.M" the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. After a short recess, th,e City Council reconvened at 8:20 P.M., and resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. ' .. - PUBLIC HEARING .' 12 Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No.7 to Specific Plan No. 219 _ Paloma del 501), Planning Application No. PA99-0283 (De'.1elopment Agreement for the Vii/ages at Paseo del Sol _ Community'Shopping Center), Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan . Appeal) and Plannin!g Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431 -Appeal) RECOMMENDATION: 1 :!,1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.104 A I~ESOLUTlON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT NO ADDITIONAL ANAL YS,S IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY ACT OF 19'70, AS AMENDED AND THE GUIDEUNES PROMULGATED THEREUNDER REGARDING PlANNING APPUCATlON NOS, PA99-4285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIAC PlAN NO. 219); PA99-4283 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VlI.LAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL, COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER): PA99-4284 (DEVELOPMENT PlAN) AND PA99-0286 (Tt,NTATlVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29431) 12.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslCityhaIVminuteslI999MinuteslII0999.htm. 1?/1'>I1l) Nove~ber?, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 5 of 1I"- ORDINANCE NO. 99.28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECII.A APPROVING PlANNING APPUCATION NO. PA99- 0285 (AMENDMENT NO, 7 TO SPECIRC PlAN NO. 219), WHICH AllENDS lAND USES WITHIN PlANNING AREAS " 6, 8, 27 AND 36: AMENDS THE AUGNMENT AND CONRGURATION OF CAIIPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PlANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES: DIVIDES PlANNING AREA 6 INTO PlANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PlANNING AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20 DtUAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 2411 UNITS), RESULTING IN AN OVERALl REDUCTION OF DWEWNG UNITS FROM 590 TO 5011; AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR COMMUNITY WITHIN PlANNING AREA 8; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO INCORPORATE THE VILlAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENITIES; BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND RNDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDffiONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFRCE OF THE CITY CLERK 12.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance enliUed ORDINANCE NO. 99.29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFTEMECUlAAPPROVlNG THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT ,\GREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPIIENT AG~EMENT, PLANNING AREAS 1(a) & 1(b) OF SPECIRC PlAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7 '12.4 Deny the appeal of Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (Developmen1 Plan) and Planning Application No, PA99-:0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431); 12.5 Uphold the approval by the Planning Commission of Planning Application No. PA99.0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431); 12.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMEClllA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PlANNING APPUCA TION NO. PA99.o284 (DEVELOPMENT PlAN) AND PlANNING APPUCAnoN NO. PA99.o286 (TENTATIve PARCEL'MAP NO. 2,l431), AND UPHOLDING THE APPROVAl OF THESE PROJECTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND RNDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDmoNs OF APPROVAL ON A LE IN THE OFRCE OF THE CITY CLERK , Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed and clarified the deta~ed staff report (as per agenda materials); referenced staff's opinion that there is not a nexu between the Bullemeld Sta e Road 'nterce tor Channel and the four sas bef e I nciI this evenin ; advised !hat the Channel was to be constructed and unded tfirough AD No. 159 and that Newland ommumties has no control over the timing of this process; commented on the boncling capacity of the Assessment District; and noted that due the lateness in receiving Ms. Staples' fax, he has not had the Opportunity to review the informaiion (copies of which were provided to the Councilmembers). Mr. Thomhill relayed the Corona's concern that this project or any future project be approved without Newland Communities fulfilling its commilmentto install the interceptor channel. Mr. Thomhill recommended denial of the appeal and approval of the remaining applications. ~ City AllolTIey Thorson pointed out that because Mayor Ford does not own any properties within 2,500' of the subject site, because Mr. Ford's employer does' not own any undeveloped properly within the applicable 2,500' radius, and because of relationship of this project to AD No. 159, Mayor Ford may participate in the discussion and may vote with regard to this issue, .. In light of the lateness of some of these reports, City Attorney Thorson, for Mayor Pro Tem Slone, advised that staff's re~;ponse to drainage issues on the appeal are summarized in the staff report; that the extensive Newland Communities submittal is summarized in a cover letter; and !hat the fax from Ms, Staples is, in large, summarized on pages 1 and 2 of the proposal. In response to Mayor Pro T em Stone, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD No, 159 and the raising of it by one or two feet was built according to plans and specifications 'and that the two 120' pipes do not adequately mitigate the concerns of both two basins, Councilman Lindemans referenced the May 26, 1988, (of record), particularly commenting, as per his .terpreta lion, on the City's responsibility to ensure that the interceptor channel is constructed. By way of overheads, Mr. Barry Burnell, T&B Planning, 3242 Halladay, #100, Santa Ana, representing Newland Communities, reviewed the request; referenced and relayed his understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (of http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminuteslI999MinutesllI0999.htm._ 12/tl/Ol . .NoveUl\Jer?, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecnla City Council record); and noted the following: Page 6 of II::::::::: That the maximum bonding capacity is $4,9 million; That, as requested by the Flood Control District, a drainage structure was designed to intercept a large amount of off-site storm runoff that approaches the project from the east; That AD No. 159 was fonned in 1988 with its own Environmental Impact Report (EIR) processed through the County; that a supplemental District formed in 1991 at which time the Butterfield Stage Hoad east interceptor channel was originally considered; That the assessment, at that time, was determined at $2.2 million in order to protect the 38 acres owned by the Coronas/Savalas; that the cost of such a facility escalated to $3.5 million (Alternative No.1) which included a box culvert to protect future fanning (38 acres); That the current proposal requests the protection of 202 acres, which encompasses the entire Corona, Savala, and Lumsdaine properties for $5.8 million; that this recent proposal cost has been increased to $6.2 million; , That the conditions of approval for the Vail Meadows Specific Plan never intended the protection of 202 acres; That the Assessment District was approved and the EIH was adopted prior to the approval of the Vail Meadows EIR; That the Assessment District listed the 38 acres as undeveloped/unplanned land and the 202 acres as agriculture land; That the construclion of Butterfield Stage Road created an impact on approximately 5 to 6 acres of the Corona properly; that such construction did not create flOOding to the east of the Assessment District; that the interceptor channel was intended to mitigate concerns with regard to the 5 to 6 al:;res; That the area to the east of the Assessment District (140 acres) has historically flooded. Mr. Rich Robato, representing Newland Communities, further clarified the location and hydrology of the two existing basins and advised that the two 120' pipes were installed by Newland Communities to assist with the water flow for Basin No.2; and that Newland Communities has been assessed 82% of Basin No.1. In closing, Mr. Robato noted that the Assessment District has failed to fulfill its function. Ms, Michelle Staples, 2100 SE Main Streei, Suite 104,lrvine, representing the Coronas, reviewed'll'le request; referenced and relayed her understanding of a letter dated May 26, 1988 (of record); commented on the Coronas' compromise (as per faxed material) which wOl\!d allow the Home Depot project to proceed; and noted the following: .. ~ That a new flood hazard has been created at the commercial comer (79 South) as a result of the new building in and developing on the natural channel; That the City has never relieved the developer of the, condition (as per the May 26,1988, letter) to construct a permanent facility prior to development of the downstream areas; TIlat it is a legal responsibility of this developer to construct a permanent facility; that any approval should be based on the construction of an interceptor channel before the issuance of development permits; That the lateness of her faxed letter was as a result of waiting for information from the County. which was not received; That the project cost of approximately $6,2 million (A1temative No, 3) does include the underground interceptor and the open channel to the east; http://www.ci.temeculacauslcityhall/minutes/1999Minutes/ll0999.htrn 1216/01 , Nov~mher 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 7 of I r== That although only 5 to 6 acres of the Corona property are impacted as a result of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. in order to construct facilities in a manner which will allow the Coronas to continue their current and future land uses of the property without further severance damages to them, the facility which was constructed in the middle of their property must be buried by 4'; it was suggested that a smaller facility be constructed in its place and that a larger facility be constructed to the east: Counl;i1man Undemans suggested that, in order to meet with the County and the developer, the matter be continued to the November 16, 1999, City Council meeting, Ms. Staples noted her concurrence with a contin uance. Mr. Allan Davis, Del Sol Investment, Carlsbad, requested that the City Council take action as recommended by City staff, Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Newland Communities, 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 203, referenced and quoted City Condition No.27 on Map No. 24182, as follows: an interim detention basin has been constructed on the southem portioll of Phase IV and the final phase of Tentative Tract No. 24182; the existing detention basin or an equivalent facility should remain in place until such time that upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey off-site storm flows to an adequate ouliet; any revision to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities should be approved by the City, Further addressing the matter before the City Council, Mr. A1hadeff noted the following: That there is no nexus to the Corona property and Home Depot; ,That there would be no objection to including Condition No. 27 (as noted above) with the approval of Home Depot. That the appeal be denied and that the remaining issues be approved with the imposition of Condition No. 27. Ms. Staples noted her opposition to the approval of Home Depot as well as ,any other approval under Specific Plan No. 219 without the imposition of a condition requiring the construction of the interceptor channel. She supported the approval of the Home Depot project contingent upon withholding building permits for Newland Communities. Mr. Bob Krieger, representing the Coronas, further commented on Altemative No.3 (submitted to the County); addre!>sed the water flow; the 2 120" pipes installed for Basin No.2; and the construction of a facility upstream on the ea:;terly portion of the Corona property. ' By way of overheads, Mr. Sam Alhadeff reiterated his request that the City Council deny the appeal due to lack of nexus and approve the project. -= At 10:05 P.M., the public hearing was closed and a recess was taken. The Council reconvened at 10:14 P.M. , In light of this evening's discussion, Councilman Comerchero noted that the noted drainage issues will obviously not be resolved today and, therefore, suggest~d the following: , That the Home Depot project be approved; That all building penn its for Map No. 24182 with the exception of Phases 1 and 2 be withheld until this issue is resolved or the matter is addressed by the City Council in a public hearing, City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No, 99-28 and Ordinance No, 99-29. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with amending the Specific Plan as it relates to Home Depot as follows: that Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemans continue to serve on the subcon ' e that is to meet with the proponents and opponents in an effort to create a reasonable compromise; that the City will have e ability to WI 0 uildillg pennlls Wlmln I ract No. 24182, with me exception of Pha~;es 1 and 2, as identified by Deputy City Manager Thornhill; that once a reasonable compromise has been negotiated, the matter would be addressed at a City Council public hearing; and that the subcommittee will report http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us/cityhalVrninutes/1999Minutes/ll0999.hltn 12/6101 November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting ofthe Temecula City Council Page 8 of II to the City Council at its November 16, 1999, City Council meeting, The motion was seconded by Councilman Lindemans and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For Ms, Staples. it was noted that Phases 3 and 4 of Tract No. 24182 would withhold approximately 400+ building permits. 13 Planning Application No. PA98-<l447 (Tentative Tract Map) a request to subdivide 6.31 acres of land into tv.'enty-four (24) residential lots and Planning Application No. PA99.Q238 (Development Agreement) a reque~;t for a Development Agreement to allow a minimum of five (5) foot side yard setback (for property located on the south side of Via La Vida between Margarita Road and Solana Way) jQECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND HIRAM-HILl., LLC FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1. -, OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 16-20 AND 26-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882-3) LOCATED ON THE HOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY '13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: IIESOLUTlON NO. 99.106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAl BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PlANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA98-ll447 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1-4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 16-20 AND 28-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882-3) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY , Councilman Comerchero noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue. ) By way of overheads, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), , Mayor Ford opened the public hearing, An engineer (name inaudible and no speaker card submitted), representing the applicant, was present to concur with staff recommendation. Mayor Ford closed the public hearing. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by tiUe only Ordinance No, 99-30. - - MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve staff recommendation, The motion was seconded by Councilman Undemans and voice vote reflecte~ approval with the exception of Councilman Comerchero who abstainlld. " 14 Devolopment Agreement with Pala Rain6~w LLC (for property located near the intersection of Highway 79 South and Pala Road) FtECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0273; 14,2 Introduce and read by tiUe only an ordinance, ORDINANCE NO. 99-31 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND PALA RAINBOW. LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PAlA ROAD (PlANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99'()273) Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (of record), http://www.ci.temecula.ca.us/cityhaIIlminutes/1999Minuteslll0999.htm _ l?/r:.tm No,:ember.9, 1999 Regular ~eeting of the Temecula City CoUncil Page 9 of 11---- Mayor Ford opened the public hearing. There being no public interest to speak, the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 99-31. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. . Councilman Lindemans thanked the Planning Commission for their expediency in addressing this issue. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1519!19-o0 Community Service Funding Program Committee Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Review and approve the 1999-00 Community Service Funding Program requests per the table I)ullining the Commillee's recommendations of 32 organizations-totaling $102,000. Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to Escondido Community Health Center (No. 12). Financo Director Roberts referenced the staff report (as per agenda material), briefly highlighting the various organizations as well as the Commillee's (comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Stone and Councilman Comerchero) funding recommendation which totaled $102,000. Mr. Ricl< Schultz, 31905 Via Cordoba, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Club, thanked the City Council for its continued support; referenced last year's funding from the City in the amount of $22,400; and requested that ) consideration be given to waiving the Club's $18,000 yearly building loan repayment to the City. FinancE' Director Roberts advised that the next CDBG funding cycle will be. in January 2000 and that the Boys and Girls Club may participate in that process as well. - . . MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained with regard to No. 12 (Escondido Community Health Center). 16 Old "rown Redevelopment Advisory Committee Appointment R.ECOMMENDA TION: - - 116.1 Appoint two applicants to serve on the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee each a four-year term to expire September 26, 2003. " Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this mailer. City Clerk Jones briefly reviewed the staff report (of record). Councilman Comerchero suggested that consideration be given to requesting Court relief from the requirement that a member of this Committee must live and/or own a business in Old Town and requested that the mailer be agendized for a future meeting. Councilman Roberts requested that the need for this Committee be determined. lOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to appoint Mr. Arthur Yorke and to reappoint Commillee Member Jenkins. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained. http://www.ci.temeculaca.us!cityhalllminuteslI999Minuteslll0999.htm 1"')11':/1\1 NovelTIber 9, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council ". . Page 10 of ll-- 17 Public Traffic Safety Commission Appointment EECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Appoint two applicants to serve on the PUblicfTraffic Safety Commission each a three-year term to expire October 10, 2002. City Clerk Jones briefly reviewed the staff report (of record). Mayor Ford extended appreciation to Mr. Markham for his years of service to the City. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to appoint Mr. Mark Katan and to reappoint Commissioner Coe. The' motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 18 Appointment of Representative and Alternate to the Riverside Transit Agency RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as the representative for the Riverside Transit A(Iency; 18.2 Appoint Karel Undemans to serve as alternate for the Riverside Transit Agency through December 31,1999; City Clerk Jones reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). City Allorney Thorson advised that it is a requirement of the RT A to appoint a current City Councilmember. ; .lOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to appoint Councilman Undemans as the City altemate to the RTA Agency until December 31,1999, and to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Stone as the representative. The motion was' seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MAI~AGER'S REPORT Because the Registrar of Voters will not be able to certify the November 2,1999, election results until November 18, 1999, City Manager Nelson adviSed that an adjoumed regular meeting has been scheduled for Monday, November 22, 1999, at which time the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, President of the Community Services District, and the Chaimlan of the Redevelopment Agency will be appointed. - CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT _ City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council gave direction to staff with regard to the real property matter and as well provided direction to him as to the defense of the legal matter. ADJOURNMENT , , At 10:56 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjoumed to Tuesday, November 16,1999, at 7:00 P.M., City CounGiI Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: <;usan W. ,lones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk EAl] htlp:llwww.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminutes/1999Minuteslll 0999 him November 9,1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council , , liB Sn-E Ale I EH I 291960 - .. http://www.ci.temeculacauslcityhalllminutes/1999Minutes/ll0999.htm Page II of 11 __d 12/6/01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 ;: ~ ~ . 11 0 u " < z 12 ~ ... ..l' ..lg 13 ., "'< <0 ..lz 0-< 14 U)g;:: ....rjli: -, }... 15 <,;.: "'~ 16 ..l- <~ > - 17 ~ " < ~ g 18 - i ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Comerchero Mr. Mayor. Ford Mr. Comerchero.- Comerchero During the break Councilman Stone and I met with Gary Thornhill and our City Attorney and our City Manager and I think we have come up with something that can get Us off the dime here and hopefully go home with everybody reasonably happy. It's becoming apparent that we are not going to solve the drainage issues here tonight and yet we don't want to postpone the issue and bring it up later and possibly have a new council deal with it or have it be split between this council and another council. Gary if you would put up that, thank you. What we are proposing is that we go ahead and approve the Home Depot project tonight, but if we do that we recognize that we are taking'any leverage that the Corona family may have and'taking it off the ta,ble and that may not be fair to the Coronas considering that the issue still needs to be resolved. So, what we are offering is that we take parcel, or the map there that is 24183 and we hold up all buildThg permits on that map and we take the one next to it 24812, with the exception of Phases k,and 2, which may already be too far along in the process and we hold up building permits there until such time as this issue is resolved or it comes back to the Council in - public hearing for the Council to make a determination that there is sufficient enough progress made to release those bui ng permits. And, I would be very interested to hear from both sides as to whether or not we can all live with this. . 67 C:\Oata\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-9-99 (Newland) .doc .:;;. , , 1 2 3 4 5 5 '7 13 9 z 0 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ IJ. 0 <> ~ < z 1" ~ <, ... ,.," ,.,~ 13 ci~ ,j~ 0-< 14 .., g 5 > u ',)"' .t ~ -. 15 . " ,- Cl~ <~ "'~ 16 ,.,. <~ > . 17 :; ~ < :; Q 18 . . i :; 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 interested in standing in the way of progress. Lindemans Okay. Staples We are interested in having this channel built and we think the proposal made by you, as amended by Councilman Stone is fair. Lindemans Okay, I will stay with it. Stone Can we as amended? Lindemans Yes. Stone Would you do me a favor then, would you restate the motion and the amendment so that it's clear? Lindemans Could you withdraw my motion. Would you state the whole thing? Speaker You're good at that. Lindemans - - I can read in Dutchfbaughter) Stone , , No Dutch. Okay Speaker Do you want to have it read to him? Stone I move that we approve the Specific Plan amendment with respect to the Home Depot development that Mr. Lindemans and Mr. Ford 73 C:\Data\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-9-99 (Newland) .doc continue to act as a sub-committee to meet with the proponents and opponents in corning to a reasonable compromi~~. The City will have.the discretionary approval of building permits within the parcels that Mr. Thornhill will identify whereby the, either the ultimate improvements that are negotiated e built or the Cit Council sees significant improvement in their ~eg tiations to come up with a reasonable compromise, where we will have a ( public hearing and the Council has the discretionary ability to go ahead and approve the building permits as the Council sees -fit. Lindemans And we are supposed to report to you on the 16th. Stone Yes. Lindemans I second that motion. (Voices) Alhadeff Excuse me, you also need to deny the appeal. Lindemans - Inaudible ... Thorson >> Mr. Mayor, we'll take, if I could, I would recommend that we take Thornhill I am sorry Peter, I think Councilmember Stone said discretionary and I think he meant withhold. Stone Right, I meant . . . 74 C:\Oata\C1ients\CITY QOUNCIL\11-9-99 (Newland) .doc Novemb.er.16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 1 of 10. Home This is Temecula City Services Inside City Hall Recreation Help --) .'~ City Council Minutes IiJBack to City Council Minutes Main Index Page MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16, 1999 The City of Temecula City Council convened in an adjoumed regolar meeting at 7:04 P.M., on Tuesday, November 16, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, T emecula. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, al)d Ford. Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Aaron Breid. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Youth Pastor Scoll Treadway of Rancho Community Church. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute Mayor Pro Tem Stone. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Nationall Family Week . Mayor Ford proclaimed November 21-27 to be designated as National Family Week. On behalf of all the families in the City of Temecula, Ms. Denise Orne accepted the award, noting that it would be placed on display at the Library. Certificate of Appreciation to AI Crisp and Larry Markham Presenting Permit Engineer Crisp with a Certificate ,of Appreciation, Mayor Ford relayed the City's gratitude for Mr. AI Crisp'B dedicated service, aiding the City in establishing a foundation for the Public Works Land~evelopment Division with his extensive engineering background. _ Mayor Ford presented Mr. Larry Markham with a Certificate of Appreciation for his three years serving as a PubliclTraffic Safety Commissioner, noting that the City had greatly benefited from his invaluable service. , , For infonnational purposes, Mayor Ford relayed the success of the recent Race for the Cure Event which was held in the City of Temecula for the purpose of raising monies for breast cancer research; noted the inspiring feats of various handicapped participants in the race; and displayed the crystal plate that was presented to the City denoting the 1999 Temecula Race for the Cure Event. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Maryann Edwards, representing the Assistance League of the Temecula Valley, relayed the various activities of the or~lanizalion, inclusive of the provision of clothing for children; thanked the City for their generous support; invited th,~ public to the 2nd Annual Holiday fund raiser, scheduled to be held on Sunday, November 21,1999 from ~:OO P.M. to 7:00 P.M. at the Castaway's Thrift Shop located at 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula; and cornmended Councilman Lindemans, and Mayor Ford for their dedication to the City, as Councilmen. The following individuals relayed their support of the proposed permanent Community Theatre: Ms. Bobbi Boes, representing the Theatre Foundation, 27740 Jefferson Avenue http://www.ci.temecula.causlcitvhall/minnfl...</1999M;nnt...../111 ';00 hfm_ 11...."'''''''" Novembe, 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 2 of 10-' Mr. Dan Stephenson, representing the Theatre Foundation, 27740 Jefferson Avenue Ms. Patti Drew, representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse, 45680 Muirfield Drive Ms. Julie Pitruzzello representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse, not given The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments: Provided an overview of the proposal to consiructthe project in Old Town. Noted the commitment of a community group to fund a ha'lf million dollars of the project. Commended Councilman Undemans, and Mayor Ford for their support. Relayed that the project would be a great asset in the community. Referenced the General Plan; and noted that the proposed project would fulfill the vision ouUined in the goals. For Councilman Undemans, Mr. Dan Stephenson confirmed that the preliminary plans were inclusive of utilization of the Mercantile Building in Old Town, and that the City had designated funding in the amount of a half million dollars for the proposed project. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A Updating the Council with respect to the Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC), Councilman Roberts provided information regarding his opposition to the recent proposal presented to the Committee proposing to utilize the Discretionary funds from the years 2000-2008 (totaling $58 million), to fund two Measure A Projects (associated with the 91 Freeway Improvement Project); relayed that Discretionary funds were the sole . funds available for the southwest Riverside County area due to this particular area 'lot being included in the Measure A Projects; noted lI1at although approval of lI1e proposal was recommended by staff, and the County Board of Supervisors, there was opposition from the Cities of Murrieta, Hemet, Temecula, and the majority of the Desert cities; advised that the Commillee denied the proposed funding; relayed that the Board of Supervisors then evokeclthe Division of the House Rule, v9ting (4-1) to approve the funding proposal, and thereby, rendered the issue mute; advised lI1al it was agreed that in January there would be a Special Meeting scheduled to discuss the rnatter further; relayed additional information regarding the potential reduction hi costs associated with the two Measure A Projects; advised that there was $67 million available in Rail funding which could potentially temporarily fund these two particular projects; noted that he wQuld further update the Council in January, 2000; and provided assurance that he would continue to oppose the utilization of the Discretionary funds for the fundiQg of the previously mentioned projects. - Councilman Roberts noted his disappointment'with the press continually publishing negative comments regarding the traffic situation in the City of T emecula; relayed the kudos the City had received from the public regarding the recent road improvements (i.e., the Overland Bridge Project); and implored the press to acknowledge the irnprov,~d circulation within the City ofTemecula. Since Councilman Undemans would be leaving his seat on the Council in November, he requested that staff and the Council pursue the following matters: The paving of the Poole parking lot located in Old Town. The design and production of a scale model of Old Town. The permanent Community Theatre Project (proposed to be in Old Town). The Sports Complex, relaying the monetary benefits for the City if the complex is managed by an alternate entity. http://www.ci.temecula.causlcitvhalllminutesl1999MinuteslII1699 .hlm 1 "J/j;./(\1 November,16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 3 oflO --.- For informational purposes, Councilman Comerchero relayed that the San Diego Padres Sports Project was near completion; and noted that there would be a Dedication Ceremony held on Thursday, November 18, 1999 at 3:30 P.M. (located on fields 1, and 2 of the Sports Park), inviting the public to attend. Councilman Comerchero commended Mayor Ford for his excellent leadership skills exhibited while chairing the Council; and relayed that he would greatly miss Councilman Undemans, noting that his participation on the City Council had provided vision, contributing to the projects and policies of the City. With ref:pect to the successful Race for the Cure Event recently held in Temecula, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed kudos to the Pubic Works staff, and the Police Department for their diligent efforts associated with the activity. Commenting on the numerous improvements and the growth in the City of Temecula, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that the success was greatly due to the assiduous efforts of staff, specifically, applauding Permit Engineer Crisp for his positive demeanor, and contributive achievement. With respect to Mayor Ford and Councilman Undemans leaving their Council seats on November 22, 1999, Mayor Pro Tern Stone relayed that Councilman Undemans' passion, devotion"and commitment to the City would be greatly missed; corn mended Mayor Ford for his excellent work as Mayor, consistently moderating the Council discussions without bias; relayed appreciation to Mayor Ford's wife, Ms, Mary Ford for her support; commented on the legacy that both Councilmen would leave, noting that the fruition of their accomplishments would continue. Regarding the proposed Sports Complex, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that he looked forward to working with Mr. Undemans as an advisory counsel associated with the project. Relaying his gratitude for the accolades, Mayor Ford noted that he would withhold his comments until the Novemb'~r 22, 1999 City Council meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Stand<lrd Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.-1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of afl ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2:1 Adopt a resolutionentilled: - - RESOLUTION NO. 99-107 A F:ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALlOWING CERTAIN ClAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A .' .' 3 ParamE,dic Program - October Statistics RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the report. Consent Calendar Item No.3 was pulled for separate discussion; see page 8. ~ Margarita Middle School Sister City Trip to Nakayama RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve an expenditure of funds in the amount of $4,200 to provide twelve students and two http://www.ci.temeculaca.uslcityhalllminuteslI999Minuteslll1699.htm_ ""'/~1n.1 ,November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council adults traveling to Nakayama, Japan, $300 per traveler to offset the trip expenses. Page 4 of 10--- It was noted that the Recommendation associated with Agenda Item No.4 was amended. 5 AccE'ptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System within Tract Nos. 23220 and 24232 (Iocatod northerly of the intersection of Calle Medusa at La Serena Way) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBUC STREETS INTO THE ':ITY-MAlNTAlNED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NOS. 23220 AND 24232) 6 Accept Public Improvements In Tract Nos. 23220 and 24232 (located northerly of the intersection of Calle Medusa at La Serena Way) HECOMMENDATION: ll.l Accept the public improvements in Tract Nos. 23220 and 24232; -..' G.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance security to the 10% warranty level and initiation of the one-year warranty period; (i,3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. 7 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Santa's Annual Christma,s Lights Parade on December 2,1999, ) and delegate authority to Issue Special Events/Street Closures permit to Director of Public Works/City Engineer - HECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99.109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES FOR JEFFERSON AVENUE AND ABumNG STREETS FROM DEL RIO TO OVERlAND AVENUE FOR SANTA'S ELECTRIC U GHTS PARADE ON DECEMBER 2, 1999, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO I~'SUE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES ~ 8 Deleg ation of Authority to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to perfonn certain Administrative functions on behalf of the City Council .' RECOMMENDATION: .. 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RI,SOLUTION NO. 99-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DELEGATING TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER THE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT PROJECTS AS COMPLETED, RELEASE PERFORMANCE W I\RRANTY SECURITIES FOR PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELEASE BONDS FOR SUBDIVISION MAPS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA 9 Amendment No.3 to Electrical Agreement for Maintenance of Signal and Lighting Systems on State Highwal'S RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Amendment No.3 to the Electrical Agreement for Maintenance of Signal and Ughting Systems on State Highways with the State Department of Transportation. http://www.ci.temeculaca.uslcityhaIlIminutesl1999Minutesllllti99_hln1 1."'IICIIVt 'N~ye~be~ 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 5 of 1O~::= 10 First Amendment to Contract for Right-of-Way Weed Control Pre-Emergent and Post Emergent _ Work Order No. 98-99-03 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Contract with Pestrnast\!r Services, Inc. for a periOd of three (3) years beginning November 16, 1999, in an amount of $75,000.00. 11 Pre.fessional Services Agreement - Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall Para Road Improvements :.. Phase II, State Highway 79 South to Pechanga Road - Project No. PW99-11 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the agreement with Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) to provide professional engineering and deSign services for the preparation.of plans, specifications;and estimates to construct Pala Road Improvements - Phase II - State Highway 79 South to Pechanga Road - Project no. PW99-11 - for an amount not to exceed $579,600.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; , 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract of $57,960.00; , 11.3 Accelerate appropriation of budgeted funds in FY2000-01 to FY1999-o0 in the amount of $250,000.00 to design Account No. 210-165-668-5802. 12 Completion and Acceptance of the City,Hall Remodel Project _ Phase II I~ECOMMENDATION: '12.1 Accept the City Hall Remod~1 Project - Phase II; '12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year (1) Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; '12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens -have been filed. 13 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-30 # RECOMMENDATION: " 13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ;.. ORDINANCE NO. 99-30 ~.N ORDINANCe OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND HIRAM-HILL, uc FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1- 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 16-20 AND 26.28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882-3) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY It was noted that Councilman Comerchero would be abstaining with regard to this issue. 14 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99-31 F:ECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-31 http://www.ci.temecula.causlcityhalllminuteslI999MinutesllI1699.hln1 12/1i/01 .Novell.'ber 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 6 of 10-:: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA. APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND PAlA RAINBOW, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCA TEO NEAR THE IINTERSECTlON OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PAlA ROAD (PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99-ll273) MOTION: Councilman Undemans moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2 and 4-14. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception Councilman Comerchero' who abstained with regard to Item No. 13. Consellt Calendar Item No.3 was considered at this time. 3 Paramedic Program - October Statistics RECOMMENDATION: a.1 Receive and file the, report. Providing an overview of the first six-week period of the Paramedic Program which began on September 15, 1999, City Fi,,~ Chief. Brown presented the staff report (of record); specified that the average response time was 4 minute!., 54 seconds; advised that the program had been successful, providing improved emergency services for the City of Temecula; for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, relayed that a report had been submitted to staff, regarding the issue of tracheotomies, noting lhatthis data would be presented to the City Council at a future point in time. Relaying that he had attended a ride-along with the paramedic team, Mayor Pro Tem Stone commended the pararnedic staff for their diligent efforts associated with the emergency services; and with respect to the recent ballot vote (which did not pass), regarding the annexation of Redhawk, commented that the provision of these emergency services would have benefited the area. MOTIO N: Councilman Undemans moved to approve staff recommendation, and that the inf.ormational data regarding the issue of tracheotomies be brought before the City Council within 30 days. Councilman Roberts second'ld the motion. (This motion ultimately passed; see below,) Mayor Ford requested staff to continue investigating the matter of the Global Positioning System (GPS) for . utilization in the paramedic squads. - - For Mayor Ford, City Manager Nelson relayed that staff would provide an update with respect to the GPS System within 30 days, in conjunction with the presentation of the tracheotomy data. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval, At 7:55 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:58 P.M. a short recess was faken and at 8:15 P.M" the City Councllr"esumed with regularll' scheduled City Council business. PUBLIC HEARINGS i 15 Vacate portion of North General Kearny Road in Tract No. 3334 (located at the southeast corner of realignEld North General Kearny Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 99-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA VACATING A PORTION OF NORTH GENERAL KI~ ROAD FROM MARGARITA ROAD TO 800 FEET EASTERLY OF MARGARITA ROAD Director of Public Works Hughes provided an overview of the staff report (per agenda material.) Mr. Peter Sterling, 2398 San Diego Avenue, relayed concurrence with staff recommendation, requesting that the City Council approve the proposal to vacate the portion of North General Kearny Road (a portion of Lot "A" in Tract http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminutesl1999Minuteslll1699.hln) 12/t'i/Ol November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council No. 3334.) Page 7 of 10--- , At this time Mayor Ford closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. Councilman Undemans seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanirnous approval. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16 Oral Report from Subcommittee, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 99.28 (Specific Plan No. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (Development Agreement) - Home Depot Project (located north of State Highway 79 South, south of Montelegro Way, east of Margarita Road, an~ west of Meadows Parkway HECOMMENDATION: -16.1 Receive an oral report by Subcommittee Members Mayor Ford and Councilmember Undemans; '16.2 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-28 J"l ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PA99- ~'285 (AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SPECIAC PLAN NO. 219), WHICH AMENDS LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 1, 6, 8, 27 AND 36; AMENDS THE AUGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION OF CAMPANULA WAY BETWEEN DE PORTOLA AND MEADOWS PARKWAY: AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 FROM 32.3 ACRES TO 35.0 ACRES; AMENDS THE ALLOCATION OF ACREAGE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 36.3 ACRES TO 34.3 ACRES; [IIVlDES PLANNING AREA 6 INTO PLANNING AREA 6A (22.3 ACRES. WITH A MAXIMUM OF 268 UNITS) AND PLANNING AREA 6B (12 ACRES, VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 13-20 DUlAC, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS), RESULTING IN AN OVERALL REDUCTION OF DWEWNG UNITS FROM 590 TO 508: AMENDS THE TEXT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ['EVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR CDMMUNITY WITHIN PLANNING AREA B; AND AMENDS THE DESIGN GUIDEUNES TO lIiCORPORA TE THE VILLAGE VIGNETTES AND SENIOR AMENITIES; BASEO UPON THE ANALYSIS ANO ANOINGS CONTAlNEO IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON ALE IN THE OFACE OF THE CITY CLE~ _ 16.3 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 99-29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF rHE CITY OF'TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED VILLAGES AT PASEO DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING AREAS l(a) & l(b) OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.7 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 98-28 (Specific Plan no. 219) and Ordinance No. 99-29 (Development Agreement.) Councilman Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. -= With respect to the dispute between the Coron<j Ranch properties and Newland Communities, Mayor Ford relayed that although there had been discussions, at lh1s point in time no final agreement had been reached. Ms. Michele Staples, attorney for the Corona R'~nch properties, specified the issues of dispute; relayed that the Corona family did not oppose the Second Reading of the Ordinances; and thanked Mayor Ford, and Councilman Undem8ns for their assiduous efforts spent over the weekend, working with the parties in an allemptto reach an agreement. ' Councilman Undemans relayed that the Council had previously placed a hold on 218 lots in Tract 24182-3, and 4, associat,~d with this project; noted that due to this property cUlTently being in escrow, Newland Communities had offered in its stead, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units, requesting that there be a substitution of the parcllls being held; and recommended that due to the situation, that the parcels be substituted. Vir. A1hadeff, representing Paseo Del Sol/Newland Communities, relayed gratitude to Mayor Ford and Councilman Lindemails for their time and consideration in attempting to aid the parties in the dispute; relayed that although there wa:; no mandated requirement, Newland Communities had agreed to place a hold on the aforementioned properties in an attempt to be amenable with respect to settling the dispute; notEid the specifications of the existing Development Agreement; reiterated Councilman Undemans' recommendation to substitute the held parcels; in response to Mayor Ford's comments, relayed assurance that if the City Council approved the proposed http://www.cLtemecula.ca.uslcityhalllminuteslI999Minuteslll1699.hlm_ 1'l/hll\1 Noyembe.r 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 8 of 10- substitution of parcels, that there would be continued efforts to attempt to come to a resolution with the Corona _ Ranch properties; for Mayor Pro Tem Stone, specified that if the Council did not approve the substitution of - holdings, that the property owner would not be able to sell the property; and noted that there was, additionally, a risk of a lawsuit. Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family opposed the proposal to substitute the property holdings, providing the , rational'e for the opposition; and specified that the Brown Act regulations would prohibit a ruling on, the mailer at this time due to this meeting being a Special meeting. City Attorney Thorson offered the following clarification: 1) noted that this was not a Special meeting, but an adjourned regular meeting, 2) relayed that the Agenda did specifically reference the project; 3) provided additional informc,tion regarding the Development Agreement; and 4) specified the Council's purview with respect to the releasing of the property hold at this time, and in the future, if requested. For COllncilman Undemans, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the rationale for the Condition restricting the parc:els was to ensure that there would be attempts to resolve the issues of dispute; and relayed that the holding may not have been placed on the property if Newland Communities had not been agreeable. MOTION: Councilrnan Undemans moved to have the City, hereby, release the 218 lots in Tract 24182-3 and 4, as describlld in the Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on November 9, 1999, and substitute, in its place, Planning areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6, and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family ~nits. Councilman Cornerchero seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately passed; see page 12.) In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's querying, Ms. Staples relayed that her client would request a week's time to consider the new proposal. Mayor Ford specified the location of the originally held properties, and the properties proposed to be substituted; advised that since Newland Communities had offered the collateral on good faith at the time, and due to the subslitul:ionproposal still rnaintaining an equitable holding, which would continue to encourage efforts to reach a , selllerneont, recornmended that the substitution proposal be approved. Recognizing the unusual circumstances of the matter, Councilman Comerchero reiterated that Newland ' Communities had offered the parcels currently being held; noted that at the lime of approval, the Council was not aware 01' the fact that the parcels were in escrow; and recommende<!that the Council approve the substitution of the parc-els. ' After further consideration of the maller, Ms. Staples relayed that the Corona family had no objection to the proposal to substitute the parcels. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. In light of the time the Council that had devoted to the discussions, Mayor Ford implored the partji;'s in dispute to make efforts to come to a resolution. - For informational purposes, Councilman Undemans relayed that after much deliberation, Newland Communities was Willing to post a $3.5 million bond, noting tI1e efforts to cooperate in reaching a resolution. 17 GST Fiber Optics RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Receive and file a report regarding GST Telecom fiber optics. By way of overhead maps, Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff report (of record) as an informational itern per the City Council's and City Manager Nelson's request; specified the location of the telecommunication facilities installation; noted the concessions GST had made to mitigate the traffic impacts 'associated with the project; relayed that the City would be monitoring the installation project; and for Councilman Comerchero, advised that solely the area within the Commercial District would have the installation postponed until January 3, 2000, (after the holiday season.) http://www.ci.temecula.causlcityhalllminutesl1999MinuteslI11699.htm 1')/h/l\1 November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 9 of 10- ' , Mr. JOE! Ferrill, representing GST Fiber Optics, relayed for Councilman Comerchero, that the applicant would be willing to, additionally, delay the project in the southern area until January 3, 2000 if that was the desire of the Council; and in response to Mayor Ford's request that a minimum of two lanes of travel be open for vehicle traffic during installation, provided assurance that GST would adhere to all of the traffic guidelines dictated by the Department of Public Works, and the Council. For Councilman Roberts, Director of Public Works Hughes advis\Jd that although there were no required cash deposits, or bond holdings, the City's standard encroachment permit specifies that the applicant would be held respom;ible for any damage to public property, private property, or any other utilities, relaying that the City would not be liable for the aforementioned damage. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the encroachment permit was:inclusive of an insurance requirement, noting that the City would be made an additional insured. In response to Councilrnan Roberts' concerns with respect to adept flagmen, road closure guidelines, and severed telephone cables, Mr. Ferrill reiterated that GST would strictly adhere lo-the traffic guidelines provided by the City; noted that if necessary, the flagmen would be retrained to meet the City's specifications; and clarified the issue of the cut GTE cable in the City of Murrieta associated with their project, n:ilaying that GTE had taken responsibility for the mailer; and noted that GST would take every precaution to prevent the severing of utility lines. Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that he could support the project due to the applicant's desire to cooperate with the City's guidelines, which was supported by staff's comments. Mayor Ford recommended that the concerns expressed by the Council be incorporated into the City's guidelines. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. Councilman Roberts seconded the rnotion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 18 Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose TraillTEA Grant Application RECOMMENDATION: 18,1 Receive a report regarding our City's proposed Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) Grant application for a Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose Trail and authorize the Director of Public Works to su'brnit said application on behalf of the City of Temecula. Reviewing the Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose Trail Project, Director of Public Works Hughes apprised the Council of the City's efforts to qualify for the Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) Grant; noted that the plan would be inclusive of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian routes; and specified the location of the proposed trails, and the provision of connectivity to the Old Town area, the Commercial area, as well as, the Industrial Parnreas the plan would provide. ' In light of the timeframe of the application due- ;late on November 19, 1999, Councilman Comerchero relayed that it would have been more appropriate to incorporate suggested modifications into the project if it had been presented to the Council at an earlier date; noted that although the project was meritorious, as proposed, he recommended the addition of a bicycle trail from the residential areas (i.e., Winchester Hills, Ronpaugh) to the sports park, due to the proximity of the sports park to the trail, and to provided access for children bicycling to the park. Noting that the plan appeared to have adequately met the qualifications of the grant, Councilman Roberts advised that the Council approve the proposal at this time, in light of the timeframe for the grant application deadline; relayed the feasibility of a multi-purpose trail along Temecula Creek, noting that there was an area in the proximity of the '-le; which could provide a tie into the connector to Old Town; recommended that the plan be modified to provide additional access points, and that staff investigate the utilization of dedicated land in the southern area if it was determined that it would be needed for the future enhanced trail plan. , In respom;e to the Council's comments, Director of Public Works Hughes advised that the proposed plan would be supplemented with additional connection points; noted that at this point in time, staff's efforts were focused on meeting tI1e criteria for qualifying for this particular grant; and relayed that the Community Services Department would be c:onducting additional studies in an attempt to investigate the feasibility of a Citywide trail system, which http://www.Gi.temecula.ca.us/cityhalllminuteslI999MinutesllI1699.htrn _ 1 'l/Mflt November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Temecula City Council Page 10 of 10 ,,_,_ , would be incorporated into this particular project. -- Relayin9 concurrence with Councilmen Comerchero and Roberts, Mayor Ford advised that there be provision of additional connectors to the bicycle trails, and the creeks; noted that with the addition of a short route from the Ynez Road area to the Winchester Road area, the Santa Gertrudis Creek could be utilized as a connector; and recornrnended amending the plan, suggesting that red dotted lines could be added to the proposed plan to denote the previously discussed extensions. For Mayor Ford, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed assurance that the connector routes would be denoted on this particular application. For inforrnational purposes, City Manager Nelson relayed that $70,000 had been included in the Capital IrnprovEment Plan (CIP) for the purpose of funding the trail's master plan, querying whether that should be included in this application's proposed plan to demonstrate the City's commitment to provide connectivity and trails within the City of T emecula. MOTIOI~: Councilman Undemans moved to receive, file, and endorse th,e proposed plan. Mayor Pro Tem Stornf seconded the rnotion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENT REPORT No comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson noted that at the next regular adjourned meeting which would be held on Monday, November 22, 199B at 6:00 P.M. that the election results would be certified, the new Councilmen would be sworn in, and the followin(1 appointments would be made: the new Mayor, the Mayor Pro T em, the President of the Temecula Community Services District, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency President; and with respect to Mayor Ford, and Councilman Undemans leaving their seats on the Council, relayed his appreciation for their support; and noted that the legacy that they have left through their accomplishments would provide the City of Temecula with continued benefits. - - ADJOURNMENT At 9:12 P.M" Mayor Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to an adjourned regular meeting on Tuesday, November 22,1999, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Susan VI'. Jones, AAElCMC, City Clerk - " [SEAL] " Iii SITE All,)'"" I 291960 http://www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalllminutes/1999Minuteslll1699 .htrn 12/6/01 d , ~ , - , ' 1 ~ 6 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 6 ~ i B 9 10 11 12 ~. ~" ~~ 13 -" ~< <0 ~z 0- 14 ~~ )~ 15 Q~ -<" ~~ 16 ~. <~ > . 17 , . < , 0 18 . . ~ , 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and move to close session. I'd like to have a closed session. Can we adjourn to closed session Mr. City Attorney? Thorson I believe we can, we received information from the developer's attorney that there's some legal issues involved here. Stone Yes why I think we need to move to a closed session. Thorson I could respond to some of those issues. I don't think they're quite as complicated as they've been made out to be. Ford Could you give us some, shed some light on the action item and the Brown Act and agenda, special meeting, that was brought up and what you're interpretation of that would be. Thorson First of all, with respect to the procedural matters, you do have an agenda report or an agenda item that ,does talk about the project, the Home Depot Project~ You have a condition that was imposed at the last meeting on that project and the request tonight is to modify a condition that was imposed pilor to that by substituting one_set of properties for another. You do have the fact that the pr0Posed agreement between the two parties did include this as a term. They may not have agreed to it but there was notice that this was going to occur. And second of all,you do, and third of all you do have you're not in a special meeting. You're in an adjourned regular meeting so that the rules that require that there be adequate notice apply, you don't have that special rule that says that limits the types of items that you 11 C:\Data\Clients\CITY COUNCIL\11-16-99 (Newland) .doc 1 :~ 3 4 ~ ~ 6 7 8 9 10 . . 11 0 u " < . 12 ~ ~. ~. ~o 13 . ~~ <0 ~. 0- 14 .~g " ~ I' i.~ 15 ~~ <" ~~ 16 ~. <~ > . 17 ~ . < ~ 0 18 . . i ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 may speak to. Second Mr. Alhadeff raised the issue of the Development Agreement. There is a Development Agreement that does cover this property, but the developer agreed to the condition as was imposed at the last meeting that put a hold on the building permits so that that is a valid condition because they have agreed to it and they have agreed to the substitution. So I don't see any issues arising from the Development Agreement. The other point that I think is sig~ificant is the fact that that condition in a sense was imposed in the last minute on the developer at which time they omitted, or they neglected to raise the issue that these properties were in escrow. So it's not as if they are coming here trying to shift around property so that they avoid their obiigations, there was an actual fact that was not brought out at the last hearing as to why that occurred. You also have the discretion under the condition that was imposed at the last meeting not to release properties. So if they come in again in a month or two months and try ahd change things around because they don't want to comply with the requirements that they have you can say at that time, this is not right we're not going ... ... to release it, you need to continue with the process. And I think that respondstb the questions that were raised. Ford ~ Thank you. Mr. Lindemans. Lindemans Mr. Mayor, I have now two problems. First of all staff initially did not see any nexus, initially said, look you don't have to change nothing, the 188 lots are sufficient, you don't have to 28 put a hold on anything, and that was the opinion of staff. Was 12 ~ C:\Data\ClientS\CITY COUNCIL\11-16_99 (Newland) .doc 1 :2 :3 4 t. .> 6 7 8 9 10 " 11 0 u ~ < . 12 ~ ... .... ~~ 13 "'< -<0 "'. 0-< 14 V,lg~ ..~:.: ; a !~ 15 " ~~ -<" "'~ 16 ...~ <~ >- ~ 17 ~ ;;; < ~ Q 18 . ~ 51 ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that opinion researched well enough that you can still state that same case? Thornhill I think that's a legal opinion, but I think that's what we stated in the staff report that we felt there was no nexus and we, the only reason we imposed that condition restricting those lots was to insure that there would be some attempt to resolve these issues. Lindemans Do you agree with the hold on these few lots, in addition to the 188. Thornhill We agree as a mechanism to help resolve the issue. Whether you know, they've agreed voluntarily, Newland, to those conditions. Now if they had stood on the record and said we don't agree to this, it could've been a different situation. Lindemans Right. Now I've learned that they are in escrow, they can be sued for nonperformance, so I'm going to make the motion because I'm proper in making the motion to release those 218 lots and take in it's place the 408 multi-family unit lots on parcel 6 and - - 7. , , Thorson Mr. Mayor if I could put that into the language that we could use as a motion. Lindemans Please do. Thorson 13 C:\Data\ClientS\CITY COUNCIL\11-16_99 (Newland) .doc '. i' 1 2 3 4 5 <5 '7 II 9 z 0 10 ;: < < J< < 1J. 0 u ~ < z 1-' ~ <. o.~ ..... ....0 13 < ti~ <0 ....z 0-< 14 cng::: ~ d:': z ~ '';:,"" 15 ~ << o:~ 16 ...." <~ > " 17 ~ " < ~ 0 18 . " ;; ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 It would be that the City hereby releases the 218 lots in Tract 24182-3 and 4 as described in the Condition of Approval, approved by the Council on November 9, 1999 and substitutes in their place Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7 consisting of 50 ~ ----- Lindemans units for this conditio .- ------ -. That's my motion. Ford Is there a second? Comerchero I'll second that for discussion. Stone I'd like to ask Ms. Staples to come up to the microphone again, if I could ask her a couple more questions. Clerk Mr. Mayor I also have one other slip that I'd like to mention. Ford Oh I'm sorry. Clerk Allen Davis. - Stone Ms. Staples the Council has a Concern that we are going to cause undue legal ramifications not only to the developer, but ultimately the City could be named in a lawsuit. What is your objection to tying up the multi-family lots. Is there a disadvantage for the Coronas that may not be readily apparent to this Council. We want to do our best to expedite these improvements that are going to mitigate the concerns of the 14 C:\Data\ClientS\CITY COUNCIL\11-16-99 (Newland) .doc f. -' HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP A rrORNEYS AT LAW THIA' M. COCHRAN DEAN DUNN-RANKIN SANDRA A. GALLE WILLIAIA E. HALLE AND~'" K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWIlT LAWREl~CEJ. HILTON WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798-0734 WAIL: donal@hewiuoneil.com JOHN D. HUDSON STEVEN B. IMHOOF DENNIS D. O'NEIl JAvF. PALOUKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WIUIAM L TwOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER 19900 MAcARTHUR BoULEVARD, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949)798-0500 . (949)798-0511 (FAX) EMA1L: coW.ISC:l@hewittoncil.com January 3, 2002 :VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application No. PAOI-OI09 (General Plan Amendment), Planning Application No. PAOI-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8), Planning AppliGation No. PAOl-OI 17 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 24188, Amendment No.4) Dear Mayor Roberts and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Newland Communities ("Newland"), the developers of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 (now known as Pasco del Sol) master planned Gommunity. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219/EIR 235 and Development Agreement was originally approved by the Riverside CoUnty Board of Supervisors in September of 1988. This was prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula and inclusion of the Paloma del Sol property within the new Temecula municipal boundaries. Since the formation of the City of Temecula, the City Council approved an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement for Paloma del Solon JlIIlUary 8, 1993 (the "Development Agreement''). Newland has processed a number of Specific Plan No. 219 amendments and tract maps and, addenda to EIR 235 consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. Newhind has now pending before the City Council the above- referenced Specific Plan Amendment NO.8 and related Planning Applications and request for certification of Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. Newland is in receipt of copies of the letters to the Temecula Planning Commission dated November 7, 2001 and November 28, 2001 signed by Darren W. Stroud, an attorney with the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, representing James and Mary , Corona and the Corona family objecting to Newland's pending Planning Applications. I have been given copies to read and asked by Newland to respond to the Coronas' assertions as spelled out in attorney Stroud's letters. Newland also wants me to make a request that the "hold" on the S08 unit multi-family tract in Paloma del Sol, as explained later in this letter, be released. Imuary 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORRIOI120003_LTR_doc ,- City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 2 The Coronas' Obiections and Newland's Response The Coronas object to the approval of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and pending land use Planning Applications on a number of grounds and request the City to: 1. Enforce the conditions of Specific Plan No.219 Amendment No.1 requiring construction of flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits; and 2. Enforce the mitigation measures required by EIR 235. In the absence of such enforcement, the Coronas state that a subsequent EIR ~hould be prepared prior to consideration of the pending Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications. The Coronas want the hydrology and drainage for the area evaluated in order to mitigate the alleged increase flood hazards to the Coronas' land resulting from development of the Paloma del Sol project and construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Coronas object to Newland's Planning Applications because, they claim, development of Paloma del Sol creates a drainage issue for their property. However, all of the hydrology studies for Newland's property tell a different ~tory. The facts are that the drainage on Newland's property runs from the northeast to the wuthwest and is directed into the Temecula Creek Channel through approved and AD 159 constructed storm drain facilities. Newland's property does not divert any drainage onto the Coronas property, which is located upstream of Paloma del Sol. to the southeast. Rather the drainage affecting the Coronas comes from the north and east of their property. The drainage pattern is also affected by Assessment District 159's construction of Butterfield Stage Road. AD 159 understood these factors and provided for the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to direct tl1e flow across the Coronas' property at the easterly boundary of AD 159. AD 159 built the downstream facilities, but unfortunately did not build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. So, the Coronas complain of a drainage problem that arises from water flowing from east and not trom Newland's property, which is located to the northwest. It is this failure on the part of - AD 159 to construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel that constitutes the basis for the Coronas' storm water drainage problems on their property and really has nothing to do with the development of Paloma del Sol. . The Coronas' Contentions and Newland's Response Admittedly, there is some evidence that during heavy storms the surface waters which have historically sheet flowed from the northeast to the southwest comer of the Corona property accumulate and cause a ''ponding'' condition to exist on an area at the southwest comer of the Corona property. This is the area where the Butterfield Stage Road intersects State Highway 79. The Coronas contend that the construction of the Paloma del Sol project has effectively blocked drainage across their property, creating significantly increased flood hazards to their and to upstream properties. They argue, a planned upstream storm water interceptor facility (the Butterfield Interceptor Channel) to mitigate this flooding on their property has not Jllnuary 3. 2002 )0019-00002 S ,1152\CORR'D1120003.L TR.doc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 3 yet been constructed. The Coronas claim Newland is responsible for solving this problem and the City should not approve discretionary land use entitlements for Newland until the Butterfield Interceptor Channel is built. The Coronas continue to refer to an April 6, 1988 letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Pi strict, a May 16, 1988 letter from the developers' engineers (Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates) responding to the Flood Control April 6, 1988 and a letter from the Senior Civil Engineer at the County Flood Control District dated May 26, 1988. These letters were prepared at the time the developer of the Specific Plan No. 219 planned community was seeking the original entitlement permit approvals from the County of Riverside. The April6, 1988 letter from Riverside County Flood Control raises issues regarding the potential for diversion of storm water from its natural tributary drainage course. The developers' engineers' response letter dated May 16, 1988 acknowledges the need for construction of flood control facilities to intercept the storm waters tributary to this area. The May 26, 1988 letter from the senior civil engineer at the Riverside County Flood Control District tD the Riverside County Planning Department states the problems raised in the April 6, 1988 letter have been largely corrected by the applicant. Further, the May 26, 1988 letter points out tile need for a permanent flood control facility onsite or off site before development downstream occurs. It is this May 26, 1988 Flood Control District "comment letter" the Coronas have been relying on to support their position. However, the Assessment District 159 ElR described the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as the mitigation measure needed to resolve any flooding caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is the "off site" solution to handling the storm water on the Coronas' property. An interim detention basin has been constructed on approximately 20 acres of the southeast portion of Paloma del Sol. F'ursuant to Condition 40 of Tentative Tract 24182, this "onsite" detention basin must remain in place until such time that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel or some other adequate facility is built to convey off site storm flows to the Temecula Creek. _ The 1999 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.7 Some members of tqe City Council will recall this is not the first time the Council, the City Attorney and the City staff have reviewed these issues raised by the Coronas. In fact, the City has considered a number of applications for modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps over the years as chronologically listed in the staff report. As they have in the past, the Coronas, through their legal counsel, resubmit the same documents and arguments each time Newland's applications for Paloma del Sol are submitted to the Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Coronas continue to assert that it i~: illegal for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the modifications to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and tract maps without enforcing the purported conditions of approval requiring the construction of flood control facilities to protect their land. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission and the City Council have in every case approved Newland's January 3, 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORRIOI120003.LTRdoc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 4 . applications to amend the Specific Plan 219 and modifY tract maps for Paloma del Sol because it has been determined that the Coronas' arguments are without merit. Most recently, in October 1999, the Coronas appealed the Planning Commission's approval of four planning applications submitted by Newland for Paloma del Sol. They based their appeal entirely on their claim that Newland should be required to build the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The staff determined that the EIR for Assessment District 159 had addressed the issue by requiring the Butterfield Interceptor Channel as a mitigation measure to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The staff further determined there was no nexus between the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and Newland's four planning applications. The staff was clear that the Butterfield Interceptor Channel was to be built by Assessment District 159, and Newland had "no control over the timing of that process." Accordingly, the staff recommended denial of the Coronas' appeal. On November 9, 1999, the City Council concurred with the staffs analysis and denied the Coronas' appeal. The Pending Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 On November 28, 2001, consistent with their prior actions involving revised entitlement permits for Paloma del Sol, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Specific Plan 219 Amendment No. 8, the related Planning Applications and certification of Addendum No.4 to the final EIR. The Planning Commission accepted the staffs answer to attorney Stroud's letters as stated in their November 28, 2001 report to the Planning Commission as follows: "Public Works Department staff believes the issue of timing and construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed. Moreover, staff believes the current planning actions being proposed have no affect on the timing and construction of the flood control improvements." - The Coronas cannot point to any other significant difference or to any charige in circumstances that would require the City to reach a different result. Newland's valuable development vested rights set forth'm the Development Agreement are being challenged because A~sessment District 159 cannot, without the cooperation of the Coronas, construct the Butterfield Interceptor Channel which is its responsibility to do. Because the City has already rejected the Coronas' objection to four nearly identical planning applications and the Coronas did not challenge the City's decision in court in timely manner, the Coronas are now estopped from making their objections anew before the City Council. Newland submits this matter and the issues raised by the Coronas have been thoroughly researched, analyzed and reviewed by the City Attorney and staff. The objections the Coronas raise to Newland's current Specific Plan Amendments and Planning Applications are almost identical to their objections to the four planning applications approved by the City Council in November of 1999. Full environmental analysis in compliance with the California Jamlary 3. 2002 10019-00002 S:\152ICORR\01120003.LTRdoc City of Temecula J~muary 3, 2002 P.age 5 Environmental Quality Act has occurred. Notice, public hearings and due process has been satisfied. There is no evidence in fact or in law to support the Coronas' contentions. Assessment District No. 159 Assessment District No. 159 ("AD 159") was formed in 1988 to fund certain regional public improvements and other infrastructure systems within the AD 159 boundaries. In 1991, a supplemental district was approved to increase funds available for the cost of the original AD 159 improvements and to add new district improvements, including the Butterfield Interceptor ChanneL The Butterfield Interceptor Channel was planned to be constructed on the Corona property east of Butterfield Stage Road at the easterly boundary of AD 159. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel is to be built to the east and upstream from the Paloma del Sol community and its pmpose is to collect waters flowing from these undeveloped areas and divert them into Temecula Creek. Butterfield Stage Road was constructed above grade in 1994-1995 aJi, an Assessment District 159 project. Contrary to the Coronas' contention, Butterfield Stage Road was not built by Newland. ' Butterfield Stage Road and the Butterfield Interceptor Channel facility are improvements under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and Assessment District No. 159, not Newland Communities or the City of Temecula Many of the other AD 159 improvements, including the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, the widening of SR 79, the modifications to Temecula Creek and the installation and sizing of the associated drainage facilities, were dependent on the Butterfield Interceptor Channel being built. In hindsight, the Butterfield Interceptor Channel.probably should have been built before Butterfield Stage Road. For reasons not known to Newland and surely not under the control of Newland, this did not happen. As a matter of fact, once Butterfield Stage Road was built by AD 159, the ponding the Coronas complain about would occur after a heavy rainfalL This condition would exist on the Corona property regardless of whether or not any development ever happened on the Paloma del Sol land. As originally contemplated, the improvements AD 159 were to bl!i1d cost about $108 million. The Paloma del Sol, Specific Plan No. 219, property has been taxed to pay its fair share of the improvements. To date, the Paloma del Sol property has been assessed approximately $27 million for the improvements. This payment included construction of the portion of the Temecula Creek Ch<pmel that is designed to accept flow from the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland recognizes its obligation as one of the major landowners in AD 159 to participate in the completion of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland has remained willing to cooperate in any good faith effort to resolve outstanding design and funding issues associated with getting the Channel built. To date, the Coronas refuse to accept their fair shill"e of this obligation. Butterfield Interceptor Channel All ofthe interested parties, including the Coronas, agree that AD 159 was, and is, re1:ponsible for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The Coronas playa key role in the January 3. 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\IS2\CORRIOI120003.LTRdoc City ofTemecula January 3, 2002 Page 6 construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel because they must agree on its location and make the land available for this improvement at a reasonable price. To this end, Newland has been working diligently with the Coronas and the County of Riverside for over five years in an attempt to facilitate and accelerate the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. The County has analyzed various alignments for the Channel and has examined additional alternatives at the request of the Coronas. The original design was an open trapezoidal channel across the Savala and Corona properties at the east end of the AD 159 boundaries. The Butterfield Interceptor Channel would then continue under SR 79 and extend south to Temecula Creek. The cost was eStimated at $3.5 million. The Coronas have objected to and resist the original design because the facility, they say, would adversely impact their current fanning operations. In an attempt to provide a system that would not interfere with the Coronas' agricultural uses, a subsurface covered box culvert was studied but this was determined to be infeasible. The County Flood Control District looked at another design alternative suggested by the Coronas' engineers consisting of two channels. This dual channel system would include all open channel located along the easterly boundary of the Corona property to intercept the majority of the drainage from the east along with a smaller underground facility at the eastern boundary of AD 159. The dual channel system is estimated to cost $8.7 million and would benefit all of the remaining 160 acres of the Corona property not originally included in the AD 159 boundaries. The Coronas have stated their preference for the dual channel alternative, but maintain their current fanning operations could not,support this level of funding, Methods of providing deferred assessments have been offered and suggestions that the Coronas dedicate the necessary right of way for the dual channel system to reduce costs have been rejected. The goal sought to be achieved in the meetings with the County and the Coronas of finding a method to fund the Butterfield Interceptor Channel and then be able to apportion the costs of the improvements on an equitable basis has so far failed. This is due, in large part, to the Coronas' desire that they receive all of the benefits of a storm water protection system for all of tlleir property without being willing to accept any of the costs of constructing these facilities. Supplemental EIR The attorney Stroud for the Coronas argues that a supplemental EIR must be prepared to address increased flood hazards. In general, the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") limits later environmental review for subsequent land use approvals to issues or impacts which were not addressed in prior environmental documentation. The intent of CEQA is to allow public agencies to rely on prior environmental documentation, unless the project itself or other C'ircumstances have changed significantly since its adoption and these changes have a negative impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. Under Public Resources Code Section Jalluary 3, 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\IS2\CORRIOI120003.LTRdoc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 7 21166 (CEQA Section 21166) and Cal. Code of Regs. 15162 (CEQA Guideline Section 15162), . a supplemental EIR is not necessary unless major revisions are required to the original EIR as a result of: (a) substantial changes in the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; (b) substantial changes in the circumstances of the project which have an increased negative impact on the environment; or (c) new information which was not available when the original EIR was prepared which indicates that the project has a substantial adverse impact which cannot be mitigated. The CEQA statutes and guidelines are very clear on what the test is for requiring a supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, no further environmental review may be required unless one of these specified triggering events occur. A public agency's discretion to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR is very limited once an EIR has been prepared for a project. ' The statute is phrased in prohibitory 12cllguage. ,An agency shall not require a supplemental EIR unless one of the statutory exceptions exist. The policy behind the statute is to avoid repeating the CEQA process when environmental review has been completed and the time for challenging that process has expired (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1538, Long Beach Savings and Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 249, Bowman v. City of Pet alum a (1986) 185 Cat. App. 3d 1065). CEQA Section 21166 is designed to provide a degree of certainty and fmality once environmental review has been completed for a project. Even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v., Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights If') (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) Court cases uphold the presumption against the preparation of subsequent EIR if impacts resulting from changes to the project do not differ significantly from those described in the project EIR, a further EIR is not required (Bowman). A city may not, therefore, require a supplemental or focused EIR unless it finds, 011 the basis of substantial evidence, that one of the three exceptions to the rule against requiring a further EIR exists. In this case as it was in November of 1999, there is no evidence to support such findings. All reasonable doubt should be decided in favor of the city (Laurel Heights). A city may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR to document its decision that a subsequent EIR is not required. CEQA Guideline Section l5l64(b)(e). This Guideline reflects case law approving use of an EIR addendum to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental E1R might be required. In the Bowman case, the court upheld the City's use of an EIR addendum to evaluate changes to the project. The court held that using an addendum as a January 3. 2002 10019-??oo2 S:\152\CORR'D1120003.LTR.doc , City ofTemecula ],muary 3, 2002 Page 8 mechanism for determining whether a further EIR should be required was an appropriate way to fill in a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines, Nothing in CEQA or the Guidelines requires that the city conduct an investigation to ferret out changes in circumstances or new information. CEQA and the Guidelines do not mandate any specific procedure for cities to follow in determining whether a supplemental EIR is required. The Guidelines simply provide that a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15162 should be included in an: (i) addendum to an EIR, (ii) the city's required findings on the project or (iii) elsewhere in the record. On this point the planning staff report and position adopted by the Planning Commission states: "With regard to environmental analysis, PlilIJIling staff does not believe that the planning actions as proposed have any significant environmental affect on flood hazard issues. Moreover, staff believes the proposed Addendum to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses potential 'environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, staff does not believe that additional environmental analysis is necessary." Even assuming the Coronas' contentions are correct, they have no bearing on compliance with prior land use entitlement conditions or whether a supplemental EIR should be prepared in connection with the pending Paloma del Sol Specific PhmAmendment and related PI8Ill).ing Applications. This is because Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and the Planning Applications under review will have no impact on upstream properties or their exposure to flood control hazards. The existing Paloma del Sol approximately 20-acre detention basin in Tract 24182 will protect downstream properties from any' storm water drainage entering from the east. This follows from the fact that no storm water from the Paloma del Sol project is directed upstream. The approval of Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications will have no physical consequences at all on the property owned by the Coronas and there are absolutely no new significant adverse environmental effects to analyze in a subsequent EIR. Simply stated, there is no nexus or relationship to the pending Paloma del Sol Planning Applications and drainage issues on the Corona property. _ Interim Detention Basin and Hold on 508 Multi-family Units On February 2, 1998, ,the City Council, in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA 96-0258 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182), added Condition No. 40 dealing with an interim detention basin located on approximately 20 acres at the southeastern portion of Tentative Tract 24182. The condition required Newland to set aside and maintain this area entitled for 188 residential lots as a storm water detention basin until such time that up;;tream drainage facilities are constructed to convey off site storm flows to an adequate outlet. This condition constitutes Newland's "onsite" mitigation to protect properties to the west of Butterfield Stage Road in the event of an extreme storm episode when storm waters could breech Butterfield Stage Board. January 3, 2002 IOOI9.{)OOO2 S:\I~'2ICORR\01120003.LTRdoc City of Temecula January 3, 2002 Page 9 In an attempt to address the concerns of the Coronas 8!ld provide further incentives for Newland to continue in its efforts to resolve the Butterfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council on November 16, 1999 placed a "hold" on Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6 and 7, consisting of 508 multi-family units in the Paloma del Sol project. Even though Newland was advised by counsel and the staff acknowledged there was no legal requirement to accept this limitation, Newland .recognized the need to show its good faith willingness to continue the efforts to work towards a resolution of the storm water drainage problem in this area. Newland accepted this restriction and offered the collateral of 508 multi- family units as an "equity holding." It was clearly the intent of the City and Newland as reflected in the City Council meeting minutes that this would be an interim condition. Newland must now respectfully request theCity Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family units in Planning Area 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. Newland has negotiated in good faith with the County and the Coronas on numerous occasions since the City Council imposed this development restriction on their property in November of 1999. As pointed out earlier in this letter, the Coronas have failed to agree on the various design a:!ternatives and funding options for building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Newland remains willing to work with the County and the Coronas to resolve the issue of building the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. However, it would no longer be appropriate and constitute a denial of Newland's property rights protected by the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement to further interfere with Newland's opportunity to develop Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Conclusion The Coronas have offered no evidence of noncompliance with the conditions of the Paloma del Sol project approvals, any significant changed circumstances, or new information which was not considered in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR 235 as fiuther reviewed in prior and in the current Specific Plan Amendment No.8, related Planning Applications and Addendum No.4 to EIR 235. The AD 159 Butterfield Stage Road construction, and not Paloma del Sol, has caused the storm drain ponding to exist on the Corona property. The Coronas have a remedy by taking action against the County or they.J68Il cooperate in allowing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel to be constructed by AD 159. Nevertheless, the Coronas continue to pursue groundless efforts to manipulate the City's land use discretionary powers to their advantage while threatening the property rights of Newland, There is absolutely n'o connection between the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8 and Planning Applications currently pending before the City Council and storm drain issues raised by the Coronas. Any issues the Coronas have regarding flood concerns s~ould be directed to Assessment District No. 159 and the County of Riverside, not the City and Newland. This has consistently been the position of Newland. Newland has been willing and continues to be willing to work with the Coronas and the County on a solution to the storm water drainage issues impacting the area, but the Coronas need to demonstrate a greater willingness to cc'operate in the process. Newland has acted in good faith in the negotiations and under the circumstances must request the City Council release the hold on the 508 multi-family units imposed on Newland over two years ago. January 3, 2002 !0<>19-o0002 S:\I 52ICORRI01 120003.LTRdoc . City ofTemecula Jal1uary 3, 2002 Page 10 While the issues of the design, funding and construction of the AD 159 Butterfield Interceptor Channel seem to be languishing, Newland is incurring significant costs of maintaining an interim detention basin that protects their and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road. This interim detention basin also prevents Newland from developing 188 lots already entitled under the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. It is this major restriction on Newland's development rights and not the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units which will continue to provide the incentive for Newland to work towards a solution for constructing the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. Janumy 3. 2002 10019-00002 S:\IS2ICORRIOI120003.LTR.doc In summary: Newland has vested property and development rights under the terms of the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement which is binding on the City. . . Any flooding that might occur on the Coronas' property is caused by the construction of Butterfield Stage Road by AD 159 and can be resolved by the construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel by AD 159. The Coronas' remedy lies with the County arid AD 159. . There is no causal relationship or "nexus" between Specific plan No. 219 Amendment No.8 and related Planning Applications and storm drainage issues raised by the Coronas on their land. . There are no, substantial changes in the Paloma del Sol project, changed circumstances or new information having an adverse impact on the environment requiring a supplemental EIR. . Newland has met with the County and the Coronas to work on solutious for construction the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, but the Coronas are unwilling to accept their fair share of the costs. . Newland respectfully requests the City to release the hoht' on the 508 multi-family dwelling units in Planning Areas 6A and 6B. Continuing the hold would proYide no public purpose and is legally unsupportable. Newland has satisfied its obligation to protect its and other properties westerly of Butterfield Stage Road by maintaining the interim detention basin or equivalent facility which must remain in place until such time as upstream drainage facilities are constructed. . City of Temecula Jalluary 3, 2002 Page II On behalf of Newland, I therefore submit there is no need to consider adding new coo.ditions or to require further environmental docnmeHtation and respectfully request the City Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Specific Plan 219 Amendment No.8, the related Planning Applications and certifY Addendnm No.4 to EIR 235. Further, Newland no longer consents to the hold on developing the 508 multi-family units in PI:mning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431 and requests to be released from this hold. Very truly yours, ~&~ DennisD. O'Neil DDO/clt cc: James M. Delhamer Dean Meyer Sam Alhadeff Peter M. Thorson - January 3. 2002 10019-00002 S:\152\CORRIOI120003.LTR.doc COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Dal'id E Barnhart Di~ctor of Transpor/atio" Mr,. William G. Hughes, Director CitV of Ternecula Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 9033 . Temecula, California 92589-9033 A@O:J RE: Butterfield Interceptor Channel, Assessment Di~trictNo"159 Dear Bill: Per your request, I am sending you this letter to briefly summarize the ongoing discussions be~Neen the County and the property owners affected by the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. 1/ For almost two years now, the County has 'been meeting with Newland Communities, the Corona Family, and Leonard Savala in an effort to come to an agreement on a preferred alternative for the Butterfieldlnterceptor Channel. . Assessment District No. 159 contemplated placing the Interceptor at the easterly boundary of AD No. 159, which would. include the Savala property and-only 20 acres oftheCorona's land. The Corona Farnily and Mr. Savala indicated the proposed AD No~ 159alignrnent was not accl~ptable to them,. Aclclitional alig'1ments were suggested by' the property owners and have subsequently been studied by the Riverside County Flood Control District., As a result of the stucly effort, it appears the property owners unofficially support ,an alternative ,to place the Intel'ceptor along the' east edge of the Corona property. Unfortunately, to' date we have not been able to develop a financing lJ1!lQhanism to co,r1,struct the suggested Interceptor. If you are interested, we can forward you a copy ofthe Flood Coriti"ol Report summarizing the alternatives studied. If you have any questions, please contact me. ' , '. Sincerely, ' ,~~ a "~~oh n' Deputy Direct of Transportation . ," . - GAJ:sa . , cc: Sarn Alhadeff, Newland Communities Michele Staples Steve Corona Leonard Savala Dusty Williarns, Flood Control District Rhonda King, Executive Office . ., 4080 Lemon Slreet. Slh Floor. Riverside. California 92501 . (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090. Riverside. Gdifomia 9:!502-I090. FAX (909) 955-6721 e2/~M;~eee 16: e2 8776395559. ". FtB~Jd-OO THU 02: 54 Pll RIV Cf IEClfflVl: O~J- JI;1:. ..,.- . RR BROWN aJ /-1liI liU. I '-, " ",""':! d'Z1J;~'."<;~:,: ", q/O'/60(r,l'il~GIf:; ,ag.., COUNTY OF RIVERsIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 'ftansportation Department DlIVld E. 8',nb.., Dira:/Q, f)11"lYltUpOl'1rtIlI"<ut February 17, 2000 cERTIFIED l:fAIt tr 310 675 430 Corona Ranch 33:120 State Highway 79 Ternecula, CA 92592 t(Q){Pl1 Attemtion: Steve Corona RE: Butterfield East Interceptor Storm Drain Dear Mr. Corona: 1 am Writing this letter as a follow up to the December 10, 1999 meetiT19 we had at the Flood Control District offices. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the various alternatives we studied for thE! Butterfield East Interceptor 5to/111 Drain Facility, I appl'2!ciated the opportunity to hear your concerns, and as a result, I gained a better understanding of the history Surrounding this project and the various alternatives. Attached is a table that summarizes the three options we diSClJssed. " . As you are well aware.fue Butterfield Interceptor Was included as an Assessment Distrkt No. 159 facility;to be located at the eastem Assessment District boundary, to intercept the tributal)' drainage tlows and provide tlood protection to Butterfield Stage Road" State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept Was to construcl an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you <;7Wn property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the AD bOUndary, you requested We stUdy other allematives~' You are currently farming all of your propen,o anda(jvised the Interceptor would disrupt your farming operation. With your input, we agreed to ana/Y.2:e several other alternatives. Let me summarize the two other options We discussec;l, whIch seemed potentially feasible: A/terncltlve No, 1 examined the possibility of constructing the Interceptor on the same alignm'~nt as the original option (the eastern AD 159 boundary), but lowering the channE'1 and constructing a box under your property. You expressed an openness to this option as long as 1) you could continue your farming operations Uninterrupted, and 2) the Flood Control District would accept this option as a solution: The./ntent was to provide four feet of cover Over the box, so you could continue your farming over the top of the facility. During our meeting. Flood Control District representatives questioned the feasibili:ty of this option. First of all, they doubt the tributary flows can actually be properl~' collected by the Underground box. Secondly, by fowerin9 the facility to plaC€ it 4080 Lt'moa Scrc:ct Sth Floor ~ Ri~nidc. D,(irornlJ. 92501 ~ (909) 9S5~67dO P.O. Bl..1X 1090' Rivcnid~. C"H/OtOl.:! 92502-1090. FA" (909) 955.6721 . 1l2/2'V2eee 1 G: e2 877G3'3555?. . ~.Elt-:'~4-UU THU (Jc: bb I'n KI"V L1J . ,tl;U II VI: U/-/-I\;/:. :- RR BROWN CO tAli MJ. I PAGE 03-.." .I r. u,) Mr. Steve Corona February 17,2000 Page 2 underground makes Ihe slope oflhe box culvert 100 lIat and creates ongoing maintenance problems. Therefore, this option doesn't seem practical. 'rhe other option we discusSed was Alternative No. .5. a dual system with <In open (;hannel/ocated along your easterly property boundary to intercept a majority of lhe drainage from the east, along with a smaller underground system at the eastern AD boUndary to collect the smaller flows from the north and east. abov~ De Portola Road and east 10 Calle Contento. You expressed your preference for this alternative. Under Alternative No.5, all of your property will be flood protected, The property you OVm outside the AD boundal}' Would benefit under this alternative and would therefore bl~ required to pay Its proportionate share of the costs. You discussed YOUr desire to defer any assessments on your properly until your farming operation develops info some other use, This would require some other: party 10 adVance YOl.lr costs. While I undelStand your desire. the County doesn't have the fjn:3ncial capacity or ability to advance fund your share. One way to redUce your costs is to dedicate the right-of-way needed to COflstruct fhe facility. Other than thaI, I have n01 been able 10 come up with any other cost saving solutions. '\'fy,)u are Wifling to place the required financial burden on the remainder of YOUr property outside the current AD 159 boundaries. the Transportation Department is Willing to recommend Alternative No.5. However, to proceed we will need YQurWritten con:urrence.// Your COoperation is needed to make [he IJ'ltercepfor a reality. l/ool{ forward to receiving YOur positive ~sponse So We can proceed ifl a COoperative manner. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. , SincE'reJy. - ~;.c ~ Geor~'e A. JohnSon Deputy Director of Transportation GAJ:sa cc: Supervisor Bob Buster Bob Krieger Tony Carstens Dave Barnhart Kelley Donavan Frank Peairs '. .o;~~ 8776395559 :'I:I1-:-:--q-,vu lHU U~;:,:, rn K1V l;l' \1:l;UJJVI: UrTll;t: "' jg ~ ~E!i~ HE oll e D_ ,go ~;~ e]' ;~if c::,., .sa ~ ~i Jj~ ~<<; ~~:Z-f E~8.It::::f ~d K:f2i! .g ~..a<u.8 ~5::ljet 8Hr~8 =-U'ii~J~8 ii . '" s .. ~j JOl 8 Ii .." " 0 "'~ v:1 -u >(0. ~ . 31;: -"'" ~l: 80 ec;- e .2 ~ .. l ~ ,f1O " :z: . ~ ~ e .:; ~ ~ E .. goog "'~." oI2b g",u j~U ":SocS =-:zr;-s ~lg!~la :: ~l~loC!'~i",,: 1""'o:~io'ff ;'!;:~.-:~: ;s9j.... _..,., , I : . ~'J~igi~l:e w,ti.v.:.s _ ri'SI~.;8.'8. ~ _O!'OO_'<n rI", It; ,..,....,_ ... 0 . I . ~: j : I 0 . - : . B i . }i 11, ~i ''D : . s: I ! i I I , I ~:!I';I~I~ "'N "/8 ., :.f1-llO'1'_j" "'",'-''' .. .. . : I I I I , , I ii' I I I ! , , ~ ... " ~ .. " ;"fc ;: t= " u ~ >: '" ll: ~ g '1:; Q = r:: ..., .. .. ~ ... ... ~ on .. .. .. ... ... 0 ... 8 '" '" '" 15 .. '" . w ~ ... :>: ::Ii ... ... 0 '" U ~ 0 w ~ I- ~ <:: ~ '" '" ... ~ ;: ;;S, <C 0 .., .. :;; < :til " ~ u <> is ~ '" 0 ~ @ ~ ~ ffi >: ~ '" '% oJ 0 '" .. ;;.2 ~ '" ~ " ~ '" ~ ~ u ~ ~ ;:; 1= .. ... '" M ~ 2 u. " '" ... ... f' Q (5 ~ ... .. t: ~ !:l ::; ... '" t; J .. " (5 >- '" ~ ;S ~ -.: .. u '" C> 0 <.> 0 ir .. ... RR BROWN CO rl1h nv. 1 ~ E ::i ., .., ... ; "!; g .. :! '" '" - 67./24/2000 16:02 - 8l~':=:;;:: __'-.- J PAGE 04 r. tJ't t~ , . ',~r,Z~-OI "'lAACD.A1.U...:olDt. AtfflUW l' .IUl.''STUS BIll....<(W.~IUJ.\. J.~"C.I:I....ll"J bIolU It. Pl,,"Wo' K.o.u:H\..S.fINt R"Gl"M.f'~"J HtLli",,~'.F......<ol'U ~_'4D.'- G.r.U.dWA\' -MtOW:l..$.HltmlASo.\loi . 'WIL\IAH M. Htl'C"..&.lY f. Sean J...CU<\Il; IklU(;Wf'.\..o.rrrID~1,/"" JtotlJolM.Lc\ltlU." M.Al.IMP<4Al11t ~ll\lL..~"""'I!'< S."lttlli'olC;.MAsut: 10:48.m From-Buchalt. ~emer.Fieldi' YOU"ier +949 Z51 1701 1-896 P.001/0Z8 F-096 JACKSON DE~CO & PECKENPAUGH A l..''"- L'ourOR.\T'O:<' l.wou.k.Mt;AvtlT D"""OA.OSn:<1'1IftC TW\,I&<.UD.PfCQ:<<.....UGol JIIW:'<",tmo,.tCtI Ga4IC4A\.'