Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120815 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 8, 2015 – 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: The Sharpen Foundation dba !CU Mobile Riverside County v. Kamala Harris, et al., Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1514022. Next in Order: Ordinance: 15-14 Resolution: 15-67 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Chaparral High School Show Choir – Platinum FX Invocation: Pastor William Rench of Calvary Baptist Church Flag Salute: Council Member Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Melissa Donaldson Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Deputy Bruce Pierson Temecula Has Heart Presentation by Mayor Jeff Comerchero 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. 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, 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 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of November 17, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 17, 2015. 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 2 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2015. 5 Approve Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 and Approve a Resolution to Establish a Special Revenue Fund for the Collection of Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fees RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE COLLECTION OF PUBLIC, EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) FEES 6 Approve Professional Services Consulting Agreement with Data Ticket, Inc. DBA: Revenue Experts for Parking Citation Processing RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve a five-year Professional Services Consulting Agreement with Data Ticket, Inc. dba: Revenue Experts for parking citation processing, in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total five-year contract amount of $150,000. 7 Approve Non -Exclusive Vehicle Maintenance, Repair and Tire Services Agreement with Old Town Tire and Service, LLC for the City's Fleet RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve a five-year Vehicle Maintenance, Repair and Tire Services Agreement with Old Town Tire & Service, LLC, in the amount of $90,000 annually, for a total five-year contract amount of $450,000, for the City's Fleet. 8 Adopt Ordinance 15-12 to Approve an Amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to Revise the Expiration Date and Time Extensions for Development Plans (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council adopt the ordinance entitled: 3 ORDINANCE NO. 15-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR SAID PERMITS (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR15-1285) 9 Adopt Ordinance 15-13 to Adopt Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 10 Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise Between the City of Temecula and Verizon Communications, Inc. to Frontier Communications RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE "CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC." DATED AS OF JUNE 11, 2006, AS AMENDED, TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 11 Approve the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement with Michael Baker International, Inc. for Design of Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 RECOMMENDATION: 4 11.1 Approve the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with Michael Baker International, Inc. for Design of Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, increasing the contingency amount by $75,000; 11.2 Increase the City Manager's authority to approve Extra Work Authorizations by $75,000. 12 Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Maintenance of Caltrans Landscape Improvements Behind Civic Center, PW06-07(D) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the Improvements of the Maintenance of Caltrans Landscape Improvements — September 2010 through June 2015, PW06-07(D), as complete; 12.2 Direct the City Clerk to File and Record the Notice of Completion and Release the Performance Bond; 12.3 Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 13 Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Temecula Community Center Renovation, PW12-01 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the construction of the Temecula Community Center Renovation, PW12-01 as complete; 13.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond; 13.3 Release the Labor and Materials Bond sixty days after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 14 Approve Five Quitclaim Deeds Transferring Surplus Property to the City of Murrieta in Connection with the French Valley Parkway Interchange, PW02-11 and PW07-04 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS TRANSFERRING TO THE CITY OF MURRIETA CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE 15 OVERCROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, PW02-11 AND PW07-04 5 15 Adopt a Resolution to Establish an Administrative Citation Schedule for Water Quality Violations RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO WATER QUALITY ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 6 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 15-01 Resolution: CSD 15-07 CALL TO ORDER: President Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD 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 Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 16 Approve the Action Minutes of November 17, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 17, 2015. 17 Approve Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015; 17.2 Approve an increase of $41,374 in Public Art revenue transfers from Fund 120 (Development Impact Fees) to Public Art Fund. 7 CSD BUSINESS 18 Appointment of President and Vice President of the Temecula Community Services District for Calendar Year 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Appoint the President, effective January 1, 2016, to preside until December 31, 2016; 18.2 Appoint the Vice President, effective January 1, 2016, to hold this office until December 31, 2016. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: SARDA 15-01 Resolution: SARDA 15-05 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Agency Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. SARDA 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 Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 19 Receive and File Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the Board of Directors receive and file the Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS SARDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 9 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: TPFA 15-01 Resolution: TPFA 15-07 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Authority Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. TPFA 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 Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 20 Approve the Action Minutes of November 17, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 17, 2015. TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 10 TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — No Meeting 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. 21 Approve a Location Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Medline Industries, Inc. (Professional Hospital Supply), Providing an Economic Development Subsidy Through the Sharing of Sales Tax Revenues From the Professional Hospital Supply Facility RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "LOCATION AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. (PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY) 22 Adopt Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED 22.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE" 11 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 23 Appoint Member to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 That the City Council appoint Gary Watts to the Planning Commission. 24 Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for Calendar Year 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Appoint the Mayor, effective January 1, 2016, to preside until December 31, 2016; 24.2 Appoint the Mayor Pro Tem, effective January 1, 2016, to hold this office until December 31, 2016. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 25 Public Works Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 12 PRESENTATIONS City of Temecula Certificate of Recognition Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: Melissa Donaldson The City Council is proud to present this Certificate of Recognition to Melissa Donaldson for her dedicated service to victims of abuse and violence, as well as to their families. Melissa served as the Executive Director of S.A.F.E. (Safe Alternatives for Everyone) in Temecula since 2001. Melissa has worked in the social services field for more than 30 years with experience at the local, state, and national levels through her work with various organizations. Melissa was recently appointed Director of the Division of Victim Services for the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. We are grateful for the many contributions Melissa has made to our community and we wish her happiness and success in all her future endeavors. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this eighth clay of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of Recognition Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: Deputy Bruce Pierson The City Council is proud to present this Certificate of Recognition to Deputy Bruce Pierson of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for his act of kindness toward a homeless woman. While responding to a call, Deputy Pierson encountered a woman in need. Deputy Pierson responded to her need and purchased new shoes for her, as well as donated clothing and a blanket. We are very grateful for Deputy Pierson's generosity and are honored to have him as a member of the Temecula Police Department and our community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this eighth clay of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 17, 2015 – 7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation and will discuss whether to initiate litigation against a certain defendants. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Claim of James Richardson and Larraine O'Canna, City of Temecula Claim No. 15-24. At 6:00 PM Mayor Comerchero called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Natalie Schumann Invocation: Sylvester Scott of Baha'is of Temecula Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificate of Achievement to William C. Dull of Troop #384 and Brayden Phillips of Troop #934 for Attaining the Rank of Eagle Scout PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individual addressed the City Council: • David Coram CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes 111715 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of November 10, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 10, 2015. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for the Proposed Community Facility District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT Action Minutes 111715 2 5 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (At the Request of Mayor Comerchero and Mayor Pro -Tem Naggar as the City Council Pechanga Tribal Representatives) - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2, Council Member McCracken and Council Member Rahn abstained) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, Naggar and Comerchero with Council Member McCracken and Council Member Rahn abstaining and recusing themselves from the Chambers due to the fact that their spouses are employed by Pechanga. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians as mitigation for the impacts of the Pechanga Resort and Hotel Expansion Project as detailed in the Draft Tribal Environmental Impact Report — August 2015. RECESS At 7:31 P.M., the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting, Temecula Housing Authority Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:36 P.M., the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 10 Adopt Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan — The public hearing was opened, public comment was received on all items, the public hearing was closed as to items 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.6 and 10.7. The public hearing was continued to December 8, 2015 as to items 10.4 and 10.5. Approved Staff Recommendation 10.1 as Amended (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. Approved Staff Recommendation 10.2 as Amended (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. Approved Staff Recommendation 10.3 as Amended (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion to introduce the Ordinance with the requested changes; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. Council discussed proposed changes to the proposed Ordinance and Specific Plan and requested that the proposed Ordinance and Specific Plan include the following changes: Action Minutes 111715 3 A. Change the name of the Specific Plan from "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to "Uptown Temecula Specific Plan." B. Except as modified by these changes, all of the changes described in the "Summary of Proposed Changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" shall be incorporated in to the Specific Plan. C. Sections E.2. and E.3 of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, of the Specific Plan relating to non -conforming land uses shall be changed to substitute "365 days" with "twenty four (24) months" in the two sections. D. The title of Section F. of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, shall be changed to read as follows: "Minor Exceptions, Variances and Modifications to Development Standards." E. A new Section F.3. of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, shall be added to the Specific Plan to read as follows: "3. MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARTICULAR PROPERTIES "The Review Authority described in Section H. of this Chapter may approve modifications to the Specific Plan development standards applicable to a particular property upon finding that: Strict application of the applicable development standards would create practical difficulties or unreasonable hardships in development of the property; Exceptional circumstances exist on the property not generally found on other properties in the Specific Plan Area; and The modifications are necessary to insure compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan." F Subsection G.6. of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, providing for minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the Department of Community Development as described in the "Summary of Proposed Changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" shall be deleted from the Specific Plan. G. A new paragraph shall be added to the end of Section I, Specific Plan Phased Compliance, of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, to read as follows: "In February of 2019, the City Council shall review the terms of the Specific Plan, procedures for its implementation, and existing condition of the Specific Plan Area and determine whether to initiate any amendments to the Specific Plan. The Council shall also decide when to again formally review the Specific Plan. Nothing in this paragraph is intended, nor shall it be construed, to restrict in any way the Council's authority to review the Specific Plan at any time and to determine at any time whether to initiate any amendments to the Specific Plan." Action Minutes 111715 4 10.4 Continued to December 8, 2015 City Council Meeting. 10.5 Continued to December 8, 2015 City Council Meeting. Approved Staff Direction as Recommended 10.6 and 10.7 (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 10.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: City Attorney Peter Thorson read the title of the Ordinance with the changes requested by the Council to the Specific Plan and Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 15-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Action Minutes 111715 5 10.4 Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Ordinance and continue the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED 10.5 Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Resolution and continue the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE" 10.6 Direct staff to prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; 10.7 Direct staff to change the name of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. • Larry Markham addressed the City Council on this item. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 11 Community Development Department Monthly Report 12 Police Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported in regards to Closed Session Item 2 the Council authorized a settlement in the amount of $60,000. There is no reportable action in regards to Closed Session Item 1. Action Minutes 111715 6 ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. ********** Adjourned in Honor of Stan Harter ********** Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 111715 7 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Jada Shafe, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 15- 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 HEREBY RESOLVE 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, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,618,414.53. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 11/12/2015 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 684,275.34 11/19/2015 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 509,535.64 11/19/2015 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 424,603.55 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 12/08/2015 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 1,618,414.53 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 571,733.20 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 2,328.47 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,112.57 150 AB 2766 FUND 1,704.90 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 5,018.31 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 132,388.65 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 79,911.10 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,497.62 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 5,582.35 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 19,723.36 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 160,945.42 300 INSURANCE FUND 14,549.96 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 113,141.26 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 4,221.62 340 FACILITIES 32,777.11 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 125.29 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 11,055.00 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 3,866.79 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 4,066.79 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 1,116.79 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,361.79 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,361.79 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 7,399.85 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 93.93 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 108.07 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 142.10 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 33.15 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 3,096.50 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 38.73 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 71.34 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 2,835.45 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 28.15 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 32.02 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 30.48 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 2,192.75 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 182.03 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 91.61 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 34.49 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 850.29 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 29.26 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 239.13 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 74.14 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 2,310.12 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 366.96 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 33.06 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 32.00 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 289.62 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS (10.38) 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 77.35 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 67.04 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 382.36 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 69.24 $ 1,193,810.98 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 260,401.02 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 1,767.38 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,869.42 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4,190.61 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 103,308.94 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 252.59 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,206.30 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 454.32 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 627.98 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,277.34 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 25,328.17 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 6,156.18 340 FACILITIES 11,545.02 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 968.37 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 64.51 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 64.51 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 64.51 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 64.51 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 64.51 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 387.08 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 93.35 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 62.63 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 74.50 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 13.49 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 150.62 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 27.31 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 38.75 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 255.92 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.73 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 11.62 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 7.93 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 170.82 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 36.46 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 21.10 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 18.40 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 42.46 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 3.77 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 158.21 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 84.66 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 229.57 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 388.11 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 9.29 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 10.18 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 218.40 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 70.36 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 3.13 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 10.18 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 321.92 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 4.41 424,603.55 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 1,618,414.53 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 2833 11/10/2015 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT RETIREMENT) 2834 11/10/2015 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC 015639 REZA CAFE 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE 007287 UNITED AIRLINES IG message book: VonRichter, P IG refreshments: wellness fair IG registration 2016 LCW Conf: Garibay Amount Paid Check Total 41,574.41 41,574.41 8.02 55.20 1,050.00 IG airfare: Monterey Conf: Garibay 385.20 006937 SOUTHWESTAIRLINES IG airfare: Oakland Conference: Garibay 179.50 IG over the limit surcharge 39.00 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC IG carpet sweeper for HR file room 39.93 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC CB ipad w/keyboard: AFM on inspections 125.36 014163 JUAN POLLO CB rfshmnts: cert training 10/6/15 416.40 014529 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. KH supplies for breakfast w/santa event 349.92 013338 APPLE STORE KH replacement cover for city ipad 52.92 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 48.90 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 10.09 000154 C S M F 0 JH CSMFO application for CIP 150.00 000154 C S M F 0 JH CSMFO application forAOB 150.00 006952 PAY PAL JH Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 54.20 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE JH webinar: how to use charts: Watson, E 35.00 OFFICERS 014583 PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC RO City council closed session meal 9/22 137.50 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 81.25 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 61.56 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL ME League of CA Cities: 9/29-10/02 668.88 015630 GIGMASTERS.COM, INC. KH booking fee for community event 8/30 -40.50 010514 CAMPINI'S ITALIAN DELI AA rfrshmnts: city atty 9/22/15 70.55 006937 SOUTHWESTAIRLINES AAAIRLINE:LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 247.50 CONF 9/29 016492 YELLOW CAB 015354 FACEBOOK.COM AA League of CA Cities Annual 23.76 Conference AA facebook promoting city government 12.00 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 011523 MCCORMICK & SCHMICK 013338 APPLE STORE 013703 LAKE ELSINORE VALLEY CHAMBER (Continued) Description AA rfrshmnts: league of ca cities conf AA power cords for city issued AA State of the City Addr: Adams/Lowrey Amount Paid Check Total 22.53 41.04 63.00 018435 ORIGINAL JOE'S AA rfrshmnts: league of ca conference 66.43 014780 TRAVEL TRADERS AA refreshments: league of ca cities 6.89 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL AA lodging: league of ca cities conf: 685.98 006942 ONTARIO Al RPORT AA parking: league of ca cities conf 72.00 013703 LAKE ELSINORE VALLEY RO State of the City Address: 10/15 33.00 CHAMBER 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 117.96 010508 BEST BUY STORES, L.P. KH gopro camera for TCSD divisions 323.99 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 85.29 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 89.09 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 110.45 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 76.47 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 104.41 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 164.25 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 129.40 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 25.29 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 50.97 015639 REZA CAFE IG refreshments for interview panel: 38.80 000751 SKILLPATH INC IG skill path training: VonRichter, P 3.90 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 17.11 017201 STATEFOODSAFETY.COM KH food handler training 216.00 014551 LVIPRINT, INC KH vinyl banner with pole pockets 125.84 006952 PAY PAL KH Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 282.50 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 17.44 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 16.89 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH Books & collections:library 39.63 008123 JOANN ETC RO table deco commission recognition -12.94 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 008123 JOANN ETC RO table deco commission recognition 9.03 000645 SMART & FINAL INC RO table deco commission recognition 17.68 017501 LUKE'S ON FRONT RO refreshments: comm wrkshp consultnt 55.44 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES RO table deco commission recognition 4.31 INC 008123 JOANN ETC RO table deco commission recognition -85.24 008123 JOANN ETC RO table deco commission recognition 108.85 001526 MICHAELS STORES INC RO table deco commission recognition 79.14 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS RO supplies for comm prioritization 73.71 DIV 013337 PUBLIC HOUSE MH refreshments/interview w/consultant 57.00 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC MH appointment plus:IT 20.00 013338 APPLE STORE MH iphone repairs: Cardenas, Robert 79.00 007837 ALASKAAIRLINES MH airline: MISAC 2015 Conference 281.20 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC MH appointment plus:IT 20.00 001060 HYATT MH lodging: MISAC 2015 Conference 20.78 008039 PORTOLA PLAZA HOTEL MH refreshments: MISAC 2015 Conf 26.83 011919 PARK N FLY MH parking: MISAC Conf 10/3-7/15 64.60 017418 MICRODESK INC. MH Blue Beam maintenance 301.00 001060 HYATT MH lodging: MISAC Conf 10/3-7/15 621.61 014885 TEMECULA CATERING GB rfrshmnts: auto dealership 1,813.35 016798 CALIFORNIA BAPTIST GB internship fair 11/4 50.00 UNIVERSITY 014583 PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC GB refreshments: mtg w/consultant 9/23 75.00 013703 LAKE ELSINORE VALLEY CHAMBER 018351 PR NEWSWIRE ASSOCIATION LLC 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 003511 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION GB State of the City Address: 10/15 GB CA newsline GB rfrshmnts: youth leadership prgm 33.00 655.00 112.34 MH battery laptop for fire 107.99 016492 YELLOW CAB MH cab fare to airport 10/07 13.00 016542 DOTGOV MH domain name: I.T. 125.00 011652 GOLDEN TEE MH refreshments: MISAC Conf 20.57 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 018443 URBAN CAFE T1W MH refreshments: MISAC Conf 173838 11/12/2015 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES, LLC hvac repair srvc: theater install smoke detector: foc replace compressor:old town theater 173839 11/12/2015 015217 AIRGAS, INC. rent cyl ind small -theater 173840 11/12/2015 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT Amount Paid Check Total 14.96 12,200.90 178.95 534.05 4,711.00 5,424.00 21.78 21.78 Sep 15 Pavement Rehab: Rancho Cal 13,088.24 asphalt supplies:pw streets division 480.50 13, 568.74 173841 11/12/2015 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES Piano Tuning & Maintenance: Library 185.00 185.00 173842 11/12/2015 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT econdev- tableclothcleaing 77.20 77.20 173843 11/12/2015 009787 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC Vehicle repair & maint srvcs: pw traffic 894.18 894.18 173844 11/12/2015 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW backflow test: seraphina slope backflow tests: various facilities replace backflow:paloma del sol park 173845 11/12/2015 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES (AFN) 173846 11/12/2015 000101 APPLE ONE INC 173847 11/12/2015 013338 APPLE STORE 173848 11/12/2015 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 173849 11/12/2015 004307 ARCH CHEMICALS, INC. 25.00 175.00 1,246.00 1,446.00 Dec 15 Stand by Fee 1,248.00 Phlebotomy srvcs:temecula police 528.56 Phlebotomy srvcs:temecula police 254.28 2,030.84 Oct 15 temp staff srvcs: cc/IT/plan/fin 3,290.00 3,290.00 Computer puchase prgm: West, Dale 2,000.00 2,000.00 Oct water srvcs:police storefront office 28.35 Oct drinking water systems:civic center 184.14 212.49 Oct water maint svc:hary lake/duck pond 3,900.00 3,900.00 173850 11/12/2015 017583 ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC AOAP CONF:3/7-10/16:DAVIS, WILLCOX 173851 11/12/2015 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC Book collections:library Book collections:library Book collections:library Book collections:library Book collections:library 173852 11/12/2015 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO Performance:Ballet Folklorico 810.00 810.00 313.03 121.07 2,481.08 35.63 14.48 2,965.29 100.00 100.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 173853 11/12/2015 013482 BAS SECURITY OCT 15 SECURITY SRVCS: HARVESTON LAKE 173854 11/12/2015 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE misc fleet & equip svcs:street maint misc fleet & equip svcs:street maint misc fleet & equip svcs:street maint 173855 11/12/2015 015834 BOYER, WAYNE E. Traffic Uniforms -Police 173856 11/12/2015 018437 BRIDGE HOUSING refund:eng grad dep:LD13-004GR CORPORATION Amount Paid Check Total 1,664.70 1,664.70 803.07 284.32 152.40 1,239.79 871.40 871.40 50,000.00 50,000.00 173857 11/12/2015 003138 CAL MAT asphalt supplies: pw street maint div 204.08 asphalt supplies: pw street maint div 90.55 asphalt supplies: pw street maint div 90.55 asphalt supplies: pw street maint div 262.49 asphalt supplies: pw street maint div 656.11 asphalt supplies: pw street maint div 297.29 1,601.07 173858 11/12/2015 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION 8/1-7/31/16 CPRS MB:HAWKINS, K. 480.00 480.00 SOC 173859 11/12/2015 018442 CANCUN SEAFOOD BAR LLC refund:appl fees:CUP not 3,446.00 3,446.00 req'd: PA15-0332 173860 11/12/2015 004462 CDW, LLC Adobe software renewal:Info Tech 1,128.00 1,128.00 173861 11/12/2015 017392 CLS CONSTRUCTION Retention Release: PW14-07 24,756.99 24,756.99 173862 11/12/2015 017429 COBRA ADVANTAGE INC. Oct 15 Flex Processing Fees 180.00 180.00 173863 11/12/2015 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL var. park site elec. supplies:park maint 77.76 DIST. misc electrical supplies: old town 689.58 767.34 173864 11/12/2015 011922 CORELOGIC, INC. Sep 15 Web Based Sbscrptn RealQuest 279.00 279.00 173865 11/12/2015 014521 COSTAR GROUP Nov 15 web subscription:Eco Dev 415.00 415.00 INFORMATION, INC 173866 11/12/2015 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 Misc Team PACE supplies 41.18 41.18 173867 11/12/2015 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 Misc. supplies:vartcsd events 41.77 Theater Hospitality & Office Supplies 143.84 Misc supplies:high hopes pgrm 44.89 230.50 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173868 11/12/2015 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 173869 11/12/2015 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Description Amount Paid Check Total pool maint srvcs: crc and tes pools 330.00 install countertop:shelves: eoc room countertop repairs:civic center plumbing services: library 1,256.00 1,680.00 185.00 portable restrooms:long canyon park 52.80 portable restrooms: la serena way portable restrooms:vail ranch park portable restrooms:riverton park 173870 11/12/2015 016756 DOCTOR'S NUTRITIONAL K-9 Food - Police PRODUCTS 173871 11/12/2015 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 52.80 52.80 52.80 3,451.00 211.20 82.80 82.80 Fuel for City vehicles: police dept 53.17 Fuel for City vehicles: traffic div Fuel for City vehicles: traffic div Fuel for City vehicles: police dept Fuel for City vehicles: tcsd Fuel for City vehicles: tcsd Fuel for City vehicles: tcsd Fuel for City vehicles: tcsd Fuel for City vehicles: plan & code enf Fuel for City vehicles: public works Fuel for City vehicles: public works Fuel for City vehicles: public works Fuel for City vehicles: public works Fuel for City vehicles: land dev/npdes Fuel for City vehicles: land dev/ npdes Fuel for City vehicles: bldg inspectors Fuel for City vehicles: code enf Fuel for City vehicles: public works Fuel for City vehicles: code enforcement Fuel for City vehicles: bldg & safety Fuel for City vehicles: bldg & safety Fuel for City vehicles: code enforcement 173872 11/12/2015 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS Misc office supplies: city council desk INC 173873 11/12/2015 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 319.35 160.57 65.39 560.79 33.13 540.81 5.15 125.51 789.35 894.11 672.06 830.42 100.61 52.46 212.78 98.31 252.91 104.44 259.17 352.91 162.54 6,645.94 438.37 438.37 Oct water meter:32131 S Loop rd dcda 51.40 Oct water meter:32131 S Loop rd bldg 117.40 Oct water meter:32131 S Loop rd Idsc 173874 11/12/2015 018438 EASTMAN HONG refund:eng grad dep:LD13-085GR ENTERPRISES, LLC 148.49 317.29 50,000.00 50,000.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173875 11/12/2015 004829 ELLISON \A1 LSON ADVOCACY LLC 173876 11/12/2015 011203 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING 173877 11/12/2015 000164 ESGI L CORPORATION 173878 11/12/2015 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 173879 11/12/2015 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC 173880 11/12/2015 001937 GALLS INC 173881 11/12/2015 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 173882 11/12/2015 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY Description Amount Paid Check Total Nov 15 state legis consulting svcs: cm 3,500.00 3,500.00 Oct 15 restroom maint svcs:park maint. 5,637.00 5,637.00 Sep 15 Bldg plan review srvcs:b&s dept 20,427.27 20,427.27 10/14 Express mail svcs: pw & tcsd 56.72 10/5-10/13 Exp mail svcs:var dept. Apparatus maint supplies: Sta 84/73 Equip:Police volunteers SEP 15 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES:B&S DEPT Settlement:"Welcome Bach" 11/7/15 142.98 199.70 63.72 63.72 4.32 4.32 258.91 258.91 1,756.88 1,756.88 173883 11/12/2015 003792 GRAINGER kitchen valve part: crc 743.49 743.49 173884 11/12/2015 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Oct 15 maint supplies: harveston ctr Oct 15 misc maint supplies: theater Oct 15 maint supplies: children's museum Oct 15 misc maint supplies: library Oct 15 maintenance supplies: var Sep 15 Hardware supplies: var stations Oct 15 misc supplies:info tech Oct 15 misc maint supplies: parking Oct 15 misc maint supplies: Old Town Oct 15 misc supplies:Sports pgrm Oct 15 maint supplies:pw street maint Oct 15 misc small tools & equip: pw 173885 11/12/2015 000520 HDL COREN & CONE INC Oct -Dec 15 Consulting srvcs:property tax 173886 11/12/2015 002126 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE SUPPLY 173887 11/12/2015 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE 41.23 96.41 24.43 9.16 191.93 320.89 152.22 33.16 144.66 64.30 1,146.38 525.21 2,749.98 5,250.00 5,250.00 gym floor renovation supplies: crc 4,434.34 gym floor renovation supplies: crc 175.02 4,609.36 misc supplies: senior center rehab 73.62 73.62 173888 11/12/2015 018439 HONEYWELL CO. INC. refund:eng grad dep:LD10-022GR 3,000.00 3,000.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173889 11/12/2015 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC 173890 11/12/2015 003296 INTL CODE COUNCIL 173891 11/12/2015 010412 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 173892 11/12/2015 014692 JOHNSON, BARBARA KATHLEEN 173893 11/12/2015 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC 173894 11/12/2015 017118 KRACH, BREE B. Description Amount Paid Check Total sanitizing chemical supplies:var pools 493.74 sanitizing chemical supplies:var pools Code Books:prevention permit technician bldg: 2012 IBC tab soft code books: IFC tab loose CODE BOOKS - BUILDING TECH EXAM 787.64 1,281.38 116.87 38.09 13.27 300.97 469.20 Generator repair: Sta 84 2,273.08 2,273.08 TCSD Instructor Earnings 205.80 205.80 SEP 15 CONSULTING 7,835.17 7,835.17 SRVCS:PLANNING plaque: temecula academy of arts: Santos 11.34 plaques: photographic art of Fred Lamb 173895 11/12/2015 018440 LEEANN LANI MOREL refund:eng grad dep:LD13-025GR 173896 11/12/2015 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & Sep HR legal svcs for TE060-#00001 WHITMORE 173897 11/12/2015 004813 M & J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC INFLATABLE RENTALS FOR CITYWIDE EVENTS. 173898 11/12/2015 014365 MAILFINANCE, INC. 8/30-11/29 postage meter lease:cntrl 173899 11/12/2015 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 22.68 34.02 3,000.00 3,000.00 97.50 97.50 1,445.00 1,445.00 1,210.68 1,210.68 st signs & supplies:pw street maint 363.17 Promotional materials:softball decals 195.60 558.77 173900 11/12/2015 004141 MAINTEX INC misc custodial supplies: var parks 1,234.66 1,234.66 173901 11/12/2015 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN Oct 15 adult softball officiating 4,366.00 4,366.00 173902 11/12/2015 007148 MARIE CALLENDER Pies for SKIP event 11/2/15 70.32 70.32 RESTAURANT 25 173903 11/12/2015 015259 MERCURY DISPOSAL Household Battery Recycling Program 216.60 216.60 SYSTEMS, INC. 173904 11/12/2015 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING misc welding & fab srvcs: var parks 705.00 705.00 INC. Page8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173905 11/12/2015 016445 MKB PRINTING & PROMOTIONAL INC 173906 11/12/2015 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. 173907 11/12/2015 015507 MSDSONLINE, INC. 173908 11/12/2015 001986 MUZAK LLC 173909 11/12/2015 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 173910 11/12/2015 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH Description Amount Paid Check Total Printing: Fire Dept letterhead 124.96 Business Cards: city manager's office 342.95 467.91 TCSD instructor earnings 500.50 500.50 online sbscrptn: cvc ctr 11/30-11/29/16 1,679.00 1,679.00 Nov 15 dish network prgm:41952 6th St 59.06 Nov 15 dish network programing:foc 140.85 199.91 Auto parts & misc supplies: Sta 73 7.15 misc parts & supplies:pw street maint 507.54 514.69 9/23-10/22 DRINKING WATER: VAR 365.28 365.28 AMERICA FACILITIE 173911 11/12/2015 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA 9/23-10/22 water del. svcs: city council 35.11 9/17-10/16 WATER DELIVERY SVCS:TVH: 9/23-10/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: CHAPAF 9/23-10/22 water dlvry svc: Harveston 9/23-10/22 bottled water srvcs: TVE2 9/23-10/22 drinking water:tem element 9/23-10/22 drinking water: Skate Park 9/23-10/22 drinking water: pbsp 173912 11/12/2015 018402 NEWSMINDED, INC P/E 10/10 NEWSPAPER DELIVERY:MPSC 6.47 6.47 23.96 61.02 35.47 6.47 51.24 226.21 125.00 125.00 173913 11/12/2015 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies: finance 35.40 DIV Misc office supplies: finance 259.18 294.58 173914 11/12/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City vehicle maint srvcs:Bldg & Safety 95.00 95.00 173915 11/12/2015 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS Sherry Williams Big Band Concert 11/1 173916 11/12/2015 013198 ORTENZO-HAYES, KRISTINE 173917 11/12/2015 010338 POOL& ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INC TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 4,101.40 4,101.40 396.90 492.45 352.80 352.80 705.60 739.20 739.20 pool supplies/chemicals:var pool sites 283.50 3,778.95 pool supplies/chemicals:var pool sites 35.12 318.62 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173918 11/12/2015 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED 173919 11/12/2015 012904 PROACTIVE FIRE DESIGN 173920 11/12/2015 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ADVERTISI NG 173921 11/12/2015 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 173922 11/12/2015 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 173923 11/12/2015 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING 173924 11/12/2015 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT 173925 11/12/2015 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 173926 11/12/2015 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 173927 11/12/2015 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & RECORDER 173928 11/12/2015 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHNOLOGY 173929 11/12/2015 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT Description Amount Paid Check Total Veh maint & repair:police 153.00 153.00 Oct Plan Review Svc: Prevention 1,905.70 1,905.70 Banner Program - econ dev 4,150.44 Banner Program - econ dev 79.49 4,229.93 Oct uniform/mats svcs:pw parks/c.cntr 563.58 Oct uniform/mats/twl rentals:City facs 790.24 1,353.82 Oct var water meters:TCSD svc lev C 13,361.28 Oct var water meters:var Fire Stns Oct var water meters:30875 Rancho vista Oct var water meters:PW var sites 430.68 541.13 1,821.14 16,154.23 christmas tree lights:duck pond park 336.23 336.23 annual weed ctrl:various channels 7,875.00 7,875.00 Sept 2015 legal services 73,077.12 73,077.12 Sept '15 prkg citation assessments 2,451.00 2,451.00 Ntc of Exemption:Wnchstr/Roripaugh 50.00 50.00 Sept emerg radio rental: police 2,912.86 Jul emerg radio rental: police 2,972.89 Aug emerg radio rental: police 2,912.86 8,798.61 Sept youth court services: Police 204.56 Jul youth court services: Police 204.56 Aug youth court services: Police 204.56 613.68 173930 11/12/2015 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Sept transit agrmnt/Harveston shuttle 1,704.90 1,704.90 173931 11/12/2015 017549 ROSEN & ROSEN INDUSTRIES, misc safety supplies:pw street maint 443.47 443.47 INC. 173932 11/12/2015 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL THEATRICAL LIGHTING:THEATER 199.16 LIGHTING THEATRICAL LIGHTING:THEATER 493.60 692.76 Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 173933 11/12/2015 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 8/31-9/6 advertising:City Clerk 57.16 10/5-11 advertising:Planning/City Clerk 485.28 9/7-13 advertising:City Clerk 77.48 10/12-18 advertising:Planning 80.52 173934 11/12/2015 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETH A. Country @ The Merc 11/7 157.50 173935 11/12/2015 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES INC 173936 11/12/2015 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 173937 11/12/2015 013695 SHRED -IT US JV, LLC 173938 11/12/2015 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 173939 11/12/2015 018118 SKYPHOTOS 173940 11/12/2015 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 173941 11/12/2015 015235 SMOKE GUARD CALIFORNIA, INC. 700.44 157.50 CABLING SRVCS: THEATER 347.50 CABLING SRVCS: THEATER 1,383.18 CABLING SRVCS: THEATER 597.00 2,327.68 Jazz @ The Merc 11/5 535.00 535.00 Oct doc shred srvcs:temecula police 16.54 16.54 Jul -Sept public ntc posting: Planning 2,179.80 2,179.80 Aerial photos:economic development 750.00 750.00 Misc supplies:mpsc pgrms 260.47 Misc supplies:human services pgrm 159.02 419.49 fire curtains insp & maint svcs:civic 1,925.00 1,925.00 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173943 11/12/2015 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description Oct 2-29-295-3510:32211 Wolf vly rd Oct 2-31-536-3226:28690 Mercedes Oct 2-02-502-8077:43210 Bus park dr B Oct 2-28-629-0507:30600 Pauba Rd Oct 2-00-397-5042:43200 Bus park dr Oct 2-35-664-9053:29119 Margarita Rd Oct 2-25-393-4681:41951 Moraga Rd Oct 2-35-403-6337:41375 McCabe Ct Oct 2-29-657-2563:42902 Butterfield stg Oct 2-35-421-1260:41955 4th St LS3 Oct 2-30-520-4414:32781 Tem pkwy LS3 Oct 2-00-397-5067:TCSD svc lev C Oct 2-29-223-8607:42035 2nd St PED Oct 2-35-707-0010:33451 S Hwy -79 PED Oct 2-29-953-8249:46497 Wolf creek dr Oct 2-29-953-8082:31523 Wolf vly rd Oct 2-27-805-3194:42051 Main St Oct 2-36-641-3839:27498 Enterprise cir w Oct 2-36-641-3912:27498 Enterprise cir w Oct 2-31-031-2590:28301 Rancho Cal Oct 2-36-531-7916:44205 Main St PED Oct 2-29-657-2332:45538 Redwood Rd Oct 2-29-953-8447:31738 Wolf vly rd Oct 2-30-220-8749:45850 N Wolf crk dr Oct 2-31-936-3511:46488 Pechanga pkwy Oct 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT front st 173944 11/12/2015 007711 SO CALIF PUBLIC POOL 2016 Agency membership dues OPERATORS 173945 11/12/2015 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 173946 11/12/2015 018441 SOUTH POINTE DEVELOPMENT 173947 11/12/2015 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 173948 11/12/2015 005786 SPRINT Amount Paid Check Total 1,481.93 1,631.88 554.21 7,834.04 3,924.10 166.27 371.21 852.38 208.90 21.54 944.92 2,308.92 752.74 82.73 30.25 31.29 4,032.30 31.88 37.95 24.54 229.02 26.10 25.97 316.33 52.20 1,350.34 27,323.94 30.00 30.00 Oct pest control srvcs:City facs 838.00 pest control srvcs: pbsp 70.00 pest control srvcs: harveston club house 60.00 pest control srvcs: white rock circle 94.00 pest control srvcs: meadows pkwy 94.00 pest control srvcs: meadows park 94.00 pest control srvcs: o.a.t.c. 48.00 pest control srvcs: parks 94.00 pest control srvcs: t. museum 42.00 1,434.00 refund:eng grad dep:LD14-3066 3,000.00 3,000.00 NOV GEN USAGE:0141,0839,2593,9306 572.87 572.87 Sep 26 - Oct 25 cellular usage/equip 4,802.34 4,802.34 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 13 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 173949 11/12/2015 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC Refreshments:CRC teen activities 95.68 95.68 173950 11/12/2015 015648 STEIN, ANDREW SUPPLIES:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS 1,432.40 1,432.40 173951 11/12/2015 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS repair window: rrsp skate park 321.56 321.56 173952 11/12/2015 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL SEPT CONSULT SRVCS: F.V. 7,562.60 7,562.60 PKWY/I-15 173953 11/12/2015 010679 TEMECULA AUTO Veh repair & maint: TCSD fleet 190.00 REPAIR/RADIATOR Vehicle repair: Paramedics 2,043.19 2,233.19 173954 11/12/2015 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS Motorcycle repair/maint:Police 219.26 219.26 LLC 173955 11/12/2015 017415 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR rescue srvcs:parking garage elevator 103.96 103.96 CORP 173956 11/12/2015 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Nov high speed internet:Library 598.96 173957 11/12/2015 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL 173958 11/12/2015 000161 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC 173959 11/12/2015 009709 U H S OF RANCHO SPRINGS, INC 173960 11/12/2015 005460 U S BANK Nov high speed internet:Coax 28.43 627.39 pressure washer parts: pw street maint 93.30 93.30 EnerGov Software Maint:lnfo Tech 86,096.20 86,096.20 Oct assault exams - Police 500.00 Sept assault exams - Police 900.00 1,400.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:J.W. 1,100.00 AD 03-04 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:02/06 F 6,050.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:HARV. 3,850.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:CROWI 4,050.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:RORIPP 2,775.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:HARV. 2,345.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:WOLF 1 2,345.00 TRUSTEE FISCALAGENT SRVCS:10/11 R 5,005.00 27,520.00 173961 11/12/2015 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE Jul postage meter deposit 2,603.23 2,603.23 173962 11/12/2015 011659 ULINE INC genealogy copier cart:Tem Pub Library 326.47 326.47 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 14 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 173963 11/12/2015 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Description Amount Paid Check Total Jul underground utility locator: pw 193.50 Oct underground utility locator: pw 181.50 Aug underground utility locator: pw 144.00 Jul underground utility locator: pw 183.00 702.00 173964 11/12/2015 002110 UNITED RENTALS NORTH misc equip rentals:pw street maint 37.26 37.26 AMERICA 173965 11/12/2015 010169 UNITED TOWING SERVICE, INC Towing services - Police 95.00 95.00 173966 11/12/2015 012549 UPODIUM Vehicle maintenance: Sta 84 124.74 124.74 173967 11/12/2015 017579 US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL Medical screenings:HR 259.00 GROUP Medical screenings:HR 50.00 309.00 173968 11/12/2015 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. Misc rental equip: Halloween Carnival 2,410.00 2,410.00 173969 11/12/2015 016094 VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO Audit srvcs:finance dept 16,500.00 16,500.00 LLP 173970 11/12/2015 004789 VERIZON Oct Internet svcs:Theater 104.99 104.99 173971 11/12/2015 004861 VON RICHTER, POLLY Seminar: Communication w/Diplomacy 153.87 153.87 173972 11/12/2015 007987 WALMART Misc supplies:high hopes pgrm 176.28 MISC SUPPLIES:PENNYPICKLE EXHIBIT: 237.92 MISC SUPPLIES:MPSC 189.29 Theater hospitality supplies 155.26 Misc supplies:harveston center 143.36 902.11 173973 11/12/2015 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC custodial supplies: City facs 1,186.22 1,186.22 173974 11/12/2015 018407 WERNAU, THI LINH Darkness & Light Film/VIP Reception 11/8 2,012.43 2,012.43 173975 11/12/2015 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 9/16-30 maint srvcs:signet series slope 450.00 9/16-30 maint srvcs:signet series slope 2,473.00 2,923.00 173976 11/12/2015 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC electrical maint srvc: civic center 7,780.00 7,780.00 173977 11/12/2015 017663 WRC REGIONAL JPR fees:Temecula Park & Ride CONSERVATION 1,500.00 1,500.00 Page:14 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 15 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 173978 11/12/2015 009512 WURMS JANITORIAL Nov janitorial svcs:City facs 21,899.53 SERVICES, INC Nov janitorial srvcs:police old town 269.57 173979 11/12/2015 018436 YOUNGREN CONSTRUCTION refund:eng grad dep:LD14-028GR 3,000.00 INC. 1000781 11/06/2015 018427 COLES, JURANDA 1000782 11/06/2015 018428 FIELDS, GEMMA 1000783 11/06/2015 018429 GOTELL-ASKEW, AUJANEE 1000784 11/06/2015 018430 LORY, SUSAN 1000785 11/06/2015 018431 LOWE, APRIL 1000786 11/06/2015 018432 LUNA, ADRIAN 1000787 11/06/2015 018433 ZABEL, EMILY 22,169.10 3,000.00 refund:sec dep:picnic rental:Pala park 200.00 200.00 refund:picnic rental:Temeku hills park 48.00 48.00 refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 150.00 150.00 refund:sec dep:picnic rental:RRSP 200.00 200.00 refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 125.45 125.45 refund:picnic rental:Temeku hills park 48.00 48.00 refund:Etiquette survival - manners 52.00 52.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 684,275.34 Page:15 apChkLst Final Check List 11/12/2015 12:13:56PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 16 150 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 684,275.34 Page:16 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 2835 11/19/2015 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT SUPPORT Amount Paid Check Total 1,128.45 1,128.45 2836 11/19/2015 000194 I CMA RETIREMENT -PLAN I CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457: 7,363.58 7,363.58 303355 PAYMENT 2837 11/23/2015 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) STATE TAXES PAYMENT 24,325.07 24,325.07 2838 11/23/2015 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT 85,686.07 85,686.07 2839 11/19/2015 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 2,350.54 2,350.54 SOLUTION PAYMENT 2840 11/19/2015 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 9,350.90 9,350.90 SOLUTION 2842 11/19/2015 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RBF 2015 ADDITIONAL PAYMENT 18,797.16 18,797.16 RETIREMENT) 173980 11/19/2015 012898 AC NIELSEN CORPORATION economic dev:summary reports 740.00 740.00 173981 11/19/2015 018460 ADDINGTON, ELIZABETH Plein Air Winner (2nd place) 100.00 100.00 173982 11/19/2015 004008 AMBER/WARREN INC economic dev - marketing & TVE2 4,000.00 4,000.00 173983 11/19/2015 018385 AMERICHIP, INC. 50% deposit Purchase of Videos 2,150.00 2,150.00 173984 11/19/2015 006300 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN Membership:J.DeGange 90003309 170.00 170.00 173985 11/19/2015 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. 173986 11/19/2015 008605 BONTERRA PSOMAS TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 6/5-7/2 cnslt srvcs:pechanga pkwy enviro 7/31-8/27 Consult srvcs:pechanga pkwy 6/5-7/2 enviro mitigation: fv pkwy/15 7/2-7/30 enviro mitigation: fv pkwy/15 8/28-10/1 enviro mitigation: fv pkwy/15 7/2-7/30 cnslt srvcs:pechanga pkwy 8/28-10/1 cnslt srvcs:pechanga pkwy 173987 11/19/2015 018464 BRADING, LISA refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 3,628.80 1,512.00 1,501.50 5,687.50 2,645.00 910.00 650.00 290.00 8,508.75 7,238.75 6,642.30 25,930.00 200.00 200.00 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 173988 11/19/2015 000128 BROWN & BROWN INSURANCE #BA6072X147 2/26/15-2/26/16 24.00 24.00 173989 11/19/2015 005889 BROWN, PASCALE EE computer purchase program 2,000.00 2,000.00 173990 11/19/2015 004248 CALIF DEPT OF Sep 15 DOJ fingerprinting srvcs:police 49.00 49.00 JUSTICE-ACCTING 173991 11/19/2015 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION Sep 15 Online database sbscrptn - Police 152.99 152.99 173992 11/19/2015 014726 CHAPTER 13 STANDING SUPPORT PAYMENT 205.85 205.85 TRUSTEE 173993 11/19/2015 008992 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST The perpetual education fund 100.00 100.00 173994 11/19/2015 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHAIRTY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 173995 11/19/2015 018444 CONCISE INDUSTRIES LLC refund:nsf duplicate payment 173996 11/19/2015 011922 CORELOGIC, INC. Aug 15 Web Based Sbscrptn RealQuest 173997 11/19/2015 013379 COSSOU, CELINE 251.25 251.25 273.50 273.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 245.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 112.00 357.00 173998 11/19/2015 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 Misc supplies: TCC/CERT 173999 11/19/2015 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 174000 11/19/2015 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON COMPANY INC 174001 11/19/2015 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 174002 11/19/2015 018247 DOKKEN ENGINEERING 174003 11/19/2015 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS Pu'eska mountain day special event Misc supplies:arts culture & events Pu'eska mountain day special event Misc supplies:high hopes pgrm THEATER HOSPITALITY & OFFICE SUPPI Misc. supplies:tvm exhibits/programs. 152.25 152.25 615.35 379.10 260.89 195.33 184.47 157.46 1,792.60 canon color multipack toner and paper 423.57 423.57 portable restrooms:great oak hs 52.80 52.80 Oct 15 design srvcs southside parking:pw 3,374.80 3,374.80 Fuel for City vehicles: public works 236.44 236.44 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 174004 11/19/2015 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING Aug 15 Janitorial srvcs:police mall 854.50 CONTRACTORS Nov 15 Janitorial srvcs:police mall 854.50 1,709.00 174005 11/19/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 350.00 350.00 174006 11/19/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 150.00 150.00 174007 11/19/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD levy - case #546961500 52.50 52.50 174008 11/19/2015 005405 GILLILAND, ROBIN upcoming expenses Daisen, Japan visit 760.00 760.00 174009 11/19/2015 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Oct 15 small tools/equip: public library 317.20 INC OCT 15 MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: FINANCE 103.53 420.73 174010 11/19/2015 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC OCT 15 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: VAR. 778.38 STATIONS Oct 15 main supplies: var park sites 695.14 Oct 15 maint supplies: aquatics & 471.70 Oct 15 misc maint supplies: mpsc 191.31 2,136.53 174011 11/19/2015 013749 HELIXSTORM INC. IT Infrastructure supp:IT & Library 4,021.88 IT Infrastructure Support:Info Tech 900.00 4,921.88 174012 11/19/2015 016298 HORN CLINIC, THE Settlement:Speakeasy..Merc 11/14/15 289.80 289.80 174013 11/19/2015 016564 IMPACT TELECOM OCT 800 SERVICES: CIVIC CENTER 55.92 55.92 174014 11/19/2015 006113 INTLASSN OF FIRE CHIEFS- FY 15-16 IAFC mbrshp:Brown, C. 189.00 189.00 !AFC 174015 11/19/2015 010412 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS emerg generator maint srvc: tve2 89.37 89.37 174016 11/19/2015 017730 KASHMERE FAMILY TRUST, Dec '15 facility lease pmt:harveston 5,307.84 5,307.84 THE 174017 11/19/2015 016399 KITCHEN STATION LLC, THE TCSD Instructor Earnings 67.50 67.50 174018 11/19/2015 011022 LATITUDE GEOGRAPHICS technical support:GIS 1,840.00 1,840.00 GROUP LTD 174019 11/19/2015 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 7/1-9/6 MAT'LTESTING SRVCS: 1,712.70 1,712.70 RANCHO CAL Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 174020 11/19/2015 014392 MC COLLOUGH, JILL DENISE 174021 11/19/2015 012062 MCCRACKEN, MICHAEL 174022 11/19/2015 018459 MCKELVEY, SHAWN 174023 11/19/2015 009541 MEYER AND ASSOCIATES 174024 11/19/2015 016445 MKB PRINTING & PROMOTIONAL INC Description Amount Paid Check Total Sep 15 maint svc interior plants: civic 500.00 Oct 15 maint svc interior plants: civic 500.00 Nov maint svcs to interior plants: 200.00 Oct 15 maint Svcs to interior plants: 200.00 Sep 15 maint svcs to interior plants: 200.00 1,600.00 reimb: city issued iphone/ipad covers 129.58 129.58 Plein Air Winner (1st & 3rd place) 250.00 250.00 Apr -Oct repair/remediate YMCA bldg 15,215.00 Oct 15 Theater remediation:PW CIP 1,730.00 16,945.00 foil business cards - Cheryl Kitzerow 184.25 184.25 174025 11/19/2015 015164 NATURES IMAGE, INC Oct 15 pechanga pkwy environ mitigt:pw OCT 15 ENVIRO MITIGATION:FVP OVER( 174026 11/19/2015 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies: harveston center DIV Misc office supplies: finance Misc office supplies: HR Misc office supplies: HR Misc office supplies: HR Misc office supplies: finance 174027 11/19/2015 007409 OLD TOWN DINING, LLC Balance due ee luncheon 12/3/15 1,221.46 905.35 98.41 19.61 15.52 8.62 4.51 14.12 2,126.81 160.79 1,925.10 1,925.10 174028 11/19/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 681.59 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Traffic 573.41 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 211.42 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Traffic 181.13 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW CI P 175.00 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 55.00 City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 50.39 1,927.94 174029 11/19/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 55.00 55.00 174030 11/19/2015 018465 OPERATION SILVER STAR refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctrA/B 150.00 150.00 174031 11/19/2015 013910 PACIFIC RESTORATION Release retention:Caltrans Idscp 5,498.68 5,498.68 GROUP INC 174032 11/19/2015 015923 PCMG SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:INFO TECH 1,257.82 1,257.82 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 174033 11/19/2015 018462 PERDUE, ROBERT refund:minor exception appl:PA15-1568 174034 11/19/2015 017675 PODS ENTERPRISES, INC. 11/24-12/24 PODS RENTAL XXB10: STA 73 NOV PODS RENTAL FEE: STA 73 11/24-12/24 PODS RENTAL XXB62: STA 7: 11/24-12/24 PODS RENTAL XXB49: STA 7: Amount Paid Check Total 483.30 483.30 169.56 10.00 169.56 169.56 518.68 174035 11/19/2015 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL pool supplies & chemicals:var pool sites 274.83 274.83 PRODUCTS INC 174036 11/19/2015 000253 POSTMASTER PO Box 892050 fee: Police 510.00 510.00 174037 11/19/2015 018458 PRECIOUS, JOICE refund:bal adj for overpmt #319682 70.00 70.00 174038 11/19/2015 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS Comedy @ The Merc 11/13 30.80 30.80 174039 11/19/2015 013725 PROCRAFT INC Bay door replacement: fire stn 12 10,600.00 10,600.00 174040 11/19/2015 010652 QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING Municipal Code Services: City Clerk 1,432.00 1,432.00 174041 11/19/2015 011020 RAGLAND, JACK Mayor's Purchase Award Plein Air '15 500.00 500.00 174042 11/19/2015 008282 RAMIREZ, ERIKA Reimb:Council closed session 11/10 157.14 157.14 174043 11/19/2015 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR Oct vehicle detailing srvcs:var. depts 21.00 21.00 WASH 174044 11/19/2015 000271 RBF CONSULTING Oct 15 Design srvcs I-15/SR 79S: pw cip 24,716.36 Sep 2015 Engineering srvcs:I-15/SR-79S 16,394.62 8/31-9/27 ENG & SURVEY SRVCS: PARK 454.52 41,565.50 174045 11/19/2015 016931 REACH SPORTS MARKETING 9/27/15-9/26/16 license renewal:library 1,028.00 1,028.00 GROUP 174046 11/19/2015 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR Oct '15 prkg citation assessments 2,101.00 2,101.00 174047 11/19/2015 012174 RUHNAU RUHNAU CLARKE & Design srvcs:Fire Stn 73 living qtrs 2,376.00 ASSOC. ENGINEER SRVCS FOR FIRE STN 73: PV 2,112.00 4,488.00 174048 11/19/2015 018466 SALESART MULTIMEDIA refund:rm rental:Library comm rm A 140.00 140.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 174049 11/19/2015 018012 SAUNDERS, CATHY TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 157.50 TCSD Instructor Earnings 157.50 819.00 174050 11/19/2015 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES CABLING SRVCS: THEATER 485.36 485.36 INC 174051 11/19/2015 017365 SELSTAD, LONNIE Dixieland @ The Merc 11/15 157.50 157.50 174052 11/19/2015 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 CENTRAL 174053 11/19/2015 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ The Merc 11/12 517.00 517.00 174054 11/19/2015 013695 SHRED -IT US JV, LLC 10/21 doc shred srvcs: civic center 63.00 10/21 doc shred srvcs:temecula police 16.54 79.54 174055 11/19/2015 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 174056 11/19/2015 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Signage: Rod Run 1,096.24 1,096.24 Oct 2-31-419-2659:26706 Ynez Rd TC1 Oct 2-29-974-7899:26953 Ynez Rd LS -3 Oct 2-37-303-0485:27498 Enterprise cir w Oct 2-36-171-5626:Butterfield/La serena Oct 2-29-479-2981:31454 Tem pkwy TC1 Oct 2-35-576-2634:FV pkwy e/o jefferson Oct 2-29-223-9571:30395 Murr hot springs Oct 2-25-350-5119:45602 Redhawk pkwy Oct 2-36-122-7820:31777 Deportola Rd Oct 2-30-066-2889:30051 Rancho vista Oct 2-01-202-7330:various LS -1 Allnite Oct 2-01-202-7603:various LS -1 Allnite Oct 2-05-791-8807:31587 Tem pkwy LS3 Oct 2-02-351-5281:30875 Rancho vista Oct 2-20-798-3248:42081 Main St Oct 2-10-331-2153:28816 Pujol St Oct 2-28-171-2620:40820 Winchester Oct 2-33-777-1950:40135 Village Rd Oct 2-30-608-9384:28582 Harveston Oct 2-29-458-7548:32000 Rancho Calif 174057 11/19/2015 013864 SO PACIFIC MASTERS ASSN Renew membership 2016: Aquatics Prgm 174058 11/19/2015 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST pest control srvcs: fire stn 84 CONTROL INC 170.75 164.08 142.79 134.79 122.92 84.26 51.88 28.94 27.61 26.12 79,818.97 25, 715.31 10,278.13 4,991.31 1,430.47 955.01 927.72 732.06 619.44 300.93 126,723.49 50.00 50.00 80.00 80.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 174059 11/19/2015 018467 SOUTHWESTERN RIV. CO. 174060 11/19/2015 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 174061 11/19/2015 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 174062 11/19/2015 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL 174063 11/19/2015 008164 SUN CITY GRANITE INC 174064 11/19/2015 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTR 174065 11/19/2015 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS 174066 11/19/2015 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 174067 11/19/2015 010558 TRADE IN.COM INC 174068 11/19/2015 018386 TRAN, CINDY 174069 11/19/2015 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE 174070 11/19/2015 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE 174071 11/19/2015 000325 UNITED WAY 174072 11/19/2015 012549 UPODIUM (Continued) Description refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC Refreshments:skate park event 9/25 Misc office supplies: PW land dev Misc office supplies:Police Mall Stn MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE Misc office supplies: pw depts MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE Credit/misc office supplies: PW CIP Credit/misc office supplies: finance 7/1/15-6/30/16 npdes ms4 permit fees engrave veteran pavers: duck pond locksmith srvcs: crc LOCKSMITH SRVCS: TVE2 locksmith srvcs: rrsp Oct graphic dsgn srvcs: theater Nov high speed internet:32364 Overland Balance due: mpsc renovation refund:Google Apps for educ/bus refund:balance on acct:tcsd Postage deposit:bus.license renewals Aug postage meter deposit Sept postage meter deposit EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS PAYMENT Vehicle maintenance: Sta 92 Amount Paid Check Total 200.00 66.48 100.20 67.76 64.54 57.19 48.57 12.19 -10.03 -154.19 28,621.00 624.00 100.00 100.00 23.00 2,610.00 52.99 1,577.88 60.00 52.00 4,015.55 1,883.92 1,779.62 5.00 159.09 200.00 66.48 186.23 28,621.00 624.00 223.00 2,610.00 52.99 1,577.88 112.00 4,015.55 3,663.54 5.00 159.09 174073 11/19/2015 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. Misc rental equip: Movie Premier 11/8 135.00 135.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 174074 11/19/2015 004261 VERIZON Nov xxx-5694 general usage:Stn #95 Amount Paid Check Total 120.96 120.96 174075 11/19/2015 004789 VERIZON Nov Internet svcs:harveston ctr 129.99 Nov Internet svcs:skate park 39.95 Nov Internet svcs:Library 11.11 Nov Internet svcs:Library 11.11 192.16 174076 11/19/2015 004848 VERIZON Oct long distance phone svcs 2.52 2.52 174077 11/19/2015 007987 WALMART MISC SUPPLIES: MPSC 384.44 384.44 174078 11/19/2015 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE Oct '15 MSHCP payment 19,602.75 19,602.75 COUNTY 174079 11/19/2015 018463 YENULONIS, LAURA refund:80% permit fees:B15-2469 147.81 147.81 174080 11/19/2015 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL Reimb:Veteran's Day Ceremony 11/11 161.01 161.01 1000788 11/10/2015 018375 AUSTIN, GINA refund:Creative beg for parents & me 70.00 70.00 1000789 11/10/2015 018445 BENDER, MARTIN refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 150.00 150.00 1000790 11/10/2015 018445 BENDER, MARTIN refund:rm rental:CRC 245.00 245.00 1000791 11/10/2015 018446 CAMACHO, BEN refund:sec dep:picnic rental:harveston 195.00 195.00 1000792 11/10/2015 018446 CAMACHO, BEN refund:picnic rental:harveston 80.00 80.00 1000793 11/10/2015 018446 CAMACHO, BEN refund:picnic rental:harveston 60.00 60.00 1000794 11/10/2015 018447 CERASANI, DANIELLA refund:Creative beg for parent & me 70.00 70.00 1000795 11/10/2015 018448 FERRELL, DIANE refund:Creative beg for parent & me 70.00 70.00 1000796 11/10/2015 018449 NAVIDAD, GERALDINE refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 200.00 200.00 1000797 11/10/2015 018450 NEMOTO, TONI refund:Creative beg for parent & me 70.00 70.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 1000798 11/10/2015 018451 SESSLER, TRINIDAD 1000799 11/10/2015 018452 STARBUCKS 1000800 11/10/2015 018452 STARBUCKS 1000801 11/13/2015 016061 ARENTZ, BRIANNA 1000802 11/13/2015 018453 BUTKIEWICZ, BENJAMIN 1000803 11/13/2015 018454 KOUR, SONIHHALL 1000804 11/13/2015 018455 OYOS, ESSENCE 1000805 11/13/2015 018456 WILKESON, SHERYL Description Amount Paid Check Total refund: S KI P 9200.205 10.00 10.00 refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 150.00 150.00 refund:rm rental:CRC 160.00 160.00 refund:Farmers market tour 1620.203 80.00 80.00 refund:returned lost materials:Library 11.99 11.99 refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 150.00 150.00 refund:Ballet barre stretch & tone 54.00 54.00 refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctr A/B 150.00 150.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 509,535.64 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 11/19/2015 12:02:48PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 126 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 509,535.64 Pagel 0 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager ..! CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2015 PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Revenue Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2015. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of October 31, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2015 Investments City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary October 31, 2015 Par Market Value Value Book % of Value Portfolio Term City of Temecula 41000 Main Street P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92590 (951)694-6430 Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts Retention Escrow Account Letter of Credit Local Agency Investment Funds Federal Agency Callable Securities Federal Agency Bullet Securities Investments Cash Passbook/Checking (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments Total Earnings Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return 35,668,178.73 35,668,17873 35,668,178.73 4468 1 1 0.153 0.156 600,393.69 600,393.69 600,393.69 0.75 1 1 0.000 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 20,574,374.85 20,585,117.95 20,574,374.85 25.77 1 1 0 352 0.357 12,000,000.00 12,027,370.00 12,000,000.00 15.03 1,238 999 1.236 1.253 11, 000,000.00 11, 032, 290.00 10,993,680.00 13.77 1,431 522 1.050 1.065 79,842,948.27 79,913,351.37 2, 336, 753.15 79,836,628.27 100.00% 384 223 0.490 0.497 2,336,753.15 2,336,753.15 82,179,701.42 82,250,104.52 October 31 Month Ending 34,273.46 85,491,552.56 0.47% Reporting period 10/01/2015-10/31/2015 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 Fiscal Year To Date 147,014.50 90,827,143.30 0.48% 0 000 0.000 82,173,381.42 384 223 0.490 0.497 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1) 7 3 0 Report Ver 7 3 5 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2015 Page 1 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 122216003-2 CITY COP RE2 ASSURED GUARANTY 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1 1453718479 WORKERS COMP BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNC 07/01/2015 8,744.43 8,744.43 8,744.43 0.000 0.000 1 104348008-1 01-2 IMP 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348006-4 01-2 RESA2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348016-3 01-2 RESB2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348000-4 01-2 SPTAX2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669911-2 03-1 ACQA2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669921-3 03-1 ACQB3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669902-3 03-1 BOND3 First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-3 03-1 RES A3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-2 03-1 RES B2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669900-4 03-1 SPTAX1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-2 03-2 ACQ 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593009-2 03-2 EMWD 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593007-2 03-2 IMP 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593016-4 03-2 LOC 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593010-2 03-2 PWADM2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593006-2 03-2 RES 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593000-3 03-2 SPTX2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727011-2 03-3 ACQ2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727002-2 03-3 BOND 2 First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727007-2 03-3 CITY2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727009 03-3 EMWD 1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727006-3 03-3 RES3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727000-4 03-3 SP TX 4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686001-2 03-4 ADMIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686005-1 03-4 PREP1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686000-1 03-4 RED1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-2 03-4 RES2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776002-2 03-6 BOND2 First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776007-2 03-6 IMP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776006-2 03-6 RES2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776000-3 03-6 SP TX3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 95453510-2 88-12 BOND2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 95453518-4 88-12 GI4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 122216003-4 CITY COP RE4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2015 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 122216008-3 CITY COPCIP2 First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 122216000-2 CITY COPLPF2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INT1 First American Treasury 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.000 0.000 1 94434161-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.000 0.000 1 107886011-2 RDA 06 B PRI First American Treasury 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.000 0.000 1 107886008-2 RDA 06 CIPA2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886001 RDA 06 PRIN First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.000 0.000 1 107886000-2 RDA 06A INT2 First American Treasury 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.000 0.000 1 107886018-3 RDA 06B CIP3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886010-2 RDA 06B INT2 First American Treasury 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.000 0.000 1 107886016-2 RDA 06B RES2 First American Treasury 202,121.09 202,121.09 202,121.09 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 107886030-2 RDA 07 CAPI2 First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886027-2 RDA 07 ESC2 First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886020-2 RDA 07 INT2 First American Treasury 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.000 0.000 1 107886021-2 RDA 07 PRINC First American Treasury 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.000 0.000 1 107886028-2 RDA 07 PROJ2 First American Treasury 209,699.92 209,699.92 209,699.92 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 107886026-2 RDA 07 RES2 First American Treasury 1,104,114.61 1,104,114.61 1,104,114.61 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343006 RDA 10 RSRV1 First American Treasury 1,263,945.26 1,263,945.26 1,263,945.26 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343008 RDA 10A CIP2 First American Treasury 19,952.61 19,952.61 19,952.61 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343001-2 RDA 10A-INT1 First American Treasury 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.000 0.000 1 136343018-2 RDA 10B CIP2 First American Treasury 5,187,182.18 5,187,182.18 5,187,182.18 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343000-1 RDA 10B-INT1 First American Treasury 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.000 0.000 1 94432360-2 TCSD COP INT First American Treasury 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348006-5 01-2 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 440,394.84 440,394.84 440,394.84 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 104348016-5 01-2 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 188,611.90 188,611.90 188,611.90 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 104348000-5 01-2 SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 27,154.75 27,154.75 27,154.75 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669921-5 03-01 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 2,144,357.45 2,144,357.45 2,144,357.45 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669911-5 03-01 ACQA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 144.51 144.51 144.51 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669922-5 03-01 COI Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669917-5 03-01 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-5 03-01 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669916-5 03-01 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 147,752.46 147,752.46 147,752.46 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669000-5 03-01 SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 26,333.75 26,333.75 26,333.75 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 164741009-5 03-03 COI Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 164741008-5 03-03 IMP Federated Tax Free Obligations 582,374.75 582,374.75 582,374.75 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 164741006-5 03-03 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 388.85 388.85 388.85 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2015 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 164741000-5 03-03 SPEC Federated Tax Free Obligations 108,718.92 108,718.92 108,718.92 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 164742009-5 03-06 COI Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 164742006-5 03-06 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776006-5 03-06 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 164742000-5 03-06 SPEC Federated Tax Free Obligations 7,771.62 7,771.62 7,771.62 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 786776000-5 03-06SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669902-5 03-lbond fd Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-5 03-2 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 234,789.06 234,789.06 234,789.06 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593009-5 03-2 EMWD11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 1,097.99 1,097.99 1,097.99 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593016-5 03-2 LOC1 1 Federated Tax Free Obligations 142,036.10 142,036.10 142,036.10 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593010-5 03-2 PWADM11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593006-5 03-2 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593000-5 03-2 SPTX Federated Tax Free Obligations 19.33 19.33 19.33 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593007-5 03-2-IMPR11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 1,144.67 1,144.67 1,144.67 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 744727006-5 03-3 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 744727011-5 03-3ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94686001-5 03-4 ADMIN11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 507.53 507.53 507.53 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94686005-5 03-4 PREP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686000-5 03-4 RED11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 10,303.58 10,303.58 10,303.58 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94686006-5 03-4 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 65,501.09 65,501.09 65,501.09 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 744727000-5 03-SSPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 146161000-5 146161000-5 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.000 0.000 1 146161001-5 146161001-5 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.000 0.000 1 146161008-5 RDA 11ACIP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 7,272,089.32 7,272,089.32 7,272,089.32 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 146161009-5 RDA 11ACOI11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 146161006-5 RDA 11RSRV11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 1,307,913.84 1,307,913.84 1,307,913.84 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94432363 02001 Financial Security Assurance 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-1 03-2-1 ACQUI CA Local Agency Investment Fun 11,449,353.68 11,449,353.68 11,449,353.68 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 793593009-1 03-2-1 EMWD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 793593007-1 03-2-1 IMPRO CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 793593010-1 03-2-1 PW AD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 793593006-3 03-2-3 RESER CA Local Agency Investment Fun 3,513,652.10 3,513,652.10 3,513,652.10 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 122216008 CITY COP CIP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 122216003-1 CITY COP RE1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 107886008-1 RDA 06 CIP-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 107886018-2 RDA 06 CIP-2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2015 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 107886030-1 RDA 07 CAP -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 107886027-1 RDA 07 ESC -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 107886006 RDA 06 RES A MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434166 RDA TABs RES MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669905-0 03-01 REF USBANK 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727099-0 03-03 REF USBANK 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776099-0 03-06 REF USBANK 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYS95453516-1 95453516-1 USBANK 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Subtotal and Average 35,662,537.16 35, 668,178.73 35,668,178.73 35,668,178.73 0.153 0.156 1 Retention Escrow Account 194012308-16 RJ NOBLE Bank of Sacramento ARMY CORPS Army Corps Union Bank SYSPI aza Prtnr PI aza Prtnr Wells Fargo Bank PORTOLA TRRC Portola Trrc Wells Fargo Bank 39211000 Summerhouse Wells Fargo Bank Subtotal and Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 600,393.69 600,393.69 600,393.69 0.000 0.000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 600,384.11 600,393.69 600,393.69 600,393.69 0.000 0.000 1 Letter of Credit 104348006-1 02008 ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2015 Subtotal and Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Local Agency Investment Funds 94669917-1 03-01-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 770,836.72 770,836.72 770,836.72 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 164742006-1 03-06 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 308,334.69 308,334.69 308,334.69 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 744727007-1 03-3 CITY 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 786776007-1 03-6 IMP 1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 164741006-1 0303-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,428,818.94 1,428,818.94 1,428,818.94 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 9,622,989.58 9,628,711.85 9,622,989.58 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,753.95 1,754.99 1,753.95 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 SYSRDA 10 DS 2 RDA 10 DS 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2015 Page 5 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Local Agency Investment Funds SYSRDA 10A CIP1 RDA 10A CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 136343018-1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 8,441,640.97 8,446,660.76 8,441,640.97 0.357 0.352 0.357 1 Subtotal and Average 23,144,948.73 20,574,374.85 20,585,117.95 20,574,374.85 0.352 0.357 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 3130A3NK6 01200 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/29/2014 1,000,000.00 1,001,140.00 1,000,000.00 1.150 1.134 1.150 789 12/29/2017 3130A3RY2 01201 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/30/2014 1,000,000.00 1,005,390.00 1,000,000.00 1.150 1.130 1.146 789 12/29/2017 3130A4G89 01207 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/24/2015 1,000,000.00 1,007,410.00 1,000,000.00 1.650 1.627 1.650 1,423 09/24/2019 3130A6BY2 01212 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/26/2015 1,000,000.00 1,002,340.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 1,151 12/26/2018 3134G5JJ5 01198 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 09/29/2014 1,000,000.00 1,004,650.00 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 698 09/29/2017 3134G6Z97 01209 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 05/27/2015 1,000,000.00 1,002,690.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.230 1.247 1,030 08/27/2018 3134G67C1 01210 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 06/22/2015 1,000,000.00 998,980.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.184 1.200 964 06/22/2018 3136G2A64 01199 Federal National Mtg Assn 11/28/2014 1,000,000.00 1,000,590.00 1,000,000.00 1.070 1.055 1.070 757 11/27/2017 3136G2CE5 01203 Federal National Mtg Assn 01/30/2015 1,000,000.00 1,005,130.00 1,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 1.550 1,186 01/30/2019 3136G2D87 01204 Federal National Mtg Assn 02/13/2015 1,000,000.00 1,001,080.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 835 02/13/2018 3136G2EC7 01205 Federal National Mtg Assn 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 994,520.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 1,214 02/27/2019 3136G2JY4 01208 Federal National Mtg Assn 05/27/2015 1,000,000.00 1,003,450.00 1,000,000.00 1.375 1.356 1.375 1,152 12/27/2018 Subtotal and Average 12,000,000.00 12, 000, 0 00.00 12, 027, 3 70.00 12,000,000.00 1.236 1.253 999 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 31331KE55 01175 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/06/2011 1,000,000.00 1,008,470.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 340 10/06/2016 31331KV98 01178 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/23/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,450.00 1,000,000.00 0.970 0.957 0.970 22 11/23/2015 31331K2P4 01182 Federal Farm Credit Bank 12/09/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,820.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 38 12/09/2015 31331K6P0 01183 Federal Farm Credit Bank 01/19/2012 1,000,000.00 1,001,430.00 1,000,000.00 0.850 0.838 0.850 79 01/19/2016 3133EDND0 01196 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/11/2014 1,000,000.00 1,006,630.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.179 1.195 802 01/11/2018 3133EEHU7 01202 Federal Farm Credit Bank 01/14/2015 1,000,000.00 1,003,840.00 1,000,000.00 1.410 1.391 1.410 1,170 01/14/2019 313378QH7 01189 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/28/2012 1,000,000.00 1,002,140.00 1,000,000.00 0.900 0.888 0.900 148 03/28/2016 313381DZ5 01193 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/28/2012 1,000,000.00 1,000,100.00 1,000,000.00 0.550 0.542 0.550 422 12/27/2016 3130A4AJ1 01206 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 1,004,490.00 1,000,000.00 1.140 1.124 1.140 849 02/27/2018 3130A5MH9 01211 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/26/2015 1,000,000.00 1,002,460.00 1,000,000.00 1.360 1.341 1.360 1,151 12/26/2018 3135G0PQ0 01194 Federal National Mtg Assn 11/26/2013 1,000,000.00 1,001,460.00 993,680.00 0.875 1.026 1.040 725 10/26/2017 Subtotal and Average 12,703,357.42 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 11, 000,000.00 11,032,290.00 10,993,680.00 1.050 1.065 522 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2015 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 6 Total and Average 85,491,552.56 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 79,842,948.27 79,913,351.37 79,836,628.27 0.490 0.497 223 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash October 31, 2015 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 7 Retention Escrow Account SYSAAA#1202 AAA#1202 COMMUNITY BANK 4110170281 EDGEDEV TORRY PINES BANK 23303800 PCL CONST Wells Fargo Bank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Passbook/Checking Accounts SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2015 3,110.00 3,110.00 3,110.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSFIex Ck Acct Flex Ck Acct Union Bank of California 07/01/2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGen Ck Acct Gen Ck Acct Union Bank of California 2,325,312.15 2,325,312.15 2,325,312.15 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2015 8,331.00 8,331.00 8,331.00 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 1 Total Cash and Investments 85,491,552.56 Run Date: 11/19/2015 - 08:18 82,179,701.42 82,250,104.52 82,173,381.42 0.490 0.497 223 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Fund # Fund Name Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through October 2015 Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursements Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $ 23,157,491.32 $ 5,210,907.77 $10,750,021.77 $ 17,618,377.32 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 786,887.01 193,439.94 684,895.84 295,431.11 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 5,029,217.14 7,295.39 275.42 5,036,237.11 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE - 14,795.93 6,612.74 8,183.19 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT - 205,956.95 47,081.77 158,875.18 145 TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET TEAM 213,594.94 274.98 11.70 213,858.22 150 AB 2766 FUND 566,057.45 757.84 1,735.80 565,079.49 160 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES - 32,871.41 32,870.36 1.05 161 LARRY ROBINSON REWARD 25,244.39 37.55 1.38 25,280.56 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 331,817.77 965.19 39,464.19 293,318.77 170 MEASURE A FUND 3,994,023.71 184,354.94 152,064.67 4,026,313.98 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 967,835.66 217,286.11 851,626.43 333,495.34 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS - 86,034.93 80,545.83 5,489.10 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 111,496.52 62,393.78 10,068.06 163,822.24 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 19,660.27 144.15 1.08 19,803.34 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 256,174.64 108.75 17,369.51 238,913.88 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 250,658.14 243,627.50 71,286.36 422,999.28 198 PUBLIC ART 32,531.81 10.11 1.78 32,540.14 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 6,834,004.04 1,377,926.99 811,759.48 7,400,171.55 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 2,144,484.40 17.56 - 2,144,501.96 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 582,369.98 4.77 - 582,374.75 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 11,800,292.75 9,401.42 6.74 11,809,687.43 300 INSURANCE FUND 37,666.34 220,912.99 34,821.07 223,758.26 305 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 210,883.52 62,792.31 1,814.12 271,861.71 310 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND 1,567,688.01 39,335.11 87.88 1,606,935.24 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - 423,508.70 164,560.25 258,948.45 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 519,006.27 48,401.57 24,798.17 542,609.67 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 366,259.58 104,120.49 41,747.36 428,632.71 340 FACILITIES 268,510.31 312,220.65 112,857.26 467,873.70 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 360.68 3,357.79 3,718.47 - 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 16,786,141.35 109.82 2,150.13 16,784,101.04 381 REDEVELOPMEN PROPERTY TAX TRUST 177,264.58 1,606.05 21.65 178,848.98 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 88,733.15 132.01 4.86 88,860.30 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 746,543.31 70.99 2,350.77 744,263.53 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,094,982.49 702.61 2,123.09 1,093,562.01 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 83,774.60 45.27 1,069.37 82,750.50 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,958,023.91 1,475.35 1,667.57 1,957,831.69 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 343,788.15 268.31 2,178.17 341,878.29 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 4,985,188.23 2,974.90 7,476.64 4,980,686.49 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 5,048.27 3.80 3,045.84 2,006.23 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 55,999.98 23.31 2,343.03 53,680.26 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 8,261.60 9.94 3,375.20 4,896.34 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 1,902.65 1.16 564.91 1,338.90 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 5,123.30 3.49 3,341.59 1,785.20 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 21,906.38 9.21 1,169.91 20,745.68 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 26,023.72 15.49 11,940.14 14,099.07 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 18,540.40 22.63 168.57 18,394.46 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 5,068.67 2.39 586.47 4,484.59 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 1,770.65 0.76 277.33 1,494.08 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 29,513.32 14.25 6,081.53 23,446.04 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 1,117.42 1,275.22 2,392.64 - 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 2,446.91 1.56 1,488.34 960.13 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 1,102.77 0.89 838.33 265.33 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 61,208.37 24.61 5,918.46 55,314.52 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 1,031.37 0.48 159.78 872.07 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 18,714.95 10.69 6,803.91 11,921.73 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 77,171.15 31.07 3,002.88 74,199.34 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 88,603.42 45.87 14,783.57 73,865.72 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 105,141.59 49.59 15,923.57 89,267.61 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 891.32 0.52 324.51 567.33 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 10,613.48 4.28 462.53 10,155.23 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 36,824.84 20.02 25,427.80 11,417.06 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 43,080.46 18.71 2,706.63 40,392.54 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 1,684.02 0.70 140.88 1,543.84 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 4,626.30 2.00 752.59 3,875.71 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 260,566.77 108.91 13,454.60 247,221.08 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT - 193.08 193.08 - 530 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES 33.688.60 50.12 1.85 33,736.87 Grand Total: $ 87,266,329.10 $ 9,072,593.63 $14,088,818.21 $ 82,250,104.52 Journal Entries completed after September's Treasurer's Report was issued are reflected in the Receipts / Disbursements columns. Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve Financial Statements for the 1St Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 and Approve a Resolution to Establish a Special Revenue Fund for the Collection of Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fees PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Receive and file the Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015; 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE COLLECTION OF PUBLIC, EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) FEES BACKGROUND: The attached Financial Statements reflect the unaudited activity of the City for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. Please see the attached Financial Statements footnotes for an analytical review of financial activity for each of the various funds. In accordance with Temecula Municipal Code Section 5.12.200, the City may collect fees for the purpose of supporting the public, educational and governmental access facilities and activities. The City Council approved Ordinance 07-09 establishing the Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fee; however collection was not initiated until 2015. The establishment of a new Special Revenue fund is required to account for fees remitted by City's two cable franchisees for the construction and support of PEG access facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that the City will receive approximately $300,000 in PEG Fee revenue each fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Quarterly Financial Update — Q1'2015-16 2. Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2015. 3. Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -Budget and Actual for the 1St Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 (General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Improvement Projects Fund, Debt Service Fund). 4. Combining Statement of Net Position as of September 30, 2015 5. Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position for the 1St Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 (Internal Service Funds). 6. Statement of Net Position - Fiduciary Fund California Employee Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund as of September 30, 2015. 7. Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position — Fiduciary Fund (CERBT) for the 1St Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. 8. Resolution Quarterly Financial Update Q1'2015-16 Prepared by the City of Temecula Finance Department The attached reports summarize the financial status of the City as of September 30, 2015. The reports cover all City funds and the Temecula Community Service District (TCSD). The narrative and charts below highlight current revenue and expenditure trends for the City's major funds and provide variance analyses compared to the Annual Budget. SUMMARY — GENERAL FUND # The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City, providing for public safety, public works, planning and development, building and safety, parks maintenance and general City administration. REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS: A total of 82% of General Fund revenue is generated by a variety of taxes, with the remaining 18% from user fees, franchise fees, license fees, fines and reimbursements. The major tax revenues include Sales Tax, Property Tax, Measure C Special Tax and Gas Tax funds. FY15-16 General Fund Revenue Total Tax evenue 82% Franchise Fees 6% Departmental Revenue Transfers In (excl. Gas Tax) o% Other Reimb. 2% 3% 111 41q The Heart of Southern California Wine Country December 8, 2015 Through the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year, only 12% of the Annual Budgeted revenue has been received. Per Government Statutes, most of the City's major tax revenues are distributed in the latter half of the fiscal year. FY15-16 Q1'15-16 General Fund Revenue Budget YTD Actuals Received Sales Tax 31,982,496 3,322,712 10% Property Tax 7,157,977 575,296 8% Property Tax in lieu of VLF 7,013,112 - 0% Vehicle License Fees 42,687 - 0% Transient Occupancy Tax 3,251,835 846,946 26% Measure C 1,867,640 21,501 1% Gas Tax (Transfer In) 2,741,992 685,498 25% Total Tax Revenue 54,057,739 5,451,953 10% Franchise Fees Departmental Revenue Transfers In (excl. Gas Tax) Reimbursements Other Total Revenue 3,888,177 574,099 15% 4,503,825 1,071,755 24% 171,000 32,880 19% 2,173,046 563,989 26% 1,059,973 234,310 22% 65,853,760 7,928,986 12% Sales Tax revenue to date reflects the receipt of the statutory advances for sales activity occurring from July 1 to September 30th. The final remittance of Sales Tax revenue for this quarter will be received in mid-December. Property Tax & Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees are paid primarily in January and May of each year, therefore only a portion of the year's revenue has been received to date, including Property Transfer taxes related to home sales and Unsecured Property Tax payments. 1IPage Transient Occupancy Tax revenue reflects payments from hotels/motels for July through September occupancy. Increases in both occupancy and hotel rates are both trending higher than anticipated in the Budget. Based on the latest report from Visit Temecula Valley, July through September occupancy and average daily rents are up 5.5% and 4.8%, respectively. Measure C revenue is a voter -approved tax specified for Recreation and Parks Maintenance expenditures. 50% of the tax is recorded in the General Fund and the other 50% is recorded in the TCSD Fund. It is received along with Property Tax, in January and May of each year. Franchise Fees are received from various utility companies, including Southern CA Gas, Southern CA Electric, CR&R, Verizon and Time Warner Cable Services. Payments are received periodically throughout the fiscal year, based on the individual franchise fee agreements. Gas Tax Funds are receipted into a separate Special Revenue Fund, per State Law. Each fiscal quarter, these funds are transferred into the General Fund to offset the payments for eligible street and road maintenance costs charged to the Department of Public Works. EXPENDITURE HIGHLIGHTS: With 25% of the Budget year spent, total General Fund Departments have exhausted 23% of the annual Budget, excluding encumbrances, indicating that departments are staying within their Budget through the first quarter of the fiscal year. Animal Control has spent over 50% of the Budget due to the annual debt service payment made in September, which covers the full fiscal year. Economic Development spending exceeds 25% of the Budget year due to the annual payments to outside agencies as part of the ED Funding Program. Community Support expenditures reflect the payments to outside non-profit agencies providing services to Temecula residents, as well as Council discretionary funding. The City Council approved the funding levels for the FY15-16 CS Funding program at its November 10th Council meeting, and will be remitting the funding in the second quarter. All other General Fund Departments' spending levels are within their projected FY15-16 Annual Operating Budget. Mk-nICCEIF FY15-16 General Fund Spent by Department As of 9/30/15 Animal Control Fire Police Parks Maintenance CIP Administration Public Works Land Development Building & Safety Planning Human Resources Finance City Attorney City Clerk Emergency Management Economic Development City Manager Community Support City Council 2IPage Special Tax (Measure C) 1,867,640 21,501 1% Recreation Funding(General Fund) 4,601,783 1,554,165 34% Recreation Program 2,477,139 821,336 33% Investment Interest 800 1,509 189% TOTAL REVENUES 8,947,362 2,398,511 27% TCSD Revenue Through the first quarter of FY15-16, a total of 27% of TCSD's revenue has been received. Special Tax (Measure C) is paid along with Property Taxes and will be receipted in January and May of 2016. Recreation Funding Revenue is transferred in from the General Fund to cover expenditures through the first quarter and to offset the delay in receiving Measure C funds. TCSD Expenditures TCSD Operating Divisions have spent 23% of the their Annual Budget through the first quarter of the fisal year. The Community Recreation Center, Acquatics and the Jefferson Recreation Center are over the 25% mark due to the higher activity levels and contract class programming that is more heavily skewed toward the summer months. All other Divisions are within their Budget targets. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FY2015-16 TCSD Spent by Division As of 9/30/15 c5 ,et ,et Fy ,,e, e ,.\c`' $, e ,et $, ,et ,yet `e`' Lp, ,et ,e`' et''' tC'et\ C.et` oe Ceo o`'e Qua sQo Jye .Crew 4 C.ec Lec e�' - Lec ( OQ c`o `oc RS c`\J e . P y� .``J J��J �oC cee acs •`oCs arc �eceta se Qe`teae`tea,``o `otc� Cr\at� Low‹Jc C �a�eyCoc'lete MJF Qe`tea Cord 0. tc e ,fie (,occ' �eF le Mir PI 3IPage Below is a summary of all City and TCSD Funds providing the unaudited Beginning Fund Balance as of July 1, 2015 the actual revenue and expenditure activity from July 1 to September 30, 2015, and the current Fiscal Year 2015-16 Ending Fund Balance. The Affordable Housing Fund and the Internal Service Funds' balance include non -spendable assets, such as loans receivable and fixed assets. Funds Beginning Revenue & Expenditures & Ending Balance Transfers In Transfers Out Balance General Fund 26, 060, 895 7,928,986 17, 386, 600 16, 603, 281 Special Revenue Funds Gas Tax 423,778 558,691 685,498 296,971 Development Impact Fees 4,711,576 351,884 31,709 5,031,751 Business Incubator 6,008 55,644 47,240 14,412 CDBG - 27,318 27,318 TEAM 196,039 18,152 214,191 AB2766 (Vehicle Subvention) 566,902 1,005 1,705 566,202 SLESF (Cops Grant) - 32,880 32,880 Major Crimes Fund 25,276 47 25,323 Affordable Housing 10,372,826 1,879 69,839 10,304,866 Measure A 3,817,647 434,564 51,508 4,200,703 Capital Improvement Program 7,404,655 1,681,256 1,991,372 7,094,539 2011 Financing Lease - 533,995 533,995 27,800,028 3,697,315 3,473,064 27,748,958 Internal Service Funds Insurance 280,359 234,477 223,778 291,058 Workers' Comp 229,182 62,864 18,024 274,022 Vehicles & Equipment 1,907,683 40,020 36,382 1,911,321 Information Technology 38,222 480,486 480,486 38,222 Technology Replacement 1,227,948 48,673 48,673 1,227,948 Support Services 454,869 117,653 117,653 454,869 Facilities 464,452 337,288 337,288 464,452 4,529,022 1,321,461 1,262,284 4,661,892 TCSD Funds TCSD Operations 371,407 2,398,511 2,037,409 732,509 Service Level B (Street Lights) 22,495 145,204 162,662 5,037 Service Level C(Slope Maint.) 1,149,664 6,318 335,139 820,843 Service Level D (Refuse/Recycl) 189,203 14,775 24,871 179,107 Service Level R (Road Maint.) 19,692 151 19,843 Service Level L(Harveston Lake) 288,877 2,907 48,863 242,921 Library 276,517 198,145 205,620 269,042 Public Art - 32,583 32,583 Intern Fellowship Program 662 4,908 5,539 31 Total of All Funds 2,318,517 2,803,502 2,820,103 2,301,916 60, 708,462 15, 751, 264 24,942, 051 51, 316,047 4'Page Throughout the fiscal year, Finance tracks a number of economic indicators which help guide the development of the City's revenue forecasts. Below is a summary of the most recently available data for each indicator. 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% -2.00% 2015 Consumer Price Index CPI -U All Urban Consumers Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -U.S City Average -Riverside-Ontario-San Bernardino 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 Consu eur Confidence Level National State J 8.0 7.5 7.0 re 6.5 6.0 i 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 2015 Unemployment Rates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep - National - California - Riverside County - Temecula Economic indicators at the National level show signs of continued strength in the economy. The Consumer Price Index indicates low prices and controlled inflation, and improving Unemployment Rates indicate more people are returning to work. The Consumer Confidence Index measures consumers' outlook on the economy. While this indicator shows improvement at the National level, the State's Confidence indicator has declined due to uncertainty related to the stock market and fluctuating gas prices. The recent decline in gas prices, illustrated in the chart below, will yield lower Sales Tax revenue on gasoline sales, which will impact General Fund Revenue. RegularGas Price (U5 3.68 SIG) 18 Month Average Retail Price Chart Gasoline Prices USAAveraye Regular Gas Price (US S+G) 3.68 3.52 3.52 3.35 3.35 3.18 3.18 3.02 3.02 2.85 2.85 2.68 2.68 2.52 2.52 2.35 2.35 2.19 2.19 2.02 2.02 U} L7 -2 W y 07 0i O -J 3 i8 00 2 06 n7 CO db 2 O O ; iii h-. 3 h. N W N AR. Chi 3 t} W W .5 A.. h.} O x. [} 3 W 0] X75 J g rl} l+ 00 n2 06 db iD 6 APo. W 3 P0. A.. 2094 N C7 +� 00 2015 --1 W ©ate (Manth!Dey) 42015 GasBuddy.com i Mambo N. - Wage 1 i 1 I i I v, Alk IC71 ."1"611 \ re COW C t 2015 Facts at a Glance GENERAL CITY INFORMATION City Population Altitude Area in Square Miles Parks/Park Acreage Maintained Streets Education Schools Teachers Students (K-72) Number of Libraries Hotels & Motels/Rooms Public Safety Number of Fire Stations Fire Department Personnel Number of Police Stations Police Sworn Officers Police Non -Sworn Personnel 708,920 7,000-7,200 Feet 37 39/309 Acres 309 32 7,375 28,426 2 75/7,872 5 65 3 700 35 CITY GOVERNMENT Type of Government Form of Government Date of Incorporation Authorized Positions General Fund Operating Budget Expenditures Per Capita Public Safety as % of General Fund General Fund Reserves (25%) Capital Improvement Program General Law City Manager 72/07/7989 760 $65, 'F78, 527 $607 50% $76,354,630 $327,707,367 DEMOGRAPHICS Median Age Average Household Income Median Household Income Number of Registered Voters Median Nome Price (Oct'2075) Unemployment Rate (5ep'2075) 34 $85, 839 $73,408 44,347 $439,900 For more information regarding the City of Temecula: www• cityoftemecula•org 957-694-6444 or 7 -888 -Temecula OMNI 1 CITY OF TEMECULA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET As of September 30, 2015 General State Gas Tax Development Fund Fund Impact Fund Business Incubator Resource Community Temecula Development Energy Block Grant Efficiency Fund Asset Team Assembly Bill 2766 Motor Vehicle Subvention Fund ASSETS: Cash and Investments $ 20,760,385 $ 102,007 $ 5,034,638 $ 11,244 $ - $ 213,795 $ 566,608 Receivables 8,376,561 194,964 14,772 3,665 233,275 396 1,299 Due from Other Funds 43,202 - 817,400 - Advances to DIF Fire 817,400 - Advances to SARDA - Deposits 1,325 Prepaid- CaIPERS 2,990,646 Inventory 3,058 Land Held for Resale TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 32,992,577 $ 296,971 $ 5,866,810 $ 14,909 $ 233,275 $ 214,191 $ 567,907 LIABILITIES: Due to Other Funds $ - $ - $ 817,400 $ - $ 233,275 $ - $ - Other Current Liabilities 11,108,116 - 17,659 497 - 1,705 Deferred Revenue 5,281,180 - - - TOTAL LIABILITIES 16,389,296 835,059 497 233,275 1,705 FUND BALANCES: Nonspendable: Advances to SARDA Deposits 1,325 Inventory 3,058 Land Held for Resale Notes and Loans Prepaid Costs 2,990,646 Restricted For: Community Development Projects Capital Projects Debt Service Business Incubator Project 187,127 Parks and Recreation Public Works 296,971 Reward Committed To: Contractual Obligation - Encumbrances 2,722,632 Economic Uncertainty (20%) 1,585,797 Secondary Reserve (5%) 396,449 Assigned To: Capital Projects 1,248,326 City and Park Facilities 420,000 Unrealized Gains 250,000 Unassigned 6,797,921 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 5,031,751 14,412 214,191 566,202 16,603,281 296,971 5,031, 751 14,412 214,191 566,202 TOTAL LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCES $ 32,992,577 $ 296,971 $ 5,866,810 $ 14,909 $ 233,275 $ 214,191 $ 567,907 NOTE: Balances are unaudited CITY OF TEMECULA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET As of September 30, 2015 Supplemental Law Temecula Affordable Enforcement Major Crimes Housing Services Reward Fund Fund Fund Measure A Fund Capital Project Fund Financing Lease Civic Center and CRC TOTAL ASSETS: Cash and Investments $ - $ 25,272 $ 310,867 $ 3,997,384 $ 8,049,572 $ $ 39,071,772 Receivables 32,876 51 26,205,887 226,885 615,001 35,905,632 Due from Other Funds - - - 182,212 1,042,814 Advances to DIF Fire - 817,400 Advances to SARDA 5,250,954 5,250,954 Deposits 1,325 Prepaid- CaIPERS 2,990,646 Inventory 3,058 Land Held for Resale 4,400,388 4,400,388 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 32,876 $ 25,323 $ 36,168,096 $ 4,224,269 $ 8,846,785 $ $ 89,483,989 LIABILITIES: Due to Other Funds $ 32,876 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,083,551 Other Current Liabilities - - 8,602 23,566 1,752,246 - 12,912,391 Deferred Revenue - 25,854,628 - - - 31,135,808 TOTAL LIABILITIES 32,876 25,863,230 23,566 1,752,246 45,131,750 FUND BALANCES: Nonspendable: Advances to SARDA Deposits 1,325 Inventory 3,058 Land Held for Resale 4,400,388 4,400,388 Notes and Loans - Prepaid Costs 2,990,646 Restricted For: Community Development Projects 5,904,478 - 5,904,478 Capital Projects 4,200,703 9,798,656 Debt Service - - Business Incubator Project 201,539 Parks and Recreation - Public Works - 511,162 Reward 25,323 25,323 Committed To: Contractual Obligation - Encumbrances 2,722,632 Economic Uncertainty (20%) 1,585,797 Secondary Reserve (5%) 396,449 Assigned To: - Capital Projects 7,094,539 8,342,865 City and Park Facilities - 420,000 Unrealized Gains 250,000 Unassigned 6,797,921 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 25,323 10,304,866 4,200,703 7,094,539 44,352,239 TOTAL LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCES $ 32,876 $ 25,323 $ 36,168,096 $ 4,224,269 $ 8,846,785 $ - $ 89,483,989 NOTE: Balances are unaudited CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: Sales Tax - State $ 24,427,491 $ 3,322,712 14% (1) Sales Tax - Triple Flip 7,555,005 - 0% (2) Franchise Fees 3,888,177 574,099 15% Motor Vehicle In Lieu- State 42,687 - 0% (3) Property Tax- Secured/Unsecured 6,123,786 352,204 6% (2) Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 7,013,112 0% (2) Property Tax Relief (Homeowner) 87,146 0% (2) Property Transfer Tax 792,045 223,092 28% Residual RPTTF Distribution 155,000 - 0% (2) Transient Occupancy Tax 3,251,835 846,946 26% Vehicle Code Fines 613,733 138,482 23% Development Services: Building & Safety 1,617,145 379,834 23% Fire 782,005 192,602 25% Land Development 945,054 245,312 26% Planning 620,061 147,091 24% Public Works - NPDES 3,506 450 13% Park Maintenance 1,918,612 34,148 2% (4) Police 485,082 93,819 19% Bids and Proposals 4,000 2,200 55% (5) Business Licenses 301,000 19,867 7% (6) Investment - 40,659 0% (7) Lease Income 13,260 3,315 25% Miscellaneous 21,000 3,041 14% Rental Income 71,340 17,836 25% Right of Way Advertising 35,640 8,910 25% Operating Transfers In SLESF 171,000 32,880 19% State Gas Tax 2,741,992 685,498 25% Reimbursements: CIP 2,103,208 461,016 22% Financing - 10,138 0% Mandated Cost 37,338 70,233 188% (8) Other 32,500 22,602 70% (9) TOTAL REVENUES $ 65,853,760 $ 7,928,986 12% Notes: (1) Sales Tax revenues for September are scheduled to be received by December 2015. (2) Property taxes and "triple flip" revenues are scheduled to be received in January and May of this fiscal year. (3) Motor Vehicle In Lieu revenues are scheduled to be received by end of this fiscal year. (4) Special assessment taxes for Park Maintenance is scheduled to be received in January. (5) The variance in Bids and Proposals is due to more than anticipated bids received during this quarter. (6) Business License renewals will primarily start in January 2016. (7) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (8) The variance is due to mandated claim reimbursements received during this quarter. (9) The variance is due to several reimbursements received during this quarter. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Year -to -Date Year -to -Date Amended Activity Encumbrances Activity and Budget Encumbrances Percentage of Budget EXPENDITURES: City Council $ 458,521 $ 88,022 $ 322 $ 88,344 19% Community Support 88,000 1,250 1,250 1% (1) City Manager 1,306,949 295,044 67,585 362,629 28% Economic Development 930,444 269,956 45,738 315,694 34% Emergency Management 109,074 24,472 - 24,472 22% City Clerk 1,029,915 224,607 36,673 261,280 25% City Attorney 735,726 154,570 - 154,570 21% Finance 2,208,697 468,857 120,271 589,128 27% Human Resources 662,891 149,560 20,272 169,832 26% Planning 2,028,588 400,214 130,384 530,598 26% Building & Safety 2,444,269 482,001 220,625 702,626 29% Land Development 1,430,977 328,977 18,891 347,868 24% Public Works 5,263,212 900,382 313,881 1,214,263 23% CIPAdministration 2,098,579 481,242 4,918 486,160 23% Parks Maintenance 3,836,798 817,284 1,180,976 1,998,260 52% Police 25,759,545 6,244,661 208,282 6,452,943 25% Fire 6,294,463 1,532,126 123,813 1,655,939 26% Animal Control 471,808 241,807 230,001 471,808 100% (2) Non Departmental Property Tax Admin 79,024 - 0% (3) Recreation Funding 5,636,876 1,854,846 - 1,854,846 33% Retiree Medical Contribution 512,617 110,207 - 110,207 21% PERS Replacement Benefit 62,067 - - - 0% (4) 2011 Financing Lease- Civic Center 2,137,366 533,995 - 533,995 25% TOTAL EXPENDITURES (excluding transfers) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Other Financing Sources/(Uses): Transfers Out 65,586,406 15,604,080 2,722,632 18,326,712 28% 267,354 (7,675,094) (2,125,098) (1,782,520) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) (1,857,744) (9,457,614) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 26,060,895 26,060,895 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 24,203,151 $ 16,603,281 Notes: (1) The Community Service Funding Program was approved by Council on November 10, 2015 to fund 16 non-profit organizations. Disbursements will be made by December 2015. (2) The variance in Animal Control is due to encumbrances that are recorded to Animal Friends of the Valleys and Riverside County Executive Office for the entire fiscal year. (3) Property Tax Admin fees are expected to paid by January 2016 when Property Tax revenues are received. (4) The payment to CaIPERS for employee replacement benefit is due in January 2016. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL STATE GAS TAX FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: Section 2103 - 2107 Investment Interest TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,246,801 $ 557,571 25% 3,000 1,120 37% (1) 2,249, 801 558,691 25% Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers Out (2,741,992) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 (685,498) 25% (492,191) (126,807) 423,778 423,778 $ (68,413) (2) $ 296,971 Notes: (1) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (2) The variance is due to less 2014-15 revenues received than expected. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: Open Space $ 197,150 $ 12,296 6% Investment Interest 9,029 0% Quimby 348,435 12,660 4% Street Improvements 2,016,746 100,673 5% Traffic Signals 288,740 13,530 5% Parks & Recreation 745,169 125,812 17% Corporate Facilities 228,952 25,878 11% Fire Protection 171,722 9,558 6% Library 205,426 34,150 17% Police 167,537 8,298 5% TOTAL REVENUES 4,369,877 351,884 8% (1) Other Financing Sources/(Uses): Transfers Out (10,549,796) (31,709) 0% (2) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 (6,179, 919) 320,175 4,711,576 4,711,576 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ (1,468,343) $ 5,031,751 (3) Notes: (1) The variance in Development Impact Fees Fund (DIF) revenues is due to the timing of developers pulling permits, as the DIF fees are paid when permits are granted. (2) Transfers out for capital project expenditures are made on a reimbursement basis to the CIP fund after expenditures have been incurred. The timing of CIP expenditures has not occurred as anticipated in the budget. (3) The deficit balance in the Budget column is primarily attributed to several Capital Improvement Projects that are included in the current fiscal year budget that will be funded with future DIF revenues. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget YTD Activity Encumbrances Total Percentage Activity of Budget REVENUES: Rental Income $ 27,800 $ 8,850 $ $ 8,850 32% Investment Interest 200 12 12 6% (1) Transfer In 187,127 46,782 46,782 25% TOTAL REVENUES 215,127 55,644 55,644 26% EXPENDITURES: Operating Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES 215,127 47,240 3,842 51,082 22% 215,127 47,240 3,842 51,082 24% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 8,404 Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 6,008 6,008 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 6,008 $ 14,412 Notes: (1) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget YTD Activity Encumbrances Total Activity Percentage of Budget REVENUES: Grant Revenue $ 1,217,713 $ 27,318 $ $ 27,318 2% (1) TOTAL REVENUES 1,217,713 27,318 27,318 2% EXPENDITURES: Salaries and Wages 104,548 25,641 - 25,641 25% Other Outside Services 156,008 1,677 35,078 36,755 24% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 260,556 Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 957,157 Other Financing Sources/(Uses): Transfers Out (957,157) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 Notes: (1) CDBG Revenue is booked on a reimbursement basis as eligible expenditures occur. The construction project Sam Hicks Monument Playground Replacement and Old Town Sidewalks Improvement Project budgeted with CDBG Fund have not yet started. 27,318 35,078 62,396 10% CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET MANAGEMENT TEAM for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: Investment Interest Reimbursements TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: Other Outside Services TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 $ 1,000 $ 364 36% (1) 29,600 17,788 60% 30,600 18,152 59% 30,600 18,152 196,039 196,039 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 226,639 $ 214,191 Notes: (1) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL ASSEMBLY BILL 2766 MOTOR VEHICLE SUBVENTION FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 REVENUES: AB 2766 Investment Interest TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: Other Outside Services TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Annual Amended Budget Total Activity Encumbrances Total Percentage of Activity Budget $ 134,294 $ $ - $ - 0% 2,700 1,005 - 1,005 37% (1) 136,994 1,005 - 1,005 1% 37,790 1,705 37,790 1,705 99,204 (700) Other Financing Sources/(Uses): Transfers Out (655,693) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) (556,489) (700) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 566,902 566,902 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 10,413 $ 566,202 Notes: 15,344 17,049 45% (2) 15,344 17,049 45% (1) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (2) The variance is due to encumbrances that are recorded for RTA services for the entire fiscal year. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND (SLESF) for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: AB 3229 - COPS $ 171,000 $ 32,870 19% Investment Interest 10 0% TOTAL REVENUES 171,000 32,880 19% Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers Out (171,000) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 (32,880) 19% Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ $ CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL TEMECULA MAJOR CRIMES REWARD FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: Investment Interest $ 100 $ 47 47% TOTAL REVENUES 100 47 47% EXPENDITURES: Other Outside Services - - 0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES - - 0% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) 100 47 Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 25,276 25,276 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 25,376 $ 25,323 (1) Notes: (1) A resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula establishing the Temecula Major Crimes Reward Fund and Amending Resolution NOS.13-25 and 15-37. Resolution 13-25 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula providing for the establishment and distribution of a reward fund the persons who furnish information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who caused the death of Larry Robinson on March 22, 2013. The Larry Robinson Murder Reward Fund shall be merged into the Temecula Major Crimes Reward Fund Resolution 15-37 The Justin Triplett Reward Fund should be merged into the Temecula Major Crime Reward Fund. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual YTD Total Percentage Amended Activity Encumbrances Activity of Budget Budget REVENUES: Contributions Agency Trust $ 250,000 $ $ - $ 0% (1) Forgivable Loan Repayment 405 405 0% Investment Interest 300 716 716 239% (2) Loan Interest 2,552 698 698 27% Reimbursements/Miscellaneous 60 60 0% Rental Income 184,000 0% (3) Residual Receipt Payment 35,172 0% (3) TOTAL REVENUES 472,024 1,879 1,879 0% EXPENDITURES: OPERATING EXPENDITURES: Salaries & Benefits 262,042 49,160 49,160 19% Operating and Administrative Expenditures 240,395 20,679 47,626 68,305 28% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 502,437 69,839 47,626 117,465 23% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 (30,413) (67,960) 10, 372, 826 10, 372, 826 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 10,342,413 $ 10,304,866 Notes: (1) Contribution to Agency Trust is schedule to be received in January and May of this fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (3) Rental income and Residual receipt payment are expected by April of this fiscal year. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL MEASURE A FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Activity Encumbrances Total Percentage Activity of Budget REVENUES: Investment Interest $ 24,000 $ 6,905 $ $ 6,905 29% Reimbursements - - - 0% Measure "A" 2,817,159 427,659 427,659 15% TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: Street Maintenance TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 2,841,159 434,564 1,764,595 51,508 1,764,595 51,508 1,076,564 383,056 Other Financing Sources/(Uses): Transfers Out (3,891,614) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 (2,815,050) 3,817,647 383,056 3,817,647 $ 1,002,597 $ 4,200,703 434,564 15% 31,063 82,571 31,063 82,571 Notes: (1) Routine Street Maintenance activities are expected in January of this fiscal year. 5% 5% CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Account Year -to -Date Percentage Number Amended Activity Encumbrances Total Activity of Budget Budget REVENUE: Operating Transfers In $ 31,037,288 $ 1,668,326 $ - $ 1,668,326 5% Grants 10,709,681 - - - 0% Reimbursements/TUMF 9,584,978 1,420 - 1,420 0% Pavement Management Program - - - 0% Investment Interest - 11,510 - 11,510 0% TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES: 51,331,947 1,681,256 1,681,256 3% (1) Pechanga Parkway Environmental Mitigation 165-516 323,925 8,861 134,120 142,981 44% Murrieta Creek Bridge / Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road 165-602 2,828,440 17,629 144,262 161,891 6% Abbott Corporation Roadway Improvements 165-620 750,000 - - 0% Medians and Parkway Citywide 165-622 143,000 - - 0% Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Winchester Road 165-650 1,529,952 - - 0% Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide 165-655 5,820,845 150,169 255,826 405,995 7% Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek 165-660 103,859 835 28,133 28,968 28% Interstate -15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange 165-662 16,888,313 52,972 99,610 152,582 1% Flashing Beacons & Speed Advisory Signs 165-670 17,523 - - 0% Traffic Signal Equipment Replacement Program -Citywide 165-680 187,422 7,043 28,923 35,966 19% Traffic Signal Installation -Citywide 165-682 309,598 8,861 8,861 3% City Facilities Rehabilitation 165-701 249,367 27,065 69,570 96,635 39% Bike Lane and Trail Program 165-703 442,746 9,863 18,868 28,731 6% Medians & Ornamental Pedestrian Barriers- Citywide 165-704 10,100 - - 0% Citywide Sidewalks 165-708 167,262 107 107 0% CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND (continued) for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Account Year -to -Date Percentage Number Amended Activity Encumbrances Total Activity of Budget Budget EXPENDITURES - cont'd: Citywide Surveillance Cameras 165-711 804,000 - - 0% Consolidate Update Evaluation Disable 165-713 350,000 - - 0% Pauba Sidewalk 165-714 2,957 2,958 2,958 100% Citywide Storm Drain Improvements 165-715 276,131 12,072 322 12,394 4% French Valley Pkwy/I-15 Over -Crossing and Improvements- Phase I 165-719 597,945 26,348 401,299 427,647 72% Butterfield Stage Road Extension 165-723 12,688,256 749 749 0% French Valley Pkwy/I-15 Over -Crossing and Improvements- Phase II 165-726 4,912,624 41,892 2,163,389 2,205,281 45% Murrieta Creek Improvements 165-735 58,200 13,851 24,070 37,921 65% Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian Bicycle Trail Extension Interconnect 165-739 147,921 - - 0.0% Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek Replacement 165-743 357,295 514 1,295 1,809 1% Temecula Park and Ride 165-747 2,247,134 35,690 4,719 40,409 2% Old Town Civic Center 165-751 62,495 22,525 39,970 62,495 100% Fire Station Roripaugh- Phase II 165-753 11,337 - - 0% TCC Renovation 165-754 8,168 8,168 8,168 100% Theater Remediation 165-756 1,739,305 922,283 714,021 1,636,304 94% Fire Station 73 Living Quarters Upgrade 165-757 995,841 335,077 620,610 955,687 96% YMCA Repair and Remediation 165-759 1,166,803 19,185 44,094 63,279 5% Developer Reimbursements 165-763 1,567,164 - - 0% City Hall Exterior LED Lighting 165-764 67,482 9,631 - 9,631 14% EOC Emergency Operations Center Improvements 165-765 41,000 - - 0% Old Town Sidewalks 165-766 360,000 - - 0% Theater LED Lighting 165-767 30,600 30,356 30,356 99% CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND (continued) for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Account Year -to -Date Percentage Number Amended Activity Encumbrances Total Activity of Budget Budget EXPENDITURES - cont'd: Patricia Birdsall Synthetic Turf Replacement 190-119 375,000 - - 0% Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing 190-120 615,067 - - 0% Teen Center 190-122 2,642 1,112 1,529 2,641 100% Children's Museum Enhancement 190-125 83,860 - - 0% Flood Control Channel Reconstruction 190-127 569,526 20,547 222,790 243,337 43% Special Needs Playground 190-129 38,800 16,823 38,800 55,623 143% Parks Improvement Program 190-130 239,871 138,500 138,500 58% Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Enhancement 190-132 468,388 38,269 238,159 276,428 59% Senior Citizen Outdoor Fitness Lot 190-133 8,063 - - 0% Library Parking- Phase II 190-153 2,204,638 11,429 25,623 37,052 2% Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Silt Removal and Desilting Pond 190-187 128,105 11,970 53,166 65,136 51% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 62,998,970 1,991,372 5,385,150 7,376,522 12% (1) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Sources/(Uses) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 (11,667,023) (310,116) 7,404,655 7,404,655 $ (4,262,368) $ 7,094,539 (2) Notes: (1) The variance is primarily due to the timing of project expenditures and revenues differing from that anticipated in the budget. (2) The deficit balance in the Budget column is primarily attributed to several Capital Improvement Projects that are included in the current fiscal year budget that will be funded with future DIF revenues. CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL 2011 FINANCING LEASE CIVIC CENTER AND CRC for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total Percentage of Activity Budget REVENUES: 2011 Financing Lease Revenues $ 2,137,366 $ 533,995 25% TOTAL REVENUES 2,137,366 533,995 25% EXPENDITURES: Debt Service Principal Debt Service Interest 1,291,000 846,366 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,137,366 Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 318,000 215,995 25% 26% 533,995 25% CITY OF TEMECULA COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS as of September 30, 2015 Insurance Workers' Vehicles and Information Technology Support Facilities Compensation Equipment Technology Replacement Fund Services Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund TOTAL ASSETS: Cash and Investments $ 258,472 $ 273,593 $ 1,606,436 $ 188,319 $ 794,555 $ 470,228 $ 580,596 $ 4,172,199 Receivables 1,590 429 4,054 3,821 1,318 1,725 888 13,825 Prepaid Assets 434,032 - - 434,032 Property, Plant, and Equipment (net of accumulated depreciation) - 300,831 - 456,844 122,938 880,613 TOTAL ASSETS 694,094 274,022 1,911,321 192,140 1,252,717 594,891 581,484 5,500,669 LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION LIABILITIES: Current Liabilities Capital Leases Payable TOTAL LIABILITIES NET POSITION: TOTAL NET POSITION 403,036 403,036 153,918 153,918 24,769 52,220 117,032 750,975 87,802 87,802 24,769 140,022 117,032 838,777 $ 291,058 $ 274,022 $ 1,911,321 $ 38,222 $ 1,227,948 $ 454,869 $ 464,452 $ 4,661,892 NOTE: Balances are unaudited CITY OF TEMECULA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, and CHANGES IN NET POSITION INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Insurance Workers' Vehicles and Information Technology Support Facilities Compensation Equipment Technology Replacement Fund Services Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund TOTAL REVENUES: Investment Interest $ 526 $ 364 $ 2,898 $ 320 $ 904 $ 799 $ 691 $ 6,502 Transfer In 62,500 - - - 62,500 Charges for Services 233,951 37,122 480,166 47,769 116,854 336,597 1,252,459 TOTAL REVENUES 234,477 62,864 40,020 480,486 48,673 117,653 337,288 1,321,461 EXPENSES: Salaries and Wages 23,639 Operating Expenses 200,139 Interest - Depreciation 322,423 79,104 18,024 158,063 24,482 - - 10,316 36,382 48,673 3,751 118,306 218,982 543,472 619,690 10,316 88,806 TOTAL EXPENSES 223,778 18,024 36,382 480,486 48,673 117,653 337,288 1,262,284 Revenues Over/(Under) Expenses 10,699 44,840 3,638 59,177 Net Position as of 7/01/2015 280,359 229,182 1,907,683 38,222 1,227,948 454,869 464,452 4,602,715 Net Position as of 9/30/2015 $ 291,058 $ 274,022 $ 1,911,321 $ 38,222 $ 1,227,948 $ 454,869 $ 464,452 $ 4,661,892 CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION - Fiduciary Fund CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEE RETIREE BENEFIT TRUST (CERBT) FUND as of September 30, 2015 CERBT FUND ASSETS: Cash and Investments TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES: Accounts Payable TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 5,284,474 5,284,474 NET POSITION: 5,284,474 Held in Trust for Retiree Benefits 5,284,474 TOTAL NET POSITION $ 5,284,474 NOTE: Balances are unaudited CITY OF TEMECULA STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION - Fiduciary Fund CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEE RETIREE BENEFIT TRUST FUND for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 CERBT FUND ADDITIONS CONTRIBUTIONS: Employer Investment Earnings $ 110,207 (329,313) TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS (219,106) DEDUCTIONS: Benefits 116,057 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS TOTAL ADDITIONS Net Position as of 7/1/2015 Net Position as of 9/30/2015 116,057 5,619,637 $ 5,284,474 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE COLLECTION OF PUBLIC, EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 5870(n), a local entity may, by ordinance, establish a fee to support PEG channel facilities consistent with federal law. Section 2. The City of Temecula adopted such ordinance in 2007, which is reflected in Temecula Municipal Code Section 5.12.200. Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the establishment of a special revenue fund for the purpose of recording fees remitted by the City's two cable franchisees, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. Section 4. The special revenue fund is hereby named the "Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fees Fund" hereinafter "the Fund"). The Fund shall be maintained in the Treasury of the City of Temecula by the Director of Finance. Section 5. Public, Education and Government fees are collected for the sole purpose of supporting public, educational and governmental access facilities and activities within the City. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeff Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve Professional Services Consulting Agreement with Data Ticket, Inc. DBA: Revenue Experts for Parking Citation Processing PREPARED BY: Lt. Greg Negron, Temecula Police Department Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a five-year Professional Services Consulting Agreement with Data Ticket, Inc. dba: Revenue Experts for parking citation processing, in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total five-year contract amount of $150,000. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Police Department has maintained a professional services agreement with Data Ticket, Inc. dba: Revenue Expert for several years for parking citation processing, collection of fines, and administrative reviews and hearings for parking citations issued by Temecula Police Officers. The City contracts Police services with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and the standard has been to utilize the same vendor's as the County of Riverside for various law enforcement services to remain consistent with County practice and procedure. Data Ticket, Inc. is the current contracted vendor with the County of Riverside for parking citation processing. Services provided by Data Ticket, Inc. for both in-state and out-of-state citations include but are not limited to: • Data Entry and updating of all handwritten and electronic entry of handheld citations. • Bi -lingual Customer Service representatives. • Processing all status changes to the citation database. • Collecting, processing and applying all payments received via U.S. mail, credit card, or telephone. Processing of all NSF payments, bank deposits, and reconciliation. • Agency interface with database for payments, status changes, and appeals. • All appeal correspondence and other legal mailings. • California certified Hearing Officers for citation review, appeals and court appearances. • Online connection to California DMV and the other States within the U.S. for daily registered owner information. • Processing, tracking and mailing of all delinquent notices and other legal correspondence. • Comprehensive management and ad hoc reports outlining data regarding citation issuance and revenue received. Data Ticket, Inc. corporate headquarters is located in Newport Beach, California and continues to be very responsive to customers and provides excellent service and expertise to City staff. Data Ticket has not increased the $1.40 per citation processing fee, which includes fee notice mailing costs, in the last five years and will continue to honor the same pricing for the next five years along with reducing the delinquent collections fee by 3%. Data Ticket, Inc. remains a cost effective option for parking citation processing and expenditures for this service will be offset by revenue received from issued citations. In fiscal year 2015-2016 a total of 1,565 parking and traffic related citations were written by Temecula Police resulting in $101,548 in remitted revenue. Based on year-to-date citation processing revenue statistics and future projections it is anticipated revenue received will fully fund the services provided by Data Ticket, Inc. over the 5 - year term. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are included within the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Temecula Police Department Operating Budget. For the remaining four years, funds will be adequately appropriated within the Temecula Police Department Budget for citation processing services. Cost of services are offset by revenue received from remittance of paid parking citations. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement for Consultant Services with Data Ticket, Inc. dba: Revenue Experts for Parking Citation Processing. PD16-04 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND DATA TICKET, INC. DBA: REVENUE EXPERTS PARKING CITATION PROCESSING THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 8, 2015, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Data Ticket, Inc. dba: Revenue Experts, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on December 8, 2015, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 8, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($30,000.00) annually for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($150,000.00) unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. 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 1 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities 2 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 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. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers 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 of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 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. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 3 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 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 accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their 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 agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or 4 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 5 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 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 there under 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. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Data Ticket, Inc. dba: Revenue Experts Attn: Marjorie A. Fleming, President 4600 Campus Drive #200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over 6 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 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. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 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. 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. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 7 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA DATA TICKET, INC. DBA: REVENUE EXPERTS (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Marjorie A. Fleming, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Bill Fleming, Secretary Data Ticket, Inc. DBA: Revenue Experts Attn: Marjorie A. Fleming 4600 Campus Drive, Ste. 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 940-752-6937, ext. 310 Fax: 940-752-6033 mfleminq(a�dataticket.com PM Initial Date: 8 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement.Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 EXHIBIT A Scope of Services / Tasks To Be Performed Data Ticket shall provide full services for the processing of fines, bail, and forfeiture thereof, in connection with the issuance of parking citations pursuant to the laws of the State of California. The Scope of Services / Tasks To Be Performed and Performance are as per the proposal provided by the Consultant and confirmed to be attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The City chooses not to participate in the Franchise Tax Board Collection, Social Security Search, and Escrow Banking service products and handheld ticket writers at this time. 9 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 These services are provided by: Data Ticket Inc. A California Corporation 4600 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "COMPANY") FOR: THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PUBLIC ENTITY"). Data Ticket, Inc. intends to provide for the processing of bails, fines and forfeiture thereof, in connection with the issuance of citations for illegal parking pursuant to the laws of the State of California. ARTICLE I - CITATION PROCESSING 1.1 Referral and Reconciliation: COMPANY shall receive and process citations from PUBLIC ENTITY. COMPANY will provide a reconciliation of the number of citations received from PUBLIC ENTITY. 1.2 Determination of Processable Citations: COMPANY shall screen the parking citations referred to it by PUBLIC ENTITY to determine if the citation is processable. If the citation is determined by COMPANY to be unprocessable (e.g., essential processing information is missing), COMPANY shall return the citation to PUBLIC ENTITY for clarification. COMPANY will be paid the contractual rate hereinafter provided, for citations properly returned to the PUBLIC ENTITY as unprocessable. 1.3 COLLECTION AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDS: a direct deposit system shall be employed for all funds received for payment of citations. the PUBLIC ENTITY shall have the choice of jointly owning a bank account with the COMPANY or directing the COMPANY to deposit into a PUBLIC ENTITY account. Deposits shall be made directly into the account by the COMPANY for the collecting PUBLIC ENTITY, with the exception of credit card payments made using VISA, MasterCard, American Express and Discover cards belonging to the COMPANY. These payments will be directly deposited into an account held by the COMPANY. Credit card payments are reconciled and remitted on a monthly basis to the PUBLIC ENTITY, but tracked on the citation management software on a daily basis. Citations paid by credit card are marked "paid" real-time immediately upon authorization, thus affording the citizen the opportunity to make payment at any time and have the payment recognized immediately. 1.4 PAYMENT: If the COMPANY deposits into an PUBLIC ENTITY account, the COMPANY will invoice the PUBLIC ENTITY for services rendered. Payment in full shall be due within thirty 10 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 (30) days after which interest shall be accrued at the rate of 6% (or lower if any statutes, rules or regulations prohibit this rate). If the COMPANY deposits into an account held jointly between the PUBLIC ENTITY and the COMPANY, the COMPANY shall reconcile the account the month following the banking activity, disperse all revenue due the PUBLIC ENTITY, the COMPANY, any tax liability and all refunds and send all supporting documentation to the PUBLIC ENTITY for its records. 1.5 Identification of Registered Vehicle Owners: COMPANY shall exert best efforts to obtain the name and address of the registered vehicle owner from the California State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and DMV'S nationwide, for each vehicle for which a parking citation has been issued. COMPANY shall follow all procedures specified by the DMV, and be consistent with the California Vehicle Code and DMV'S nationwide, when identifying registered vehicle owners. 1.6 Verification of Ownership: COMPANY shall take reasonable measures to identify and verify registered vehicle owners. Such measures will take into consideration factors such as issuance of new license plates; address changes; license plate transfers to other vehicles; name changes; and the validity of plates and registration during specific time periods applicable to individual cases. 1.7 Delinquency Notices: In accordance with State law COMPANY will generate and mail (presorted, first-class postage) no sooner than twenty-one (21) days of the citation issuance date, a delinquency notice to all identified registered owners of vehicles who fail to pay their parking citation fines or to post bail in the required manner. The mailed notice will include all information required by the California Vehicle Code, including, but not limited to, the following: A. The parking citation issuance date and number; B. The consequences of nonpayment (i.e., a hold on the vehicle registration and the imposition of penalties, towing, or issuance of a possible warrant for their arrest; and C. The amount of fines and fees due and payable D. Affidavit of Non -Ownership 1.8 Registration Holds: The COMPANY will provide the system and procedures and will interface with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles to place a hold on vehicle registrations having unpaid parking fines and fees due against those vehicles in accordance with the California Vehicle Code and any other applicable State and local laws. The notification will be given within a reasonable period of time after issuance of a delinquency notice. The period of time will not exceed the time limits provided by state and local law. 1.9 Removal of Registration Holds: COMPANY will provide the system and procedures and will interface with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles to remove registration holds when a registered vehicle owner satisfies the entire amount of parking citation fines, penalties, and fees due against the vehicle and establishes such payment to the satisfaction of COMPANY. 1.10 Contested Citations: In the event a registered vehicle owner disputes the liability for the outstanding parking citation, COMPANY will advise the registered vehicle owner of his/her right to request an administrative review/hearing/court appearance. All contested citations will be forwarded to the hearing administrator or PUBLIC ENTITY within the prescribed time period so that the matter can be adjudicated. (CVC 40200.7 & 40215) 11 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 1.11 Administrative Review and Hearing: The COMPANY will schedule administrative reviews and hearings to respond to parking violators wishing to contest their citations, and offers the option to perform and administer those reviews and hearings. The COMPANY will provide toll- free numbers for contestants to call, correspond with contestants and notify them of decisions; maintain records of dispositions and appeal paperwork and refer all paperwork to Court as required. The COMPANY shall not be responsible for the PUBLIC ENTITY'S failure to provide correct or timely infraction information. The PUBLIC ENTITY shall be responsible to pay the $25.00 court -filing fee, if the Review and Administrative Hearing decisions are overturned by the Court. 1.12 Citations Disposed of by Hearing/Court: The COMPANY may be required, as a result of court action, to reduce or cancel, on an individual basis, parking citations which have been referred to it. COMPANY shall be paid the contractual rate hereinafter provided for processing the citation regardless of the outcome of court action. COMPANY will maintain records indicating any reduction or cancellations of parking citations as a result of hearing/court action. Parking citations which are dismissed as a result of hearing/court action, will have the dismissal processed by the COMPANY promptly after receipt from the Hearing/Court. 1.13 Suspension of Processing: COMPANY will suspend processing on any citation referred to it for processing upon written notice to do so by an authorized officer of the PUBLIC ENTITY. COMPANY will promptly return any citation or facsimile properly requested by the PUBLIC ENTITY. COMPANY will maintain records indicating any suspension of citation as a result of PUBLIC ENTITY'S request. COMPANY shall be paid the contractual rate hereinafter provided for processing the citations suspended by the PUBLIC ENTITY. 1.14 Payments by U.S. Mail: It is the citizen's responsibility to ensure that payments are received on or before the date due. The date received by the COMPANY will be the criteria to establish any delinquent fees due. 1.15 Parking Citation System Master File Update: COMPANY will regularly update the parking citation master file for new citations, payments, reductions, cancellations, dismissals and any other pertinent data. ARTICLE II - PAYMENT PROCESSING 2.1 Disposition Processing: COMPANY will maintain all citation dispositions for a minimum of two (2) years. Closed citations will remain on-line for at least two (2) years, for research and statistical purposes. 2.2 Payments Processing: COMPANY shall process citation payments on a regular basis. Payments shall be immediately posted in one (1) of three (3) following categories: "Regular Payments" are citations with the correct bail, paid on or before the due date. (This includes payments properly complying with Notices -of -Intent). "Partial Payments" are citations paid after the due date, or if the defendant has paid less than the amount of bail due. A Notice -of -Intent, or a postcard will advise defendant of late charges and/or incorrect bail. In such cases, COMPANY, in its discretion, may return the original check to the sender, if the check has insufficient information for deposit. 12 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 "Appeal Requests" are all requests for administrative/court hearings by defendants. These requests are sorted so that bail submitted is immediately posted, and if needed the original citations are retrieved. 2.3 Miscellaneous Letters Processing: COMPANY will receive and review all miscellaneous correspondence. These are generally letters requesting meter checks, refunds, voids, or otherwise setting forth complaints. These letters will be researched by COMPANY for proper follow-up with the PUBLIC ENTITY. 2.4 Batching Procedures: COMPANY shall maintain effective procedures of internal control. Such procedures shall involve reconciliation of all payments received using generally accepted accounting principles. After proper reconciliation, deposit slips shall be prepared for and deposits made at the appropriate bank, including an itemized listing of all batch numbers included in the deposit. The batch of citation payment documentation shall then be stored in a file room, for a period of two (2) years. 2.5 Cash Payments: COMPANY shall maintain an effective method of handling cash payments. All cash received through the mail, shall be logged in a cash journal. Thereafter, effective internal control procedures shall be implemented to reconcile such payments using generally accepted accounting principles. 2.6 Deposits: All deposits shall be made daily, subject to regular banking hours. Deposits shall be itemized and detailed information will be captured regarding submitted funds. Deposit slips shall be prepared in duplicate, allowing one (1) copy for the bank and one (1) copy for the COMPANY. If the bank account is held jointly, COMPANY shall perform all reconciliation, refunds and cut all checks. This information shall be available for PUBLIC ENTITY review. Deposits shall be directly deposited into the PUBLIC ENTITY'S designated bank account, either jointly held with the COMPANY or individually held by the PUBLIC ENTITY. If the PUBLIC ENTITY holds the account individually, it will supply deposit slips and an endorsement stamp to COMPANY. In this case, COMPANY shall only have the capability to make deposits on behalf of the PUBLIC ENTITY. 2.7 Revenue Report: A monthly revenue report will list all revenues received during the preceding month. This report will also provide information regarding the PUBLIC ENTITY'S responsibility to the County for the Jail and Court fund as required by Sections 40200.3 (a) of the California Vehicle Code. ARTICLE III — WEB SITE 3.1 Citation Management Web Site: The COMPANY offers a web site for PUBLIC ENTITY review of its database, including all citations and information relating to changes in status. 3.2 Citizen Web Site Access: When the PUBLIC ENTITY has web site access, citizens who receive citations will be able to access the web site to review their individual citations, pay on- line and appeal on-line. 3.3 Web Site Interaction: The web site may be "view only" or "interactive", for the PUBLIC ENTITY depending on requirements of the PUBLIC ENTITY. 13 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 3.4 Web Site Reports: Web site reports are available to the PUBLIC ENTITY on a daily, (24/7) schedule. 3.5 Web Site Cost: User ID's and passwords will be assigned to the PUBLIC ENTITY at no cost. ARTICLE IV - GENERAL 4.1 Public Inquiries: The COMPANY will respond to reasonable inquiry by telephone or letter of a non -judicial nature. Inquiries of a judicial nature will be referred to the PUBLIC ENTITY for determination. 4.2 COMPANY Limitations: COMPANY will not take legal action or threaten legal action in any specific case without PUBLIC ENTITY'S prior approval. 4.3 Use of Approved Forms: PUBLIC ENTITY shall have the right to reasonable approval of all forms, delinquency notices, and correspondence sent by the COMPANY. These must conform to State and local law. 4.4 Books and Records: COMPANY will maintain adequate books or records for parking citations issued within the PUBLIC ENTITY'S jurisdiction and referred to COMPANY for processing. Such books or records, and related computer processing data, shall be available for reasonable inspection and audit by PUBLIC ENTITY at the COMPANY'S location at reasonable times upon adequate prior notice to COMPANY. 4.5 PROPERTY OF COMPANY: A. The parties hereto agree that COMPANY is the owner of and shall remain the owner of all its concepts, approaches, trade secrets, computer programs, experience, written procedures, forms, magnetic tapes, diskettes, and similar computer materials related to the activities conducted pursuant to this Agreement. B. Trade secrets shall include, without limitation, computer software and ideas included therein. C. During the term of this Agreement and the relationship of the parties, COMPANY may develop new and additional programs and/or methods of handling and processing data. All such subsequent developments, programs and methods are agreed to be the property of COMPANY. 4.6 PROPERTY OF PUBLIC ENTITY: All documents, records and tapes supplied by PUBLIC ENTITY to COMPANY in performance of this contract are agreed to be and shall remain the sole property of PUBLIC ENTITY. COMPANY agrees to return same promptly to PUBLIC ENTITY no later than forty-five (45) days following notice to the COMPANY. The PUBLIC ENTITY shall make arrangements with COMPANY for the transmission of such data to the PUBLIC ENTITY upon payment to COMPANY of the cost of copy and delivery of such tape from COMPANY'S computer facilities to PUBLIC ENTITY'S designated point of delivery, plus any open invoices. If termination of this Agreement is by COMPANY and not based upon fault of PUBLIC ENTITY, COMPANY will waive all costs required by this paragraph. 4.7 Confidentiality: In order to enable COMPANY to carry out its work hereunder, to some extent it will have to impart to the PUBLIC ENTITY'S employees information contained in the Materials and Systems (collectively the "CONFIDENTIAL DATA"). The PUBLIC ENTITY agrees that information contained in the data that was marked in writing as "CONFIDENTIAL", "PROPRIETARY" or similarly, so as to give notice of its confidential nature, when submitted to 14 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 the PUBLIC ENTITY by COMPANY shall be retained by PUBLIC ENTITY in the strictest confidence and shall not be used or disclosed in any form except in accordance with paragraph 4.8 herein below. The PUBLIC ENTITY recognizes that irreparable harm could be occasioned to COMPANY by disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL DATA, which is related to its business, and that COMPANY may accordingly seek to protect such CONFIDENTIAL DATA by enjoining disclosure. 4.8 Consent For Disclosure: No report, information, data, files, or tapes furnished or prepared by COMPANY or its subcontractors, successors, officers, employees, servants, or agents shall be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of PUBLIC ENTITY other than individuals or organization who are reasonably necessary to properly effectuate the terms and conditions of this agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the PUBLIC ENTITY from releasing such information or the Confidential Data described in Paragraph 4.7 if required to do so by the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250 et seq. and PUBLIC ENTITY shall not be liable to COMPANY for any such release and PUBLIC ENTITY shall not be obligated to defend against the release of such information or Confidential Data in a court of law. In the event a Public Records Act request is made for such information, PUBLIC ENTITY shall notify COMPANY of the request an the PUBLIC ENTITIES proposed response to the request. This Non -Disclosure obligation shall survive the Termination of this Agreement. 4.9 COMPANY Files: COMPANY shall maintain master files on parking citations referred to it for processing under this Agreement. Such files will contain records of payments, dispositions, and any other pertinent information required to provide a reasonable audit trail. 4.10 Storage for PUBLIC ENTITY: A. COMPANY agrees to store original citations for the current year, plus two (2) years, at which time they will be returned or to PUBLIC ENTITY or shredded. COMPANY will have such information available on the citation management system for a reasonable time period to permit PUBLIC ENTITY retrieval of such information. PUBLIC ENTITY relieves COMPANY of all liability costs associated with data released by PUBLIC ENTITY to any other person or entity using such data. B. Subsequent to the termination of the contract, COMPANY will return a file containing all data belonging to the PUBLIC ENTITY. ARTICLE V — ADDITIONAL SERVICES 5.1 CVC 40215: Services provided include accepting, scheduling, reviewing and hearing first and second level appeals; interfacing and providing backup for Court appearances and notifying PUBLIC ENTITY contestants by phone and in writing of decisions. The PUBLIC ENTITY shall be responsible to pay the $25.00 court -filing fee if the review and hearing decisions are overturned by the Court. 5.2 Other Collections: COMPANY shall retain a percent of payments for delinquent citations that have been processed in accordance with the current Agreement, and meet the following criteria: 15 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 A. Delinquent citations: those citations so designated by the PUBLIC ENTITY, for which the California State Department of Motor Vehicles registration hold has been placed or dropped because of a transfer of ownership or non -renewal of registration or a registration hold has not been placed, but the normal daily processing cycle is complete. B. Citations with out-of-state license plates. C. Any other problem or special citations that the PUBLIC ENTITY so designates and refers to COMPANY under this Agreement. 5.3 Postal Rate Increase: The COMPANY will maintain auditable records to document the COMPANY'S actual postage costs associated with the mailing of delinquency notices for unpaid citations and for other mailings related to the processing of correspondence. If there is a postal increase, that increase will be invoiced effective on the date that the postal rate increase goes into effect. ARTICLE VI - REPORTS 6.1 Periodic Reports: COMPANY will submit reports to PUBLIC ENTITY the month following the month in which activity has been reported. The reports will track activities relating to performance under this Agreement. Among the reports which COMPANY may/will generate are the following: A. Report of Revenue Collected for Period B. Report for Parking Citations Issued for Period C. A balanced summary report for issuing PUBLIC ENTITY providing the status of all parking citations at the beginning of the period, current period activity, and at the end of the period. D. A report for issuing PUBLIC ENTITY identifying registered vehicle owners with five (5) or more outstanding parking citations. E. A report for issuing PUBLIC ENTITY identifying the parking citations issued, location, violation by each officer. 6.2 Annual Reports: Annually, COMPANY shall comply with CVC 40200.3 (b) ARTICLE VII - TERM OF CONTRACT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES 7.3 Exclusivity: PUBLIC ENTITY agrees to utilize only the services of COMPANY during the term of this Agreement for the processing of the citations referred to above. PUBLIC ENTITY agrees during the term of the Agreement to not directly or indirectly assist a competitor of COMPANY in the performance of the services provided by COMPANY under this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII - CLAIMS AND ACTIONS 8.1 PUBLIC ENTITY Cooperation: In the event any claim or action is brought against COMPANY relating to COMPANY'S performance or services rendered under this Agreement, COMPANY shall notify the PUBLIC ENTITY, in writing, within five (5) days, of said claim or action. 16 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule Prices for services are per the fee schedule provided by the Consultant attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, but in no event shall the total compensation for services exceed $150,000.00 for the total term of the Agreement except as provided pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement. The City chooses not to participate in the Franchise Tax Board Collection, Social Security Search and Escrow Banking service products and handheld ticket writers at this time, but has the option to enroll in these programs at any time during the term of this Agreement. CITY OF TEMECULA COST PROPOSAL EXHIBIT B Description Fee for processing each manual citation Fee for collecting each delinquent or out of state parking citation Fee $1.40 per cite 27% of collections Data Ticket provides the following services and materials covered by the fees for in state and out-of-state citation processing, delinquent collections, customer service, adjudication scheduling and nationwide DMV interface for registered owner information. • Data entry & updating of all handwritten citations & electronic entry & updating of all handheld citations • Secure FTP site or email for easy transfer of data files • Daily bonded courier from the Post Office Box • Collecting, processing & applying all payments • Processing all status changes to citation database • User ID's & passwords for Client Access to website • Viewing and printing of citation management reports and citations at the Agency 24/7 • Citation management reports exportable to excel for manipulation • Interactive capability on web site for Agency (void, dismiss, reduce etc.) • Agency interface with database for payments, status changes and appeals • Company credit card payments accepted via phone, IVR & paper • Company credit card payments accepted online, real-time via Citation Processing Center, secure PCI certified website 17 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 • 24/7 citizen access to Agency database to view, appeal and pay citations • Online and mailed appeals scheduled, sent and input to system • All appeal correspondence sent first class mail — (Appeal decisions, appointments etc.) • California certified Hearing Officers provided, scheduled and supported • Interface with Agency for review, hearing, court information and scheduling • Online connection to California DMV for daily registered owner information files • Online connection to California DMV for daily hold and release files • Online connection to Florida, Ohio, Texas, Washington, Oregon, New York, • Pennsylvania, New Jersey, & Maryland DMV's for registered owner information • Interface with DMV's nationwide for registered owner information via diskette, CD & tape, etc. • Interface with third party vendor for nationwide registered owner information • All forms, tracking and postage • One courtesy delinquent notice sent • Up to three delinquent notices sent • Correspondence tracking and response • Bi -lingual toll-free Interactive Voice Response (IVR) 24 hours per day, 24/7 • Bi -lingual toll-free customer service lines answered by dedicated customer service representatives • All customer service calls recorded for quality control and future recall if necessary • Daily bonded bank courier for bank deposits • Bank reconciliation • Complete audit trail • Comprehensive daily, weekly and monthly management reports on citation issuance and revenue available on-line 24/7 • Ad hoc reports provided at no cost to Agency • All required insurance and bonding • California Corporate Headquarters Additional Correspondence $1.53 per piece Refunds & NSF'S handled by Company $5.00 per transaction 18 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 Scheduling: Review, Hearing and Court Appearances $0.75 per appealed citation Hearings: Hearings are scheduled in accordance with Agency requirements at a designated Agency location, but must be held less than 90 days from request, according to CA law with a minimum of four hours per visit $85.00 per hour Escrow Banking (Optional) $100.00 per month (All bank fees and supplies to be paid by Agency) FTB Tax Lien Participation & Social Security Search (Optional) $3.00 per record FTB Collections 15% of collections Third Party Collections available upon request (Optional) 30% of collections VISA, MasterCard, Discover & American Express $ Included credit/debit cards accepted System and Ad Hoc Reporting $ Included DMV Inquiries and Registration Holds In-state and Out-of-state $ Included $ Included Payment Processing $ Included Internet Inquiry and Payment Processing $ Included All bank fees to be paid by Agency Citizen will be charged $3.50 per credit card transaction Credit card transaction fees and postage fees will increase as costs for accepting credit cards online and/or postage rates increase. Citizen will be charged $15.00 per payment plan initiated Citizen will be charged $30.00 for each credit card chargeback fee incurred Data Ticket offers several different handheld ticket writers and will be happy to provide demo units and information including pricing, specifications, & support upon request. 19 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept. Agreements 2015-16/Data Ticket/Agreement. Parking Citation Processing.PD16-04.11.10.15 Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve Non -Exclusive Vehicle Maintenance, Repair and Tire Services Agreement with Old Town Tire and Service, LLC for the City's Fleet PREPARED BY: Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager Jerzy Kanigowski, Facility Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a five-year Vehicle Maintenance, Repair and Tire Services Agreement with Old Town Tire & Service, LLC, in the amount of $90,000 annually, for a total five-year contract amount of $450,000, for the City's Fleet. BACKGROUND: The City enters into vehicle maintenance agreements to service the City's fleet once the vehicle manufacturer's warranty has expired, thereby ensuring the continuation of routine preventative and operational maintenance services. The City's current fleet primarily consists of trucks, vans, sedans, SUV's and heavy equipment averaging approximately ten years old. By maintaining a preventative maintenance schedule and making repairs expeditiously the City fleet has remained in good and safe operating condition resulting in minimal downtime. On November 06, 2015, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) soliciting proposals from proponents experienced in automotive maintenance, repair, and tire services located in the City of Temecula within a ten mile proximity of City Hall. The RFP was posted to registered proponents via the City's online vendor and bid management system PlanetBids©. Four local proponents downloaded the RFP documents and the City received two responses on or before the submission deadline of November, 13, 2015. Both of the responses met the City's needs for scheduled preventative maintenance at 4, 12, 24 and 36 -month intervals, with trained technicians to perform a wide variety of automotive maintenance, repair, and tire service functions as identified in the RFP. Based on a thorough evaluation process, the evaluation panel determined Old Town Tire & Service, LLC to be the most qualified and competitively priced proposal to provide the City with continuous and cost effective vehicle preventative maintenance, repair and tire services along with towing availability. Old Town Tire & Service has provided vehicle maintenance services to the City of Temecula for the past several years and has first-hand knowledge of the City's fleet of vehicles along with computerized detail of each vehicle's year-to-date maintenance history. To maintain continuity and receive the best overall cost for services, staff recommends the City enter into a five-year non-exclusive vehicle maintenance, repair and tire service agreement with Old Town Tire & Service, LLC. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are included within the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Operating Budget in the various City Department line item budgets. For the remaining four years, funds will be adequately appropriated within each Department line item budget for vehicle maintenance and repair. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance, Repair & Tire Services with Old Town Tire and Service, LLC. FIN 16-07 NON-EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND TIRE SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE, LLC THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 8, 2015, between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Old Town Tire & Service, LLC a Sole Proprietor (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on December 8, 2015, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 8, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Contractor shall perform the vehicle maintenance services described in the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full for all vehicles presented by the City to the Contractor for service. Contractor shall complete the work in accordance with the standards and the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. The Contractor understands this Agreement is non-exclusive and the City reserves the right to purchase similar goods and services from other contractors. 3. PERFORMANCE Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Ninety Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($90,000,00) annually for a total Agreement not to exceed amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($450,000,00) unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. The not to exceed payment amount listed herein is an estimated expenditure and this Agreement does not guarantee the Contractor this amount in services or work. b. Contractor shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Contractor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in 1 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Contractor at the time City's written authorization is given to Contractor for the performance of said services. c. Contractor 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 non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Contractor's fees, it shall give written notice to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Contractor shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (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 Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Contractor 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. Contractor 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 2 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 identified and readily accessible. Contractor 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 there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Contractor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Contractor 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. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers 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 Contractor'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 of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor 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 Contractor, 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 Contractor 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 Contractor has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Contractor shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 3 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($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 ($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. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Contractor'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 agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Contractor shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. 