.!l.cClUl Al.!stlloll.rl.tln""""" CN<LAlt..a\HAL Jf.A."oIl'OIA.Sc..tLU.1 ~N;...c.SatL'1'l M1C14tU 10.. SUhlS D.o.Nt(H'W.$T.._ $IlAAllloll. TA.ltnA MII;;HAt..l.lu)I/J Wllu.....IJ.TUVlT ,...llL!;.VAl< HUU"'ISSftt JLo.Iol M. WUlTH W'U.-.....xtVILlM<CO"IC! . pJ.,llJl: PLAZA. 16TH FLooa ll\VIj'(E.C.ulfORHlA 9uU ")6' O...x CUSfD",.t..SVlTl JOO ".lnl.AlttV,LUCLCA!......Il....... 91)61 ltLllU.1I1..1l10/1IOJ...2l0.00J) FAXall.U..Ul1/ao'.:UO.oon P. O. Box 19704 IAVlN[. c.u.IFOIt1ILA 9261).910. Tn 949.7Sl.8S8S f..u: 949.1S2.0S97 . www.Jdpla....com t...\o"Ut<\Rllf.b..1CIt I>fCOln<Stl lltx... MCKlnuCll ~nup OUlfIUtl"""'U: 28878 [.JoU.Il.: August 13, 200 I dSlfOud@idplaw.com "'.~TU.I' D.ueT DIAL N'VMIU: (949) 851.7404 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Chairman James A, Venable Riverside County Board of Supervisors 4080 Lemon Street, 14'" Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: Agenda Item 13.3 Comments on Proposed Colorado Pacific Commun'ilies Project and Request for Condition of Approval Dear Chairman Venable and Honorable Board Members: We representJames and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the '.Coronas") with respect to their propenies located at the nonheast eorner of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. We request that this letter be included in the administrative record for this matter. The Coronas own propeny on the nonh side of H~hway 79 across from the Colorado Pacific Project The Coronas were informed of the Color.!tlo Pacific Communities Project ("Project") for the first time only a few days ago, The Coronas are concerned about the lack of consideriuion being given in evaluating the impacts of the Project on the Assessment District 159 Butterfield East InterceptOr Channel flood control facility ("Interceptor Channel"). As discussfd below, since the Project in its current form would crea~e significant environmental impacts and conflict with existing surrounding land uses, the Coronas request that any approval of the Project be conditioned upon dedication of an easement to the Riverside County Flood Control DiStrict for the Interceptor Channcl. The requested easement could easily be accommodated while maintaining the Project densities by minor revisions to // .qB-32~01 .10:493. Froo-Buth.lte' -",,,,Field., Youn,,, - +940 251 1107 i-006 P.008/0IB F-086 J.....CKSO!' DEM.'>RCO <I< PECKEr.-PAUGJI Chainnan Jam~s A. Ve..nable August 13. 2001 Page 2 roads on the eastern end of the Project. If the County is unwilling to incorporate the requested easement at this time, the County, at a minimum. should continue this matter to the next Board of Supervisors' meeting to allow the Coronas to further work with Planning Commission staff and the Project applicant to address their concerns with the Project. 1. BACKGROUND The Project consists of subdividing 46 gross acres into 122 residential lots. In or about June 2001, the Planning Commission issued its recommendation that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Change of Zone No. 06583. and approve Tentative'Tract Map No. 30052. The Coronas did not receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing. For over a year, the Coronas and other landowners within Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for the Interceptor Channel flood control facility have been meeting regularly with representatives of the County of Riverside's Executive Office, Transportation and land Management AgenCy. Flood Control District, and County Counsel's office to devise a .mutually-agreeable InterCeptor Channel design and alignment. Orie of the ahematives previously proposed by the County included an open channel through the Coronas' land 70 feet wide, 1,000 reet long, and 10 reet deep, TIlis proposed alignment would effectively bisect the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing fanning and commercial operations and eventual developmem: " Fonunately, two other feasiblealignmems were de, eloped. However, one of them (on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road) was eliminatedearlicr this year by the COUnty's approval of incompatible construction of Ralphs Store buildings across the proposed alignment. The Ralphs Store construction project, as originally proposed, could have accommodated the Interceptor Channel. However. the Project was revised to place b~ngs across the alternative Interceptor Cannel alignment without notice to the Coronas even though they had requested notice of any projeCt revisions inconsistent with the Interceptor Channel alignments (see correspondence to the Board of Supervisors dated OClOber 2, 2000. enclosed and incorporated by this reference). i' The Coronas' engineer, Bob Krieger. has been working closely with the County Flood Control District to analyze and confinn the feasibility of locating the Interceptor Channel facility at an alignment approximately 4.800 feet easl of the intersection of Bunerfield Slage Road and Highway 79. This is the only alignment agreed upon by all of the panicipating \ M-t~-OI .10:49am From-Buchal t,. '~l!Imllf .Field" " Younlllr +949 151 !TOT T-99S P,009/019 F-09S .1.-\.CK501';" DI::M.>oRCO & PECKEr--P.-\.CGH Chairman James A. Venable August J J. 2001 Page 3 Assessment District 159 landowners. Maintaining the imegrity of this alignment for a flood control facility is necessary to accomplish the purposes: of Assessment District I S9 without undue harm to the Coronas or any other property owner. Nevertheless, the Project. as proposed, would place homes across the alignment, effectively eliminating the alignmem. II. REOUESTED MITlGA nON MEASURE AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL Through the Project site, thc agreed-upon aJignmem for the Imerceptor Channel flood comrol facility'consists of an underground box culvert, 30 feet wide, running north to south. The required setback necessary to accommodate the Interceptor Channel can be easily accommodated within the project densitics and without interfering with underground utilities by revising the roads on the eastern end ofthc Project. In order to alleviate the significant Project impaclS that would otherwise require the preparation of an environntental impact report ("EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Qaulity Act (UCEQA:') the Coronas recommend including an additional mitigation measure and condition of approval, as follows: A future north-soUlh flood control structure is being planned through the Project site as the Assessmem District 159 Butterfield East Interceptor Channel at approximately 4,800 feet east of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, The developer will provide a drainage eaSement to the Flood Control District for the flood control'structure, The drainage easement shall be kept fre~ ofbuiJdings and obstructions. III. VIOLATION OF NOTICE REOUlREMENTS The Coronas have spent dozens of hours and tens ofthousands of dollars over the past year meeting regularly with County personnel and other landowners within Asse..rncnt District 159 to develop and evaluate the agreed-upon alignment for the Interceptor Channel. COUnty personnel participating in ~()'se meetings, as recently as June 200 I, include Dusty Williams and Stuart McKibbin of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Tony Carstens of the Executive Office, David Barnhart, George Johnson and Jerry Noms of the Transponation and Land Management Agency, and Tim Davis of the COWllY Counsel's office. Many of these same individuals and emities were involved in planning and plan checking the proposed Colorado Pacific Project. Additionally, Trans-Pacific Consultants. the engineer for the Colorado Pacific project, developed the conceptual plans for the easlem alignment of the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel justlasl year. Yet. the Project calls for the incompatible construction of residences across the very alignment that has been the focus of the meetings and analyses on the Interceptor Channel facility. 9S"'Z.4:"'OI . 10:49am From-Buchalt.. lI.emar ,FieldE , Younur ~-' +949 l51 1707 T-a9S P.OIO/Ola F-09S J....C.,;:SON DEM"'RCO <eX PECKEl'o'PAUGH Chairman James A. Venable -August 13.2001 Page 4 Despite the Coronas' regular meetings with County staff and correspondence to the Board of Supervisors concerning the impacts that the Interceptor Channel's alignment has on their propeny, the Coronas received nO nOlice, wrinen or otherwise, of the Project until a few days ago when they received notice of the August 14, 2001, Board of Supervisors hearing. Accordingly. the County has violated procedural due process requirements here by not providing the Coronas notice and the opponunity to be heard prior to the:August 14,2001 Board of Supervisors hearing. Case law is clear rhat where a land use decision will "exceptionally affecl' a propeny owner or business user, the County must provide that person with notice and the opponunity to be heard. Harn v. County afVentura, 24 CaI.3d 605.615 (1979); Harr/s v. County of Riverside, 904 F.2d 497 (9'h Cir. 1990). In their letters dated April I &, 2000 and August 3, 2000, the Coronas detailed the impacts to their propeny related to the Interceptor Channel's alignment. The April 8 and August 3, 2000 leners are enclosed and incorporatcd by this reference. Moreover, One of the essential features ofCEQA is public involvement. 14 Cal. Code Regs. ~ 1520 I'. As stated by the California Supreme Court, the public holds a "privileged position" in the CEQA process. Concerned Citizens of COSIO Mesa v. )2"" Disrrict Agricultural Association, 42 Cal.3d 929 (1986), Therefore, it is of paramount imP9rtarJce that the public be meaningfully involved in the process. A review ofrecentlyobtained County records for this Project indicates that the Coronas" ,name appears on the County's list of landowners within 600, feet ofthe Project boundaries that were to receive notice of the COlU)ty's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative DeclaraIion'("'MND") for this ProjeCt as well a5 the Plarming Commission's public hearing on the P~oject. However, in violation ofCEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Coronas neveHeceived notice of the MND for this Project, which is inconsistent with the agreed-upon Interceptor Channel alignmeill. In fact, the Coronas did not become aware of the Project or the MND until only last week, well after the close of the public comment pe~d on the MND and after the Planning Commission hearing where the MND and Project were recommended for approval. . . As a result of the lack~f notice for this Project, the Coronas have been denied a meaningful opponunity under CEQA and due process law to inform the County of the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project and panicipate in the decision making process, Accordingly, the Coronas are hopefulth31 because the County has prejudiced them by waiting Hereafter citations to 14 Cat Code of Regs. SS 15000 et seq. shall be referred to as the CEQA Guidelines, PN,1-01 10:50.. F~~m-BUthil h~.Jtl!lm8r .F i 81 d" & Youn.ar +949 Z51 1107 , H9S POII/OZ9 F-09S ~r.~CKSON DEM.~~CO 6.:: PECKENP~"LUGIl Chairman James A. Venable August 13,2001 Page 5 until this late dale to nOlify them of the Project, the County will include in the Project approval and adopted mitigation measures the dedication of an easement to the Riverside County Flood Control District for the Interceptor Channel. IV. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE COLORADO PACIFIC PROJECT SINCE THE PROJECT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS TO LAND USE PLANNING AND UTILITIES ) The County's MND for the Project concludes that its impacts to land use planning and utilities would be less than Significant. Accordingly, no mitigation is included for these Project impacts. However, from a fair reading of the MND, il is abundantly clear thar the County's conclusions were based on cursory analyses ofthese impact areas. Mr. McKibbin has confirmed that the MND's analyses do nOI consider the Project's in.;onsistency with the Interceptor Channel's agreed-upon alignment or the resulting impacts to the Coronas' land. Therefore, because a "fair argument" exists that the Project may have significant unmitigated environmental impacts, the County mUSI prepare an EIR and cannot properly adopt a negative declaration for thc Colorado Pacific projecl. Public Resources Code ~S 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines 99 15002 (1<)(3), 15063(b)(J), t5064(a)(l) & (g)(I), 15362. ' As the lead agency for the ,Project under CEQA, the CounlY "can and must. . " scrupulously enforce alllegisJativelymandated CEQA requirements." Cirizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Ca1.3d553, 563 (1990). ''Full compliance with the letter ofCEQA is essential to the maimenance of its important public purpose. . . . " Q,esource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 191 CaI.App.3d 886. 897-911 (1987). "lfCEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which ils responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to aClion with which it disagrees," Laurel Heighrs lmprovemenrs A.uociarion. lnc, v. Regenrs ofrhe Universiry of California, 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392 (1988): Moreov~r~ accordh:ag to San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water District, 71 Cal.App.4th 382 (1999): " "the agency must prepare an ElR whenever substan[ial evidence in the record suppons a fair argwnent thaI' a proposed project may have a significanr effecr on the environmenf. [Cirarions.] 'If sllch evidence is found, it cannOI be overCome by substalllial evidence to the conrrary.' [Citalions.) [11 -The lead agency's determination is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does nol resolve conflicts in the evidence but delennines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair ,argumenr.' ~q8-~-Ol '1O:50iillll FrOll-Buchilter "elllu.Field, & Younaer '949 251 1707 1-896 P .012/029 F-09S .1rl\.CKSOr< DEM.-\.RCO <.\.: PEClU;z.,.-Pl\.UGH Chainnan James A. Venable August 13, 2001 Page 6 [Citation.] The COutt" S 'function is 10 determine whether substantial evidence supponed the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be mad.:.' [Citation.)" San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, 71 CalAppAth at 389; quoting Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399-1400 (1995); See also Leagu"for Protection ofOakland's Architectural & Historic Resources v. Cif)' Of Oakland, 52 Cal.App.4th 896 (1997); Citizens' Commillee to Save Our Village v. City of Clore mont, 37 Cal.AppAth 1157, 1167-1169 (1995); Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Eneinitas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994); Sundstrom v. Count of Mendocino, 202 CaI.App.3d 296 (1988); Friends of "B" Strecr v. City of Hayward, 106 Cal.App.3d 988 (1980). NOIably, the "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring the preparation of an ElR. Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 22 C:al.App.3d 748, 754 (1990); Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at310, quoting No Oil, Inc. v. City of Las Angeles, 13 Ca1.3d 68, 75 (1974) ("'No O~l r). This standard is founded on the principle that because adopting a mitigated negative declaration has a "terminal effect on the environmental review process." Citizens of Lake Murray, 129 Cal.App.3d at 440, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assenions" and to "substitute some degree'of cenainty . . ." No Oil I, 13 CaUd at 85. Accordingly, if substantial evidence suPPOrtS a "fair argwnent" that a project may have a significant environmental effect', the lead agency must prepare an ElR despite other' substantial evidence which indicates that the project will nOl have a.,significant impact. Friends of "'B " Streer, 106 Cal.App,3d ;,tI002. V. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACTS - - The.MND states that a significant impact could occur if the Project results in a substantial alteration of thc present ,or planned land use of an area, is inconsistent with existing and planned surrounding uses, or ~ould disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an , Public Resources Code S 21068 indicates that a ... significant effect on the envirorunent" means a substantial. or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." , CEQA Guidelines S 15382 further defines "significant effect on the environment"as a "substantial. or potentially substantiaL adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. including land, air. water. minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." ,.08-<:1-01 10:50.. Fr.....8uch.lt.,~..",Fi.ld.' Youn.., +949 251 1T01 T-896 P.013/0l8 F-086 .J.'\.CKSON DEMARCO <'>: PECXE:-W.'HJGJt Chairman lames A. Venable August 13.2001 Page 7 established communiry. MND, pp., 19-20. However, the MND concludes that the Project's land use and planning impaclS would be insignificant and nO'mitigation measures whatsoever were incorporated. Newnheless. there is overwhelming substantial evid~nce thaI says otherwise. The Interceptor Channel must be constructed to satisfy the purposes of Assessment District 159 for the orderly development oflands in the vicinity of the Project sitCO. including the Coronas' property. In order to maintain the integrity of the Inren:eptor Channel flood control facility alignment, it is necessary that construction projects south of Highway 79 and nonh ofTemecula Creek be consistent with the Interceptor Channel's planning effon. The Project, as proposed, is inconsistent with, and would therefore eliminate, the only alignment for the Interceptor Channel agreed to by the landowners in Assessment District 159 who have been assessed for those facilities. The County has eliminated another alignment for the Interceptor Channel by approving an inconsistent development project earlier this year. Therefore. if the County approves the Colorado Pacific project as proposed, the only remaining Interceptor Channel alignment which has been opposed by the Coronas and others, and would create a 70-foot wide chasm dividing the Coronas' land, causing undue hardship and seriously damaging their ongoing farming and commercial operations and eventual development. If, on the other hand, the County fails to construct the Interceptor Channel, it would fail to complete the Assessment District 159 facilities that are necessary to remove the flood hazard created to the Coronas' land and commercial buildings by construction of the Bunerfield Stage Road improvements and other development in the natural drainage channel. Therefore. approval of the Project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts and an EIRmust be prepared. Siting a 70-foot wide open channel on the Coronas' land would create undue hardship on the Coronas. The Coronas have not contributed to the flooding condition that has been created on their land and that the Interceptor Channel is to remedy. The Coronas would be burdened with the loss of use of acreage thaI is now devoted to their ongoing farming ~ation and related commercial land uses. The channel would effectively sever their landholding into two separate parcels. Therefore, the Pr!lposed project would create significant unmitigated land use and planning impacts, The lead agency musr accept conflicting evidence from a qualified expen showing a significant impact may ocCur, as the agency Cannot weigh compcting evidence. See Carme/-by-Ihe-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, J 83 Cal.App.3d 229. 249 (1986); Brenlwood Ass'ociation for No Drilling v. City of Los Angeles, 134 CaLApp.3u 491. 504 (1982) (emphasis added.) Also. statements made by members oflhe public supponrd by adequate factual foundation constitute substantial evidence, See Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporarion v. County of El Dorado. 225 Cal.App.3d 872. 882 (1990); Citizens Association for Sensible Developmenr of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo. 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 173 (1985). , OB-22-01 - lD:51am From-Buchalter u"mar .Field, , Younlllf +149 Z5) 1701 1-99, P,014/0Z8 f-09, 'J....ChSO,,; DEM_oU<CO & PECKENJ>.-UJGJl Chairman James A. Venable AugUSt 13.2001 Page 8 Additionally. the approval of the Project and adoption oflhe MND would effectively predetermine the outcome of the mandatory"hearing required to be conducted by the COUnty prior to adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law. As the County is undoubtedly aware, before it can adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire the Coronas' land by eminent domain, the County l11Ust conduct a hearing and make mandatory findings including a froding that the project is planned or located in the manner that ",ill be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least 'private injury. Code of Civil Procedure ~ 1245.230, By approving the proposed Project in its cUrrent form (which would result in causing the siting of the Interceptor Channel on the Coronas' land), the County will illegally predetermine the outcome of the mandatory hearing, This approach is improper. In Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d 1121 (1986) ("Norm s Slauson"), the COUrt held that an agency's contracts with a developer for construction of a condominium project, before instituting condemnation proceedings. was a gross abuse of discretion, and that the subsequent adoption of a resolution of necessity to justify the prior decision was an example of '~rubber stampingn; "In the instant case, it seems clear that the hearing which led to the adoption of the resolution of necessity was a sham'and the Agency's policy making board simply 'rubber Stamped' a predetermined result. , "By the time ihe Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the 'necessity' for taking the propeny in question, it had, by virtUe of its contract with the developer an issuance of revenue bonds, irrevocably commined itseLf to rake the property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be presented III that hearing. , , ." - - Norm Slauson, 173 Cal.App.3d at 1127. , , In order to ensure that the project is properly pJanIlt.'d and sited in conformity with the requirements of the Eminent Domain Law. all potentially feasible alternatives must be considered at the public hearing. Without considering other feasible alternatives. at the mandatory public hearing, the County cannot find that the project is sited in the manner that will be ~ compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 08-Z2-01 10:51.m From-Buchilt~em8r.Fi'ld~ , Youn;.r +949 Z51 1107 7-886 P,Ol5/0Z8 F-096 ----- .JACKSOl'" DEM.-\.RCO '-': PECKEr-.'"P.-\,UGH Chaimlan James A. Venable August 13.200] Page 9 VI. THE PROJECT WILL CREA TE UNMITIGATED UTILITIES IMP ACTS The MND Slates that the Project's impacts to storm water drainage facilities, services and plans would be less than significant. However, by proposing to site residences across the agreed-upon alignment for the lilterceptor Channel facilities on the eastern end of the Project, approval of the Project will jeopardize the construction of the -Interceptor Channel and will have serious consequences to the Coronas' land. Last yeat, COUnty staff requested that the Board approve staffs proposal to site the J nterceptor Channel as an open ditch through the middle of the Coronas' land. The matter was ultimately withdrawn from the Board's agenda due to opposition raised by the Coronas and lack of consensus among the Assessment District 159 lando~ers for such a burdensome facility (see correspondence to Board of Supervisors dated April 8 and August ~,2000). Earlier this year, the Coumy approved an inconsistent development project thereby eliminaling one oftlie two other alignments identified for the Interceptor Channel. If the Board approves the Colorado Pacific Project as currently proposed, it would eliminate the only other alternative alignmem identified for the Interceptor Channel, and the only alignment that is agreeable to all of the Assessmenl District 159 landowners who have been assessed for the flood control facility, Such a decision necessarily would result in me siting of me Interceptor Channel in a manner mat bisects the Coronas' land as advanced by County staff last year, or else the failure to _construct the facility as necessary to meet the requirements of Assessment District 159 and alleviate the flood risk created on the Coronas' land by the construction ofBulterfield Stage Road improvements and other development in the natural drainage channel.. As a result, approval pf the Project would expose 'the County to significant severance damages Or inverse 'condemnation award due io the serious consequences to the Coronas' land. Since the Project, as proposed, conflicts with plans for necessary storm water drainage facilities. approval of me Project would create significant urimitigatcd utilities impacts and an EIR mUSl be prepared. VB. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE WOULD REDUCE UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO INSIGNIFICANCE - - The Project would result in significant adverse envirorunemal impacts, including (but nOllimited to) conflicting with surrounding land uses and necessary slorm drain facilities. Accordingly, the County must either prepare an EIR for the Project or implement additional mitigation measures thai would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving projects as proposed iftnere are fcasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effeclS of such projects. Public Resources Code S 21000. The requested mitigation measure and condition of approval set forth above can be implemented consistent with . 08-11-01 -IO:5Iam From-Buchalter,Nemer,Filld., '(ounnr +848 151 1101 1-886 P.016/018 F-086 . JACKSO~ DE:M.V<co 6: PECKE"-PAt.~GJ{ Chairman James A. Venable August 13, 2001 Page 10 the Project objectives by revising roads on Ihe eastern end of the Project site. By including the requested mitigation measure and condilion ofapprovaL the Project" s significant environmental impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. VIII. CONCLUSION In order 10 avoid significant, unmitigated environmental impacts that would othelWise require the preparation of an EIR for the Colorado Pacific project, the Coronas request that the above requested mitigation measure be incoIporated in the MND and the Conditions of Approval for this Project. Otherwise, the roaner should be continued 10 allow for consideration and mitigation of the Project'S impacts to the Assessment District 159 Interceptor Channel and the resulting impacts to the Coronas. This is only fair, considering that the Coronas only became aware of this maner recently due the C<:lUnty's failure to provide adequate notice. Your efforts toward incorporating the recommended mitigation in any Project approval are greatly appreciated. We thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours. ~~.'~. D / Darren W. Stroud c::;;- - ~ DWS/jaa Enclosures 4222540.2 cc: Stephen Corona (w/encls.) Katherine Lind, Deputy County Counsel (via messenger) (w/encls.) - Board of Supervisors Meeting September 25, 2001 Item 13.1 Ron Goldman Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ron Goldman of Planning Staff. This is a change of zone in the tract map in the Temecula area, specifically located on the south side of Highway 79. It was continued from last month to discuss some issues with the adjacent property owner. The project proposes the subdivision of 46 acres into 120 lots. What's happened since the last hearing is that the map has been redesigned. Admitted No. 2 was submitted and the area in question has been redesigned in this area here and it resulted in a net reduction of two lots and with that we think all of the issues have been solved and we're prepared to recommend adoption of mitigated negative declaration, approval of the t~act map and approval of the change of zone. Thank you. Supervisor Venable - - Okay any questions Supervisor, or you want to open for public hearing or what. Supervisor Buster , , Just a question about the two lot reduction. The developer is absorbing that. No County flood control involvement, or cost involvement? Ron Goldman That's my understanding, yes. 1 C:\Data\ClientS\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific).doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 z 0 10 ~ ~ ~ . 11 0 u " < z 12 e ..~ ..l~ ..l~ 13 .~ "'< ~ll ;g ~ H HP~ z ~ -~ 1'- ~ .) ~= <~ "'~ 16 ..l" <~ ~ > ~ 17 ~ ;; <' ~ 0 HI ~ ~ ;; ~ 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Venable Okay we'll open for public hearirig. We have two speakers, the ~irst will be Sam Alhadeff and following Sam will be Michelle Staples. Sam Alhadeff Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. We represent Colorado Pacific, the developer of this particular project. : At the hearing on August 14 there was a request by the Corona family for a redesign of this particular map to provide for some drainage. They raised some other questions in a letter of August 13 and would be my sincere desire that as a result of the revision of the map to accommodate their request for a certain drainage pattern and condition that they would respectfully withdraw their letter of August 13 concerning the issues that they had raised. Supervisor Buster you are correct, there is no additional cost to the County. This developer met on a number of occasions with staff at the County. I wish to thank Staff of the County met with the Corona famiiy and their counsel and is agreeable to absorbing all of the costs. The only request we - would have if, as and when. If, as and when this project is ever built that we would:be, if there was an opportunity to be reimbursed through a~financing mechanism, that's all we would request. If, as and when, but we're certainly, that's our modest request. I am happy to answer any questions. We think we've addressed all of the issues that were raised in the letter. Unfortunately, Ms. Staples sent a letter dated today to the Board. We did not get a copy, but the copy that was handed to me by Mr. Johnson it appears that we have done the revised lot 2 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORR\q ?<:; 01 I,...,....'~__..._ ...~_....,. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 " ~ 11 0 u ~ < z 1:2 .~ ..~ .." ..~ 1:3 -" "'< <0 -lz ,- < 1-1 0" )~ , ~ 0 . u ~ z. ~~ 1'- i< .) ~~ <~ :c~ 16 ..~ <~ > ~ 17 ~ " < ~ 0 18 ~ ~ i ~ 19 < 20 21 2-' <, 2:;: 24 2" -' 26 27 28 configuration they requested and that's the revised map that Ron referred to. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Supervisor Venable I don't see any Sam so. I'll call you back, thank you very much. Michele. Michele Staple~ Good afternoon, Michele Staples representing the Coronas. We submitted two comment letters, so I'll keep my comments brief. Mr. Alhadeff is correct, the Coronas' engineer has worked cooperatively with Colorado Pacific's engineer to redesign the program; the project. We have put the interceptor channel in a road now, so 1t h~S m?nimum impact On this project. However, today I also requested, as I did in our last letter, that there will also be a condition of approval requiring that that area be kept free from obstruction and that an easement be conveyed to the flood control district for that facility. The first part of that request is vitally important. What happened with another of these iriterceptor channel alignments in the vicinity of the south of Butterfield Stage Road and on the southwest corner, was that a - tentative map was approved for a project that did n;t show any obstruction, any lot. ''obstructing the channel alignment. We submitted a letter supporting that project as proposed. However, it was later changed without notice to my client and buildings were constructed that precluded that alignment. We need to have a condition on this project that prevents that from happening again. I would request that the Board in approving this project also approve a condition that that area be kept free from obstruction. 3 c: \Data\Clients\BOARD OF SIJPRH'VT.c::nll'C::\ Q ...e ^~ ',.._~ ___~_ ~~ ~~ 10"' . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 " 11 0 u ~ . z 12 ~ ..~ ...~ ...~ 13 .~ "'. <0 -lz ,- < 14 \ 3 g J u- z' ;:::: 15 ~ ...~ <" "'~ 15 ...~ <~ > ~ 17 ::i ;;; ~ 113 19 20 21 2') " 23 2'1 2" -. 26 27 28 Supervisor Venable Okay thank you Michelle. Michelle Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Uh... ?1? Ms. Staples can you come back to the microphone, I have a question for you. In your letter you asked for much more than just the drainage easement be kept free of building and obstructions, you're revising your request to simply indicate that today? Michelle Staples Yes, that's a minimum of what we absolutely what we need. ??? Does staff a problem with that sort of condition? Staff does not. So I don't either. Michelie Staples Thank you. Supervisor Buster - - I don't have any problem with that. Is that tantamount to saying we're going to selec~ that as the drainage easement. ??? No, however, Supervisor Buster So we haven't done that? ?1? No we have not. 4 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.nl lrnl^r~~~ D~~~~~_\ ~__ ~ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :3 9 % 0 10 ~ < ~ 0 , ~ E 0 " " < % I" 0 <, ~ ..w ." .,~ 13 ., "< <0 -'% ,- < 14 o. 00 . v , . % ' -~ 15 "," =.~ 16 .,~ <~ > ~ 17 " ~ < " 0 18 w ~ ;; " 19 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supervisor Buster Haven't selected it yet. 1?? No you have not and I would not recommend that you do that. Supervisor Buster Do you have a reason to attach a condition that would if in deed this has not been selected as the drainage easement. ??? As to the originally requested the wording it was fixing this is the option. But she's revised the request now to simply ask that this easement be kept free of building an obstructions, and that does not fix the easement. You may put this channel wherever you like. Supervisor Buster All right, in the alternative is it po~sible to have better notification procedures so if there is some proposal that does obstruct this area that there is ,notice ,to at least the neighbors. I mean, Corona her clients are just across the street, you know are across 79, so is that another possible way to handle this rather than a cumbersome method of. - - ??? Well the problem is tffat notice isn't always required for things like bUilding permits. So my concern is that someone could actually build in there without this requirement and we would never be notified. ??? But it doesn't foreclose any option in a way that you've outlined Ms. Staples' request. 5 C:\Data\ClientS\BOARD OF SUPERVISOa..c:;\q_?c:; 01 1,..^1....~~..1_ ...__,,.. . . t' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ ~ 11 0 u ~ < z 12 ~ o,w -'~ -':i1 13 .~ "'< <0 -'z ,- < 1,1 o. ,,> td ~ ;~~ 1'- 1; ., ~ 'W "'" 16 -'~ <~ ~ ,. ~ 17 ::l ~ < ::l 0 18 w ~ ;; ::l 19 < 20 21 2" ~, 23 24 25 26 27 28 o Supervisor Venable No it does not, not as it has been narrowed today. 1?1 Thank you Michele. Michele Staples Thank you. Supervisor Venable Next Sam. Sam A1hadeff Maybe it will help the Board, given the narrow construction I do want to thank Ms. Staples for her construction of this easement that the only thing we are going to build there is a road and I don't believe that's an obstruction, so we don't have a problem. Supervisor Venable Okay, does anyone else from the public like to speak on this item. If not we'll c'Iose the public hearing. Supervisor Buster Supervisor Buster I'll move approval with that additional condition, I guess it is. Supervisor Venable Please vote. That motion is carried 5-0. Takes us CD item 13.2. " .. 6 C:\Data\Clients\BOARD OF SUPERVISORS\9.25.01 (Colorado Pacific) .doc r- > . ALHADEFF& SOLAR, LLP A LIMITED lIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California January 7,2002 The Honorable Ron Roberts Mayor, City of Temecula Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SAMUel C. AlHADEFF SALHAOEFF@ASLAw1.COM 9103.001 Re: Planning Application No. P AOl-0109 (GeneraIPlan Amendment) Planning Application No, PAOl-0102 (paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.8) Planning Application No. PAOl-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment, No.4) (Collectively "Actions") Dear Mayor Roberts: I apologize for the typographical errors Continued in Mr. Alhadeff's letter of January 4, 2002, on Page 4. Please note that I have made the following changes to that page. The changes have been underlined and bolded in this letter for your convenience. I have also enclosed additional Corrected Page 4's for the original letters submitted to you. I. "As you are well aware, the Butterfield interceptor was included as an Assessment District 159 facility, to be located at the eastern Assessment District boundary, to intercept the tributary drainage flows and provide flood protection to the Butterfield Stage Road, State Route 79 South, and downstream properties. The original AD 159 concept was to construct an open channel at the eastern AD 159 boundary. Because you own property upstream of the AD Interceptor alignment east of the AD boundary, you requested we study other alternatives." 2. "It is very clear from years of records and the organization of Assessment District 159 ("AD I 59") the cost for the construction of the interceptor channel was to be borne by those affected members of AD159, as proposed by the assessment engineer. There are a number of documents that have been previously submitted to the City and Mr. O'Neil's letter points out again, the amount that Newland would be required to contribute under AD159. It is undisputable that Newland has always been prepared to allow the appropriate liens on its property and the requisite bonds be sold for its financial share of the interceptor channel. As the C:\ WINDOWSlDeslctnplData\C1ientslNewland CommlUlitieslRoberts Ltr 01.07.02.doc ,. ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP The Honorable Ron Roberts January 7, 2002 Page 2 attached February 17,2000 letter of George Johnson makes clear, the AD159 has only a limited amount of funds for the channel. The original channel design and construction has been rejected and continues to be rejected by the Coronas. They desire an alternative channel. When you review the transcript of the proceedings at the City you will find that what they were requesting was that Newland cooperate and agree with them as to an alternative location for the channel. The challenge has always been the additional funding. The Coronas desire not only their 19.1 +/- acres in AD159 be included but the balance of their entire property, approximately 145 +/- acres be included. As the letter of February 17,2000 points out, unless the Coronas are willing to burden their additional property to get the financing necessary for such an improvement there are insufficient funds available in AD159. However, that is not the responsibility of Newland." Again, I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Sincerely, 4L- Sherry L. Davis, Secretary to ' Samuel C..Alhadeff of Alhadeff and Solar, LLP SLD:sld Enclosure as noted CC: Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager, Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Mr. Mathew Harris, Planner - -;<;. . ALHADEFF& SOLAR, LLP A UMrTm UA81UTY PARTNERSHIP lNCLUOlNG A PROFESSIONAl CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 270 TEMECUlA, CALIFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego and Temecula, CaHfomia January 9,2002 Councilmember Mike Naggar Councilmember, City of Temecula Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Parle Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SAI.oJa C. AuwlEFF SAUWiEFF@,\SlAW1.COM 9103.001 Re: Council Meeting of January 8, 2002 Dear Councilman Naggar: I want to thankyou for Wang time to objectively examine all the facts concerning the applications of Newland Communities last night I truly mean it when I say that I thought you did an excellentjobinevaluatingtheissltes. At oneJlOint, I discussed with the Couricil the issue involving the Urbarilimit line, If you recall, a discussion of the Urban limit line as it related to , the Butterfield Stage Road andctAP corridors occured at a City Council meeting I believe on Sleptember 29, 2001 as Item 18. t have a copy of the official Council minutes from that particular meeting. In that regard, if you will note Mr. Corona appeared on behalf of his property to comment on densities, General Plan designations and the County General Plan process. He was asking the Council to not adopt a proposed resolution prior to discussing the matter with the General Plan Advisory Committee of the County. He indicated that he was on that Cbmmittee. He very succinctly stated that the proposed resolution should be discussed with ".. ,effective property owners east of Butterfield Stage Road or suggest that if approved, higher density be permitted." Larry Markham also appeared and concurred with Mr. Corona on this particular ' , matter. A copy of the September 29, 2001 minutes is attached. Again, we need for everyone to understand that what the Coronas are seeking in my opinion is to protect the entirety of their property with an improvement that controls drainage on aH of their property. I understand that particular approach. You asked me a very important question, "would I ask my clients to dedicate property for such an improvement?" In fact, that's what tl]e City does all the time with regard to projects because it is incumbent upon developers to be willing to work with City agencies and in fact dedicate property for public improvements. You need only to take a look at Wolf Creek and Harveston and other projects in which they dedicated portions of their property for public improvements and in addition funded those \'SLD\DA T A \Clients\Newland Communities\Naggar Letter OI.09.02.doc H , ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Councilmernber Mike Naggar January 9, 2002 I'age 2 improvements. This is a requirement that is imposed upon developers and you have pointed this out on a nwnber of occasions. ' I simply bring this matter to your attention because in my view one of the fundamental challenges that exists is who should bear the cost for the additional improvements to protect the other 145 acres of the Corona property. The Coronas seem to suggest that it should be Newland. My view is that the impacted property owner should bear that cost. The Coronas and'other property owners to the east of the Coronas and to the north of the Coronas should enter into a new financing mechanism to do that very activity. Where the Coronas have a challenge in my view is that they are concerned that right now their property would not and could not bear the cost of any such assessments since it is not yet been developed commercially. I point this out to you because I think this 'is one of the areas that we will need to have inSightful 'thinking. The Assessment District only has certain funds available. If you have any suggestions for us with regard to your thoughts on how we could emirate that particular difference, or if you disagree, I would like very much to get any of yOur ,thinking all we go through this next30 day period to see how we can resolve these matters., I know that , MIr. DeIhamer and Mr. Meyer are firmly committed to working to see if there is a solution. They have been working on this for two years. ' Where I thinkI Illive a fundamental difference with the Coronas is I don't believe that our ' , client or any other propertyo-wners 'ill Assessment District 159 should have to bear costs for significant improvements that would protect the entirety of the Corona property. I appreciate your thoughts. I certainly would be willing to receive any information you wish to give me so ,that I could pass on to ~. Meyer and Mr. Delhamer. Sincerely, JC-~ Samuel C. AIhadeff of AIhadeff and Solar, LLP .. SCA:dlI ~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND lAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation February 5, 2002 Samuel C. Alhadeff Alhadeff & Solar, LLP 41530 Enterprise Circle South, Suite 120 Temecula, California 92590 "',~~~::,:. Dear Mr. Alhadeff: ,__, "''"'''....,.~ ......._~, .;~~"''';''''''<\.ff'''-'' ,~,:,...?;.:.,;[..~ . Enclosed is the Assessm:int,pis1ddtW59\ButterfieJ<iSt~ge Road East I nterceptor Alter,nl}live....,.#2aly~.....~""""'''',.'''::::^, ''-'', > # ,.., " ,~",:1t, ~ If you have any'ql:l~stl,<2pf'Please call me at (909) g5~=~I4~. \'\ ( \,..!f' " ..) \., Sincerely, / 0 E':~.:~~::~:~-::..~.:.::. :~--=::::":..';~ ~\ G~~nitni~.~__.__ . "lIIYi:\ *, \' .- Deputy Di~eqJ9,{ q~;!iTransp0ltatJ:i9n ',-,,;, l--';! _..,\\"1 >" -.,.."{"\\ ~\; '. t GAJ:sa ,)',,1 ,\:, i / _", f "tj'j> \, /j lb. r r. Ii' ~ 9 Enclosures ':"1'" . ' ' ~: F' ""'':t. /ii:-/ / f,;;" /F.", '/ / _ .#. _/ifit~.P.:~:gIj-; ""!It..,. f" / ~p~ \i / "1:" ' ,~ ,!!,':II,:: :l{j,1Jl ";1;-" ....., '<'~~,~ ii';-- ", .~ ;.~. ',... >:. . j I'. ""'C. 40~~ r:mo~:~~eet:..~th ~l~r:. ~~ver~id~:..~~~lf?~~a 9~~~ ~~~~2.?_5~~~40_ . (. . . --'~ , . , ' ) Assessment District 159 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD EAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS :...., , SUMMARIES AND COST ESTIMATES Prepared January 28, 2002 .?R e?~D ~l" ~ A"/ v..oe ~ d>e- Or C//V7;Y ,.A=t'- ool1, CIIN7K'd'~ ):>/r"r-Rrcr Final ) Butterfield Stage Road East Interceptor Alternative Analysis - Executive Summc < This'rep<lrl presents alternative solutions to flooding problems expected to occur along the eastem side of Butterfield Stage Ro between De Portola Avenue and Highway 79. APproximately 2,277 acres is tributary to the eastern side of Butterfield Stage Road (8, ..----')()ad). Two culverts, a 36" RCP and a 72" RCP, constructed as a portion of the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptor Stonn Drain (0 '!O" CIPP), collect a small portion of these flows at the road's eastem edge. Excess flows pond behind the road embankment I eventually weir over Butterfield Stage Road at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. Most of the weir flows ; captured by an existing interim basin located within Tract 24182. The remaining weir flows escape westerly within Highway 79 righl way. The existing stonn drain in Butterfield Stage Road was originally designed to capture a 1,150 acre watershed tributary to , northem side of De Portola Road and easterly of Butterfield Stage Road. Appendix "A" contains a hydrologic watershed map delineal the two watersheds. Three separate hydrology studies have been prepared for this watershed. The first was prepared by the Keith Companies for Newla Capital and used to size the interim detention basin within Tract 24182. The analysis represents the existing flooding condition. T second study, prepared by Trans-Pacific Consultants (TPC) for the Transportation Department, was intended to represent the ultlm; condition, Facilities were sized to accept both existing condition and ultimate condition peak flows. It should be noted that the studi were bas,~d on existing land use maps. Area Tributary to the low at the 72" Culvert: 2 277 Acres Controlling Rainfall Event: 6 Hour, '1 00 Year Stonn Peak Flow Rate: 2060 CFS Rainfall Volume: 426 Acre Feet Elevation of Existing low at 72" Culvert: 1107 Elevation of low Point at Butterfield Stage 1112.3 Road: Existi'!Q. Swale Bank Elevation: 1111.6 C~c'!!y'of 72" RCP at 1112.3: 172 CFS Capac'!!y'of 36" RCP at 1112.3: 23.6 CFS Acre!!9.e of Tr24182 44 Acres Acreage of Existing Tr24182 Interim Basin 24 Acres ponding area (approximate): ~ird study, undertaken by Krieger and Stewart, Inc., entitled Corona Ranch Hvdroloav and Hvdraulic Analvsis of Basins 1 and 2 f, .$essment District 159, was submitted on August 14, 2001. This study. prepared at the request of Mr. Corona, re-analyzed It tributary watersheds, assuming that the prior studies were conservative. The study revises the drainage boundaries to account f, current flow pattems and adjusts land use to reflect actual development within the watershed. ' The Distric:t has prepared a summary list of solutions to the Butterfield Stage Road inundation problem. Five of these altematives al from the above mentioned studies. The existing condition, A1temative A, was analyzed by Keith Companies as a part of the developmel of TR24182. The Keith Company analysis was used to size an interim detention basin located downstream of Butterfield Stage Roal Altemative B was analyzed by the Transportation Department. A1temative C was analyzed by Trans Pacific Consultants as a part of supplemental hydrologic analysis requested by Assessment District No. 159 in October of 1999. Altemative D was suggested by th Corona's and analyzed by the Flood Control District in May of 2000. A1tematives E throughG are new and are analyzed as a part of lhi study. Altemative H is based on the Krieger and Stewart; Inc. hydrOlogy study. The proposed costs are preliminary in nature and ar only for order of magnitude comparison purposes. Each alternative presented in this report contains a brief summary of the proposed altemative, a cost estimate, and an exhibit depiclin ,the propos'ed facility locations. Parcels discussed in the summary are followed by a number in parenthesis. These numbers COrrespon to the numbering system used to identify parcels in the Robert Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisal prepared on November 30, 2000 fc the Transportation Department. The parcel summary table from the appraisal is provided in Appendix 'B". The alternative exhibits als use this numbering system to identify parcels. 2 ~ ) ~ , , 11 .c en ~ III E E ::s en 1/1 .~ i;j ~ ~ ~, III E S <( 1II 1Il- 0l.9a.><8 ,lSa.E'l1CDlR ~ e~5<p, c"g ~ -1II -0' ~~ ..Ol =~ ~.~ '5~ ~.9 0.6 1 () 1II "5 ~ E ~ '0 i~ ()~ .!!!1O ::> a. ~ 0 Et: ~~ ~ ~ o c o o o - '" ;;;~ CD 06 ... ~ ~ o c o o o - '" CD.. 18>> ;i g o c: g 8 o 0>'" CD~ 0> as ... o c: lfl >> o c: 8 o ci~ ~>> as ... '" ~ ~ o c: 8 o c:ilB c.::>> as ... '" ~ ~ o c: o o o o6lB &J>> M ... '" ~ '" ~ o c 00 ...c: 8l >> o c: o c: ~ !l? .. ~ 1II ~ o o ~ .. ;; c ]j c: 8 .9 &:- '0 co a. l'l ~ .c '5 c: 8 '0 '0 & .. flJ' ii5 '0 Qj 'E .. "" ::> OJ .9 'Iii m .. ;; E ,g ~ 0= ~ c: 8 l!i ~ f ::> 11 ~ I ~ l'! f CD :5 "0 & ~ .9l/) .!!l .s '" :>! i ~ ~ ~ ~=a ti~ ~ i~ ~lDCD 8 ~ '" l!l.;; .s c; ~~ i1c:i~~ illi .l!I '6' 'E -_c: :; 2! co '2' iil ~ l~ ~ ~ !~ 5o~lUO mS ~~;;J~ ~~ ~l!!m&~ g.lil I'- ~ i!l .l!l 'tl a<i: ,g >."en (i) g>> ~i~!i ii ~lli~~ ~~ ~~~~~ g.8 ~c;::~c::ce ~"8 ~f~!i;~~ .. z.. c::J 2 ttJ ~ U'c:JQ -c co/!:jjj:::J.s:< "ee ~yi5i~! ~8 '8-c.!:cE '8;t Z8~=~~ o+< 8 "e"'''a,i!;' t:lll ".. ~9.! ~ '2 c: ~: F~~~l\l~ c;; c. ,~ .2 e! 'fl E ~ g> 'a."6~.9~~ :;,g g. ..~~~ co :s"i l~8'ijli! ~.g i fiJli Ii ~ ~ c ! 'C cu.:g 'E 8.~r~~ :5_08 Q)[8:a..a::~ :; ~~~~N~ ~~ l\l 8;;';;'0;; 8.9 15 E.5.-a;'E "elii ~ * ~ ~ i i ~~ 8 III '" "'m 0 CD CD ~ if! ~ ~ i [~ ..csCOm!lcu.a jg.E ~ u: ~iii't:::s .~ CD ~~~~~~~~CD~ CD i ;;~~;;iJ!!5u ~ f ~~~~~ sl~ ~ ~ 88::;88~~8 C( ~ iDu8lii'r.- frl9 .... . , ;) " . , . '. 4' :'.~ ~" .. ~: , . f ; '". ,-, ,r: - '. ~ ' k or .......-~ I ~i~t:: ""< ~ , Q .-:::;!~, '!:3~ 0..; ,?, _ _. ,J,: .~'. ~l----' ,., ~.. c '. ..~'r~1l.:.:' 'Iq~< 3"", ...,,~,~ ;Q~': . !':\.""O ...., ";J'~>- I Q j>:, , I&....~~....: ....Q-.J ., . 't" ,-., I'" C >b .~~,.,....:! ..e .j ''2 P' l>' ~ j' * . .'......1; '001 ,. '..:'~ );O~~. l: --s: LIt ~r -..::'" <r: Q )c '. '"of....._ c'" :it UJ ",-" ,'} :\.~. .' ,Ff;;.... "'.;~," '.. "- ;:", ".. . . . T.r-::.. .':'~ .. 1" ..}. . ::i::;j:!: :! .IIJT,.,: -1"""+ ! ':~: :;::;: t ; ~, 1 ; ~ ;. "' i~~ j I', :, El ; . j'; , I I Iii i". ,- -, ~ ~!. n-!!I . t r ~,..~ ii!ijl P:l:...1 !11~li " ";i 0"\"'1 8: tlJl :' I ~ .. "" "'n., i ~ ~:1 f e!;lt1 '5~~ r.t; HH:j; iff;!! .. !~H;l ; .t~ . ~-:.~ = H~~s~ I t~ ~ ~! ~ ~~~ ZO;:-e: Q ~m ~ -'lAm..;.. .I UCO'lA ('-J ~...: , a: ::-- . -+- -.l::) '- ~ "" l1..J }~ \ , , ~ ;: \ ': i I; I, lJ- : . ~,'V. '..J_ , . Altemativl Description: Analyze existing Flooding Condition and determine extent of overtopping. The "Do Nothing" a~emalive. ),proximately 2,060 cfs is tributary to Butterfield Stage Road at the existing low between the Savala (2) and Corona (7) propertiel ,.Jur, 100 year rainfall event). The total volume of rainfall produced by this event is 426 acre-feel The existing natural channellov Butterfield Stage Road is at elevation 1107. The existing low at Butterfield Stage Road is at elevation 1112.4. An overtopping analysis entitled Interim Detention Basin in Tract 24182, prepared by Keith Companies and received by the Oistricl NovembE,r 13, 1996 analyzed the overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road. Their anatysis demonstrates that during the 6 hour event, maximum water surface elevation reached at Butterfield Stage Road was 1114.3. The intersection of Butterfield and Highway remained overtopped for approximately 6 hours and passed a maximum of 1758.6 cfs. The balance of the flows were passed into 120" CIPP by existing 72" and 36" inlets located along the eastem boundary of Butterfield Stage Road. Summary of Existing Condition Flooding and Detention Basin: ~ Maximum WSE over B,S. Road: 1114.3 Ponding Elevation over Butterfield 2 feet Staoe Road: Pondif19 Elevation over HiOhw!lY.79: 1 foot Duration of Overtoooino: 6 hours Peak Flow in 36" RCP: 54.6 cfs Peak Flow in 72" RCP: 229.2 cfs Peak Flow Over Hiohwav 79: 263,3 cfs Peak Flow Over B.S. Road: 1495.3 cfs Area inundated East of Bullerfield 17.5 acres Stage Road at Maximum Staoe(1114.3): Storage Volume Available East of 24 acre feet Butterfield Stage Road at Elevation 1112.3: Area of existing Tract 24182 Interim 44 acres/24 acres Basin (facility + spoils pilei facility only): Number of Lots affected by Tract 188 lotsll25 lots 24182 (facility + spoils pilei facility) Average lot size within basin site: 5,000 S.F. minimum The flows (1495 cfs) overtopping Butterfield Stage Road are currently collected in an interim basin located on the northwest corner of, Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This basin will also capture an additional 253.6 cfs of onsite flows from the north. Flows escaping onto Highway 79 (263 cfs) travel southwest and eventually enter Temecula Creek. Exhibit "A-1" delineates the existing FEMA Floodplain around Butterfield Stage Road. The blue hatched area represents Zone "A" floodplain. The lighter blue fill area Represents Zone "B" Floodplain. Exhibit "A-2" represents the extent of ponding to occur in a 100 year event as a result of the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. 