4 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Contractor 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 Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Contractor 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 Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor 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. Contractor 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 Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written authorization. Contractor, 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 Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, 5 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery 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. Mailing Address: To Consultant: 14. ASSIGNMENT City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Old Town Tire & Service, LLC Attn: Karl Greene, III or Keith Greene 28700 Old Town Front Street Temecula, CA 92590 The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this 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 judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 6 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 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. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 7 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE, LLC (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Karl C. Greene, III, Owner ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Keith Greene, Partner Old Town Tire & Service, LLC Attn: Karl Greene, III or Keith Greene 28700 Old Town Tire & Service, LLC Temecula, CA 92590 Phone: 951-699-8040 Fax: 951-695-1865 karl(c�oldtowntire.com keith(c�oldtowntire.com PM Initials: Date: 8 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FIN16-07.11.17.15 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK Contractor recognizes and agrees that this is for the purpose of establishing a contractual relationship between the City and the Contractor for non-exclusive vehicle preventative maintenance, repair and tire services along with towing services as required and requested. Contractor shall supply the City with detailed vehicle maintenance, repair, and tire service reporting on a quarterly basis and/or as requested by the City. The procedure for authorizing service and work is set forth as follows: 1. City staff shall initiate request for services or repair and bring City vehicle to Contractors place of business. Contractor shall supply a written quote for work to be performed based on the pricing attached per RFP response dated November 13, 2015 which shall include, but is not limited to: vehicle make, model, number, description of work to be performed, parts to be ordered, time for completion of service/repair, and cost. 2. Upon acceptance of the Contractor's cost estimate by City authorized staff the Contractor shall proceed with the work and charge to the appropriate purchase order. Contractor shall maintain a computerized maintenance and repair history on each City vehicle and provide data on a quarterly basis, or as requested, to City. Services to be provided are outlined below but may not be limited to: • Preventative Maintenance for all City cars, passenger/cargo vans, and small, medium, large and heavy duty trucks as outlined below and in more detail as outlined on the attached Exhibit B of the . Preventative maintenance and inspection shall be scheduled and performed within the same day. Priority service will be given to public safety vehicles. Preventative Maintenance Schedule Listed below is a brief synopsis of the City of Temecula preventative maintenance schedule. Detailed requirements for the preventative maintenance schedule are outlined below. Preventative Maintenance Schedule 1 will be performed every 4 months or 4,000 miles, whichever comes first. Preventative Maintenance Schedule 2 will be performed at 12 month intervals. Preventative Maintenance Schedule 3 will be performed every 24 months. Preventative Maintenance Schedule 4 will be performed at 36 month intervals. Note: Definition Of Size: Small Vehicles — % ton trucks, Automobiles, & Minivans. Medium Vehicles — 34 ton trucks & SUV's. Large Vehicles — 1 ton trucks & Cargo Vans. 9 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment - Paramedic Emergency Vehicles, Aerial Boom Trucks, & Tractors. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "1" Performed Every 4 Months, or 4,000 Miles PASSENGER VEHICLE, VANS, & LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS 1. Lube, Oil Change & Filter, Inspect Air Filter. 2. Check Battery, Inspect & Clean Cables. 3. Inspect, Radiator, & Cap, Coolant, Fuel, Vacuum Hoses. 4. Ck-Differential., Brakes, Power Steering, Coolant, Trans Fluid Levels 5. Check all "V" or Serpentine Belts. 6. Check Wipers. 7. Check Park Brake & Park Indicator. 8. Inspect Wheels, Lug Nuts, Studs,. 9. Inspect U -Joints, Suspension, Hitch Bolts. 10. Inspect Exhaust System. 11. Check Spare Tire, Jack and Lug Wrench. 12. Attach Next Service Date Sticker To Top Left Corner of Inside Windshield. 13. Road Test Vehicle, Check Power Brake Operation. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "1" Performed Every 4 Months or 4,000 Miles MEDIUM, LARGE, & HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, CARGO VANS & SUV's 1. Lube, Oil Change & Filter, Inspect Air Filter. 2. Check Battery, Inspect & Clean Cables. 3. Inspect, Radiator, & Cap, Coolant, Fuel, Vacuum Hoses. 4. Ck-Differential, Brake, Power Steering, Coolant, Trans Fluid Levels 5. Check all "V" or Serpentine Belts. 6. Check Park Brake & Park Indicator. 7. Check Tires For Inflation & Wear (Including Spare), Rotate on regular schedule. 8. Inspect Wheels, Lug Nuts, Studs, etc. 9. Inspect U -Joints, Suspension, Hitch Bolts. 10. Inspect Exhaust System. 11. Check Spare Tire, Jack and Lug Wrench. 12. Attach Next Service Date Sticker To Top Left Corner of Inside Windshield. 13. Road Test Vehicle, Check Power Brake Operation. 14. Check Brakes For Wear & Adjustment 15. Check Clutch Adjustment, Electric Brake Controls (If Equipped). 16. Check Trailer Hitch & Bumper Safety Chain. 17. Check 2 -Speed Axle Fluid/Adjustment. 18. Check Operation of Back-up Alarm. 19. Drain and Re -fill Differential Gear Lube. 20. Check and Adjust Air Brakes To Specification. 21. Inspect Air Reservoirs, Lines, Relays, Dryers, etc. 10 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "2" Performed At 12 Month Intervals PASSENGER VEHICLE, VANS, & LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS 1. Lube, Oil Change & Filter, Inspect Air Filter. 2. Check Battery, Inspect & Clean Cables. 3. Inspect, Radiator, & Cap, Coolant, Fuel, Vacuum Hoses. 4. Ck-Differential., Brake, Power Steering, Coolant, Trans Fluid Levels 5. Check all "V" or Serpentine Belts. 6. Check Park Brake & Park Indicator. 7. Check Operation Of All Lights (Stop, Tail). 8. Check Tires For Inflation & Wear (Including Spare), Rotate on regular schedule. 9. Inspect Wheels, Lug Nuts, Studs, etc. 10. Inspect U -Joints, Suspension, Hitch Bolts. 11. Inspect Exhaust System. 12. Check Spare Tire, Jack and Lug Wrench. 13. Attach Next Service Date Sticker To Top Left Corner of Inside Windshield. 14. Road Test Vehicle, Check Power Brake Operation. 15. Check Brakes For Wear & Adjustment. 16. Check Clutch Adjustment, Electric Break Controls (If Equipped). 17. Check Ignition System/Scope/Analyzer. 18. Change Fuel Filter & Replace Air Filter. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "2" Performed At 12 Month Intervals MEDIUM, LARGE, & HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, CARGO VANS & SUV's 1. Lube, Oil Change & Filter, Inspect Air Filter. 2. Check Battery, Inspect & Clean Cables. 3. Inspect, Radiator & Cap, Coolant, Fuel, Vacuum Hoses. 4. Ck-Differential., Brake, Power Steering, Coolant, Trans Fluid Levels 5. Check all "V" or Serpentine Belts. 6. Check Wipers. 7. Check Park Brake & Park Indicator. 8. Check Tires For Inflation & Wear (Including Spare), Rotate on regular schedule. 9. Inspect Wheels, Lug Nuts, Studs, etc. 10. Inspect U -Joints, Suspension, Hitch Bolts. 11. Inspect Exhaust System. 12. Check Spare Tire, Jack and Lug Wrench. 13. Attach Next Service Date Sticker To Top Left Corner of Inside Windshield. 14. Road Test Vehicle, Check Power Brake Operation. 15. Check Brakes For Wear & Adjustment 16. Check Clutch Adjustment, Electric Brake Controls (If Equipped). 17. Check Trailer Hitch & Bumper Safety Chain. 18. Check 2 -Speed Axle Fluid/Adjustment. 19. Check Operation of Back-up Alarm. 20. Change Fuel Filter & Replace Air Filter. 21. Drain and Re -fill Differential Gear Lube. 22. Check For Frame Cracks, Faulty Welds. 23. Check Dump Truck and Tilt Bed Pivot Pin. 24. Check Packing/Seals on Cylinders, Hydraulic Oil. 11 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 25. Check and Adjust Air Brakes To Specification. 26. Check Brakes For Wear and Adjustment. 27. Inspect Air Reservoirs, Lines, Relays, Dryers, etc. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "3" Performed Every 12 or 24 Months BASED ON AGE OF VEHICLE -CITY TO PROVIDE SCHEDULE 1. Smog Test & Certification. 2. Check Engine, Smog Pump, PCV Valves, 3. Provide Certificate PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "4" Performed At 36 Month Intervals PASSENGER VEHICLE, VANS, & LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS 1. Lube, Oil Change & Filter, Inspect Air Filter. 2. Check Battery, Inspect & Clean Cables. 3. Inspect, Radiator & Cap, Coolant, Fuel, Vacuum Hoses. 4. Ck-Differential., Brake, Power Steering, Coolant, Trans Fluid Levels 5. Check all "V" or Serpentine Belts. 6. Check Horn, Gauges, Wipers, Heater. 7. Check Seat Belts, Mirror, Ped. Pads. 8. Check Park Brake & Park Indicator. 9. Check Operation Of All Lights (Stop, Tail). 10. Check Tires For Inflation & Wear (Including Spare), Rotate on regular schedule. 11. Inspect Wheels, Lug Nuts, Studs, etc. 12. Inspect U -Joints, Suspension, Hitch Bolts. 13. Inspect Exhaust System. 14. Check Spare Tire, Jack and Lug Wrench. 15. Attach Next Service Date Sticker To Top Left Corner of Inside Windshield. 16. Road Test Vehicle, Check Power Brake Operation. 17. Check Brakes For Wear & Adjustment. 18. Check Clutch Adjustment, Electric Break Controls (If Equipped). 19. Check Ignition System/Scope/Analyzer. 20. Change Fuel & Air Filter. 21. Service Transmission, Replace Filter. 22. Change All Belts, Hoses, Thermostat. 23. Flush Cooling System, Install New Coolant. 24. Repack Wheel Bearing, Replace Grease Seals. 25. Check Door Handles, Lube Hinges, etc. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE "4" Performed At 36 Month Intervals MEDIUM, LARGE, & HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, CARGO VANS & SUV's 1. Lube, Oil Change & Filter, Inspect Air Filter. 2. Check Battery, Inspect & Clean Cables. 3. Inspect, Radiator & Cap, Coolant, Fuel, Vacuum Hoses. 4. Ck-Differential, Brake, Power Steering, Coolant, Trans Fluid Levels 5. Check all "V" or Serpentine Belts. 12 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 6. Check Horn, Gauges, Wipers, Heater. 7. Check Seat Belts, Mirror, Ped. Pads. 8. Check Park Brake & Park Indicator. 9. Check Operation Of All Lights (Stop, Tail). 10. Check Tires For Inflation & Wear (Including Spare) 11. Inspect Wheels, Lug Nuts, Studs, etc. 12. Inspect U -Joints, Suspension, Hitch Bolts. 13. Inspect Exhaust System. 14. Check Spare Tire, Jack and Lug Wrench. 15. Attach Next Service Date Sticker To Top Left Corner of Inside Windsheild. 16. Road Test Vehicle, Check Power Brake Operation. 17. Check Brakes For Wear & Adjustment 18. Check Clutch Adjustment, Electric Brake Controls (If Equipped). 19. Rotate Tires and Balance. 20. Check Trailer Hitch & Bumper Safety Chain. 21. Check 2 -Speed Axle Fluid/Adjustment. 22. Check Operation of Back-up Alarm. 23. Change Fuel & Air Filter. 24. Drain and Re -fill Differential Gear Lube. 25. Check For Frame Cracks, Faulty Welds. 26. Check Dump Truck and Tilt Bed Pivot Pin. 27. Check Packing/Seals on Cylinders, Hydraulic Oil. 28. Check and Adjust Air Brakes To Specification. 29. Check Brakes For Wear and Adjustment. 30. Inspect Air Reservoirs, Lines, Relays, Dryers. 31. Check Door Handles, Lube Hinges, etc. 32. Check Front Suspension, Hitch Bolts, and Steering Linkage. 33. Check Ignition System/Scope/ Analyzer. 34. Service Transmission, Replace Filter. 35. Change All Belts, Hoses, Thermostat. 36. Flush Cooling System, Install New Coolant. 37. Repack Wheel Bearing, Replace Grease Seals. • REPAIR SERVICE: As a result of preventative maintenance service repairs may be recommended for further service, or the City may require unscheduled repair service due to unforeseen circumstances. Recommended repair work shall be supported by using diagnostic statistics, accepted performance standards, vehicle history records, mileage, and other customary means. Proponent shall submit a written quote for recommended repairs or routine maintenance not scheduled. The Contractor shall obtain prior authorization before completing any further repair or maintenance work that is identified as a result of the preventative maintenance service. Routine repair services done as a result of the preventative maintenance inspection shall not exceed two (2) business days. A secured yard must be provided for any City vehicle held overnight. Unscheduled Repairs: City staff will bring vehicle to Contractor for services to obtain a written quote for repair services. These services can include but are not limited to: unscheduled preventative maintenance, major repairs or collision damage repairs. Within the quote the Contractor shall estimate the total cost for parts, and labor, indicate 13 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 if any work which will be outsourced, and provide an estimated time for service completion. Upon acceptance of the quote by authorized City staff the Contractor shall proceed with the work. A secured yard must be provided for any City vehicle held overnight. • TIRE SERVICE & REPAIR: Contractor shall be required to provide all necessary tires and repairs for City vehicles and trailers. All tires mounted on City vehicles and trailers must be new, unless the vehicle or equipment is approved and authorized by City staff for retread tires. All tires shall meet or exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Specifications and the Uniform Tire Quality Guide ratings. Tire service shall include inspection for tread wear, proper pressure, and noticeable defects during vehicle preventative maintenance schedule, repair for slow leaks and flat tires, and proper disposal of worn tires. Pricing for tire services shall include: Tire dismounting & mounting Wheel balancing New valve stem installation Alignment • COLLISION DAMAGE & MAJOR REPAIRS: Ability to provide collision damage or major repair services is not a primary requirement of this Contract but City has the option to request a quote for any major repairs. • TOWING SERVICES: Ability to provide towing services is not a primary requirement of this Contract but Contractor can supply towing services as requested. 14 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES & SCHEDULE All costs shall be based on actual time spent providing pre -approved vehicle preventative maintenance, repairs, tire and towing services. Schedule of work is on an "as needed basis" and cost shall be per quote or the Contractor's Pricing Sheet as outlined and submitted in the attached Request for Proposal (RFP) response, Exhibit A Pricing Form, dated November 13, 2015 attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The not to exceed payment amount listed herein is an estimated expenditure and this Agreement does not guarantee the Contractor this amount in services or work, but in no event shall the total cost for services exceed $90,000 annually or $450,000 for the total term of the Agreement. 15 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services. FI N16-07.11.17.15 CITY OF TEMECULA VEHICLE REPAIR, MAINTENANCE & TIRE SERVICE -- CITY FLEET EXHIBIT A Pricing Form If Proponent needs to revise or make changes and additions to the Exhibit, computer or typed alterations are allowed as long as the City format is maintained. VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE DESCRIPTION COST Preventative Maintenance - Small Vehicle - Schedule "1" $39.95 Preventative Maintenance - Medium Vehicle - Schedule "1" $49.95 Preventative Maintenance - Large Vehicle - Schedule "1" $99,95 Preventative Maintenance — Heavy Duty Vehicle & Equipment - Schedule "1" VEHICLE SPECIFIC Preventative Maintenance - Small Vehicle - Schedule "2" $44.95 Preventative Maintenance - Medium Vehicle - Schedule "2" $139.95 Preventative Maintenance - Large Vehicle - Schedule "2" $159.95 Preventative Maintenance — Heavy Duty Vehicle & Equipment—Schedule "2" VEHICLE SPECIFIC Preventative Maintenance — Small Vehicle — Schedule "4" $600 Preventative Maintenance — Medium Vehicle — Schedule "4" $695 Preventative Maintenance — Large Vehicle — Schedule "4' $745 Preventative Maintenance — Heavy Duty Vehicle & Equipment— Schedule '4" VEHICLE SPECIFIC Shop Rate - Per Hour: Small Vehicles (1/2 Ton Trucks, Automobiles, & Minivans) Medium Vehicles (3/4 Ton Trucks, & SUV's) Large Vehicles (1 Ton Trucks, & Cargo Vans) Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment (Aerial Boom Trucks, Paramedic Vehicles, Tractors & Backhoe's) Parts Will Be Charge At Wholesale Prices - Minus The Percentage Listed. 95 per hour 99 per hour 105 per hour 105 per hour 10 % 16 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services.FIN16-07.11.17.15 CITY OF TEMECULA VEHICLE REPAIR, MAINTENANCE & TIRE SERVICE — CITY FLEET MOBILE VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE DESCRIPTION COST Tire Repair & New Mounting: Small Vehicles (1/2 Ton Trucks, Automobiles, & Minivans) Medium Vehicles (3/4 Ton Trucks. & SUV's) Large Vehicles (1 Ton Trucks, & Cargo Vans) Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment (Aerial Boom Trucks, Paramedic Vehicles, Tractors & Backhoe's) COST Mobile Repair Services Available? Yes No X Indicate cost as outlined in Repair & Maintenance Price Sheet. Wheel Balancing INCL IN ABOVE Alignments $69.95 Flat Repairs $15 TIRE SERVICE DESCRIPTION COST Tire Repair & New Mounting: Small Vehicles (1/2 Ton Trucks, Automobiles, & Minivans) Medium Vehicles (3/4 Ton Trucks. & SUV's) Large Vehicles (1 Ton Trucks, & Cargo Vans) Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment (Aerial Boom Trucks, Paramedic Vehicles, Tractors & Backhoe's) $15/EA $20/ EA $35/EA $95 per hour_ Wheel Balancing INCL IN ABOVE Alignments $69.95 Flat Repairs $15 Tire Disposal $4 Trailers S15 Parts Will Charged At Wholesale Prices - Minus the Percentage Listed 10 0/0 Shop Rate - Per Hour: Small Vehicles (1/2 Ton Trucks, Automobiles, & Minivans) Medium Vehicles (3/4 Ton Trucks, & SUV's) Large Vehicles (1 Ton Trucks, & Cargo Vans) Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment (Aerial Boom Trucks, Paramedic Vehicles, Tractors & Backhoe's) $95 per hour $95 per hour $99 per hour $105 per hour 17 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services.FIN16-07.11.17.15 CITY OF TEMECULA VEHICLE REPAIR, MAINTENANCE & TIRE SERVICE — CITY FLEET TOWING SERVICES DESCRIPTION COST Flat Tire Changes Flat Rate = $55 Lockout/Locksmith Service Hat Rate = $55 Jumpstarts & Fuel Delivery Flat Rate = $55 Fuel charge will be billed separately Small Vehicles — within 26 mile radius of City Hall. Flat Rate = $75 Small Vehicles — each mile over 26 mile radius "one way". Must provide odometer reading. Flat Rate/Mile = N/A Medium Vehicles — within 26 mile radius of City Hall Flat Rate = $90 Medium Vehicles — each mile over 26 mile radius "one way". Must provide odometer reading. Flat Rate/Mile = N/A Large Vehicles —within 26 mile radius of City Hall $95.00 Large Vehicles — each mile over 26 mile radius "one way". Must provide odometer reading. N/A Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment —within 26 mile radius of City Hall. Flat Rate = VEH SPECIFIC Heavy Duty Vehicles & Equipment — each mile over 26 mile radius 'one way'. Must provide odometer reading. Flat Rate/Mile = N/A Dolly Tow Flat Rate = SAME All rates quoted for Towing Services will reflect a 24-hour service price. 18 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Old Town Tire & Service, LLC/Agreement.Vehicle Maintenance -Repair -Tire Services.FIN16-07.11.17.15 Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 15-12 to Approve an Amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to Revise the Expiration Date and Time Extensions for Development Plans (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR SAID PERMITS (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR15-1285) BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 15-12 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 10, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 15-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR SAID PERMITS (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR15-1285) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The economic recession that began in 2008 continues to impede a property owners ability to finance new development on their properties. B. During the application review process of a development plan, both the City of Temecula and the project applicant expend substantial resourses to ensure the highest quality project is designed that benefits both the property owner and ensures the quality of life and economic needs of the community are met. C. In order to preserve the substantial efforts of property owners to develop new projects, which in turn strengthen the employement and economic needs of the community, the City Council, on November 18, 2014, directed staff to study an extension of the expiration dates of development plans. D. On July 28, 2015 the City Council of the City of Temecula approved an Interim Ordinance that preserved the status quo of approved development plans with an expiration date between November 1, 2014 and December 1, 2015, and until such time as a permanent ordinance is completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. E. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on October 21, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. F. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- 25, recommending approval of the Ordinance by the City Council. Ords 15-12 1 G. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance and on November 10, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. H. Following the public hearing, the City Council considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 2. Extension of Development Plans. This Ordinance shall apply to all Development Plans that have an expiration date November 1, 2014 or later. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse environmental affects because it will allows for the expiration of approved development plans to be administratively extended up to five years beyond the initial three year term, and allows for additional one year time extensions by approval of the City Council at a public hearing. All existing approved development plans that have not expired, have undergone environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and all future development plans are subject to review under CEQA Guidelines prior to their approval. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption for the proposed ordinance. Section 4. Section 17.05.010.G and H of Title 17 of the Temecula Muniicpal Code is hereby amended by revising the expiration and extension of time for development plans as follows: "G. Expiration of Development Plans. Within three years of development plan approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. H. Time Extensions. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to the expiration, grant a time extension of one year (up to five extensions may be granted). Upon granting the extension, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the development plan complies with all development code provisions. 1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the Director of Community Development's decision to administratively approve a time extension shall be posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the applicant and its Ords 15-12 2 representative (as shown on the application); to the property owner (as shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the County of Riverside) or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the Director of Community Development's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies which are determined by the Director of Community Development to be affected by the application. 2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the Director of Community Development may refer such items to the Planning Commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing. 3. A request for an extension of time beyond the fifth approval of an extension of time may be granted by the City Council at a public hearing. 4. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 5. Any development plan which was approved in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map shall expire no sooner than the approved tentative map or any extension of time approved for the tentative map, whichever occurs later." Section 5. Section 17.05.020.G and H of Title 17 of the Temecula Muniicpal Code is hereby amended by revising the expiration and extension of time for administratively approved development plans as follows: "G. Expiration of Administrative Approval. Within three years of administrative approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. H. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one- year increments only. Upon granting of an extension, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that conditions of the administrative approval comply with all current development code provisions. 1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the Director of Community Development's decision to administratively approve a time extension shall be posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the applicant and its representative (as shown on the application); to the property owner (as shown on the Ords 15-12 3 latest available equalized assessment roll of the County of Riverside) or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the Director of Community Development's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies which are determined by the Director of Community Development to be affected by the application. 2. A request for an extension of time beyond the fifth approval of an extension of time may be granted by the City Council at a public hearing. 3. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 4. Any development plan which was approved in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map shall expire no sooner than the approved tentative map or any extension of time approved for the tentative map, whichever occurs later." Section 6. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Section 7. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. Ords 15-12 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-12 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 10th day of November, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Ords 15-12 5 Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 15-13 to Adopt Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 15-13 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 17, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 15-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. On October 18, 2011, December 6, 2011, February 2, 2012, April 5, 2012, June 14, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the City conducted Community Visioning Workshops to provide information about the Specific Plan and to craft a community driven vision and set of policy directions that would provide the City with a clear focus for developing policies and standards for the Specific Plan. C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "proposed Project"). D. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. F. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone. City staff presented a report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project, the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the conclusion of the November 4, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, including both an oral and written staff report and public comment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-27, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN." G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. On November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-66, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" which amended the Land Use Element Map of the Temecula General Plan to change the land use designations of parcels within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from Community Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), Public Institutional (PI), and Open Space Conservation (OS -C) to Specific Plan Implementation. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15- 66, the City Council also amended the Land Use Element text of the Temecula General Plan by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and removing the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Overlay Area. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-65 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" certifying and adopting the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program accurately address the impacts associated with the adoption of the Ordinance. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. Based on the evidence and all other applicable information presented, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the Specific Plan: A. The Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan (pages 3-1 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan (pages 6-1 through 6-21 of Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (pages3-19 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (pages 7-1 through 7-19 of Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (pages 2-1 and 2-3 of Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area. (2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health, safety and welfare. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. (4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan is a form -based code which emphasizes the physical form of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district. The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. SECTION 3. Adoption of Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan in the form on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, subject to the following changes to the Specific Plan: A. The name of the Specific Plan is hereby changed from "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to "Uptown Temecula Specific Plan." Wherever the name of "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" is used in the text of the Specific Plan and provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code it shall be changed to "Uptown Temecula Specific Plan." The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, Economic Studies for the Specific Plan, and the Nexus Study for the In -Lieu Road Fee shall retain the name "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" so as to prevent confusion in these documents that were prepared in support of the evaluation and study of the Specific Plan. B. Except as modified by the terms of this Section, all of the changes described in the "Summary of Proposed Changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" shall be incorporated in to the Specific Plan. C. Section E.2. and E.3 of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, of the Specific Plan are hereby modified to read as follows with the additions shown in underline and the deletions shown in strikeout: "2. Discontinuance of a Legal Non -Conforming Use Whenever a legal non -conforming land use has been discontinued for a continuous period of twenty four (24) months 365 days or more, the legal non- conforming use shall not be reestablished. Discontinuance of a use shall include cessation of the existing legal non -conforming use, regardless of intent to resume said legal non -conforming use. A use shall not be considered discontinued as a result of fire or other calamity, by an act of God, or by the public enemy." "3. Extension of a Land Use's Legal Non -Conforming Status A property owner may apply for a hardship extension of a land use's legal non -conforming status that extends the legal non -conforming status beyond the initial twenty four (24) month 365 day period allowed under the Specific Plan. The maximum term of a hardship extension is twenty four (24) months 365 days. A property owner may reapply for an additional hardship extension at the end of the previously approved hardship term. Written applications for hardship extensions must be received at least 45 days prior to the end of the initial twenty four (24) month 365 days legal non- conforming grace period and/or any previously approved hardship extension term. The Director of Community Development shall grant a hardship extension for any of the following: The structure cannot be used for any conforming use because of its original design or because of lawful structural changes made for a previous nonconforming use; ii. That it is not reasonably economically or physically feasible to make the use of the property compatible with the applicable land use designations; iii. The proposed reestablishment of a nonconforming use will not be detrimental to any existing or potential permitted use in the area in which the nonconforming use is located. iv. The property owner has shown by competent financial evidence that he/she cannot realize a reasonable return by using the property under any use allowed in the district. v. A property owner has provided evidence that diligent and continuous efforts to lease the property have been made, but has been prevented from leasing the property due to specific economic circumstances directly related to the owner's property, that are beyond the property owners control." D. The title of Section F. of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, is changed to read as follows: "Minor Exceptions, Variances and Modifications to Development Standards." E. A new Section F.3. of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, is added to the Specific Plan to read as follows: "3. MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARTICULAR PROPERTIES The Review Authority described in Section H. of this Chapter may approve modifications to the Specific Plan development standards applicable to a particular property upon finding that: Strict application of the applicable development standards would create practical difficulties or unreasonable hardships in development of the property; ii. Exceptional circumstances exist on the property not generally found on other properties in the Specific Plan Area; and ii. The modifications are necessary to insure compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan." F. Subsection G.6. of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, providing for minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the Department of Community Development as described in the "Summary of Proposed Changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" is hereby deleted from the Specific Plan. G. A new paragraph shall be added to the end of Section I, Specific Plan Phased Compliance, of Chapter 2, Plan Administration, to read as follows: "In February of 2019, the City Council shall review the terms of the Specific Plan, procedures for its implementation, and existing condition of the Specific Plan Area and determine whether to initiate any amendments to the Specific Plan. The Council shall also decide when to again formally review the Specific Plan. Nothing in this paragraph is intended, nor shall it be construed, to restrict in any way the Council's authority to review the Specific Plan at any time and to determine at any time whether to initiate any amendments to the Specific Plan." SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment. A. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning District SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add the following Specific Plan area: "SP -14 Uptown Jefferson" SECTION 5. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to add the zoning classification "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A to this Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 6. Adult Business Overlay Zone Amendment. A. Legislative Findings (1) The City Council seeks to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Adult Business Overlay Zone which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1 ("Overlay Zone"). (2) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but rather to address the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. It is further the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the secondary effects of adult businesses upon the residential uses that will be located within the Specific Plan area. (3) The City Council finds that adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences, and contribute to blight and the downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding areas. (4) The City Council finds that the protection and preservation of the public health, safety and welfare require that certain distances be maintained between adult businesses and residential uses. Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020 provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan (5) seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -orientated retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The City Council hereby finds that the secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses that will be located in the Specific Plan area. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disrupted to the residents of Specific Plan area. The City Council further finds that the removal of parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone will allow adequate sites for adult businesses to locate in the City. City staff has advised that 426 commercially -zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of those commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, City staff has indicated that a number of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040, approximately 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate in the Overlay Zone after it is amended to exclude the Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders at this point, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. (6) The City Council further finds that there are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 108,920. 1.8 percentage of land in the City is theoretically available to adult businesses. In addition, there are 13 sites that are potentially available for adult uses. Currently, there are no businesses that wish to offer adult entertainment in the City. Since its inception, the City has never received an application for an adult business. B. Amendment Section 17.08.020 (H) (Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add: "Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 15-13, and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full." Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HTC SC PO BP LI A Adult Businesses -subject to Chapter 5.09 of the Temecula Municipal Code -- C C C -- -- -- 7. Only within Special Overlay Zone No. 1 as described and depicted in Ordinance No. 15-13. SECTION 7. Consistency with General Plan The foregoing amendments outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 above are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-13 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 17th day of November, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk P,. B LI. rA '*.4f.t4'4f- ** 11010, i 1100-41' AO* ffi 41/1110 isilltra4.._ Pat i ***-- 016-11( ... I. p�5P,=5 . 1 -kw* se '''"IfialoriG hirset*Vit.V.AWW4Arr-/ WOr4ips -.4..•14‘..-ItA-0„,-t ,et ow' Mkt' illity#411■Ii *VON Orek lir 4.1iallr"r0OP, r *tool**. wii.... ,,„ ....._. OB- Ako -opowiligg* *Ai stow* 04-40 toogititirlikir 11111::::44171 e- 11111111111141111111111 4 NI PT to 00 tw 0-4 0 .ormi SAM 0,000.1.011 100.0n* VMS ■ Willm1161"2 =4i "m. 1024 -Ant grerwia-mor Asiwilliapiorvag".:Jir aVia owl aum ■1.111: �1:': Illil1111111115111 Effective Date: August 9, 2005 venae tre eo�� Zoning Designations Designation ensry Residential,/ ryp Resident. a ▪ Mediumoaoeemei ▪ 9 o▪ meea cetal �ml - es Rha�, 1.1 Rhee Rcea, a-=m�m ., - w ws., - ▪ co m comme.aa cc - � e�, omme, ▪ ne..,..commeOa c, - P,ak�mron o ase ��comme,a�,sc, - oans .os ▪ Public,. aneace,ma Pw �M eC ou - -e� e Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 r" -"i City Parcels Parcels Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager ..i.e. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Michael Heslin, Deputy Director of Information Technology DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise Between the City of Temecula and Verizon Communications, Inc. to Frontier Communications PREPARED BY: Michaela Ballreich, Deputy Director of Support Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE "CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC." DATED AS OF JUNE 11, 2006, AS AMENDED, TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION BACKGROUND: On June 11, 2006, the City Council approved a Cable Franchise Agreement with Verizon California, Inc. (Verizon) to provide cable television services within the City of Temecula. On September 25, 2007, the City Council considered and approved Amendment No. 1 to the Franchise Agreement, clarifying the Initial Service Area and the Extended Service Area; and then on October 9, 2007, the City Council considered and reapproved Amendment No. 1 to the Franchise Agreement, correcting Exhibit B of the originally approved Amendment. In May of 2015, Verizon announced its plans to transfer its local wireline business serving California to Frontier Communications Corporation. This transaction includes Verizon Communications, Inc. transferring control of Verizon California, Inc. to Frontier Communications Corporation. Verizon is requesting the City's consent to transfer control of Verizon California, Inc. to Frontier. The cable system will be operated pursuant to the terms of the current Franchise Agreement and applicable law after the consummation of the proposed transaction. The Transferee (Frontier Communications Corporation) has no plans to change the current terms and conditions of service or operations of the system to customer locations; the transferee will honor Verizon's existing service availability requirements in the community; but the transferee does reserve the right to make service and operational changes in accordance with the terms of the current Franchise Agreement and applicable law. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Consent to Transfer Control of Franchisee (Verizon Communications, Inc.) Verizon California, Inc. to Frontier Communications Corporation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Resolution Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 FCC 394 APPLICATION FOR FRANCHISE AUTHORITY CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION Approved By OMB 3060-0573 FOR FRANCHISE AUTHORITY USE ONLY DATE 18 -May -15 1. Community Unit Identification Number: CA1667 2. Application for: Assignment of Franchise nTransfer of Control _3. Franchising Authority: City of Temecula, California 4. Identify community where the system/franchise that is the subject of the assignment or transfer of control is located City of Temecula, California 5. Date system was acquired or (for system's constructed by the transferor/assignor) the date on which service was provided to the first subscriber in the franchise area: Aug -06 6. Proposed effective date of closing of the transaction assigning or transferring ownership of the system to transferee/assignee: 1st Quarter 2016 7. Attach as an Exhibit a schedule of any and all additional information or material filed with this application that is identified in the franchise as required to be provided to the franchising authority when requesting its approval of the type of transaction that is the subject of this application. PART I - TRANSFEROR/ASSIGNOR 1. Indicate the name, malting address, and telephone number of the transferor/assignor, Exhibit No. N/A Legal name of Transferor/Assignor (if individual, list last name first) Verizon Communications Inc. _ Assumed name used for doing business (if any) N/A Mailing street address or P.O. Box 1095 Avenue of the Americas City New York State NY ZIP Code 10036 Telephone No. (include area code) (212) 395-1000 2 (a) Attach as an Exhibit a copy of the contract or agreement that provides for the assignment or transfer of control (including any exhibits or schedules thereto necessary in order to understand the terms thereof). If there is only an oral agreement, reduce the terms to writing and attach. (Confidential trade, business, pricing or marketing information, or other information not otherwise publicly available, may be redacted). (b) Does the contract submitted in response to (a) above embody the full and complete agreement between the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee'? If No, explain in an Exhibit. FCC 394 (Page 1) Exhibit No. 1 Yes n No Exhibit No 1 September 1996 PART II - TRANSFEREE/ASSIGNEE (} Indicate the name maili��g address, and tetephone number of the transfereelassignee. Legal name of Transferee/Assignee (if individual, list last name first) Frontier Communications Corporation Assumed name used for doing business (if any) N/A Mailing street address or P.O. Box 3 High Ridge Park City Stamford State CT ZIP Code 06905-1390 Telephone No. (include area code) (203) 614-5600 nd telephone number of person to contact, if other than transferee/assignee. Name of contact person (list last name first) Steven _Crosby, Firm or company name (if any) Frontier Communications Corporation Mailing street address or P.O. Box 9260 E. Stockton Blvd City Elk Grove State CA ZIP Code 95624 Telephone No. (include area code) (916) (686)-3333 (c) Attach as an Exhibit the name, mailing address, and telephone number of each additional person who should be contacted, if any. (d) Indicate the address where the system's records will be maintained. Street address 3 High Ridge Park City Stamford Exhibit No. 2 State CT ZIP Code 06905-1390 2. Indicate on an attached exhibit any plans to change the current terms and conditions of service and operations of the system as a consequence of the transaction for which approval is sought. Exhibit No. 3 FCC 394 (Page 2) September 1996 SECTION II. TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Transferee/Assignee is: • Corporation • Limited Partnership • General Partnership a. Jurisdiction of incorporation: Delaware b. Date of incorporation: 12 -Nov -35 c. For profit or not-for-profit: For Profit d. Name and address of registered agent in jurisdiction: CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Serivce 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N Sacramento. CA 95833 a. Jurisdiction in which formed: b. Date of formation: c. Name and address of registered agent in iurisdiction• a. Jurisdiction whose laws govern formation: b. Date of formation: ▪ Individual El Other. Describe in an Exhibit. Exhibit No. N/A 2. List the transferee/assignee, and, if the transferee/assignee is not a natural person, each of its officers, directors, stockholders beneficially holding more than 5% of the outstanding voting shares, general partners, and limited partners holding an equity interest of more than 5%. Use only one column for each individual or entity. Attach additional pages if necessary. (Read carefully - the lettered items below refer to corresponding lines in the following table.) (a) Name, residence, occupation or principal business, and principal place of business. (If other than an individual, also show name, address and citizenship of natural person authorized to vote the voting securities of the applicant that it holds.) List the applicant first, officers, next, then directors and, thereafter, remaining stockholders and/or partners. (b) Citizenship. (c) Relationship to the transferee/assignee (e.g., officer, director, etc.). (d) Number of shares or nature of partnersihp interest. (e) Number of votes. (f) Percentage of votes. (a) See Exhibit 4 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f ) FCC 394 (Page 3) September 1996 If the applicant is a corporation or a limited partnership, is the transferee/assignee formed under the X❑ Yes n No laws of, or duly qualified to transact business in, the State or other jurisdiction in which the system operates? If the answer is No, explain in an Exhibit. 4. Has the transferee/assignee had any interest in or in connection with an applicant which has been dismissed or denied by any franchise authority? If the answer is Yes, describe circumstances in an Exhibit. Has an adverse finding been made or an adverse final action been taken by any court or administrative body with respect to the transferee/assignee in a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, brought under the provisions of any law or regulation related to the following: any felony; revocation, suspension or involuntary transfer of any authorization (including cable franchises) to provide video programming services; mass media related antitrust or unfair competition; fraudulent statements to another government unit; or employment discrimination? If the answer is Yes, attach as an Exhibit a full description of the persons and matter(s) involved, including an identification of any court or administrative body and any proceeding (by dates and file numbers, if applicable), and the disposition of such proceeding. Are there any documents, instruments, contracts or understandings relating to ownership or future ownership rights with respect to any attributable interest as described in Question 2 (including, but not limited to, non-voting stock interests, beneficial stock ownership interests, options, warrants, debentures)? If Yes, provide particulars in an Exhibit. Do documents, instruments, agreements or understandings for the pledge of stock of the • Yes X❑ No transferee/assignee, as security for loans or contractual performance, provide that: (a) voting rights will remain with the applicant, even in the event of default on the obligation; (b) in the event of default, there will be either a private or public sale of the stock; and (c) prior to the exercise of any ownership rights by a purchaser at a sale described in (b), any prior consent of the FCC and/or of the franchising authority, if required pursuant to federal, state or local law or pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement will be obtained? If No, attach as an Exhibit a full explanation. Exhibit No. N/A n Yes 171 1 No fl Exhibit No. N/A • Yes X❑ No Exhibit Na. 5 El Yes X No SECTION III. TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. The transferee/assignee certifies that it has sufficient net liquid assets on hand or available from committed resources to consummate the transaction and operate the facilities for three months. 2. Attach as an Exhibit the most recent financial statements, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals, including a balance sheet and income statement for at least one full year, for the transferee/assignee or parent entity that has been prepared in the ordinary course of business, if any such financial statements are routinely prepared. Such statements, if not otherwise publicly available, may be marked CONFIDENTIAL and will be maintained as confidential by the franchise authority and its agents to the extent permissible under local law. SECTION IV. TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS Set forth in an Exhibit a narrative account of the transferee's/assignee's technical qualifications, experience and expertise regarding cable television systems, including, but not limited to, summary information about appropriate management personnel that will be involved in the system's management and operations. The transferee/assignee may, but need not, list a representative sample of cable systems currently or formerly owned or operated. Exhibit No. 6 El Yes No Exhibit No. 7 Exhibit No. 8 FCC 394 (Page 4) September 1996 SECTION V - CERTIFICATIONS Part I - Transferor/Assignor All the statements made in the application and attached exhibits are considered material representations, and all the Exhibits are a material part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full In the application. I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. Signature Il )-7 i WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001. Date 671/9t1/6 - Print full name Timothy J. McCallion Check appropriate classification: Individual --Corporate Partner Other. Explain: Inc. Print full name Kathleen Abernathy X Corporate Officer (Indicate Title) — President, Verizon California Part It - Transferee/Assignee All the statements made in the application and attached Exhibits are considered material representations, and all the Exhibits are a material part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. The transferee/assignee certifies that he/she: (a) Has a current copy of the FCC's Rules governing cable television systems. (b) Has a current copy of the franchise that is the subject of this application, and of any applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations. (c) Will use its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations, and to effect changes, as promptly as practicable, in the operation system, if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing. I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and10 are made in good faith. SE7naWre / is .._ ,. jV� ' j i + J ` WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001. Date I/ -/ Print full name Kathleen Abernathy Check appropriate classification: Individual General Partner X Corporate Officer (Indicate Title) Executive Vice President, Other. Explain: External Affairs — FCC 394 (Page 5) September 1996 Exhibit 1 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 1 Questions 2(a) and 2(b): A copy of the relevant Securities Purchase Agreement ("SPA") executed by Frontier Communications Corporation and Verizon Communications Inc. dated February 5, 2015, with no redactions, associated with the proposed transfer of control, is included on the enclosed CD-ROM. The transaction is also depicted in the charts below. Exhibits, Schedules, and Annexes to the SPA have been omitted, as provided in Question 2(a), as this information consists of non-public exhibits or schedules not necessary in order to understand the terms of the Agreement or contains confidential trade, business, pricing or marketing information. Verizon Ventures LLC Current Ownership Structure Verizon Communications Inc. 1.4508% 91.3096% GTE Corporation gar% 7_239G 1= NYNEX LLC Newco West Holdings LLC Verizon California Inc. [1] Exhibit 1 FCC Form 394 May 2015 For this transaction, Verizon has created Newco West Holdings LLC ("Newco"). Prior to closing, Verizon will insert Newco into the ownership chain and transfer the ownership interests of Verizon California Inc. ("Verizon California") to Newco. Frontier will then purchase all of the ownership interests of Newco, which will become a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Frontier. Verizon California will become a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Frontier, as seen below. Post -Closing Ownership Structure Frontier Communications Corporation 10096 Newco West Holdings LLC 10096 Verizon California Inc. [2] Exhibit 2 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 2 All correspondence and communications for Frontier Communications Corporation should also be directed to: Kevin Saville Vice President & Associate General Counsel Frontier Communications Corporation 2378 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Tel: 952-491-5564 Cell: 612-839-0909 kevin.saville@ftr.com George Baker Thomson, Jr. Associate General Counsel Frontier Communications Corporation 1800 41st Street, Suite N-100 Everett, WA 98203 Tel: 425-261-5844 Cell: 425-367-9130 george.thomson@ftr.com [1] Exhibit 3 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 3 The cable system will be operated pursuant to the terms of the current franchise agreement and applicable law after the consummation of the transaction described in this application. Transferee has no plans to change the current terms and conditions of service or operations of the system to customer locations. Transferee will honor Verizon's existing service availability requirements in the community. However, Transferee reserves the right to make service and operational changes in accordance with the terms of the current franchise agreement and applicable law. [1] Exhibit 4 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 4 Control of the Franchisee, Verizon California Inc., will be transferred to Frontier Communications Corporation ("Frontier"), a publicly traded Delaware corporation. Verizon California Inc. will be a second-tier subsidiary of Frontier. The directors and officers of Frontier are listed below. No directors or officers hold an equity interest of more than five percent in Frontier. All are United States citizens. OFFICERS Name Title/Role Principal Place of Business Address Mary Agnes Wilderotter Executive Chairman Stamford, CT Darien, CT Daniel J. McCarthy President and Chief Executive Officer Stamford, CT Sandy Hook, CT John M. Jureller Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Stamford, CT Scarsdale, NY John J. Lass Executive Vice President, Field Operations Fort Wayne, IN Fort Wayne, IN Kathleen Q. Abernathy Executive Vice President, External Affairs Washington, DC McLean, VA Steve Gable Executive Vice President, Chief Technology Officer Allen, TX McKinney, TX Cecilia K. McKenney Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer Stamford, CT Bedford, NY Mark D. Nielsen Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Stamford, CT Ridgefield, CT Donald W. Daniels Senior Vice President and Controller Stamford, CT Ridgefield, CT John P. Gianukakis Vice President and Treasurer Stamford, CT Darien, CT [1] Exhibit 4 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 DIRECTORS Name Principal Place of Business Address Mary Agnes Wilderotter (Executive Chairman) Stamford, CT Darien, CT Leroy T. Barnes, Jr. Piedmont, CA Piedmont, CA Peter C.B. Bynoe Chicago, IL Chicago, IL Diana S. Ferguson Chicago, IL Flossmoor, IL Edward Fraioli Sharon, MA Sharon, MA Daniel J. McCarthy Stamford, CT Sandy Hook, CT Pamela D.A. Reeve Winchester, MA Winchester, MA Virginia P. Ruesterholz Naples, FL Naples, FL Howard L. Schrott Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN Larraine D. Segil Encino, CA Encino, CA Mark Shapiro New York, NY Westport, CT Myron A. Wick, III . Sausalito, CA Sausalito, CA Persons and entities holding a five percent or greater ownership interest in Frontier's outstanding voting shares as of March 17, 2015 are: (a) Name and Address of Beneficial Owner: The Vanguard Group, Inc. 100 Vanguard Blvd. Malvern, PA 19355 (b) Citizenship: nla (c) Relationship to transferee none (d) Number of shares: 86,098,375 (e) Number of votes: 86,098,375 (f) Percentage of votes: 8.6% (a) Name and Address of Beneficial Owner: BlackRock, Inc. 