6 . ......., . \ \" .s: + .1 I ~ O' -' ~oc; I 3;., ~< I/) - )( \U 'j . (. mj \r ~ PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE ~, DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD \ ) AL TERNATlVE A - DO NOTHING AL TERNATlVE JANUARY 6 2000 A. CONSTRUCTION lITEM ' DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 1 MOBILIZATION 0 LS $20,000.00 $0.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 0 LS $10,000.00 $0.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 0 LS $5,000.00 $0.00 4 DOUBLE 8'><14' BOX CULVERT 0 LF $850.00 $0.00 5 MANHOLE #3 0 EA $1,200.00 $0.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 0 LS $65,000.00 $0.00 7 GRADING 0 LS $30,000.00 $0.00 8 WATER RELOCATION 0 LS $200,000.00 $0.00 9 CONCRETE CHANNEL WI APPURT. 0 LF $600.00 $0.00 10 EROSION CONTROL 0 LS $10,000.00 $0.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $0.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 B. DRY UTILITY RELOCATION l!TI:M DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL '11 GAS 0 LS $20,000.00 0.00 12 ELECTRIC 0 LS $50,000.00 $0.00 13 PHONE 0 LS $50,000.00 $0.00 14 SEWER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 15 WATER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL DRY UTILITY RELOCATION $0.00 ~ - C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS [illM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 16 WILLlAMS(6) 0 SF $0.38 $0.00 17 CORONA(7) 0 SF $3.00 $0.00 18 SAVALA(2) 0 SF $1.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $0.00 D. ENVIRONMENTAL liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 19 PROCESSING 0 LF 50,000.00 0.00 20 MITIGATION 0 LF $50,000.00 $0.00 21 OTHER 0 LF $0.00 $0.00 22 OTHER 0 LF $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $0.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 23 CM&I 0 LS $331,470,00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION $0.00 IPROJECT TOTAL $0.001 8 . Alternative r~escrlptlon: Construct a channel along eastem Corona property boundary. The channel would collect and convey flows directl) ( ) mecula Creek. This alternative consists of a double 8x14 RCB from Temecula Creek to the North side of Highway 79. The RCB would be located ale the eastem boundaries of the Williams (6) property. A concrete channel would be constructed along the eattem boundary of the Con (7) and Savala (2) Properties from Highway 79 to De Portola Road. This alternative prevents overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road and prevents flooding of the Corona (7) and Savala (2)property. It wo allow for the abandonment of the Tract 24182 basin (1). H 9 ) ;---,I , ~IIID t! . 'i' @>~ . '" .... ~' I l e>~ ~ \ \ I \ . . ~ + ,1 i s. '~ a; GO II r m& ~, ) PRElIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAINAGE ImERCEPTOR EAST OF BlJTTERFIEt,D STAGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE B - ORIGINAL CHANNEl CONCEPT JANUARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION lITEM DESCRIPTION OUANTllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 1 1 MOBIUZATION 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 ClEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $10,000,00 $10.000.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 1 LS $5.000.00 $5.000,00 4 DOUBLE 8')(14' BOX CULVERT 1.100 I.F $850,00 $935,000.00 5 MANHOLE #3 4 EA $1.200,00 $4,800,00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $65.000.00 $65,000.00 7 GRADING 1 LS $30,000,00 $30,000.00 8 WATER RElOCATION 1 LS ' $200.000.00 $200,000.00 9 CONCRETE a-lANNEl WI APPURT. 1.550 I.F $600.00 $930,000.00 10 EROSIONCONTROl 1 LS $10.000.00 $10,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $220,980.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,430,780.00 B. DRY unUlY RaOCATION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANTllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 11 GAS 1 LS $20,000,00 $20.000,00 ' 12 ELECTRIC 1 LS $50,000,00 $50.000.00 13 PHONE 1 LS $50.000.00 $50,000,00 14 SEWER 1 LS $0,00 $0,00 15 WATER 1 LS $0,00 $0,00 ........J , SUBTOTAL DRY unUlY RElOCATION $120,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANTllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 16 Savala (2) 952-130-001 2.001 Pc $ 28,000.00 $56,028,00 17 Corona East (4) 952-140-003.952-190-003 0 Pc $ 15,000.00 $0.00 18 WilliamsIButterfield Station (6) 952-200002.011.012,( 1.294 Pc $ 98.010,00 $126.824.94 19 Corona West (7) 052-150-001,003 1.760 Pc $200,910.00 $364,161.60 20 Sommo (8) 952-210-010 0.000 Pc $28,000,00 $0.00 21 Mirabal (9) 952-210-011 0.000 Pc $25,000.00 $0.00 22 Williams/Butterfield Station (6) 952-200002.011.012,( 0,273 Pc $20,000.00 $5.460,00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $552,474.54 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION OUANTllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 23 PROCESSING 1 LS ,000,00 $50.000,00 24 MITlGATION 1 LS $50.000.00 $50,000,00 25 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0,00 26 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $100,000,00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 24 CM& I 1 LS $331,470.00 $331,470,00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTlON MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTlON $331,470.00 IPROJECT roTAL I $3,534,724.541 11 Alternative Description: Construct Une A and Une D per Alternative 5 of the Supplemental HYdrology Study for Assessment District No. 1! r"-;ared by Trans Pacific Consultants in October 1999. L A would be located at the easterly boundary of AD159. Une A consists of a 7x12 RCB. beginning at Temecula Creek, continuir along the William's property (6), crossing under Highway 79 and terminating at the northeasterly comer of the Corona property line (1 From the nOI1hem boundary of the Corona Property (1) to De Portola Rool:d, the system would consist of a concrete lined open channel feet deep and 15 feet wide. Line A would convey 724 cfs. Line D wouid be located at the Corona's easterly property line (4). The facility would consist of an 8 foot deep, 20 foot wid. concrete channel, from Temecula Creek to just south of De Portola Road. A 7x14 RCS would cross under Highway 75 The project runs along the westem boundaries of APN's 952-150-010 (8), 952-150-011 (9), and the Corona Property (4J Line D would convey 1582 cfs. This alternative could collect the flows tributary to the low at Butterfield Stage Road and prevent ponding on the Corona and Savah property as well as overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. This proposal would also allow the abandonment of the Trac 24182 Interim Basin. It should be noted that only one access road is shown on the easement for the channel sections of these lines The District would recommend that access roads be placed on both sides of the channel to facilitate maintenance of these faciDties. Further, It shc)uld be noted that tentative tract map 30052 has been filed across APN 952-150-011 (9). This could require the proposec open channel below Highway 79 to be converted to an underground storm drain. This would significantly increase the costs of this altemative, This could also significantly increase the right of way costs for this parcel. ~ 12 i; . ;, .~ i'~ 5. tEiQ ~ CJ . l!1~1 I~' .:.~ f~'1 oil, Hi i~ , I fl: 1l.1!! 'i f. 0 '.'M~~ ! -It . ..... . ~.'Q"V.1I . "'. '-if'; I,:'. , ..,~ "i~ . ~ '. ~ ,u ' ~ ... cr . -) .. Q .1..O<i-.;. . . ..~. " I' : l: o , ~ , .z::; , ~~ .. !: t1 :~ " '-":1 "':\. .~ . \' .", , '" ! .:,( , "1=1 :Jii I '~~I .~II.; .~Un . . )1; ; i~d I I., : ~-zJ-'lld~ ~, . '..~'..." . ":'"'7 . , b ~ i ~ ~ " aJ ak r .I "f . k .l I .' i ...,al - 1___ l . "-., .. -~. -" .---- i~) PREUMlNARY EST/MAlE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE C - FROM ALT. 5 OPTION 1 OF TPC SlUDY , January 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION II1EM DESCRIPTION QUANITlY UNIT COSTIUNlT TOTAL , I 1 MOBlUZATION 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 4 EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION OF EMS. 90,000 C'( $5.00 $450,000.00 ' 5 SINGLE 7' X 12' ReB 1,800 LF $500.00 $900,000.00 6 MANHOlE #3 5 EA $1,200.00 $6,000,00 7 HEADWAll 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000.00 8 RlPRAP PROTECTION 3,000 C'( $40.00 $120,000.00 9 CONCRETE OlANNEL WI APPURT.-UNE A 775 LF $450.00 $348,750,00 10 CONCRETE CHANNEL WI APPURT,-UNE D 3,193 LF $550.00 $1,756,150.00 11 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $130,000.00 $130,000.00 ' 12 WATER RElOCATION 1 LS $400,000.00 $400,000.00 13 DOUBLE 7'X1Z ReB 173 LF $800.00 $138,400.00 14 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $440,330.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,843,630.00 B. ORY UTlUTY RElOCATION IllEM DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 15 GAS 2 LS $20,000.00 $40,000.00 16 ELECTRIC 2 LS ' $50,000.00 $100,000.00 17 PHONE 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 H 16 SEWER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 19 WATER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 , SUBTOTAL DRY UTlUTY RElOCATION $240,000.00 ' C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS IlEM DESCRIPTION QUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL Savala 952-130-001(2) 1.429 k $28,000.00 ,21 Corona East 952-140-003,952-190-003(4) 4.731 k $15,000.00 $70,965.00 22 WilliamslButterfield Station (6)952-200-002,011,012,0 0.900 k $96,010.00 $66,797.06 23 Corona West (7)052-150-001,003 0.567 k $2C6,910.00 $121,456.17 24 , Sommo (8)952-210-010 1.575 k $26,000.00 $44,100.00 25 Mirabal (9)952-210-011 1.573 Ai; $25,000,00 $39,325.00 26 WilliamsIButtertield Station (6) 952-200-002,011,012,( 0.191 k $20,000.00 $3,620.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $406,475.23 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IlEM DESCRIPTION. OUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 27 PROCESSING 2 LS ,000.00 $100,000.00 28 MITIGATION 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 29 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 30 OTl-lER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $200,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTlON hlEM DESCRIPTION QUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 31 CM&I 1 LS $727,000.00 $727,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTlON $727,000.00 IPROJECT TOTAL $6,419,105.231 14 Alternative l [iescrlptfo~l: Modify Alternative B to reduce or eliminate Une A by increasing the size and length of Une D. - (-~ltemauve diverts flows from line A to line D. The diversion would be accomplished by extending line D north across and th€/ ... . , : along De Portola Road. Although it is not economically feasible to capture all flows tributary to Line A, it is possible to callee approximately half (37O-cfs). A fill pad encompassing 25 acres would be required on a privately owned 37 acre parcel (5) locate< easterly of Unda Rosea and northerly of De Portola. The pad grading would take flows tributary to Linda Rosea (tending westward in thE existing condition) and divert them eastward towards a proposed inlet structure at the parcel's southeast comer. A 7x7 RCB woulc convey the fi'ows from the parcel, under Calle Contento and De Portola, and into an enlarged Line D system. Improvements to Line D would include 5 feet of additional channel width and replacement of the proposed double 7x12 RCB under HW) 79 with a triple 7x10 RCB. Approximately 150,000 CY of material would be required to construct the fill pad necessary to divert the flows. 700 LF of 7x7 RCB would be required to convey the flows from Calle Contento to Une D. The diversion would allow approximately 1800 feet of 7x12 RCB in Line A to be reduced to 7x7 RCB. No changes are proposed to the Line A collection channel located alonllthe Savala property (2), This altemative would produce some savings on construction and easement costs for line A, but would also significantly increase the costs of Une D. This altemative would prevent ponding on the Corona and Savala property, prevent overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road, and allow for abandonment of the Tract 24182 Interim Basin Site. Peak 100-yellr flow rates were taken from the study submitted by Trans Pacific Consultants for A1temative 5 Supplemental Hydrology of the Butterfield Stage Road drainage study. The area tributary to Une A was identified as Subarea 1A in the Trans Pacific Consultants study. The District used an estimated yield of 1.8 cfslac;re to analyze Subarea 1A. Further, It should be noted that tentative tract map 30052 has been filed across APN 952-150-011 (9). This could require the proposed open channei below Highway 79 to be converted to an underground storm drain. This would significantly increase the costs of this altemative. This could also significantly increase the right of way costs for this parcel. , \ ~ t5 ,1 ~ ~ .~ .... ;c ~ gtlz S"~ 'S. fir gSg (;l Q fi . =- il!ll!!. lh ill ~ - ;.!i!= "'l> ~ ~ w .0'1 . "I. ~fj) .~ . s ~:! ~ fill . u z ~ · 0 ~ I . b' l! Ii: 0' 'r .. a oD::a!,a. ~=. Il I. , .. _ _.~: .J .. ." f :!"".. J._ . ~'Q'V a . ~~'l . -. .f- ",: . ., ls\" .~ .f, ! 11Ig ih . I!i I r-S ':il. . :';U , .iU . ~.Sn ~i II l: o r ~ ~' I ~ l! _ t I: i ~. .. 'oJ + . ,1 MIl .J: I ) PREUMlNARY E5nMATE DRAINAGE ImERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIElD STAGE ROAD AL TERNAllVE D - MINIMIZE UNE A OF ALTERNAllVE C JANUARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANlllY UNIT COSTJUNIT TOTAL I 1 MOBlUZATION 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 ClEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000,00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 4 EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION OF EMB. 238,000 CY $5.00 $1,190,000.00 5 SINGLE7X7RCB-UNEA 1,800 LF $359.44 $646,992.00 6 MANHOLE #3 7 EA $1,200.00 $8,400.00 7 HEADVVALL 6 EA $10,000.00 $60,000.00 8 RIPRAP PROTECTION 3,000 CY $40.00 $120,000.00 9 CONCRETE CHANNEL W/ APPURT.-UNEA 775 LF $450.00 $348,750.00 10 CONCRETE CHANNEL W/ APPURT.-UNE D '3,193 LF $565.00 $1,804,045.00 11 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $130,000,00 $130,000.00 12 WATER RELOCATION 1 LS $400,000.00 $400,000.00 13 TRIPLE 7'X1U RCB - UNE D 173 LF $1,408.90 $243,739.70 14 TX:l RCB - N. OF UNE D TO W. OF CALLE CONT. 700 LF $359.44 $251,608.00 15 INLET/OUTlET STRUCTURES 2 EA $40,000.00 $80,000.00 16 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $60,000,00 $60,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $539,753.47 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,937,288.17 a DRY UTlUTY RELOCATION ITEM DESCRIPTION OUANlllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 17 GAS 2 LS ,000.00 $40,000.00 18 ELECTRIC 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 ........, 19 PHONE 2 LS $50,000.00 $100,000.00 20 SEINER 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 21 WATER 1 LS $0.00 $0,00 SUBTOTAL DRY UTIUTY RELOCATION $240,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANTIlY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 22 Savala (2)952-130-001 1.429 Iv:. $28,000.00 $40,012.00 23 Corona East (4)9,52-140-003,952-100003 4.731 Iv:. $15,000.00 $70,965.00 24 Williams/Bullertield Station (6)952-200-002,011,012,0- 0.900 Iv:. $98,010,00 $88,797.06 25 Corona West (7)052-150-001,003 0.587 Iv:. $200,910.00 $121.456.17 26 Sommo (8) 952-210-010 1.575 Pc $28,000.00 $44,100.00 21' Mirabal (9) 952-21M11 (note $6,850 added for fence) 1.573 Iv:. $25,000.00 $46,175,00 28 Williams/Bullertield Station (6)952-200-002,011,012,0' 0.191 Pc $20,000.00 $3,820.00 29 Pokrajac (5) 952-120-012 - Fee purchase 37.100 Iv:. $15,000.00 $556,SOO.OO 30 Other 0.(0) Iv:. $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $971,825.23 D. ENVIRONMENTAL lITEM DESCRIPTION OUANlllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 31 PROCESSING 2 LS $50,(0).00 $100,000.00 32 MITIGATION 2 LS $50,(0).00 $100,000.00 33 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 34 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $200,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUANlllY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 35 CM&I 1 LS $891,(0).00 $891,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTlON $891,000.00 IPROJECT TOTAL $8,240,113.401 17 Alternative CescrlpUt>n: Construct a culvert under Butterfield Stage Road to prevent inundation the road and adjacent properties. l ).even c:e1l10'x5' reinforced concrete box (10x5 RCB) culvert would be required to pass the flows tributary to the low between ti uavala (2) and Corona (7) properties at Butterfield Stage Road. This 1Ox5 RCB would be approximately 140' feet long (Road RIW 110'). It would outlet into the existing interim basin in Tract 24182 (1). Approximately 100 feet of existing dual 120' CIPP in Butterfie .Stage Road would need to be removed and replaced with dual 12'x6' RCBin order to allow the proposed 10x5 RCB culverts to pa over the e,xisting 120' Interceptors. Relocation of approximately 100 foot of 18' sewer and 36' Water lines would also be required. EMWD re,::Iaimed water lines may also need to be relocated. The culvert would be located at the existing low upstream of Butterfield Stage Road. An additional 300'x250' strip of land at II northeast comer of the existing basin (1) would be required to accept the flows from the proposed RCB. This extension would t expensive due to the existing spoils pile located north of the basin (approximately 90,000 yds would need to be removed). Rip fl protection would also be required to allow the flows to make a 90 degree tum to enter the existing basin site. Small levees may be required at the downstream end of the existing low to ensure that flows in the channel do not escape to the sout An easem3nt of about 200 feet square would be required from the Savala parcel (2) to adequately capture and convey the flows. The Tract 24182 basin (1) does not have capacity for the peak flows from the proposed culvert. This basin is sized to mitigate a pee flow of 1,527 cfs generated from the combination of onsile flows and Butterfield Stage Road weir flows. The proposed 10x5 RCB woul Increase the peak flow rate by 616 cfs and increase the volume tributary to the basin site. A second 84' RCP outlet pipe would b required to make the basin function properly. The outlet would extend from the basin outlet to Temecula Creek (3,500 It), paralleling th existing outlet pipe. A1tematively, the basin could be excavated to increase storage volume. Costs are estimated to be comparable. This allem alive would also require field investigation prior to design to ensure that the as-built lines and grades of the existing facilitie would allow for the proposed structures. As proposed, the seven cell 10x5 RCB will be placed directly on top of the proposed tw celll2x6 ReB. Costs for utility conflicts that could arise with the extension of the 84' RCP were not analyzed. This altern-alive would lower the WSE upstream of Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 1111.7, This would prevent overtopping c Butterfield Stage Road and would protect the Corona and Savala Properties. This altemative assumes that the existing low east of lit P~<ona parcel (7) has capacity to convey the flows tributary to this watershed. ,If not, then additional levees along the existing low waul, ~equired to protect the Corona Property.' This altemative would make the Tract 24182 interim basin site a part of the ultimat, \0, dlnage system for this watershed~ t8 ) PRELIMINARY ESllMo\ TE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIB.D STAGE ROAD ALTERNATlVEE- tfNY79 CUlVERT TO TR24182 BASIN DECEMBER 8, 2000 A. CONSTRUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL 1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $30,000.00 ,000.00 2 CLEARiNG AND GRUBBING 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 (2) 12' X 6' RCB REPLllCEMENT FOR (2) 12(J' CIPP 120 I.F $2. 100.00 $252,000.00 5 7 CELL 10'X5' RCBCULVERT 140 I.F $4,200.00 $588,000.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 7 INLET I OUTlET STRUClURES- 84" 2 EA $25,000.00 $50,000.00 6 INLET I OUTlET STRUClURES-10X5 RCB 2 EA $60,000.00 $160,000.00 9 ACPAVlNG 16,000 SF $1.40 $25,200.00 10 84" RCP -IN PlACE 3,500 I.F $260.00 $910,000.00 11 MANHOlES - 84" 7 EA $3,310,00 $23,170.00 12 TRANSITION STRUClURES 120" 10 12X6 RCB 2 EA $46,200.00 $92,400.00 13 DEMOLISH 200 FEET EXIsT1NG 120" OPP 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 14 Rip rap protection for basin e><!ension area 13,000 CY $40,00 $520,000,00 15 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 104,633 CY $5.00 $523,165.00 16 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $10,000.00 ' $10,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $327,693.50 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,606,828.50 a DRY UTILITY Ra.OCATION Y liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 17 GAS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 16 E1.ECTRlC 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 19 PHONE 1 LS $50,000,00 , $50,000.00 20 SEWER 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 21 WATER 1 LS $250,000,00 $250,000.00 SUBTOTAL DRY UTILITY Ra.OCATION $395,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 22 W1WAMS (6) 0.000 I>c $0,00 $0.00 23 CORONA (4) 0.000 At; $0,00 $0.00 24 SAWJ.A (2) 0.918 I>c $28,000.00 $25,704.00 25 TR24182 BASIN SITE (l)(FEE+ $250,000 Severence) 25.600 I>c $159,000.00 $4,320,400.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $4,346,104.00 0, ENVIRONMENTAL liTEM DESCRIPTION 26 PROCESSING 27 MITIGATION 26 OTHER 29 OTHER QUANTITY UNIT 1 LS 1 LS o LS o LS COSTIUNIT $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION OUAN1lTY UNIT COSTIUNIT '30 CM & I 1 LS $541,000,00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION IPROJECT TOTAL 20 TOTAL I $50,000,00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 TOTAL I $541,000.00 $541,000.00 $8,988,932.50 I AlternativE /~scrlption: Collect flows tributary to Butterfield Stage Road into a storm drain system that would parallel the existing dual 120' CI \ )1 outlet the flows direcUy into Temacula Creek. , This proposal would collect flows tributary to the low between the Corona (7) and Savala (2) Property into a proposed storm drain s~ that parallels the existing dual 120' CIPP storm drain. The proposed alternative requires a second set of 120" CIPPIRCP (minirTll diameter) storm drains to be installed, effectively creating a quad storm drain in Butterfield Stage Road. This alternative requires I relocation of 600' of 8" sewer, 2000 feet of 18" sewer, 100 feet of 36" waterline and approximately 1,000 feet of 24" reclaimed waterline The flows \yould be collected at the existing low with a 7 celll0x5 RCB. The RCB would then drop the flows into a chamber in the ceo of the road. The chamber would convey the flows to the newly constructed dual 120" CIPP. The 120" CIPP would parallel the extsti system to Temecula Creek. The existing dual 120" CIPP would have to be removed and replaced with dual12x6 RCB at the 7-ce1l10 box crossing. This altemative would require that Rancho Califomia Water District reduce their standard clear distances between sewer, stonn dn and water facilities. It should be noted that these requirements have been established to protect pUblic health and safety. If they e unable to do this, or they cannot remove their existing reclaimed line from service, then this alternative would not be feasible. n alternative would also require field investigation prior to design to ensure that the as-built lines and grades of the existing facilities WOl allow for tile proposed structures. This altemative lowers the WSE upstream of. Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 1111.7. A 200 foot square easement at Ii southwest comer of the Savala properly (2) would be required' to accommodate facilities to capture and contain the flows. Tt altemative presumes that the existing low has the capacity to convey the flows tributary to the culvert. If not, additional levees along Ii existing low would be required to protect the Corona Properly (7). This alternative would allow for the abandonment of the Tract 2411 Interim Basin site. H / 21 n PRElIMINARY ESTlM<.lE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTlERFIELD STAGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE F - QUAD 12CT' CIPP/RCP JANUARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTlON liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ' UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 ~NGANDGRUB~NG 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 FURNISHING AND APPLYING WATER 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 DUAL 12CT' RCP -IN PlACE 4,000 LF $450.00 $1,800,000.00 5 MANHOLE 14 EA $3,310.00 $46,340.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 7 INLET STRUCTURE 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 8 (7) 10'X5' RCB RCB 90 LF $4,200.00 $378,000.00 9 ASPHALT PAVING 18,000 SF $1.40 $25,200.00 10 DROP BOX FROM 100 RCB TO 120" RCP 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 11 EXCAVATION I BACKFILL 5,000 CY $5.00 $25,000.00 12 DEMOLISH 12(1' CIPP 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000,00 13 12'X6' RCB STRUCTURE (2) 120 LF $2. 100.00 $252,000.00 14 12')(6' RCB TRANSITION TO 12CT' CIPP 2 EA $46,000.00 $92.000.00 15 OUTLET STRUCTURE 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 16 EROSION CONTROl 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $312,854.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTlON $3,441,394.00 B. DRY UTILITY RaOCATlON liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I H 17 GAS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 18 ELECTRIC 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 19 PHONE 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 20 SEWER-l8"RaOCATlON2500FEET 1 LS $185,000.00 $185,000.00 ,21 WATER - 24" AND 36" RaOC. IN t-fNY 79 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00 SUBTOTAL DRY UTILITY RELOCATION $605,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS IilEM DESCRIPTION QUANTlTY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 22 WlWAMS (6) 0.000 SF $0.00 $0,00 23 CORONA (4) 0,000 SF $0.00 $0.00 24 SAVALA (2) 0.918 SF $28,000.00 $25,704.00 25 OTHER 0.000 SF $0.00 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $25,704.00 0, ENVIRONMENTAL liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 26 PROCESSING 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 27 MITIGATION 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 28 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 29 OTHER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $100,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTlON MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 30 CM&I 1 LS $516,000.00 $516,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUC1lON MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION $516,000.00 IPROJECT TOTAL $4,688.098.001 23 Alternative G Description: Purchase the Savala property (2) and convert it into a detention basin to prevent overtopping and inundation of adjacent pC;ties. The Savala parcel (2) encompasses 19.49 acres and contains a portion of the existing low. The Savala basin (2) would outlet into a 120' located on the westerty right-of-way line of Butterfield Stage Road. The basin site would be excavated 7 feet below the existing low (1100 invert). The 120' RCP would parallel the existing dual 120' CIPP and outlet into Temecula Creek. The new facility would be located eastedy of the existing storm drain, partially outside of road R1W. An easement would be required from the Corona's and other downstream property owners in order to place the storm drain outside of road R1W. The maximal Water surface elevation in the basin would be 1115', allowing for one foot of freeboard below the road finished grade. The basin require,; approximatety 350,000 CY of excavation. Flows from the existing channel would be collected at the northeast comer of the Corona properly (7). The flows would be conveyed by a 300-foot channel to the Savala Basin. This channel would be either rock or concrete lined. This altemati1/e prevents overtopping' of Butterfield Stage Road and prevents flooding of the Corona property (7), This altemaUve assumes that the existing drainage swale east of Bullerfield Stage Road has capacity to convey all flows tributary to it. It should be noted that an existing Rancho Califomia Water District Pump Station located near the intersection of Highway 79 and Butterfield Slllge Road. Construction of the proposed storm drain could require significant modifications to the pump station. This estimate doe!: not include the costs associated with relocating the affected facilities, which include the surge protection system and electrical service for the pump station. Costs may also include the acquisition of additional R/IN to relocate these facilities and the cost of downtime for the pump station. Appraisal cosls for the rights of way required for the proposed storm drain are estimated based on the Perdue Real Estate Appraisal prepared NovElmber 30, 2000. ~ ; i ! 24 ~- -'\ , PRElIMINARY ESTIMATE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTOR EAST OF BUTTERFIElD STAGE ROAD ALlERNATIVE G- SAVALA BASIN CONCEPT JAlJARY 28 2002 A. CONSTRUCTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 1 MOBIUZATION 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 3 FURNISHINGANDAPPLYlNGWATER 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 4 120" RCP" IN PLACE 2,100 LF $450.00 $945,000.00 5 MANHOLE 6 EA $1,200.00 $7,200.00 6 DETOUR PHASING 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 7 EXCAVATIONlBACKFILl 400,000 CY $5.00 $2,000,000.00 8 INLET STRUClURE - TO BASIN 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000,00 9 OUTlET STRUClURE-FROM BASIN 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 . 10 120" RCP OUTlET S1RUClURE 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 11 FENCING 4,000 LF $8.15 $32.600.00 12 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $30,000,00 $30,000.00 CONTINGENCY (10"10) $342,980.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,772,780.00 B. DRY unUTY RELOCATION lITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 13 GAS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 14 ELECTRIC 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000,00 ~ 15 PHONE 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 16 SEWER 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 17 WATER 24" RECLAIMED, 36" PRIMARY 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00 SUBTOTAL CRY unUTY RELCCA nON $470,000.00 C. RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 18 WILlIAMS (6) 0.752 Pc $98,010.00 $73,703.52 19 CORONA (4) 0,689 Pc $200,910,00 $142,560.99 20 SAVALA (2) 19.490 Pc $28,000.00 $545,720.00 21 CORONA 0.486 Pc $200,910.00 $100,558.26 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS $862,542.77 D. ENVIRONMENTAL lITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 22 PROCESSING 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 23 MITIGATION 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 24 01l-lER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 25 01l-lER 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $160,000.00 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION liTEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COSTIUNIT TOTAL I 26 CM&I 1 LS $566,000.00 $566,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRI.ICTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION $566,000.00 IPROJECTTOTAL $5,831,322.77\ 26 Alternative /~scrlptlon: Construct a Une trending southerly from the northerly end of Calle Contento, crossing and turning easterly on [ \ )rtola R,)ad and then continuing southerty along the easterly Corona parcel (4) boundary to Temecula Creek. Also, construct; ,et into the Butterfield Stage Road interceptors at the existing low at the northwestern boundary of the Corona property (7). This alternative is based on a revised hydrology study submitted by Krieger and Stewart titled Corona Ranch Hvdroloov and Hvdraul Analvsis of Basins 1 and 2 for Assessment District 159. dated August 14, 2001. The study suggests that the existing Butterfield Stat Road Interceptor hydrology study is conservative and that excess drainage capacity may exist in the easterly Butterfield Stage Roc Interceptor. The study proposes adjusting the drainage boundaries of the system such that flows tributary to the eastem boundary of Butterfie Stage Road would be within the limits of the existing easterly interceptor to accept This is accomplished by diverting a large portion, the draina!le area northerly of De Portola Road into a facility that would parallel the eastem boundary of the Corona property (7) an outlet directly into T emecula Creek. This altem;~tive would require an inlet into the Butterfield Stage Road Interceptors at the existing low northwest of the Corona parcel (7 capable of accepting approximately 400 cfs. Further, It l.hould be noted that tentative tract map 30052 has been filed across APN 952-150-011 (9). This could require the propose open channel below Highway 79 to be converted to an underground storm drain. This would significantly increase the costs of thl altemative. This could, also significantly increase the right of way costs for this parcel. H 27 r- !~ w s ~ ~ s s s u ~ ; y !~ ~ 0 ~ ;;; 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 " " _,00) :! ; ~ 0 ( ) .~: ~ z ~ ~ ; :! " ~ d d u ~ !! 0 z ~ z ~ z " ~ ~ ~ -; ~ " ~ 8 11 .. ~ , 10 ~ Ii < < ~ N ~ I:! I:! ~ 1 1 z 2 .: ... ~ ~ z z z ~ u . ~ ~, 0 ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ... < ~ z m ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ u .. ~ a 0 u m m m ~ ~ , " " ~ z ~ ~ 0 0 0 .: ;;; ~ ;, .: .: .: z ~ ~ I " " ::. z z z \l \l ~ ~ ~ ;, ;, !:I 0 z ;;; ~ eeeee eeeeee b , '" , ~ - ii ~I . f a Ii i ~ '" ~ I 10<: I ...... ....-.' "..J';' ~', -', .-'" . ,. .''.,:~.',,::. -.~'~:.!_ .~. }>;:f( :;:'/..: _ ,,",. ;'1-. ," Co ? -- .... '.':'~l.~~:~< ~t- _,.~~..:::-:;f:'~: { ., "':':'" '''~.''::r( .._'.<;~_,c.; ,!" "';>}"i..'\ '. I ... --"-' '\;~9:~~~~~t~~\'.Ft.-fi)~)c:;:~f;;:'. ': ".:'_:'<~.:>i..,.: )-~;f~~i~~~. -..:<. (. .~::. '~ .." ''', ( l .:~~. -;'t//t~:':,?:;('.~ " :.-.!.~. -. . . '. ,-, ;.. -.... ._~." ,. ",,:'ii~~~{:lt:~i~ I .-.- " '-.~ ::.~t ",,- .' f~-~?;.' F: .. (~.~~. .. N " z.. !~~~V). . <{' .. , .'to '.'. ... ~ C\1 &: ~ < , !! ll: "" -' c.. 0 0 0 '" ll: ll: E-< c.. Z -< 0 Z to) 0 ~I "" ll:Z 00 0 oE ii 0 -' ~~ I ... <=10 ~ ""0 ~"" z ~ ::> 0 ~ to) ~~ c.l "" ii - <3 en ;:: ~ ll: ~ "" - <:> ll: -< Z =< ll: i <=I i! il 09-"-ls<; Hydrologic Drainage Boundary Map - Appendix I () H H. af'N~ II U)~<;)... l: ~,,~.. " I'IoG: ~ I I!t~~~ ',11 ~~i~ ~ ~Cl! · I .. '2 - '" . I'!!.. :r. I: <:>. I k~ \1. ~ c. IUc:!lO<!,>& . ~ i \ .. - ~ ~ ~ " { ~ . .,: '1 '- . - : { . '.& . ~ . -." ','" I ' : i i u . r:" / . . /1.' " ii, I\,~ d .. f. ~'! \1 Y-, , .. I - . " . I " New/and Tract 24182/nterim Basin Site - Appendix'~ ,~ ) l , ~ ') 11..1 -.....''.f: :"'-L-..I"'RI~I~~I-;:~~.I':::.I'i:'lll.H"\L~"!\L-~~,. g.,~-"~~'0.."" .!\ _., I. I'd - - -Po' " 1- -"'.; I .' ..J~,j \/ . /. ,~~ ,.::.,,"-,. L _ /' I: " I. ir"-----.'t ':ll I ,. ... ~-~: ...,.; :.'l I',... . I / - .''''reel''.'N .6 . '" . ;.p:;L~I.. ,), , ,~.a 'U ~ "~' "' /,1 I ' ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ "~liijr@' ~\ ::<@ \~~,~'~~~~l~,,~'>j 'I' I- . . ~ . . . . .. .. . U "'Vft '~_.\f-mr~~B:: ~ \ N. ~ ;:~~":jCk." ....../A:..:. ~ .y ~f' I o~~ ~)N%:"~.' ~ ~ :. ~~i'~"i~.;'~;Kfi:',;',:"Li';',:';::~'~~",::~,~? \~~7) j']" .,r. . i..'iJ ~ .<l"" .'@t@. J!i @a~.I"-@'\I:lt!.:;:~ - ~.:; ~..CiD 'l1l~J t-;'& ~~ '.l' t' \~.:.. ~.~ '&' 4"."" ~~.,.. ...l,~l"@Nl'~""~. C:'.~fl..1 18't.J'. :. ), ;' ~L ~@ ~~ ~',_ '. '~\\. \...y;"." '&"~~';-';\~':/~~'I'\""I.~~~ ~ ) . I . . ~." '!II ,. - "I :ri.,'. o..~ ". . __.., 0l:I%}/.' I' '1i!t. ~ c' . . . iii ':N N '" .., 'IiI'(~" ,.! ,.' :'0 I.~ :: q /, '- 'll ;'l9,. :i. "-:Ii!. \91:: .~,\.: -~. ;":'1 ,:,'~".~. ~ i . ~II~'@ "~'i1!.;~ . .~ N ~@l '7'.. 1:1I:;:'0 '''". ""_l?,' '" '!;/'J""., . ~'" ~ 1 'I ",.".... If.! ,. ~. I~ ~ ~ .. .~~ ::.. /!. :u ~-' : '"" ~(!:...:-.@ ,~" . ,.. ~ Y';'!~'f~ ,i! ,,~. . '1~ ~@="' ~@~ . tt ~!t.@"~,,.. - ~;! -:~ t~~ .$ ,~... 1. o..if' ~~.... ..t~~.\.. ,1 n,l, ~::.. !.4.ot;.:...~.:... ~~ .ttti\':; ~,.~, '~C,l ~"",\~,i<.'f:~II )::>II ':l""-fJJ .~': . _. , ~ t "..., r. '1 ro::.. 'iii, ft"l" ~", -., ~il J r~' ,i , .,~: ~~~_~...., ~ . "'~ .I>p,j-;..:'i \ ~&.._':.!L. 1L -',\';"\'t ~, fi'l '''';'' ;(~(f: ~ "" /~.. ...~~ .' ':W:' I):th. .:,-~ ." ... If''''~f'- "' . ;~ i . ~. - ",," 0 '", - ,"~... ;\~ ri, ~~ e< @~::-'t I~ 'f.b...@.: I' ' I ~ 6\ CII ,Cot~. .'\ / ~N !....3,ClI '6. '" '. '[!_ -,::~~ ',' : 1:;:- ~h ., .IS! N" ;:.tt n.~' ,,,~c;., ~ ~ I ",--- ~l\~ '.li\i~f;::r: ,--!'ty. fnr @-~ ~ ~ .~.~~. :::,.$ ~ u~ ... :u~ ,..- ... v~ ~ \ \ u,'$'-'"... ,........ , _~"=:::- - . \ .y-':r-- - < ~ g . : @,',.' ~" ,:q \ iii:;: ::it L 1 'll{, ~ . /.1 '~Vf-',,', . .." .,,\j/ ~Il_ '(!)O "Vl.I:!!.. '. ''F=-.,.!;?' ~ ~.I ~'1,:4-" ~@, ' @:"'Il'::'''~@'~'i'' . ::'f!I;~@~',:, 'I:'~ :f="(~--::: 6i ~ .'r I rJ ,VI ~ " 0.... ~ r;{C :1"'_' r \ . (}1I' ~. I : " .01 e.. . .~~ - at 0 'tlJ -/ ~ .f.. . l..' U. \ ' _____-;- . ;I' ,~'.l: '1i:Jf' ":-.." '- "-. . -" ""'~ . :-J!j.j '. ,. :~g. iJ ,.: @ I _ ; I I ~ . '''~ @, <:". @" ":'\\.\i~_Y<l.k"2f~~ ",,--i<:u. ,.. ': ,)~ .' -' ,- :.I---i, ! 'i ,'~, '" . ~ '<"', ~~'1J"ii;~~-ZN '~:~i" I ~I~' l,~ ;W~ . ',' II...~~'" ~ .~.~ "tP\~\~'&- ",. "'(.I 1.'4'f I ~ I ,',' IN '; ~@;__;'~.;~~t../",~\1..@T\ ',:'/:'~~'.' '.~.. :\'.:~~ .."1 0- L~'fll ,. ,!, !'h: l: @'.~@,~ 7i'c :'1.".l, ..... 'r: :..!. if~ ~'\:. ;\i~~' ,~. \-=....--1\~ \ . ;~ If ~"". . H ~ ~ i:j !'l', ' \~... ~~;l' -"t~: ~.~tl '. ,St.!:l' -.l\. _ .) dill ,'::",@H~ ~.",.~ '9 ~.'" . -'.~~'~ S!~ c:.~~~ ~~.. "'''''''d rr-../---,,,, , \ . U 6\;; B\!:: t: ~1.9 .. ~ ..:~ f:~."'" ~': '~\l \L_ e'. \ III '~/".~'<Dqi-r\9":"':r'({]-" . H:~ I :,->>::U~~. .:@' ~~\', ',,-yr- \ \ .'~ 1J.t-l\' t:'~-.<w~ - ,.,<:l. ~~ . ~ ~'~.~ .@~ roo - .:' ~", @!~: \ ,- x-"'i-' \ . ~II.,I; .U~.t~~, ,~.'~ (!}. s~ IM~". ~ ~~ ~, 1(,\" , ,'.~' '., Is<V-%,~..!\ ~ , . . " "(j) "6!~ ,- 1'. ...... \51 "~""" I 'I 1'iI ~I -} . ,L(V~. i'~- J...::~ ,.", ,'" j...~~~f.~-;, ','Ui:~. ~~ @~' -- .,. \:'\-\ . . . \' Ii, .~i@'. \s -"'-~;= .@ Ill. .:::..:_/~ ~1@~.-:-T/~~~." .!~".__O,:"" :'\. \'\-';-r . 'II'. Y' fi\ "Id_ I. 6\ y. '~~ ~; 'I. ~~~,. .~ li\ ..... ...' \~_ ~ to:: .<b:. :~~: .:i-.I!J_",,@'@\ .'r..A.,.-....;r,~., .@~,~ .'{ -'.\" ~Lt;~, . ':1"1.1'.'...., """rG c.it~"~ 6\- ~~S;-:s. ''''~~I}-:'~'''. 6\CD.., - ~r_!~__ I. .I";'.~ ".@. '-"! :-I"':'~.:_.l/J-_..'_"_. r~..:';\M.;. ~'::' .,.Y-.-r,;, . ~1'1'1' " ""..0;:::.. ~. . t: ~, .} ". ~.' ~:, --\11'\ 'I!J/ i, ,~l', I: "~} ..i'.:,.~' \:-~-1 ~ 1-:" t:lI . ~ ,.~ . & ~'l)? ,r 11 ~;~~ .t) ~ .. \ - -~ \v/@ , i 11,J . ':;; ~@ "@ r~ "'~ ,@'@1" J \s,.~. .. J" ~,""1 '>1~~: f.1r~l&"'-:S' ~;~" . c~' ~_/ '" 1 f .1'----<;, l?:Y-- .~. ......J I :'-\1,_ ,. ;:. __.n' t .. 'EJ> . ""rr-:.W ;;; \ .., _...;;>. j .'- \ ~ ';:---'..:..r .... i!~ ,. 'l"\f~".@:;"" .:..~ -~. '- J,:---x \ 'y'- 1.' f. ~,~, ," : ~. w-", -;-" ~ @\' ~L ':, ~I~ . . ~ @ i , ~~ --I!- J} ~'.. 11:; " I~ '1;''-;1>' ",..' "I~ I., ~ '" @ \9-~~1~:;1l.:; :i: \ k.." '. .__ '71./ ," -7 . ~1 V I:,,, . V""'I ill (i) I III l'i ~ ~~;:. .-~. r. "'L~ " -- y . I .$...L-- . ~ .: A. &I 1 ~l~-~t:::f 0 0 "'-or.=-~ ,tIP' ': ~ \ .~~. _ ':.. ' ! "', :;~ "~~lr":C~\:lj"'_.!! .....~~ I \> ~-0:'\i' ,J.\~ ;i _!. \':lf~~\'I:"'~,~ "11 I'.,,:; .. - -," ho, ~. ,~ \~ Sla,,;":l-._:';Road ! .~, ,..,1. \:" ~. .. .. '!l: _ ~ l '; \ \.~, '" \ -I It:.,. .~!,!'h ~- "....i:ilerl\eld- ('h,":i I \"'. '..:".. ~;:J - 'I~', ''''- . '" ;>--'" .' t" f \\ ,,/ ,\\ \"-:'\\\) \ ~~.~ .oIi. '\1 (\~ Jr, i\\.\~ O - / -, ' ;\ '.i , j- '. \ I) "5 \ \ \\<\, ~'~ i ~ ;i. . \ \ f " .f.r \ \\. ~ -< '* ~ ::J ~j;3~2 ~ cr} ~f~~~ m-. J r ~ -~ : ~ . (/) :=~ m ~:;; :l -:):U~CI 0 ~~:;a s .. .. .. ,. ... )0 N 0 ~ ~ ~ -; Iii I I H ) H . " . . ~nm ~ . 'i' @J~ . '" .... ... \ \" ~ + . .} I 66-' s. ~(!J I~' II IL. , . wi Larger Parcel Appraisal Summary Sheet- AppenJix () H -nlQ t! ' 'i' ~~ :t ... (j " H , ) / . '-j <?~ ~ :s: + ' S. ~lol II I~ Il. lIIi /--~ \ ) ~ , ,. .,~~ ~ .ma @)& . . ~ ... I , \- \. :s: + ,1 i ,.- ~. .. ~f ~'a: n I' IL. IIIj I . , . , JI'"'I) l . . I . . I' I . W \ J ~. Ii I I I; I: I r . .i INTRODUCTION Identification of Larger Parcels to be Appraised - A summary of the Larger Parcels impacted by the proposed project is presented below: BUTfERFlELD STAGE ROAD INTERCEPTOR - STORM DRAINAGE / BASIN IMPROVEMENTS Summary of Larger Parcels (Grouped by PropcrtyType) o..Dersbip I LaDd Location I SIze ZoalDg I _DC Ukdy .' No. APN (Acs) Ceo.r.t Plan LaDd Ihe H&BU.. R~marks PIU1W1:f Improv<d Resi4<IUW W TuJ4dv< My I. Newland 42.64 Tentative Map Va<::rnt Residential Por. Paloma Del Sol NWC SR 79 S '" BSR (VTM 24182) Subdivision SpecifIC plan; 188 101$ wi 956-02~19"'020(ncw) 5,000 SF min. 101 size. 926-130-003 (old) R_ RaidentUd.....'" CII:f ofTaut:lll<< Jnr(s;lldi4n 2. Savala 19.49 Low & Medium Va<::rnt Residential Split zoning; avg. tlrget see Dc Portol. Rd '" BSR Density Subdivision density of825 DUlAc. 952-13~1 Residential R_ Ra/kntUd wAn c... ofR1V<n/k Jtuis4kti4n 3. Lumsdaine 20.62 RR - Rural Ya<::rnt Hold for SWAP allows 2-4 DUlAC; SIS De Portola Rd, E ofBSR Residential Future Zone change needed (or 952-13~2 Residential density in excess of 2 Subdivision DtvAc. 4. Corona (East) 39.61 RR - Run! Ya<::rnt Hold for SWAP allows 2-4 DUlAc E. orBSR between SR 79 S '" Dc Residential Future on APN 952-190-003 and Portola Rd Residential 2.5 acre minimum -lot on 952-14~3 '" 952-190-003 Subdivision APN 952-140-003. 5. POlaajac 37.10 RR - Runl Va<::rnl Hold for Zoning '" SWAP NEe Lincla Rosea Rd '" Residential future rural inconsistent. Probable De Portola Rd residential density is 2-S acre nUn. 952-12~12' development based on SWAP and , surrounding land use. R_ Comtnn<W wAn CII:f of:r<mct:lll<< Jtuis4kti4n 6. Williams I Butterfield Slation 18.91 NC- Vacant Future Ownership hu applied for SJ;QSR 79S"'BSR Ncichb<>rb<s><i- Commercial zone change 10 cc - 4 pan:cls (4.46-4.99Acs) Coll1lllClciJl Community Collllllelciallo 952-2~2, OIl, 012 '" 013 accommodate 50.000+ SF "biCbox" mail. 7. Corona (West) 19.17 cc- FannStorc Interim - "As Ownership had properly 952-150-001 '" 003 Community (land only) Is- rezoned 10 CC several years Commercial H&B - Futuri: ago. No development plans Col'l'UTlCrCial pending. Small Raw Resldentitzl / CtlIfIIIW'Ci4l Mill CD. of ~e Jurisdktu", 8. Sommo 6.22 RR - Rural Va<::rn' Hold (or 393' of SR 79 S frontage; SIS SR 79 S., E ofBSR Residential (rc-<:k) FulUTc 393' of nonlage along 952-210.010 Development Tcmccula Creek Rd (a non- dedicated 60' wide R-O-W. 9. Mirabal 6.23 RR - Rural Stable Hold for Mirabal ownership extends SIS Tcmccula Creck Rd. Residential (land only) Fu_ west 10 include three E of BSR Development additional pan:cls (16.63 952-210-011 aes) under same county RR zoning. Introduction Pae:e3 Af'R-0l-0l 11 :5T FrOll:HEWITT O'NEil llP 949-198-0510 T-089 P,Ol/l1 Job-SIS i:' ~, . '1' . HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP ) ATtOhH~V& AT LAw JOllND.tiUDSlll/ ST!.V~"N B, IhtHr-M}i' DENNts D. O'NmL JAV F. PAl-L"KtKOPY P....ULA. ~OWE WILLI^M L. TWOMey JOIfN r. VOAGE' 'I'IIA.M. COOlAAH OtA'''' DUHH.RANtUN SANi:>i'iA A. OALLE Wn.U^M [L I1AU,'P. ANllItI:W' K. HAItTusLl. }-hK.iH HewITT LAWIUINcrd. ~IL.TOW 19900 MACARTHUR BoULBVARD, SUITB 1050 IRVIN~. CALIfORN,A 92612 (949) 798-0500 . (949) 798.0511 (FAX) t:M^1r..~ eOUR"1@llf\\liQQM.i1.eom WRITER.'S DlROCr [}tAL: (949) 79>>.0734 . EMAIL: dontit@h.wiJIDJlCil.com April 2, 2002 TH1SIS PAGE 1 OF ll. PAGES. TO: Jim Dclhamer Dean Meyer Martha Guy Sam Alhadeff FAX NO: (858) 674-1301 (909) 694-36 i 2. (858) 455-6142 (909) 699-6191 FROM: DelUlis D. O'Neil --l SPECIAl. NOTES: " IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL (949) 798-0500, ..*...****.. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PIUVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA nON INTENDED ONLY FOR THE REVIEW AND USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE, IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NO'fII'IED THAT ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, USE OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECENED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY THE TELEPHONE. THANK you. AFR-Oz-GI 11 :5T FrQlll:H!WITT Q'NEll llP 848-791-0510 ' T-088 P,Ol/l' Job-S1S , .,. HEWITT & O'NEIL LLP ATIOltNE\'SATLAw April 2, 2002 I 0019-00002 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Delhamer Dean Meyer Martha Guy Sam Alhadeff FROM: HE: Dennis 0, O'Neil Paloma del Sol ......., I have talked to Peter Thorson and Shawn Nelson regarding Newland's' request to be released from the hold on the 508 multi-family units in Planning Arei16 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431. Shawn thought it would be best to have the request sent to Gary Thornhill. who was the most knowledgeable about the condition, Shawn thought that Newland may need to submit an application 10 place this issue before the City Council. I have tried to limit the information in the letter to the release of the hold on the multi-family units without including all of the docwnentation supporting the efforts of Newland to work through this matter with the Coronas and the County Flood Control Agency. Gary is very familiar with all of the facts and I did not believe that including the additional infonnation would be helptul, If a separate application is required to initiate the process. I suppose wc could, at an appropriate time, file all of the support data we mllY think is necessary at that time. However. 1 believe the staff and City Council grow weary of this issue and are prepared to grant Newland's request. Please review the letter and provide comments. 4n/OZ 10019,00002 S,II ~Z\CORR\02040005.MeM.d"" 1<)900 MACAllnIUk aO\lUlVAPoD, S\J1Tti 10'" lav!l'l'5I, CA 9u.n (949l7?t.oSOO .(94?}'19I.OS11 P'WAIt.: COVNSliLijltRWlnONeJU:OM M'R-Ol-Ol 11 :51 From:HEWm O'NEIL LLP 949-198-0510 1-089 P,03/11 Job-SIS . DRAFT [TO BE TYPED ON NEWLAND COMMUNITIES LETTERHEAD) ) April_, 2002 Mr, Gary Thornhill Deputy City Manager City of TemeGllJa 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Paloma del Sol Dear Gary: .:....., I am writing this letter on behalf of my company, Newland Communities, developers of Paloma del So~ to request you agendize for City Council consideration the release , of the hold 011 the 508 multi-family units in Planning Area 6A and Planning Area 6B of Parcel Map 29431, If Newland must file an application to initiate the process, please so advise me or Dean Meyer in our Temecula Office. Dean can be reached at (909) 694-5572. You will recall the Temecula City Council on February 2, 1998 in approving Paloma del Sol Planning Application No. PA 96.02'8 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24182) added a condition requiring Newland 10 maintain a detention basin on a 20 acre area entitled for 188 residential lots, This condition is to remain in place ilntil SUto time: upstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsite stonn flows to an adequate outlet. The following year the City Council at its meeting on November 16, 1999 approved Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment No.7) and related development pennit applications for Paloma del Sol and added the restriction on developing the 508 multi-family unils. Legal counsel for the owners of the Corona Ranch located just easterly of Paloma del Sol acTOSS Butterfield Stage Road appeared at both hearings, as they had in the past when modifications 10 the Paloma del Sol development plan were processed, and objected to the City Council's approval of these Paloma del Sol planning applications. The Coronas contend Newland is responsible for the construction of a storm drain facility (Butterfield Stage Interceptor Charnlel) to mitigate stonn water flows that accumulate on a portion of their property dUling periods of heavy rainfall. It has consistently been the position of Newland and the County of Riverside that the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel is an Assessment District No. 1 S9 improvement and the obligation of the County to build. The City has in the past agreed and approved Newland's planning application but recognized the need for the County and the landowners in AD159 to meet and work on implementin!l a plan to construct the Bunerfield Stage Interceptor Channel. In an attempt to address the concerns of the Coronas and provide further incentives for Newland to cOlltinue in its efforts to resolve the Bunerfield Interceptor Channel matter, the City Council at its November 16,1999 meeting placed a "hold" on issuing building permits for Planning Areas 6A and 6B of Parcel Map 29431, Parcols 6 and 7. consisling of 508 4/1102 10019-??oo2 SI\I~:l\(:()R.Jl\OlO4OO()I1.'- TR_dM: . ~ AI'R-OZ-OZ 11 :58 From:HEWITT O'NEIL LLP " ) 411101 10019-00002 S:\J .s.2\Gorr\02~Q04.1rr ,dt'lc 949-198-0510 T-089 P,04/11 Job-GIG MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,1999 AfR-OZ-OZ 1\ :58 FrOl:1lEW1TT O'NEIL LLP 949-798-0510 T-089 P,05/11 Job-616 . ..' NOVl:mber 16, 1999 ReplBJ Meeting oilbo Tcmecula City Council Page 10fI0--- Ho..... Yhla .. TeRlO'ula "ICy &tlV1~' "'SIde c;ar IIIlI RKftatlon '. Help i) : .:a-~~,:~ /-- CiW Counell Minutes ~ LCk to CIty CDlIlIIlll Minutes Main Index Paae " MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CRY COUNCIL NO\II!MBIm 16,1;" The City of Temecula City Council convened In an adJowned r"lJlllar mHIln8 et7:04 P.M., on Tuesday. November 16. 1999. In the City Council Chambers of Temecula CIty HaD, 43200 Business PllIk Drive, Temecula. RI)LL CALL .' Present: CouncDmembers: Comerchero, Llndemlll1l. RoborU. Stone, aDd, Fonf. Absent: Councllmembar: None. PllELUDE MUSIC TIle prelUde music was provided by Aaron BraId. INVOCATION _ . TIle Invocation was given by Youlll Pastor bit Treadway of .Rancho Collll1\llnlly Church. ~ Al.LEGIANCIi TIle eudlenc:e wall led In the F1agilelute MaYOr Pro Tem Stone. , PI~E6ENTATIONSIPROClAMATIONS "..lIonal family Week . Mayor Ford proclaimed Novamber 21-2710 be deslgnatad as National FilmUy W8~ 01' behalf of all the famnles In the CilyofTeinecula, 1.1.. DllI1Ise Orne accepted Ille award, noting thatllWllllld be p~Jced on display 81 the Library. .' , ' C'lrtlflcata of Apprecletlon to AlCrI.p and LaITY Markham Presenting Permit Engineer Cri&p with 8 CartlflCllte',of Appreciation, Mavor Ford retaved the Clly's gratitude for Mr. AI Crisp's dedlcaled servlca. aiding the City In 8slabllshlng a foundation for the Public Works LaOllj)evelopmenl Division wl1h hi$ extensive llI19lneerlnllllackurllllllll. _ Mayor Ford presented Mr_ lsnilMarkham with 11 C&rtiflC8le of Appreeiellon for his three yeers serving es e Publlc/Traffic Safety CommIssioner, noting Iliat the City had greatly benemed from his Invaluable service. " . Fllr Informational pllfposes, Mayor Ford relayed the success of Ille recent Race for lI1e Cure Event which was held In the City of T emeoule for"'" purpass of raising monies for breast cenaar res....rch; naled the Inspiring feats of Vllrious handicapped pertlclpants In the race; and displayed the crystal plate that was pr8sented to the City donating the 19911 T amacule Race for the Cure Event. PlilBLIC COMMENTS Ms, Maryano Edwards, representing the Assistance Leegue of \he Temecula Valley. relayed the various actlvHies of the organization. inclusive of the provision of clothing for children; thanked the City for the~ generous support; 1""lted the public to the 2nd Annual Holiday fundralser. sdleduted to be held on Sunday, November 21, 1999 from 4:00 P,M.ta 7:00 P,M. ~tlhe Ca.lawell's Thrill Shop Iocaled e128720 Via Montezuma, Temeeula, end cllmmended Councilman I.lndemans, and Mayor FClrd far tIlelr dedication to the City, as Councilmen. i ./ The following individuals relayed their suppol1 of the proposed pennanent Community Theatre; Ms. Bobbl Boas, rellr86entlng lhe Theatre Foundatfon, 27740 Jeffarson Avenue httn'IIUJW\.1ll':i fiP.mPl':ntD -'6 '.r/,..;tu"!lI'fMhmt~/l()()()Ui,mtp..1l/111~QO kna. APR-Dt-Dt 11:51 Froo:HEWITT O'NEIL LLP 949-791-0510 T-089 P.DS/II Job-SIS ; . - 'Noveiinber 16, J 999 Regular MeeliDg of the Temeeula City ColDlcil No. 3334.) Page 7 of I 0::: ,-' ( ) AlttJls lime M8)1D1' I'ord dosecllhe public h8llrIng. Mo'nON, Ma)lDl' Pro Tem Slone mllVCclte approYll alaff reGlllllmendeUon. COIlnClIman Llnllemans !iacond8d the motion and voice vote renected unanimilu1i llpproval. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16 ()ral Report fr!lm Subcommittee, Second Reading of Ordlllllnc8 No.lIlI~' (Speclllc Plan No. 219) and Ordinance No. 119"29 (Development AlIreemenl) - Home Depot Project (located north of State HIghway 79 South, south of Montelllllro Way, east 01 Margarlte Road, an!! .aat of MeadoWII Parkway RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Receive en oral repot\ by Subcommlnee Membere Meyor Ford end CovnGllm8lTlbllf Llndemens; 16.2 Adopt an wdlnanoe entlUed: ~' ORDINANCE No."-IlI !oN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY COIINCIL Of 1llf CI1Y Of~APPROV1NG l'\.ANN1NG APPlICA'IKlN NO. PAl.. 8285IAMENDME/rT NO. 110 s~CIfIC PlAN NO. 211), WIIc:t1 AMEIIIIS \.AND USEIWlTIlIN I'\.ANNINO AREAl I, &, I, 27 "ND 31; AMENDli TIlE AUlINMENT AND ClIHI'IIIURA'IION Ill' CAMJ>ANW WAY BEhYm DE I'ORIO..... ANO . MEADOWO PAIlKWAYI__llIRALL""",llON Qf A_E W/Tl1I11 I'\.ANNING AREA I FROM 22.3 ACRI!G TO sa.o ACREII AMENlll 1llf AUOCAnoH OF ACREAGE WITHIN I'LANNINGAREA' FROM au ACRts TO:l4.s ACRES; DMDES PLANNING AREA .llJrO I'LANNING AREA IA IW ACRElI, WITH A IWaMUU OF sn UNlT81 AND PLAHNlNO AREA 611112 ACRU. VERY HIOIlIlEII8ITY RESlliEN11A/., lwe PI/fAC, WmtA,MAlCIMIlM OF 240 UNlTSl. RES\ll.llNG IN AN OVERALL RI!IlUcnON OF IlWEWNG lIHITII FROM 110 TO JOll'AMENlIS THE TEXT TO PIlOVlllli FOR TIll DEVELOI>MEHT OF A CENlOIl_UNnY WI1IlIN,I'lNooHONtEA'IAHl>AMlNDS TltI: ll~slGN GUIPIilJNl:lI TO lN~ORf>ORATIl THE VlUAGE WlNrnu AHlI SENIOR AMalmES; IIA6III UPON THE AllALVllIIl AND rlNDlNOa . CONTAINED IN THE BTAFF REPOIlT sUBJECT TO TlfE CONllmON6 OF,APPROVAL ON Fl~ IN THEOFFlGE OF 1llf CI1Y CLERK .) . 16.3 Adopt an wdlnallGll enllUed: ORDINANcE NO. 81-a , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUIICIL Ill' THE em OI"~Ecuv. APl'ROVlNG THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMaNT AGR66M6NT ENTlTI-611Im.l.llOA AT _to DtL ~OL -aNT AGREEMEIfT.1'LANN1NO ARU.$ 'IB)' 'PI or SPECIFIC PLAN No. 211, AMENDMENT NO. 7 " . Mo'nON: Mayor Pro Tern Slone moved \Q approve the Second Reading olOrdinence No. 96-26 (SpecifIC Plan no, :H 9) and Ordinance No. 1111.211 (Development A!iraemenL) CounoRmen RobArts eeGooded tho moUon IInd vole,e vole renecled unanlmllU6llpproval. : Will'I rl!spei:llo the dispute between ihe cor~ Ranch properties and Newland Communities, Mayor Ford relayed that although the,e "ad been dlatusslom;, '" IHls point In Ume no nnal agreemanlllaa Deen reaClled. , " Ms. Michele StBpl"", attorney lor the Corona R'anch properiles, specified the Issues of dispute; relayed that the Comna family did not oppOSe the Secllliil Reildlliil ill Ilie Ordinances; and thanked Mayor Ford, and COuncllman blndemens lor \heir asskluous ellons spenl over \ha wee~eml, working with the panles In an al\empt 10 feDch an agrElement. Councilman Llndemans relayed that the Councll had previously placed a hold on 218 lots In TracI24182-3, and 4, assuclaled wllh .hls prOject; noled that due to this property currently being In escrow, Newland COmmunlUes had offered In Its Slead, Parcels 6 and 7. consisting of 608 multHamlly units, requesting that there be a substitution of the I)arcels being held; and recommilndild that due to !he situation, Ihatthe parcels be substlluled. Mr. ,AJt],edelf, representing Paseo Del SollNewland Communltie$, relayedllratilude III Mayor Ford and Councllman Llndemans for their time and consideration In allampling to aid the parties in the disputa; relayed that although ther,a was no mandeled requirement, Newland Communlllss had agreed 10 place a hold on the aforementioned .J properties In an attempllo be amenable with respect to settling the dispute; noted the specifICations of \he existing Oev,elopmenl AgreeMilnl; relleraled Councilman Undemens' recommendalion 10 subslitute the held parcels; In response 10 Mayor Ford's comments, relayed assurance \hat if the Cily Councu approved the proposed http:lh>IWW .ci.temccula,ea,uslcityhalVminutes/1999Minuteslll1699.htm _ .""",,, AI'R-Q2-02 11 :58 FrDlll:HEWITT O'NEIL LLP 949-198-0510 T-089 P,01/11 Job-SIS , NOVllmber 16, 1999 Regular Meeting oftbo Temecula City CollllCil Page 8 000..- substitution of parcels, thai there would be continued effOl1& 10 anemp\ 10 ~ to a rllSOlutlon with the Coronll - R<lnch propenres; for Mayor Pro Tem StOlle, apeelflBd lhat If the CoIlncI did not approve the substltuUon of -- holdings, that the proplll1y owner would not be able to seD the property; and noted that lhere was. eddltlonally, II ).. risk of a 'aWllult. , Mil. Staples relayed thetthe Corona femUy opposed the proposal 10 subsi1tute the prop8lly holdings, providing the retlonale for the opposition: and specified Ihatlhe Brown Act regulations would prohlbR a ruI1ng on,!he matter at this lime due to this meeting being a Special meallng. elly Attorney Thorson Offered the following clarllicallon: 1) noted thet this _ not a Special meeting, but an adjourned regular meeting, 2) reluyad lhat!he Agenda did GpeclflC8llY reference the pro)act 3) provided IIdditlonal information regarding the Pevelapmant Agreement; and 4) speclflllll the Council's purview with respect to the releasing of the property hold at \his time, and In the future,lf requested. For Councftman Llndemans, Deputy Clly Manager 'ThornhDl clarified thet\he rationale for the Condition reslticling thu parcels was 10 ensure \hat there would be attempts to resolve the Issues of dispute: and relayed that tha . h91dlng may not have been placed on \he proplllty If Newland Communities had nol been agreeable. . . MtlnON: CouncUman Llndemans moveclto haVll the Clly, hareby, release the 218 Iota In Trect 241 a20S end 4, as described In !he Condhlons or Approval,lipprovell b)ithe Clly COUncIl on Novembar 9, 1999, end substltute, In lis plllC8, PlannIng areas 6A and 68 of Parcel Map 29431, Parcels 6, and 7, consllOng of 608 munl-femlly units. Ctluncllmen Comerchero seconded the mollon. (This motion ultimately passed: see psge 12.) In response to Mayor Pro Tern Slone's querying, MIl, Staples relayed thel her client would requesl a week's time to consider the new proposal, ......, MlIyor Ford speoifled the 10""llon of tho orlglnelly held prope~s, and the properties proposed to be substituted: advlsed thaI slnr;a Newland ComniimlUes had offer8d \he colIeteral on gOOd faith al the time; and due to the substitution proposal elUl maJntelning on cqulleblo 'holding, which wOutd continue to encourage effOrts 10 reaell a senlemenl. recommended that the subsUtutl~,propos~ be eppr~~. . . ~ . Re,cognlzlng the unusual c!rCums\anr;asof the ma~, Co\lncl1m!lfl Comerellero r.elleraled \hal Newland , Cc,mmunillee had offered the parcels currei1Uy oolng held; n91ed thaI allhe,llme 01 apprOV8l,\he Counc;ff wils not aware of the fact thel the parclils were In' eSc:row: and recommende<lthetthe Council approve \he subslltutlon of th" parcel.. ' . _ ' ' After further cDnslderatlon Of the maner, MS~ Staples relliyad \hat \he Corona family had no ob)ectlon 10 \he proposal to substitute the percels. At this time voice vole was taken reflecting unenlll\Ou8 approval. - - In light of the lime the Counclllhat had devoted to the discussions, Mayor Ford Implored the parties in di.puteto mllke efforts 10 corne 10 a resolution. .' For Informallonal purposes, Councnman Llndamans relayed that alter much deliberal1on, Newland Communltles was wllllngto poste $3.5 million bond, noUng U\e efforts 10 cooperate In reaching e resolution. 1~r CST l=lbe. Optlos RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Receive and file e report regarding GST Telecom fiber optics. B~ way of overhead maps, Director otPublic Works Hughes presented \he staff report (of record) as an inlormallonal item per the City Council'. and City Manager Nelson's request; specified the localion of IIla telecommunicetioD facilities Instanalion; nDted the conc;cssions GST had made 10 millgale the traffic impactli associated with the project; relayed that the City would be monllorlng the installation project; and for Councnman ClImerchero, advised thai solely lI1e Ilrea withIn !he CommerCial District would have the installallon postponed un," January 3, 2000. (after the holiday season,) hllp~~www.ci.temecula.ca.uslcityhalVminutesl1999MinuteslII1699.htm . t,)/~/111 . . ......, APR-OZ-OZ 11:59 From:HEWITT O'NEil llP 949-798-0510 T-019 P.OI/ll Job-SIB ) aTY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROV AI.. REVISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 16, 1999 4/1102 10011).00002 ~;\t ~2\c:oo\02040004.'tr-doc m-oz-oz 11 :59 From:IIEWITT O'NEil llP 949-798-0510 T-OI9 P.09/11 Job-SIS .- ,.' - -) EXHIBIT Ii. CITY OF TEMECULA cONDmONS OF APP~OVAL . . Reviled by the cny Counoll. Novemb8r 11. 1.11. Planning Application No, PA99-G211S - SpaGifiG PI.n Amendm.nt No.7 Project Description: To amend SpecifIC Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) as fallows: land uses within Planning Areas 1,6 and 8; the realignment and reconfigurallon of Campanula way betwean De Portola Road and Meadows Perkway; the relllloealion of acreage within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres: the reaHocation of acreage within PlaMlng Area 8 !rOm 36:1 to 34.3 amls: the division of Planning Area 6 into Plannin9 Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density residlntilll, 9-12 dwe\fing unllS per aa1l, with. rnllllimum of 26B dwel\inO units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, vary high dansity resid8nlill, 13- 20 dulac, with I maximum of 240 dwelling units), resulting In an overaR reduction of units from 590 to 508 dWeUlngs; Ihl provision to dlvalop an active, privati, glted senior community within PI.nning ArlIa 8 that includes a private rm:reation area; and an update of Sllecific Plan Design Guidelines that incorporate the vRlagll vignettes end the seniot amenillllli. ......, Approval Date: PLANNING OMSION November 16, 1999 General Requirements 1. The applicanl and owner of Ihe real property subjed 10 this condilion shall herebY agrn 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, 10 include any agenc:y or instrumentality thereof, or any of ila elected or appointed offlcialll, offic.9rs, employees, consllllants, contractors. legal counsel, and agents from any and aU daims, lelionl. awards, judgllmenla, or proceedings againsl thll City 10 auac:k, sot aside. void, aMul. seek monelary demages relultin9, diredly or indirectly, from any aellon in furthllrance of and the approval ollhe City, or any agency or instrumentality Ih8reof, adviSOry egenc:y, appeal board or IlIQlslalive body including adlons approved bY tl\8 voters of Ihe City, GOnceming Ihe Planning Application. City shall prompUy notify the bolh the applicant and landowner of any claim, adion, or proCDeding to whiGh this condiDon is applicable end shall further cooperale fully in thll defense of Ihe action. The City resllrvllS itl right 10 lake any and all action Ihll City deems to be In Ihe best inlerest of the City and its citizens in regards 10 such defense. 2. The applicant shall comply with aU underlying Conditions of Approval for speciflc Plan No. 219 and ils amendmenls unlass superceded by these conditions of Approvlll. 3. The lext of Amendment No. 710 specifIC: Plan No. 219 shall conform wlth exhibit No. 1B, "f'aloma del SOl SpeQllc Plan, Amendment No. r dated Odober 11, 1999, or as amended by Ihese conditions. ~,ISTAFnl'N85p.99.CC 11-9.99 _.Ioe 16 , , () ......, APR-OZ-OZ 12:00 From:HEWITT O'NEil llP 949-798-0510 T-019 P.IO/ll Job-SIB DECEMBER 11, 1001 LETTER FROM GEORGE JOHNSON, DEPUTV DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. TO BILL HUGHES 4/1102 IOO)~0002 S:\l S2\ton\02040004,ltr.duc 101 ItSoLStlll ,.. liB VI, U...OI, (}t~, :(//,~~, '" '~ '.. '..,.!:!!l!,. Dllcem'* 1" 2001 .,. '.,' A AI'R-OZ-OZ lZ:00 From:HEWITT O'NEil -llP 949-T91-0510 T-019 P.II/Il Job-BIB lie. }8 2BBl fiIB: ~lFIM P3 ,..' FAl< 1'01). : '3la9--694-J612 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Departmellt DIn'IJ .. ......... DI_rt(~'"'" Mr. William B. Mugho. D11'1Otor City of T8/ntlCIII. Public wor\cl Dept. P"O, Bolt 8OS3 Tllmeoul.. CaIlIornla 82&Bl-llCI88 Ri: Butt,rfleld Intlraepto' Cltlnnel, An"""'" Diet"" N..111 c'.., Bn~ F'. YOU' requolt, I am lending you th/Ilttter to brJal\y 8IIIMlAr1Z8 till anaaIna d11GU..lorw ~elwlllll\ tie County and !he property ownel1l ,n8Clld by the BuftIIflni Intltoeptor ctlannll- F'or ,tmoet two years now. 1!IeCounty 1111 \Jean J'IlII811ng wlItI NnIInlI CorrimunIII-. the C:O_ Family. and Leonard BevIIIa In an ItIoIt to oome tel an agl8ll'llent on . prelalrlld Ill1arna1M for the Butterfllld Intel'clptor ChanneL \ '. l'-tlllment Dlttrlcl No. , &8 oontempl8Wd plactng tha IntlrQptor at tIla ....rty boundeIY GI j~ No. 169, whlCtl wau\d.lncluda tlle Savlla prcperty IIl6 only ao IDl'II err till ComnI" \and. 'rhe Corona Family and Mr, BavallllndlCated th. propoaed AD No. 1&8 IIIgnrnent wu not Iloceplllbll to them, AcldIllDl\IlIUgn".m. _. aunNled by'. plllpllrty awn'" and haW llUbsaqulfntly been atudled by \he Alv8rIIdtt CouIIIY F10DcI COntrol DIaIrlaI. ,.. raaUlt ar ""' 1&1uCIy alfort, \I appn" thl property owne" unaIfIclIdy lupport an IltlIrnativl to p\lca III Interceptor along Ihe eaat IdlII G11tlt CoJona propllrty, UntOl'lunately, 10 dill we IIave nat been able 10 develop a flnanclng mllChanllfll to oonltrUl:t the I11198Mtl1d tntelll8p!Dr. " you art Interelted, we can lorwanl you . DOpy 01 thl ADDCI Control Report .urMlIrIZfnD lie a1ternatiwa studied. "you hava BIIY qU8ltlon., pletl.a contact me. ~ ~~' 1i::::. ~Joh' Deputy OIrICl DI TranllpOllallon GAJ:H cc: sam A1l1adliff, Newland Communm. MIch8Ie S~lIl StevD corona Laonard Balllla . DUlly WDllama,. Fload Control DlaUlc:l Rhandl ICIng. Exacullvu 011101 I j ~iI*l Lcmn. lWofL .,_ ..... . 111....'*, C.llhl1ol1a 9:101 . 19P'I "5-61010 . .... ._.._ .., .__,-'_ ",,"L._l-",,&M..NIft.~."I_'OSS"U' ATTACHMENT NO, 5 MEETING CHRONOLOGY R:\S P AI2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report CC2.doc 14 Ju~ 15 02 01:42p ALHADEFF8.S0LAR ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Ms. Debbie Ubnoske July 15,2002 Page 5 Date 09-17-97 12-09-98 02-17-99 02-24-99 03-18-99 03-25-99 03-31-99 09-13-99 10-27-99 12-10-99 12-16-99 03-01-00 05-02-00 05-04-00 05-24-00 03-19-01 06-25-01 07-17-01 07-25-01 EXHIBIT 2 LIST OF MEETINGS DATE AND WITH WHOM With Whom Carstens AD 159 property owners Stahovich AD 159 property owners Carstens, Stahovich Stahovich AD 159 landowners meeting Carstens, Stahovich Coronas and their lawyer County met with Corona Ranch Stahovich Carstens, Johnson, Thomason, Donovan COWlly Carstens Cuunty AD 159 Property Owners COWlty Stahovich Stahovich . -u-----03-18-02----- -Stahovich--- 04-01-02 Ken Graff, Venable C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Dato\Clients\Newland Communities'tYl 03.00 I\UBNO~K.C 1.10-02.doc ATTACHMENT NO, 6 MAP SHOWING PLANNING AREAS 6A AND 68 R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 PDS Conditions of Approval\Staff Report CC2.doc 15 MAP SHOWING PLANNING AREAS 6A AND 68 Ii> :II :11m 011 >~ . _ ~rO l"iII 'g AUBA ROAO' m ' r-- _ _;"1 u€ .~ ~ =:- If:.] ..0 "," ill ~ 11 H :..<~ ip OO~,:;:I ~ .::. . .~~~ l ':": r~~ ,~-=s.\_ n ..'~.,,_nf,;; 000\' -'i._"". .~~ - fk~ f.:' JDRlVE .. ~--(./_ ~C __ O. "I>~." ""'-, CCp..6 - ""0 u_ 'b ,,"'A -=_ ) ~ " ti. ::~- ~ ~~ . g\~::-: .,~.~ ~'4 ~~ p'..b.t'~", . '\ ,!;! o NTlAGO I " \ .,,' .. -,,- ~ 0.. SA l,-II !,.::.. -dim..If~. ""9 ~_'O . 0; J -- ~~,..4:~'bt, 11 12 ~ ~O -01 _ ROAD ~H';' \l~'" __ -- JD O~ 'i.':'~, ..- "0 ~ 'tg'l . oDogl' -::~~ \~') ~rij, ~ ...... .g \ -=_ r <5' .. ~ ~~ " f~' ~~I "'fo g! = ~ ~\:-~~"""11 ';:)I1&::.~"~~f;? ,,.~'. \~..~ ~"~J ':':'~.~o; n' "... . >'YA., &.,0 v\' __ - ~. i:-a '. ~ 0- 'b\ ..~ '<i ... ~ ~'<)' &. 'Po 03l. ,.:... '.:. . . ...)'~ "'~o O~..1r.., \ 11 ~o vO.... 49^ do., -...- D \.0 O~"":-f _ ~ \ -~... '.0 OO~~~. c '0 0'0"" . - ~f"-" iii .~. 00 ,. ':": ,""/ ~~~~' ',:-tt:::.-.,~" ,g~ ~ - ~..... <. '0'-4, - . -,f"~1;. . 'It \om PLANNING AREA 6A & 68 ~= . :.iz.7c~ , . ~\g~ '\~" ^ ........'..... ~oirn ;~!!O-f .,. -,o:G ''!'f''O 'r." "'f ...... -0 '-..:(.~.~~r~~~" ;., .,~,.~ ~g~ -.:~,/ g . ~o G . .-:"~or j t'~~'~'~ig~ -~.. ~'"'''-'';1fi!J' ~-. _0.' . r' ~. . !~- _~ ~ .:... . ..~ .":'.\'" .. j~~ * .~ . I I _SOUTH.>iC -.........~1r ....~~ . . o. - u_ . V"V" .. --- u_ DETENTION BASIN LOCATION R:\S P A\2002\02-0299 POS Conditions 01 Approval'Staff Report CC2.doc 16 ITEM 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINAN< CITY MANAGER 'JJ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager DATE: July 23,2002 SUBJECT: Consideration of Funding Mechanism for the Acquisition of Open Space (at the request of Councilmember Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council discuss this matter and provide direction to Staff. BACKGROUND: Council has previously provided direction to allocate funds for the purchase of open space as part of the City's annual budget process. Councilmember Naggar has requested that the City Council consider additional methods to provide funds for open space acquisition. DISCUSSION: To facilitate Council's discussion of this matter, Staff has identified a number of possible funding options. These include: General Fund. Previously the City has maintained a reserve for economic uncertainty of 30% of General Fund expenditures. This reserve is expected to exceed $10 million this year, and Council has previousiy directed that funds above this amount be used to provide a reserve for retiree health benefits and for purchase of open space. Because of anticipated increases in General Fund expenditures, this is expected to provide approximately $500,000 for open space purchases during the upcoming year. Development Impact Fee. The City does not currently have a Development Impact Fee (DIF) for purchase of open space. Funds have been provided in the City's FY 2002/03 budget to update the fees in the City's 01 F schedule. This update is planned to include consideration of a new fee for purchase of open space. Based on previous preliminary studies, DIF fees could generate up to approximately $200,000 per year, assuming a rate of $400 per dwelling unit, and 500 new dwelling units per year subject to the fee. (Many residential units will be exempt, as they are covered by prior development agreements). This amount will diminish as the City completes its development. Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Proqram (MSHCP). The MSHCP element of the RCIP anticipates that land in the Temecula area will be set aside for habitat preservation. Opportunities may exist for helping this effort or leveraging additional properties with the MSHCP. The County is expected to be the lead in this effort, and acquisition for this program may be through purchase, developer requirements, density transfers, or other methods. R:\Ogradyj\Agenda Reports\Funding Strategies for the Acquisition of Open Space - Naggar - July 23, 2002.doc Grants/Partnerships. Opportunities may exist for cooperating with other groups that acquire lands for preservation purposes (e.g. Pechangas, Trust for Public Lands, Nature Conservancy, etc.). Assessment Districts. Where there is a readily identifiable area that benefits from open space, Assessment Districts (subject to approval by a majority of property owners) may be used for such acquisition. Parcel Tax. A parcel tax could be enacted for the purchase of open space. Such a measure would require a 2/3 approval of the voters, as this would be a special-purpose tax. There are currently about 42,000 parcels (EDU's) within the City subject to the current Measure C (Parks and Recreation) tax. Based on a hypothetical rate of $10 per EDU per year, such a tax would generate $420,000 per year. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The City's current rate for TOT is 8%. The prevalent rate in the San Diego area is approximately 10%. If the City were to increase its rate to 10%, approximately $450,000 would be generated, based on budget projections for FY 2002/03. If the funds were earmarked for open space, this also would be considered a special tax, requiring a 2/3 approval of the voters. Also, as with any ballot measure, a united Council is important for the passage of such a measure. There may be additional funding strategies that the Council may identify as a result of this discussion. FISCAL IMPACT: Acquisition of open space may result in increased operational costs for insurance, maintenance, etc. Such costs would depend on the location, use, and extent of the open space, and are unknown at this time. R:\OgradyjlAgenda Reports\Funding Strategies for the Acquisition of Open Space. Naggar - July 23, 2002.doc DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: City Manager/City Council Jim Domenoe, Chief of POIiC~ July 23, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report The following report reflects special teams, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring during June of 2002. The Police Department responded to 41 "priority one" calls for service during the month of June, with an average response time of approximately 6.8 minutes. A total of 3,837 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During the month of June, the Temecula Police Department's Town Center Storefront served a total of 165 customers. Fifty-one sets of fingerprints were taken, 32 peopie fiied police reports and five people had citations signed off. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in a number of special events, neighborhood watch and community-oriented programs during the month. He also coordinated requests for patrol ride-alongs. Additionally, he continued to provide residential and business security surveys/visits and past crime follow-up. Officer Fanene also continued to process City Planning Department submissions of site plans/conditions. The POP Teams continued to work on the "Crime Free Multi-Housing" project during the month of June. The teams continued their Warrant Apprehension Program during the month, which resulted in five feiony arrests and two misdemeanor arrests. The POP Teams continued with their proactive patrol efforts and made seven additional felony arrests and 18 misdemeanor arrests. POP Teams also continued with the homeless persons program, with the goal of assisting the homeless in finding services and aid to help them. The Old Town Storefront serves as an office for the POP teams and a location to assist the public with police services. This has greatly increased their accessibility and their ability to serve the Old Town area. During June, Ihe Old Town Sto~efront served 174 customers. Twenty-nine sets of fingerprints were taken, 19 reports were written, and 24 citations were signed off. The traffic team reported that during the month of June there were 714 citations issued for hazardous violations, 108 citations were issued for non-hazardous violations and 88 parking citations were issued. During the month there were just 11 injury traffic collisions, 60 non-injury collisions were reported and 12 drivers were arrested for DUI. The Neighborhood Enforcement Team (NET) program resulted in 61 citations b3ing issued. This program addresses traffic concerns Monthly Departmental Report Page 2 in residential neighborhoods with a dedicated motor officer. The SLAP program (Stop Light Abuse Program) resulted in 69 citations being issued, with 110 additional SLAP citations issued on overtime. The total number of SLAP citations issued during the month of June was 179. During the month of June, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total of t 98 calls for service. The majority of these calls were for shoplifting investigations. During the month, calls and on-sight activity resulted in the criminal arrest and filings on 27 misdemeanors and one felony case for various offenses. Officers McElvain and Rupe continued to provide training to security staff during the month. The mall officers continued to work on vehicle theft and burglary programs. Two vehicle burglaries and two vehicles thefts occurred during the month of June. Four school resource officers continued to remain active during June. They conducted a total of five school presentations. The topics of these presentations ranged from "Gateway Drugs" to "Rave Drugs." The school resource officers also conducted many counseling sessions with students. A total of 23 investigations/reports were conducted/written by the school resource officers during June. The JOLT program (Juvenile Offender Law Enforcement Program) continues to be a success in part through its Youth Court program. Officer Michelle Medeiros conducted the 89'h Youth Court session. The JOLT officer assisted at other schools when needed and conducted follow-ups with parents of juveniles in the JOLT program. Officer Medeiros worked with "at risk" juveniles throughout the month and also conducted counseling sessions with their parents. She also assisted the District Attorney's Office and the Probation Department by providing training during home visits with incorrigible/at risk juveniles during the month of June. During the month of June, the Special Enforcement Team (SET Team) of Officers John Wade and John Morin handled a total of three cases. These cases resulted in three misdemeanor and two felony arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. This team continues to work street level narcotics and specialty patrol within the city on a proactive basis. During this month, the team served one search warrant for narcotics violations, and recovered quantities of marijuana. Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Officer Bob Ridley and assistant coordinator Gayle Gerrish, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 397 hours of service in June. Volunteer assignments include computer data input, logistics support, special event assistance and telephone answering duties. Community Action Patrol (CAP) Program volunteers have begun their activities, patrolling the city for graffiti, conducting vacation residential checks and assisting patrol with special logistical needs and special events. Other duties these volunteers will attend to are business checks and abandoned vehicles and traffic control. The goal of the program is high visibility, which prevents crime from occurring. CAP Team members contributed 171 hours of service to the community during the month of June. The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention, off road vehicle enforcement and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 220 hours specifically on patrol in Temecula during the month of June. Monthly Departmental Report Page 3 During June 2002, the Temecula Police Department was instrumental in providing security and assistance at the annual Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival at Lake Skinner. Special teams and volunteers combined to work the festival. Crowds exceeded expectations, but no problems were experienced. Many participants expressed that they enjoyed themselves, and planned to return for next year's event. No negative issues for the police department arose overthe course of the three day event. APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~ CITY MANAGER fj} CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building & Safety DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Departmental Report June 2002 and Fiscal Year 2001/2002 PREPARED BY: Carol Brockmeier, Administrative Secretary TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED.....................,..,.................. ........,....284 NSFR"..,.,.......,."."."."."""""""".".",."".,....,."."""."""",.".",.......,.,.",""""" 57 NCOM..................................................................................................................4 TOTAL VALUATION .....,..,..,................,..,..........."............................,........... $14,280,588 TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED...........................,..................3,930 FISCAL YEAR END 7/1/2001 - 6/30/2002 TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED......................................................,2993 NSFR................................................................................................................. .656 NCOM........................... ... ... ..... ...........,................................................ ............... ...43 TOTAL VALUATION..........................,...............................................,.. ......,....................... .155,451 ,385 TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED...............................................................59,697 APPROVAL nA______ CITY ATTORNEY /YVT/W DIRECTOR OF FINANCE fJiZ CITY MANAGER 2A)/ I ~ () CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City"ouncil Debbie ubnoskJ:l6i~or of Planning DATE: SUBJECT: July 23, 2002 Monthly Report The following are the recenl highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department in the month of June 2002. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 55 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupalions and 12 applications for public hearings during Ihe monlh of June. The new public hearing cases are as follows: Certificate of Land Division Compliance Change of Zone Conditional Use Permit Development Plan Extension of Time Minor Condilional Use Permit Parcel Map Tentative Tract Map 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 Status of Maior Projects Slaft is working with project applicants to address any remaining issues and prepare the following cases for public hearing before the Director of Planning or Planning Commission: . Roripaugh Ranch Annexation, Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreemenl - The EIR 45 day public review period ended on May 17th. Staft is currently reviewing the latesl re-draft of Ihe Specific Plan. The DA and CFD meetings are on hold pending submittal of information by Ihe applicant and finalization of the projecl delails. . Villages of Old Town - Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report have been submitted. Staft has reviewed the Specific Plan and provided comments to the applicant. The applicant is in the process of revising the project details. R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2002\June 2002 Aeport.doc . Rancho Community Church - Application to design, construct and operate a church and school campus on a 39-acre site. The overall proposal will include 292,745 square feet of religious and school facilities with two four level (two story) parking structure (162,600 square feet and 380,023 square feet). The site will be developed in a number of phases beginning with a 1,500 seat, 26,927 square foot interim sanctuary with assembly room and a nursery; a two story 226,777 square foot administration building, 17 modular classroom buildings, a 9,695 square foot preschool, a 300 seat, 5,856 square foot chapel, two field house buildings totaling 10,000 square feet and lighted athletic fields. Fulure phases include permanent firsl through twelfth grade classroom facilities, a gymnasium, a 3,500 seat, 43,727 square foot worship center and a parking structure. This project is located on the north side of State Highway 79 South east of Jedidiah Smilh Road. Staff is reviewing resubmitted draft documents. A Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2002. . Villages of Temecula - Development Plan proposal for a 160 unit mulli-family apartment complex with a commercial retail/office center located on the south side of Rancho California Road, west of Cosmic Drive and east of the Moraga Road and Rancho California Road intersection. This project also includes a General Plan Amendmenl, change of zone (with a PDO) and a parcel map. The Slate Clearinghouse has circulated the initial study, and no comments were received. A community meeting was held on January 14, 2002. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on February 20th. Staff has met with adjacent property owners on two separate occasions and identified their concerns. The project has been conlinued to the August 13, 2002, City Council meeting. . Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment and Specific Pian Amendment - This project has been withdrawn by Ihe applicant. . Temecula Creek Village - The Planning Commission approved the 32.6-acres mixed-use project on May 1, 2002. The project includes 400 multi-family residential unils and 123,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. An a~peal was filed by "Citizens First of Temecula Valley" on May 9, 2002 and accepted on May 10 h. The Appellant reached an agreement wilh the Developer and the Appeal has been wilhdrawn. . Mosco Lol 34 - Development plan application to design and construct a 24,850 square foot office/warehouse building on 1.68-acres. The projecl is located on the soulh side of Zevo Drive approximately 2,000 feel west of Diaz Road. The project was approved by Ihe Planning Commission on June 26, 2002. . T.R. Properties - A Development Plan application to construct, design, and eSlablish a 15,489 sq. ft. mulli-Ienant industrial building on the southeast corner of Winchester Road and Bostik Court. The projecl was submitted on April 15, 2002. Revised plans have been submitted to Planning and routed to all internal departments for comments and/or conditions of approval. Planning has had a number of design comments, which are being reviewed by the applicant. . The Summit at Crystal Ridge - Development Plan to construct a 36,000 square foot office building on 3.01-acres, located at Parcel NO.5 of Parcel Map No. 940-310-040, and also known as Assessor's Parcel Number 940-31 0-040-5; submitted by Lucas Development Company. The application was submitted on January 22, 2002. The item was approved al the June 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. . The Founlains at Temecula Expansion - Submitted by Fountain Glen Properties; a proposal to design and construct an additional 102 senior apartment units on 3.4-acres. This is an R:\MONTHL Y.RP1\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 2 expansion of the existing Fountains at Temecula project localed on the adjacent eight-acre lot. The projecl is located on Ihe northwest corner of Nicholas and Winchesler Roads. Slaff comments from the DRC meeting were provided to the applicant March 20, 2002. Planning Commission approved this project June 26, 2002. . Linfield Christian School Master Plan - Submitted by Linfield Christian School; a Conditional Use Permit proposal to expand the exisling facility with 154,397 square feet of additional classroom and accessory structures and a proposed 37,500 square feet of housing for a superintendent, carelaker and facility. This project is located on the north side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road (behind Temecula Valley High School). Staff met with the applicant March 1, 2002, 10 discuss the need to process a PDO in order to establish developmenl standards and uses desired. Staff is awailing submittal of material. A community meeting for the project was held April 11 ,2002. This project is on hold pending the preparalion of a Planned Development Overlay application. . Commercial Tentative Parcel Map - Application submitted by Lowry and Associates to divide a 13.2-acres parcel into 14 commercial lots. The subjecl property is located at Ihe southeast and southwesl corners of State Highway 79 South and Pala Road. Staff has completed Initial Study and the 30-day public review period will end in mid-June. The project was considered at the June 27'h Director's Hearing and was subsequently continued to July 25th at the applicant's request. . Meadowview Golf Course - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan 10 design and conslruct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. Staff has reviewed a third draft of Focused Environmental Impact Report. Slaff met with project developer on May 8, 2002, and informed them Ihat the document cannot be found adequate for public review. The developer has indicated that a new environmental consullant is being chosen to complete the draft EIR. . Crowne Hill Subdivision - A grading permit has been issued to Pacific Cenlury Homes for grading and improving the remaining 396-acres subdivision located on Ihe southeast corner of Pauba and Butterfield Stage Roads. Upon completion sometime this fall, 803 single-family residentiallols will be ready for development. The builders are preparing an application to revise the Design Guidelines and a formal application was submitted at the end of June. . Cingular Wireless Telecommunicalions & Sign Structure at Chaparral High School- Conditional Use Permit to conslruct a 26 foot high, 14 foot x14 foot rectangular structure to house six wireless telecommunicalion antennas and equipment, and structure will include Ihree sides wilh signage to consist of an 84 square foot non-illuminated sign with green letters and blue background to read "Chaparral High School", a 42 square foot eleclronic message marquee, and a 56 square fool blue and beige colored "cn letter with a black and green puma mascot illustration. Staff is reviewing Ihe mosl recently submitted materials for completeness. . Overland Self Storage Facility - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 124,496 square foot, one story, self-storage mini warehousing facility wilh beige stucco and beige metal siding exterior walls and olive green color metal roofing on a two lot, 3.65-acres sile, located south of Overland Drive and east of Commerce Center Drive. Future phase 10 include conslruclion of a one-story 3,000 square foot office and caretaker's dwelling unit located at fronl of site. Staff held a Development Review Committee meeting on May 8,2002. As a result, a number of issues have been idenlified and have been communicated to the owner and applicant. As of June 10,2002, no plans have been resubmitted for continued review. R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 3 . Rancho Denlal- Planning application to construcl, operate and establish a 3,719 sq. ft. dental office building on the SW corner of Lyndie Lane and Rancho California Road. The project was submitted on March 21,2002. Slaff is working with the applicant on design issues. As of June 10,2002, no plans have been re-submitted for planning review. . Margarita Medical Center, Phase II - is a Developmenl Plan for 14,600 square foot medical office complex with one single story and one two story building capable of being converted to medical office condo units, on Margarita Road jusl south of the southeast corner of Margarita and North General Kearny Roads on Ihe south end of the existing medical plaza. Plans were distributed for review and commenl March 18.2002, with comments due April 2, 2002. Medical Real Estate Development Company filed this application. The projecl was approved at the June 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. . The Schaeffer Office Building - is a Developmenl Plan request to build an 8.000 square foot professional office building (single story) on .9-acres within the Overland Corporate Center, on the west side of Margarita Road just north of the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Overland Drive. This project was approved by Ihe Planning Commission review on June 26. 2002. . Linfield Christian School Site Improvements - is a Minor Conditional Use Permit application to make streel improvements and the relocation of the school's access on Paula Road and onsite improvements for parking. circulation, and play/ball fields on the north side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road. This project is located on the north side of Pauba Road wesl of Margarila Road (behind Temecula Valley High School). This project was approved at the Director's Hearing June 20, 2002. . Antenna Tower al Temecula Creek - is a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 65 foot high cellular antenna, located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road (922-220-004); submitted by AT&T Wireless. The application was deemed incomplete on April 24, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002. Staff is awaiting re-submittal by applicant. . Affirmed Housing Partners Tentalive Tract Map No. 30604 - is a tract map for 17 single family dwelling units on 2.20-acres of land, located on the north and south side of sixth street (922-052- 004, 005, 006, and 010); submitted by Affirmed Housing Partners. The application was deemed incomplete on April 27, 2002. Applicant resubmitted on May 17, 2002. Slaff reviewed re- submittal and issued comments. The item is scheduled for the July 31, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. . Wireless Telecommunication - is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to co-locate three sector antennas on an existing 57 foot high monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets, located at 41520 Margarita Road (954-020-005); submitted by AT&T Wireless. The project was deemed incomplele on May 7, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23,2002, and staff is awaiting re-submittal by applicant. . Cingular Wireless Antenna Facility - Minor Condilional Use Permit to construct, operate and eslablish an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of installing (6) anlennas in two 35' high metal poles, replacing the existing poles that are being utilized 10 hold up netting, which prevents golf balls from entering inlo the public street. The project proposed was located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course. The project was submitted on November 30,2001. On December 20,2001, Ihe project was deemed incomplete at which time planning had requested redesign. Finally, on March 12, R:\MONTHL Y.RP1\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 4 2002, the applicanl had requesled thai the projecl be heard at a Director's Hearing as submitted. The projecl was heard at the Director's Hearing on May 9,2002, at which lime the homeowners that reside in the Temeku Hills voiced a number of concerns. Consequently, the Hearing Officer continued the project unlil the May 30,2002, Director's Hearing in order to address the concerns expressed by the homeowners. On May 30, 2002, the project was heard again, with a number of homeowners in Ihe audience who voiced opposition to the project. The Hearing Officer, after hearing all the facts of the case made a decision to deny the project. The applicant has filed an appeal and a Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for August 7,2002. . Wolf Creek Tenlative Tract Map - Tentative Tract Map No. 30264 for the southerly half of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan was submitted to Planning on June 26,2002. The project has been routed for comments. . Milgard Manufacturing - A Development Plan to design, construct, and operate a 54,000 square foot expansion to the exisling Milgard Manufacluring. The subject property is located at 26879 Diaz Road and also known as Assessor's Parcel Number 909-370-031. The Planning Director has approved Ihe projecl as a Fast Track project. Staff and the applicant have agreed to a Fasl Track schedule and Ihe item should be heard at the AuguSI7'h Planning Commission meeting. . Margarila Village Specific Plan - A General Plan Amendment for Parcel Map 22513, amending the land use from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 9.77 acres located al the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (954-030-001); Submitted by Venture Point. In addition to the General Plan Amendment the applicant has also submitted a Specific Plan Amendment, Condilional Use Permil and Development Plan. The applications were submitted on May 23,2002. A meeting 10 discuss this project is scheduled for July 10, 2002. . Professional Golfers College - Conditional use permit to design, construcl and operate a golf management school with a nine hole public praclice course and driving range on a 22-acre site on the south side of Rancho Vista Road between Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road. The applicant has submitted final exhibils for public hearing and is tentatively scheduled for the August 21st Planning Commission meeting. Staff is reviewing Ihe final exhibit package for compleleness. . BBK Performance - is a Developmenl Plan request to build a 22,260 square foot two-slory industrial/warehouse building on a 1.4-acre site. The subject property is localed on the east side of Bostik Court, 170 feet south of Winchester Road. Plans were distributed for review and commenl on July 2nd, 2002, wilh comments due July 16, 2002. . Rainbow Canyon Retail Center Design Guidelines - Application for approval of architectural, landscaping and signage design guidelines for the Rainbow Canyon Retail Center. The subject property is located at the southeast and southwesl corners of State Hwy. 79 South and Pala Road. The application has been distributed for review. Comments are due July 19, 2002. . Crowne Hill Design Guidelines - is a Substantial Conformance request to modify the existing Design Guidelines for Ihe Crowne Hill Subdivision submitted on July 5,2002. These guidelines will establish the new design and developmenl standards for Ihe style of homes, fencing, enlry monumentation, and landscaping for the remaining 803 lots. Crowne Hill is located on the southeast corner of Pauba and Butterfield Stage Roads. Upon completion of staff review this request will be scheduled for a hearing with the Planning Commission. This application was filed by Pacific Century Homes. R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 5 . The Slater Industrial Buildings - is a Development Plan request to build two 11,213 s.f. concrele tilt-up, office warehouse buildings on a 1.97 acre lot within the on the west side of Bostik Court south of Winchester Road. Plans were distributed for review and comment June18, 2002, with comments due July 5, 2002. Growth Management Company filed this application. . Jefferson Avenue Office Building - A Development Plan to construct a 21 ,870 square foot two story office building on 1.67 acres of land, located at 27708 Jefferson Avenue (APN 921-400- 037-2); Submitted by Diamond Central Investors, LLC. The application was submitted on June 21, 2002, staff comments are due on July 18, 2002. . Naron Pacific - A proposal for zone change from L-1 to L-2 on 31.93 Acres and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide into 33 residential lots and 2 open space lots. Staff has met wilh Ihe applicant's representative to address several concerns. The TTM is contingent upon the ZC, therefore, this project is exempt from the Permit Streamlining Act. Small Business Assistance . Penfold Building: Assisted sign contractor in developing a sign program forthis new commercial building in Old Town Temecula. . Mad Madeline's: Advised the owner of this Old Town business regarding their application to Ihe Old Town Local Review Board for the installation of awnings. . Pinch A Penny (Hitching Post Center): Staff helped this new Old Town business obtain funding and approval for signs under the Fayade Improvement Program. . MD Enlerprises: Provided information regarding the feasibility of expanding an existing business in Old Town Temecula. . US Land Building: Mel with new owner of this Old Town building regarding possibilities for new signs and outside painl under Ihe Fayade Improvement Program. . KTM Motorcycle: Provided development information to Ihis business which is considering a move to Temecula. . Love Boat Restaurant: At the request of Ihe Chamber of Commerce aided this new business in obtaining clearances from the Planning, Building and Fire Departments. Special Event Permits . Tower Plaza Summer Concerts: Staff completed the processing of a temporary use permil to conduct musical events throughout the summer beginning in July. . September 16'h Celebration: Met with Mr. Paul Orozco, who is planning this event for Old Town Temecula. Helped him wilh new map for Ihe proposed event area. . Promenade Mall Car Sale: Helped local car dealers and mall expedite applicalion for an inaugural used car sale which took place on June 22 and 23, 2002. . Street Painting/Greal Race: Worked with the Redevelopment Department to process the application for this event which took place on June 22"d in Old Town Temecula. R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 6 . Pechanga Overflow Parking Lot: Expedited processing of this parking lot used for the grand opening of Ihe Pechanga Entertainment Center. . Sprouts Grand Opening: Compleled two-day emergency processing of a temporary use permit 10 conduct a grand opening event for this Temecula business which moved to a new location. . Boys and Girls Club: Assisled representatives of this group with the placement of a temporary commercial coach on Ihere Pujol Slreet property. . Tractor Race: Staff met with representatives of Southwest Events 10 discuss Iheir plan for a tractor race this fall at the Northwest Sports Complex. Massaae Establishment Permits . Le Papillon Spa: This business was issued a one-year renewal for a Massage Establishment Permil on June 18, 2002. Soecial Proiects & Lona Ranae Plannina Activities The Division also com mils work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activilies can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities are as follows: . Housing Element Update - The State Department of Housing and Community Development has approved the approach in the revised Housing Element. The draft will now be scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission. . Comprehensive General Plan Update - The CAC has completed its review of the draft goals and policies, and is currently considering alternative land uses. A joint Council-Planning Commission workshop has been scheduled for July 17'h. . Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance - Final changes are being made prior to scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop. This ilem is on hold pending additional slaff resources. . Surface Mining Ordinance - The staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based upon feedback from the Slate prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. . Applicalion Fee Study - Staff has provided informalion to the consultant and Finance Department about changes to our current fee schedule and is currently awaiting revised information 10 be returned for the Planning Department's review. . Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft- grading ordinance. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. . Large Family Day Care Home Facility Ordinance - The Planning Commission considered this Ordinance amendment at their February 2,2000 meeting. This item is being scheduled for City Council review. R:\MONTHL Y.RP1\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 7 . Soulhside Specific Plan - This ilem is on hold pending additional staff resources. . Pala Road Widening & Sound Wall- Slaft is revising the Preliminary Environmental Sludy Form (NEPA) per comments from reviewing agencies. Staff had also reviewed the 30% sound wall design submittal and has provided comments to Public Works. . Rancho CA Road Bridge Widening - Staft is reviewing the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and will provide comments to Public Works. . Diaz Road Realignmenl- Staff is reviewing 90% Design Submittal for streel improvements and landscaping and will provide commenls to Public Works. . PA02-0260 Valley Christen Fellowship - Staff is reviewing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from VL to PO on 2.75 Acre site at the SWC of Margarita and De Portola Roads. . Overland Drive Extension - Staff is reviewing 2nd submittal of the draft initial sludy / Mitigated Negative Declaration and will provide comments to Public Works. . City - Project environmental reviews and permitting: o Interim Souths ide Fire Station Site o Firsl Street Landscape Improvemenl Project o Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting General Plan Amendments . Villages of Temecula, south of Rancho California Rd., west of Cosmic and easl of Moraga intersection. A community meeting was held on January 14, 2002. The project was approved at Planning Commission on February 20, 2002 and will be scheduled for City Council in the near future. Staff has met with adjacent homeowners on two separale occasions and idenlified a number of concerns. The General Plan Amendmenl, Change of Zone, Development Plan, and Tentalive Parcel Map are scheduled to be heard al the June 25, 2002, City Council meeting. . Rancho Highlands Drive was continued by the City Council on September 25, 2001. . A request to reduce Ihe size of Via Industrial (Western Bypass Corridor) north of Avenida Alvarado has been submitted and has been on hold pending the approval of a revised Circulation Element. . Eli Lilly General Plan Amendment and Zone Change - The applicanl's proposal would involve changing the land use designations to Community Commercial. Staff recommends a Professional Office designation on one parcel. A Specific Plan Amendment is required to change the zoning for Planning Area Three of the Regional Center Specific Plan. Geoaraphic Information Svstem (GIS) Activities . The equipment for Ihe compulers for all front line fire emergency response units for Ihe City's GIS based Fire Response Program was purchased. Informalion Systems is preparing them for installation. R;\MONTHL Y.RPT\2002IJune 2002 Report.doc 8 · Staff is awailing he second deliverable from the Project Design Consultant's conlract for the high resolution digilal aerial ortho-pholographs of the City and surrounding area. This contract will ultimately include 1 foot per pixel photographs (imagery) and contours at 5 foot intervals for 150 square miles around the City and 6" inch per pixel imagery and contours at 2 foot intervals for the area within the city limits. . Staff conlinues to work with Public Works staff to map storm drain locations with the City's GPS unit. This is an ongoing project, which will take several months to complete. . Recent mapping producls and data requests include: o Map idenlifying all vacanl properties and their land uses for Economic Development o Vacant land in relation 10 vacant properties for Planning o Various requests for mailing labels for the Planning Department o Maps of Old Town wilh building footprints for Redevelopment o Fire Inspeclion map for the Fire Department o Map showing stalus of commercial properties along 79(S) for Planning o Map of signalized intersections and battery backups for Public Works o Map of interconnect infrastructure for Public Works o Map of maintenance areas for TCSD o Map of road closures for 4th of July event al the Sports Park for Public Works o Maps and analysis for possible PHS expansion for Economic Development o Updated the Average Daily Trips map for Public Work o Map identifying temporary parking area for Pechanga Casino o Updates to the Fire Response Area map for Fire o Vail Ranch parks map for TCSD o Property owner map and labels for properties along 79(S) for proposed street name change for Building o Vicinity, zoning and land use exhibits prepared for Planning Staff continues with ongoing data layer development and mainlenance. R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2002\June 2002 Report.doc 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of June, 2002. MOACTRPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report June I July 2002 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Dale: July 23, 2002 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1, Margarita Road Widening, Phase I (Interim), Pauba Road to Pio Pico This project will widen Margarita Road on an interim bases between Pauba Road and Pio Pico. As a result, Margarita Road will have four lanes Ihroughout City limits. The contractor, R.J. Noble, has compleled Ihe work. The final quanlities will be calculated and the contracl close out informalion will be forwarded to City Council for the Nolice of Completion. 