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 (b) Citizenship: n/a (c) Relationship to transferee none (d) Number of shares: 62,565,020 (e) Number of votes: 62,565,020 (f) Percentage of votes: 6.2% [2] Exhibit 5 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 5 In the past five years there have been no adverse findings made, or adverse final actions taken, against Frontier Communications Corporation in a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding with respect to the matters listed in Section II, Question 5. [1] Exhibit 6 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 6 There are no documents, instruments, agreements or understandings for the pledge of stock of transferee. [1] Exhibit 7 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 7 Frontier Communications Corporation ("Frontier") is a financially strong company, publicly traded on NASDAQ, and it has ample financial resources to consummate the transaction and operate the cable system facilities. Frontier's current equity market capitalization is approximately $7.0 billion. The company reported annual revenues of approximately $4.77 billion for the year ending December 31, 2014. Its annual free cash flow, which is the cash generated by the business after funding all operating expenses, was $793 million in 2014. Frontier expects that the transaction will enhance its fmancial profile and scalability so that it can better provide high-quality services for the long term. Net of certain benefits arising from the structure of the transaction, the $10.54 billion purchase price suggests an estimated 3.8x multiple based on 2014 estimated pro forma Day 1 EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). Frontier estimates that the combined Verizon operations associated with the transaction will generate approximately $5.8 billion in revenues and approximately $2.3 billion in EBITDA. Frontier also projects approximately $700 million annually in cost savings by the third year after closing, generated primarily from the consolidation of various administrative systems and functions. Frontier anticipates that this stronger financial foundation and increased cash flow will provide the company with increased flexibility in responding to opportunities for new investments and innovative product introductions, with long-term benefits to the franchisee and its customers. Frontier has a successful track record of acquiring, operating and investing in communications properties, including cable television properties. In particular, Frontier provides FiOS video service in Indiana, Oregon, and Washington through cable properties it acquired in its 2010 acquisition of local properties in fourteen states from Verizon. In addition, Frontier offers Frontier TV powered by U -verse® to its customers in Connecticut following its 2014 acquisition of The Southern New England Telephone Company from AT&T. Frontier's Annual Report for 2014 on Form 10-K and its Quarterly Report for the first quarter of 2015 on Form 10-Q are attached hereto. [1] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Exhibit 8 Frontier Communications Corporation ("Frontier") is a full-service wireline communications provider, with a great deal of technical and operational experience and expertise in the competitive provision of video programming services. Frontier provides a wide array of communications and broadband services, including local and long distance voice, broadband data, and cable television, through its wholly-owned operating companies. The company has approximately 17,000 employees, all of whom are based in the United States. Frontier serves approximately four million customers in 28 states.1 Frontier currently operates two incumbent local exchange carriers in California. These companies serve approximately 100,000 customers in 62 exchanges and offer local voice service, vertical services, broadband service, wholesale services and switched and special access services. Frontier also has three other telecommunications subsidiaries in California that offer long distance services. Frontier will continue to provide video services through the FiOS network under the terms of the franchise. Frontier provides FiOS video service in Indiana, Oregon, and Washington through cable properties it acquired in its 2010 acquisition of local properties in fourteen states from Verizon. In addition, Frontier offers Frontier TV powered by U -verse® to its customers in Connecticut following its 2014 acquisition of The Southern New England Telephone Company from AT&T. Frontier also competes head-to-head with cable companies for voice, data, and video services in two-thirds of its national footprint. Frontier's executives are well positioned to supervise the newly acquired operations, and California customers will benefit from an experienced management team that focuses on providing superior wireline services. Frontier's current senior leadership team includes Daniel McCarthy, Frontier's President and Chief Executive Officer, who has been with the company since 1990;2 John Jureller, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Steve Gable, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer; John Lass, Executive Vice President, Field Operations; Cecilia McKenney, Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer; Kathleen Abernathy, Executive Vice President, External Affairs; and Mark Nielsen, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. Frontier's senior management team is supported by a larger group of professionals, including regional, state and local managers, a number of whom will be based in California. This includes Melinda White, Frontier's Area President for the West Region, which includes California. Brief biographies of some of Frontier's key executives are set forth below. 1 Frontier's current wireline service territories are located in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. It has cable properties in Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon, and Washington. 2 Mary Agnes Wilderotter, Frontier's previous Chief Executive Officer, recently transitioned to Executive Chairman of Frontier's Board of Directors. [1] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Frontier will be the owner of the franchisee, however, Verizon California Inc. ("Verizon California") will remain the provider of the services (albeit under a different name). Verizon California provides services to residents, businesses, and governments within the state of California and will continue to provide service to approximately two million telephone access lines in 266 exchanges. The provision of these services has been and will continue to be the province of local operations. In addition to Frontier's existing fully qualified executive management team and experienced managers and employees, Frontier will retain the existing Verizon California workforce's technical qualifications, experience, and expertise regarding cable television systems. The cable system serving your community will be managed by the same experienced and qualified personnel at the local level after the close as it is today. The large majority of the local technical and supervisory employees now providing voice, data, and video services will stay with the franchisee and they will continue to provide these services under the Frontier name. Local field engineers and technicians will continue to participate in the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the local system. The office and technical staff responsible for the management and operation of the franchise will continue to be employees of Verizon California upon completion of the transaction. Under Frontier's local engagement management model, Frontier general managers and other employees live locally, provide high-quality service to their friends and neighbors, and are active in their communities. Local general managers provide a local contact for customers and determine where and how to deploy resources during natural disasters, invest in their communities, and work with community leaders on issues of interest to the local population. Frontier intends to continue to apply its local engagement model in California. Frontier's unique local engagement management model combines the advantages of service from a large company with the benefits of a local partner and community member. Frontier and Verizon are planning a smooth transition of the franchisee's operational systems. The 2010 transaction in which Frontier acquired various communications properties, including cable FiOS, from Verizon, helpfully informs the present, much less complex transition. Following that transaction, Frontier first acquired existing OSS, and then transitioned the OSS in 13 states to its current systems approximately one year ahead of schedule. Frontier will be able to use that experience to here transition operations and customers to Frontier's existing billing systems and operations support systems ("OSS") at closing. Since these systems are scalable and will support the operations transferring to Frontier, this approach will eliminate the need to build new OSS and billing systems from scratch. Frontier and Verizon will have a comprehensive transition plan in place that includes pre -testing the data transfer and integration process so that any problems and issues can be identified and resolved prior to the actual conversion. Frontier intends to use its seasoned transition team and expects their experiences to provide valuable assistance in the transition. The transition team will work to ensure customer continuity including billing, customer account systems, plant record systems, and call center operations. The transition team will also oversee asset transfer and operational continuity in the transfer of [2] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 ownership to ensure that customer accounts, billing information, and other assets from the operations are successfully transferred to Frontier. Summary Biographical Information for Key Frontier Personnel Daniel McCarthy President and Chief Executive Officer Daniel J. McCarthy became President and Chief Executive Officer of Frontier in April 2015. He was elected to the Frontier Board of Directors in May 2014. Mr. McCarthy was President and Chief Operating Officer of Frontier from April 2012 and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from January 2006 to April 2012. Before this, he was Senior Vice President, Field Operations from December 2004 to December 2005, Senior Vice President, Broadband Operations from January 2004 to December 2004, and President and Chief Operating Officer of Electric Lightwave from January 2002 to December 2004. Mr. McCarthy has been with Frontier since 1990, when he joined the company's electric division in Hawaii. In 1995, he assumed responsibility for the company's energy operations. In 2001 he was promoted to President and Chief Operating Officer of Citizens Public Services sector, responsible for the company's energy and water operations. He earned a bachelor's degree in marine engineering from the State University of New York Maritime College at Fort Schuyler, and holds an M.B.A. from the University of Phoenix. Mr. McCarthy is a member of the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading U.S. companies, and The Committee for Economic Development. In December 2013, he was elected to the Board of Trustees of Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut. He is also a member of the Western Connecticut Health Network Corporate Advisory Council. John M. Jureller Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer John M. Jureller is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He joined Frontier in January 2013 as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer - Elect and became Chief Financial Officer on February 27, 2013. From 2008 through 2012, Mr. Jureller was Senior Vice President, Finance and Operations for the Resources Group of General Atlantic LLC, a global growth private equity firm managing $17 billion around the globe. Before this, he was Chief Financial Officer of WestPoint International, Inc., with overall financial responsibility for a $900 million company. He was responsible for all financial matters, including public financial reporting, taxation, internal audit and corporate finance. [3] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 From 2003 through 2006, Mr. Jureller was a member of the Corporate Turnaround & Restructuring practice of AlixPartners, LLC. His responsibilities gave him wide exposure to telecommunications, including cable, wireless and internet services. Previously, he was Chief Financial Officer of Trans -Resources, Inc.; Senior Vice President, Corporate Development at Gartner, Inc.; and Senior Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development at Caribiner International, Inc. Early in his career, Mr. Jureller held increasingly senior financial roles at PepsiCo World Trading Company, Inc., Emcor Group, Inc., and General Electric Capital Corporation. Mr. Jureller began his career in finance at Bankers Trust Company. Mr. Jureller earned a B.S. with Distinction and an M.B.A. in Finance from Cornell University. He sits on the Board of Directors of White Plains Hospital in White Plains, New York and is a member of the hospital's Finance Committee. Steve Gable Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Steve Gable became Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Frontier in April 2015. He joined Frontier in November 2012 as Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer. Prior to Frontier, Mr. Gable was Executive Vice President/CTO of Tribune Company. At the same time, he was President, Tribune Digital, with expanded responsibility for the strategy and supporting technology that powered the company's digital brands latimes.com and chicagotribune. com. From 2008 to 2010, Mr. Gable was Senior Vice President and CTO of Tribune Company, responsible for all aspects of information technology systems for its TV and newspaper operations. Before this, Mr. Gable served as Vice President of Technology for Clear Channel Radio, responsible for the technology strategy and direction of 1200+ radio stations. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration and a Master's degree in Systems from Northwestern University. Kathleen Quinn Abernathy Executive Vice President, External Affairs Kathleen Quinn Abernathy is Executive Vice President, External Affairs, responsible for Frontier's governmental and regulatory affairs. From March 2010 to June 2012, she was Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President, Regulatory and Governmental Affairs. Prior to joining Frontier, she was a Partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, advising clients on a wide range of legal, policy and regulatory issues related to telecommunications and the media. Before this, she was a Partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP. [4] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Ms. Abernathy served as a Commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 2001-2005. While a Commissioner, she chaired the Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service and participated as a U.S. representative in numerous international bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including the 2002 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference and the 2003 ITU World Radiocommunications Conference. She was appointed by the ITU to chair the 2004 ITU Global Symposium for Regulators. Prior to joining the FCC, Ms. Abernathy was Vice President for Public Policy at BroadBand Office Communications; Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at US West; and Vice President for Federal Regulatory Affairs at AirTouch Communications. Earlier in her career, she was Legal Advisor to two FCC commissioners and a Special Assistant to the agency's General Counsel. Ms. Abernathy has received numerous honors and awards in recognition of her contributions to the profession. In 2011 she was named one of the "Top Ten Women in Telecom" by Fierce Telecom and honored by Legal Momentum with an "Aiming High Award." She was featured in Chambers USA's "Leaders in their Field" in the Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite: Regulatory category (2009); included in the Washington, DC edition of Super Lawyers (2009, 2010); and named one of Washington's Top Lawyers by Washingtonian magazine (2007, 2009). Ms. Abernathy served on Frontier's board of directors from April 2006 through February 2010. She currently also serves on the board of ISO New England Inc., the operator of New England's bulk power and wholesale electricity markets. Ms. Abernathy received her B.A. magna cum laude from Marquette University and her J.D. from Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law, where she was later a Distinguished Practitioner in Residence. She is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Federal Communications Bar Association, of which she is a Past -President, and has served as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and The Columbus School of Law. Cecilia K. McKenney Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer Cecilia K. McKenney is Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Officer, responsible for Frontier Secure, Marketing and Customer Service. Before this, she was Executive Vice President, Frontier Secure and Administration, responsible for Frontier Secure, Marketing, and Product Development. Prior to this, she was responsible for Human Resources, Sales Operations, Corporate Communications and Public Relations. She was Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Call Center Sales & Service from February 2008 to May 2012. Ms. McKenney joined the company as Senior Vice President, Human Resources in February 2006. She is a member of the company's Senior Leadership Team and reports to the CEO. Frontier Secure, a service of Frontier, offers products and services to protect every aspect of digital life, including computer security, cloud backup & sharing, the connected home, identity protection, equipment protection and 24/7 U.S.-based premium technical support. Its products and services are sold nationwide directly to consumers and small businesses, and wholesale [5] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 through strategic partnerships. Prior to Frontier, Ms. McKenney was Group Vice President of Headquarters Human Resources for the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (PBG) in Somers, New York, responsible for all Human Resources functions supporting PBG's worldwide operations. Her organization supported PBG's headquarters and call center in addition to providing long-term strategic direction and day-to-day business support for Staffing, Compensation and Benefits, Diversity, Training, Talent Development and Human Resources Systems. Ms. McKenney joined the Pepsi-Cola Company in 1989 in its headquarters -based employee benefits group. She became Human Resources Manager in Pepsi -Cola's Northeast Business Unit in 1992. In less than two years, Ms. McKenney transferred to Northern California to manage HR issues for the company's San Francisco market. In 1995, she was appointed Director of Human Resources for PBG's California Business Unit. When PBG became an independent company near the end of 1998, Ms. McKenney was appointed Vice President, Staffing and Diversity at Company's headquarters. In 2000, she was promoted to Vice President, Headquarters Human Resources and was named Group Vice President, Headquarters Human Resources, in 2004. Prior to Pepsi, Ms. McKenney worked for Mutual of New York and L.F. Rothschild in Human Resource and Management roles. She earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Franklin & Marshall College and is a Certified Employee Benefits Specialist. Ms. McKenney is a member of The Leadership Council of Franklin & Marshall College and a member of the Board of Directors of The Child Care Council of Westchester County, Inc. In May 2014, she was honored with the HR Leader Award in the Large Company category at the 2014 Fairfield County HR People of the Year Awards. The awards are given each year by The Southern Connecticut Chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management to recognize individuals whose performance and contributions have significantly benefited their organizations, the Human Resources profession and the community. John Lass Executive Vice President, Field Operations John Lass was appointed Executive Vice President, Field Operations for Frontier in April 2015. He is responsible for all Frontier operations throughout 28 states, Network Operations, and Carrier and Wholesale operations. He reports to Daniel J. McCarthy, President and Chief Executive Officer. Most recently, Mr. Lass was President of Frontier's Central Region, comprising Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Nebraska. Mr. Lass' tenure with Frontier includes a variety of operating roles as well as leadership of integration activities related to significant mergers and acquisitions. He served as Vice President of Revenue Assurance and as Regional Operations Vice President, Vice President and General Manager of Citizens Utilities Vermont Electric Division, and held operations positions in New York and the Midwest with Frontier, GTE and Contel. [6] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 He earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa and an Associates of Arts Degree from Iowa Central Community College. Mark D. Nielsen Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary Mark D. Nielsen is Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Frontier. He joined the company in March 2014 and was Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary until April 2015. Prior to this, he was Associate General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer for Danbury, Conn. -based Praxair Inc. From 2007 to 2009, he was a Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of defense contractor Raytheon Co. Before that, Mr. Nielsen served as Chief Legal Counsel, and then Chief of Staff, to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (2004-2007). Mr. Nielsen began his legal career in 1990 as an associate with the Hartford law firm of Murtha, Cullina LLP. He also served three two-year terms in the Connecticut Legislature, one term in the House (1993-1995) followed by two terms in the Senate (1995-1999). Mr. Nielsen graduated from Harvard College magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his law degree, cum laude, from Harvard Law School. Melinda White Area President for the West Region Melinda White is Area President for the West Region, and she resides in the Los Angeles area. Frontier's West Region consists of California, as well as Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington state. She has a strong background in operations, marketing, online and video strategy, commercial sales, wireless operations and new revenue opportunities. Ms. White was previously Executive Vice President of Revenue Development, where she led wireless, video, online, and new business strategies for Frontier's operations in 27 states. She led the development of partnerships to bring new products and services to customers across rural and suburban markets. Earlier, Ms. White was Executive Vice President and General Manager of Marketing and New Business Operations, responsible for Marketing and Product company- wide. Before that, she was Senior Vice President, Commercial Sales and Marketing, responsible for wholesale and retail revenue, product marketing and wireless operations. Ms. White joined the Frontier leadership team in 2005, as the Vice President and General Manager of Electric Lightwave, Inc., a unit of the company that she managed and helped position for sale to Integra Telecom in 2006. Before Frontier, Ms. White was Executive Vice President, National Accounts/Business Development for Wink Communications, developing low-cost, end-to-end e-commerce systems. She also held senior leadership positions at Cox Communications and Cellular One (McCaw and the AT&T/AirTouch joint venture). [7] Exhibit 8 FCC Form 394 May 18, 2015 Ms. White earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Howard Payne University in Texas and a M.B.A. from Tulane University in New Orleans. In June 2012 she was honored by The New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as a "Woman of Power and Influence." [8] RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE "CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC." DATED AS OF JUNE 11, 2006, AS AMENDED, TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, On June 11, 2006, the City of Temecula ("Franchise Authority") and Verizon California, Inc. ("Franchisee") which is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications ("Verizon"), entered into that certain "Cable Television Franchise Agreement Between The City Of Temecula And Verizon Communications, Inc." dated as of June 11, 2006 and amended on October 9, 2007 ("Franchise"); WHEREAS, Verizon has entered into an agreement with Frontier Communications Corporation ("Frontier") to effect a complete separation of Franchisee from Verizon and a transfer of control of Franchisee from Verizon to Frontier ("Transfer"); WHEREAS, upon completion of the Transfer, Franchisee will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Frontier and, as a result, control of the Franchise will be transferred from Verizon to Frontier; WHEREAS, following the Transfer, Franchisee will continue to hold an be responsible for performance of the Franchise; WHEREAS, Franchisee has requested that the Franchise Authority consent to the Transfer and, in accordance with the requirements of the Franchise and applicable law, has filed an FCC Form 394 ("Application) with the Franchise Authority; and, WHEREAS, the Franchise Authority is willing to consent to the Transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Franchise Authority hereby consents to the Transfer as described in the above Recitals pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 of the Franchise. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be deemed effective upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement with Michael Baker International, Inc. for Design of Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with Michael Baker International, Inc. for Design of Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, increasing the contingency amount by $75,000; 2. Increase the City Manager's authority to approve Extra Work Authorizations by $75,000. BACKGROUND: On December 16, 2008, the City Council approved the Agreement for the preparation of construction plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) for the project. Complex projects, such as this one, that involve coordination and consensus among multiple jurisdictions and private parties are dynamic. The ability to rapidly address scope of work revisions fosters a fast response to change. Approval of this Amendment will minimize delays by providing the City Manager the authority to address necessary increases in scope of work by an additional $75,000, above the previously authorized amount of $685,260. It is anticipated that the additional $75,000, if expended, will support additional work efforts on any number of outstanding tasks such as utility coordination (relocation design, plans, specifications, estimates, replacement easements, and agreements), preparing and obtaining approval of the Modified Access Report, preparation of construction plans, specifications, and estimates, right of way certification, environmental certification, traffic certification, design certification, constructability review, and project certification, as well as any other tasks that may become known and necessary prior to completing the design phase. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2016-20. Funding sources include CFD (Crowne Hill), Reimbursement/Other (Morgan Hill), SAFETEA-LU, Senate Bill 621, STP (Surface Transportation Program-RCTC), and TUMF (RCTC/CETAP, RCTC/Region, and WRCOG). The amount of the Agreement, as amended to date, is $3,369,060. With approval, the resulting Agreement amount will be $3,444,060. Adequate funds are available in the project design account 210-165-662-5802 to fund the increase of $75,000. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ninth Amendment to Agreement 2. Project Location 3. Project Description NINTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. INTERSTATE-15/STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMTAE INTERCHANGE, PW04-08 THIS NINTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of December 8, 2015, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Michael Baker International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On December 16, 2008, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate-15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," in the amount of $2,032,600, plus contingency in the amount of $203,260. b. On July 13, 2010, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate- 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to increase the contingency in the amount of $182,000. c. On April 5, 2011, the City and Consultant entered into the Second Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate- 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to add scope of work, extend the term of the agreement to December 16, 2011, and to increase the payment in the amount of $68,500. d. On December 16, 2011, the City and Consultant entered into the Third Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate- 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2013. e. On November 13, 2012, the City and Consultant entered into the Fourth Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, interstate- 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to add scope of work, extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2014, and to increase the payment in the amount of $316,000. f. On August 27, 2013, the City and Consultant entered into the Fifth Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate- 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to add scope of work, extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2015, and to increase the payment in the amount of $266,700. g. On October 22, 2013, the City and Consultant entered into the Sixth Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate- 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to increase the contingency in the amount of $200,000. 1 h. On February 10, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into the Seventh Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate-15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2016 and increase the contingency in the amount of $100,000. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into the Eighth Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Professional Engineer Services Between the City of Temecula and Michael Baker International, Inc., PW04-08, Interstate-15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange," to incorporate Consultant's name and ownership change. j. The parties now desire to increase the contingency in the amount of $75,000 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 5 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The Ninth Amendment amount shall not exceed Seventy -Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) for additional work to be defined in Extra Work Authorization(s) for a total Agreement amount of Two Million Six Hundred Eighty -Three Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($2,683,800), plus Contingency in the amount of Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Dollars ($760,260), for a total of Three Million Four Hundred Forty -Four Thousand Sixty Dollars ($3,444,060). 3. Section 5 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "c" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City Manager may approve additional work up to Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Dollars ($760,260) as approved by City Council. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Mark Cappos, Assistant Secretary Michael A. Tylman, Vice President Michael Baker International, Inc. Attn: Steven B. Burick, Senior Project Manager 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618-2027 949.855.5733 burick@mbakerintl.com 3 PM Initials: Date: INTERSTATE -15 / HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE Circulation Project Location Aerial Data - March 2012 0 262.5 525 Feet 1,050 �r 48 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2016-20 INTERSTATE -15 / STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes right-of-way acquisition, design, and construction of a ramp system that will improve access to Interstatel5 from Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 South. The interchange will accommodate traffic generated by future development of the City's General Plan land use as well as regional traffic volume increases forecasted for the year 2037. This project is crucial, as the projected traffic volume increases currently exceed the capacity of the existing interchange improvements constructed by the Riverside County Transportation Department. Benefit / Core Value: This project will improve circulation, freeway access, and level of service at the Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway / State Route 79 South intersection. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The plans, specifications, and estimates package are currently being prepared for review by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Acquisition was completed during FY 2013-14. Construction is scheduled to start during FY 2015-16. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.662 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2015 2015-16 Carryover Adopted Budget Appropriation 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration Acquisition $ 589,258 $13,032,131 $ 50,274 $ 187,010 $ 216,000 $ 162,000 $ 108,000 $ 1,125,532 $13,219,141 Construction $ 104,088 $ 13,759,244 $7,826,825 $3,759,467 $2,506,311 $27,955,935 Construction $10,018,141 $1,245,342 $ 2,966,503 $ 162,000 $ 62,837 $14,454,823 Engineering $ 1,750,000 $1,750,000 $ 3,500,000 Design $ 3,837,457 $ 255,058 $ 4,092,515 MSHCP $ 1,400,000 $ 753,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 753,000 Totals $17,562,934 $1,245,342 $ 15,725,244 $9,738,825 $3,867,467 $2,506,311 $ - $50,646,123 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2015 2015-16 Carryover Adopted Budget Appropriation 2016-17 Projected 2017-18 Projected 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Projected Projected Cost CFD (Crowne Hill) Reimbursement/ Other (Morgan Hill) $ 502,211 $ 1,190,582 $ 502,211 $ 1,190,582 SAFE IEA -LU $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Senate Bill 621 $10,018,141 $1,245,342 $ 2,966,503 $ 162,000 $ 62,837 $14,454,823 STP (Rcrc)(" $ 7,158,741 $5,817,359 $12,976,100 TUMF (RCTC/CETAPP $ 4,452,000 $ 4,452,000 TUMF (RCTC/Region)(3) $ 1,400,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 5,400,000 TUMF (WRCOG)'4 $3,759,466 $3,804,630 $2,506,311 $10,070,407 Total Funding: $17,562,934 $1,245,342 $ 15,725,244 $9,738,825 $3,867,467 $2,506,311 $50,646,123 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 1111 $ 6,242 2018-19 2019-20 6,367 $ 6,494 (1) Surface Transportation Program(STP) per RCTC call for Projects as approved by the Commission on January 8, 2014($12,976,100.) (2) TUMF (RCTC/Region) - Funding is pursuant to RCTC Agreement No. 06-72-506 ($4,452,000) (3) TUMF (RCTC/CETAP) - Funding is pursuant to RCTC Agreement No. 11-72-041-00 ($5,400,000;$1,400,000 ROW;$4,000,000 CON). (4)TUMF WRCOG 2014 Southwest Zone 5 -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) adopted on January 6, 2014 ($10,157,154). Fiscal Years 2016-20 Capital Improvement Program 49 Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Maintenance of Caltrans Landscape Improvements Behind Civic Center, PW06-07(D) PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the Improvements of the Maintenance of Caltrans Landscape Improvements — September 2010 through June 2015, PW06-07(D), as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to File and Record the Notice of Completion and Release the Performance Bond; 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2010, the City Council awarded a Contract to Pacific Restoration Group, Inc., in the amount of $86,325.00, and authorized the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed a 10% contingency, in the amount of $8,632.00, for the maintenance of landscape improvements constructed adjacent to the Civic Center and Parking Structure. The project consisted of the continued maintenance for a five year period in accordance with our existing agreement with Caltrans. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the agreement and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Caltrans has accepted the improvements and signed the Work Permits No. 08 -14 -N -KP -0261 and No. 08 -14 -N -LM -0374 as a 100% completion notice, effective June 17, 2015. Caltrans will accept responsibility of maintenance from this date forward. FISCAL IMPACT: The acceptance of the project improvements, and the filing and recording of the Notice of Completion has no fiscal impact to the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release 3. Caltrans — Work Permits RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to Pacific Restoration Group, Inc., P.O. Box 429, Perris, California 92572-0429 to perform the following work of improvement: MAINTENANCE OF CALTRANS LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS September 2010 through June 2015 PROJECT NO. PW06-07(D) 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on December 8, 2015. That upon said contract the International Fidelity Insurance Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: MAINTENANCE OF CALTRANS LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS September 2010 through June 2015 PROJECT NO. PW06-07(D) 6. The location of said property is adjacent to the Civic Center and Parking Structure, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of December, 2015. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of December, 2015. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk RECEIVED NOV 12 2015 M CITY OF 'I hMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE INTENANCE OF CALTRANS LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SEPTEMBER 2010 THROUGH JUNE 2015 PROJECT NO. PW06-07(D) This is to certify that Pacific Restoration Group, Inc., (hereinafter the "Contractor") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the Contractor or by any of the Contractor's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as Maintenance of Caltrans Landscape Improvements — September 2010 through June 2015, PROJECT NO. PW06-07(D), situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Adjacent to the Civic Center and Parking Structure, Temecula, CA ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The Contractor declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the Contractor. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the Contractor hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code §7100, the Contractor does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the Contractor by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the Contractor has not disputed above. Dated: 1049 /1 B CONTRACTOR: Signature ,�• Print Name a d V Title r PAGE 7: ATTACHED TO AND MADE PART OF PERMIT NO. 08 -14 -N -DP -0261 PERMIT NO.: 08 -14 -N -DP -0261 CO/RTE/PM: 08/RIV/15/4.5-4.7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -DISTRICT 8 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS OFFICE 464 W. 4th. Street, MS 619 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 100% COMPLETION NOTICE Work on Permit No.: 08 -14 -N -DP -0261 has been completed. A final inspection meeting was held on Permitte's Representative Date 4=, it Ili ------i . Res Department's RI -presentative Date /.4? -'1;k4; (117/15 C:4-4 7:044/5 MA- 1,fi 4,91) oc2 i -49ot L r, E2-' s2.t FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS TO THE DISTRICT PERMITS OFFICE MAY CAUSE A DELAY IN THE RELEASE OF YOUR BONDS. Page 7 of 7 PAGE 7: ATTACHED TO AND MADE PART OF PERMIT NO. 08 -14 -N -LM -0374 PERMIT NO.: 08 -14 -N -LM -0374 CO/RTE/PM: 08/RIV/15/4.5-4.7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -DISTRICT 8 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS OFFICE 464 W. 4th. Street, MS 619 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 100% COMPLETION NOTICE Work on Permit No.: 08 -14 -N -LM -0374 has been completed. A final inspection meeting was held on Permittee's Representative Department's Representative c.�TRgvS mniArrk.islywe Date //7/i 67/ry of ;%-6.016 1/4 Date bfi7/rs Likt)-1D5C-Ae e- pc e FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS O THE DISTRICT PERMITS OFFICE MAY CAUSE A DELAY IN THE RELEASE OF YOUR BONDS. Page 7 of 7 Item No. 13 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Accept the Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Temecula Community Center Renovation, PW12-01 PREPARED BY: David McBride, Senior Engineer Bill McAteer, Construction Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the construction of the Temecula Community Center Renovation, PW12- 01 as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond; 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond sixty days after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On June 11, 2013, City Council awarded a construction Contract to LDCO, Inc., in the amount of $1,520,814. The work consisted of a seismic retrofit of the Temecula Community Center and a complete interior and exterior renovation. LDCO, Inc. has completed the work in accordance with the plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Since the City received beneficial use of the building on July 7, 2014, there is no need for a maintenance bond. The retention was released pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7107. The Temecula Community Center Renovation was included in the City's Fiscal Years 2013-17 Capital Improvement Program under Infrastructure Projects, and was funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Development Impact Fees (DIF), Parks and Recreation. The original construction amount was $1,520,814, with multiple Change Orders totaling $148,640, for a total construction amount of $1,669,454. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the acceptance of the project and filing the Notice of Completion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release 3. Project Description 4. Project Location RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to LDCO, Inc., 3180 University Ave., Suite #430, San Diego, CA 92104 to perform the following work of improvement: Temecula Community Center Renovation Project No. PW12-01 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on December 8, 2015. That upon said contract the State National Insurance Company, Inc. administered by Contractor Managing General Insurance Agency, Inc., 20335 Ventura Blvd. Suite 426, Woodland Hills, CA 91364, was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as Temecula Community Center Renovation, PW12-01 6. The location of said property is: 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of December 2015. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of December 2015. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT NO. PW12-01 This is to certify that LDCO, Inc. , (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION, PROJECT NO. PW12-01, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: 28816 Puiol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code §7100, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: S CONTRACTOR iJJ," t�,-,r By: Signature Luan Dauti, President RELEASE R -1 PW12-01 Temecula Community Center Renovation.docx Call Meal/a CALIFORNIA TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project will include the design and construction of the renovation of the 6,230 square foot Temecula Community Center, including seismic upgrades, energy efficient HVAC systems, windows, and other tenant improvements. Benefit / Core Value: This project will upgrade the building to current building codes and standards and make it more energy efficient. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Healthy and Livable City. Project Status/: This project is in design development and is estimated to be completed by fiscal year 2012-13. Department: Public Works—Account No. 210.165.754 Level: I Project Cost: Actua Is to Date 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Future Total Years Project Cost Administration $ 270,400 $ 270,400 Construction $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 Construction $ 390,400 $ 390,400 Engineering $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 Design $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Fixtures/Furn/Equip $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Utilities $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Totals $ - $ 1,590,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,590,400 Actua Is Source of Funds: to Date 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Future Total Years Project Cost CDBG $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 DIF (Parks & Recreation) $ 390,400 $ 390,400 Total Funding: $ - $ 1,590,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,590,400 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 $ 3,000 $ 3,300 $ 3,600 $ 3,900 119 TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION Infrastructure / Other Project Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 125 250 Feet 500 118 Item No. 14 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer December 8, 2015 Approve Five Quitclaim Deeds Transferring Surplus Property to the City of Murrieta in Connection with the French Valley Parkway Interchange, PW02-11 and PW07-04 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Engineer — CIP Kendra Hannah-Meistrell, Associate Engineer — CIP That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS TRANSFERRING TO THE CITY OF MURRIETA CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE 15 OVERCROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, PW02-11 AND PW07-04 BACKGROUND: Phase I of the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements project constructed the new southbound off -ramp and the westbound portion of French Valley Parkway, forming a new connection from Interstate 15 to Jefferson Avenue at the Temecula/Murrieta border. This portion of the project required the acquisition of several parcels and easements from the City of Murrieta ("Murrieta"). The City of Temecula ("City") purchased certain real property interests pursuant to several Purchase and Sale Agreements and Joint Escrow Instructions entered into between the City and Murrieta approved by the City on September 25, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-70. The City has completed the construction of Phase I and no longer requires interests in the real property represented by the attached five Quitclaim Deeds, which are are located in Murrieta's jursidiction. At its meeting of August 4, 2015, the City Council of the City of Murrieta adopted Resolution No. 15-3422, which accepted the public improvements within their jurisdiction constructed by Phase I of the French Valley Parkway Interchange project. The Quitclaim Deeds will transfer the City's remaining interests in the following real property interests to Murrieta: 1. All of Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-262-043; 2. An approximate 16,652 square foot portion of APN 910-262-045; 3. An approximate 2,397 square foot permanent footing easement on APN 910-262- 045; 4. An approximate 91 square foot permanent footing easement on APN 910-262-047; 5. An approximate 1,782.32 square foot portion of APN 910-262-048. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the five Quitclaim Deeds. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Quitclaim Deed (APN 910-262-043) 3. Quitclaim Deed (APN 910-262-045) 4. Quitclaim Deed (APN 910-262-045 — Permanent Footing Easement) 5. Quitclaim Deed (APN 910-262-047 — Permanent Footing Easement) 6. Quitclaim Deed (APN 910-262-048) RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS TRANSFERRING TO THE CITY OF MURRIETA CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / INTERSTATE 15 OVERCROSSING AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, PW02-11 AND PW07-04 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. A. The City of Temecula ("City") is a municipal corporation, located in the County of Riverside, State of California. The City has been working cooperatively with the City of Murrieta ("Murrieta") and the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") on the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements, PW02-11 and PW07-04 ("Project"). Phase I of the Project constructed the new southbound off -ramp at, and westbound portion of, French Valley Parkway and provided a second lane on the Winchester Road southbound off -ramp. Phase I also constructed an auxiliary lane prior to the Winchester Road southbound off -ramp. B. At its meeting of February 23, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-14, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements Project (PW02-11 and PW07-04) and Approving the Project. In adopting Resolution No. 10-14, the City Council found that based on the record before it (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be adequately and feasibly mitigated; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. C. At its meeting of June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-46 approving the Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2012-16. Pursuant to Resolution No. 11-46, the City Council found that the adoption of the Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2012-16 is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Phase I was included in the Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2012-16. Pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 11-46, the City Council found and declared that the requirements of Government Code section 65402(a) shall not apply to (1) the disposition of the remainder of a larger parcel that was acquired and used in part for street purposes; (2) acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening; or (3) alignment projects, provided such dispositions for street purposes, acquisition, dispositions, or abandonment for street widening, or alignment projects are of a minor nature. D. The City purchased certain real property interests from Murrieta to construct Phase I pursuant to several Purchase and Sale Agreements and Joint Escrow Instructions entered into between the City and Murrieta approved by the City on September 25, 2012 by Resolution No. 12-70. The City has completed the construction of Phase 1 and the City seeks to transfer to Murrieta certain real property interests described in the attached five Quitclaim Deeds, which are located in Murrieta's jursidiction. Pursuant to Resolution No. 11-46, Government Code section 65402(a) does not apply to the disposition of the subject real property interests described in the Quitclaim Deeds because these real property interests are dispositions of portions of larger parcels acquired for street purposes and it is necessary to return to Murrieta the subject property interests located in Murrieta's jurisdiction. The attached Quitclaim Deeds would convey to Murrieta all of the City's interests in the following real property interests located in Murrieta: all of Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") 910-262-043; an approximate 16,652 square foot portion of APN 910-262-045; an approximate 2,397 square foot permanent footing easement on APN 910-262-045; an approximate 91 square foot permanent footing easement on APN 910-262-047; and an approximate 1,782.32 square foot portion of APN 910-262-048. Section 2. Approval of Quitclaim Deeds. The City Council hereby approves the attached Quitclaim Deeds, with such changes as may be mutually agreed upon by Murrieta and the City Manager. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Quitclaim Deeds on behalf of the City. A copy of the final Quitclaim Deeds, when executed by the Mayor, shall be placed on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3. City Manager's Authority. The City Manager (or his designee), is hereby authorized, on behalf of the City, to take all actions necessary and convenient to convey to Murrieta the property interests described in the Quitclaim Deeds. Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 City of Temecula, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 [SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY] [X] All of Assessor's Parcel Number 910-262-043 Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Murrieta and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev. & Tax. Code § 11922). QUITCLAIM DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("Grantor" or "Temecula") acquired in fee pursuant to the Grant Deed recorded on October 30, 2014 as Document Number 2014- 0414688 of Official Records of the County of Riverside that certain real property located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside described in said Grant Deed in connection with the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I ("Phase I"). Temecula has completed the construction of Phase I and, as agreed to by Temecula and the City of Murrieta at the time of Temecula's purchase of said real property, Temecula wishes to quitclaim to the City of Murrieta its interest in said real property, which is located in the City of Murrieta's jurisdiction. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to the City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain real property located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California described more particularly on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Quitclaim Deed as of the date set forth below. Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation By: Dated: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson & Gershon Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot "D", as shown by Parcel Map No. 30289, in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California, on file in book 203, pages 32 through 35 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county. EXHIBIT "B" 60 IN TIIE CITY OF AIf •RRIETA. THE COI 'NTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARCEL UAP X100 X300 og BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 110 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; A PORTION OF L01 'C' OF PARCEL MAP N0. 20490-1 AS SHOWN 8Y MAP ON FILE IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 135, PAGES 26 IHR000H 29, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; AND PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP N0. 29745• AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 200, PAGES 5 AND 6, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ; ALSO BEING PARCELS 'A' AND '8" OF LOT LINE ADJJSTMENT 02-008, RECORDED JULY 30, 2002, INSTRUMENT NO. 415744, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MARKHAM DECELOPAIE\T ALA.\AGEMEN'T GROUP. INC. SEPTEMBER 21011 GR.IPHIC SCALE 30 60 470 IWO (M FEU ) 1 inch .. 60 It. SURVEYOR'S NOTES 006 SHEET I ELSEAIENT NOTES SEE SHEET 2 PCL 3 4725'82. 1 56554' CM 02 8•13" 4486'00'71'-31 E HOBIE Ai CIRCLE SFF, SHEET 3 / N 3613169 (0) ' .. PCL 4 19.96,,,,2 WANT`� — 41 0 39 C3' ' 39' 39 N 4759'04' E O w 9.5 I Q 49' I 39' W960 51 1' a 0' tiI m 2P N 41'51'20' 1 43.75. SHEET 4 OF I SHEETS CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA LENGTH RADIUS C1 02'09'41' 31.65 839.00 C2 0709'41' 28.71 761.00 C3 0709'41' 30.18 800.00 C4 06'19'14' 50.85 461.00 C5 10'40.17" 93.11 500.00 C6 10'40'12" 65.85 461.00 C7 05'47'39' 50.56 500.00' N 42'23'0' 1 _ 240.00' u 4725'01' N PARCEL 6 1.39 ACRES 51 PARCEL 7 .35 ACRES r c1 19856' HOBIE R .r . 016.91 LOT"c" 0.6'54'• 2:256' .1.5!'31' M _=1901•45. ' CIRCLE x 02 N 41'56'53' . 2160•' (VOA4' • 163 f6' 18608 IT 599 74 686.11'. 19.42' PARCEL 9 1.64 ACRES —LOT "E" I' 04(6,]0 51616 N 4641172•37'341172•37'2' E 222.0' N 470701. 8 371.23' 11454' A PARCEL 8 1.65 ACRES 5•IEEI ) PAR 2 P.M. B.K. 200/5-9 02 5r93.T I u' 06.62' 949236,11' s E G1 00 400 i PM 168/71-73 FAR 11 CITY OF MURRIETA Office of the City Clerk 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED (APN 910-262-043) This is to certify that the real property described in the attached Quitclaim Deed, which quitclaims to the City of Murrieta, all of the City of Temecula's right, title and interest in and to that certain real property described therein is hereby accepted under the authority of the City Council of the City of Murrieta and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: , 2015 City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation By: Randon Lane, Mayor Attest: City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 City of Temecula, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 [SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY] [X] Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 910-262-045 Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Murrieta and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev. & Tax. Code § 11922). QUITCLAIM DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("Grantor" or "Temecula") acquired in fee pursuant to the Grant Deed recorded on October 30, 2014 as Document Number 2014- 0414738 of Official Records of the County of Riverside that certain real property located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside described in said Grant Deed in connection with the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I ("Phase I"). Temecula has completed the construction of Phase I and, as agreed to by Temecula and the City of Murrieta at the time of Temecula's purchase of said real property, Temecula wishes to quitclaim to the City of Murrieta its interest in said real property, which is located in the City of Murrieta's jurisdiction. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to the City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain real property located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California described more particularly on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Quitclaim Deed as of the date set forth below. Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation By: Dated: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson & Gershon Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 29745, in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 200 of Parcel Maps, Pages 5 and 6, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows BEGINNING at the most easterly corner of said Parcel 2; thence along the northeasterly line of said Parcel 2, North 41' 24" 09" West. 18.725 meters (61.43 feet); thence leaving said northeasterly line, South 48° 03' 26" West, 92.699 meters (304 13 feet); thence South 86° 18' 44" West. 16 702 meters (54 80 feet) to a point on the southwesterly line of said Parcel 2: thence along said southwesterly line. South 48° 40' 13" East, 1.260 meters (4.13 feet) to a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 2, said point being the beginning of a non -tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 136 387 meters (447 46 feet), a radial through said point bears South 02° 58' 54" East: thence easterly along said curve and said southerly line, 2 904 meters (9 53 feet) through a central angle of 01° 13' 12" to a point of tangency; thence continuing along said southerly line, North 85° 47' 54" East, 42 595 meters (139/5 feet) to a point on the southeasterly line of said Parcel 2; thence along said southeasterly line, North 48° 00 27" East, 69 530 meters (228.12 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 1547 0 square meters (16,652 square feet). more or less. The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on California Coordinate System of 1983. Zone 6 Multiply al distances used in above description by 1 00008654 to obtain ground level distances. This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. L. Ellio . L.S 6334 Affects APN 910-262-045 I:1,200303015 MAPPINGlegalaee dartel2.DOC 20 a Date CITY OF MURRIETA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA N48°01'28"E 126.983m (416,61') L6 N57°57'36"E 0.316m (1.04') L7 N46°46'58"E 2.566m (8.42') L8 N41°51'59"W 13.334m (43.75') L32 N86°18'44"E 16.702m (54.80') L33 585°47'54"W 42.595m (139.75') L34 548°00'27"W 69.530m (228.12') L35 541°24'09"E 18.725m (61.43') L36 N48°40'13"W 1.260m (4.13') L37 N41°24'09'W 56.269m (184.61') x ° a PARCEL MAP NO. 29745 P.M.B. 200/5-6 0 a PARCEL 2 C24 0=01°13'12" R=136.387m (447.46') L=2.904m (9.53') 50' CITY OF MURRIETA 07- RAY L mrn —z m c� 0 z N48°03'26"E 92.699m (304.13') 1 L34- CITY 34 CITY LIMITS PROP FRENCH' VALLEY PARKWAY EXHIBIT " B'i SHEET 1 OF 1 cl,C AUTO MALL co PARKWAY 02'40'W 113.1 50m (371.23') SCALE 1:1000 P.0.8. E LY COR PAR 1 CITY OF TEMECULA Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CA . 