2. Chaparral High School Swimming Pool A 25-yard x 25-meter pool will be built at Chaparral High School. The facility will include a smaller recrealion pool componenl and a balhhouse with locker room facilities, restrooms and showers. Spray-type play equipmenl will be included as an element in the base construclion bid. The project is complete with Ihe exception of several minor punch lisl items. The final quantities will be calculated and the conlract close oul informalion will be forwarded 10 City Council for the NOlice of Completion. A grand opening ceremony was held on 5/30/2002. The pool is now open to the public. 3. Pala Road Improvements, Phase I - (Widening to accommodate four lanes from Pala Road Bridge to Wolf Valley) and Traffic Signals Modifications at Lorna Linda, and at Wolf Valley Pala Road Improvements, Phase I, will give Pala Road two lanes in each direction (58 feel in width) from Ihe Pala Road Bridge to the Pechanga Casino. It includes re-striping the entire length. Pala Road Phase I. In addition, Ihe two Iraffic signals at Lorna Linda and at Wolf Valley will be modified to accommodate Ihe road inlerim widening. This project is complete except for minor punch list items. Traffic was allowed in the new widened portion of Pala Road on May 17. 4, Slurry Seal Program - FY2001-02 This project will slurry seal and prolect various streets throughoul the city. Construction began on July 1, 2002. Conlractor anticipated being complete by end of July. Conslruclion activities include grinding old painted legends off of the road, slurry sealing, and re-painting new striping. 5, First Street Extension - Environmental Mitigation This project will create approximately 1.49 acres of wellands along Murrieta Creek at First Street. 1\ includes construclion of landscaping and irrigation improvemenls, and maintenance of said improvemenls for a period of five (5) years in accordance with California Departmenl of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permil requirements. Bids were opened June 6, 2002. Award is on hold pending RCFC/ACOE coordination wilh Murrieta Creek Improvement project. R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002\June.doc 6. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2001/2002 This project will rehabilitate and reconstrucl portions of Rancho California Road between Hope Way and Cosmic Way. Bids were opened on June 18. The lowesl bidder is R.J. Noble Company with a bid of $593,194.85. Council is to award the construction contract on 6-25-02. Pre-conslruction meeting set for July 30, 2002. Construclion is anticipated to begin in early Augusl 2002. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS 1, Community Theatre - Mercantile Seismic Retrofit This project will create a community thealre al the old Mercantile building in downlown Temecula. The Contraclor Pre-Qualification process for the Mercantile Seismic Retrofit Projecl is complete. Acceptance of Ihe qualified contractors and approval for Advertisemenl to Bid the project was done at Ihe March 26, 2002 Council meeting. PRE-BID conference with all pre-qualified Contractors is scheduled for July 18, 2002, with Bid opening on July 30, 2002. PROJECTS IN DESIGN 1. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road) This project will widen Pala Road 10 its ullimale widlh from the Pala Road Bridge to Pechanga road. Slaff recently met wilh Caltrans and Local Assistance and performed an environmental field review. The Preliminary Environmental Documenl Classification (NEPA) of the project has been determined 10 be "Categorical Exclusion with required lechnical studies (involving Federal aclion)." The consultant submitted plans to RCFC & WCD for review and comment. Work is proceeding with Ihe remainder of Ihe design. 2. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Sound Wall Improvements Under Ihis project, sound walls will be designed and conslructed on Ihe southwest side of Pechanga Parkway, from Rainbow Canyon Road to the Pechanga casino and on the northeast side along the residences just north of Loma Linda. The City has reviewed the 30% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. All utility plans were sent to Ihe consultanl for review. Environmental issues have been identified and documents are being prepared. Work is being coordinated with the Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II. 3, Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek This project will widen Rancho California Bridge over Murrieta Creek 10 provide four additional traffic lanes. Staff is currently reviewing 100% drawings and specifications for completeness. Processing for righl of way and environmental requirements are schedule for completion by September 2002. 2 R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002\June.doc 4, Temecula Library A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feel in area, will be designed and buill on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Slation #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. A separate parcel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The applicalion 10 the State was submitted on 6/13/02. Utility services construclion will be coordinaled with Pauba Road, Phase II Slreet Improvements. 5, Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road) This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter 10 just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate widlh. The City has reviewed Ihe 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications are being prepared. Plans were senl to all utilities on 3/26/02 and all utility issues are being addressed. Environmenlal issues were identified and documents are being prepared. Work is being coordinated with the library project. 6, John Warner/ Santiago Road Assessment District - Hydrology Study Under this projecl a drainage study will be done to complimenl the improvement plans being done by the property owners. Eventually Ihe city will be Ihe oversight agency for a property owners sponsored assessment district. The City Council approved a Professional Services Agreemenl with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. to do Ihe hydrology study and Ihe slorm drain design at Ihe June 11,2002 meeting. The kick-off meeting was held on July 10,2002 and work has begun. 7. Landscaping and Sidewalk On 79 South (Front Street to Pala Road) The project consists of the design and construction of new sidewalk, landscaping, and irrigation along Stale Route 79 Soulh between Pala Road and Old Town Front Street. Review of 1st plan submittal is complete. Review comments relurned to consultant. 60% plan submittal expected week of 7-15-02. Callrans is presently reviewing concept of layout and landscaping. 8. Temecula Sports Complex A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built on Pala Road at Wolf Valley. The new sports complex location will be al the corner of Pala Road and Deer Hollow Way. Preliminary design is underway, with approval for the site layout pending. 9, Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek This project will replace the exisling barrier rails of Ihe Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) developed "as-builts" for the existing bridges and prepared Ihe Barrier Concepls Report. Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) submitted the 70% Design documenls on 5/31/02. The City relurned comments to SWE on July 3,2002. The nexl submittal will be in August. 10, Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. Complete set of plan-check comments were returned to the designer mid May. The re-submittal is expected by the end of June. 3 R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002\June.doc 11, Pavement Management System Update The project will establish a pavement management program Ihat will provide an ongoing schedule of needed repairs and provide data that will be used 10 prepare budgel estimates required 10 complete Ihe scheduled work. GIS links, AutoCAD review, and updales 10 MicroPAVER are included in the lotal program. The consultant has compleled his pavemenl survey and is now preparing the pavement study, 12. Children's Museum This project will conslrucl a 7,500 square fool children's museum. The consultant submitted revised plans on June 12, 2002. Staff will review Ihe second submittal and forward any comments to the consultant. Plans, specificalions and estimates were approved by City Council on March 26, 2002, however the architect has not submitted Ihe final bidding package 10 Public Works. 13. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) - Add Amenities This project will add amenities, including play equipmenl to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park. The Community Services Commission approved the Vail Ranch Park Site "C" Master Plan on February 11, 2002. The Master Plan was approved by City Council at the March 26, 2002 meeling. RHA Landscape Architects/Planners Inc. is the design firm and the firsl submittal was made on May 3rd. The City reviewed these documents and relurned Ihem to Ihe contractor for revisions. A rneeting between Ihe City and RHA to discuss these comments will be scheduled for the end of July. 14. Diaz Road Realignment Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincenl Moraga Road at Rancho California Road. Business Park Drive will be a T-inlersection at Diaz. City staff is currently designing Ihe project. Anlicipaled street and landscaping design completion is scheduled for July 2002. Right of Way and environmental processing is anticipated to be completed by Augusl of 2002. 15. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center The project will include Ihe closing of Ihe two median openings on Rancho California Road in front of Ihe Town Center, while lengthening the leftlurn lanes al Ynez Road, Town Cenler Drive, and Via Los Colinas to improve Iraffic circulation. The design is 95% complete. Additional rehabilitation work for a poor pavement area east of Ynez Road is currently being added to the plans. Bidding is scheduled for July 2002. 16. Rancho California Road Widening at Ynez Road (Add right turn lane to westbound lanes) This project will add a right turn lane on westbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Right of way acquisition at the northeast corner of Rancho California and Ynez is in process with Claim Jumper Restaurant signing the acquisition agreement. In-house design is 90% complete. 17. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson This projecl will widen Winchesler road between Enlerprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, slarting at Enlerprise Circle. Project layout was plotted and discussed wilh Traffic and DPW. In-house design conlinues. 4 R:\M:onthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002\June.doc 18. Citywide A.C. Repairs - FY2001-02 This project will repair various road sections throughoul the City. The project specifications are complete. Request to advertise for City Council approval sel for 7-23-02. Engineering estimale is $110,000. 19. Rancho California Sports park ADA Access and Shade Structure Design and construct concrele ADA walkways to the remaining ball fields 3,4,5,7,8. Install two shade picnic/sealing areas adjacent to the snack bar building. Design and construct concrete ADA walkways to Ihe remaining ball fields 3,4,5,7,8. Install two shade picnic/seating areas adjacent to the snack bar building. Design work scheduled 10 be completed by week of 7-22-02. PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE 1. 1-15/ SR 79 Interchange - Project Study Report (PSR) This project will modify the 1-15/ SR 79 Soulh Interchange to accommodate projected fulure traffic. The City received the final Value Engineering Analysis Report from Caltrans on May 8, 2002. All proposed alignments presented by the value analysis team were rejected. Staff is currently waiting for Caltrans 10 condilionally approve the Projecl Study Report. 2. French Valley Parkway Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation This projecl will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and Ihe 1-15/1-215 splil. The Request For Qualifications (RFQ) has been prepared and sent 10 Caltrans for review. As soon as comments are received, the final version will be advertised 10 solicil consultanls. 3, French Valley Parkway Interchange - Project Study Report (PSR) This project will construct an inlerchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the 1-15/1-215 splil. Project Sludy Report (PSR) has been approved. Project will be constructed in different phases. City continues in its property prolection acquisition. 4. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz This project will enlail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, and the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. PDC has completed the alignment sludy and staff has reviewed copies of the preliminary plans. Slaff has reviewed design costs for next year's fiscal funding. No funding until FY03-04 5. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula's City Limits and Diaz Road Extension This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between Winchesler Road to the northern City Limits. In addition, Ihe study will be combined with the Diaz 5 R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002\June.doc Road Extension alignment sludy and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff mel with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Conlrol in order to complete the work on Ihe first draft of Ihe alignment study. Staff was informed this data could take up to a year to receive, 6. Pedestrian Crossing- SR 79 North at Nicolas Road City met with Caltrans and sent a letter allheir request 10 iniliale this project. Caltrans responded in a letter Ihat the bridge does nol meet Iheir warrents and Ihat they will nol support and allow its construction. A consullant, Imbsen & Associates, was hired 10 do a feasibility study. Staff forwarded comments on the draft feasibility report to the consultant. The final report is in Ihe process of being prepared. 7. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail This projecl will build portions of the equestrian and bike Irails along Murrieta Creek wilhin City limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. An "Aulhorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering" package has been submitted to Caltrans for approval. We can begin the RFP process to hire a consultanl as soon as an authorization letter is received from Caltrans. A field meeting was conducted on June 25, 2002. PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON-HOLD 1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of Ihe Southbound Auxiliary Lane project al the southbound exit ramp for Winchester Road, This projecl will widen Ihe 1-15 southbound exit-ramp at the Sanla Gertrudis Creek Bridge 10 provide an additional lane on the exit ramp jusl north of Winchesler Road. Slaff is revisiling the merits of Ihis project in light of Ihe proposed Project Study Report for Cherry Streel Interchange. The sludy shows that this bridge may have 10 be removed in the fulure to accommodate the Cherry Streellnlerchange. This project is suspended indefinitely. 2, Margarita Roadl Winchester Road Intersection Improvements Project is on hold. Under this project, an additional left lurn from eastbound Winchesler to northbound Margarita will be added in order to accommodale increasing Iraffic volumes. Design is 50% complete. A developer may do this project. 3, Pujol Street Sidewalk Improvements - Phase II Project is on hold. This project will complete the knuckle at Ihe intersection of Sixth Street and Felix Valdez. The developer of a nearby property may be designing and constructing this project. 4, School Site ADA Improvements Project has been removed from this year's CIP. Design and conslrucl ADA concrele walkways and hand railing 10 athletic facilities at Temecula Middle School, James L. Day Middle School and Margarita Middle School. TCSD re-allocated the funds. 6 R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002\June.doc 5, City Hall Parking Lot Modifications Project is on-hold, Funding has been postponed until FY 2004/2005. Under this project, a security fence will be installed between the exisling maintenance facility and Ihe western side of City Hall to secure the parking lot west of Ihe main building. The design of a security fence between the existing mainlenance facility and the western side of City Hall will be performed in-house. The design of a security fence between Ihe existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall is being performed in-house. A scoping meeting was held on 11/12/01. Research on exisling base maps for the proposed area and as-builts for the existing security fence near Ihe maintenance facility is complete. Design and review of the proposed layoul is complele. The project is currently on hold waiting for further direction 7 R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2002Vune.doc CDN o LLO OSl! CD .,.~ W Cl <( Q. I- W W :I: rn rn rn w II: ~ o II: D. ~ II: o == > <(...J ...J:I: ~I- OZ wO :::!:::! w, I-rn lJ..1- 00 >w 1--' -0 OII: D. rn I- Z w :::! w > o II: D. :::! ,r,? II~ ~lIg ~o5 'O~i ~~..8 I{,::',.:,:: o.~ ~ ~ :jj ,s.. 1! ": '0 ~.lI .ii ~ '0 .~ ~ ..oS ..d = u"I:I o:lu':;JN El,.--,..,S Ii 0" 58 ~I~ 1 ~ $~ ~~1~ .~~~~.f ..",.,.; ~ ,~ ~ ~ [;> ~ ~ i-1I ~ .~ -;; ~ g e !@ 11 (J .:J k ,. .". .",'i< '= u .. "0 . - .~ .. ~ ~ ~ s ,., 0 .. .. '" 0 1::'/'\".":); [:.;',/ .~ S ] "[i 5 ~ 8 .; 6 ~ ~ ~ .~ "S ~ .g ~.9 ~ I_,.;e';,::,;.:;;)} a 11 = l:l (,) U 0 U ..... ..... .... e o:l ... ~ 0 I,:.y;{ :,:-::::;:::,:<-,> i 1 I"! ~ ~ ~ 1 ~"9 .8 ] .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I";,;.-,'!"':- t.:: ~ ... ~.~ t-< ~ 6 ] ~ ~ 8 u ~ Q.,D 'd ]'S I" ';' ~ ~ .~ ~ go ~ (J .s '[ 1; '0 ~ ~.~ !.r/~]~ ~ H ~ '\:. <::): ,.:.:::3 -a8] .~ ~ ~:s.~ :gg,;;t;e8 u~'Qa'; ~. ~M~o.1!! !l' _ilo. .~O""O'" ~~&1~o5 3 d '" 0 <( :.= - :;:1 'Ill 0:1 "1:1 a u ~ .0 1l! .; 0 -a :3 .. 1,'< ;.,,1" U .g ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ t"'- 5 ~ ~ '0 0. g ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .2 "a ~ 'y dlll ot) Q.,=....c.. .SlUbll t) .....~::! <i:::l~lflcr 1< .c,. 11 S g!l .~ ~ 0.;;-:2 ~ i ~. g ~ 0 ]l -::'ni .. 0 '" 8 '0 I -:==:::.:\.,. ~ ~ -..:: 8..... .9 ~ ~ ..8 0 .S! ~ IJ:l ] 8 ""i H}'.::). g ~ ~ u 8 'r' }.. il' 0 ~ 0 'S @ 0 ~ ~ U ~ . 0 ,., . 0 a ..:l 0 " ~ 0 '"::x ::/?:]I~ g ~.s e ~ ~ ~ ~.g, 8 g -8.8 e ~ oS ~ s 1'~ .~ =. ~ ;% ii:".;::.:! :::I{Jlj j ~ 1 ] ~ i- ~ J ! i: ] .: 1 .~ t ~ ~:III),~ &j ~ 1 ~ 'C:_.: i:::<: }:\\/,Il" 0 -513''::: i=l 0'03 l.l ;;...i3 ~ ~ o;~ J:l i"S("'13= , ",:,u:'l ~ " '. ~ ~'~ ~ 0. '" . 1 '3 '= ~ ,~ u ~ '" s a,s a.. . I:::,; }FI,/~!~li~lll~~illJll~il ~~j~~ II:';,'::!"':':.';:. ~ ~ 2 .~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ; 1 ~ ~ ~.€ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! ~ ~ ~ I ~ I::::' g "' ~ ... ~ g ~ ~ = ] C:l 3 .0 ~ ] 3 ~ ~ ~ 0 i ~ ~ ~ ., ~ 1 .3 .~.~ U 0 'Z':S 8. ~ 'g' ~i 0 .'0' i=l .:3 .~ i ~ .~ .a ~.~ I).:,,):,; 8 - ZO l5..'j'~ M Q. ~ 0..... Q. U ~ l5.. 8 ~ i ... ... ~ u ~ 6 U ;;... '" ". '" ~ <II ;>..... '" ~ :t:: "'0 :a'" ~"B.s~CJ'.9~~8~~~8~]~];cg8 J5~'[i,.2 ,tl~ ~,~ ~ ;.8 ~I ~. .1 '~.!:l" .::1 ~i ... "" J .... ... e")1 ! ..0.. .., u . III III .. 5l .. '" ... .. '" '" ~ .. '" '" .. '" .. '" III - ..:=l "'''' "'''' - - '" ~~ '" ~s ",as "'0 ~s~s ~li5=Q15 ~'" '" .. '" '" ..... "''< ...... III ~ ~ . ! ~ 'iI ... ~ -. ; ." = :ll .~ ~ ] .. ~ '" ~ o 'C ~ ~1 il..: .~ ~ .." t ~ .;j" ....: 2~ ..." t Iii ~~ ~ o 'C ~ '. ~. , 0 o ~t, I ,~ ! J I:'~J~.. ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ...J .. ;i ,. 0 ~ ~ .,; .~ ~I>~'~~~"~lll~;~~~ ~~~ is: [':L~-:::;O;___: ~ .2 -S '5 ~ ~ :: :g .~ <( ~:!~ "'0 Q.; Z CI:l ... I.il Z i3 O' l, SSOl~l!iC::;~OlJi :.:' '" '0 . '" Ol ,,'". ~ : 'li19~l5'03Til5'1'-gg8 F:_~ f:C:;: ... c:.::: t) I-' u t) ~ 0 0 J:l I}}"" la ., "' a... ., 0 c:.::: ., rn ;. C--,.,:; ~ 'El a ~ ~ a ~ ~ a t7J ,:,,,:;:::,::-: :E ~ 8 G ~ 8 z:t p: 8 ~ ;; C7 1:0 .~ . .. i:' 0._ 8.. 0> <I:~ it s: '0 . , ~ ~ ~;z t ~ ,s.., 25 u :> ~ 0 ~il~oo ~ 6.~ ~ -.s ,- .. ;;"',.-.,~:E .05 cO ~ 6 tJ ~ ~ rn 0 .. .~; B ~ 0 ~- ,.l;l Ol) "'0 ~ ~ :g ~ 0 Q.;j:l:lc:.:::u ~ o 0: o o '= ,E :.a .'" -50 ",g ~" ~ 25 o '" ~ >- 0.'" '" 5: o o '" >- '" E . ~ o 0: 'B '" J '" I ~ j 11 ~t;J . ~e .:. . ..,.c '" e3 .. '" .. ~ .. '" '" ..l ~ .. := ~ ~. ~ M .-4 ~ If ~ ..- .. S ..l ~ .. :::13: gd ~If ..- 11 c!= !l'~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ _:'Z ~ .~:. N ~ ~ l:f ... 0 g ~.o Q.; ;;"'iC"l "3 ~ ~ 1.-= ti is..i=l -5 t.s ~ o ~ ..... 6 ~ om. .~!l' il' ~ .. 11 "' '~ '" - ~ 19 u ;;... .s ~ '0 '" g-:: ~~~ ~~.~ .~ 0 '-' :a <11_ o - - . '" .0 .~ ~ ';l ~ c= .0.. .~o ~~~ .g.!l~ oS ~ ,. :fj~,s: ~ .~ -g ., g,.g 5b e ~ !:I....a '12l ... ~ 0..9 u o.s 'E == ~ :g ~ ~ ~ la III ::I.g ::: 0_ If" '0 ., = M Ii! ... ~ .S ~:l: U i:l Q. _._.. ~~'~j'~~~ . 05 ~ !l'1! .3 .~ .9 ~ ~ '5 ., if U i:l '" 0 "'0 ~ ... -M~-'.o~ ]~Ln'~~ .~ ~ ~ ;;-:s 4g IS u ~ "'0 ~ .a !;;'! 0 j.s"Sl~jg'~ f-< Q. :a Q.; t-< .... u ..:=l "''' "'~ - il..: '~ ~ .." t~ .;j" I ~ 3 ~.~ ~~ ~<lj ];: o N "'8 ;;- 0 . .~ ~~ 0. .. . ~ !l'.l! H o.U .. '" '" ~ o !I' '~ .:J ~ ~ Oi ;: ~ i 's .g .s1~ .. " ~ ..u~ u,,_ 000 .0:::: ... ;.::l ~ g ,. ~:EE-< ~ '" ::<' ~ ~ .. .. '" '" ... "''< "'s ~ ti . t .;j ~<< ~~ .; ~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ~ i .. o o 'il i o o . u .~ ~ ~ ~ c> .. 0 81 ~ 'g - " "'~ 0- o M 11~ "'" .S .. ~ S . '" . . . .g ~ . ,,'" v;:;! o . 0511 ~ a .g :a 3 g .. 0 - 0 g:,8 Jl" H .~ :;j j H ",'0 ~~]~ -;:;:;"E 3 ~ 0 ",.~ o 0 j 8 o. 0. ~:~..... ~ E~~~ "'O-~-;:; U "'iiiI '" -5 .S S i 05 .0 'S......~ . M 511 n 0 ~ o:d~ '" ~.g ~ '111"" :> 0 u Q.; i:l 0 Q . OJ !l' ~]]] o Q. u '" .... e ~:.; ~ ~] l5 11.0 !l'~ ~ .0'" . ,~ ~ ~ 11 > . 0 ~ e :g la e- '" 0 '" ... 15.~ i Q. .€~.- .S' u..... i:' u u H;:'" ~ Q.''::: u E-<cn:;:l :a ... i:< .. .. '" ~ ..:=l ~S ~ ..:=l ..as "'~ - ~ ... t ~ il " II ~ s t . .;j"" '" ~ .0 Ol '" ~ b' ~ g h~ ~~1 o 0-< 0 ~] U - 0 '" "'0 Q.'/i! .00 ~ l5..Q . !l' ~ .0 O''='l ;; :;;: 8 '"~'" = " @ !;; '" '" ~ .. '" o r-- ;::. o en 0- s: '" '9 '" '" ~ .. 1\\ .......... . > Ic....:; ~ ~ . .9 /} i!l'e. ]~ " ~ ~ :\:y: .... ... ::: =-:a 13 ~;o:j p.;- _g~s~ 6[ _.\} ~::r 'i oS .... ,; tl ] ~ .F\; ~ ~ g .~ ':: J! .. ~ ~ .)t \F..; :€ ~ ~ ..>of ~ e l!l 1i S ~ ..-. "; ~ 11 ~ 0 ;\:x})'al~ ~~~'il ,:.i ~~~ ~~~~ ~.s )F~]-~ ~"oo "OS \} <"'0 .....o~~ n"'" ):r <Il E 0 =... I a 1 Uul;:: 5~iJt ~E le.- :){'~of1.& '~e~o ~g: .......... Jl.g -" ;;.J! ~ '8 ~ oS ~ .:':: ";;l 0':':: II of!..!::l Sl;... <<i... ~:~ 8n'1l~.J!. ......... .~ ~ '" "lI ~ 8 1l ;l ~ ~ ,}} ~ ~.s '" : 'S 9<! = t ) " -0 ~~ 6l. . -. ~;l 0" ::V'-::;:: l:l.. \.0 .~ ;3: =...... :a ';:1 = I::) .:::'-:: a.s u~,.o ~ <l:l::l :;; "E :a 8l ~ 1i ~ 'S g ..2 .~ '... ,.... > U 0 oS ~ -" " " 6l. I-co::: 0 = ('.l ..... 1:1 ...... iil lIS u.~ :..)://\,<: ~~::: . ~ 3i ;-] ~ }" r=::lg~'r;;ff.....c..&8~ :',/::- 8 o ==',.0 =oo~~ tIJ~ ,:,;> ::l ~ "J ~ 8 -a ~ @ 0 ~ 'S ;--:-::: 8 ~.;3,..l;l '0 !";;: . '-' it-:.:: :,/".: u ':'::U'''ul:!~ u -,:0:;:"-"::,:: .e i:: <; u ~ 'S "8 u ~ ~ a'~ u t;> "',"".R_,"8~1'i.. " CON o 11.0 OS::! CO N't:: w'" f!J <C a. I- W W :I: C/) C/) C/) W 0:: l' o 0:: C. ~ 0:: o 3: > <(..J ..J:I: ::)1- OZ wO ::2:::2: w, I-C/) 11.1- 00 >w !::(3 00:: C. C/) I: I- Z w ::2: w > ~ I) c. ~ ..J <( l- ii: <( o ",: . n~; li:::"'" I!!l>.;,,; .fol.~ ~. .:2. Oll .1= ..l.-J ""o.l .. :2. 0.. U" . I u , .~ ~ I ~ :~ Q r = ; ~ i ~ , , :5 .. -g vi o ::l '" , o . : 8 -~ !l "'f~ ]",~ a ,,-. H~ } .lI -ll .il' .!; &'~ .; I u. :.: ~ - .... ""~ ~ - ""s ~Hi 1: .. ~ f -<'" H ~ o '" '" ... '" '" . 0_ .." .. . ~ ~ " . -. .. "'0. ~S ~ i ~ l~ .a j~! .... ~ ~ 00. .,.....:1 '3:S ~ o ~&3 ~ ~ do ~ 0. ~ l o -.: '" ] ~ 8 ~ t! 0 o <S ~6l. . ~ L ~O! .... ~ ~ 0. ti .= ;:<$ <:;'" "' .. . . o ~ 11 .~ ~'i j ~ 6l. 0 .S '" Q . ..8 00 ....... o . oS~ 1~ .e g 'i~ -", ~ S '" . ~= .~ ffi ~ 8 .'" .] '" B lP 0 o " ""'. ~H, ;;;I'i.i! -< z -< z ~ ..s :;lgj ~S ~S~S =~ =~gt::: t--= ~=,..;= - 1:11 n -;';::. r~ ~ 1: .. . :it' '" . oil'" ~~ "..l o 01 <l ~ li 1 _* 'i t '" tb ~.:.: ~ ~ 0," 8 -S 0 ~ ~ li ~ li 'ii '" 0 -'" '" p:: ;::l; = =- 0 t ~.~'" " -g c':l '" i!I' d a bOO ~ ~ ;:. ~ .3 ~.s ~ ;::l; tf.l :'5! ';g <<I ~ 1:! &3~~tiil.t " " .. 9 ;; ~ 0. ~ ~ o e E II 1l ~ a .. o o e o '" ~ 0. ] .~ o " i!I' .~ .. ~ g "lI _ .... 0 ~ :i ~ ~~ ~ h~ .;- ~~~~~ oS~a .., '0 o;:! '"" ~.S! ~ ~ !5......~5Q '~~b II ~H~~ sH .. ~.J!; Il"~ . fl<.lI ] .fI- -.. 0, It: '" - " .~O~[ s.....'" .~ a ~ tf.l oS g ~ ~ ~~~.s~ ~~:~ ~ !5.. S 13 .s .~ ~ >> ~ ~ U~ ~~~~~ ~:q ~~ ~"~'@1li:' ~8~S ] !~.s'~ ~ i.s ~ j L=til::l~ ,nh ~ 8 ~.il ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ';_~ ~ N. ~ 8' 8 0..0 g, ~ e.... "0 "iI ~ '""1" S ij:a .~ 8 ~] ~.;-~ ll:i II ""-"1 ~ .., ;0 ....3 S ] ~ ~ ] '<= ~Si""o:lgB~ ]~~.s b~__<lJ~O i7J"';r'E ~ .~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~'e () 5'....,.c:l, ],..I;l ;a ~.o 8 " .~ ~ ~ - ~ ]0 .. ~ ~ ""al9:~'6~] ~.o c.'o bIl Q :>.. () 'e = l=l gj ~ .lllP1l -~ 0>1 .ll-" -~ ~ 0..~~o.oe()i.i~6!l.l,.c:l ~ ~ .. '" '" ..s ~S - ..s Sl~ ~ . '" I 11 ~ ::. ! 'li -~ '" . ~ '" <E o ! o .~ .;J '" -" .~ ~ ~ '" J: 5 )!, '" } = ~ ~ > -0 d: 0 0"''' oS:5<lj Hl :3'1;:", ~ ~ .5 ;E e o ~ '" -0 i U " ~ ~ " ~ ':' ~ 0. ~ ~ ~ .. ::l ,.:. ~ 0. Q 13 ~ '" '" '" ~ .. "0Ta.~ -g.s ~ 'D.! ~ ~.~ ~ ;l.l~ ~'~ ~~ 1;.& "soS.1j ii -ag :5it "'.il -"Sii JIl. -'~ti]li i~'il 11 j~~H ~1.9 10 l.l~~:=tb ~~~ i'~ ~'R.se~ e:...P:: ~l.l iS5],g..;:l ..3 ~ ~ ] ] -,. ~.. ~:~ :a~ _:::;:=: ~;;- B~]~~ ~ ~ u }} .~ i3: ,a 8. 1ll "0 u o j .1j ;>, i\ -~ "0 " ~ ... ~ ~ oS d"a <....g"'Oa:s~...d .~ 8 :: 1"! :a ('l J::t"':.a 8 '8 . ~ ". 0 l:S .....,.... 0 -t': "0 ~.5O l!l l.l ;> 'i =~ 0 ;:. 0'" ;] D.! ';;~]~ ~~l~g~~i ~...woS oS.....i!...~.:I8~ oS'~ ~ .s ~ -a ~ ~:E ~ ~ Q '1;: 0 e .a - -" ~.. oS ~ '" ....;<13 5b:s'E'=~oiiSlj .~tJlri~ :<;::~~i~-ei.~~~ ..goo~<;:>''3=~ll 'D.!~..!! <: '" :~ "i llll 8 .~ 0 ~ -0 6 ~ ;:. l.l :::::::::::>>: l.l,.c:l <<I '.;:l !:f C".;; 8. (<) e:: :::::::::(.: t: &l ~ ~ :a.... g (j 8 ~ ;;-:s~ =,:::::,}) 5.~ S :.a~] ~..s~ "lI :< ~ 1 .................<Il ~ - g] ~ " i · -~ ~ j~() u~<<I;;'Uu"a!a... ~~I ",}ft}~I~1 P:: ~ g 8 tJ 8 ;a ~ 8.~ i:2 lS.. ~ !...................... -< z '!i = <3 Ii -.: '" ~ '0 -5 '" i:' 'ii ;> . .g . .. l ... ~ 0, ] ~ ~ :E H -< z .... ~~ .. f '" S . ..l t-:!i . di "0:;: ::: fol 'c .Ho '" " ~ ~ ! ;; So =8 ~~ S .. "" ;J 1l ~ ~~ '" 0 "u . II ~ ~ ~ ~ .~-il "" Q '" ~- .... '" '" ~ 0. -< z -< z ~ - ..S ~~ ~ ..S ~S ..s ~S ~ o . t I;; '!i = <3 ~ '" t ~ ~ ~ <<I.., "g ~ e ~ .g -. ~ FJ ~ ~: >- o ~ El ::. .0 lP'" ~ g, -0. .. 0 ~ 11 ~ -~ ~] ]1 g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .a'fJ 'f! S ~ b . ~ g ..~Q....!I u ij ~ U d oUao~ H....1i "'.... ] O!.. - ~ ::; oJ, ~ .. .... '" g ~ 0. C\I o r- t::- o (J) a. s; :;l do '" ~ .. CON o LLO OSl! CO ..,... j:::: W c:l < Q, I- W W J: (/) (/) (/) W II: Cl o II: 0- ~ II: o 3: > c:c..J ..JJ: :)1- OZ wO ~~ w, I-(/) 11.1- 00 >w 1--' -0 OII: 0- (/) I- Z W ~ W > o II: 0- ~ ilb 1 ~ un ~ ~ ~ .s 3 .9 i:~.o ~l il .......i......... H i a ~ B =.;~ 0= ~g ::,;:': o,.::;..;r i.8 8:i } ~ ~ '" ~ a ~ .g. " 0] "Sl ~ (\~&:::Io ;a.... ~~ e::: <<l ';j 'E'~ .... ~ .~ ~ ] la ~ ~ ';j l~.;l 8 fr.; 'Z' B }; 0 ti!:l c.. 0 "8 dr.::. Ci. hi ~Jl ~~ '~~~]i ~~ .~~~ a'a ~~ ~~i: ~~ ]:~ ~~:~ !la]~ >~~ ..g~ 2'~ ]]i ~~ ~8 ~ go ~ i ~ t:.f;' '"0 ti '" 0; g.u ~ u... l::l d P:; <II ';j~~~U.i .6M ~~":fr~<~~-a .. '" il '" 3';; s " 1l U8....>d~u=utl Q ("l 2] U'~ ~ '0' If: ~oo.E'CI'J~e8d::a 'a ~ ~ .: .." 1l1l " 1<':;1 II ! ),': e. '6 ~ it ; uSo il' '" .S '" y:.... u U ... 0 :){:] ~8 ~~ ::l):~ 1.8 .s~ I : .. ~ ~ .~ ~ "8 I.),'::' ~.::!;;;;;.' ~ ~ ~ f ~ I:, i '2a.H I., : ~ 'go ~ ~ < i I 'il - 3'''' ~ Ii r-""'::::: "Sl ~ e:::.~ u '-' ;a ,9 0 $ II ~ :~ ~]nS " '..s .~ ~.~ ~ ~ 1":'- Q., 8' 8 !r '-' :::I . .: ~ - 0.' ~ il ... · =~n~"" ~: ',:::::: '$ .~ <Il ;::l 0 &! :x:-- 0 ... 1=<10'" "~co:: ~ <oi if.,g "'5il l::l __';'="', ..... u '0' <<l ; a: ..,.. 1l il :s,,)! . ~ ~ . .O"i .<Il 'g E? "llJ "/1.1 0: 8 ~ Il-;:l ~ ~ I; , I~ . ~ '" i< ....-.;i1i; ~ ~El",~ I=..J.~~. ~H - e ~'~:.1 ~ :s~ 'E 'C ~~. ~ 0 ~ ",... 00 ~~ "'Sl.. . f!~ - ~ o 'C '" ]~ ~:;: .~ -c "'0 j '" ] ~ ] << ~ ~ '" i '" . 'f! '" '" U 0 i ~ '"~ " '<l .. U .~ Id:~ 1 ~ ~8. ~ ..J ~~.; C:C., .S I- L:>~ U III ii: ~p c:c ",oil' ~,( ~ o '" . U ; II ~ .: ~ II " ,.g~~ ~ ~.} " . U ~ o o '" 1;: . '... I I. . .. .., i~ ... o N ~ .. '" i< 1 t: o ~ i '" .1 o 0:'" j~ ~.. ~: ~.. ~ gj ~ ~ '" s ~l ~ 0 -'oU ::: ~lll ~ .. '" ~ '" i< ~ ",S "'" "'~ - '" il ~ ; :s ~ " 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ "'= j . o ." ] ~ ~ 0: ." ~ ll> eo'" j s ~~ o [ . -5 t: II '" 0 ~ 2 'Q ;g'~ l::l 5 ...... 0:1 i' -..... ;;--5:: & ~€ ~~~~~ ";,t:~ ";,1 IU- 0 tI) I,) 0 :a fr~:ad:: ;> '" 0;> . .... ~ ~ .... ~ ~ .~.~ e ~ U:d:~U:u '" o <J, ~ .. il' .~ ] . 0 .s ~z "0 ~ ~ .~ S 'E 8'l!l"s (,j .~ "'il il .. ~ ~ ~ 10:: 0-. .. 11'. ~ 'il a .h::- ::: ~ ~u 1l ~ . '" ~ ~ " 0 0 '" 0 ~ 1ii il.~ 1:1 .~ "0 ~h ~ ~ ~ :a ~.~ .s ~ e ]c;.j ~ ~ '" 1{~<l 8 t:> cl M ~ ~ .3 e ,.cl'S <ll Ii: u".l! - o 1! ~.~ c.. Q.."O == ~ "'... o~ ~o ",,, "''' "'0 ~ ~~ ! 5 ~= ~ S . o .S ~ ~ 8 ] ~ ~ o j ~ '3 .0 ~ '" il 11 a - ." u ~ ~ ~ .~ ij.~ ::Eoo':: ~ ~ ~ .. :;l ~ ~ '" ",:;'l ~ 'g ~ i ~ . l. ] I ~Sli:l~ 88~ .~.g N'~Sf-< I:} -;;=~ iiJI ~fE ~ Ii ~p ~_il'1 u.... <<l -a I:Ill 0 ~ "'0 E ..s 0 'Q = ~ - '"0 '::; 0 oS ;>., 0:1 0 il ~ ;g .0 .!:l .~ tJ] ~ ~c. g < .j ~ '!l~uo,sg ~~l5.. u ~:;'l~~ H~ H. e g . e- .~ oS a oS ] .. ~!ii liliij i~i ~ g ~.~. I:::>":.::..::.::::::l~;;] e ... d .g U .~ '0'< 13 ;:: 0 'U ~ ~ .~ ~5hSii' J:~~ ~~G .s'q.!J @' :;'l;j.~ ~il g .~~.iJ>~::;il-">~ "0" ~ ]"' ..~ i.I"~.] '" ..:;; " /j>>"O~~ ~fFdO~'m; U"'OUll:l"O gs.,g~o'se ,s1ii~~~ '"~~-~ll'" "Ol:\Uae B:g.~~~o.~ ,~~~~~ .~~~~d~l ~iL~oo lii~u.~ g- 'S '" "Sl ] ,s '0 0 ~ € ~ '" ~ ~ ".~~.~ ~~~~il""38" .;:l.~_5.:2 ::! d.....gQ.. ~j;lO...-g <l;'S g~;:>~~ .ll ;j ~ ~ il' '..., ~ "g ~ ~! ~ f-< ~ U tn .... <l; ;! :a (,l Z .... t:: Z '" i< '" '" '" '" '" ... '" i< ~ S ~ S i6 ~ ~ s '" o i .. " ~ ;; il ~ :s ~ " ~ ~ ~ =: ,,~.. .0( .3_" ~ :;; t' ~ ~ JIJ j ~ 1.1 " 8 '" ~f '" . .= ~ ~ 01 Ii: o 1 ~ o '" ~ j i:;' . ~ ~ ~ '"If i;'. = . > ~ ....,/1 G ~ ~B ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1l@) ~ ~ ~ e 8 Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ QZt3tn N ~'S g , i1 ~ - .,.~ il' ~ . ~ ~ ti 'm's 8 ~GS H.< (J -: 'g ~ ~ <a .qfu~ ~~Q~:U J '" e: ~ I ." ~ ] ~ ~ . ;S i .! ~,g ~ :CGllfi 8 g>> 6 oOiS '" '7 ~ '" ~ ~ ~ .. '" '" '" z z z; '" "' '" ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~ o. ~ o. ~. ~. ~. ~. . o 1l ;;! I ! i:;' ~ ~ € . 'i .,g ~ -g ~ _ 0 0 ~~u ~ d 1:: ~H . o I ! ] '2 'e- '" ~ z ~ i' .. ~ '2 I ~ '" i< ~ '" '" 0' o. ~ ~ o. ~ ~ o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. ~ ~ ~ ~ . f g ." .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o J . ~ ,/1 o ~ o '" .~ u ~ 'E :; ::: '" o .... r:: o UJ [L ~ CDN o u..O O~ CD "':t:: WI'- Cl <C 1I. .... W W J: U) U) U) W a: C) o a: Q. ~ a: o 3: > <l:..J ..JJ: ~.... OZ wO :!::!: WI ....u) u...... 00 >W ....-, -0 Oa: Q. U) .... Z W :!: W > o a: Q. ~ ".' f~~ ..f: /~ .., . ...~ .. ...~ . ., r .. I' "!~'. . ... . .,:~" : !~ !.8;: . . .. . .'~ 1l ~ 1l ~ ~ ~ 1l l 1l 1l ::,.,.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ ! ! ... i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..g~.. ...... l!l.t8 z ~ z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.e~ I;I I~i:i - - - - - - - - - - - ;!:~:~.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .1)'.::; I ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - ....;.8;. ~ :\.:9 @~::t ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: i ~: ~: ;:: ~: ~: "_:~:::'~' ~:_,,;: ~. <:-. e--. I!'. C" Ii e--. I!'. 0:-. I!'. e-. "::,.::=' ~x:: I!'. ~: f"-. (0-. e-. C e--o I!'. e--. ~ e-o ~~;~j ~ E [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ,~:" . 1;; .. ~ 'z;~, 1 ~ p?; ~ " Eb.~ ~ ;~2;' is U.' :E -ll .~6"O e.~ 'i ,~a~ G, ~ ~ U ..J ~oIj . e ~ '" ' ~~l! ~ -g ~ ~ .* a:~G ~ '3 ~~.s - <l: b ~~.. ~ ] .11 ~ ~ j O -,lil;;! ~: I:: Il:l f") a '-' 0'1 .~;<:~.; ~g~~r-. 'i o~.ll:lu"""N'<<lIB 5b .' ~ -0 ~ 0:9 i:l t::l U ';; 6 en . '" .u '" '" "0 0 ~ '" 0 .':.. ,.. 1! '€! 5 ~ ..d ... l,) ~ ~o;;;;:..~~s G Jl..ZA..~e::;tf"JV1 ~ ~[:.. "I.: - - - = .', ~'.' { '~t~. ..f:!l. . ...;~ . :,~: " o .. :;, ] l! . l!' .~ ~ ] 1 '" f' .g ] ~ ~B' U1 ~ 0 ~ ~ !~ .... ..... ::: ::: 1 e " 0- J J ~ ~ '" 8 f' ~ ~ j ~ - " 0 '" " ~ 0 o . '" - ~ ~ "' ~ u ~ " ~ o > 0 E-< g i :!l ~.~ 0_'" I .b........ ..~" ...... .. .... 1l,i l!' . ef.. .. . ... ] , ~.'.. .. .. .. ..'0' ~ .~ i. f( _ f ~ f II... .1 .. . H · ! ~ ~ ti t 1 ~ :e Fl. · ~i il'o-S.lll~Jl'..'~:"f...~.... . ~.lli. ] ~i 1 ~~ ~ ! 1 ~ l .. H ~. · ~t "1 ~'ij;. r.. .. ~,.= l." L ~~:~ It f .. ~l - ~ '" · .. .!!'" . -.J!... Jl..G ~I ... rt.~ .. ~ ~i"i 1 ~. .. t~J>.- .i~ ... . .~i i~ · ..'Il~.'~ ~~ L~g .~~r~.... 'Hs ill. ~ll~" ~.l!; ... . ~T .~ il' 'll .~.~.'l~i.a... .[.. .!lU."'........... .. ..~.l!'... g l!' L l! .l!;. ~ f 's:"l. .. · · .. '!i1 H r'~r ;lirhl"l ~( i.i . { . ~..~. ..1. i~. ... ~f~;r. .... .11 ~ ~i~.. .... ~!.... ~..... :f~L.... l!' g!b .g~. . :.. g .. ~j . 1~6 .. . ~. ~... e ~ " .a - 0 .;;. ~;;. .~ '" " .. ~. ~ t..... '".. "'.. "'tr.~ ] 8'] !..": :.5 .~:::: :g/~:::,::' ~[~L'/ ile;:!- :~::": ~::": ~):;:: i;:....."i 0- tl" ~... ~. .a~:;;'< a .~.;. B.,g. <I ~ ~ 8... ~.J . 18'~. . ~ ~. . ell! ~ . ~. . LIi · ; ~~ ~ O.~ ... .,;:ll . I . ~ .~ .,; 'll .. .,; .~ :;; . 1. "il . .;; t:;- ! h r;n1.. ].~:tl.~H~ ;~.~ci!:t t. [5,;1] ~ I;b g". ,d'';;~l ~:ll'0'~ ~';" i t Irf~ Cl <- ~ 0.:' 0 {;,F:,>: 0 ;:o,:;$S Q:~: a. o.:c;. 0':::"::' ~:':.: ~/:::;:: &Frii::' : .. I ... ...... ... . ... ..~ ~ :..... 't"{:<" .~..II~ ( z ..~ ..iFz .. 2 .~. .~..;!:zz ....... ............ .... ..... ...... .....J... ."", ----.. .., '..f.. ..... · ...... ..,..1< "'.0. .... H,},": ~: : ,:::{ '". ....:-,:. '-:':}:'j~ :tDti:')\~ ,:' <j :...... :".: 10=::' -~-..., 1i~ f' oi < <.". .....1., .':!.. .. ....~. U ~~J" "<~~IU< ~ ....~... '.';'-. }__,....'-. ....,;.. ..~ . ",,'. :...1....::.... .' ..... ..... .I""" .... .... . .. .. ~ tit. ........ ...;cl>.'. ~";:~If ;:.:.:: . i .. jJ ... ....~ L . ;:. . ;:] en: k I . ~. .. ~:lt:i .c .;:> .;:. ;::a.I~il.i.. oil ~ r f;: I.'.' .;:. ..;: j. =a.:; T = I · 1 ..~.....:l. "... ........ '..'.. .... .,.:l..I. .,<h.... " ..--. . .. .......... .. .. .. .. . 1 r...........1 Jr.. ..IL ~ r.. .fJ~ flll......il... l!' f z< .....JLf<r]t~t J i r... .... .,f .... ..i ........ r j.. .~... t jf.. o I ~ f. 1..........1..... t r..l,~... ~li ~ "~ ;;; · I ... . ~. . .. 'il.... · ~.. .1. d.. j .. :5i .~. ~ i j k il......t.. iil~....~.....~...~i......t.l<lll.!~ ... 0'" ci.... ';..... j{ a' · 1l.. · . .g .. u- . :::1 ..I::.l ~.8'g ! ~ 18 ~!ltlLf~lt!<l!l~ ;;' is &l tl ~.~ 0 . .... :ill l .. . .!l_'. ~ . ;5 0 Jl;ga 1- .. ..... '. .... ........ " ::;~ :~: ;::::~;~ Il)~~ 1...1......... ....t'.>ll~ ..~J~.11 II. .1t'[....llJ ...., ~ = '" o "- ;::. Ii) 0- S: "'.... o LLO O~ '" Ill_ j::: W Cl < Q, I- W W J: f/) f/) f/) w a: c:l o a: a. ~ a: o 3: > <(oJ oJJ: :JI- OZ wO ~~ W, I-f/) 11.1- 00 >W 1-- -0 Oa: a. f/) I- Z W ~ W > o a: a. ~ .,:...~ .. NJI ., :>, .. :., I . . .. ,'> ... . I. I. I I. , I', ... .. . .. '.' .. .. .! c ltt ~ , 6 . ~ .. ; ... 'It I' 11= ~ 71~1! . .... ~ : . ~ ~ .:. o <(:il " . . . :€<J]ll .0 _ N C ." ,g ~ ~ 0 ..... g~;::i;' .l: . . m c ::; = g ~ 0 0 ~ .:: 3: .~ ~ . . .~ ~ S:a ~ n~ ~H ~~ ~u~ ~ ~ a 0 , ... oS .~ e"'O ... =:l c.. ~ ~ u .h<J~ . ~- _ _ <l 0 'a ;:l ;a -g ~] oil ~ 0... c ~." 0 I;"" ~ .~,~d _ g C 0 C C. :::E .- ~ "0 ..:.:: ~ 3: = 8 ~ 3: .2 - t:' 0 ~ u ! 'S: ; ~ he:! ~i " '. " 0. :I u u u ::;.l:ii:oS" <( z .. ,S . .. ~ o ~ = ~ . := ~ J ~ ~o ~] ~ f ~ ~~ ~~ _" ~ = eo "@ 2~ ~~ 0 'j( ~>5",o;Su .-_ <;I ~ U 0 1Il!3 Jt .~ 'eo ~ '03 o ~ .E; 8: ] ';;.s N rn oS:f ps : '1I].~~3 .~'g ;> Jl .a ..s '5 e Gl 'D .~ :a & O!lN~ ~ ~",";l"O~ .9=u:l ] e ~;: 1i .~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ,S .~ ~8 g ~ Ul ~Q,]] .O'~] . 81:ll)N Q.o~>.~~g "15'.;::l .~ ~ ,~g i ~ .~ j 'S ~ B ~ ~ ~ c; ..... 'lib ~ Q:l::;._ ~~ l:! 0 ] u.g lib jj ~ u::l ;>>.... u ::I: 'Ql = '.;::l .9:;:1:; ~ t::..c..... tl (h d:: ~ lJ 8 '5 u ""i3 "'" g .1:: ~.a ~ ~ -a '" Q ~ <Il .~ .e dd a ~ >- ~ ':: ~ .~ "E .! .a ~ ~ ~ ~ '= .. O:;!( ..8 "''l "E J S 3;:3 ~::l I,l =~llltr "'1JO:'::l"l'a 0'" O"""......J NoEu;,,:::u''''g ouu ........ ~ """ ~ o..c .. .. l:: !:l..d'" '~e]ia~<flt~~~,- ~~] o.~ !~iOu:lOlJ!=::slo :f~'" ~ e 'E 13 d ';;; oS ,..; .2 ~ ] .~ .~ ~ 0 t.1. ::: .~o .0 ~ ~ t.1. .., .;: .., o ;; $ " &.S ~ .. .0' <( .; '" ~ '.'.0"' ,..Il..:O o~~ ~;;.. e'i u ii~~.f!l!.20S~~u' ~~&~o,. ..~.o." .~ ~d 1i.~.glI. u 5" ~q 01'8 lS..0 ;,-."S~ i'3.~~ ~ g'3tj8 >;.... u '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ €: 1, ~ :a h i .~ ~o ~ ~9;>0~a'Qj~~-0 --:~;f ,.N ~ _.,,~ .'""" .7N.. .a ;> 0 ~ Q.,'= ij Q., ... 0:1 ':> ~ 8 ' & ~~ e-..s ~o ~~~ ;S..:lN ~Q ~ ... z ~ <( z <( z <( z ~ ~ <( z t = ~ . ~ ..., ~ = ~ f ~ = ~ . ~ ..., ~ = i:l . '" o ..., ~ .~ ~ Iii' '" e. II l '" ~ .~ '" J ~ 15 1 C ! 'lI OJ . ;,;: u ~ o C 'm .~ e " ~ . '. ~ 'i u . i:;' ~ iE <j ] .:l ~ ~ ~ .2;- ! ~ ! ~ <'i . o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . ~ ~ . i .. 7 ~ $] ] .. 11 @ ~ . ;; _ &<J ~ d Ii.~ i1] 11.2;- " . ,- c 3..2!..8:;: i- == ~ ~ <0 .~ ~ e u 00;,-. .0' ~.,,", . . ~ Q., ~.~ 11 C ,- IJ .., u ~ <'l.g Q.,Q.; "&..- en 1:l C . <j ~ ] ] ~-ll :: e c:: ~ ,~~] ! Q., = t.1. !:l " .S . C <Q 'OJ ~ ..... .. N .!:l 0 "s 'g ~ 'G ~ d u ~ 'S ~ ~ Ii. ;> = ~ e- .S "S = eo ~ C 0 o ~..,.., ~ ;> a a .!:l e ~.~ ~ ~.~.~ ... Z ~ ~ <( Z .. ,5 ... ~ z ~ ~ = ~ . := o ..., t t ! ~ f ~ " 1,i .. '" . '" 11 u 0._ il ~ !l '" -.a . .... C il.i::; Ol]~ ~'"S :;j ~ ~ n8 e t= ~ .... ~~ . = '~ ~ . = '5 .. .ff .. ~ l~~~~ ~ 'm ." .0' '" ~.~ " Il. 0 12! .~..... ~ .... d 0 0 .... 0 .c d f-< 11 U ; 0 '"0 "8~,~]]Q.8 =I MoO 0 t:] ~o @~C~~]<j~ .. t.1.f"-1Il .. . _ N d ~ 8 ~ ;,-.{fl d \IS d'" '3' ~ 0.a88.....~ lL,g.cS]e r..> ._ V> ;>.. ::s Q.; .!!'G~'3'13s Q.,U <:l....,o::::.m = u .. IIJ &! l;:j ~ oS i oS "$ .0 0 .. = ~.... "s.., .a "''' 0 ~ '" 1l ~ s E ~ J: .0'.1!' e ~ u '" Il. . a 0. t; .. ~~'~~.s~ d !1.: =.S ... :f o .B IIJ '"0 \IS ... '~~ ~ 011 il' ~ .; ~ ] ~ &! '~ ~ .~ ~ =ll "8 d'"'" ;> ... = ~ "S ~ ~..8 8 ;>.. '~.s6c~i ~ '" t; .... '" . ~.o'-"U~O <( z <( z . . = ~ ~ ..., ~ o C .g ~ !b 0 '~ '" ~ .~ ~~ 5~ ~] ",.Jl 1 ~ C .l: 'h ~<'i o-~ 8 ~ 0 g~.1!' on = ~ .. . . ! 7 ~ * j ~ ~ .il'3 ~ ] ~ g 15 '0 :5 ~ :: ~ ~ ~~ . ~. 8 ~~ ] ~ .~ 7'!U C ~ C "9 ] ~ '; . ~ 11 ::' ] H~ ~ ,,~. & i ~ ~ 11 . e IJ g .. 11 . . _ Jq ':: ~ 1J' ~ g."s.g.s 5 ~ ~ ~-g a \IS 'Ot ... ~ 'illl :;; g, 11 8.~ S ~ .~ ii "S <JJ .;: ....... - 13 e e 11.' .~ 0 .o'u E ~ ~ . :'=.c u en ~ ~ gQ~'og .., ~ II}';.g c<:l 1'3.~ a Ii. \IS N !fa S ~ ~S ~ ~'il 0"9] ';; en ~ ~ :a 0" 0 <( z <( z .. ~ .. ~ o <( z s ~ if < =' ~ t~ III E! _~ i .." .... ] la "B ~ ] ~ ~ .g 8 ~ 1'3 013 '" ,.~ 'iJ is ~ o > '" ~ h .s .:sl "S ~~ ~ ~] C C ~ ~ gp oS j'il o 0 .a f-< H .1 ~.O' B 'OJ en Ii. 0::: ~ C\l i2 ;:: o (J) "- ;;: COCl! u.8 O~ co:!! wr:: Cl c( Q. li:i w J: en en en w a: Cl o a: a. ~ a: o 3: > <(-I -IJ: :::II- OZ wO ~~ w, I-en U-I- 00 >w 1--' -0 Oa: a. en I- Z W ~ W > o a: a. ;:i] 'Ii.,: ;:,;;-:-,;:::::J~!:::-:.:_< .<ol.<ol" .~ ...i. . !:.~J @~t 8 .... l,) ~ ..s.fi 0 ~ 0 ." .3 i g '8 ~ ~ e 1.; ":::.l:l~ -a I:l ~ '" H H ~ .0.= -<::l tJ :2 ~ > 0. .~ 8 Q il . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" <II.g 1$ l:j....... ~H l! ~ B ,.c ... ~ "'~~ ~~s . ~ ~ ~ . ~ 8.fi.!! [:;'''0 ~ ~p 8 0 '" o on ~ .::: M III il .g, ~ > 0 - 'u (S. ~ ~ " - _ 0 ~ >..2 .~ 6 ~ S. 'S '" ~ ~ Oi o " jl ~~ E ij ~~ !!' .:/] . " ~ ~ . 1 ~ o Il< o ~ 313 il . - ~ .~ ::l " ~ q ~ '0 .2 tn ~h 'n .s .~ 8 e ~ !;I t,l :2 0 :a 0. _ .,. s..s.s . il " .n~ g ~ 0 .~ ~ ~ " ~ 0 2. ~ ~ 0..;3 H.~ ~P '"' 0 t <~B ., ~ ., z 1 .. .. i ~ .. ~ ~ .. ~ !' '" -li ~ <5 . o .= ~ '0 on B 1 8 . ~ .. ~ '" o I'- ,:: Vl a. ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: ~q~Brad Buran, Maintenance Superintendent DATE: July 3,2002 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - June, 2002 The following aclivilies were performed by Public Works Departmenl, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for Ihe month of June, 2002: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 150 B. Tolal signs inslalled 14 C. Tolal signs repaired 40 II. TREES A. Totallrees lrimmed for sighl dislance and slreel sweeping concerns 17 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Tolal square feel of A. C. repairs B. Tolal Tons 2.977 59 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Tolal catch basins cleaned 15 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Tolal square foolage for righl-of-way abalemenl 5.000 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Totallocalions B. Tolal S.F. 64 2.841 VII. STENCILING A. 181 New and repainled legends B. 17.909 L.F. of new and repainled red curb and slriping Also, City Maintenance staff responded to ~ service order requests ranging from weed abatemenl, Iree lrimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, Iiller removal, and calch basin cleanings. This is compared 10 ~ service order requesls for Ihe month of Mav. 2002, The Maintenance Crew has also put in 159 hours of overtime which includes slandby lime, special events and response to streel emergencies. The lolal cosl for Slreel Maintenance performed by Conlractors for Ihe monlh of June, 2002 was $ 14,156.00 compared 10 $ 23,097.00 for Ihe month of Mav, 2002, Account No. 5402 Accounl No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 $ -0- $ 14,156.00 $ -0- cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Alj Moghadam, Senior Engineer (CIPlTraffic) Greg Buller, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development) III "'I- "'", OOWN 5:lLUg Oil!Z'l' ::J>;!1; mt-wo ~~!ZN ILI-<~ OO:;W 1-00( > Z>I-...J W:..JW<c :EXWU I-I-O::U) "'ZI-- <(0011. ...:; W o Gl II --" ~ '" , ~ ....J: 0= iii c '" .. 00 .. 0 00 0.. 51 "'0 00 0 !1l .. ~ e Il;;i .. NO .. 0 ON 0.. ~O 00 0 .. ~ .. aid :Ii ,,; oeD ggj ,.; i~ ,.; ,,; N ,.; ~ III t;~u: 00 ..... 00 g5! 0 ~ ... .. .. " .. .. ~ ~ .... .. 00 .. ~ 0-" ,,; .; :s N ~: ~~ ~ ::f;j .. .. .. ~ III O"'w .. .. ;;; .. .. ... .. ... ... ~ ... ...... ... ...~ ... .. ~ ;;it;> ... ... ... fg5 I- &i '" ~ 00 .. 0 0.. o~ .. NO 0 0 00 .. ~ 0... 00 00 i 0.. 00 .. 00 ~ 0 .. .. i IL.. .. 00 ,,; 8:i ~! ,.; ~i N ,,; :;j g ,.; t;u~ .. ... .. .. 1;; 00 .. .. ~ .. 00 .... .. .. ~ 00 O!!! ,.; ;;; .. No) ,.:0; .. Ilia .. i .. .. ~ 0'" 0 ~ ..00 00... .. ..~ .. .. III ....IS!!>- ~ .. .. .... .. .. .. - .. .. .. "J: 1-1- e - ",'" .. 00 0 0 ~~ g~ 0 ;!g .. 0 0 ~ .. OW .. ~~ 0 0 0 .. 0 ~ .. IL~ ,.; ~~ ,,; ,,; ~~ ~~ ,,; ~:Ii .; ,,; ~ .. .. 0 .. 0 0 1;; .. 00 .. .. .. 0 .. .... 0 1l .. ~" ,,; 00 lliai ..... .. ".;u; .. ~ '" .. .. '" .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. 1-0 .. .. .. .. ~ OJ: .. 1-1;; W .. 00 0 0 00 0.. .. 00 ~ 0 '" 51 .. Z "! 00 0 0 00 00 .., ..0 C! '" '" " ;Ii 00 ,,; ~ ~~ g~ ~ =:8 ~ 0 ai ai :! , .... .. .. 0 ... '" .. lh: ..'" .. "'- .. 00 '" .. .; ~ ..:ti .... ;t ..~ ... 1l .. ! ..." .. .. .... ;;; I- ~ 0 .... 00 0 = 51 ... ;Ii ~... .. ; !!! 0 Q .... ~ ~ 0 .. ~ ~ 0 Woo ... ... .. ",1-0 "'W" o"'W ~...Z :;" 0' 0 i .. 0 0.. g~ 0 ;g 0 0 .. 0 ~ 0 0 0.. C! '" 0 .. 0 .. ai 0" g~ <; ..g '" ,,; .; ,,; .; .. N o~ ~"t .. .. ~ .. ~ '" '" "'.. ..- ". ;;; '" fZ~ ,,; .. 0"'; .... ~ ~.. .. III ;;; - .. ... ...- ... ... ... ... I- ~ 0 !:s 00 0 .. ~ .. .. ;Z" 0 .. '" 0 Q '" .. - .. ~ 00 .. lll::~N ,.; a:::wp ~...> ..... ij:E 0 ... ~ 00 0 0 00 00 .. ..0 ~ 0 '" .. ;! ii! ~ 00 0 0 0.. 0.. '" 00 0 "! .. ~ ai dd ,,; ai g; oeD '" ;2 ,.; ,,; ;;; ! .; t:. ...... ... .. :&Ill !:! .. .. .. ~S .. .... .... ... .. .. - ... "':N ...-'" ,.; ~".; ;;; ... ;! ~ ...... ... ... ...... ..." .. ... I- III 0 0 :n 00 0 ~ :s 0 .. :!'" 00 '" ;Z 0 Q .. .. ... .. Woo .. - " - .. ",1-0 ,.; - - a::~:" ~"'ii! :;... 0" 0 iai ;,; Ii Wi .:.: to: .:.: a.: tj.OJ ;.; . "'c g;r~ .~ .8 .~ .8 ",- .5a; so ~j ~j SO _ C 81- ~8> 8" o.!l; IL W..." ~ :E :E IL W -" ~ "'.~ ~ Z " i!! "'~ .. c '" . W . Z . W in ;.: ~ ~6- W ~ ... W III W ... " ... " :E W I- Z Ii: III "Ill ;.: W III a " w W ... III :E 0 :E .. " W ... ii! ... W " W W " .. ... I- '" ;;i i 0 ~ Z Q Q Z III ;:: W W Z III '" " J: '" Z j ... .. W W I;; '" " :: ... :z: W Q ll! 0: ~ " Z :! " '" '" Q ~ '" :; ... I- 0 " w w W III W W 0 ~ I- ~ " ;:: ~ ~ ;;! Z III '" 0: III W :z: III 0 " ii: " " 0: III III '" ;:; ~ w :z: 0 ... 0 ~ W .. ... ii! 'I' Z Z i:i ~ 'I' I- ~ III 0 I- " " W ... 0 .. ;;; III 0: ;;; ;;; " Q 0: III 00( '" w z => ~ " '" .. ~ " ~ I ~ o ~ ~ " ;0 '" 'g~ h ~ E 1Il.o S ~ oW o II .. ;l o ~ "ii >.~ ~ ~ CD~ ~ 'lh i!; '" E !l. ~ ~ e 0'" a. c w .... WN -'0 "'0 ::EN Q. CJ_ ll:0 01::<1 ~OI: W:5 CJ> z-' << zCJ wrIl ....... z ;;: ::E "'z WO IO: 0::> ::>m "O J" ='0: mm w ~ ~ .. '" ~ >- iIlOifl ~ ;i ~ 12 ;; ~O ~ ~ e ~ ~ - g; 008 o ~ 008 o ~ 008 o ~ 008 o ~ 008 o ~ :> ~ 008 o ~ 008 o ~ ~~ ~ ffl- uS ~ ~ ;; 8.:\ ~ " ill lB ~ 008 o ~ O~ 8 i:! ~ ;; O~ 8 oj :; O~ f'I Iii ~ N ~ ~_~ t;: o ~ ~~ 8 "' ~ 08 o ~ 08 o ~ 08 o ~ 08 o ~ 08 o ~ 08 o ~ 08 o ~ ill ~ 08 o ~ ~ ~ ;:\;:\~;!;.R"~" ~ CDIO;g.....(I:<oiiStD~ r-.: T.: N ~":T""- g ~ I i I I ~o~ ~ '!2- ~ 12 ;; w z " , ~O'" m N ~ ~ ~ "' ill ~ ~~&:l:&~~g:lr:: ,.... CD~CO C7OIN.....!'q1O ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~ 2....lO.....s;?....Cl!5!... co .................cs~'!2 ;l) N 10- C>i r..: ~ ;; ~ ~,....:J;~O~"W~fi ;g il gj ~ :g~~N2~""i~~ ~ - - ~ :: ~ Zi a;:!l!:j:NO""~~g 0 ..... ..... ......... <ri~ ill ~ @~LOCOOO""'$f1 r N g r:.: ,- ~ "' N ~ 8:g~NO~~U;:g 2 - ~ ~ N ~ '" l '" 0 1i ,,1'1 l- f ;r ~ ~i ~u: ~ " d.. f ~ <if 1 I!~~M 1ili ~ ~ u..e~ ~ lL."" a .. <3 <]~l-.:. . . 0 .~ .q ! 0 z h.il=1).~ J ~ M6 = la~ .5o W .. ~ ~ . . ~ III = l:: E l!. E ~ I 0 ~ 3~ 8 z E E ~ ~. 2-.ejE~G~6Gl 0 ~J!&~ ? .~ lD "'8 i5 cd! u ...0: U '" ~~ ; a::: l: ~.a::: 0 IDO:: u l!ul! :;f ~ .&~ :;f w U~ Iii >- l!!~fjl~a5~.~S ~ lJl ~l::li! Ii 8 Di 0 ~ ~ ~ 0'" B ."."1) 0 ~.Ii Jl" "' ",80... <il... ...~ . lie u)u) 1-0::2< G . >- .. '" ~OCl 18 ri ~ N Fl ~ J i< ~ ~O ~ ;:: c<) ~ ;; illO- ill ;:; ~ % U i >- ~ 0: m w ~ ~ON :8 ~ 11 ~ >- ~ ~ 800 ~ .: ;:\ ~ . ~ STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following conlractors have perfonned the following projects for Ihe month of June, 2002 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEUBRlDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Dale: 06/25/02 PAUBA ROAD DESIL TING POND CLEAN AND REPAIR DESIL TING POND # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 3,000,00 CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING Dale: 06/19/02 EMPIRE CREEK REPAIR & REPLACE GATES AND FENCES VIA LOBO CHANNEL TO CHANNELS. # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 3,075,00 Dale: 06/11/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT REPAIR APPROACH, MOR STRIP AND ON- BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD SITE CURB AND GUTTER # 5401 CHANNEL TOTAL COST $ 8,081,00 Dale: # TOTAL COST TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 14,156.