91764 TEL. 1909) 980-1982 FAX: {9091 941-0891 AREA 1547.0 SM 16,652 SF FEE ACQUISITION AFFECTS PARCEL 2, P.M.B. 200/5-6 APN: 910-262-045 CITY OF MURRIETA Office of the City Clerk 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED (Portions of APN 910-262-045) This is to certify that the real property described in the attached Quitclaim Deed, which quitclaims to the City of Murrieta, all of the City of Temecula's right, title and interest in and to that certain real property described therein, is hereby accepted under the authority of the City Council of the City of Murrieta and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: , 2015 City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation By: Randon Lane, Mayor Attest: City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 City of Temecula, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 [SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY] [X] Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 910-262-045 Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Murrieta and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev. & Tax. Code § 11922). QUITCLAIM DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("Grantor" or "Temecula") acquired an approximate 2,397 square foot (222.7 square meters) permanent footing easement pursuant to the Grant of Permanent Easement recorded on October 30, 2014 as Document Number 2014- 0414737 of Official Records of the County of Riverside in connection with the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I ("Phase I"). Temecula has completed the construction of Phase I and, as agreed to by Temecula and the City of Murrieta at the time of Temecula's purchase of said permanent footing easement, Temecula wishes to quitclaim to the City of Murrieta its interest in said permanent footing easement, which is located in the City of Murrieta's jurisdiction. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to the City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain real property interest located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California described more particularly on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Quitclaim Deed as of the date set forth below. Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation By: Dated: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson & Gershon Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 1 PERMANENT FOOTING EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 29745, in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 200 of Parcel Maps, Pages 5 and 6, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most easterly corner of said Parcel 2; thence along the northeasterly line of said Parcel 2, North 41° 24' 09" West, 18.725 meters (61.43 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said northeasterly line, South 48° 03' 26' West, 43.045 meters (141.22 feet); thence North 41° 56' 35" West, 5,170 meters (16.96 feet); thence North 48 03' 26" East, 43.094 meters (141.38 feet); thence, South 41° 24' 09" East, 5.170 meters (16.96 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing approximately 222.7 square meters (2,397 square feet), more or less, The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply all distances used in above description by 1.00006654 to obtain ground level distances. This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. James L Elli Ott, L.S. 6334 Affects APN 910-262-045 L•1200393615\MAPP[NGMegalgPFE parcel?. DOC 5-25--2c 11 Date CITY OF MURRIETA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA N413°01 '28"E 126.983m (416.61') L6 L7 L8 1_30 1_31 L32 L33 L34 L35 L36 L37 4.7 a Ti N57°57' 36"E N46°46' 58°'E N41°51' 59"W N41°211' 09°W (441°56'35"W N86°18' 44°E N85°47' 54°E N48°00' 27°E N41°24' 09"W N48°40' 13°W N41°24' 09'W 0,316m (1.04') 2.566m (8.42') 13,334m (43.75') 5.170m (16.96') 5.170m (16.96') 16.702m (54.80') 42.595m (139.75') 69.530m (226.12') 18.725m (61.43') 1.260m (4.13') 56.269m (184.61') PARCEL MAP NO. 29745 P.M.B. 200/5-6 PARCEL 2 C24 L.=01°13'12" R=136.387m (447.46') L=2.904m (9.53') CITY OF MURRIETA RAV L31 EXHIBIT "'B" Si-IEET 1 OF 1 cC AUTO MALL co L7 PARKVVAY !42°02'40"W 113.150m (371 .23') N48°03`261 43.094m 141.38') L30 43.045m (141.22 N48°03'26"E 92.699m (304.13') L34 CITY LIMITS PROP Q FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY / SCALE I: 1000 jec 0.121m (0.40') P.U.B. P.Q.C. [FLY COR PAR 2 yR/W CITY OF TEMECULA Associated Engineers, Inc. YEAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CA .91764 TEL. (909) 980-1982 FAX: (9091 941-0891 AREA 222.7 SM 2,397 SF PERMANENT FOOTING EASEMENT AFFECTS PARCEL 2, P.M.B. 200/5-6 APN: 910-262-045 CITY OF MURRIETA Office of the City Clerk 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED (Portions of APN 910-262-045) This is to certify that the permanent footing easement described in the attached Quitclaim Deed, which quitclaims to the City of Murrieta, all of the City of Temecula's right, title and interest in and to said real property interest therein, is hereby accepted under the authority of the City Council of the City of Murrieta and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: , 2015 City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation By: Randon Lane, Mayor Attest: City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 City of Temecula, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 [SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY] [X] Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 910-262-047 Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Murrieta and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev. & Tax. Code § 11922). QUITCLAIM DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("Grantor" or "Temecula") acquired an approximate 91 square foot (8.5 square meters) permanent footing easement pursuant to the Grant of Permanent Easement recorded on October 30, 2014 as Document Number 2014- 0414247 of Official Records of the County of Riverside in connection with the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I ("Phase I"). Temecula has completed the construction of Phase I and, as agreed to by Temecula and the City of Murrieta at the time of Temecula's purchase of said permanent footing easement, Temecula wishes to quitclaim to the City of Murrieta its interest in said permanent footing easement, which is located in the City of Murrieta's jurisdiction. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to the City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain real property interest located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California described more particularly on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Quitclaim Deed as of the date set forth below. Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation By: Dated: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson & Gershon Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Permanent Footing Easement That portion of Parcel "A" in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California, as described in that certain "Certificate of Parcel Merger 07-5063" recorded October 12, 2007 as Document No. 2007-0635981 of Official Records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly corner of said Parcel "A"; thence North 41° 24' 09" West, 0.121 meters (0.40 feet) along the southwesterly line of said Parcel "A'; thence North 48° 03' 26" East, 140.006 meters (459.34 feet) to the southeasterly line of said Parcel "A"; thence South 48°00'27" West, 140.008 meters (459.34 feet) along said southeasterly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing approximately 8.5 square meters (91 square feet), more or Tess. The bearings and distances used in the above description are based on California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 6. Multiply all distances used in above description by 1.00008509 to obtain ground level distances. This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Affects APN 910-262-047 L! \2003\03O151,MAPPING\fegals\EsmtParcelA. DOC Date L CITY OF MURRIETA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA N48°01'28"E 105.798m (347.11') AUTO MALL N48°01'28"E 92.803m (304.47') SCALE 1:1000 i N47°58'26"E 81.325m (266.81') PARKWAY N47°58`26"E L2 64.561m (211.81') EXHIBIT "B" SHEET IOF 1 C2 a, C1 '' N42°02'40" w rn N N E 0 ws N41° 24'09"W 0.121m (0.40') P.O.B. MOST 5 LY COR. PCL "A" E L/1 ,-. o,�D lD Q • 3 N o 61� MQ P C▪ V zev ▪ \ N48°03' 26"E 140.006m (459.34') -► SE'LY LINE PCL "A" 140.008m (459.34') 548°00'27"W DETAIL "A" NOT TO SCALE SEE DETAIL "A" PERMANENT FOOTING EASMENT (NOT TO SCALE) N48°03'26"E 140.006m (459.34') / • ( PARCEL "A" DOC. #2007-0635981 C1 C2 C3 140.008m (459.34') APN: 910-262-047 C3 A=10°40'12" R=140.501m (460.96') L=26.165m (85.84') A=10°40'12" R=152. 387m (499.96') L=28.379m (93.11') A=06°19'58" R=140. 501m (460.96') L=15.529m (50.95') L1 N57°57'36"E 0.316m (1.04') L2 N47°59'54"E 32.324m (106.05') 548°00'27"W 206.744m (678.29') 66.736m (218.95') LOT "D" P.M.B. 203/32-35 CITY LIMITS Associated Engineers, Inc. 3311 EAST SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764 TEL. (909) 980-1982 FAX: (909) 941-0891 APN: 910-262-043 N48°00'27"E 207.167m (199.88') 0 Q E N) 4 CO CO Lel 7.0 in N 0 N -PROP FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE 6, MULTIPLY ALL DISTANCES BY 1.00008509 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. 0 0 AREA 8.5 SM 91 SF PERMANENT FOOTING EASEMENT AFFECTS PCL. "A", DOC# 2007-0635981 APN: 910-262-047 CITY OF MURRIETA Office of the City Clerk 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED (Portions of APN 910-262-047) This is to certify that the permanent footing easement described in the attached Quitclaim Deed, which quitclaims to the City of Murrieta, all of the City of Temecula's right, title and interest in and to said real property interest described therein, is hereby accepted under the authority of the City Council of the City of Murrieta and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: , 2015 City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation By: Randon Lane, Mayor Attest: City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 City of Temecula, a municipal corporation c/o City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 [SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY] [X] Portions of Assessor's Parcel Number 910-262-048 Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Murrieta and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev. & Tax. Code § 11922). QUITCLAIM DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: In connection with the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I ("Phase I"), Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("Grantor" or "Temecula") acquired in fee pursuant to the Grant Deed recorded on October 30, 2014 as Document Number 2014-0414722 of Official Records of the County of Riverside that certain approximate 25,140 square foot (2,335.5 square meters) portion of the real property located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, California known as Parcel 19 of Parcel Map 23561-2 in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, as per Map recorded in Book 168 of Parcel Maps, Pages 71 to 73, which is described more particularly in said Grant Deed. Temecula has completed the construction of Phase I and, as agreed to by Temecula and the City of Murrieta at the time of Temecula's purchase of said real property, Temecula wishes to quitclaim to the City of Murrieta an approximate 1,782.32 square foot (165.60 square meters) portion ("Subject Property") of said property which is located in the City of Murrieta's jurisdiction. The approximate 1,782.32 square foot (165.60 square meters) Subject Property is described more particularly on Exhibit "A" hereto and depicted on Exhibit "B" hereto. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to the City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain approximate 1,782.32 square foot (165.60 square meters) real property located in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California described more particularly on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 11086/0103/1862222v1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Quitclaim Deed as of the date set forth below. Grantor City of Temecula, a municipal corporation By: Dated: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson & Gershon Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 OE 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEE GRANT THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 19 OF PARCEL MAP 23561-2, IN THE CITY OF MURRIETA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 168 OF PARCEL MAP, PAGES 71 TO 73, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY' RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 19; THENCE SOUTH 48°00'27" WEST, 137.37 FEET (41.870 METERS) ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 19 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 19 SOUTH 48'00'27" WEST, 29.07 FEET (8.861 METERS) TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 19; THENCE NORTH 42"25'16" WEST, 60.84 FEET (18.545 METERS) ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 19; THENCE NORTH 48'03'26" EAST, 29.53 FEET (9,001 METERS); THENCE SOUTH 41°59'32" EAST, 60.81 FEET (18.536 METERS) TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAING APPROXIMATELY 1,782.32 SQUARE FEET (165.60 SQUARE METERS), MORE OR LESS, THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE 6. MULTIPLY ALL DISTANCES USED IN ABOVE DESCRIPTION BY 1.00008509 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES, THIS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS ACT. PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY HARRIS & ASSOCIATES SATURNINO T. BAS IL, P4 5398 tO a t DA E N L SCALE; 1 "=a0' 10.0' (3.048m) WIDE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER P. M.B. 16B/ 1- 73 VO- rf CITY OF MURRIETA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'B' SHEET 1 OF 1 THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIACOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE 6, MULTIPLY ALL DISTANCES BY L00008509 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. 50.00' (15.239m) t.o P.O. B. MOST E`LY COR, PAR. 19 INDICATES NO RIGHT OF ACCESS PER DCC. NO. 2014-0414722, REC. OCT. 30, 2014, O.F. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE o 1>s i T. P.O. B PAROL MAP NO 23551-2 P.M.B. J58171-73 PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF FRENCH VALLEY PARKWA Y PAP. 18 PAP, -17 1 ii DATA TABLE No BEARING/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH LENGTH(m) LI N48'03'26"LT -- 29.53' 9.001 L2 N41'59'32 "14/ -- 60.81' 18.536 L3 N42'25' 16 "W -- 60.84' 18.545 L4 N48'00'27"E -- 29.07' 8.861 L5 N18` 30.04 "E -- 70.65' 21.533 L6 N33'40'58"W -- 90.21' 27.497 C1 08.21'20" 328.5130m ' X00. a 47.91' 14.602 02 05'22'42" 619498..94103m 61.01' 78.596 Harris & Associates Program Mans Construction Managers + EMI Engineers 9445 Fairway View Pace. Sete 215 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91799 ramie-assas,carn C94y9Y967-722# AREA 1,782.32 S.F. 165.60 S.M. '-r FEE GRANT PORTION OF PARCEL 19, PARCEL MAP NO. 23561-2, P.M.B. 168/71-73 CITY OF MURRIETA Office of the City Clerk 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED (Portions of APN 910-262-048) This is to certify that the real property described in the attached Quitclaim Deed, which quitclaims to the City of Murrieta, all of the City of Temecula's right, title and interest in and to that approximate 1,782.32 square foot (165.60 square meters) real property described therein is hereby accepted under the authority of the City Council of the City of Murrieta and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: , 2015 City of Murrieta, a municipal corporation By: Randon Lane, Mayor Attest: City Clerk 1862222v1 Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution to Establish an Administrative Citation Schedule for Water Quality Violations PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer, Land Development Aldo Licitra, Associate Engineer, Land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO WATER QUALITY BACKGROUND: On February 10, 1998, City Ordinance No. 98-04 was adopted which established administrative procedures and penalties for violations of the Temecula Municipal Code and identified the fine amounts imposed for particular violations set forth in the Administrative Citation Schedule established by Resolution No. 98-14. Said Resolution created an Administrative Citation Schedule that identified citations for "general" violations of the Temecula Municipal Code. The citation amounts were identified as $50 for the first violation, $150 for the second violation (of the same municipal code section) and $250 for the third violation (of the same municipal code section). To date, this Schedule has been used for all violations of the Temecula Municipal Code. On November 10, 2010, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) issued a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit to the Santa Margarita River permittees of Riverside County County (Order No. R9-2010-0016, NPDES No. CAS0108766). The Santa Margarita River permittees consist of the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Wildomar, and the County of Riverside and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Because violations of the MS4 permit may typically result in significant negative impacts to receiving waters, as well as excessive fines to co -permittees (i.e., including the City of Temecula) if dischargers are non-responsive, staff recommends adopting a new resolution that specifically identifies citation amounts for violations associated with NPDES regulations, the MS4 permit and the City's stormwater ordinance. Prior to determining the new citation amounts, staff performed a survey of what other local jurisdictions are fining for similar stormwater violations. The results of the survey, which are attached as Exhibit A, identify the standard rates. Thus, staff proposes to set fines consistent to other local jurisdictions. The new NPDES citation fines are recommended to be $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second violation (of the same municipal code), $500 for the third violation (of the same municipal code), $750 for the fourth violation (of the same municipal code) and $1,000 for the fifth violation (of the same municipal code). Beginning with the issuance of the fifth administrative citation, each subsequent occurrence will constitute a misdemeanor in which the City shall issue a daily civil penalty of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) as set forth in Resolution No. 04-106. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A Survey Results RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO WATER QUALITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. This Resolution is adopted with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On February 10, 1998, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 98-04, which established administrative procedures and penalties for violations of the Temecula Municipal Code, as well as Resolution No. 98-14, which specifically established the administrative citation schedule. B. On November 10, 2010, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) issued a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit to the Santa Margarita River permittees of Riverside County (Order No. R9-2010-0016, NPDES No. CAS0108766). The Santa Margarita River permittees consist of the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Wildomar, the County of Riverside and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. C. On June 26, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 12-05, which revised Chapter 8.28 of the Temecula Municpal Code, entitled "Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls" to update said Chapter to be consistent with the most recent Santa Margarita River MS4 Permit. D. Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.28.320 ("Enforcement") provides that violations of Chapter 8.28, relating to stormwater management and water quality, shall be prosecuted pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 1.20 (General Penalty) and 1.21 (Administrative Penalties — Citations) of the Temecula Municipal Code and may be abated as public nuisances pursuant to Chapter 8.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code. E. Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.28.410 ("Penalties") additionally provides that "[a]ny violation of the terms, conditions and requirements, relating to the control of discharges to the storm drain system, of any permit issued by the City shall constitute a violation of this chapter and subject the violator to the administrative civil and criminal remedies available under [Chapter 8.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code]." F. Temecula Municipal Code Section 1.21.060 ("Administrative Fine") provides that "[t]he fine imposed pursuant to [Chapter 1.21] for a particular violation shall be in the amount set forth in the administrative citation schedule established by resolution of the City Council." G. To maximize the City's efforts in improving water quality and to avoid negative impacts to receiving waters, it is now necessary to establish administrative citation fine amounts specifically for violations of Chapter 8.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code relating to water quality violations. H. City staff conducted a survey of other local jurisdictions and their respective fine schedules for similar water quality violations and propose to make the new fines consistent with the geographical area. This Resolution amends the City of Temecula's Schedule of Administrative Fines, only as to violations of Chapter 8.28 of the Temecula Municpal Code, as authorized by Section 1.21.060 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Section 2. Schedule of Administrative Citation Fines for Violations of Chapter 8.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby determines and orders that the administrative citation fine amounts for violations of Chapter 8.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code shall be those established and described in the Water Quality Administrative Citation Schedule attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION SCHEDULE Description of Citation (1) Citation Amount First Offense $100 Second Offense $200 Third Offense $500 Fourth Offense $750 Fifth Offense(2) $1,000 (1) These citations shall also apply if the occurrences are not corrected in a timely manner as directed by the City Engineer. If the City Engineer determines that a violation poses an immediate threat to receiving waters, or their respective aquatic or riparian habitats, or the well-being of the general public, the sequence of the administrative citations may vary to reflect the severity of the violation. (2) Beginning with the issuance of the fifth administrative citation, each subsequent occurrence will constitute a misdemeanor in which the City shall issue a daily civil penalty of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a period of five consecutive calendar days or until the violation is corrected, whichever occurs first. If the violation has not been corrected within this time period, the City will seek an injunctive relief against the violator as it continues to issue $1,000 civil penalties on a daily basis throughout the injunction process. EXHIBIT A SURVEY RESULTS ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FEES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FEES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Canyon Lake Corona County Lake Elsinore Murrieta Norco Riverside $ Non-NPDES $ NPDES $ $ $ $ $ $ 1st Offense 100 500 100 100 + 111/hour 100 100 100 100 2nd Offense 200 750 200 200 + 111/hour 200 250 200 200 3rd Offense 500 1000 500 500 + 111/hour 500 500 500 500 4th Offense 4th Offense 1000 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FEES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Santee Vista $ $ 1st Offense 100 100 2nd Offense 200 200 3rd Offense 500 500 4th Offense 1000 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 16 ACTION MINUTES November 17, 2015 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:31 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 6 Approve the Action Minutes of November 10, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Director McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 10, 2015. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:33 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, TCSD President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 111715 1 Item No. 17 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager ralA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT General Manager/Board of Directors Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director December 8, 2015 Approve Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Jordan Snider, Accountant That the Board of Directors: 1. Receive and file the Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. 2. Approve an increase of $41,374 in Public Art revenue transfers from Fund 120 (Development Impact Fees) to Public Art Fund. BACKGROUND: The attached Financial Statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Temecula Community Services District for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. Please see the attached Financial Statements for an analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Combining Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2015 2. Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance — Budget and Actual for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT COMBINING BALANCE SHEET as of September 30, 2015 Parks & Recreation Service Service Level Service Level Level B C Slope D Refuse Street Lights Maintenance Recycling ASSETS: Cash and Investments $ 1,159,227 $ 153 $ 922,180 $ 107,684 Receivables 55,722 5,543 3,309 71,720 Due from Other Funds 2,111 - - Deposit 4,994 TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,222,054 $ 5,696 $ 925,489 $ 179,404 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES: LIABILITIES: Other Current Liabilities $ 489,545 $ 659 $ 104,646 $ 297 TOTAL LIABILITIES 489,545 659 104,646 297 FUND BALANCES: Nonspendable: Deposits Restricted For: Community Services 4,994 0 5,037 254,416 173,969 Committed To: Contractual Obligations (Encumbrance) 727,515 - 566,427 5,138 TOTAL FUND BALANCES TOTAL LIABILTIES and FUND BALANCES NOTE: Balances are unaudited 732,509 5,037 820,843 179,107 $ 1,222,054 $ 5,696 $ 925,489 $ 179,404 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT COMBINING BALANCE SHEET as of September 30, 2015 Service Level R Street Road Maintenance Service Level L Lake Park Maint. Intern Library Public Art Fellowship Total Program ASSETS: Cash and Investments $ 19,682 $ 254,635 $ 333,072 $ 32,532 $ 363 $ 2,829,528 Receivables 161 771 755 51 1 138,033 Due from Other Funds - - - 2,111 Deposit - - - 4,994 TOTAL ASSETS $ 19,843 $ 255,406 $ 333,827 $ 32,583 $ 364 $ 2,974,666 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES: LIABILITIES: Other Current Liabilities TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCES: $ - $ 12,485 $ 64,785 $ $ 333 $ 672,750 12,485 64,785 333 672,750 Nonspendable: Deposits - - - 4,994 Restricted For: Community Services 19,843 163,911 49,235 32,583 31 666,442 Committed To: Contractual Obligations (Encumbrance) 79,010 219,807 - 1,597,897 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 19,843 242,921 269,042 32,583 31 2,301,916 TOTAL LIABILTIES and FUND BALANCES $ 19,843 $ 255,406 $ 333,827 $ 32,583 $ 364 $ 2,974,666 NOTE: Balances are unaudited TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL CITYWIDE OPERATIONS for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended YTD Activity Encumbrances Budget Total Activity Budget REVENUES: Special Tax (Measure C) $ 1,867,640 $ 21,501 $ - $ 21,501 1% (1) Recreation Funding(General Fund) 4,601,783 $ 1,554,165 - 1,554,165 34% Recreation Program 2,477,139 $ 821,336 - 821,336 33% Investment Interest 800 1,509 - 1,509 189% (2) TOTAL REVENUES 8,947,362 EXPENDITURES: 2,398,511 - 2,398,511 27% General Operations 2,480,018 516,159 42,782 558,941 23% Senior Center 296,236 71,016 23,919 94,935 32% Community Recreation Center (CRC) 825,775 224,661 57,286 281,947 34% Recreation Programs 667,618 170,979 125,821 296,800 44% Temecula Community Center (TCC) 213,560 45,051 15,984 61,035 29% Museum 296,724 66,754 19,769 86,523 29% Aquatics 753,119 210,563 103,151 313,714 42% Sports 342,230 71,005 36,498 107,503 31% Children's Museum 274,200 58,251 26,153 84,404 31% Community Theater 1,145,606 239,621 164,332 403,953 35% Cultural Arts 317,453 80,022 12,280 92,302 29% Harveston Center 193,592 44,055 58,027 102,082 53% Conference Center 82,005 18,809 1,063 19,872 24% Human Services 240,394 43,848 21,593 65,441 27% Facility YMCA 22,000 1,804 570 2,374 11% Jefferson Recreation Center 53,394 20,445 14,484 34,929 65% Contract Classes 776,765 153,694 1,476 155,170 20% Park Rangers 7,505 672 2,327 2,999 40% TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Transfers Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 8,988,194 2,037,409 727,515 2,764,924 31% (3) (40, 832) 361,102 371,407 371,407 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 330,575 $ 732,509 NOTES: (1) Special assessment taxes are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (3) The variance in expenditures is due to encumbrances that are recorded for the entire year. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL SERVICE LEVEL B - RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTS for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD % of Activity Budget REVENUES: Assessments $ 641,384 $ 5,489 1% (1) Recreation Funding(General Fund) 390,888 139,630 36% (2) Investment Interest - 85 (3) TOTAL REVENUES 1,032,272 145,204 14% EXPENDITURES: Salaries and Wages 11,150 3,002 27% Street Lighting Fees 1,007,352 159,660 16% Property Tax Admin Fees 13,770 - 0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,032,272 162,662 16% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures - (17,458) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 22,495 22,495 $ 22,495 $ 5,037 NOTES: (1) Special assessment taxes are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) Contribution is funded based on operational needs of Service Level B activities. (3) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL SERVICE LEVEL C - PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND SLOPE MAINTENANCE for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD Activity Encumbrances Total % of Activity Budget REVENUES: Assessments $ 1,584,413 $ - $ - $ - 0% (1) Reimbursements 4,236 - 4,236 (2) Investment Interest 5,010 2,082 2,082 42% (3) TOTAL REVENUES 1,589,423 6,318 6,318 0% EXPENDITURES: Zone 1 Saddlewood Zone 2 Winchester Creek Zone 3 Rancho Highlands Zone 4 The Vineyards Zone 5 Signet Series Zone 6 Woodcrest Country Zone 7 Ridgeview Zone 8 Village Grove Zone 9 Rancho Solana Zone 10 Martinique Zone 11 Meadowview Zone 12 Vintage Hills Zone 13 Presley Development Zone 14 Morrison Homes Zone 15 Barclay Estates Zone 16 Tradewinds Zone 17 Monte Vista Zone 18 Temeku Hills Zone 19 Chantemar Zone 20 Crowne Hill Zone 21 Vail Ranch Zone 22 Sutton Place Zone 23 Pheasent Run Zone 24 Harveston Zone 25 Serena Hills Zone 26 Gallery Tradition Zone 27 Avondale Zone 28 Wolf Creek Zone 29 Gallery Portrait TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 45,248 9,087 18,549 27,636 61% 80,690 6,331 12,393 18,724 23% 65,441 25,065 21,258 46,323 71% 7,790 2,067 2,681 4,748 61% 40,043 7,722 11,136 18,858 47% 32,411 3,502 6,491 9,993 31% 20,451 5,193 7,677 12,870 63% 131,241 29,617 46,646 76,263 58% 10,971 475 464 939 9% 11,996 2,194 2,318 4,512 38% 3,143 395 447 842 27% 90,755 16,630 28,135 44,765 49% 33,711 6,534 9,691 16,225 48% 15,510 3,051 4,175 7,226 47% 10,392 2,152 4,374 6,526 63% 67,611 4,487 11,974 16,461 24% 2,954 450 657 1,107 37% 100,074 17,449 37,818 55,267 55% 67,362 8,369 16,785 25,154 37% 193,436 38,664 50,191 88,855 46% 250,574 48,858 94,637 143,495 57% 4,703 839 1,458 2,297 49% 8,985 1,378 2,250 3,628 40% 163,544 42,526 55,069 97,595 60% 67,749 6,943 25,023 31,966 47% 3,825 343 473 816 21% 9,042 2,146 2,656 4,802 53% 236,492 42,207 90,124 132,331 56% 6,809 465 877 1,342 20% 1,782,953 335,139 566,427 901,566 51% (4) (193,530) (328,821) 1,149,664 1,149,664 $ 956,134 $ 820,843 NOTES: (1) Special assessment taxes are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) A reimbursement was received from SoCal Water Smart for a prior fiscal year service (3) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (4) The variance in expenditures is due to encumbrances that are recorded for the entire year. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL SERVICE LEVEL D - REFUSE COLLECTION, RECYCLING & STREET SWEEPING for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD Activity Encumbrances Total Activity % of Budget REVENUES: Assessments $ 7,206,905 Recycling Program/Grant 32,335 Investment Interest 1,000 TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: Salaries and Wages Department of Conservation Grant Refuse Hauling Operating Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 13,996 779 7,240,240 14,775 - $ - 0% (1) - 13,996 43% (2) - 779 78% (3) 14,775 0% 98,013 24,009 - 24,009 24% 28,335 - - 0% 7,002,738 - - 0% 59,750 862 5,138 6,000 10% 7,188,836 24,871 5,138 30,009 0% (4) 51,404 (10,096) 189,203 189,203 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 240,607 $ 179,107 NOTES: (1) Special assessment taxes are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to recycling grant program revenues received this quarter. (3) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investments, fluctuating interest rates, and improved cash flows. (4) The variance in expenditures is due to the first payment to CR&R for refuse hauling services is not due until January 2015. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL SERVICE LEVEL R - STREETS AND ROADS for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 REVENUES: Assessments Investment Interest TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: Emergency Street Maintenance Property Tax Admin Fees TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD % of Activity Budget $ 5,532 $ 114 2% (1) 100 37 37% (2) 5,632 151 3% 9,690 0% 153 0% 9,843 0% (3) (4,211) 151 19,692 19,692 $ 15,481 $ 19,843 NOTES: (1) Special assessment taxes are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investment as well as fluctuating interest rates. (3) The variance is due to less than anticipated Emergency Street Maintenance repair during this quarter. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL SERVICE LEVEL L - LAKE PARK MAINTENANCE for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD Activity Encumbrances Total % of Activity Budget REVENUES: Assessments $ 232,434 $ - $ - $ 0% (1) Harveston Lake Boat Fees 3,600 2,383 2,383 66% (2) Investment Interest 1,300 524 524 40% (3) TOTAL REVENUES 237,334 2,907 2,907 1% EXPENDITURES: Salaries and Wages 22,359 Operating Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/015 5,584 5,584 25% 222,258 43,279 244,617 48,863 (7,283) (45,956) 288,877 288,877 $ 281,594 $ 242,921 79,010 122,289 55% 79,010 127,873 52% (4) NOTES: (1) Special assessment taxes are primarily received in January and May each fiscal year. (2) Lake Boat fees revenues are expected by the end of this fiscal year. (3) The variance is due to the change in the fair value on investment as well as fluctuating interest rates. (4) The variance in expenditures is due to encumbrances that are recorded for landscape maintenance services for the entire fiscal year. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL TEMECULA LIBRARY for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended YTD Activity Encumbrances Budget Total % of Activity Budget REVENUES: Library Services $ 135,925 $ 36,673 $ $ 36,673 27% Recreation Funding(General Fund) 644,205 161,051 161,051 25% Investment Interest 1,700 421 421 25% TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: 781,830 198,145 198,145 25% Salaries and Wages 48,700 11,954 11,954 25% Operating Expenditures 811,276 193,666 219,807 413,473 51% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 859,976 205,620 219,807 425,427 49% (1) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (78,146) (7,475) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 276,517 276,517 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 198,371 $ 269,042 NOTES: (1) The variance in expenditures is due to encumbrances that are recorded for library services for the entire fiscal year. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL PUBLIC ART for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD % of Activity Budget REVENUES: Public Art Revenues $ 26,108 $ 820 3% (1) Operating Transfer In 31,709 Investment Interest - 54 TOTAL REVENUES 26,108 32,583 125% EXPENDITURES: Operating Transfer Out 67,482 - 0% (2) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 67,482 - 0% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 (41,374) 32,583 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ (41,374) $ 32,583 (3) NOTES: (1) The variance is due to the revenues expected to be received in the second quarter (2) The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) "City Hall Exterior LED Lighting "Light it Up" project budgeted with this fund has not yet started. (3) The variance is due to transfer in was not included in the original budget. An increase of $ 41,374 in revenues transfers are included with this agenda. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, and CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL INTERN FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 Annual Amended Budget Total YTD % of Activity Budget REVENUES: Operating Transfers In(General Fund) $ 19,645 $ 4,908 25% TOTAL REVENUES 19,645 4,908 25% EXPENDITURES: Salaries and Wages 19,645 5,539 28% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 19,645 5,539 28% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures - (631) Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/01/2015 662 662 Ending Fund Balance as of 9/30/2015 $ 662 $ 31 Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager ..! TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Appointment of President and Vice President of the Temecula Community Services District for Calendar Year 2016 PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Appoint the President, effective January 1, 2016, to preside until December 31, 2016; 2. Appoint the Vice President, effective January 1, 2016, to hold this office until December 31, 2016. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District Board of Directors appoints a member to serve as President and Vice President annually. These appointments are effective January 1, 2016. The newly appointed President and Vice President will preside through calendar year 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 19 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Receive and File Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015 PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Revenue Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file the Financial Statements for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. BACKGROUND: The attached Financial Statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency for the 1st Quarter ended September 30, 2015. Please see the attached Financial Statements for analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: None 1. Statement of Fiduciary Net Position as of September 30, 2015. 2. Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position -for the 1st Quarter Ended September 30, 2015. SARDA STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION As of September 30, 2015 Successor Agency to the Former RDA ASSETS: Cash and Investments $ 397,725 Receivables 3,474 Land Held for Resale 98,484 Restricted Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agent 16,566,915 Land 3,819,108 Property, Plant, and Equipment (net of accumulated depreciation) 30,086,428 TOTAL ASSETS $ 50,972,134 LIABILITIES: Accounts Payable $ 22,150 Advances from City-SERAF 5,250,954 Accrued Interest Payable 916,580 Bonds Payable and Discount 83,359,631 TOTAL LIABILITIES 89,549,315 NET POSITION/(DEFICIT): TOTAL NET POSITION/(DEFICIT) (38,577,181) (1) Note: Amounts are unaudited (1) The deficit balance is primarily attributed to SARDA long term debt, which will be reduced when future revenues are received and matched with their annual debt service payments. SARDA STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION For the 1st Quarter Ending September 30, 2015 ADDITIONS: Investment Earnings Reimbursement DEDUCTIONS: Successor Agency to the Former RDA $ 1,871 159,616 TOTAL ADDITIONS 161,487 Affordable Housing Obligations 305,000 Debt Service - Interest 1,214,592 Depreciation 294,649 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS 1,814,241 Change in Net Position Net Position/(Deficit) as of July 1, 2015 Net Position/(Deficit) as of Sept 30, 2015 Note: Amounts are unaudited (1,652,754) (36,924,427) $ (38,577,181) (1) (1) The deficit balance is primarily attributed to SARDA long term debt, which will be reduced when future revenues are received and matched with their annual debt service payments. TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 20 ACTION MINUTES November 17, 2015 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING The Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting convened at 7:35 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR 9 Acknowledge Receipt of a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for the Proposed Community Facility District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch, and Authorizing and Directing Actions to Execute Agreements - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE TO THE FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO TPFA Action Minutes 111715 1 TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT At 7:36 PM, the Temecula Public Financing Authority meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, TPFA Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] TPFA Action Minutes 111715 2 COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 21 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve a Location Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Medline Industries, Inc. (Professional Hospital Supply), Providing an Economic Development Subsidy Through the Sharing of Sales Tax Revenues From the Professional Hospital Supply Facility RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "LOCATION AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. (PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY) DISCUSSION Professional Hospital Supply ("PHS") has been one of the City's largest employers and sales tax producers since the City's incorporation in 1989. PHS now employs 800 fulltime workers at its 602,000 square foot sales and distribution facility on 31 -acres located at 42500 Winchester Rd. In recent fiscal years PHS/Medline has generated over $2 million in annual sales tax revenue for the City of Temecula (City). (It is important to note that sales tax information for individual companies is confidential; the City received consent and permission from Medline/PHS to share the totals outlined in the staff report for the purposes of this agenda item.) BACKGROUND PHS sells healthcare products and supplies to hospitals and medical clinics throughout Southern California. In 2007, PHS had out -grown its existing facilities and was looking to expand its operations to keep up with demands, perhaps even relocating outside the City. In an effort to retain the PHS business, save the jobs associated with this company and retain the point of sale (POS) in Temecula; the City and PHS successfully negotiated and entered into an operating covenant agreement as well as a development agreement. These agreements facilitated not only the retention of PHS in Temecula but created the ability to expand their 1 corporate footprint to the 602,000 square foot facility they occupy today. The City was willing to defer development impact fees, if PHS committed to expanding its facilities within the City, thereby growing the business and the corresponding sales tax revenue the City would receive. The deferred fees would be forgiven if PHS maintained their presence within the City and generated $10 million in additional sales tax revenue. The obligations of these agreements were satisfied in the generation of sales tax receipts in excess of $10 million well before the July 2015 timeline spelled out in the agreement. In February of 2014, Medline Industries, Inc. ("Medline") acquired PHS and now operates PHS as a subsidiary of Medline. Medline is a national company that also sells health care products and supplies to hospitals and medical clinics throughout the United States. Medline is the largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of healthcare supplies in the United States, providing more than 350,000 products that serve the entire continuum of care. Medline's innovative products and programs can be found in most hospitals, extended -care facilities, surgery centers, physician offices, home care dealers, home health agencies and retail outlets. Through this acquisition it became apparent that the City was once again facing the potential loss of one of its largest employers and sales tax generators. Medline would be corporately restructuring their operations affecting their POS for tax purposes in California. Three other California cities had recently been impacted by similar Medline corporate decisions. As such, the City initiated critically important discussions with Medline tax executives, to explore means of preserving the 800 local full-time jobs, maintaining the POS in Temecula, retaining the PHS/Medline presence in the community, and providing opportunities for additional job creation at the Temecula distribution center. PHS has been and remains the City's largest sales tax producer. In Fiscal Year 2014-15, PHS provided $2.3 million in sales tax revenue to the City or 7.2% of the total sales tax received by the City. During this same period, PHS employed 800 people. Of these workers, all 800 are full- time employees; currently they do not utilize part-time or temporary staff members. Medline currently sells the Medline suite of healthcare products in California through a sales subsidiary headquartered in Ontario, California; with distributions being fulfilled from separate facilities. Beginning January 1, 2017, Medline intends to reorganize and service California customers through Medline's own consolidated sales and distribution centers, including the PHS facility in Temecula. The reorganization of sales and distribution in California will result in changes to the manner and place of payment of local sales and use taxes. Medline has requested assistance from the City in return for maintaining and operating a sales and distribution center in the City. Maintaining the sales and distribution facility in the City will attract additional businesses and investment in the City due to the increased services and economic activity associated with the continued use and potential growth of the sales and distribution facility. The continuation and maintenance of the sales and distribution center in the City will maintain current levels of employment, and given that Medline expects future sales growth from the Temecula facility, it will likley generate additional employment opportunities for City residents. As a result of thoughtful negotiations, and as an incentive for maintaining, locating and operating a sales and distribution facility with POS in the City, it is recommended that the City provide an economic development incentive to Medline in the form of sharing sales tax revenues that are actually received from the sale of taxable goods at the Temecula facility. Terms of Proposed Location Agreement: The substantive terms of the proposed Location Agreement include: 2 1. City and Medline agree to share the Sales Tax Revenues generated by the Medline/PHS sales and distribution facility in Temecula and actually received by the City beginning on January 1, 2017, as follows: A. City shall pay to Medline twenty-five percent (25%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2017; B. City shall pay to Medline thirty-five Percent (35%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2018; and C. City shall pay to Medline fifty percent (50%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2019 and each calendar year thereafter through the Term of the proposed Location Agreement. 2. Medline agrees to establish a Sales Office within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City and shall thereafter conduct its Taxable Sales operations for the Designated Sales Territory from the Sales Office in accordance with this Agreement and the Sales Tax Law. 3. Medline agrees to use commercially reasonable, good faith efforts to market, promote and administer its Taxable Sales activities, with the objective of maximizing the amount of Local Sales Tax Revenues within the Designated Sales Territory and payable to the City of Temecula. 4. Term of the proposed Location Agreement is 20 years beginning on January 1, 2017. At the end of that term, Medline has the option to extend the term for an additional 20 years and City has the option to terminate the proposed Location Agreement if it determines, in good faith, that the public benefits of the Location Agreement no longer exist. 5. Detailed definitions of Local Sales Tax Revenues, Sales Office, Taxable Sales, Designated Sales Territory, and the Sales Tax Laws. 6. Detailed provisions for the documentation of sales tax produced by Medline at the Temecula facility so as to insure that both Medline and the City know exactly the amount of sales tax that the City must pay to Medline. FISCAL IMPACT: Beginning on November 28, 2015, the City provided all of the following information in written form available to the public, and through its Internet Web site, http://www.cityoftemecula.orq/, as required by Government Code Section 53083 with respect to the proposed Location Agreement: 1. The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable: a. Medline Industries, Inc., Medline Industries, Inc., One Medline Place, Mundelein, IL 60060; and b. Professional Hospital Supply, 42500 Winchester Rd, Temecula CA, 92590. 3 2. The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy: a. Location Agreement is effective on January 1, 2016; b. Economic development subsidy begins with first fiscal quarter (January -March) of 2017; c. If Medline's option is not exercised or parties do not terminate Location Agreement early, economic development subsidy ends on December 31, 2036; and d. If Medline's option is exercised and parties do not terminate Location Agreement early, economic development subsidy ends on December 31, 2056. 3. A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy: a. City shall pay to Medline twenty-five percent (25%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2017; b. City shall pay to Medline thirty-five Percent (35%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2018; c. City shall pay to Medline fifty percent (50%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2019 and each calendar year thereafter through the Term of the proposed Location Agreement; d. Estimated total sales tax generated during initial term of proposed Location Agreement is $68.8 million based on estimated 3% growth each fiscal year; e. Estimated total sales tax payment to be made to Medline during the initial term of proposed Location Agreement is $31.6 million based on an estimated growth each fiscal year of 3%; f. Estimated total sales tax generated during full extended option term of proposed Location Agreement is $188.6 million based on estimated 3% growth each fiscal year; and g. Estimated total sales tax payment to be made to Medline during the full extended option term of proposed Location Agreement is $91.5 million based on an estimated growth each fiscal year of 3% 4. A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy: The continuation and maintenance of the sales and distribution facility in the City will attract additional businesses and investment in the City due to the increased services and economic activity which the continued maintenance and expansion of the sales and distribution facility will bring. The continuation and maintenance of the sales and distribution center in the City will maintain and generate employment for the City 4 5. Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy: a. Estimated total sales tax revenues to be distributed to the City during initial term of proposed Location Agreement is $34.8 million based on estimated 3% growth each fiscal year; b. Estimated total sales tax revenues to be distributed to the City during the full extended option term of proposed Location Agreement is $94.8 million based on estimated 3% growth each fiscal year; and 6. Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full-time, part-time, and temporary positions: a. The economic subsidy will maintain the sales and distribution facility within the City, thereby salvaging 800 fulltime positions with the reasonable expectation of job growth as the sales and distribution volume serviced by this facility increases during the term of the proposed Location Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Proposed Location Agreement 5 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "LOCATION AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. (PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Medline, a corporation with its principal executive offices in Mundelein, Illinois, sells medical supplies and other goods and services to its customers in California, as elsewhere; B. Medline has in the past sold and distributed products in California through a sales subsidiary headquartered in Ontario, California, but intends as of the effective date of this Agreement to sell to California customers through Medline's own sales and distribution system; C. The reorganization of sales and distribution in California will result under California law in changes to the manner and place of payment of local sales and use taxes; D. Medline through its subsidiary, Professional Hospital Supply, has operated a sales and distribution facility in the City since 1989. E. Medline has requested assistance from City in return for maintaining locating and operating a sales and distribution center, the Sales Office (as defined in this Agreement), in the City. F. City, in consideration of the obligations and covenants of Medline under the Location Agreement, desires to provide economic development subsidy through sales tax sharing with Medline as an incentive for maintaining, locating and operating a Sales Office in the City. G. Maintaining the sales and distribution facility in the City will attract additional businesses and investment in the City due to the increased services and economic activity associated with the continued use and potential growth of the sales and distribution facility. The continuation and maintenance of the sales and distribution center in the City will maintain current levels of employment, and given that Medline expects future sales growth from the Temecula facility, it will likely generate additional employment opportunities for City residents. H. On December 8, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Location Agreement between the City of Temecula and Medline. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation ten days prior to the public hearing. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council received all oral and written testimony from the interested members of the public and carefully considered all of the oral and written testimony. Beginning on November 28, 2015, the City provided all of the information required by Government Code Section 53083 with respect to the proposed Location Agreement in written form available to the public at City Hall, and through its Internet Web site, http://www.cityoftemecula.org/. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain "Location Agreement" between the City of Temecula and Medline Industries, Inc., and authorizes the Mayor to execute said Location Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form presented to the City Council and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk LOCATION AGREEMENT This Location Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a California municipal corporation, and Medline Industries, Inc., an Illinois corporation ("Medline"). City and Medline are sometimes referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" herein. RECITALS This Agreement is made in reference to the following matters to which the Parties mutually agree and adopt as a statement of mutual understanding and intent. A. Medline, a corporation with its principal executive offices in Mundelein, Illinois, sells medical supplies and other goods and services to its customers in California, as elsewhere; B. Medline has in the past sold and distributed products in California through a sales subsidiary headquartered in Ontario, California, but intends as of the effective date of this Agreement to sell to California customers through Medline's own sales and distribution system; C. The reorganization of sales and distribution in California will result under California law in changes to the manner and place of payment of local sales and use taxes; D. Medline through its subsidiary, Professional Hospital Supply, has operated a sales and distribution facility in the City since 1989. E. Medline has requested assistance from City in return for maintaining locating and operating a sales and distribution center, the Sales Office (as defined in this Agreement), in the City. F. City, in consideration of the obligations and covenants of Medline hereunder, desires to provide City Payments (as defined) to Medline as an incentive for maintaining, locating and operating a Sales Office in the City. City has determined that the establishment of a Sales Office will attract additional businesses and investment in the community due to the increased services and economic activity which the continued maintenance and expansion of the Sales Office will bring. NOW, THEREFORE, City and Medline enter into this Agreement to accomplish their respective and mutual purposes as set forth above. 1. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section shall have the meanings defined herein. 1.1 "City" shall mean and refer to City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation. 1 1.2 "City Payment" means, as to a particular Fiscal Quarter during the Term, the obligation of City to pay to Medline for such Fiscal Quarter a payment in the amounts described in Section 2.5 of this Agreement. 1.3 "Business Day" means a day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday on which banking institutions in the State of California or City are closed. 1.4 "Data and Documentation" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.7. 1.5 "Designated Sales Territory" means the geographical boundaries the sales, service and distribution area served by the warehouse, shipping point and Sales Office which are located within the jurisdiction of Temecula. Medline shall have the right in its business discretion to adjust or modify the Designated Sales Territory to correspond to its business needs and requirements. 1.6 "Dispute Notice" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 19.1. 1.7 "Effective Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4. 1.8 "Enforced Delays" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 17. 1.9 "Event of Default" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.15. 1.10 "Fiscal Quarter" means a period of three (3) consecutive calendar months during the Term, commencing with the Effective Date. 1.11 "Local Sales Tax Revenues" means that portion of the Sales Tax, if any, attributable to Taxable Sales, paid by Medline and which is allocated and paid to City pursuant to the Sales Tax Law. Local Sales Tax Revenues shall not include: (i) Penalty Assessments, (ii) any Sales Tax levied by, collected for or allocated to the State of California, the County of Riverside, or a district or any entity (including an allocation to a statewide or countywide pool) other than City, (iii) any administrative fee charged by the SBE or Riverside County, (iv) any Sales Tax subject to any sharing, rebate, offset or other charge imposed pursuant to any applicable provision of federal, state or local (except City's) law, rule or regulation, (v) any Sales Tax attributable to any transaction not consummated within the Term, or (vi) any Sales Tax (or other funds measured by Sales Tax) required by the State of California to be paid over to another public entity (including the State) or set aside and/or pledged to a specific use other than for deposit into or payment from the City's general fund. 1.12 "Material" means any and all tangible personal property which is offered for sale or lease by Medline and which is subject to the Sales Tax Law. 1.13 "Medline" shall include any affiliate or subsidiary of Medline, any purchasing company established by and under the control or Medline, and any permitted nominee, assignee or successor to Medline's rights, powers and responsibilities. 2 1.14 "Penalty Assessments" means penalties, assessments, collection costs and other costs, fees or charges resulting from late or underpaid payments of Sales Tax and which are levied, assessed or otherwise collected from Medline. 1.15 "Prohibited Financial Assistance" shall mean any direct or indirect payment, subsidy, rebate or other similar or dissimilar monetary or non -monetary benefit, including, without implied limitation, payment of land subsidies, relocation expenses, financial incentives, public financings, property or sales tax relief or rebates, relief from public improvement obligations, and payment for public improvements to or for the benefit of Medline. 1.16 "Resolution Period" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 19.3. 1.17 "Sales Office" means the Medline sales and distribution center which shall be located in the City. 1.18 "Sales Tax" means all sales and use taxes levied under the authority of the Sales Tax Law attributable to Taxable Sales, excluding Sales Tax which is to be refunded to Medline because of an overpayment of Sales Tax. 1.19 "Sales Tax Law" means (i) California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6001 et seq., and any successor law thereto, including the Bradley -Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Rev. & Tax Code § 7200 et seq.), and any successor law thereto, (ii) any legislation allowing other public agency with jurisdiction in the City to levy any form of Sales Tax on the operations of Medline and/or the Sales Office, and (iii) regulations of the SBE and other binding rulings and interpretations relating to (i) and (ii) hereof. 1.20 "SBE" means the California State Board of Equalization and any successor agency. 1.21 "Taxable Sales" means the commercially reasonable business practices and activities associated with Medline's sale or lease of Material within the Designated Sales Territory and which are: (i) subject to the payment of Sales Tax pursuant to the Sales Tax Law and (ii) as to which the reported "point of sale" to the SBE is the City based on the location of the Sales Office in the City. "Taxable Sales" does not include sales or use taxes attributable to sales or leases made and reported for sales territories in California other than the Designated Sales Territory. 1.22 "Term" shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date, and ending on December 31, 2036, unless otherwise extended in accordance with this Agreement. 2. LOCATION AND OPERATION; APPLICABILITY TO LOCAL SALES AND USE TAXES. 2.1 Location and Operation Covenant. Medline hereby represents, warrants and covenants that it shall, on or before the commencement of the Term, establish a Sales Office within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City and shall thereafter, for the full Term, conduct its Taxable Sales operations for the Designated Sales Territory from the Sales Office in accordance with this Agreement, the Sales Tax Law, and all other applicable provisions of local, state and 3 federal law. Medline shall use commercially reasonable, good faith efforts to market, promote and administer its Taxable Sales activities, with the objective of maximizing the amount of Local Sales Tax Revenues within the Designated Sales Territory. 2.2 Sales Office Covenant Not Exclusive; Waiver and Release of Claims. City understands, acknowledges and agrees that Medline has established or will establish other Sales Offices ("Additional Offices"), in addition to the Sales Office referred to in Section 2.1, above, for Designated Sales Territories associated with those Additional Offices. Nothing in this Agreement limits Medline's right to conduct sales and other business and operations at or from the other locations, provided that Medline complies with all applicable laws, including but not limited to, Government Code Section 53084.5 or its successor statute, and the Sales Tax Laws. In the event that City does or may assert or claim that Medline's exercise of such right to conduct sales and other business and operations at or from the Additional Offices violates any provision of law including Government Code Section 53084.5 or its successor statute, and the Sales Tax Laws, City shall provide not less than 90 days advance notice of such claimed violation and an opportunity to cure the violation; or City shall, during such 90 -day period, cooperate in good faith with Medline to amend this Agreement or take any other needed actions to cure, eliminate or avoid any such violation. 2.3 No Prohibited Financial Assistance. Medline covenants and agrees for the Term that Medline will not directly or indirectly solicit, accept or enter into any agreement concerning any Prohibited Financial Assistance from any other public or private person or entity, to the extent such Prohibited Financial Assistance is given for the purpose of causing or would result in either Medline's relocation from the City or an Event of Default by Medline. 2.4 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Medline shall obtain, and will maintain throughout the entire Term a retail sales tax permit from the SBE. Medline agrees to conduct its business so that the place of sale for all Taxable Sales consummated at the Sales Office during the Term will be to City pursuant to the Sales Tax Law. In all sales reports filed by Medline with the SBE relating to Taxable Sales consummated at the Sales Office, where such a designation is permitted or required under the Sales Tax Law, Medline shall specify the City as the place of sale. 2.5 Payment of City Payment. In consideration of the promises, covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement, City shall make the City Payment to Medline as follows: 2.5.1 Consistent with the definition set forth in section 1.2 of this Agreement, City shall pay Medline, for each Fiscal Quarter during the Term, a payment equaling the specified percentage set forth below of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for that Fiscal Quarter: 2.5.1.1 City shall pay to Medline twenty-five percent (25%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2017; 4 2.5.1.2 City shall pay to Medline thirty-five Percent (35%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2018; and 2.5.1.3 City shall pay to Medline fifty percent (50%) of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to Medline's Taxable Sales for each Fiscal Quarter for calendar year 2019 and each calendar year thereafter through the Term of this Agreement. The earliest Fiscal Quarter for which such City Payments shall be due and payable shall be the Fiscal Quarter commencing one year after the Effective Date. 2.5.2 Within thirty (30) days following the end of each Fiscal Quarter within the Term, Medline shall submit to City the Data and Documentation. Contingent upon City's receipt of the Local Sales Tax Revenues generated during the subject Fiscal Quarter, City will then determine the City Payment due to Medline for such Fiscal Quarter. Subject to satisfaction or written waiver of the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.2.1, within thirty (30) days following the City's receipt from the SBE of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to such Fiscal Quarter, City shall pay to Medline any City Payment due for such Fiscal Quarter. All City Payments shall be sent to the address provided in Section 13. 2.6 Conditions Precedent to City Payments. City's obligations under Section 4.2 hereof are contingent on a Fiscal Quarter -to -Fiscal Quarter basis and, for each Fiscal Quarter within the Term, City's obligations to make any payments to Medline hereunder are expressly contingent upon the satisfaction of the following conditions precedent in each Fiscal Quarter: 2.6.1 Medline having, for the entirety of such Fiscal Quarter, completely fulfilled its material obligations under this Agreement; and 2.6.2 The City's receipt of the Local Sales Tax Revenues attributable to the Fiscal Quarter and the City's receipt and reasonable approval of the Data and Documentation, certified as complete and accurate by an authorized Medline officer. 2.6.3 Should any one or more of the foregoing conditions precedent not be satisfied for each Fiscal Quarter, then City shall have no obligation to make any City Payment to Medline for such Fiscal Quarter. 2.7 Data and Documentation. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Data and Documentation" means any and all bills, invoices, schedules, vouchers, statements, receipts, cancelled checks, statements and any other documents evidencing the amount of Taxable Sales generated within the applicable Fiscal Quarter, including: copies of all schedules and reports filed by Medline with SBE during that Fiscal Quarter, including, without implied limitation, those relating to Taxable Sales occurring at the Sales Office and Sales Tax paid by Medline relating to Taxable Sales occurring at the Sales Office during such Fiscal Quarter. 2.8 Adequate Consideration. Each City Payment due and payable hereunder shall constitute the total payment to Medline for the Fiscal Quarter to which it relates, and shall be paid by City for and in consideration of the location and operation of Medline in the City during 5 such Fiscal Quarter. The Parties hereto have determined and agreed that the City Payment due and payable during each Fiscal Quarter represents fair consideration to Medline for its covenants and obligations hereunder. 2.9 Both City and Medline expressly acknowledge and agree that Medline will receive no compensation under this Agreement other than the City Payment. Medline shall not be entitled to any reimbursement or other compensation from City for any costs incurred by Medline in performing or preparing to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The City Payments shall not be reduced or offset for any costs or expenses incurred by City in performing or preparing to perform its duties under this Agreement. 2.10 No Carry Forward or Back. City and Medline acknowledge and agree that the calculation and determination of all financial components of the Parties' rights and obligations under this Agreement shall be computed on a Fiscal Quarter -to -Fiscal Quarter basis. Except as provided by Sections 4.2.6, 4.3.2 and 2.1.4, revenues generated or expenses paid in one Fiscal Quarter may not be carried forward or back to any prior or future Fiscal Quarter, it being the express agreement and understanding of the Parties that for each Fiscal Quarter the financial obligations of the Parties and satisfaction of the conditions precedent to such obligations shall be determined and made independently of any other Fiscal Quarter. 2.11 Recapture of City Payments. If, at any time during or after the Term of this Agreement, SBE determines that all or any portion of the Local Sales Tax Revenues received by the City were improperly allocated and/or paid to the City, and if SBE requires redistribution, repayment or offsets against future Sales Tax payments, or otherwise recaptures from the City any such Local Sales Tax Revenues finally determined by SBE to have been improperly allocated or paid, then Medline shall, within thirty (30) days after written demand from the City, repay all City Payments (or applicable portions thereof) theretofore paid to Medline which are attributable to such repaid, offset or recaptured Local Sales Tax Revenues. If Medline fails to make such repayment within thirty (30) days after the City's written demand, then such obligation shall accrue interest from the date of the City's original written demand at the then - maximum legal rate imposed by the California Code of Civil Procedure on prejudgment monetary obligations, compounded monthly, until paid. Nothing in this section 2.11 shall require repayment by Medline of any City Payments made or received with respect to Local Sales Tax Revenues for any periods other than those periods for which the SBE has required redistribution, repayment, offset or recapture by or against City, including without limitation any period prior to the maximum period for which the SBE may require redistribution under Revenue and Tax Code § 7209 of the Sales Tax Law. 2.12 Authorization to Release Information. Medline, on behalf of itself and any affiliate, and to the extent such consent is required by any applicable legal provision, consents to the City's review and use of the information contained in the Data and Documentation and as otherwise required by this Agreement to the extent necessary for the City to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. 2.13 Audit and Reconciliation. 6 2.13.1 Audit of Books and Records. Either Party shall, upon no less than seventy- two (72) hours prior written request from the other Party, make the entirety of its books and records relating to the calculation and determination of that Party's rights and obligations under this Agreement available at no cost to the requesting Party and/or its designees (including its accountants and/or attorneys) and shall direct its accountants and other consultants and contractors in possession of its books and records to do likewise; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to abridge or constitute a waiver of any Party's evidentiary rights and privileges arising pursuant to any provision of law, including, without implied limitation, the California Evidence Code, California Government Code (including the Public Records Act), the Code of Civil Procedure, federal statutes and state or federal judicial decisions. Furthermore, all such non -privileged books and records may be made available and introduced as evidence in any arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.3 hereof or as otherwise ordered by any court of competent jurisdiction. Each Party shall bear the costs of its own auditors, experts and other consultants it may engage to complete its investigation of the other Party's books and records. 2.13.2 Reconciliation. Each City Payment shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the calculations made to determine the amount of such disbursement and setting forth all disbursements made to date. Each Party shall have the right to contest any of the calculations or information contained in said statement or the determined amount of payment upon written notice to the other Party within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the statement or City Payment. If the challenging Party can show to the reasonable satisfaction of the other Party, within sixty (60) calendar days of receiving such notice, that the amount of a City Payment was incorrect, either City shall disburse to Medline the correct amount due, or Medline shall reimburse City for any amount received in excess of the correct amount due. 2.14 Default. Each of the following shall constitute an "Event of Default": 2.14.1 Failure by a Party to comply with and observe any of the conditions, terms, or covenants set forth in this Agreement, if such failure remains uncured within thirty (30) days after written notice of such failure from the non -defaulting Party to the defaulting Party in the manner provided herein or, with respect to a default that cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, if the defaulting Party fails to commence such cure within such thirty (30) day period or thereafter fails to diligently and continuously proceed with such cure to completion. However, if a different period, notice requirement, or remedy is specified under any other section of this Agreement, then the specific provision shall control. 2.14.2 Any representation or warranty contained in this Agreement or in any application, financial statement invoice, certificate, or report submitted pursuant to this Agreement proves to have been incorrect in any material respect when made. 3. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. 3.1 City's Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Medline that, to City's actual current knowledge: 7 3.1.1 City is a public agency and political subdivision of the State of California, exercising governmental functions and powers as granted or delegated by the Constitution and laws of the State of California; 3.1.2 City has taken all actions required by law to approve the execution of this Agreement; 3.1.3 City's entry into this Agreement and the performance of City's obligations under this Agreement do not violate any contract, agreement, or other legal obligation of City; 3.1.4 City's entry into this Agreement and the performance of City's obligations under this Agreement do not constitute a violation of any state or federal statute or judicial decision to which City is subject; 3.1.5 There are no pending lawsuits or other actions or proceedings which would prevent or impair the timely performance of City's obligations under this Agreement; 3.1.6 City has the legal right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby, and the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement has been duly authorized and no other action by City is requisite to the valid and binding execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly set forth herein; and 3.1.7 The individual(s) executing this Agreement is or are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of City. 3.2 The representations and warranties set forth above are of material consideration to Medline and City acknowledges that Medline is relying upon the representations set forth above in undertaking Medline's obligations set forth in this Agreement. 3.3 All of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of City and its nominees, successors and assigns. 3.4 Medline's Representations and Warranties. Medline represents and warrants to City that, to Medline's actual current knowledge: 3.4.1 Medline is a duly formed Illinois corporation, and is in good standing and qualified to do business under the laws of the State of California; 3.4.2 The individuals executing this Agreement are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of Medline; 3.4.3 Medline has taken all actions required by law to approve this Agreement; 3.4.4 Medline's entry into this Agreement and the performance of Medline's obligations under this Agreement do not violate any contract, agreement or other legal obligation of Medline; 8 3.4.5 Medline's entry into this Agreement and the performance of Medline's obligations under this Agreement do not constitute a violation of any state or federal statute or judicial decision to which Medline is subject; 3.4.6 There are no pending lawsuits or other actions or proceedings which would prevent or impair the timely performance of Medline's obligations under this Agreement; and 3.4.7 Medline has the legal right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby, and the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized and no other action by Medline is requisite to the valid and binding execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly set forth herein. 3.5 The representations and warranties set forth herein are material consideration to City and Medline acknowledges that City is relying upon the representations set forth above in undertaking City's obligations set forth above. 3.6 All of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of Medline and its permitted nominees, successors and assigns. Wherever the term "Medline" is used herein or therein, such term shall include any permitted nominee, assignee or successor of Medline. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 4.1 This Agreement will become effective ("Effective Date") on the earliest date on which both of the following are true: (i) this Agreement has been approved by the City Council of City following all legally required notices and hearings; (ii) this Agreement has been executed by the appropriate authorities of City and Medline; provided, however, that if both of the foregoing conditions precedent have not occurred by December 31, 2015, this Agreement shall not become effective and any prior signatures or approvals of the Parties shall be deemed void and of no force or effect. 4.2 Pursuant to section 2.5.1 of this Agreement, the first Fiscal Quarter for which City Payments shall be required shall be the quarter commencing January 1, 2017. 5. TERMINATION. In addition to all other rights and remedies granted to the Parties under this Agreement or available to them in equity or at law, any Party may terminate this Agreement and all of its executory obligations hereunder without cost or liability upon any of the following: 5.1 This Agreement may be terminated by a Party at its option in the event of the other Party's Event of Default or the discovery of such an Event of Default. Such termination shall not limit or otherwise modify the rights and remedies available to the non -defaulting Party. 5.2 In addition to its right to terminate upon the other Party's Event of Default, either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and all of both Parties' executory 9 obligations hereunder without cause or without cost or liability to either Party upon one (1) years' prior written notice to the other Party of the terminating Party's election to terminate this Agreement in the event that: (1) Medline determines in good faith that its business is benefitted by ceasing operations within the City and relocates the Sales Office to another location provided that Medline and the governmental entity with jurisdiction over the new location would be in compliance with all applicable laws with respect to the relocation, including but not limited to, Government Code Section 53084.5 or its successor statute, and the Sales Tax Laws; or (2) City determines in good faith that the public benefits of this Agreement no longer justify the Agreement. Such notice of termination shall be given, if ever, as of the first day of a Fiscal Quarter such that the termination shall be effective as of the last day of the fourth Fiscal Quarter following the notice of termination. Although the Parties shall be excused from any further obligation under this Agreement which accrues following the effective date of termination, the City shall, subject to satisfaction of all conditions and requirements of this Agreement, make any City Payments due for any Fiscal Quarter which concludes prior to the effective date of such termination and Medline shall pay on demand any offset or repayment obligation arising under this Agreement, even if arising after the effective date of termination. The foregoing obligations shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 5.3 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in the event of a notice of termination by Temecula to Medline, Medline shall have the right at its sole option to relocate the Sales Office to any other city or county in California or elsewhere from and after the date of the notice; and to reallocate Taxable Sales accordingly and in conformance with applicable Sales Tax Law. 6. OPTION TO RENEW. This Agreement and the Term hereof is subject to renewal for one additional 20 -year term at Medline's option by notice given to City not later than six months prior to the expiration of the original term; provided, however, that City's rights under sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this Agreement shall at all times be preserved. 7. AMENDMENT; MODIFICATION. At any time City and Medline may determine that this Agreement should be amended for the mutual benefit of the Parties, or for any other reason, including an amendment to induce Medline to maintain its operations in the City when this Agreement could otherwise be terminated. Any such amendment to this Agreement shall only be by written agreement between City and Medline. City and Medline agree to consider reasonable requests for amendments to this Agreement which may be made by any of the Parties hereto, lending institutions, bond counselor financial consultants, although neither Party shall be obligated to approve any such amendment. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of both City and Medline. 8. CALIFORNIA LAW. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the procedural and substantive laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws principles. 10 9. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute but one (1) and the same instrument. 10. BUSINESS DAYS. Any act or thing required to be done or exist on any date set forth herein which does not constitute a Business Day in any year shall be deemed to be done or to exist on such date if such act or thing is done or exists on the next date which constitutes a Business Day. Business day shall mean any day other than Saturday, Sunday or a holiday as designated by the City of Temecula. 11. TAX CONSEQUENCES. Medline shall be responsible for federal, state and/or local income taxes resulting from its receipt of City Payments. 12. RIGHTS NOT GRANTED. This Agreement is not, and shall not be construed to be, a statutory development agreement under California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. or a disposition and development agreement under California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 el seq. This Agreement is not, and shall not be construed to be, an approval of or an agreement to issue permits or a granting of any right or entitlement by City concerning any project, development, or construction by Medline in the City. This Agreement does not, and shall not be construed to, exempt Medline in any way from the requirement to obtain permits and/or other discretionary or non - discretionary approvals as may be necessary for the development, maintenance and operation of any project, development or construction of Medline within the City. This Agreement does not, and shall not be construed to, exempt Medline from the application and/or exercise of City's or City's power of eminent domain or its police power, including, but not limited to, the regulation of land uses and the taking of any actions necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizenry. 13. CONSENT. Whenever consent or approval of any Party is required under this Agreement, that Party shall not unreasonably withhold, delay, or condition such consent or approval unless a different standard is otherwise provided by a specific provision of this Agreement. 14. NOTICES AND DEMANDS. All notices or other communications required or permitted between City and Medline under this Agreement shall be in writing, and may be (i) personally delivered, (ii) sent by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, (iii) sent by telecopier, or (iv) sent by nationally recognized overnight courier service (e.g., Federal Express), and 11 addressed to the Parties at the following addresses, subject to the right of either Party to designate a different address for itself by notice similarly given: To City: 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: City Manager With a copy to: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 To Medline: Medline Industries, Inc. One Medline Place Mundelein, IL 60060 Attn: With a copy to: Medline Industries, Inc. One Medline Place Mundelein, IL 60060 Attn: Any notice so given by registered or certified United States mail shall be deemed to have been received on the second Business Day after the same is deposited in the United States mail. Any notice not so given by registered or certified mail, such as notices delivered by telecopier or courier service (e.g., Federal Express), shall be deemed received upon actual receipt of the same by the Party to whom the notice is given. 15. NONLIABILITY OF PARTIES' OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES. 15.1 No officer, elected official, contractor, consultant attorney or employee of City shall be personally liable to Medline, any voluntary or involuntary successors or assignees of Medline, or any lender or other party holding an interest in Medline's property, in the event of any default or breach by City, or for any amount which may become due to Medline or to its successors or assignees, or on any obligations arising under this Agreement. 15.2 No officer, official, contractor, consultant, attorney or employee of Medline shall be personally liable to City, any voluntary or involuntary successors or assignees of City in the event of any default or breach by Medline, or for any amount which may become due to City or to its successors or assignees, or on any obligations arising under this Agreement. 12 16. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. No officer, elected official, contractor, consultant, attorney or employee of City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer, elected official, contractor, consultant, attorney or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which unlawfully affects his/her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he/she is directly or indirectly interested. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understanding, oral or otherwise, in direct conflict with this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. All prior written or oral offers, counteroffers, memoranda of understanding, proposals and the like are superseded by this Agreement. 18. EXTENSIONS AND DELAYS; NO EXCUSE DUE TO ECONOMIC CHANGES. Time is of the essence in the performance of the obligations of City and Medline under this Agreement. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, providing for extensions of time, times for performance hereunder shall be extended where delays in performance arc due to war, insurrection; any form of labor dispute; lockouts; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; acts of God or of third parties; third party litigation or orders and judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction; acts of a public enemy; acts of governmental authorities; epidemics; quarantine restrictions; and freight embargoes (collectively, "Enforced Delays") provided, however, that the Party claiming the extension notify the other Party of the nature of the matter causing the default; and, provided further, that the extension of time shall be only for the period of the Enforced Delays; and provided, further, that the obligations of both Parties are equally suspended during the Enforced Delay. In no event shall either Party be deemed in default of this Agreement because of an Enforced Delay event. 19. INDEMNIFICATION. City agrees to defend, indemnity Medline and hold it harmless from and against all demands, suits, proceedings, causes of action or claims of any kind arising under the Sales Tax Law or any other alleged ground or basis, other than the negligence or intentional act of Medline, to the extent arising from this Agreement or from Medline's performance of this Agreement, including without limitation the payment or reporting of the City Payments by Medline to City. Medline agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from and against all demands, suits, proceedings, causes of action or claims of any kind arising from any negligent or intentional act of Medline to the extent arising from Medline's performance of this Agreement. 20. ATTORNEYS' FEES. In the event of the bringing of an arbitration, action or suit by a Party hereto against another Party hereunder by reason of any breach of any of the covenants or agreements or any intentional inaccuracies in any of the representations and warranties on the part of the other Party arising out of this Agreement or any other dispute between the Parties concerning this Agreement then, in 13 that event, the prevailing Party in such action or dispute, whether by final judgment or arbitration award, shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other Party all costs and expenses of suit or claim, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees. Any judgment, order or award entered in any final judgment or award shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of all costs and expenses of suit or claim, including actual attorneys' fees and expert witness fees (collectively, "Costs") incurred in enforcing, perfecting, and executing such judgment or award. Costs shall include, without implied limitation, attorneys' and experts' fees, costs and expenses incurred in the following: (i) post judgment motions and appeals, (ii) contempt proceedings, (iii) garnishment, levy and debtor and third party examination; (iv) discovery; and (v) bankruptcy litigation. 21. INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 21.1 The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any differences, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement promptly by negotiations between senior officials of the Parties who have authority to settle the difference or controversy. The disputing Party may give the other Party written notice that a dispute exists between them so that the provision of this Section shall apply ("Dispute Notice"). 21.2 Within twenty (20) days after receipt of a Dispute Notice, the receiving Party shall submit to the disputing Party a written response. The Dispute Notice and response shall include (a) a statement of each Party's position and a summary of the evidence and arguments supporting its position, and (b) the name and title of the official who shall represent that Party. The senior officials shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place or by telephone conference within thirty (30) days of the date of the Dispute Notice, and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary to exchange relevant information and to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event any Party fails to provide a response to a Dispute Notice in accordance with this section or fails to cooperate in the scheduling of, or to attend, the meetings, described above, to resolve the dispute, then, with respect to that Party, the Resolution Period shall be deemed to have run so that the dispute may immediately be subject to arbitration in accordance with Section 4.20.2 below. 21.3 If the matter has not been resolved pursuant to Section 21.1 within ninety (90) days of the date of the Dispute Notice ("Resolution Period"), (which period may be extended by mutual agreement), or if any Party will not participate in such procedure, the dispute shall be exclusively and finally settled by arbitration in Riverside County, California, in accordance with the American Arbitration Association Rules. Each Party to such dispute shall appoint an arbitrator, and such arbitrators shall appoint an additional arbitrator. If, within thirty (30) days following the expiration of the Resolution Period, any Party has not appointed an arbitrator, the American Arbitration Association shall, at the request of the other Party, appoint an arbitrator on that Party's behalf. The judgment upon any award rendered by arbitration shall be final and binding upon the disputing Parties and may be entered by any court having the jurisdiction thereof. The arbitration shall be in lieu of any other remedy and the award shall be final, binding and enforceable upon the disputing Parties. The arbitrators shall have the right to award costs as provided for in Section 20. 14 22. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Any legal action or proceeding concerning this Agreement shall be filed and prosecuted in the appropriate State of California court in the County of Riverside County, California. Both Parties irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction of that court. 23. INTERPRETATION. City and Medline acknowledge that this Agreement is the product of mutual arms -length negotiation and drafting and that both Parties have been represented by legal counsel in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. Accordingly, the rule of construction which provides that ambiguities in a document shall be construed against the drafter of that document shall have no application to the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. In any action or proceeding to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the finder of fact may refer to any extrinsic evidence not in direct conflict with any specific provision of this Agreement to determine and give effect to the intention of the Parties with respect to any ambiguities in this Agreement. 24. NO WAIVER. Failure to insist on any occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver by any Party of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment by any Party of such other right or power at any other time or times. 25. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their voluntary and involuntary successors and assigns. 26. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. The performance of the respective obligations of City and Medline under this Agreement are not intended to benefit any party other than City or Medline, except as may be expressly provided otherwise herein. No person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement shall have any rights or causes of action against any Party to this Agreement as a result of that Party's performance or non-performance under this Agreement, except as may be expressly provided otherwise herein. 27. WARRANTY AGAINST PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION. Medline warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third party any money or other consideration or obtaining this Agreement. Third parties, for the purposes of this Section, shall not include persons to whom fees are paid for professional services if rendered by attorneys, financial consultants, accountants, engineers, architects and the like when such fees are considered necessary by Medline. 15 28. SEVERABILITY. City and Medline declare that the provisions of this Agreement are severable. If it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that any term, condition or provision hereof is void, voidable, or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then such term, condition or provision shall be severed from this Agreement and the remainder of the Agreement enforced in accordance with its terms. 29. FURTHER ACTS. City and Medline each agree to take such additional acts and execute such other documents as may be reasonable and necessary in the performance of their obligations hereunder. The foregoing shall not, however, be deemed to require City to exercise its discretion in any particular fashion or to provide to Medline any remedy or claim for damages against City based on the lawful exercise of City's discretion. 30. NO ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR HYPOTHECATION. Medline may not assign, transfer, encumber or hypothecate its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of City, which may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. Any unpermitted assignment, transfer, pledge, encumbrance, or hypothecation, or any attempt to do so, shall not confer any rights upon the purported assignee or transferee and shall constitute Medline's immediate and incurable material default of this Agreement, and City may, without providing Medline notice or opportunity to cure, exercise those remedies available to City pursuant to Section 4.5 or 4.6. 31. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The Parties shall not be deemed in a relationship of partners or joint venturers by virtue of this Agreement, nor shall either Party be an agent, representative, trustee or fiduciary of the other. Neither Party shall have any authority to bind the other to any agreement. 32. NON -DEDICATION OF PROPERTY. The execution of this Agreement by Medline does not result in the dedication of any Medline property for public use. 16 WHEREFORE the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date of approval by the City Council of City as attested to by its authorized officer below. CITY OF TEMECULA AS APPROVED December 8, 2015 Jeff Comerchero Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. AS APPROVED December , 2015 By: [Name and title] 17 Item No. 22 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE" SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: The Ordinance adopts the New Streets In -Lieu Fee, which will fund new internal streets within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan boundary. BACKGROUND: The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), which establishes new zoning and development standards for future development within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan boundaries calls for new internal streets to enhance internal connectivity, mobility and to create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods. Since the Redevelopment Agency was dissolved as a result of the Governor's actions in 2010, the City does not, as it did in the case of Old Town, have the same resources available to implement the infrastructure needed to achieve the community's vision in the Specific Plan area. Therefore, it is critical that a reliable funding source be identified for the new internal streets proposed within the Specific Plan area. The new streets will be funded by new development via an in -lieu fee. During the visioning process for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, the community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit. DISCUSSION The New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study was conducted by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). The methodology used by KMA in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions considered the following: 1. Preliminary per linear foot cost estimates of new streets. 2. Build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type (i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms). 3. Comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4. Nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5. Economic impact of the New Streets In -Lieu Fee on new development. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported New Streets In -Lieu Fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit, and for non-residential uses, it is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet. These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. The Nexus Study also analyzed the economic impact of a new fee on new development. For the purposes of the economic impact analysis, a prototypical half - block development site was used for a series of development prototypes that included a range of office, hotel, and mulit-family developments, all of which were assumed to include ground floor retail. The analysis considered the total cost of development for each prototype to determine what percent the nexus supported fee represented of a project's total development cost. It was determined that a fee that represents 3% or less of a project's total development cost was a reasonable amount for which a project could incur and remain economically feasible. The economic impact of the nexus supported fee was estimated to range from 2.8% and 5.6% of development cost, which exceeded the 3% threshold. As a result of applying the threshold, the Nexus Study concluded that implementing the full fee would be economically unfeasible. Therefore, the nexus supported fee was reduced by 50% and recommended that the following lower fees be adopted: 1. $6,351 for a Residential Unit; 2. $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; 3. $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and 4. $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses. The economic impact of the recommended fee is estimated to range from 1.4% and 2.8% of a project's total development cost. On November 17, 2015, the City Council heard the staff report on the Uptown Temecula New Streets In -Lieu Fees, the Ordinance establishing the fee, and the Resolution setting the fee. The public hearing was continued to December 8, 2015, to consider the adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended In -Lieu Fee represents approximately half of the nexus supported fee amount, which will result in completion of approximately half of the hypothetical street network of the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The funds needed to bridge the shortfall to complete the hypothetical street network have not been identified at this time nor are any projects currently specified in the Capital Improvement Program Budget. The funding shortfall amounts to approximately $32,359,000. Any City initiated/completed infrastructure improvements and appropriation of funds would occur through separate actions and adoption of the Annual Capital Improvements Program Budget by the City Council. The City is continually monitoring potential funding sources and if funding is identified, it will be applied to the shortfall amount. Additionally, if sufficient funding is identified to cover the full cost of construcing the hypthetical street network, the City may consider revoking the fee. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance (New Streets In -Lieu Fee) 2. Draft Resolution (New Streets In -Lieu Fee) 3. City Council Staff Report (November 17, 2015) ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE, AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Keyser Marston Associates prepared a New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study for Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, dated August, 2015 (the "Fee Study"), that analyzes the impact of development within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area on the need for certain street improvements and calculated the in -lieu fee based on that analysis. B. The period of greater than ten (10) days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost of estimated cost of the streets to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these costs. C. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed open and public meeting, at which it considered the proposed adoption of the in -lieu fee for streets within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area ("In -Lieu Fee"). The Fee Study, which contains data indicating the estimated cost, required to provide the streets for which the In -Lieu Fee would be levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, was made available to the public at least ten days prior to the date of this City Council meeting. D. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adoption of the In -Lieu Fee and this Ordinance. Following the receipt of all staff reports, public testimony and other evidence, the public hearing was continued to the December 8, 2015 City Council meeting. E. On November 17, 2015 the Council adopted Resolution No. 15-65 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan and adopting the Mitigation and Monitoring Program ("EIR"). The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the streets proposed by the Specific Plan which streets were proposed to be funded by the In -Lieu Fee. The City staff has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the adoption of this specific Ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). City staff has determined that these actions do not constitute a "project" under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because these actions involve the creation of a government funding mechanism for public improvements that have been fully analyzed under the EIR. In addition, City Staff has determined that these actions are categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) because these actions and documents are merely establishing an in -fee to obtain funds for public improvements that have been fully analyzed by the EIR. F. All prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance as specified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and other applicable laws have been satisfied. Section 2. Chapter 15.20, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In - Lieu Fee, is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN - LIEU FEE 15.20.010 Findings and Intent 15.20.020 Definitions 15.20.030 In -Lieu Fees and In -Lieu Fee Credits 15.20.040 Establishment and Administration of Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund 15.20.050 Payment 15.20.060 Severability 15.20.010 Findings and Intent. The City Council finds, determines and declares that: A. During the visioning process for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), the community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit. B. In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks resulted in fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Temecula Avenue is perceived by pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting. C. The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly, urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. D. The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi- modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area. 1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek. 4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7. Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. E. It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of that development by constructing or paying the In -Lieu Fee for the new streets required by that development as provided in the Specific Plan. F. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., prepared the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan dated as of August, 2015 ("Nexus Study"). Keyser Marston utilized the following methodology in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions: 1. Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary cost estimates. 2. Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3. Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4. Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5. Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. G. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for non-residential uses is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet (SF). These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. H. There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by the In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the types of development projects within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan on which they are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets. 15.20.020 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below: A. "Developer" shall mean the person who has applied for land use entitlements for a project within the Specific Plan Area subject to the applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance in Title 17 of this Code. B. "Hotel Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. C. "In -Lieu Fee" shall mean the Uptown Temecula New Streets In -Lieu Fee established by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to this Chapter. D. "Office Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. E. "Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. F. "Residential Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. G. "Retail Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. H. "Specific Plan Area" shall mean the entire area of the City subject to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. "Streets" means those new streets and roads designated in the Specific Plan. J. "Study" means the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan dated as of August 2015 prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 15.20.030 In -Lieu Fees and In -Lieu Fee Credits A. The City Council shall by resolution establish and impose the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee ("In -Lieu Fee"). B. The In -Lieu Fee shall include an annual escalator based upon an appropriate construction cost index that shall be designated in the Resolution of the City Council establishing the In -Lieu Fee. C. Every person who develops a Hotel Use, Office Use, Residential Use and Retail Use, or a combination thereof, in the Specific Plan Area after the effective date of the Ordinance adopting this chapter shall pay to the City the In -Lieu Fee pursuant to this Chapter. D. The Director of Community Development shall calculate the In -Lieu Fee applicable to the proposed project and notify the developer. Developer may appeal the calculation of the In -Lieu Fee as part of the decision on its application for land use approvals and pursuant to the procedures for appeal of a decision on such application. E. In the event that a developer develops a Hotel Use, Office Use, Residential Use or Retail Use, or a combination thereof, and constructs the Streets required for such uses by the land use approval, the developer shall be entitled to a credit on In -Lieu Fees applicable to its development in the amount of the actual costs for the design, design, right of way and construction of the streets within the time called for in the project's land use entitlements. City shall enter into an improvement agreement with developer that will guarantee completion of the design, right of way and construction of such streets within a specified period of time, provide for the estimate of such work and appropriate securities based thereon and such other matters as the City Manager deems necessary to implement the street work required for the development. City Manager shall be authorized to enter into such agreements on behalf of the City. F. In the event that the design, right of way and construction costs for the new street to be constructed by the developer will exceed the total In -Lieu Fee amount for the proposed project, the developer may apply for full or partial reimbursement of such costs from the Uptown Temecula New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund, to the extent that sufficient money is available in such fund to cover such costs. City Manager shall be authorized to enter into such reimbursement agreements with the developer on behalf of the City. G. The developer may apply to the Director of Community Development for a determination that in the event that its proposed development project will have no impact on the streets for which the In -Lieu Fee would be charged and that such project should be exempted from the In -Lieu Fee. The Director of Community Development may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the owner's application. Developer may appeal the calculation of the In -Lieu Fee as part of the decision on its land use application and pursuant to the procedures for appeal of a land use decision. 15.20.040 Establishment and Administration of Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund A. The Finance Director shall establish a special interest-bearing fund entitled "Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund." All fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended on the design, right of way, and construction, or a combination thereof, of the new streets designated in Specific Plan for the Specific Plan Area. B. The Finance Director shall report to the City Council the amounts in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund and the expenditures made from the Fund, in the form and frequency required by law. 15.20.050 Payment A. The required In -Lieu Fee shall be due and paid on a lump -sum basis on the date of issuance of a building permit, final building inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; unless otherwise pre-empted by State law. B. For the purposes of this section, "final building inspection" shall mean the physical inspection of the building by the Building & Safety Division of the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula for compliance with all applicable building codes and the issuance by all applicable City, county, regional, state and federal agencies of their respective clearances for occupancy. C. For the purposes of this section, "certificate of occupancy" shall mean a document issued by the proper authority allowing the occupancy or use of a building and certifying that the structure, building or development conforms with all applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code, ordinances and conditions of approval. 