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 -0- TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 -0- CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 06/03/02 43061 CORTE DAVILA S.N.S. DOWN 06/03/02 06/03/02 31250 INDIAN SUMMER ROAD S.N.S. REQUEST 06/03/02 06/03/02 30438 SIERRA MADRE DRIVE S.N.S DOWN 06/03/02 06/04/02 30554 GREEN WAY CIRCLE TREE 1RIMMING 06/04/02 06/04/02 39526 OAK CLIFF DRIVE SIDEWALK REPAIR 06/04/02 06/05/02 41081 CHARDONNAY DEBRIS PICK-UP 06/05102 06/05/02 30241 CABRILLO POTHOLES 06/05/02 06/06/02 30712 LOMALINDA DRIVE TREE REPAIR 06/06/02 06/06/02 PALMA DRIVE POTHOLE 06/06/02 06/07/02 31880 CORTE POSITAS SIGN REPAIR 06/07/02 06/07/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT CITY LIMIT POTHOLE 06/07/02 06/07/02 30052 SANTIAGO DEBRIS REMOVAL 06/07/02 06/10/02 6111 STREET ALLEY DEBRIS REMOVAL 06/10/02 06/11/02 42536 VERDADERO TREE CONCERN 06/11/02 06/11/02 30165 CORTE CARRIZO DEBRIS CLEAN-UP 06/11/02 06/12/02 43068 CORTE CALARDA CATCH BASIN CLEANING 06/12/02 06/12/02 29928 A VENIDA CIMA DEL SOL CATCH BASIN CLEANING 06/12/02 06/12/02 44100 E. VALLEJO AC. REPAIRS 06/12/02 06/13/02 42889 VIA ALHAMA DEBRIS CLEAN-UP 06/13/02 06/14/02 43350 CORTE ALMERIA SIGN REPAIR 06/14/02 06/14/02 29836 VILLA ALTURAS CATCH BASIN CLEANING 06/14/02 06/14/02 31307 BOCA W CIRCLE SIGN REPAIR 06/14/02 06/14/02 29820 DEL REY ROAD AC. REPAIRS 06/14/02 06/17/02 40025 WALCOTT LANE DEBRIS REMOVAL 06/17/02 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 06/18/02 29795 DEL REY ROAD DEBRIS REMOVAL 06/18/02 06/18/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT CITY LIMIT POTHOLE 06/18//02 06/20/02 32153 CAMINO NUMEZ TREE TRIMMING 06/20/02 06/20/02 31011 CORTEANACAPA DEBRIS REMOVAL 06/20/02 06/20/02 31793 LOMA LINDA ROAD POTHOLE 06/20/02 06/20/02 WINCHESTER AT YNEZ PAINT SPill 06/20/02 06/20/02 42371 AVENIDAALVARADO POTHOL 06/20/02 06/20/02 41735 CHEBLIS COURT SIGN REPAIR 06/20/02 06/20/02 LA SERENA AT VILLA AQUILA BLOCKW All REPAIR 06/20/02 06/20/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT POST OFFICE SIGN REPAIR 06/20/02 06/21/02 42195 ROANOKE STREET CATCH BASIN REPAIRS 06/21/02 06/21/02 NICHOLAS AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY CONCRETE SPILL 06/21/02 06/24/02 41700 HUMBER STREET OIL SPILL 06/24/02 06/24/02 31005 DE PORTOLA ROAD BROKEN PIPE 06/24/02 06/24/02 41775 DE PORTOLAROAD BROKEN PIPE 06/24/02 06/24/02 31321 HERONADRlVE S.N.S. REPAIR 06/24/02 06/24/02 30876 BARDMOOR DRIVE TREE TRIMMING 06/24/02 06/25/02 26895 MONTSERATTI COURT DEBRIS PICK-UP 06/25/02 06/25/02 29645 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD DEBRIS PICK-UP 06/25/02 06/25/02 40233 STARLING STREET OIL SPill 06/25/02 06127/02 3I2IO DELREY ROAD POTHOLE 06/27/02 06/27/02 31661 CORTE ROSARIO TREE REMOVAL 06/27/02 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 46 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06103/02 P ASEO DEL SOL REPAINTED 6,382 LF. RED CURB 06/04/02 P ASEO DEL SOL REP AlNTED 2,014 LF. RED CURB 06/05102 AREA #2 REPAINTED 3,016 LF. RED CURB 06/05102 TECHACHAPI PASS REP AlNTED 220 LF. WHITE CURB 0611 0102 AREA #4 REPAINTED 3,890 LF. RED CURB 06111102 AREA #5 REPAINTED 123 LF. RED CURB 06111/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF RANCHO VISTA INSTAllED 8 LEGENDS 06112/02 AREAS #4 & #5 REP AlNTED 1,314 LF. RED CURB 06/13/02 AREA #1 REPAINTED 13 LEGENDS 06117102 OLD TOWN REP AlNTED 34 LEGENDS 06119102 OVERLAND AT COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE INSTAllED IS LEGENDS 06119102 OVERLAND AT COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE INSTAllED 950 LF. RED CURB 06120102 YNEZ AT RANCHO VISTA REPAINTED 24 LEGENDS 06n4/02 AREA #1 "BIKE LANES" REPAINTED 34 LEGENDS 06nS/02 AREA #2 "BIKE LANES" REPAINTED 28 LEGENDS 06127/02 MARGARITA ROAD "BIKE LANES" REPAINTED 20 LEGENDS 06n7 102 MEADOWS PARKWAY INSTAllED 4 LEGENDS 06n7 102 HONORS DRIVE AT SO. HILLS INSTAllED I LEGEND TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 181 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING LF. 17 ,909 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DMSION STENCILS I STRIPING MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/03/02 P ASEO DEL SOL REPAINTED 6,382 L.F. RED CURB 06/04/02 P ASEO DEL SOL REPAINTED 2,014 L.F. RED CURB 06/05/02 AREA #2 REPAINTED 3,016 L.F. RED CURB 06/05/02 TECHACHAPI PASS REPAINTED 220 L.F. WHITE CURB 06/10/02 AREA #4 REPAINTED 3,890 L.F. RED CURB 06/11/02 AREA #5 REPAINTED 123 L.F. RED CURB 06/11/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF RANCHO VISTA INSTALLED 8 LEGENDS 06/12/02 AREAS #4 & #5 REPAINTED 1,314 L.F. RED CURB 06/13/02 AREA #1 REPAINTED 13 LEGENDS 06/17/02 OLD TOWN REPAINTED 34 LEGENDS 06/19/02 OVERLAND AT COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE INSTALLED 15 LEGENDS 06/19/02 OVERLAND AT COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE INSTALLED 950 L.F. RED CURB 06/20/02 YNEZ AT RANCHO VISTA REPAINTED 24 LEGENDS 06/24/02 AREA #1 "BIKE LANES" REPAINTED 34 LEGENDS 06/25/02 AREA #2 "BIKE LANES" REPAINTED 28 LEGENDS 06/27/02 MARGARlTAROAD "BIKE LANES" REPAINTED 20 LEGENDS 06/27/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY INSTALLED 4 LEGENDS 06/27/02 HONORS DRIVE AT SO. HILLS INSTALLED I LEGEND TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 181 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 17 ,909 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TONS 06/03/02 VIA NORTE AT KAHWEA R&R AC. 280 6.5 06/04/02 VIA NORTE AT KAHWEA AC. OVERLAY 168 3.0 06/05/02 VIA NORTE AT KAHWEA R&R A.C. 280 6.5 06/06/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLES 48 TEMP AC. 06/06/02 YNEZ ROAD AT MARGARITA ROAD AC. OVERLAY 360 3.0 06/10/02 YNEZ AT SOLANA / OAK CLIFF AC. OVERLAY 108 2.5 06/11/02 RAINBOW CREEK AT SPRINGTIME R&R AC. 164 4.0 06/12/02 RAINBOW CREEK AT SPRINGTIME R&R AC. 155 4.0 06/17102 30730 BUENA SUERTE R&R AC. 244 6.5 06/18/02 40880 BARRACA T ROAD R&R AC. 189 4.5 06/24/02 40880 BARRACA T ROAD R&R AC. 184 4.0 06/25/02 SANTIAGO AT C STREET R&R AC. 190 6.5 R&R AC. 132 06/26/02 SANTIAGO AT C STREET OVERLAY AC. 225 5.0 06/27/02 MEADOWV1EW AREA AC. OVERLAYS 250 3.0 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 2377 TOTAL TONS 59 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/18/02 YNEZ AT SANTIAGO ABATED 5,000 SF ROW WEEDS TOTAL S.F. R-Q-W WEEDS ABATED 5,000 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION mGH~O~WAYnmETIUMMmG MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/03/02 NICHOLAS AT WARBLER TRIMMED 2 RO.W. TREES 06/17/02 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN TRIMMED 5 ROW. TREES 06/18/02 CAllE MEDUSA TRIMMED 6 RO.W. TREES 06/19/02 OVERLAND AT COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE TRIMMED 4 ROW. TREES TOTAL R.OW. TREES TRIMMED 17 - CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/03/02 AREAS #2 AND #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS 06/11102 SPICA COURT CLEANED & CHECKED 2 CATCH BASINS 06/17/02 HWY 79 SO. CLEANED & CHECKED 9 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DMSION GRAJ<l'lTl REMOVAL MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/03/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT LA SERENA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/03/02 VIA LOBO AT NICHOLAS REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/03/02 VIA LOBO AT DEER MEADOW REMOVED 48 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/03/02 SUNNY MEADOWS AT FERMO REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 43484 FASSANO COURT REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY ATLEENA WAY REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 SAN MARCO AT FASSANO (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 110 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT DE PORTOLA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY ATLEENA WAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT CASSINO REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 43478 BREWSTER REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/04/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT PAUBA REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/05/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/06/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT ANZA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/07/02 OAK CLIFF AT ROCK BLUFF REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/10/01 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/12/02 30680 MARGARITA ROAD REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/12/02 29750 LYNDIE LANE REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/12/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT L YNDIE LANE REMOVED 31 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/13/02 MARGARITA PARK REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/13/02 MEADOWS S/O RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. (4 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/17/02 OVERLAND TRAIL AT BANANAL REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/17/02 REDHAWKPRKWAY@OVERLANDTRAIL (2LOCATIONS) REMOVED 63 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/17/02 CALLE MEDUSA AT ENFIELD REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/19/02 SANTlAGOAT AMARITA WAY REMOVED 26 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/21102 EMPEZARAT MEADOWS PARKWAY (3 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 43 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/21/02 VIADESTELLO REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06121/02 EMPEZARATDEPORTOLA (3 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06121/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT DE PORTOLA (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/24/02 15 FWY AT HWY 79 SO. REMOVED 178 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/24/02 44535 BEDFORD COURT REMOVED 17 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/24/02 MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 18 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/24/02 42200 MAIN STREET REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/25102 McCABE AT VIA MEJIA REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/25102 32139 CAMINO HERENCIA (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/25/02 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT CINON (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 18 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/25102 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY 300' W/OCINON (4 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 216 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/25/02 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT HARMONY REMOVED 18 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/25/02 MARGARITA ROAD AT SOUTHERN CROSS REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/26/02 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT AVE. DE MISSIONES IN CHANNEL REMOVED 890 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/26/02 I-15FWY AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 18 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/26/02 CAMINO VERDE AT VIA PUERTA REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/26102 MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/26102 MARGARITA PARK (4 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 38 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/27/02 REDHAWK PARKWAY @HWY 79 SO. UNDER BRIDGE REMOVED 615 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 06/28/02 CALLE PINA COLADA AT VIA NORTE REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 2.841 TOTAL LOCATIONS 64 ~ <~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ ~ UM o o M r--. ------ -----~-----.-- I i I I I ! I i I i i I I I ! i I , I , o o o CI>> o o o III o 000 o 0 0 ~ 000 .... CO CO o 8 C') o o o N o 8 .... -0"'.....<'0.... Nt'--O'\lI')\C\O '" "'" ~ u ] "'!l ~i~'= _~]~.o ~ fii~ ~'8.~g~~fr~ ~ ~ I-<""~;::!:<;::!:""",,<"'oz~ o o w C ~ Z I- o o I l- lL W (I) CI ~ cl: ~ ~ .., w z ~ .., l- II. CJ ff> + l- ff> o o t ~ :!! a: lL cl: a: cl: :;; m w LL z cl: .., Ngr-- ... r-- ~g 00 ..., ~It'l .c::. "'00 ~ >0 N. \0 4>..... ... ~>. foI') !;~. ... .. ., it;; .... ...0 g c 0 E-<E-< J;I;o...", . .. == g-::lv lI)lI)OtnO~ NNU"\~~ , Mo\Nr--:-- "'O\lI"iNg~ 0Cl..~t"i.-.. .. .. ......f"'l=M-"'=t 4OIf:Hi19-&1!l~~~ II II 10 ~iI 111.c.lS B~~llj.t~lt~JJ O\f"'lQr-M...... \l')Mf"'lOOr-"d" o......vt-o\oo "':"':vS""': N I"l !:'3C1 II lllo << ~ 1].c,/5 .,~ i]-e'g >''' >.~g.B ~ ~ ~~~~~<~~:E!~oo8~~ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/03/02 HWY 79 SO. AT FRONT STREET REPLACED DELINEATOR 06/03/02 JUNE AT NICHOLAS REPLACED 2 R-I 06/03/02 NICHOLAS AT JOSEPH REPLACED CARSONITE 06/03/02 MILANO AT ALEXANDRIA REPLACED R-I 06/03/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT McCABE REPLACED W-17 06/03/02 AREA #4 REPLACED 20 SNS 06/04/02 DE PORTOLA AT CAMPANULA REPAIRED R-7 06/04/02 JEREZ AT BUTTERFIELD REPAIRED R-7 06/04/02 RORIP AUGH AT DANDELION REPLACED 2 R-I 06/04/02 RORIP AUGH AT ROSEBA Y REPLACED 2 R-I 06/04/02 AREA #4 REPLACED 10 S.N.S. 06/05/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT JEFFERSON REPAIRED R2 - 40 & R-42 06/05/02 AREA #4 REPLACED 12S.N.S. 06/05/02 RORIP AUGHH AT SENNA REPLACED 2R-1 &2R2-25 06/05/02 RANCHO VISTA AT MIRA LOMA REPLACED R-7 & KMARKER 06/05/02 CANTERFIELD AT TEMECULA LANE REPLACED R-I 06/05/02 DEL REY AT SOLANA REPAIRED W-56 06/05/02 SOLANA AT YNEZ REPAIRED R-7 06/07/02 MARIAN AT JUNE ROAD REPAIRED S.N.S. 06/10/02 YNEZ AT OVERLAND DRIVE REPLACED R-7 "K" MARKER 06/l 0/02 MIRA LOMA NORTH OF RANCHO VISTA REPLACED 5 R-7, 3 "K" MARKERS, 2 R-I, W-41 06/l1l02 MARGARITA AT GREEN STONE INSTALLED W-53 06/l1l02 NICHOLAS AT VIA VENICIA REPLACED R-I 06/11102 RUSTIC GLEN AT MARGARITA REPLACED R2 <<25" 06/l1l02 AREA #4 REPLACED 8S.N.S. 06/12/02 NO. GENERAL KEARNEY ATPAUMA VALLEY REPLACED 2 R-I MONTH OF JUNE, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 06/12/02 MEADOWS AT LYNDIE LANE REPLACED 2 DELINEATORS 06/12/02 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REPLACED 2 DELINEATORS 06/12/02 AREA #4 REPLACED 16S.N.S. 06/13/02 MILANO AT ROSHANI REPLACED R-I 06/13/02 AREA #4 REPLACED 10 S.N. S. 06/17/02 6th STREET AT MERCEDES REPLACED 2 G-93 06/17/02 RANCHO VISTA AT CALLE SANTA ANA REPLACED R-I 06/17/02 MARGARITA AT MORAGA REPLACED R-96 06/17/02 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REPLACED DELINEATOR 06117/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT HWY 79 SO. REPLACED 2 DELINEATORS 06117/02 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 13 SIGNS 06/18/02 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS 06/18/02 CALLE MEDUSA AT NICHOLAS REPLACED W-17 06/19/02 OVERLAND DRIVE AT COMMERCE CENTER DR INSTALLED 3 W-17, 3 R-I, 4R-IA 06/19/02 CITY LIMIT SIGNS REPLACED 8 POP., ELEVATION, SISTER CITY 06/20/02 MAIN STREET BRIDGE REPLACED TYPE "N" MARKER 06/20/02 FRONT STREET AT FOURTH STREET REPLACED R-l 06/20/02 MERCEDES AT FOURTH STREET REPLACED R-I 06/20/02 MERCEDES AT 2ND STREET REPLACED G-34 06/21/02 OLD TOWN FRONT AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. REPAIRED 14 DELINEATORS 06121/02 VINEYARD AT CHABLIS REPLACED S.N.S. 06/21/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT DE PORTOLA REPLACED R-26-81 COMBO 06/24/02 MARGARITA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED 2 DELINEATORS 06/24/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT LA SERENA REPLACED 10 DELINEATORS 06/27/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY NORTH OF VINEYARD INSTALLED 2 R-2-45 06/27/02 IIDRON AT PillTE REPLACED S.N.S. 06/27/02 BARDMORE AT CLUBHOUSE REPLACED R-I 06/28/02 RAMSEY AT MARGARITA INSTALLED SPECIALTY SIGN TOTAl SIGNS REPLACED 150 TOTAl SIGNS INSTALLED 14 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 40 - APPROVAL CITY ATIORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER LJY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag~ DATE: July 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Economic Developmenl Monthly Departmental Report Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator The following are the recent highlighls for the Economic Developmenl Department for the month of June 2002. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Leads & Inauiries In Ihe month of June, the City received 6 leads and 4 inquiries to the City. Mr. Burton Sage, President of TheraFuse, Inc., made a presentalion al the UCR Connect Springboard program in June. Therafuse's drug infusion products will benefit people suffering from diabetes. He has raised $25 million of $30 million needed for his startup, and if all goes well he will be in major production in 3 years. Mr. Sage is interesled in locating his company in Temecula. Staff provided him wilh informalion. On June 12th, slaff mel with two representatives of KTM Motorcycles. They are interested in constructing approximately a 30,000 sq. ft. facility in Riverside or San Diego Counties. Staff provided them with a variety of information about Temecula. KTM was founded in Austria and their US headquarters is in Amhersl, Ohio, wilh another facility in EI Cajon. They manufacture off-road bikes, and are the 4th largesl manufacturer of such bikes worldwide, between Suzuki and Kawasaki. Other leads in which staff responded to included Krispy Kreme, music retail store, furniture store, car detailing and car wash business, "Storyteller" (combined retail store & entertainment center for children 12 & under) and a vertical wind tunnel facility, Staff provided Louis Hare of Remax with informalion on Temecula. Mr. Hare has a technology company looking to relocate from lake Elsinore. This company is searching for a 20,000 square foot facility and employs between 50 - 100 people. Business Assistance Love Boat Restaurant: At the request of the Chamber of Commerce, City staff aided this new business in obtaining final clearances from the Planning, Building and Fire Departmenls. Staff also met with Temecula Radiator, Grant Construction and an RV conversion firm to assist with Iheir development projects. CITYMGR\WOLNlCKG\AUGUST'OODEPT. REPTDOC In Ihe monlh of May, the Southwest Riverside County Alliance responded to 5 leads. 3 leads were a result of Alliance marketing efforts; 1 lead was a referral from the EDCSWRC and 1 lead was a referral from UCR Connect Attached is a copy of their activity report. Ribbon-cuttina Ceremonv/Grand Openinas Councilmembers Comerchero and Pratt and City staff attended Ihe ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new Red Caboose on June 14th. The City is leasing Ihe Caboose to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County and will be used as a recreation site for youth activilies, youth club meelings and leadership programs. Councilmembers Naggar and Pratt and staff attended the Bassett Furniture Direct of Temecula Pre-Opening Media Party on June 27th. The fumiture store is located on Hwy. 79 South next 10 Home Depot and Staples. Staff attended the SAFE (Safe Alternatives for Everyone) Open House on June 21't. The new office is located in the Temecula Community Center on Pujol Street. The Cily has leased office space to SAFE for a nominal fee, which has been instrumental in providing SAFE a place to provide the desperately needed services for the Temecula Valley. Mayor, City Council and slaff attended the Pechanga Resort & Casino Grand Opening on June 24th. This is the largest Indian-owned casino and resort in Califomia at nearly 1 million square feet. Pechanga will be one of the largesl employers in the Temecula area. Film Leads & Hiahliahts The Film Festival activity reports for the monlhs of April, May and June are attached. Filmina in Temecula On April 20 - 21, Bonita Entertainment, including a cast of 40 and crew of 10, shot footage in Temecula for a feature length film. Huel Howser aired the Erie Stanley Gardner Ranch segment several times in May, which was filmed in Temecula last year. The museum received many phone inquiries and has video copies of the Gardner TV show and the "Trees" video featuring the Great Oak on Ihe same property. Tony Hawk Productions filmed a mystery weekend in the RedhawkNail Ranch area. It was a special skating event and footage will be used in an upcoming video. Media/Outreach Materials Staff wrote the City article for the Chamber Newsletter on the Temecula Police Department and some of their programs benefiting residents and the business community, Meetinas Slaff attended the Chamber of Commerce "Talk of the Town" economic forecast on June 6th at Temecula Creek Inn. Guest speaker Dr. Esmael Adibi, director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, provided forecasl informalion on such CITYMGR\WOLNICKG\AUGUST'OODEPT. REPT.DOC 2 areas as employment, personal income, taxable sales, building and conslruction, inflation and housing prices. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Business Relations Committee Meeting on June 6th. City staff contacted Agrispect to address the owner's concerns regarding City permits. The company plans to expand in the fall. City made a fOllow-up call to Destination Temecula and addressed some of their concerns. Staff provided an update on Ihe Milgard Manufacturing and Guidant expansions, review of Temecula's Developmenl Review Process, and the 1-15 Interregional Partnership Draft Resident Survey. Staff attended Ihe EDC of Southwest Riverside County Board Meeting on June 20th. Director elections were held and officers were nominated. The following individuals were elected to the Board and will each serve two-year lerms, expiring June 2004. Frank Casciari - California Bank & Trust Mike Doblado - The Promenade In Temecula Dennis Frank - University of California Riverside Extension Keith Johnson - Mission Oaks National Bank Doug Misemer - Temecula Valley DrywallfTimberlake Painling Rex Oliver - Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Phares - D.L. Phares & Assoc. Gred Prudhomme - Kuebler, Prudhomme & Co. Peter Rosen - Rancon Real Estale Gary Youmans - Community National Bank The Board appointed Tony Renz of Diversified, The Staffing Solulion, and Roger Zeimer of Southern California Gas to fill two previously vacated seats. Staff provided Ihe EDC Board with an update on Ihe City Utility Sludy, proposed college project al Dendy Parkway and Diaz Road, and the review of Temecula's Developmenl Review Process. Joe Ahn, Deputy Director of the Los Angeles Regional Office for California Technology, Trade & Commerce Agency, met with slaff on June 12th. Mr. Ahn provided an updale on Ihe state's economic developmenl activities, stale budget, and informed slaff that the Los Angeles Regional Office will relocate its office to Sacramenlo sometime in the fall. The Trade & Commerce Agency will continue its participation at industry specific Irade shows, provide leads to cities and economic developmenl organizations and other marketing activities to attract business to California. Slaff met with Mike Dablado and Antoinette Valdespino of the Promenade Mall and their marketing consultant on June 24th on a number of issues (i.e_ slatus of the SP amendmenllo permit special events (e.g. car sale) at the mall, signage for Wednesday Farmers' Market, marketing/co-op opportunities, and concerns regarding road conslruction around Ihe mall during the holiday season). Staff met several times in May wilh Guidant representatives regarding their expansion plans and Development Agreement. The Murrieta-Temecula Group Meeting was held on June 7th al Pechanga Resort & Casino. Pechanga provided a private tour of the new facilities to the committee members. Staff attended the UCR Connect Director's Luncheon al the Mission Inn on June 2nd. Nearly 200 people, who have a strong interest in high-tech business opportunities in Ihe Inland Empire attended. Keynote speaker Joe Raguso is California's Deputy Secretary of the Division of CITYMGR\WOLNICKG\AUGUSTOODEPT. REPT_DOC 3 Science, Technology and Innovation, which encourages a lechnology-driven economy for all Californians by increasing and improving tech-based economic development. Mr. Raguso spoke on "Creating Technology Assets in Ihe Inland Empire." On June 10th, staff met with A,G. Kading regarding a mixed-use project at the corner of Dendy Parkway and Diaz Road. The initial development will consist of a 50,000 sq. ft. classroom building 10 be leased by the colleges (UCR, Cal State San Marcos and Mt. San Jacinlo have been contacted.). Additional educational facilities, a corporate meeling cenler, affordable housing units and retail shops will be built later. The City Council met on June 25th and approved to enter into an agreement with Mr. Kading on this project. This campus could create a corporale training facility Ihat would be a hub for economic development. Staff attended the UCR Connect Steering Committee Meeting on June 20th. Committee reviewed the June 7th UCR Connect Director's Luncheon discussing what went well and what needed to change for the next luncheon. Other programs were discussed included the June 28th Springboard program fealuring a biotech company and the July 12th Links program "The Future Intemet - Changes to Come and How They Will Effect Business". Proposed Quarterly Education Series and UCR Connectl12RTA MIP-like Event were also discussed. Mayor Roberts, Councilmembers Comerchero and Naggar and staff attended the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance "Taste of Southwest Riverside County" event June 27 - 29. The Economic Alliance hosted a complimentary "no sale" weekend for business decision makers looking 10 expand or relocale to Soulhwest Riverside County. The event consisted of the EDC Golf Toumament, winery tour, and a tailgate party at the Lake Elsinore Storm. Staff spoke at a panel presentation and provided complete business kits and Temecula promotional items for the gift baskets 10 the Economic Alliance, which were given to the attendees. TOURISM SDecial Events City and Chamber staff set up its booth for the Balloon & Wine Festival on June 8th. City and Chamber staff was on hand to provide tourism and general information to Festival attendees throughoul the weekend. City staff was in charge of the clean-up on Sunday. Staff attended the Susan G, Komen Race for the Cure Kickoff festivities at T emecula Creek Inn on June 17th. The Inland Empire Race for the Cure will be held at Ihe Promenade Mall on October 20th. The City sponsors this event providing city-support services, financial contribulion and event banners displayed on Rancho California & Winchester Roads. Temecula Community Day at the Storm was held on Sunday, June 2nd. The City had a lable with tourism information, Community Services events and programs, and general information on Temecula. Staff was on hand to answer questions and provide information to the attendees. FAMILIARIZATION (FAMI TOUR The Ontario Convention & Visitors Bureau hosted a familiarization tour on June 26 - 29. As a member of the Ontario CONVIS, Temecula was invited 10 provide tourism press kits and gift baskets to FAM Tour attendees. The Eye on LA segment, featuring Temecula was shown to Ihe attendees. The FAM Tour targeted the Mexico market and the attendees included Mexico publications, television, radio and Aero Mexico Airlines. CITYMGR\WOLNICKO\AUGusrOODEPT. RFPTJ>OC 4 Medial Outreach Materials Lake Elsinore Outlets provided a half page complementary color ad to the City in their 2002 Go West Outlet Shopping Travel Planner. Approximately 50,000 planners will be prinled. The Travel Planner will assist tour operators, meeting planners and travel agents in planning and organizing their trips to the West. Distribution is targeted to domestic and international travellrade industry through major intemalional and domestic Iravel trade shows and mailings. The San Diegan 2002-G3 edition was released in June. This year Temecula's Chapter was expanded to include a section on Ihe Temecula Wineries. Over 225,000 copies are printed and the publication reaches 5 million readers annually. Temecula had advertised in this key San Diego tourism publication for the past 6 years. (see attached) The City will be advertising in Ihe Old California Gazette for the months of August and September. Staff is working with the publisher on ad design and editorial content. Distribution includes over 1,000 retail and high-end holellocations throughoul Orange, San Diego, Riverside and Inland Empire counties. Also, dislribution includes merchant shops in historic quarters and exclusive expose 10 over 6 million visitors to Old Town San Diego. The City and Winegrowers Association placed a co-op ad in the LA Times Experience SoCal- A Guide to Entertainment and Recreation, which was published lale June. The entire magazine is available online through latimes.com. Temecula received a 50-word advertorial description of our area that links to the City's websile. (see attached) In March, staff sent travel writer Donna Ott a tourism press kit and provided slides to use in her "Discover Temecula" article, which appeared in Ihe June issue of Inland Empire Magazine, (see attached) Staff provided updated information on Old Town Temecula to Media Ventures, a custom publishing company specializing in the telephone directory industry. The company is contracted by Pacific Bell to produce the Places 10 Go pages for the Corona directory. Meetinas On June 20th, slaff met with Sheri Davis of the Inland Empire Film Commission and Tourism Council to discuss membership and benefits of bolh organizalions. ATTACHMENTS Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Activities Report Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Activities Report - May Temecula Valley Film Council Activities Reports (April, May, June) Advertising/Media Coverage CITYMGR\WOLNICKG\AUGusrOODEPT. REPTDOC 5 I~ ~ TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE July 1, 2002 Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of T emecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Shawn, Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report provided as per our contract with the City of Temecula. Board Update: The Chamber is proud to announce Keeton Construction has been awarded the construction contract for the new Chamber building. The grading process is currently being completed. The Chamber has contracted with Performance Publishing Group to publish 10,000 Business Resource Guide & Membership Directory to be completed in December 2002. This is the month of June at a glance: Business Inquiry Highlights: In the month of June, 8 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business in Temecuia. They received a business packet, which includes a copy of the City of Temecula demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations, etc. Committee Highlights: . Tourism & Visitors Council: The Tourism Council held the "Tourism Big Business" presentation to the Sunrise Rotary Club this month. The Council assisted the "Great Race" organizers with the Tourism packets for 100 participants. . Education Committee: The Education Funding Task Force will reconvene and initiate planning a roundtable discussion with legislators, discussing the legislative issues that affect our area. . Ways & Means Committee: The 2". Annuai Talk of the Town was held June 61h. 2002 at Temecula Creek Inn. The event had over 250 attendees from local business owners to area residents. Dr. Esmael Adibi with A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research and Anderson Professor of Economics at Chapman University addressed the audience on local and county statistics that pertained to the future economic growth for the Inland Empire. The Chapman 2002 Economic Forecast predicts the economic cycle is at its projected low and is expected to improve. According to Dr. Adibi's report for the 2002 fiscal year, the house appreciation for the Inland Empire has risen 8.7 %. The home appreciation is higher in the Inland Empire than any other county in Southern California. 27450 Ynez Road. Suite 124. Temecula, CA 92591 Phone: (909) 676-50901. Fax: (909) 694-0201 www.temecula.org . e-mail: info@temecula.org o LOGal Business Promotions Committee: The June Shop Temecula First campaign ended July 1, 2002. The grand prize winning company was Paradise Chevrolet Cadillac and grand prizewinner was Timothy Beaty of Poway, CA. The Businesses of the Month for July selected by the Tourism & Visitor Council are Temecula Museum and Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association. Other campaign winners are J & S Heating & Air was awarded the Chamber Spotlight, and Allie's at Callaway is the Mystery Shopper winner for the month of July. o Government Action Committee: John Standiford of the Riverside County Transportation Commission gave a presentation of the extension of Measure A to be on the ballot in November. The committee had concerns with Highway 79 not being included on the list of projects. The TYCC Board recommendation was to place the issue on next month's board agenda for further discussion. o Membership Committee: TYCC had the new members open house on June 18, 2002. Next months mixer will be held on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 hosted by Agostino's Hair Design at the Temecula Town Center. The membership committee and staff attended 11 ribbon cuttings ceremonies in the month of June. o TYCC Newly Designed Website: The Chamber has completed the design of the new website. The site has received over 6,000 user hits in the month of June. The site includes information on Tourism, Business Resource, Community, the Chamber, Directory, etc. Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution) Aclivity Report: o 100 Temecula Brochures to D & D Ballooning to distribute to their clients. o 50 Temecula Brochures, 50 Winery Brochures to Sensible Car Rental to distribute to clients. o 100 Temecula Brochures, 100 Winery Brochures and 100 Tourism Maps to Temeku Hills for distribution to guests. o 200 Temecula Brochures to United States Marine Corp for distribution to regimen. o 50 Temecula Brochures, 50 Winery Brochures and 50 Tourism Maps to FASTSIGNS for distribution to clients. o 10 City Maps, 10 School Brochures, 10 Temecula Brochures and 10 Rental Listings to The Scott's Company for distribution to their employees. o 200 Temecula Brochures and 40 Visitor Guides to the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center for Weekend Visitor Center. o 40 City Maps, 40 Temecula Brochures, 40 Winery Brochures and 40 Relocation packets to Guidant Corporation in Menlo Park. Distribution was made to employees wishing to relocate to Temecula. o 10 City Maps, 100 Temecula Brochures, 100 Winery Brochures and 25 School Facts to Coldwell Banker for distribution to their clients. o 200 Temecula Brochures, 200 Winery Brochures to Desert Hills Premium Outlets for distribution to their customers. o The Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center received 50 city maps, Pechanga Resorts & Casino guides, 20 Promenade Directories, 25 Wineries Brochures, Santa Rosa guides and 25 Visitor Guides. Activity Report: o Tourism calls were 1,894 in June. o Phone calls were 3,186 in June. o Walk-ins were 2,498 in June. o Mailings were down 5 percent in June. o E-mail requests were down 16 percent in June. o Web Page User Sessions were 6,332 in June. 2 Also, attached are the meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Ways & Means, Membership and Marketing, Local Business Promotions, Government Action Committee's. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (909) 676-5090. Thank you. cc: Mayor Ron Roberts Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Stone Councilman Jeff Comerchero Councilman Mike Naggar Councilman Sam Pratt Shawn Nelson, City Manager Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator TVCC Board of Directors 3 7-.12-2024.31PM FROM P_ 1 EDCfI Southwest Riverside Count)! Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County PO Box 1388 Temecula, CA 92593-1388 909) 600-6064 Fax: (909) 600-6005 dsessionS@edc-swrc_org www.edc.swrc.org MEETING NOTICE . To: Board of Directors Fax: Various RECEIVED From: Diane Sessions Date: July 12,2002 JUl 1 5 2002 Re: Board of Directors Meeting 07/18/02 Pages; 1 (including cover) CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE The EDC Board of Directors meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. at the Workforce Development Center, Executive Boardroom, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula. Agenda and minutes will be furwarded to you Monday. . Please deliver to the following: . Marlene Best Frank Casciari Jeff Comerchero Scott Crane Mike Doblado Stevie Field Dennis Frank Darren Gill Ted Haring Keith Johnson O.B. Johnson Bruce Keeton Dick Kurtz Doug Misemer Lori Moss Ron Nater Susan Norton Phil Oberhansley Mark O'Connor Jim O'Grady Rex Oliver David Phares Greg Prudhomme Paul Ramsey Claude Reinke Tony Renz Peter Rosen David Rosenthal AI Sabsevitz Gary Youmans Roger Zeimer ~UL-12~02 FRI 04:33 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE EDce Southwest Riverside County Economic Pevelopment Corporation of Soutbwest Riverside Connly PO Box 1388 Teme.....la CA 92593-1388 Omce (909) 600-6064 .'ax (909) 600-6005 de.~~ions(liJedc'8Wrc.or~ www,edc-swrc.org Fax Jim O'Grady To: Gloria Wolnick Fax: 909.694,6499 From: Diane Sessions Date: 7/12/02 Re: EDC MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 2002 Pages: 10 (including cover) Comments: See attached documents. ~UL-12~02 FRI 04:33 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 2 EDca Southwest Riverside County July 12, 2002 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Activity Summary - June 2002 Business DeveloDment Staff received eight business development leads for the month of June: · A phone inquiry from Mark Schneider, an Orange County business owner who was seeking a site or restaurant that was approved for food preparation by the health department. Mr, Schneider requested a site that was approximately 1,000-2,000 square feet. Staff referred the request to Dick Kurtz, CDM Group, for further assistance, (6/5) · A phone inquiry from Gary Matthews of Conative Systems in Temeeula, who was seeking to reloeate his office to a new site. He needed 900-2,500 square-feet of light industrial space and would consider a sublease with an existing occupant. Staff hand-delivered a packet of available lease properties and provided a list of EDC conunercial broker members. (6/5) . A phone inquiry from Brad AndersOIl of The Press-Enterprise, who requested assistance with workforce recruitment for a large retailer in Corona, Staff provided Mr. Anderson with contacts for the Employment Development Department in Corona. (6/11) · A phone inquiry from Bill Kennedy of San Diego who requested US Census information for Lake Elsinore. Staff faxed Mr. Kennedy the information. (6/12) · A phonc inquiry from John Wilson, a San Diego angel funds investor, who wanted to learn about economic development opportunities in the region. Statl' invited Mr, Wilson to meet community business leaders at the EDC golftoumament, which he attended. (6/13) · A meeting with Joanna Qnigley of Merrill Lynch in Temecula, who was seeking opportunities to become involved with the EDC, (6/18) · A phone inquiry from Myrna Warison in Lake Elsinore, who purchased a company that manufacturers heat sinks. Ms. Warison requested information on small business loans. Staff provided a contact list ofEDC members who specialize in financing. (6/25) · An email inquiry from Gary Reed who submitted a resume for employment in a manufacturing environment. Staff contacted Mr. Reed to advise that the resume was forwarded to the EDD, Rivcojobs, and to EDC staffing services members. (6/28) Community Outreach Staff attended the following meetings/events to promote or assist economic dcvelopmelll efforts: POll' Offi<<!lox 1388 . 27417 En'erprise CirclcWc"" SoilC "101 . Tcmecul., C.A 92593-1388 Office 909/fiOO.6O("l1 . FAX 909/GQO..(,()()5 . Email i.nfo@edc-swrc.org . www.t:oc-swn;.org ~UL-12~02 FRI 04:34 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 3 Jim O'Grady City ofTemecula Activity Summary - June 2002 Page 2 00 · Temecula Community Day at Storm Stadium (6/2) - Staff helped promote and coordinate Temecula Community Day and AII-You-Can-Eat picnic, and attended the Storm baseball game. · Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce "Talk of the Town" (6/6) - Guest speaker Dr. Esmael Adibi, Director of the Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, · UCR CONNECT Annual Directors' Luncheon. (617) - Guest Speaker Joe Raguso, Deputy Secretary, Division of Science, Technology & Innovation, State ofCa1ifomia. · Murrieta-Temecula Group Meeting (617) - Held at the new Pechanga Entertainment Center HoteVCasino. · Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival (6/8) - Staff volunteered to work 4 hours of ticket sales in the beerlwine venues and 4 hours in the Rotary Club ofTemecula booth. · SWRC Manufacture.-s' Council Board of Directors Meeting (6/12) · United Way Steering Committee Meeting (6/13) - Staffis a volunteer committee member for the United Way's annual giving campaign, · Lake Elsinore Valley EDC Luncheon (6/13) - Guest speakers from Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors. presented demographics, housing statistics, and other population data for the region. · SANDAG Interregional Pa''tnership Meeting (6/14) - Discussion topics included economic development both in Western Riverside and San Diego regions. John Husing presented an economic forecast for southwest Riverside County and Inland Empire. · SWRC Manufacturers' Councit Strategic Planning Meeting (6/19, 6:30 pm-9:00 pm)- Held at the Workforce Development Center, staff attended the Council's strategic planning session to redefine the organization's goals, objectives and structure. · Meeting with Tammy Walsh and Alva Diaz, Vice PresidentlRelations Manager of Wells Fargo Bank (6/21) - Staff met with Ms. Walsh and Ms. Di3Z to discuss mutual economic development partnerships. Ms. Diaz is interested in an EDC membership. · EDe S'" Annual Golf Toumameut (6/27) - Annual fund raiser held at SCGA Golf Course in Murrieta. . SWRC Economic Alliance "Taste of Southwest Riverside County" Panel Breakfast and Storm Baseball Game (6/2S) Business Retention · Business Relations Committee Mceting (6/6) See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. Administration/Ol'l!anization · EDC Board of Directors Meeting (6/20) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. JUL-12~02 FRI 04:34 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 4 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula Activity Summary - June 2002 Page 3 of3 · Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; updated the Ene web site; coordinated golf tournament activities, coordinated the EDe directors' elections; prepared and distributed various EDC/community email updates to members/business community. This concludes the activity summary for June 2002. Should you have questions or need further detail, please call me at 600-6064. Respectfully, Diane Sessions Executive Director ~UL-12~02 FRI 04:34 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER DRAFT FAX:9096006005 PAGE 5 DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF DJRECTORS GENERAL MEETING Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 9:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center 27447 Enterp,'ise Circle West, Temecula, CA BOARD MEMBERS Marlene Best, City of Lake Elsinore Frank Casciari, California Bank & Trust Scott Crane, Southwest Healthcare System Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance Dennis Frank, UCR Extension Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank Dick Kurtz, CDM Group, Inc. Lori Moss, City ofMunieta Phil Oberhansley, Cannon Parks & Oberhansley Jim O'Grady, City ofTemecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Phares, D. 1. Phares & Associates Paul Ramsey, Keeton Construction David Rosenthal, SWRC Manufacturers' Council AI Sabsevi tz, Verizon EDC STAFF Diane Sessions Liz Yuzer MEMBERS AND GUESTS Ron Nater, SWRC Economic Alliance Ed Sternagle, VCR CONNECT CALL TO ORDER . In the absence of Board President Gary Youmans, Treasurer Keith Johnson called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. MINUTES . The Board reviewed the minutes of the May 16, 2002 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion was made by Dennis Frank, seconded by Dick Kurtz and carried wlanimously to approve the minutes of the May 16,2002 Board of Directors Meeting as presented. FINANCIAL REPORT . The Board reviewed the May 31, 2002 Financial Report that showed total monthly revenues of $7,686, total expenses of$7,393 and total cash-in-bank of$71,173, Motion was made by Dick Kurtz, seconded by David Rosenthal and carried unanimously to approve the May 31, 2002 Financial Report. NEW BUSINESS . Ratify Inspectors of Election: Diane Sessions reported that the Inspectors of Election were Stevie Field, Liz Yuzer and Diane Sessions. Motion was made by Phil Oberhansley, seconded by Dick Kurtz and carried unanimously to ratifY the Inspectors of Election. JUL-12~02 FRI 04:35 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 6 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting -June 20, 2002 Minutes .- Page 2 of 3 · Ratify Official .EJection Ballot: Motion was made by Phil Oberhansley, seconded by David Rosenthal and carned unanimously to ratify the Official Election Ballot. · Appoint Directors to V scated Seats: Diane Sessions reported that Gary Youmans recommended the appointment of Roger Zeimer, The Gas Company, and Tony Ren7., Diversified The Staffing Solution, to vacated seats on the Board of Directors. Motion was made by Dennis Frank, seconded by David Rosenthal and carried unanimously to appoint Roger Zeimer and Tony Renz 10 each serve the remaining one-year terms as Directors At-Large. · Certification of Quorum and Approve Director Elections: Diane Sessions reported that the By-laws require a quorwn of 5% of the eligible membership in order to certify an election. Forty -eight members were eligible to vote and 25 ballots were received which represented 52%, Motion was made by Phil Oberhansley , seconded by David Rosenthal and carried unanimously 10 certify the quorum and approve the election of the following Directors for two-year terms: Frank Casciari, Mike Doblado, Dennis Frank, Keith Johnson, Doug Misemer, Rex Oliver, David Phares, Greg Prudhomme, Peter Rosen and Gary Youmans. · Discussion of Nominations for Executive Officers: The Board agreed the Nominating Committee would make nominations for Executive Officers and submit a slate to Diane Sessions to prepare the election ballot. CONTINUING BUSINESS . · Insurance Proposal Update: Diane Sessions reported that insurance bids had been received and the accepted bid was $640 less than budgeted for 2002-2003. Motion was made by Rex Oliver, seconded by Dick Kurtz and carried unanimously to amend the operating budget by reallocating $640 from the Insurance line item 10 the Miscellaneous line of the 2002-2003 Operating Budget. · Staffing Services Update: The Board discussed several staffing options and decided to table the [mal discussion until the July board meeting. Diane Sessions was asked to prepare a spreadsheet outlining these options for the July board meeting for discussion. · Temecula General Plan Advisory Committee Update: No report available. · Golf Tournament Update: Gary Yownans reported that 26 foursomes were registered for the June 27 golf tournament and 11 hole sponsors had been secured. Prizes were still being solicited. · Energy & Water Issues Update: Jim O'Grady reported that Ihe City Council would be studying the recommendation of the Electric Energy Subcommittee regarding municipal energy. · RCIP Update: Dennis Frank reported that Measure A on the fall ballot would not provide money for infrastructure in Southwest Riverside Connty. Mr. Frank agreed to secure further information or a speaker on the topic for the July meeting. OPEN DISCUSSION · City, County and Chamber Updates: City of Lake Elsinore - Marlene Best reported that the water level of Lake Elsinore was dropping and affected businesses wanted to dredge near the shore, Regulations regarding such dredging were set by the state rather than the city. However, the City of Lake Elsinore would facilitate a meeting between interested parties_ She also reported that the outflow channel landscaping project would be completed in August and the new fire station would be completed in JUL-12~02 FRI 04:35 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 7 Economic Developmenl Corporation Of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - June 20, 2002 Minutes - Page 3 of 3 September, City of Murrieta - Lori Moss reported that the Police Department would move to the new facility in a week. She also reported that the Murrieta City Council had approved funding for Town Square Park and Senior Center and would match 35% funding of the library grant. Also approved was funding for the upgrade of Washington Street and flood control for Ivy and Washington Streets, Celebration of the City's 11th birthday would be held June 29 as well as the grand opening of the sports park at California Oaks. City of TemecuJa - Jim O'Grady reported on the development process of the City Planning Department. He added that on July 16 a workshop/open meeting would be held to discuss improved service by the Department. Mr. O'Grady also reported that the City would consider an agreement with A. G, Kading to develop a higher education center at Diaz and Winchester. Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report available. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce - Rex Oliver reported that the Chamber installation dinner would be held June 22 and would include installation of the new Board of Directors, as well as Citizen of the Year and Business of the Year awards, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce -No report available. · UCR CONNECT: Ed Sternagle reported that the annual Director's Luncheon held on June 7 had 200 guests and the next Springboard would be held June 28 at Temecula City Hall. He also reported on their assisting a biotechnology company with securing additional funding and a new location, · EDC Administrative Update: Diane Sessions reported that a San Diego EDC survey on where technology and biotechnology employees live was available. Copies would be distribuled to those interested. · SWRC Manufacturers' Council: David Rosenthal announced that a scholarship was awarded to a Chaparral High School senior at the Council's luncheon on May 17. The Council also held a strategy planning meeting to Set goals and objectives for the new year. · Business Relations Committee; Diane Sessions reported thai visits for the year were near the goal but the nwnber of phone interviews was behind the goal. Outstanding calls were being completed. · Economic Alliance Update: Stevie Field reported that 14 guests were expected for the tour on June 27 and 28, She added that two meetings in San Diego with bio-tech companies were scheduled for next week Ms. Field also reported that she attended BIO 2002 in Canada the previous week. ADJOURNMENT At 10:25 a.m., motion was made by Al Sabsevitz, seconded by Rex Oliver and carried unanimously to adjourn the board meeting, Respectively submitted by: Elizabeth Yuzer Recording Secretary Phil Oberhansley Board Secretary ~UL-12~02 FRI 04:36 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUSINESS ro:LA TIONS COMMITIEE MEETING Thursday, June 6, 2002 - 10:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center, Executive Board Room 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA Committee Members Present: Dick Kurtz, CDM Group, Inc. Michael Lewin, Mirau Edwards Cannon Harter & Lewin Jim O'Grady, City ofTemecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Tony Renz, Diversified The Staffing Solution David Rosenthal, SWRC Manufacturers' Council Diane Sessions, EDC Guests: Liz Yuzer, EDC Call To Order . Committee Chair Michael Lewin called the meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. Follow-up Action Reports . Agrispect - Jim O'Grady reported that he had spoken with the owner regarding the pennit process and addressed his concerns regarding their possible expansion in the fall. . Destination Temecula - Jim O'Grady reported that Aaron Adams had completed the follow-up with Dave Wilson and his concerns had been addressed. . TK Truck Kovers - Rex Oliver indicated that he would continue to work with Teny Kobylski regarding his signage issues. Company Contact Reports . Basics Etc., Inc. - Dick Kurtz reported on a phone visit with John Kupa at Basics Etc., an automotive parts supplier in Temecula, Their present facility is located near the exit ramp at Cheny and Date and may be part ofan eminent domain condemnation ifCalTrans expands the ramp. Mr. Kupa indicated that he would like to expand his business and build or buy at a new location. However, possible condemnation of his present site would make it very difficult to sell. Action: Michael Lewin will contact Mr. Kupa regarding the condemnation process. · Chemicon International, Ioc. - Tony Ren?; reported on his phone visit with Bob Almy of Chemicon International in Temecula, The company manufactures biotech research tools and relocated to Temecula from EI Segundo. They reported 180 employees at this location and approximately 80% of them live in the area. Advantages of locating to the area included the affordable cost of living, but they were away from similar industries. Primary customers are biomedical research centers all over the world. Mr. Almy indicated that they ranked their business as medium and sales in the past year were up. This was due to an increase in cancer research_ They felt that the local economy was getting better. They planned to increase their workforce by 10% but had no plans to expand their plant. Contingency plans for electrical outages included a backup generator. They were happy doing business in SW Riverside County and would be willing to be a contact for other companies contemplating relocating to this area. . Mr. Renz added that an issue for companies such as Chemican was the local availability of continuing education for their employees. David Rosenthal suggested that the Manufacturers' Council, EDC and UCR CONNECT work together on a survey regarding this need. ~UL-12~02 FRI 04:36 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 9 Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - June 6, 2002 Page 2 00 Goal Prol!nlss ReDort . Michael Lewin announced that visits and phone interviews in the eleventh month of the fiscal year were as follows: 27 visits @ 3 points each + 33 phone interviews @ 1 points each = 60 visits/calls @114 points YTD Goal Actual Variance VISIT 27 23 -4 PHONE 33 14 POINTS 114 83 -19 - 31 New Committee Assilmments Dick Kurtz agreed to contact Conative Systems and Muni-Financial, Tony Renz would call on Superior Metal Polishing, Michael Lewin accepted Project Design Consultants and Diane Sessions would contact Kuebler, Prudhomme & Co. EDC News and Other Information . City, County & Chamber News - City of Lake Eldnore - No report available. City of Murrieta - Rex Oliver reported that Jefferson Ave. construction was completed and the street was now open. The most recent closure for construction was Kalmia. The Police Department would move in to new offices at Town's Square on June 22; the Senior Citizens Center, amphitheater, and library would be Phase 2; commercial development would be Phase 3 and a new City Hall would be Phase 4 of Murrieta's Town Square, Results of the restaurant survey were available and Mr. Oliver would forward them to committee members. City of Temecula - Jim O'Grady reported that the Milgard expansion was on the Fast Track program. The SANDAG survey was ready to be finalized, As part of the City budget process, the permitting process was being reviewed to simplity the entire process. Staff would be added to streamline the process and provide better customer service. Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report available, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce --Rex Oliver reported that the Chamber Mixer would be held June 6 at Murrieta Oaks Nursery sponsored by Lennar Communities; the Installation Dinner would be held ,June 22. Mr. Oliver also reported that the Chamber web site was receiving 2,000 visitors a month. 1'emecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report available. · Economic Alliance Update - Diane Sessions reported for Stevie Field that Ms. Field had secured appointments with two pharmaceutical companies in San Diego. Reports on these two calls would be presented at the July meeting. Jim O'Grady noted that plans were underway for the Alliance tours scheduled for June 27 and 28, and that sponsors were still needed. · VCR CONNECT - Jim O'Grady reported that the Directors Lunch would be held at the Mission Inn in Riverside on June 7. · SWRC Manufacturers' Council - David Rosenthal reported that the first scholarship from the Council was presented and that the Council would like to award three scholarships next year. Membership had grown to 73. IUL-12~02 FRI 04:36 PM WORKFORCE DEV CENTER FAX:9096006005 PAGE 10 Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - June 6, 2002 Page 3 00 · EDC Board Update - Diane Sessions announced that ballots for board elections would be mailed today. Planning for the EDC golf tournament continued and hole sponsors, prizes and players would still be accepted. · Next Committee Meeting Date - Diane Sessions noted that the next regular meeting was scheduled for the July 4tl. holiday and suggested the meeting be held on July I I. Committee members agreed. · Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 11: 17 a.m. 0,""- l:11SwlhMai1S1roet lM<eElmo!e.CA925:11 TO: 1OCSI61~3124 FuIOCSl61~2392 FROM: l!lJ"- 26442 8eOOnan Cl. DATE: """",,CA9251l2 1OCSI304-2489 SUBJECT: Fu:IOCSI_ (ly"- 43200 Businass Parl Dr. r_.CA925!IO IOCSI_ FuI!109l_ CGIIllJ"- ~~. "ApIq 1<<7EnterpriseCirde~Suit8101 r_,CA925!IO 19001110O<<IOO Fax: l909l &>>6040 ..~" ,V.\V~SIQ'" ~ . c> ~ ~ '"'1.'. c:. " :, o _ '" . "" l3CQNOMIC ALLIANCE Marlene Besl Assislant City Manager City of Lake Elsinore Jim O'Grady Assistant City Manager City of Temecula Lori Moss Assislant City Manager City of Murrieta Slevie Field Economic Development/Marketing Coordinator June 26, 2002 SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE Dear Partners: Please consider Ihis an updale on Ihe marketing activities for Ihe Alliance as required in Ihe Soulhwesl Riverside County Markeling for Business Attraclion Agreement. Leads; A tolal of five leads were generated in the monlh of May. Three leads were a result of Alliance marketing efforts; one lead was a referral from Ihe EDC; and one lead was a referral from UCR Connect. Approximately 70 calls and/or follow-ups were made on both recenl and paslleads. Consultina Ron continues 10 work on setting up appointmenls with biolech companies Ihroughoul California. Ron and I had an appoinlment wilh a biotech company on June 25. This company was one of two companies Ihat conlacled Ihe Alliance as a resull of our resent letter/fax campaign. A delailed update will be provided at Ihe regular Alliance meeling in July. Trade Shows On behalf of the Alliance, I attended the Bi02002 Irade show in Toronlo, Canada with CTTCA. I was able to make some great contacts with professionals in the biotechnology industry. As a result oflhis trade show, I have inviled two biolechnology professionals from the San Diego region to the "Taste of Soulhwesl Riverside County" event. "Taste of Soulhwest Riverside County" evenl The second round of invilalions wenl oul on June 10th. This included a nice bottle of Hart Syrah with a detailed copy of Ihe itinerary. To date. we have 2S confirmed guests (13 business decision makers). I have emailed each Partner a copy of the itinerary as well as a schedule of those evenls at which a city representative should be present. A final copy of the guesllist will be sent oul to each Partner on June 2Sth. Four sponsorships have been confirmed, Ihey are as follows: $250.00 table sponsor - COM Group $250.00 lable sponsor - SWRC Manufaclurers Council $250.00 lable sponsor - lake Elsinore Valley EDC $250.00 lable sponsor - Keelon Conslruction Basket donalions were picked up on Tuesday, June 18th and will be delivered for assembly this week. Thank you for all of your donalions. As there are many componenls 10 this evenl, if you have any questions, commenls or concerns, please call me. I will be happy to answer your queslions. On an ongoing basis, I attend Ihe following meelings: SWRC Manufaclurer's Council Temecula/Murrieta Group Business Relalions Committee SWRC EDC lE EDC Economic Development meelings concerning Ihe Southwest Riverside County region UCR Connect meetings If you need any addilional information or have any queslions, please conlact me al (909) SOO-SOSS. Sincerely, Slevie Field Markeling/Economic Developmenl Coordinator Copy: Brad Hudson Robin Zimpfer Debi Moore Robert Moran Teresa Gallavan Ron Naler Diane Sessions TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL ACTIVITIES REPORT April 2002 Members of the Temecula Valley Film Council are Maggi Allen, President; Sunny Thomas, Vice-President; Steve Phelps, Secretary/Treasurer; Pat Martinez, Judi Staats, Eve Craig, Patty Slaton and Ellen Watkins The Business of the Film Council · The TVFC web site, www.temeculafilm.org is receiving between 10 and 15 hits a day, Photo and link updates are a continuous process, The web site is currently being updated to include new photographs collected from the "Great Temecula Shootout", · The Film CouncillFilm Festival office space is working well, We had a Chamber of Commerce ribbon cutting and which included more than 30 of our volunteers who were glad to see permanent offices and the Old Town location.. · "Great Temecula Shootout" is continuing in 2002 with "A Day in Temecula", a cooperative effort of the Boys Scouts, Temecula Valley Historical Society and the Temecula Valley Film CounciL This project includes photographs of historical sites as they appear in 2002 and locations that make Temecula what it is today, Over 50 cameras were distributed. Filming in Temecula . April 20th and 21 st, Bonita Entertainment, including a cast of 40 and crew of 10, shot footage in Temecula for a feature length film. . Production crews filmed twice in the Wine Country for tourism and the quality of our vineyards · City offices received and forwarded a location request from IEFC, TVFC was able to forward photos by Email for consideration. As yet there has been no response, . DFP Productions called for fields of oats, wheat or barley, Highway 79 North and French Valley/Domenigoni areas were suggested. They will call TVFC for details when the come to Temecula next month, . We will continue to support the daily management of filmmaker's requests, and encourage the growing awareness of the industry in this community, It is our goal to generate a higher awareness of the Temecula Area within the context of filmmaking activities, and to present the opportunities and benefits of this production to local merchants and businesses. Respectfully, Maggi Allen President, TVFC TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL ACTIVITIES REPORT fY1ttj Ap.1I2002 Members of the Temecula Valley Film Council are Maggi Allen, President; Sunny Thomas, Vice-President; Steve Phelps, Secretary/Treasurer; Pat Martinez, Judi Staats, Eve Craig, Patty Slaton and Ellen Watkins The Business of the Film Council · The TVFC web site, www.temeculafilm.org is receiving between 10 and 15 hits a day. Photo and link updates are a continuous process, The web site is currently being updated to include new photographs collected from the "Great Temecula Shootout", · Film Festival Production Meetings are being held in our joint offices, Films are coming in well and volunteers and movie screeners are joining up everyday. · The TVFC participated in a Travel Writers Fam Tour sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce · "Great Temecula Shootout" is continuing in 2002 with "A Day in Temecula", project was very successful. We received 53 cameras and rolls of film shot during this 24 hour period, This film is currently being processed.. Filming in Temecula · Huel Howser aired a program on the Erie Stanley Gardner Ranch, which was filmed here last year, I was shown many times this month in the local, San Diego and Los Angeles areas. The museum received many phone inquiries and has video copies of the Gardner TV show and the "Trees" video featuring the Great Oak on the same property. · Tony Hawk Productions filmed a Mystery weekend in the Redhawk/ Vail Ranch area, It was a special skating event and footage will be used in an upcoming video. . TVFC received a locations call for an old fashioned jail. Local jail facilities are not available for filming, but other locales including a winery (previously used in a music video) · IEFC requested strip mall locations through the City (it was forwarded to TVFC). Specific photos were taken and sent via email. We will continue to support the daily management of filmmaker's requests, and encourage the growing awareness of the industry in this community, It is our goal to generate a higher awareness of the Temecula Area within the context of filmmaking activities, and to present the opportunities and benefits of this production to local merchants and businesses, Respectfully, Maggi Allen President, TVFC TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL ACTIVITIES REPORT '0un-eA.pl'iU002 Members ofthe Temecula Valley Film Council are Sunny Thomas, President; Steve Phelps, Co- President; Ellen Watkins, Vice-President; Patty Slaton, Secretary/Treasurer; Pat Martinez, Judi Staats, Eve Craig, and Maggi Allen, The Business of the Film Council . The TVFC web site. www.lemeculafilm.org is currently being updated, Photo. The web site is to include new photographs and links, . The TVFC participated in ShowBiz Expo 2002 from June Ist-3rd at the Los Angeles Convention Center. We distributed over 200 "Temecula Through Our Eyes" calendars, 100 Locations and Film Permit packages and hundreds of local fliers specifically about the Balloon & Wine Festival. We were very pleased to have local retail businesswoman, Elizabeth Galvis participate in our booth with us, Elizabeth sells unique French soaps and scents and beautiful fabrics from Provance, Human Resources from NBC TV invited Elizabeth to participate in their Employee Day at the studio in Burbank, It was a successful event for everyone who participated. . Film Festival Production Meetings are now being held on a monthly basis in our joint offices, Films are coming in well and volunteers and movie screeners are joining up everyday, Filming in Temecula · Local writer and filmmaker, Joe Azerelli, will be meeting in July with TVFC regarding locations and local actors for his upcoming film. Joe has been working with the Film Council for 2 years to complete this project. . The Temecula Talent Showcase which was scheduled for June 15th, has been postponed to September 1 st. This show will be video taped and edited in the hopes that it can be aired on our local cable station. We will continue to support the daily management of filmmaker's requests, and encourage the growing awareness ofthe industry in this community. It is our goal to generate a higher awareness of the Temecula Area within the context of filmmaking activities, and to present the opportunities and benefits of this production to local merchants and businesses, Respectfully, Temecula Valley Film Council -,-....--.-.......... '.' 1 ,Q .""."~,,,~ ."'-"''"~'"'' .,~ V::l?_~~ CIS ClSQ)UU .~ ~SC~= 8~co~~~oc B 11l'.J:I ("l ~ !::1.... ClS 11l- CIS ~ - Q) ~ C < Q,l , __ ..Q ..... Q) ~~ '"" d - 0 a~OClSI:I1I-o'''+JOQ oB~Q)u~ ~ ~Q)I:I1~Q)~E _~S;>>-vQ,lrJ?"O Oc';:l"c:d.l_ C ~, 8 ~ ~ ~ E- g; 5 f2 v o.l::: t-< 8 ~ .... "" VJ +J ..0') :s: I. ...... . 0 B-5oof::"O.sQ,,-,dJ ~1-o~.::::o. ~B~o.~v~~~~]a~~~~ ? ..::d co .s G.S U ell -..0 ~ ..c b-.o V.... ,g u'3~ S ii~ ~"oo; "'5:;J ~ g; ~ E ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ Q,l ~ s E ~ ..e ~rJJ t: E ...... '0'+:;1 Q) ~ rn 0 .... t) C v -5 bO Q) l-. F:: "'0 ::I o.;:l ~ ~ CIS dJ 0."0 ::l..s~o.~==~..... .UV"O-6ClSC ClSCO_cOl;dO "Og'::l'Ec:=Q)co c"Ooo~v~~~I]....ClSA"O_ toj(/J~;'::::"O><<Ic::l8 ~o.u'5=~ (J)bOM=-Oe=Q,l"O~-ao"Oo.... .... = u 8 0.... "" Q) t-~ o......c C 1-0 '"" -:.0 rnc'Oll'O..c .......crJ)ClS~~ ~'3~~~.0 il:a?i~ ;g~~ i1;;3" 8..c~*oS~u.~t-<..cv'~=~~ """" ' ,,~ ..a. iiJ g.~ -5' fIi,.e.~ iLl '~'uS=;~ fJ) 8..2 a10 (.) "0 oo....."O"<:t' V Si1:t:ii<<>g. O::l Ii 1-0'+=1 .cO' a"" ctl+:lvfJ>CI:I ClS ::l "t:I.t:: 0 ~ B.8s~,Q~ v "'0"'0 <c: :::: 0 ~ii[ii,,~'" F ID..c~ .:;! Fll-oo:i\'C~O ,..s "Z 0 " o (/)::l -,;;; 008 ~.ffE.~ e "':!l-j3 ".!I" " 50 o;U i'd (/) ....-a ... s,," 0 " bO '0.... ~:-::: "'0 .S ~~] if ~-5'~~ .s~ &~;; e'Cl~~ o~::l CIS O'C~~CQ ,-<;:::-.S:l~..8 a Q) ~"O "0 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5J' .~ bQ :B ~-5 ~~.~ "2 >>~ 0 1l." -a;- :;a ~ S a be" ~ s cQ .g, b()~ .0' "it s:: of:> ~ 8 en ';:nS ~ "0 0.52 ~s::~_=~.~o~ ~ s~ ~~o ~~.~~~~;]] '~~o~~~]~~j ssc'c]~~ov ~~~s~s"O~.~ -5~~i~.~]~~~~.~~8~;~e~"O o a..c:E ~ .... .... v ~ > .~ ~ r ~.- ~ ~ 0 ~ U -O->v':;::::lO '" ~,,",......'V s~v~$~go~~"O.s~' ~o'a.gs~ o .ss~="~~ ~=~oe'~~3~ e ~-Q o~~ g OV..c~=~e ..c~ ~..a,,", .0 =.0 blJ. v~ ..c;e~u- ~""08~b'~,S='s,,,,~~] uo.s=al b~~v'I~~..c"O~~~ ~]!U~ = ..c U 0 8 = 9: g ~ "0 B '3;j. ,'; 't3 goo ~ ." 0 ~ 0 " " '" ",Q", "u, ,Q '" ... .ia..c(/)~sgcQr::v+J'7o.;j~ ....c:!V ":u~Vv g~8gj"; v=~:E~ ~!s~~~~ ~~'~~~~~~o. " ! .. je B a fol ~ ;:!l ~ ~ u~ 62 ... gs rfl " .... '1: = .s .. := , '" .;< N ~ 6 ~.5 cU2~Q(jU 0 dl~ E v tf.I'a t=: >.v v"O I ''- "'I::;l"'::':; ~"O ':iT ~ .5 tf.I +:l +J rJ) m1BJt~.5j~,~'~~~I~~]~~~t~ ~~~8 c.{/J~ 1lJr/lt:::OQ,l-"'obO OI-.~~-Ep.,.s""Q '_g . ~~~~I-o~ob""~,&..s'ooCl,)>,~....,O .s~Q.> ..c:: "O~ ."1.5~ ~ti o~~d"O~~~~tf.I~"O ~ g~o .;::::/ V 0. u"O A "0 ..... I-, c V Q.> 8 c '+-< VI;/) ~ gs~~~S.~~..s~~~cc~. ~ ~O!Z ~.- ~~ ~ ~ tf.Ivl-o ~ 1-,~Q.>Vtf.l ~ 1-0 m~5~~~]:~~~~8~]~~~~J~~ ~~~~ See ~O~dl v~ >>.... -o>.oo~> "'I-oC ~~ U~3:r!if"~l~~~lhi~~i~~~'[; dl~.E~BI-,"OaFctf.l~~~~b~~1~v!v.2~~~ ~~~!I~ii-c.~~~."Su~. .bo~~~~~ a; e ~;:; 0 ~ I'J g >=;JS "" u 0 11.l..... .s cQ "0 UJ bO +:l g u .$_ ~~tf.lo.c v ~~ vQ.>gtf.l~~~9~1tf.1a.5 ~-~~vf~~~~~ .~~~b"O~~~~~=l'a ~eJ~~S'~~E&~~~~~~g~;~~r~-e~a ~ " S ~ ~" .~--~~ ~. ------.,..---~--;---,..". ---~--,-- ---~-.-,I.:.- :..., u ~ .VJ.:;;,. ..;/ I g, ~! .~ ~ {i~ ..~~;~~; ~ ~ l ' 17 ~T \ ~ ~~.. "r- I 9~ ~ 0-"-' ~ 7(; ..,! ~ 'I 8g '?6 i 1 (I~,I c.=~C""""'-CC.7"7" -- ==-=-'-___ -_ 1,.,...,1 J . \...0 ~ "'.. ~o I b.O EO~"3~.23.-1 ~~d.la~]6"06~.w,o :-~gJE b.Ot)~6~Q)>,' .. S -E:C (,) 0 goo Q) 'fit &1 (!:j a a e ~ a & ~ o'r:; d.l ~ ctt B v ~ o:S ~ ~ ~ -~~~~~a .50~ ~BQ)v ~ -~~E ~;v]S_~9.-1 g 0 ~ ~ t' tI.l 00 g: 1::. ~ ~ 'tHe.a .> ~ ~ ~ b.O"O S" ~ ..9 8 E" ~ c g;> 8 ~ "1:i('"""~Q)- ..c-~IJ,.,I-oCl.li3 ~ oC - v '-,.Q 0).... < o.~ {-4::a8 ~..c:::~Vo. .c:'::=-;f+:l.-&l8g. 1-0 _8'+-<oo~CU-::l ~o-l b.O:.::l 1-0 "'0 "OoC cg 00 (.) E ~ ~......- d ~ 1-0 I:i IU..... 0 +-l -_(fJ .5 (/).s ~ $1':= ii rn ~ ~ ~ s v.~.s Jg ,0 E .E ~ ~ v g:; 0 ~ &3 g ::I e:- u 81-000 o~ Q) ~~oow ~E~o.~1-o (.)a~S+:l~ "0 .~ ~ ~ ~~;r~ ]~.~~] ij~'~~ ~~g~~~ 'i]~~.tI.l ~ @ ~ g~ ~ rJ'J l-o,J:::: O..c::: Q, :::l 005 1-0. 8. .$ (J 1U'Ej vf5 S...-...s > o~ a v . ~ s~i~.~~~ .]~~~~~ g:8 s:~.~~] ~s'(;~~~~ ~~~ ~ 6;j.-4 ~ ~ e- 00..f2 IU I:i IU Q) :3 0. U a.~.-+:s .... o.~ . 0 >, . ad"'" u ~ O'l <-' IU ~ ~]~ ~ ]~-3~~~j ~~! ~]c2~;~'~~~ .~&~ ~~ ~~~~ z 00 'r::' 1::l IU Q) ~ 00 u >> v 0 ea"'a 0 ~ .... u ..::E 0 :>,'- '8 1-0 00.. LI( 0"'0 C... cd S ~~E~i<S~ 1~1~ E~ .0uA ~;usaJO!i.8J~~ ~ :::lE..c:::fI.lClS~~.E cl=lo .J:::(/) it' "'0 -ooo.v '"" oolnVl-. j u ~~~J~~~.~~.~8J~img]~!.~~8~l&~~~~~~ ~~ .5~~u~~M~ ~8~~.s.~8e.So~~8.s~ ~~~~~~u~~ 2 6"8 8] ~ & .~ ~ ~ ~ 1::- "0 a ~ 't:l 4.l ~"O~~~ '~V004.l._~ oo~ ~a e300a~_~og~~~ ~-~ Po U 4.l ~ _ ~ C"l ~ - 0' 0 c. ~ v _ l;o9.a o u ~~~ 4.l0-'- o~~ .8_ - >. c ti s:.. 4.l C"l rJi 4.l "" M 0 4.l ,.Q _ 0 .8 c ~~4.l~4.l~M"O~~04.lE ~ _ ~4.l v~~.~ti~~o~~~eo ~~~ e "O~00~COO '-~o= '~4.l.~ ~~ 4.lE~'-e.-~~~eo~. ctv a~ 8v>.e"O"8~~'i4.l~~ID >.~~ ~~ 0"0:::: 4.l c._o:.~ -:So ~+::l ~..... ~ ~~ ~~e=~--~0eo:.~.- ~~~ a ~~ .i8:=:o~4.lo- 9 e.o os ~c~i8d~ooo.~eo~~td 0f~ '&c -'-__~ c __~ ~v.- V4.l "'ctI~So>._ ~-'''~Eo~-"Oli1-tU >.-.S 0..c: 0 IV bl) >..a == ~ 0 0 ~ .s ctl1.;.: d ~~0VV.V~.S=0..8uq~u eV4.l e U v..c '-= _ 8 0 .. 0 ~ . w ~j v~~~i]~'2~~1]~~~.~~~~. ~~.aB~~=v~e~ctI~ ~~~ .4.l~ ~ .~~.5e~~~"O~~b~~~'~~~B .5 t:l vo.8 .;,;)'rn.8 &tii..::: ~ e~ 8i o;:;j C;bOr.nrn v.~~rnvvr~~"O"cho:. V4.1VCIJO,C=l15o:S ~~ E~3~ Jcti~-g~g~~e J~:octl:E&=-'~ v a~~..c: oooe"Oo~-="Oo 004J~~~0~~ :E oS ctI"U"O CIJ ctI g ~ e biJ"'I;I '0 [) ~ .t: ctI ~ l5.'v.9.~ a -d g ..-a rn -.5 0; '3 _I ~ Po t' ~ 0 U _ E \;;j !3 v ~ ~ 4.1 ~ >. ~ ~C .:g ~~U ~d"O~Q)..c.!>::"O>.c; vUO!J~~B~Nti ...:l Q) 15 U 0 F= e ~ v UJ ~ ~ ~ c t ~ d bO..c C v - . ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ ctI!E ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 [; ~ ~ "'" :E'U} u 8 ~ >= .~ ~ U __ q; ~t-:octl reo vr"il 55 V rO:.a_vUJ~o ~ ~ .....~ . 4.l - V ~V,..Qd4.l "'C"'C ~"'d~ ~~... ~i~~,,~~.S ~e81-t1-t,,~-:S<~! ~~~O.~O~~ v ~ >. > ':j;I0 ctI ~ ..c:- +JIV "l:lC;'=ll3t! ....d.t:l:l ~~. _..co _~CIJ..c "'C~ V ....d~~?~.~OC"l_~ ~ :Q~'Ov~~ :_~]~~~~.~E +Ja_=~ o~ , t',.Q V ~ ~ 0' ctI 0 ~ 1-0 c::: > UJ _ l: .~ ~ ... ~ '3 ~v.g ~ ~.c ~ ~o_~- +::l .'t:l-uB~=~=v~ -<1.lcu", ~c g~~-~'g.C:::~;;bO~~-aO.!;:l~~- "dU"-ov vG" ~ , .- U ~ 11> ctI .--. ~ C Q "" .... ctI V 55 _~ 't:l a ~,!:;4 _ie"O ~ (j)..c:ctlO~ t'-~:.&'!v~iioo-"'Ce..csgllu'=~&::~ t.oc ~ e~~~~~.~~~ >.~~2i ~ ~~ ;~UJ:: o...c:; f:S~!3 ~ ]~.~ u rIl..9vctl2~::;tl?[)~o]0 ~ ~2tctl7g'-.sictl8~a-E ~-5o:S::;E ~ ~~~& ~~ ;::g g..~ e ~e~ g..; ~~~ c:::]..;.g .~S~ voS~e ~oaB~g;~"d~ ~~~~~ou~.= ] " a ~ o ca.~ !3 11>" ~~"'I;I -.:I' 0 "'C,....:. "'C = "'C ~ V l:l 4.l't:l " 4.l ... >. ~Ul:l~oSv 4JB~~VC"lV '~SvVO~~~=~V l;Il'O~ - >.-ctl~ ~0<kI-oC"'~<1.l$="'~..c~~= ,,-..~v.a I-o~UC"l;..i..9-..a:l.s~U-b -s.~Su CCl~ ~_~ v" .o~o ~u ~- OCIJCIJ~Q__ ~ ctI OS' UJ mti -~oo .~.~ 0 e 8- :c 0 V >...... . ~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~] ~iv~!3~rn~~~~~~.~v.-~9"'CQE4.l~o~...~ ~~OO~" S~~ I ....~~"u~.s~~>~~ ~~.g4.lvg~~4J 8ice~~S.~ffictl::;E.I-o~~~ ~ t.S S ~..c _ ~ 0 E- C') e ~ 0.'0 UJ ~ :i? d _ v S .s l:l v 1l ..r:: t;>ClJ8 F=~~]~li~:fg o~s 5u ~o; e 0~"'C-g;;;_ ~ bO"S.ctI~j$:o~v_oo~q; .i86'0 .0-~~'O~'U8C1J'-::'c !~=[).s~~~=e~=g~ej~~'O'~i.;.!3v8.~B @'UJ ~ ~.s] e e.~_](j')~~~ o.g-o"C-l-o~.s~ ~~'> ~~ ..r::V vve~ ~U . ~Q ~Vl-oq; 0~l-oV- UJ'C ~.:;~:::l _ E cO I 53 CIJ e; ~ C:..r:: c .s E g.~ ~ j . ~ ki .. v ~ ~ "il 0 m '3 ~ ~[-t , ~.... 00 8 .c ~ ~ q;..c = >ctlCIJ~ .Uc-u av~ >'4.10 4.l[-t 1-o.~~v4J ..9bO~..cl15j~~~ ~~I.d:::lv~4J~-:S~sg~..c~~ =_~u~ClJurQ~ veo~I-o~J':j;I ctlC-ClJl-o~= '~;;~u:.a55 ~~.5~~~~J oo~~e8'Oi~~~ ~ N ~ u.i;:;j ~ c::: v ~ '0 6"d 0) ~"'I;I" ~ "0' = "d Q) ~ ~"d ca l-o '~'d ,.Sl~;~558; l-o.v~O-~]~;El 1""l~C:::~ ~"'V0 ~_,,~u u'-=_' I - OC::: l-o ..... "" ~ p.!"" '" 0 - .~ ~l l:l :0 v deSctlSV~~ctli8 -.=u~U~-~~ w~ .~ Q 0. C ~'UJ UJ 0 1.....- = - q; v ~ "'C 8..2i $ v (J dOV~~UJ ~~'_~'2u"'C=oUJoc 4.1_ l-o 8~u'~0~~~~c ....ctla~..r::~~~ ~~~Md u>~c..c'~v~~:!::l ~~-u~u.a~~ c:::U~l-o. VSctlV~UJ0ct1Q..c0~>.~ u~s 0 "'C 0' bO"'C.Po v........c a'- u ~ u q;...... ~ Po~ :.::l C ~ ki UJ c::: ...~ Po-..c u - !>,. ~ ~ .- -"""" .~ 1-0 8 "" 0...cl 0 '>~oUctl"'CV~C:::.H V~2~V~_ctlctI ~WV':j;l' 'C.::...cl0"OC..c+JI-o(Jo~ .~o 'U ~o +:lCIJog: ~CIJ'~ctI~~ v -.-'t:lE= :.aUJ..c ~=~ ~ - 5 -g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ q; a'~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~] ~ ctI..c ~;'::: :.= ~ _ o..c e ~ q;..c t> ~ ~r.c ~ v Q.l;:::::o UJ UJ ~ q; ~ "'C ]'- d 0 00 ~ UJ'c v "- !U v ~ l-o ~ ~ . 2 .~~ '-V,!:;40l:l Q!>,. ." o.='--....dctlI1>B +J -1-0 ctlC~~~ ~-?[)..c::"'C~ ;.::::l""Lb~p..UV.1CIJ~;::0 _ ",- r'ia-", "....- ul:l~._....~'" ~~ ~B~.s~~=lc~~~"'C.~mgc:::ctI>..a~q;~ M~S .~o 0'0 .9u-ctlijv~C"lo~..c8-.:1'ce ev~] e~v>'blvcav ~8. ~YbO;affi~~ ~[)gg~J.~.g~'E~~8ki~o:Sooi~t~a:i?~~ ~ol-o'cuoa>.~~ =..cctl_.ctlvc:::,!:;4 oO;..r::l-o [-tuctlu~e~..ceo ~~~oatl=lctlUJ U-uo. ~ E ~ j i ~ ~.l~"sg~ 0 & .~ ~:; 8i3~ ~1f :GJ! W ~{j ~. j~J!! 681Q. U~~11J!~ li$iH 11 ~ ~ fl.=E 50.g'~ Jj~Q1 .~ ~ n 5]goj t:l (:!ill r~11~!~~I l~]!! 1~ Htli ~g i ~ 1 s~ g 8 0 -'- ""--'~"'-' c.._....__.. "._."_ .. ._",-_..-=--------.. ~~~ ~~]~~~~~~~]~~u~ ~~]~~~]~oo oo~- B m Vo~~~= &o~~v8~o~ =...0 veBB~-E~uobOoo~ ~ bO~sEa~i" .S~u. E~~.E-.~E~o.g~E~ oE.~=o~v~. ~ ... 1-<_ V ~ e ~ v a o.:.&a as .+' 0 >. 8 = v ~~o 8J~.~OV~oobO~~as~ ~O~a>'voob bas ~ ~ ~~~E~hc~~o~ I~~v.~v~~= ~~~ v ~ rJ)]U!'a>.~~~ . ~=~v$o~~ .~< c ~~a S~~~vasD ~asaoOOc~~ ~~~ - ONO~oUav~ ... .._ooo...voo~~ v~- w ~MO v.~ 00- .-.gvu .c.-u ~=~ a.~-~~me~~co.~1~~~=.s~v-.30 Vas ~ ~,~~' OO.;::::I"'v~(jjv._ ~.E-O"oo ~eu s~00~~~.E~J~8tU~~~!~oo~~.$~ ._v.... O-N......t:; ~ooo~c"=' .vou'=lv....dJ c ~~~ ~8=0~~00~~~ooas~~u~~~~~~~~oo av = 0 UVL.:;,.::El.... ~"'::'o~v:;.;.. .cas.a. . ~ ~ . v:5! ~ IX) a v c vas."!::.~ rti ~ ~ as.a ~ ,:g..s oo..r:: 3 ~ ~.oo U ~.e 0 - v _E a.~ ~ oo.~ =';1 u.:; . ~ 00 0.0 U g.!l ~ CTj _. (jj v 0", v:a ~ ~.c ~ ...~ 0 > 00 u ~.- 0 v bO rJJ Cl >. >u v u _=as_v v_ vv U ~ .IS i> ".c '" .jo .a 'il ~ - Ii: "" 0 S. - S .~.c 0 ~ -. rJJ -Uo 0 ~ ~ 0 'i3'.s '>- as 8 v g; ~]oo ~ Cl v U rJ) u.......... o~ = .._ ~ - 0 ('""" rJJ ~lS2 ~~~~;;]~I~~~g~~~o.s~~~~ ... lQ '" 1 EI ~ ~~~=f s~vasvarJ)VbO$~O'oo ~.ga. st-5~b~'~~~agi ~~~..r:: OO~~5~~b~].c~&v ~_E.~~. v~~;grJ)~.~~jg~~ "'~""oo -5ll:l~UlM!i...".S .0..00 c:h 0 ~ CTj a:;.- +:I > rJ) v - .b;:l o c~. >. as rJJ '; U >. ~ rJJ ~ ~ a = Q.=@ Z e ~ ~ ; ~ .~ ("l s.c.~ v ~ & 8 g,2 00 u ~ as'3u l:! ~ ~.Qoo ~".Q1:: 0'" ~._ R 00 fA . ~ vEl ~ ,Jo._...Q3 a....v~v ~;::..8 oo.s~ ~8-5 :.E a-g~~ ~f~:E~ ~ """ ".0'" '" ,,"',,_~ o.~=.-:::oo- F.b;:l-~v.$ .Cl:l"'Cooas.b;:l :g..c::~~o. 0=~'aii~~~00200~~ ~ ~;E:::::8e ....as~~:z:i>:.!d1?~d!3a.V~~ ~~ ~~o~B v~~c. ~-Cl:lDo ~ ~p UCTj ~~~~oo~ v~~= ~ ~ctl __I.DC~~~v", ~~:;o~ u~~=.;Q.~~vS.E ~ ~~~~~ 0"'~t~v]~~<S]5 :Sv8rJJ~'"5~~~~g~;a~~~g:~ oo~~~]& ~e~~~'a;3~8~S ~.$~ ~f . ~.JI :::J ~.-:i:I :::J ~ ~U "lJ ::z:::_ i.5! !l. ~8i!!:n , 1l.~ iJ~ g -!; c . e.ffl'&tigf13 , m "Mf~ , ~ ~~ . .;~i1Jl~ . ~i~fj :j! is. ~ \j. 8 . .. ::z:::,~ ~J lljj . ~ , . ~ I!I~ m - -g ~ . 11 ~ S Iii J.::;~ u ~ i 1101 m ~'-.:::E 13 oa....:: m r" ~~ ~" e: E'E:::e ~ , -" ~:;:. II :!iH"Il~ . c ~~! . ~ a ~ jB <l ~iH~ . ~ -fi~ ]t ~ qI . "'~e~1! . :ij a; "II . rx; I- Jh!l U.al- ~ -H "'C cn"'E::z::: 0 = 0 x !;II ~~.~ t~~~~~~.E~~8 ~~~~ tb v~ 0 5- >-.;.l ~~ ~'!> g_~- 8 it; 0 '" m U..d 0 lii.8 '-' il 1il Cd> '.; rJJ- ._~ .uvS2 .00 v O....~ E~~ ]~~]E~~U~€ ~~e~~ ~ctl~ i ~St~~~~5 ;=~rti~ Uvas rtJt.h~"" ~ 'r' U_Voo ~~C v~~>.......VCdrtJ~'+=I.oo ~Q.! ~v= ~0~5~~~~a~2~rtJ.~~~ s~oo a~~oo_ ~~00"~Q.!~~ 0 " >=O~_. _~ ....~~~v d,J -'"'d cd U ~ v bO.!a 0 00.; 0 v 00 aoo .~ -;=........ -ooS ~~~ o ~ ~.E9 >..:2 >.~~ ~ ~ ~g ~ rJJ ~ Q,~ 0 e ..c: e.- Ob ~~ d,J l:!-b~.r'2.J:I =u v . .~ ~.5 v = -5 ~. ~.s::; a = 9 .... - rJJ U 0 ~~ ~ ]S~8gc~s~~ug~~~~v..c::>.~ rJJ......~u~~ ov....ul.Dooooas~g]~ ~a "~i~ ~-5.~ "8;3 .~... "'f-<~ ~ ~ t.E.5.s. .~ 0 t\t) 5 .5 ~ .B::a OIJ ~ ~ . as ~c~~~ d,J~~~- _~ ~_~ ~._ = v_ ~ CTj"'d.n -.- 0 v~~ v ('"""~ o~....... & ~'1i3~ v~-g >.~ ~~M 8 ~~U o~a.E~ _Ec~~ ~~~~ ~-@.~.~~.~ g~~ "'1~'t1 0:9= .8 oo~ ~8~v.= J... I.D ~ 0 d,J >- ~a~~~~i~~ ~ U~~~~~5gas fI'J 0('""" 8,vEuu", ..r:: rtJ ~ o.~. 00 ~ ~ o Ul1)v.30.~ood'l;j t-4 S....t u~VCdca .b;:l ~jj:t:! gft)~-a ~ cz::.... 0 rJ) > v CTj o.c r.l '" i!:> . 0 "''' 0. ~ ~ ~;)G'8gffg;::gd,J ~as~ ~~~as~"E :,.Qa~5).g =..r:: ~ 9 -.b;:l<.b~t::8.~'O.s o t'-<J>oo~~~=..o .....vl.D ~ asv ~_Em 80S& >',,-.>: -. 0 rllU 00 oo",.jo "K"" 0 0 .- -- v _ b-I 0. U ~~ ~~ .~ .~ , ;t::: ~ "ll~ ~~ ~;S S.s~ h~ ~"!5'."'~ "'~ ~:c;~ it~YJ ~fol ~ ..." Sl:l~ ~~i ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ g~~!~~ ~~.~~~~~~~J~i ~~j~~]~ ~]~~Ei~~ ceE~ boO~8~~~00 ]~~~;:212 :ES:a8,~~@t~~;.c ~~oo+->u~..e E~v~<~:E~ '" ~" ""'~"'.' "'''~ ,,~Oil .....0:: "'~~ 0" ..o".~' ~~"'U ,,0 U ... 0 Cd .C ~ r;l- ~ J... 0 U ~ U"'d t:' CTj p ~ boO 0 rJJ e,) 00 ~ CTj..... ~ bIJ 00 bO..... = 0- v 0. ~ b08 .~~- ~. ~ '~v; 0 ctlo('"""~ =5 ~""oo.c ~ si J...V v ....~S....~d,J~ ~~.~~~o. ~~'O~8 :;Sj~&]~ ~:.g;B~E~~.st;~~~ :E~~~~~~ ~>-fJ-ae"i.~] ~ ~ v::S"'!" .... ~ 6'~ ~ -5 ~ ..c:: ~ +-> ~ - v 0 5 ~ ~ ~ as;:S] ~ V "t:I a 0 t\t) 8 ~ v v g'a 1> '" ~ u ~Jl~s.~;~~~.5~ ~'O~~!~ ~~~~~~~~~:.5~ ~~~~R~~ ~'8~t~~~ o .a 8 ~ 1:: :a ~.o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8. ~ = 0 E E ~ ~ =2 ~c 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c v .E ~ .c 1d ~ !a u Q.-. S v ~liio~a~t~I,,~j ~~,.Q !: ~9,~I!~:!<!:~"'l~~~~~j~i'" " "'!ol~-5~~ ~J~:!~~li~1~ ;:;!ii.J~fltJi~~~i~]t:~I~~I~i!~1!1~~1 c:. ~ t:-'l as ~"sg bIJ"i ~] oo.~ ..5 v CTj $'P-ot _ ~ Q.. a E.B: bO t u a ~ ~;:;E 55 v ~ .8 6' 3 u.i~ ~ v boO as 5 P-ot ~ P: 0 a;>: Illt~II~]I!I~i3~t~lil:~o~lltil~~ji,,~~lfilg:f~Jla~I:I!ll ou ooV 0 ~""8 ca: rJJ..c::~~v ~~ ~v-.....c.:;J~ b.OV..o::oo=~ ~"'''''.oo v_J...~~:,~ ~~1~~81~~.~i8~Q..~~~~~~~j~1]~]~~as~;~ =~;~~~i ~~.~~e&8~ 1 a ~ o III '" ~~] ~~ij "sgeg 8 v = v~.g S " ~ ~sE s.g ~8.5 ~ " - ~ ~os rJ il s v.o - . 008-23 ClSCTjOC ~..c::8~ p...U~v 3!11"il~" ~ 8"1"'" = ~..afjrll~'""d".C..,e;. ..gJ::.M~ 00 '" co '" 0 u ~ ~ ~ ,_ -g~ v ~~~~~F,.c'C'-' ~<l~S ,.,~~ ~jt:"*J~.1J B1-<rJJwJ:l8,.s!i u ~ ,,~~~gll~oij ~ ~ ~j5j~l~!~jj; ~ "t:l.s. ~~~-.:t'''t:lU 6 j!J :] -1!1 6 ; <e : d.~ :~ :~~~: tUb : ~ : : :"": :~'E'E'E ]rE1:~~~~;-3'~~g :2i~::;;:2i:2i-.-..E,-.J5J5z "" >> Ii! Ii! E E .Q.Q ~~ "il '" ~ ! .~ .J3 g '" ~ F< ~f'<:;l:2i ~<lO ~ fZ ~ .8 iI ]i~J ~ ~ II " m " ~~~g ~~ O~ ~i a~]~ 000" "E.Q~o-l ~ov>. UJ 0 00 00,.Q .b;:l rJJ~~ ~ :s.~ lii ~ S ~ ~.~~ t; t),s]-5 ~ ~ ~ ",01 ".@.8 '" ~ :=SS:~ Ul.~S1l~ _ 8 0 ~ ~ g ~ j] >'Vcn.c a]d~ ~ ~.~ ~8 o.S..c: 8IllIIElOllOtalll'ShM:l3rCm - \h-c::z;. f" j ~.__r '" II) <'l ill 'C " ~ i a ~ ]~~~~ ~~~~E~.~~lcdf~d~~ID~ ~~~~~J~'~~~ ~~~~~S~i'~S~~ j'!~~~Jt >-&=< ~8€2~.8'm,€u~g~~.aci.ci.~]f -rlJtdci.rlJ!:I>'-.:t'.~ ~$ ~~.b<J:}"i:fJbO]f ~t~oaEil-'8 ~~ ~e~ CQ] ~g ~.~:E.=-5"'" ~ c.a-.:t'.-l~CJu >,Q.l;g]LrJ's u ~~~ ~:-..~~ ~'r;;;j:8 rlJ ~ ~U ~. Etl'~i tli ~:~~a ~~~e~~~~[i~~!~d~:~ ~~8~~~~~~~iee=~~i~~1~.~~ :~~~l&~ ill~' Jli~tiJ~J~iljl~6~E~il!i~J~~~~!J~I-lv~t~~~~.i'~ ~~]~];IV~ . rn - "t:l .... J:l A'>l ~ ~ 00 . c. ~ J:l ~ ......-l bO 0 I-, Cf.l tb,J:::l ~ ::l rlJ _ J:l ',::l ~ ,J:::l J:l ~ ~ J:l U ~,J:::l .c "t:l c.._ U "t:l ~.- C::l Q.l Q.l v..... ..... ~::s .~ +.>" >....... 00 ..... c::I 'Z3 "'Cl._ (.). ......_ .... (.) ..t.O ~J!I.~ltlj~j~li~II:~iJJi~;;~RI:ljl!~!j"l~j~~tjl~]~~i!JI~I V>.O~c.Q.l~~ >.~ '-(')c::I'-oo~~vl CQ- (.)Q._~ =J:lS~ ::sc::lQ.l ~'C O"t:lN~~-""Q.llJ ~lpl.gliJ~~EI~~!~~1~~~EJ~ililjtt~I;~'~J~S!i~~]i;0~~I~1f: (l;I.~s *,m~><"'I:l>-5~~.c.-l.....d.ioo'E~:s: .~bOCl''''~.!~ li~>\V5 ....goo,grn.;.e~.~(.) ~.~~u s.gc::lO ~~ci.i~g~~~~~~lfu~~1.8~~,~~'~~~~~~]~e~~~~~~~~~~':~~~~~]~~~t.~i]j~e c::I LrJ.... -....J:l... C "'I:l :S:OO"::::"'I:lc::l::s <>c:r::__.,:: J:loo ~.. """::s vv. LrJ c::I' c:r::CQl-..oo ::::lb.O ~ I fJ Q,l0 g'a =0 .:.0 Ii) >.E's c.~....."'I:lM ::l en Ta 0.00 .... ~.- c::I~O'E ..clM"-:':o!:a I ~ ~;=.: O:>'enS's..c e ~ Q.l;=': ~ci.S~i~~J:l~~f~~~~~~~~.-l"'l:l"'l:ls~~~~~~o*"'I:l~;~vu~~~~~s]~oo~~OO~g03~~ S"'=t' td f: =.0 .~U~~.c ~ g. CIS ~ ;iu'S ~ ~; ci. ~ 0 "" .8~sau ~..:r:u'S~ ~g 8.Ell-' td~.c;) ~-;;.Q u u e.g's ~.5 ~, .... - ~, .... I ~ Q.l LrJ ',.c::; >. rIl - ;.... v '"CJ ~ uu li3 ~.::::::lU .dt-- 00 .....~ f1.lN E=Ad::!l J:l(l;lc..~ooo~ -~i~~88~~~0 .- v 0 ~ .... 00 ".... 0 4) ... g I :g5.~.e..s]&f ]~d:-5 g~ ~e~~ t' dOO~~d.c- "'I:lN~_o,1 .dV~ ._~ "'I:lO~O ~-~~.d ~~(.)~0 ~(.)rn 000 ~ O~O"llSu. r.;. >. IgJ~iJ~ t~I~~~dlllt J:l q ~ c..... d en >.~ ~ ~ '!e IS = .-t.O"'I:lOQ.lc::l~ ....~~.IS Jc.~~"'I:lOO : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ .!l'~ ~] '-::l>'~LrJ"'I:l"'" uS'-~"'I:lV8~~t ~~~se~~ ~BE~"~~16"'~ ~~>.tdf1.lg~ ~oomc::l.d ~0~ ~~_......_u. -~~~",>.igc::la;=':1 ~ 00.....00 ><1:-1 c::I ~ 0 ..... 0 ~~E~8]~ ~"'I:lUtl~B~~~~ <~~I~ ~ ....~joo.~CQ"t:lG~.9. d6oS.5~b~gouIi)001J:l!~~1 ~~~~ii'Q,l>~~~~9~~~~B~8~ .c.-l >._ ..... ..... j..> .... ~ ~ _ ~~~~'S~:t~.Ei]~l E'~~~~ ~'~~....f1.l0V~VV~d~ c'ao~ '-V~4)v",,~ .d_~ ~ .8~O~J:l~ SS">b~ S"'~~S" _ <,,~ - .~ Q.l 0 ~ c.~ 0 V "'I:l ~ o.f! E! U 8 <:S .9 ~dc::lg-B2Q,l't3::s.5~f.J:lo 0 C'I'"J ~ o-~'-o::SQ,l..e~c::I::sQ,l~ u]t;!13 "'I:l ::s 0 ~ ~ C'~........ ~ ~ - ~ _ u "" u~ N.a .-rlJ.....~U _~ "'''= 6~c.~J:l~ 13~g.~.m ~ ~~u ~vrlJJ:lc::l J:l~.c.d....8~ ~ -.~ gF.~.~~~j::l~oo"'l:l~-U ~~_ ~"" !3~1~llil~1 t~~8.s ~ ,s.~ ~ 0 ~ " a E ~"" ~ 3 ~ fJl '" " - '-S S s"il 0 '3 ~ ~ j! ." .s ~.o :g toe 8V"'l:lv~~~._v~ IS ~~~ 1ii~BVf:oF~' ~..s>4)~ -t: ~" ,J:::l g c..J:I. U 0 -" a's: c v ~ ~ oii"'-E~.,Si'B "~'t:2:JLrJ o.;;:::.~ f1.l-..... "~,, _ "=_~~" -,,0 .""'~._,, bO~ "''' ~~".".So=~"I_P3.sl"0~ '~cadS(lSO""Q,l. +.;1_ 0 ;:;0:.... IS>.!> ,.coo,.g", 000 >,_00 boO c:i. 5 bO~ 't:l.B -d <1.l ~ ~ .... .....c lr.l,,= "t:l . Q) ~ t-.- >. I rJl UJ .... ' . J~i'~!~~~ ~g~~~~~~~ji~ ~~~J':.;~~~I~~ j~~~]J~~l~~g:~t g'~~r~~ ~~~~~~'o~o..= g~c~~~~~~ M~~]t~~~>.~'a~ >~D'~a ~_f~i~i~ s~ea"~ o 1-0 I:-' :=r OJ crJ C'\t bO <1.l fI) Cd ..... 0') ~ tl:l C tl:l 0 ......... .... - '.. ll":I _ I c.o' €'E [(co v ~ ~ a~~:E-S ~'t:l rJl~8~'~'g 5 cc~ o_'~~ rJl ~~~ ":B 't:l8d~ a.=s~'~ 85~8 rJi t&5~:: ~g c::::s->-'....C.lOil~;c. ~ ...... ~bO~<J>.- ~..... -' ooV ,ctlcc,,<1.lrJl ~ ctl..5=,,<1.l .....E-bOp>"<I'~ 51' _ :E ~.a~~c:i.:E :~~.~ ~j ~~~:i ~~~ .gg~~~~] ~ ~~~:a >.]]'~.~~ &8~] co ~~~~tt~~ a~g OJ "'d co 0 "'d ur E ~ ~ ~Q ~ >.'C "g .B.... 'E..9 ~ l3 >. '-' 5 t:z:: "0 '5::S 0 "'0 ~ t 5 Q) 0 ~..... 0 rn ...... "0 <1.l ~ ~ ~ U'} ~ ~ 5. ~ s ~ r;~ij:fi ~ ~ ~ >.~ ~ c~.~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ rn '2 ~ ci. t ~ ~ ~ ri s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5! t ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s: crJ eo:: ~ ~ 'Sa -. !It,.ovl:tl:,~-~C?ul:-'ti~-8S<1.l~O .s t:=-c .'-"[J _"'0 ;;>o.raI1.lCp. .-.p..::::! e;c"'O ~"Cl. ,,-0 co .acO~::ICl C'O.s.....lo;:lC m>."5j :>.~>."'O'~o.(/)rnvg~3 c.o ..c:~oQ)~b.OeOCtt<1.l5~;:sh"'O-g. co rn ::s...-4 c ~ ~ I:"-.. ~ v.c 0 v v I'd ;:l ~ I: "'0;;> V v bO".D I ..:d O'l M'E-t..c 0. ~ 0 00 ' ...:; t>- "'0 ~ J~1:~i&ocld!~igl];8~i~J~~]~Su~.~~'~i~j'~~~u~:~g~~I!I~:!~:O'ug,~!~j~ ~:s;~o..c s-"'O -<<I'f): ~l-tfIJ>._ >.....;..>>Q,lC'd as'VC'd - ~'-I-o ca- v Q l-t ca'-ij ~~~lB~8~~J~;lm~~~~].~~~~~~v~~~~~~~i~g~~i~ie~~~~]lj~I~1~~~ ~~..= i..c~OO:.a~~~ .S:duo. .-goo~C'd ~Cl.cI'd'~fIJ "'0 .~I'd.~C'd~.! O'l ~o]"'OVc~uo15c:t:.!:l bOl'do=: ~]!j~.;t~~~~~J.~.ii~]'~~i~~!j~;~~Jval:~~~~j]~~~]~~~~~:~1~~~~i!cii ~ 0._ bO .c"'O C'd_ >.~ 00_ u<l Co.S:> bOo.So.2:l U ~.E ~ o.!t 00 00 ~ Cl' I "'0 C V -f: :':..~ 0 l-o 1-0 (Q V fIJ . I fIJ . fIJ 0 .s =: r/J....; v a v >. v ~ >. I >" ~ V "'0 >."'0 V ..... l-o V ~ >. I "'O- s V u 0 ;s.c v v v t!. .0. C':l O'aJ ~ .- "'0 1u'- e v 0 1-0 V V ~ U "'0 1-0 ~ 1-0 <:0 ........:-::lu >. 0. v:::::l V.c e 0 0 :> ~ ...- ~ - ::I "'Or./) '.::I-.~uo.-:::~, 00 ..+J....g;O'",oci.Covv-.::l..o+JE:.>C'dI'dc:t: Q.l1D"'O ~I'dCC'dI-oE-<ci.--liJ< Q.l0'l0:.s ~~8 e.~@~~]ij ~G~a~'~I-oO~~'~~~~.~SbOa-l-o~!~ ~~~2.S~&~~ .~~2~~ !-~a ~ I: ,.Q C 0. V'- ~,' ...0 en v"'O '<t' ,....t..o.... C'd "'0 V ;:l "'0 ::: 0'- C t> 0 ~ 00 I ..o~ l-o "'0 ? "'t:i l-o ... .~.;~ -uQ,l~~:~~;j ~~~~o8!~~bi.~~i~:>~'~]11e~ e~~~~]~j~~~b15~u ~~~J v< ~ "'OV'a~;} - 0 .~ .-O'-I:V= ....~ ~ ~ "'050'~C'd;;>-'~ '~I:_ ~C'dO ]..... ~ u u.5 ~.5 '0 ~ ,;3 >. ~ .s,.Q 0'] So] ca e;.= ~ "'0 .- .~ ~ ~ va -..g v;;:: .@;;> ~ a _ g 0 ~ i; 0 ~ .t:: "'0 'S ! : C'dG''''O ~ >.~ 'Cjro<t!l-o~ rIJ .cl-o~-I'dV "'02;;> I'd l'dC'dbOv "'0'" ;:l 00 flJb/J,....t 00t::"O !:II-o -= ~a~ ~~1.~~~~~~'e~~I~:0~os~8~~e~s~v>~~5 ~~~a]G.ea~J~'~~~~~5 i~l'dsi Q,l Q.l ~ e s: t-' '"'t () ~ ~ ;:I 1-0 - ... fIJ - ;:l >. .~ v 00._ ~ r> 0 't-' u t::'.o9 0 :.a 6 ca .~~~ ~~J~~~~~ti ~~!ali';~io]~j]~'~~]~~~ ~U~~]~.5 .g'iB~~~~ ~u~~ il~ ~~:!~lil~JI~lfi:l!i:;!]iilj!~J: ~~~!~iJ!~l~~i~J ~IJt o u bO Cl"'O _El "'0 0 ~ Q p.. ~ I:"-.. 0 ~ s.c bO v 00 ~ E-t ~ - t-' ~ v;.:::l...s ;:I 0 s v v v v C'd 0.2 >"~ .~ ~ l:~i~lo~=~ii~l~i~~iJ)~I~:!ii~~]~i~l~~~i~a~!~E:~~~:~.:~~i~~j~~.~ a.I'd....;> I.O..Q rI15fE',,;o.c00 ~~......e..o-u<r>",ooo,g....'.pdeuo.;>v";j-"~ ~v" ::I~~. cao;>= 1:"-..8 ~ . I V """' "'. u' . I'd C -.... v"'" .... .- ._ .- I'd ~ 0 0 ~ fIJ "'0 V >. 00 - ~ ... 7 ~ ~]i~ ~liJ~~]1~~~iJli~11~!~I~;~]iil~~F€~1511~~it~IIR~~~;~ '" " ".: u ,5 ~ j 5 ~ ;7) <'l 'h ~~ 1&,- I . Ifl ~ ~1-~d. ~ 3lCNYSO ~~ ~.!~~~~~~~ i.~~]g~~ o~ c~.5 ~ p..'~rJ) ci.f:: ~~~~~.= ~ ~_ ~~_~ ~ U Mrl~d~~ . iiJrn "COO.V.....U'Odll':l ..Mvocccf::E -58 !:It--,c~'- 01,00 $'...,cS,o-"'o. .0 ~d:II:-"iEi~::Eed)~ c~!:-'.~&....>,o '''! Q,lO Ulbor:i' to '::I.~OVM "..,j.51'?>'o.~":;"',,, i:'t--i:''''~~-5.;; a' ~>8~ ....u~~v Q,l~vooCCc I ~J~~e~~.~gJ~~ ~~.~~:&~~ jv ~ .:S:o~t..nI-oC::l-o ~O') d 0::1 cd . ~~t~vl-o ~a::l~ m-~t8~1-o~ ~~C1l ~t(ljL::dc.n ~(ljV~=""'O...-l ~~~!~1~~~~~~~li1;1;!i ~cc..~l-ouccrn '_~I rnv-c::~v >.u~ o;;'+;'~f::.!P.~i-> VUl~>'C::I~ .a'abl~I-o~~O~ll':lU~ ~~ ~~tv ~.~u Clcc'~'.geQ) 1'~::E.sE~.El8~..o~ P...... cod (ljrn>.8d"JV-ccv._~8d al-o~ C'f:I,-v V~r:i=~ ~>.~~uVO >.ov M_~VUU rn.... ccv~u >..... ~~~ ~~8~~~S~~ ~~'og~~g .. " '5 8 [:t 1 e ~ <0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ :( ~- o ~ 3 is ~ ffi ~ 5 zt(~~Ji~~ ::J V'l -, co ....J 1 0::( /: ~ @ ~ 5 ~ 5 ~ r= If} !; ~ ~<::l ,~ ~ ~~ ~ I.~ ~i;:, ~.~ ~~ "~ ~ ..... '" Z !Z!lJ :JZ Ui< ...'" "'~ ::;U ~~ (3 ~.~~~ ~~~Si ~~~~]~ .a E a: Cl c ~-'1ii rn 1-0 . -<.0 !:'-l'a co u:I "t::l 0 CIS 0 r./.l v,,2:l~ ' 1-0 t"'" B~ m~ ......~.a I-o~cn >'~'-:'.a m;.> ~~B< ~~~~E~~te~ ~~ ou::! l:Om~~ ~c .,.eooU :>.~ .so,SUi ,.-,,2:l u.... .~o ::;E E""C O)~ -=~::;;..""C~ ~._ .~~ .~ ~g~6'~~~~e~g~ (;:;-c.2a U CQ,-".-:.,.e,.e~ c.~ - c< o e~].t:: ~ ~~ cd ~ ~ e E ~ 05 cd ~ E- l.O~] 'C~<6.dVU::s..s:J:q~-'~ ~ ~-.:t' 1-0 <Ll '-"Our......c;.::::rn Cu ~ ~~~u~=~e~~iu8~~~~ r.l~ oo....~ ~t"'~ i::..g:E 8rJ~ 0 I-o'S~] cdtb._....."i:iv ,.e~rno.l-o ~ r--I-o ~:!"'(J)ooVt:ioJCU~c:'\1'U ~~~~u~cdBEvec~gc:'\1ooo J~~.~~~~~~~~-~~rn!~ d_O) ~C1o~ >..-.:J<Ll~.~ ~ ~o-~UQl.O~v~v~~B,.eoo~ ~_~~~~~g~v8~c:'\1.r--~~v ~~~Q ~~~~.~ ~g.5.5~ d 0:: < o ~ Z to ::i ~ l/') < ~ au=, + 0 < en aU ~~:S OlOCd O~~ lj)r---.~ i;j . cd 0. = u........ ~ ~..-:..;:, :;;!u'E] E~~~ 'a~.fS ou E~vfti ~~rn ~~g O~:E'E v:h~ -.:JU~ ~I-oa~ 05&;v ~ .5 0.5 ~ cd u..... .5~~ 0<< ~,c "'..,j ",,,:a g "" IS M U v (jj _._ > v ~'-"(jj -5~~~_~rJ -cd~ o >.~ v ~ m ...... ~ !-o ~o~u ~g >.~ ~ ~u "", .;;:: "" ' ,,~ !l U);;:: [il :;[::;g-;,; :g,g;F:""'..,j.!'l '" . ~ U~l.O""C d(,O ~(JjTii~~ ~ ~o ~ ~ch v';Jt"' <Llo< ....1-o4u=od._.....Cl::~Ui~ = 5~.t::~e~ Ou rt}~""C a ":~8]"-41 >..8~::E:p ~~] ~ .... 6rJ ~ Z v E u~ a ~.-:l u ...... dUI-o ~~.... ~~ ~U._ cd ::s~u.:=I ~ e &;"'~ ii:-a~Cl ii:u~ -,,~ f";~',>,,:,; ,- ;.....,_"~ -.._ __~".....,l. _,..-:'---. _,_~_,,~_ ':',{ ........... .,.... >'''~;' I.", ,T> -~."'- ~''''' r-:'...->': r1 i :~~ I ... .lilC ~,.!o>..i! .f~ Ill!j ~ ' ifll...t 1 !,O 'e;~~1 .. I..,,,, '1! !,O ;~.):!t!l ! ~ ,~...!. Q) ~;~' . g !!~~i - [~.]:j I";;: J I~'.' , .....'"._1 "c""'":"'l..~..,...,.~......_,-..~>~..>. ...~::"I-:T _"..,,,",,,"'f.. " I i . ~.' i "'1 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES premier $33 seats are only available in full- season ticket packages. , f I I LOS ANGElES KINGS Health South . Training Center, 555 N. Nash SL. El Sc:gundo, CA 90245, (888) 546-4752, www.laIting1.Com.SPORT: Hockey. LEAOUE: National Hockey League. CONFERENCE: Western/Pacific Division. BEASoN: October through mid-April. PlayoflS follow. nCKETll: Tickets am be purchased at the Staples Center and through TIcketmaster. Ptices range from $21 to $105.50, depending on availability. Season tickets are available. LOS ANGElES LAKERS Staples Center, 11 11 S. FJgUeroa St., Los Angeles. CA 90015. (800) 462-2849 (individual tickets), (310) 426-6031 (season seats),. . www.fakn.s.com. SPORT: Basketball. LEAOUE: National Basketball Assn. CONFERENCE: Pacific Division. SEASON: November to late April Playoffi follow for about two months. nclCETS: Tickets are av:iilable through the Staples Center box office and TIcketmaster. Prices range from $22 to .$165 per game or about $946 to $7.095 per season. . LOS ANGElES SPARKS Scaples Center, 111 1 S. FJgUeroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90015. (310) 426-6031, www.fasparks.com. Anaheim. CA 92806, (714) 940-2000 (gen_ eral information). (714) 634-2000 (ticket information), (714) 940-2074 (group sales). www.angrlsbasdNdl.COm. SPORT: Baseball. LEAOUE: Ameriam League. DIVISION: AL WesL BEASoN: April through Oaober. nCKErS: Tickets are available through the . Angels box office, TIcketmasrer ouders and on the Web site. Prices range from $4 to $26 per game. Several packages are awilable for season. tickets. Raricho Cucamonea Quake. MIGHTY DUCKS OF ANAHEIM Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, 2695 E. Katella A"".. Anaheim, CA 92806. (714) 940- 2900, .www.mightyd.drs.COm.SPORT: Hockey. LEAOUE: National Hockey league. CONFERENCE: Western/Pacific Division. S""ON: October to April. Playoffi follow. nclCETS: Tickets for individual games are awilable through the Pond box office and TIckennasrer. Prices range from $15 to $175. RIVERSIDE COUNTY lAKE ElSINORE STORM The Diamond, 500 Diamond Dti"", Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, (909) 245-4487, www.stfJI7nIJas.- ba/lcom. SPORT: Baseball LEAGUE: California League. DIVISION: Southern. -.oN: April through early September. ncKEIS: Tickets am be purchased at the Stonn box office. . w . . , " i . ~ , o " . ~ . ~ f SPORT: Basketball. LEAGUE: Women's National Basketball Assn. CONFERENeE: Western. -.oN: Late May to late August or early September, depending on playoffi. mKErS: Tickets are avaiIahle through the Staples Center or TIcketmasrer. Prices range from $7.50 to $35. ORANGE COUNTY ANAHEIM ANGElS Edison International . Fidd of Anaheim, 2000 Gene Auriy Way, .~ TEMECULA . An easy day trip from .;: ,> ."- , LA. Or San Diego... " '.', ~"..-:~ . ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES VISitors Authority). www.PalmSprinU USA.amt. FEATURES: N'Jghtdubs, restauran.. and specialty shops. Smelli doscxIlO traffic betw<en 6 and 10 p.m. Thursdays lOr the Palm Spring> Vd/ageFcst featuring vendors, music and aafi.. HOURS: Vaty by establishment. PARKING: Metered patk_ ing and some free parlting behind shops. ,. . OLD TOWN TEMECIAA Old Town Front StR:et and Rancho Califumia . Road, TemecuIa, (909) 676-5090, www.tnnmJa. OIl- FEATURES: 640 antiqll<S dealers and gift shops, dining. <he Temecula Valley Museum and historical buildi"ll" including the First National Bank ofTemecuIa, which is now a Mexican rest:lW3nt called The Bank. A &rmers' tnatIr<t is held W<ddy. A children', museum will open in Deci:mber, 2002. HOURS: 10 a.m. 10 5 p.m. PARKING: Fn:e sttoer and lot padting. ,. . ',. UNIVERSITY VILlAGE 1201 University Ave. (near UC Riverside),. Riverside, (909) 788-1400. FEATURES: Utban boulevanl populated by shops and rest:lW3nts, including Fat Bwger, Coli Cup Tea and Bob. Cafe. Mad Planer. G=t Steak and 1'0"10, New !mag< Hair Salon, Quizno's, Village Wok and Cafe. Boompa', Italian Ratawant. Dr.ogon', Lait Vtdeo Atcade, ToIcyo Tony's, Swbucks, Ben & Jerry', and the 10- screen Univetsity Village Cinema. HOURS: 5 a.m. 10 2 a.m. wi<h houts . varying by business. PARKING, Fn:e with validation. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. MAIN STREET UPlAND AND 2ND AVENUE MARKET 139 East 'C' St. and sunounding stn:ets in historic downrown Upland, (909) 949- 4499. FEATURES: Antique stores, shops and rest:lW3nts. The woeIdy 2nd Avenue Marlter features food vendors, atts and aafi.. artisans. musical entertainment and children', activities. Thent is also a W<ddy &rmers' . marltet. HOURS: SlOres and business bouts v;uy but most ate open trom 9 a.m. 10 5 p.m. Call lOt dares and additional infurmation' alsout the '2od Avenue Madtet. The free f.umer', tnatIr<t is held trom 5 10 9 p.m. Thursdays trom AptillO October. PARKING, StR:et padting. especially . along 3al Avenue. ONTARIO MIUS Interstate 10 and 15 junaion, Ontario. (909) 484- 8300. www.01It4riomiUs.com. FEATURES: Mote than 225 specialty stores and vendors, including Off5<hSaks 5<h Avenue, Mikasa, Liz C1aibome, Nike Faamy SlOte, Nordstrom Rack, 0Uc0', and Old Navy. R<stawants include Wolfgang Puck Cafe, Rainfurest'Cafe and . Marlter Broiler. Entertainment venll<S at Ontario Mills include Van', Skateparlc. Dave & Bustet',. an AMC 30-screen <heater and GameWorlts. HOURS: 1Oa.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Satwday and 10 a.m. 10 8 p.m. Sunday. Houts may v;uy lOt holidays. PARKING: Fn:e on-site parlting. VENTURA COUNTY CHANNEL ISlANDS HARBOR off the Vennua Fn:eway (101), 0xrumI, (805) 9854852, www.chan~lisIandsharbor.OIl- FEATURES: Shops, restaurants, boating. sport fishing. isIarid excutsions, matitime museum and a W<ddy &rmers' marltet. HOURS: Houts lOr recreation. shops and museum vary. PARKING: Free. ; FISIfERMAN'S WHARFoomer of Channd Islands BouloYanI and South VIcroriaAvenue, Oxnard, (800)269-6273. (805) 385-7545. FEATURES: Harbor .excwsions, live music in an outdoor setting. shoP. and tesClUt:UUS; Home of the Vennua County Museum. HOURS, Vaty by establishment. PARKING: Fn:e. VENnJRA HARBOR VILlAGE Harbor Bou1evanl and Spinnaker Drive, Ventura, (805) 644-0169. www.l/mtomhar6orvi//age.amt.FEATURES: . Forty specialty shops. waterliont restaurants and cafes, a fish marltet. an . ice mam parlor and a 36-horse carousd. Harbor auises and paddle boat and kayak telltal, are available. Art exhibits and oon=a ate held on Weekends. HOURS. Genetally 10 a.m. 10 6 p.m. W<<kdays and '10 . a.m. to 9 p.m. wtdtends. PARKING, Fn:e.. .< , - Itl: I fe' < . ~;. .-t.~ ' rr J ......::. r ! ., ~:~~" .'.. .' \-)~j>~ '. "\""" "t~\~ ~<>'~ ~. FOOD, STORES, FILMS & FUN Explore Orange County's most unique dining, shopping & entertaining experience. HILQ HATTIE .j> CAFE TU TU TANGO OFF 5TH-SAKS FIFTH AVENUE OUTLET RON JON SURF SHOP" DAVE 8. BUSTER'S AMC 30 THEATERS \'> SWEETS FROM HEAVEN VIRGIN MEGASTORE 'MARKET BROILER RICHIE'S NEIGHBORHOOD PIZZA WOLFGANG PUCK GRAND CAFE AND MANY MORE Save BIG with weekly Hot Buys! Look for the flyer throughout the center. ~~~\J2'k :.\ 'l' 10 n J\ "1 G 1E Located 10 minutes frorn Disneyland on The City Drive ofl U1C 5 or 22 FWYS. Open Sunday. Thu!scl<:lY 1 Qalll 10 9;30pm Friday and Sn!UrdLly. 108m to l1pm. I (714) 769-4000 www.thcblockatornngc.com \~~ I I I J, i' Experience SoCal Page 1 of 1 The Los Angeles Times' Southland Fun Book is a guide to entertainment and recreation in Southern California, spotlighting Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, with additional highlights from San Diego and Santa Barbara counties. This guide presents a sampling of the numerous attractions and aclivnies in the Southland. Before venturing out, call the listing to make sure the information lsstill current. [CONTENTS DIRECTORY CONTACT- ill Air Advantums: :Annual Evems IIIAnmaslStadiurns Beaches .Bike T""ls llBoaI EJecursioos' :CarrlHng Il:JFamily Fun Cllntars FllmlTelevision.FI9a Mark91s IIIGardljns : :GoII Courses I!lHiking Trails Historical Sitos .Horseback Riding Lol<os .Museums I!i!Nighlife:: Performing Arts I!!IRacing SkatinglSkatoboarding .Snow Sports !IISpoctatm Sports: ;Theme Parl<s IIIUrban Playgrounds WildlitlllMarine LNe .Wineries 2'la Summer 1001. A GUJD( TO OODtTAOOfOO AND Rl00110N hltp :llwww.latimes.com/extras/experi encesocall 07/15/2002 Experience So Cal 18 lI!iJ AIR ADVENJURES AnfUAL EVENTS . AR[NASJSTADU..IJS ifj. E1EAOtES W: BIKE TRAILS .t% BOAT EXCURSIONS CAMPING . FAMrLV FUN CENTERS ,}i R.M J TD..EVIS1Cf\! 'ill FLEA MARKETS ~ GARDENS GOLr COURSES . tIKING TRAILS )-~ NSTORICAl. SITES 111 HORSEBACK JIlOING :!Ii l.AKES MUSElIAS . NGHruFE io/ PEJlFaDAING ARTS ~ RACING r& 9(ATlNG/SKAT'EBOARDNG SNOW SPORTS . SPECfATOR SPORTS THEME P~S Jl OOBAN PlAYGROUNDS Ji WLCUFE/tiARlNEUFE WINERIES .,at~ Sightseeing I Shopping I Banking I Golf I Autos & other Vehicles Sightseeing Aquarium of the Pacific www.aquariumofpacific.org 100 Aquarium Way. Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: 562-S90-31 00 Take a journey of discovery through the world's largest ocean at the Aquarium of the Pacific. Meel more Ihan 12,000 animals as you explore sunny Southem California and Baja, the frigid waters of the North Pacific and the colorful reefs ofthe Tropical Pacific. Come face-Io-face and even touch the ocean's ultimale predators in Shark Lagoon now open in Explorers Cove. Join us on a Behind-the- Scenes tour, and learn what it takes to maintain a world-class aquarium. Take an Ocean Experience boat trip, and discover the diversity of life in our local waters. For a current listing of news and events before you visit, check oul our Whafs New page. Save time by purchasing your Tickets Online or become a Member of the Aquarium and enjoy one full year of free admission plus numerous other benefits. Discover Temecula www.cityoftemecula.org Phone:909-676-S090 Spectacular natural beauty, a thriving economy, a business-friendly environment, and attractive lifestyle. Temecula is an exceptional city where residenls experience a strong sense of community and family values. This vineyard-covered region offers picturesque landscapes and a serene lifestyle. Golf courses, abundant recreation and cultural opportunities, award-winning schools, safe and attractive neighborhoods provide the ideal selling for family livi ng. Disney's California Adventure'" www.disneyland.com Anaheim, CA Phone: 714-781-456S http://www.latimes.com/extras/experiencesocal/directOl)..html Page 1 of 11 ."... -. - ,.. "'~"t;., .01. .;)a',.;.;:. ""''''l, f~ -.,.:!;oI\;~-.F" ..11~;::"..1'L /' , - .... ~ , IT Fields Still Offer High-Paying Careers ,,;:.,. Earn Your B.S. Degree in 3 Years Are You Ready for: elecommunication Computer nformation Multimedia IT's Your Future Choose Carefully Click Here to Learn More About Mt. Sierra College 07/15/2002 Experience So eaJ Page 1 of7 m AIR ADVENnJRES AffiUAL EVENTS . ARENASJSTADllAtS "!f: BEAOES lI!I: BIKE mAlLS iI BOAT EXCURSIONS CAMPING . fAUILYFUN CEN'TI:RS ,1' FLM/1ELEV1SlctI !lti flEA MARKETS ~ GARDENS GOLF OOURSES . HKING TRAILS ~'* tlSTORICAL SITES /If I<<>RSEBACK RIDING ~ LAKES MUSELNS . NGHnFE t<$: PERFOOMING ARTS l!! AACrNG \J! 9tAnNafSKATEBOAflDNG SNOW smms . SPECTATOR SPORTS ,J lliEME PA~S R lNtBAN A.AVGRc:u.lDS Nil WI.OUFE! PiARINE UFE WINERIES Let's toast local vitners! Wineries fOWld fium Temecula to Santa Barham... .~& I Los A."1g:2r.S I RIVC:"side I Sun Di~go [ Si.lr.li.l Barb~ra I Southem Califomia's moderate climate is wonderfully ripe for winemaking-and the leisurely touring and lasting thai invariably follow. Whether in the city of Temecula www.cityoftemecula.org,the Temecula Valley, Santa Barbara County or points in between (don't forget Los Angeles), local wineries embrace visitors-from the casual taster to the serious oenophile-with wine tastings, tours and special events_ More than 28 varietals flourish in the Temecula Valley. Northward, Santa Barbara County is regarded as one of the world's premium wine-producing regions for Chardonnay and Pinot Noir varietals. '~":/~.':: :~\ . f~ . ,~ ,....\ ,.-. ....t ..' " ..:..~. ./:(,', ., .\V'.I' I -/.... . .~;;" ~. ,.' } j .\.' :' . ~ .~<~~ 't"; . 'j l ~ ......... . , -,. -' Long Beach shoreline bike path Photo: Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and MarineNic Sagers Los Angeles County o:JEl ANTELOPE VALLEY WINERY 42041 20th SI. West, Lancaster. CA 93534, (661) 722-0145, www.avwinery.com. Features: Winery has 10 acres of Cabemet Sauvignon, Merlol, Sangiovese and Zinfandel vines in the Antelope Valley. Activities: Wine tasting and tours. Amenities: A gourmet food and gift shop, picnic grounds and a gazebo. HoulS: 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. daily. Fees: $2 tasting charge can be applied to a purchase. SAN ANTONIO WINERY 737 lamar Sl, Los Angeles, CA 90031, (323) 223-1401, www.sanantoniowinery.com. Features: The winery was founded in 1917 by Santo Cambianica and has been in continuous operation for more than 80 years. The Los Angeles site is used for white wine fermentation in stainless-&eel tanks and oak barrels. Activities: Daily guided winery tours and wine tasting. Amenities: The Maddalena Restaurant and a gift shop. HoulS: Tours given on the hour between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. daily. Restaurant is open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. Fees: None. Riverside County D[jEJ BAILY VINEYARD & WINERY 33833 Rancho California Road http://www.latimes.com!extras! experiencesocaJ/wineri eS.html IT Field! Still Olft High-Payi Careen Earn Your B.S. Degre. in 3 Years Are You Read) elecommunic~ Computer Information Multimedia IT's Your Fut Choose Caref 07/15/2002 . Inland Empire Magazine An upclose look at this Inland Empire community The Temecula Valley is one of the fastest growing regions in the Inland Empire. From festivals to hot air balloons, the Temecula Valley has it all BY DONNA OTT In the early days of California's histo- ry, Temecula was a rough-and-tumble fron- tier outpost along the Butterfield Overland Stage route. Today, Interstate 15 connects this town of 67,000 to the rest of Southern California and makes it a convenient vacation get- away with rnyrtad attractions. You can spend a few hours or a week- end visiting the local wine country, shop- ping and sightseeing in Old Town, or par- ticipating in a variety of outdoor activities such as hiking, fIshing, golfing and hot air ballooning. Temecula's name, from the Luiseno Indian language, means "where the sun breaks the mist." For the surrounding val- ley's wine growers, this microcl.iJ.nate of sunshine, afternoon breezes and ocean fog, coupled with an elevation of 1,500 feet above sea level, is a winning environment for premhun wine production. Vintners began establishing acreages here in the 19705, and today award~winning wineries are spread over 3,000 acres of rolling hills on either side of Rancho California Road. For a self-guided tour of the wine coun- by, you can obtain a winery map from the Chamber of Commerce (27540 Ynez Road) or from the Temecula Valley Wmegrowers Association (1-800-801- WINE). Many of the wineries provide tours, tastings and picnic grounds where you can el\ioy an alfresco lunch with a view of the vine- yards. SOme also have gift shops, delis, cafes and full-service restaurants. Churon Wmery recently added a bed- and-breakfast inn on the premises, with evening wine tasting as part of the experi- INLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE. JUNE 2002 103 0( ~ => " w " w .. ~ o > .. 13 > '" w .. ~ => o " '" o .. o :< .. ence. The inn's rooms are one- and two-bedroom 'suites with fireplaces and Jacuzzis. If you visit Temecula on the weekend of June 7-9, you'll have an opportunity to taste test and purchase a variety of local wines at the 19th annual Balloon and Wme Festival held at Lake Skinner Recreation Area, located six miles northeast of town. Wme tasting areas will be providing sam- ples from mid-day throughout the afternoon. The festival begins Friday evening with over 50 hot air bai- loons participating in a Balloon Glow, lighting up the night like giant light bulbs, 'as the pilots ignite the burners below the canopies. The balloons will make 7 am. ascensions each morning, weather permitting. You can take a tethered ride with the balloon rising up in the air but.remaining anchored to the ground rather than traveling across the landscape. Entertainment and. other attractions will include musical performances, arts and crafts, food and a chil- -~-;:: dren's fair with activities especially for yormgsters. If you want to stay overnight at the recreation area, camp- sites are available. Festival hours are 6 am. to 9 p.m. on Saturday and 6 General St<?re, Dress Shop, Photo Studio, and a Ride-a-Pony station. The museum is open daily, except ~ondays and hol- idays. Admission is free, but a $2 donation per person is requested. As you stro~ along the stores in Old Town, you'll come upon many that are devoted to antiques and collectibles. In the Chaparral Antique Mall, for example, you'll find every- thing from teddy bears to restored slot machines among the mall's 100 or so vendor booths. Elsewhere in Old Town, the original jail is now a store specializing in Native American jewelry and art, and the 19th century bank building current- ly houses a Mexican restaurant. Other shops specialize in gifts and souvenirs, garden plants and supplies, and custom creations such as choco- late-dipped strawberries. If you're here on a Saturday morning, take a stroll through the Old Town Fanner's Market, held in. the parking lot behind the, Stagestop Transportation Center at 6th and Front Streets. 'This market features a mix of offerings: fresh fruits and veg- etables, plants and flowers, bak- ery goods, birds and birdcages, and handicrafts ranging from hand-painted gourds to oil paintings. There are also sn~k stands with hot dogs, tamales, roasted peanuts and more. Teinecula's first and only mod- ern mall, opened in 1999, is The Promenade, located next to Interstate 15 at the comer of Winchester and Ynez Roads. Among its retailers are department stores, a 15-Screen cinema complex, national chain stores such as Disney and Old Navy, and a large food court. Thi.s town pro- vides plenty of out- door recreation, including seven golf courses (six of them championship); the Santa Rosa Plateau, an 8,300-acre reserve open daily for hiking from sunrise to sunset; and Lake Skinner, popular for fishing and boating. Among the local balloon companies that offer flights throughout the year are California Dreamin' (1- 800-373-3359) and A Grape Escape Balloon Adventure (1- 800-965-2122). When you're hungry, there are many choices, from fast food to casual cafes to upscale dining rooms. If you're here for the wine experience as well as good food, try Cafe Champagne at Thornton Winery and the Temet Grill at the Temecula Creek.Inn. Lodging ranges from modestly-priced motels to B & B's to two area resorts, Pala Mesa (760-728--5881) and Temecula Creek hID (909-694-1000). Both resorts offer recreationllodg- ing packages. For more information about Temecula, call the Chamber of ,Commerce at (909) 676-5090 or visit the Web site at ww:v.Temeculaorg. . DO & VIEW IN TEMECULA: (Previous page) Colorful hot air bal- loons fill the sky during the annual Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival. (Above) Historic Old Town Temecula is a trip back in time. (Above right) A familiar scene throughout Temecula Valley Wine Country. (Right) Winery tasting rooms are open year round. am. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. For more information, call (909) 676-6713. Whether or not you attend the festival, you'll want to visit Temecula's Old Town district, which consists of about four blocks of historic buildings, Western-style stores and board- walks that recall the 1890s, when cowboys drove cattle through the streets during the annual cattle drive and the town hosted such legendary frontiersmen as Kit Carson, John C. Fremont, Juan Murrietta and Pio Pico. Their names and others are etched below the phrase, "They Passed This Way" on a granite monument in Sam Hicks Monument Park near the entrance to Old Town. For more insight into the town's beginnings, visit the Temecula Valley Museum, also in the park. Its exhibits depict 'the various groups that have inhabited this valley, including the early Loiseno Indians' settlements, the estab- lishment of the ranchos, the advent of the white settlers, and the influence of the stagecoach and railroad routes estab- lished here. A second floor children's gallery features a 104 JUNE 2002 . INLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE *00142~***************CAR-RT LOT**C023 JULY 03 140- Ja"es O'Grady P-3 Plb C IlY OF TENECULA 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR TENECULA CA ~25~0-3650 11.1""1.1.1,1,1.1..11..",11,.11,.,1.1.1\,,,11,..11,...,,111 S 2. 111111I1111111111111111I111111 IIIII11 o 7189648721 3