15.20.060 Severability If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of December, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of, , the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN TEMECULA SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Short Title. This Resolution may be referred to as the "Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Resolution" of the City of Temecula. Section 2. Findings and intent. The City Council finds, determines and declares that: (a) During the visioning process for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), the community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit. (b) In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks resulted in fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Temecula Avenue is perceived by pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting. (c) The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly, urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. (d) The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi- modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area. 1) Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2) Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3) Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek. 4) Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5) Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6) Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7) Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8) Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. (e) It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of that development by constructing or paying the In -Lieu Fee for the new streets required by that development as provided in the Specific Plan. (f) Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., prepared the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan dated August 2015 ("Nexus Study"). Keyser Marston Associates utilized the following methodology in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions: 1) Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary cost estimates. 2) Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3) Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4) Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5) Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. (g) The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for non-residential uses is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet (SF). These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. (h) There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by the In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the types of development projects within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan on which they are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets. (i) Words used in this Resolution shall have the definitions assigned to them by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Street In -Lieu Fee Section 3. Amount of Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee. Pursuant to the provisions Chapter 15.06, including without limitation, Section 15.06.030, of the Temecula Municipal Code, the City Council hereby establishes and imposes the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Street In -Lieu Fee within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area in the amounts of: (a) $6,351 for a Residential Unit; (b) $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; (c) $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and (d) $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses. Section 4. Automatic Annual Adjustment of In -Lieu Fee. On July 1 of each year, the In -Lieu Fees described in Section 3 of this Resolution shall be adjusted by the Director of Finance based upon the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering News Record Index ("ENRI"). The Director of Finance shall compute the percentage difference between the ENRI on March 1 of each year and the ENRI for the previous March 1. Should the ENRI be revised or discontinued, the Director of Finance shall use either the revised ENRI or a comparable system as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the construction cost index. The new schedule of fees, as adjusted, shall constitute the transportation impact fees authorized by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and shall be incorporated into this Resolution. Section 5. Effective Date. The In -Lieu Fee established by this Resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days following the effective date of Ordinance No. 15 - establishing Chapter 15.06, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee. Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of December, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 3. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Ordinance and continue the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Resolution and continue the Public Hearing to December 8; 2015 in order to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE" Direct staff to prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; Direct staff to change the name of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCES: The first Ordinance adopts the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, which establishes new zoning and development standards for future development within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries. This Ordinance also amends the Zoning Map by changing the zoning classification of parcels located within the Specific Plan area to the zoning classification of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. Finally, this Ordinance removes the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan parcels from the boundaries of the Adult Business Overlay, which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1. The second Ordinance adopts the New Streets In -Lieu fee, which will fund new internals streets within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary. BACKGROUND: In January 2011, the City Council determined that it was necessary to enhance opportunities within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area to ensure long term economic viability. The City Council established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee, which then directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning workshops with the community to develop a long term vision of the Specific Plan area. From October 2011 through July 2012, six community visioning workshops were conducted in an effort to develop the community's vision for the Uptown Jefferson Area. From this process, eight Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals were established to guide the development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. In February 2013, the Jefferson Specific Plan Steering Committee, consisting of two members of the Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission, was created to guide the technical development of the Plan. To date, 37 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through the Envision Jefferson public visioning process, Steering Committee meetings, City Commission meetings, and a Developer Forum. The City has also engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson and the City of Temecula websites. Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to determine the best land uses and development standards necessary to create a new and vibrant Uptown Jefferson. DISCUSSION UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan provides for a range of uses including mixed use residential development, access to open space and recreational areas, and improved pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular mobility and connectivity. The development standards of the Plan follow principles of a form based code, which focus on building form, building placement, and the creation of a pedestrian scale environment to achieve the community's vision for the area. The administration of the Plan allows for a streamlined review of planning applications and phased compliance with the Plan, adding flexibility to the permitting and approval process. All aspects of the Specific Plan considered the guiding principles, recommendations and the community's vision for the area. Market Assessment — In order to ensure the Specific Plan is based on economically feasible development and an appropriate mix of uses, staff consulted with Keyser Marston Associates Inc. (KMA) to perform a market assessment of the types of land uses that the Study Area could support based on prevailing market factors, trade area growth projections, and anticipated macroeconomic changes within each major land use category. The focus of the KMA market assessment was to evaluate the potential for development of new mixed-use development in the Study Area. The assessment relied upon readily available third -party demographic and market data sources. KMA reviewed both existing and historical market trends to better understand future development potential. KMA also prepared 10 -year market demand projections for various land uses within the Study Area. Plan Administration — All planning applications (with the exception of an application for a variance) will have the ability for administrative approval. In lieu of holding a public hearing, a Notice of Intent to Approve would be posted on site and mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project, 20 days prior to the date of the Director of Community Development's decision to approve the application. The Notice of Intent to Approve will include the follwing information: 1) the date and time that the Director of Community Development will administratively approve the proposed project; 2) an explanation of the matter to be considered; 3) a detailed description of the proposed project and a summary of the project scope; 4) the findings being made for approval of the proposed project; 5) the general description (in the form of text or a diagram) of the property's location; 6) the location where the plans and/project file can be reviewed by the public; and 7) the procedures for requesting a public hearing. A public hearing may be held when any member of the City Council, Planning Commission, the applicant, or an affected party owning real property within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed project requests the item be scheduled for public hearing. If a hearing is requested, the hearing will be conducted by the Director of Community Development, unless the Director of Community Development defers such a decision to the Planning Commission. Districts and Land uses — The Specific Plan establishes the following six zoning districts and two overlay zones: Zoning Districts 1. Uptown Center District (UC) 2. Uptown Hotel/Tourism District (UHT) 3. Uptown Sports/Transit District (US) 4. Uptown Arts District (UA) 5. Creekside Village District (CV) 6. Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR -OS) Overlay Zones 1. Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zone (CV -CO) 2. Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO) Each zoning district and overlay zone has specific land uses and development standards which vary slightly by district in order to achieve differences between the districts and neighborhoods as envisioned by the community. The boundaries of each district and overlay zone were established based on the existing land uses, geographic and surrounding physical features, and the desired vision of the community. Vertical or horizontal mixed-use development is encouraged to promote a more urban style environment which was also desired by the community. The allowable land uses within the Specific Plan varies from what is currently allowed under the existing zoning. Industrial and heavy automotive repair uses would no longer be allowed under the Specific Plan. Residential uses, which are currently not allowed under the existing zoning, would be allowed under the Specific Plan. The industrial and heavy automotive repair uses that currently exist in the proposed Specific Plan area would be considered incompatible uses when located adjacent to residential uses. However, it is also the policy of the Specific Plan that legal non -conforming uses that were legally established prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan are allowed to continue as they were, without any restriction to their operations. Should the legal non -conforming land use be discontinued for a continuous period of 365 days or more, the legal non -conforming use shall not be reestablished. It should also be noted the Specific Plan also allows a property owner to apply to extend the legal non -conforming status beyond the initial 365 day period due to hardship, and there is no limit to the number of one-year extensions of time that may be granted. Mobility Infrastructure — The infrastructure needed for enhancing mobility within the Specific Plan area was analyzed with the goal of improving mobility for vehicular travel, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users to achieve the community's vision for a bicycle and pedestrian friendly urban experience. To accomplish this goal, the existing right-of-way (ROW) and curb -to - curb street cross sections were analyzed to determine if on -street parking, bicycle facilities, and 20 -foot sidewalks were feasible throughout the Specific Plan area. The result was a series of new street cross sections that include 20 -foot sidewalks, on -street parking, bicycle facilities, curb bulb -outs at intersections, bus turn -outs, and painted or raised medians. The new cross sections fit within the existing ROW and curb -to -curb sections, enabling the existing street cross sections to be retrofitted with the new street cross sections without acquiring additional ROW or the need to widen any of the existing streets. New streets have been added to the Specific Plan in order to create a grid pattern street network with smaller blocks. Smaller blocks and a grid pattern street network create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods, by reducing the size of existing blocks and creating additional connections resulting in improved mobility throughout the Specific Plan area. The location of new streets is proposed as a hypothetical street network to allow for flexibility in their location as development occurs. The hypothetical street network will be constructed as new development occurs where new block size standards are exceeded. The construction of new streets will be equitably funded by all new development via an in -lieu fee, which is described in further detail below. Utility Infrastructure — The infrastructure needed to support the anticipated development of the Specific Plan area was analyzed for water supply, sewer capacity, storm water conveyance, electricity, natural gas, solid waste disposal and telecommunications. Staff coordinated with service providers to determine if there is adequate infrastructure for future development in conformity with the Specific Plan. All utility service providers indicated that adequate capacity exists, with exception to wastewater system capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is the service provider for wastewater collection and treatment in the Specific Plan area. EMWD indicated the existing sewer pipelines in the Specific Plan area do not have ample capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater flow that would be generated under the Specific Plan at build -out. However, developers will pay their fair share of the EMWD mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, Via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Land Use Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designations for parcels within the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area to a single General Plan designation of "Specific Plan Implementation" from their current designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP) and Open Space (OS). The purpose of the Specific Plan Implementation land use designation is to ensure consistency between the land uses and development characteristics of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area and the General Plan by referring directly to the Specific Plan for the intended uses and development characteristics for this area. If approved, the General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU -3) for the area within the proposed Specific Plan boundaries, add Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -4), remove Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and add the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text within the Land Use Element. Circulation Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from Principle Arterial (6 -lane divided) to Major Arterial (4 -lane divided). The proposed change is consistent with the community's vision, the transition of Jefferson Avenue at the City's corporate boundary with the City of Murrieta, and with the proposed Jefferson Avenue street cross section that is south of Winchester Road. Community Design Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element. It would also amend the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvement. ZONING MAP AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Zoning Designations — The proposed Specific Pian requires a Zoning Map amendment changing the zoning designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), and Light Industrial (LI) to the designation of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also requires an amendment to Section 17.16.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the list of approved specific plans. Adult Business Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Amendment — The Specific Plan requires an amendment to Chapter 5.09 Adult Business Regulations of the Temecula Municipal Code by removing the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary from the Special Use Overlay No.1. In 1998, the City adopted the Adult Business Overlay Zone as Special Use Overlay No. 1, which designated commercially -zoned parcels as possible locations for the establishment of adult businesses ("Overlay Zone"). All of the parcels in the Overlay Zone have adequate lighting, sidewalks, access roads, power and other utilities to support a commercial enterprise. Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040 requires a 1,000 -foot buffer between adult businesses in the Overlay Zone. In addition, no person shall operate an adult business without first obtaining an adult business license and a modified version of a conditional use permit. At this point, the City does not have any adult businesses operating within its borders. The Specific Plan area overlaps with 58 parcels in the Overlay Zone. Due to concerns about the secondary effects of having adult businesses operate in the proposed Specific Plan area and the incompatibility of land uses, the proposed Specific Plan and the proposed amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance would limit adult businesses to only those portions of the Overlay Zone that are located outside of the proposed Specific Plan area. If the City adopts zoning code and zoning map amendments to remove the parcels located in the proposed Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone, 426 parcels would remain in the Overlay Zone available for the establishment of adult businesses. The City seeks to remove the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone to address the secondary effects of adult businesses. The City is not seeking to regulate free speech, but is concerned about the secondary effects of adult businesses. Research shows that adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct, as well as, reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences. Because there are no adult businesses located within the City, evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult oriented businesses can be found in various studies and reports which have been considered by other municipalities and local governments including, but not limited to: • Eric S. McCord and Richard Tewksbury, Does the Presence of Sexually Oriented Businesses Relate to Increased Levels of Crime? An Examination Using Spatial Analyses, Crime & Delinquency (2012); • Alan C. Weinstein and Richard McCleary, The Association of Adult Businesses with Secondary Effects: Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 29 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 565 (2012); • Richard McCleary and Lori Sexton, Testimony on SB 3348 (March 2012); • Jacqueline Reuben, Chris Serio -Chapman, Christopher Welsh, Richard Matens and Susan G. Sherman, Correlates of Current Transactional Sex Among a Sample of Female Exotic Dances in Baltimore, MD, 88 Journal of Urban Health 342 (April 2011); • The Bureau of Business Research, IC Institute, and the Institute of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault of the University of Texas at Austin, An Assessment of the Adult Industry in Texas (March 2009); • Richard McCleary and Alan C. Weinstein, Do "Off -Site" Adult Businesses Have Secondary Effects? Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 31 Law & Policy 217 (April 2009); • Richard McCleary, Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses, 19 Criminal Justice Policy Review 153 (2008); • Valerie Jenness, Richard McClearly and James W. Meeker, Crime -Related Secondary Effects of Sexually -Oriented Businesses, Report to the County Attorney Palm Beach County, Florida (August 15, 2007); • Richard McCleary, Crime Related Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses: Report to the City Attorney (May 2007); • Department of Planning and Development Director's Report, Adult Cabarets in Seattle (March 2006); • Duncan Associates, Survey of Appraisers Fort Worth & Dallas Effects of Land Uses on Surrounding Property Values (2004); • Report of Richard McCleary in People of the State of Illinois v. The Lion's Den, Inc., In the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Illinois, Case Number 04 -CH -26; • Eric Damian Kelly and Connie B. Cooper, Survey, Findings and Recommendations of Sexually Oriented Businesses Toledo, Ohio (August 2002); • David Sherman, Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View, Proponent Testimony S.B. 251 Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Civil Justice (December 2002); • An Insider's View of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Testimony of David Sherman (2000); • Duncan Associates, Sexually -Oriented Business Study Rochester, New York (July 2000); and • National Law Center for Children and Families, NLC Summaries of "SOB Land Use" Studies (1996). These studies and reports establish that adult business often have a harmful effect on nearby businesses and residential areas, causing an increase in crime in both the surrounding neighborhoods and in the adult business establishments themselves, and a decrease in property values. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is intended to create a unique destination place within the City of Temecula through the careful planning of land uses, public spaces, development standards and public transportation. Uptown Jefferson will be Temecula's newest "destination." Vibrant, sophisticated and unique, the area will be home to a diverse mix of residents of all ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic, up-and-coming neighborhoods. These neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no other place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. Complemented by an expanded mix of new locally -owned and corporate businesses, collectively they will provide high quality jobs, as well as goods and services to local residents. Temecula Municipal Code section 17_08.020(H) provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan will add a significant number of new residential units to the Specific Plan Area that has been largely commercial and industrial. The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -oriented retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The urban neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson are located within walking distance to a hub of quality and thriving businesses, technologically innovative employment centers, and higher - education facilities. The vibe of Uptown Jefferson will foster creativity, stimulate innovation, and provide a place for community members to work, learn and refashion the world around them. And historically important, locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. Uptown Jefferson will also contribute to the local tourism industry with expanded hotel offerings, restaurants and shops. In addition to expanding its service to traditional weekend -oriented tourism, the stronger presence of businesses and corporations will fill hotel rooms and support small conventions and events that occur during the week. The secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses within the Specific Plan area. As noted above, the residential uses will be intermingled with commercial uses. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disruptive to the residents of Uptown Jefferson. The City Council may revise the Overlay Zone to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone if it finds that: (1) the sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market, and (2) there are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses. 1. The sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market. To be part of the actual real estate market, the sites must be zoned for commercial use, available for commercial use, or if zoned for manufacturing or industrial uses, it must be feasible for the sites to be used for commercial uses (i.e., they must be connected to roadways and appropriate infrastructure). The GIS map prepared by staff indicates that 426 commercially - zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of these commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, many of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. These parcels could be developed to support an adult use business. Therefore, the sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market. 2. There are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses. There are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 108,920. 1.8% of land in the City is available to adult businesses. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by the Municipal Code, the map indicates that at least 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate within the Overlay Zone after it is amended to exclude the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City, the City has never received an application for an adult business,and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. Thus, there is an adequate number of sites available for adult businesses even if the parcels located within the Specific Plan area are removed from the Overlay Zone. NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE As previously discussed, the Specific Plan calls for new internal streets to enhance internal connectivity, mobility and to create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods. The new streets will be funded by new development via an in -lieu fee. The fee is based on the overall cost of the new streets and is based on a standard 66 foot street cross section. During the visioning process for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), the community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit. In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks resulted in fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Jefferson Avenue is perceived by pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting. The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly, urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi -modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area: 1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Murrieta Creek. 4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7. Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. The methodology used by Keyser Marston Associates in conducting the nexus study and reaching its conclusions considered the following: 1. Preliminary per linear foot cost estimates of new streets. 2. Build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3. Comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4. Nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5. Economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit, and for non-residential uses, it is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet. These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by the New Streets In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the types of development projects within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan on which they are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets. As proposed, on July 1 of each year, the adopted New Streets In -Lieu Fees shall be adjusted by the Director of Finance based upon the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering News Record Index. On November 17, 2015, the City Council will hear the Staff Report on the Uptown Jefferson In - Lieu Street Fees, the Ordinance establishing the fee, and the Resolution setting the fee. Then on December 8, 2015, the City Council will hold a continued public hearing and consider the adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution. Economic Impact - The nexus study also analyzed the economic impact of a new fee on new development. For the purposes of the economic impact analysis, a prototypical half -block development site was used for a series of development prototypes that included a range of office, hotel, and mulit-family developments, all of which were assumed to include ground floor retail. The analysis considered the total cost of development for each prototype to determine what percent the nexus supported fee represented of a projects total development cost. It was determined that a fee that represents 3% or less of a projects total development cost was a reasonable amount for which a project could incure and remain economically feasible. The economic impact of the nexus supported fee was estimated to range from 2.8% and 5.6% of development cost. As a result of applying the threashold, the nexus study concluded that implementing the full fee would be economically unfeasible and recommended that the following lower fees be adopted: 1. $6,351 for a Residential Unit; 2. $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; 3. $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and 4. $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses. The economic impact of the recommended fee is estimated to range from 1.4% and 2.8% of a projects development cost. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On October 21, 2015 staff presented the draft Specific Plan and related General Plan amendments, Zoning amendments, Municipal Code amendments, and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the Planning Commission. The Commission opened the public hearing to allow the community to provide input and for staff to address any PC and community comments delivered at the initial PC hearing, then continued the item until November 4, 2015. At the November 4, 2015 public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all of the action items associated with the Specific Plan including the Specific Plan document, General Plan amendment, Zoning Map amendment, Municipal Code amendment, and Programmatic EIR. The Commission had questions for staff regarding the traffic impact analysis. The Commission requested that staff take a look at adding stronger language that identified certain specific thresholds that would trigger implementation of the previously identified traffic mitigation measures for the intersection of Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road and the intersection of Rancho California Road/Ynez Road. There were two public speakers representing the property owner of a vacant lot on the North East corner of Sanborn and Madison. Both speakers had questions and concerns regarding inconsistencies between the site's CC&Rs in relation to the proposed Specific Plan's underlying zoning. Overall the Commissioners were very supportive of the proposed plan. The Commission voted 3-0-1-1, one absent and one vacant, recommeding that the City Council adopt the recommendations as presented by staff. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Specific Plan, Zoning Code Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and an Amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Specific Plan area ("proposed Project') was processed, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP') of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. A Draft EIR was prepared under staffs direction by ESA (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mel!man Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union - Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The City received written comments and responded to each comment in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). A copy of the City's response has been provided to commenting agencies as required by State law. A copy of the Final EIR document has been provided to the City Council. The environmental analysis identified four areas where impacts were not considered to be significant (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, and Public Services) and nine areas where potentially significant impacts were identified which could be avoided or mitigated. These nine areas include Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise (operational); Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Water Supply Assessment. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Four impact areas were identified as resulting in an unavoidable, significant impact and include Direct Impacts to Air Quality from construction and operations and Direct Impacts to Noise from construction. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality from construction and operations, and impacts to historic Cultural Resources. In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration prior to approving the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Statement of Overriding Consideration states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program EIR. Among the benefits that this proposed project provides the community are expanded economic opportunities through a more active urban downtown, an increased variety in housing types to complement the City's current housing stock, the potential for the addition of a full service hotel to serve the Temecula area, and the potential for significant new employment. FISCAL IMPACT: The Specific Plan identifies the need for restriping existing streets to accommodate future on -street parking and bicycle facilities. These projects are not currently specified in the Capital Improvement Program Budget, but will be added in future years. Approval of these infrastructure improvements and appropriation of funds would occur through separate actions and adoption of the Annual Operating Budget by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. List of Changes to the May 2015 Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Website 2. Draft Resolution No. 15- (EIR Certification) Exhibit A - Findings of Fact Exhibit B - Statement of Overiding Considerations Exhibit C - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3. Draft Resolution No. 15- (General Plan Amendments) Exhibit A - Land Use Element Exhibit B - Land Use Policy Map Exhibit C - Community Design Element Exhibit D - Circulation Element 4. Draft Ordinance No. 15- (Zoning Amendments) Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 5. Draft Ordinance No. 15- (New Streets In -Lieu Fee) 6. Draft Resolution No. 15- (New Streets In -Lieu Fee) 7. Planning Commission Staff Reports (October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015) 8. Notice of Public Hearing 9. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan which can be downloaded at f http://www. cityoftemecula. org/Temecula/Governm entJC om m Dev/Jefferson+Avenue +Study+Area.html 10. Uptown Jefferson Final Environmental Impact Report which can be downloaded at f http: //www. c i tyoftem ec u l a. o rg/Temecula/Government/C o m m D e v/Jefferson+Av e n u e +Study+Area.html Summary of proposed changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1. Plan Applicability. Language was added to Section C in Chapter 2 to exempt any development and land use proposals within the proposed project area from having to comply with the Specific Plan if a planning application was submitted to and deemed complete by the City's Community Development Department on or before April 28, 2015, but was not yet approved, denied or conditionally approved by the City Council following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The language further states that the City Council may impose reasonable conditions on a conditional use permit in order to mitigate the impact of the project that would otherwise be incompatible with the allowable uses and development standards under the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the duration of the incompatible use and architectural design of the project. 2. Administrative Amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsection G.6 in Chapter 2 Plan Administration was added to allow minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the Director of Community Development provided the amendments do not change existing policies and do not change the community's vision or the intended goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. 3. Extension of Legal Non -Conforming Land Uses. Subsection E.3 has been added to allow a property owner to apply for a one-year extension of time beyond the initial 365 day of discontinuance. Additional language has been added to clarify that a fire or other calamity, act of God, or public enemy does not constitute a discontinuance of use. 4. Interpretation. Table 2-1 of Chapter 2 Plan Administration was amended by removing the Interpretation Planning Application to be consistent with the balance of administrative policies in Chapter 2. 5. Land Use Matrix. Table 3-1 was amended by adding "Religious Institutions without a School or Daycare" as a permitted use in all zoning districts, "Office" as a permitted use in the Creekside Village District, and uses for health, fitness, dance, martial arts studios that are less than 5,000 square feet as a permitted use. 6. Land Uses Not Listed. A sentence was added to Section B in Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Standards, which requires the Director of Community Development determination for land uses not listed in Table 3-1. 7. Parking Requirements. Table 3-9 was amended by increasing the parking requirement for a "Residential" use from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1/5 spaces per unit to be more consistent with market demands. The parking requirement for Religious Institutions was added to Table 3-9. RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (`Specific Plan') has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15. south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown HotelfTourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the `Project"). C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law: including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seqand the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as `'CEQA'). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ('NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ('Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. I. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearings, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-26 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15-27, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adopting General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments related to the approval of the proposed Project. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III and IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Q. Alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. T. On Novebmer 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. SECTION 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Declare that prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The City Council finds the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. SECTION 3. Certification of the Final EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the proposed Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C. SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. SECTION 7. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Program EIR. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft Program EIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. H. Project Objectives. As set forth in the Program EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Create a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational opportunities. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. A-1 B. Strengthen opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities. C. Establish a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street." D. Identify and establish interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique identities. E. Develop a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and built environment. F. Create a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking standards. G. Establish an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and transit improvements, including the French Valley Interchange, Overland Drive Extension, Rancho Way Extension, Jefferson Avenue Streetscape Beautification, and working with Regional Transit Authority (RTA) on the siting of a new transit center. H. Enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the Specific Plan area through the development of human -scaled streets, blocks, and alleys as well as incorporating public plazas and providing links with open spaces and recreational amenities. 1. Ensure that new development in the Specific Plan area is adequately served by utilities. III, Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in May 2013 to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the E1R: (A) Agriculture and Forest Resources; (B) Mineral Resources; and (C) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the Program EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; (0) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (H) Hydrology and Water Quality; (I) Land Use and Planning; (J) Noise; (K) Population and Housing; (L) Public Services; (M) Transportation and Traffic ; and (N) Utilities and Services A-2 A. On June 6, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners, tenants, and business ow,ncrs within the boundaries of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, and land owners and tenants located within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested comments by July 12, 2013. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 210819 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. Comments received on the NOP included: the scope of traffic impact analysis and potential traffic impacts; scope of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses; impacts to public services and utilities, including the adequacy of water supply for the Project; impacts to Native American cultural resources and outreach with the Native American tribes in the area; impacts to biological resources, including consideration of the Project's proximity to Murrieta Creek and its location within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area; and consistency with local and regional land use plans, including the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy goals. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the Program EIR The Draft Program EIR completed in March 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Program EIR. A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 1. The Project would not generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. B. Land Use and Planning 1. The Project would not physically divide an established community. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. A-3 C. Population and Housing 1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. D. Public Services 1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or create a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: • Fire protection; • Police protection; • Schools; • Parks; or • Other public facilities. 2. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. 3. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level The Draft Program EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; transportation and traffic; and utilities and water supply assessment. With the exception of specific impacts to air quality (construction and operations), noise (construction), and cumulative impacts to air quality and A-4 cultural resources, discussed in Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts to the topic areas identified above to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final Program EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Program EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C. A. Aesthetics 1. New Source of Light and Glare The Project has the potential to increase the intensity and density of development throughout the Project area, which could result in increased light and glare sources. In addition, although the Project would be consistent with the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and implement measures to reduce light and glare, given the proposed density and intensity of the Project, new development could substantially increase nighttime light sources. As described below, these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars, • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting_ the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as A-5 adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; a Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway. and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES- 1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non -mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project will be required to comph with existing Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 requiring lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. In addition, the Project would discourage large surface parking areas, which can be a primary source of daytime glare, and would increase landscaping throughout the area, which would provide additional shielding from lighting and glare; likely reducing the overall amount of light and glare that is currently produced in the Project area. With the implementation of MM -AES -1 (above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the Project will be less than significant. B. Air Quality Localized Construction Emissions Future project -level development construction activities associated with the implementation of the Project would not have a significant localized impact when construction activities: 1) would require no more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per day; 2) involve no more than a maximum daily A-6 amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; 3) require no more than 10 miles of onsite travel by haul trucks per day; and 4) involve an onsite storage (soil) pile of no more than 0.02 acres. It is possible that project -level development could exceed these construction activity thresholds, resulting in a significant localized air quality impact. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that construction emissions from project -level development are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an individual development project that would have the construction equipment and activity listed below, a project- specific LST analysis that identifies the resulting construction emissions shall be prepared using either SCAQMD's LST screening tables (for projects that are less than five acres) or dispersion modeling (for projects that exceed five acres in size) . Where it is determined that construction emissions would exceed the applicable LSTs or the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, the project shall reduce its daily construction intensity (e.g.. reducing the amount of equipment used daily, reducing the amount of soil graded/excavated daily, etc.) to a level where the project's construction emissions would no longer exceed SCAQMO's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. • Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per day; • Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; • Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks per day; and, • Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Project could exceed air quality standards during construction if grading activities exceeded certain levels of activity resulting in localized air quality impacts. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -ATR -1a through MM - AIR -1d, and MIM -AIR -3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Operational Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants As the entire eastern boundary of the Project area is located adjacent to 1-15, there could potentially be new residential uses that would be located within 500 feet of this freeway. A-7 Consequently, the Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) from mobile sources on 1-15 to an extent that health risks could result. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that TACs on sensitive receptors located within the Project site are less than significant. Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future project -specific residential developments within the Project area and located within 500 feet of I-15, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources traveling along the portion of I-15 that is adjacent to the Project area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC - exposure from I-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally -exposed individual. These measures may include, but are not limited to, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to TACs that exceed air quality standards. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -4 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. C. Biological Resources 1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species The proposed Project has the potential to impact special status species within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. Development occurring as a result of the Project could result in direct and indirect impacts to special -status plants including disturbing or removing the plants or their habitat during construction. Construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds that could out -compete special status plants. All impacts to special status plants would be considered significant. Additionally, impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would include loss of foraging and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Burrowing owls present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. A-8 Lastly, future development could result in adverse effects to vernal pools and special -status vernal pool species (fairy shrimp) that may occur in flat, open areas between the developed portions of the Project site and Murrieta Creek. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to special status species remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities for individual development projects, pre -construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for special -status plant species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground - disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted in the appropriate season. All special- status plant species observed shall be marked and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special -status or habitats of concern mapping within the construction limits shall be updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1 -August 30). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 -August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own), A 500 -foot construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 of the Draft EIR, which depicts A-9 vegetation communities within the Project area, shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified an the project site during these pre - construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found: • Since a burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level. • However, if the Project cannot avoid the active bun-ow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the RCA. • If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an active translocation plan. if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be acceptable. • However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35 plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application. Mitigation Measure MM-B1O-4: The specific MSHCP conservation objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual development project located outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall be conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human - modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under A-10 Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservation/impact ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restrictions and protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction: Sectional Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground -disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will document compliance with the fencing requirement through a memorandum submitted to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed. If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented: Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site A-11 land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods; each is described below. On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal pool basins and \ ate rshed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the DBESP. Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. Mitigation through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities associated with individual development projects, a biologist shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individual or groups of bats are found within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow conditions, or by installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities for a minimum of one week after implementing exclusion and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. The biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 A-12 through MM -BIO -5 which require pre -construction and construction biological surveys, measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate species would be minimized to a less than significant level. 2. Impacts to Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat The proposed Project has the potential to impact critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities within the Jefferson Specific Plan area. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities remain less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -B10-1 and MM -BIO -4. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Project could result in impacts to vernal pool resources in undeveloped portions of the Project area or could affect areas of wetland habitat that exist within the Project boundaries. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM - BIO -1 and MM-BI0-4 which require biological surveys and MSHCP vernal pool protection implementation measures would minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level. D. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Paleontological) 1. Impacts to Archaeological Resources The proposed Project has the potential to impact archaeological resources located within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. The records search indicated that a total of nine archaeological resources are located within one mile of the Project area. Three (CA-RIV-644, -717, and -1727H) are located within the Project area. Two of these resources (CA-RIV-644 and -717) are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one (CA -RN -17271-1) is a historic -period archaeological site. None have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register or local historic register. Therefore, the Project area has moderate to high potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources. a) Findings A-13 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall be subject to a Phase 1 cultural resources inventory on a project -specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City and the Pcchanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians on a project -specific basis. In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground - disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City. During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section A-14 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and any other local Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation ofatreatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. b) Facts in Support of Findings Future development under the Project could significantly impact archaeological sites and/or sites of traditional cultural value to tribes; and structures 50 years old or older. Development occurring under the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to these resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 requires consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a qualified archeologist to be on-site during ground disturbance activities, and identifies protections measures to be implemented in the event resources are discovered. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL - 2 requires a historic build environment survey prior to City approval of any development plans. These mitigation measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level. A-15 2. Paleontological Resources The proposed Project is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have high paleontological sensitivity and therefore the potential to cause a significant impact on paleontological resources. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to paleontological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources. The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided. In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 1506 4.5. if fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification, A-16 catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. b) Facts in Support of Findings The potential exists for significant paleontological resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the Project area. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. However, Temecula's General Plan (implementation measure OS -26) requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological resources is identified. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 will ensure any potential impacts to paleontological resources are minimized to be less than significant. 3. Impacts to unidentified Human Remains The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact to human remains in the event human remains are discovered. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts unidentified human remains remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The City shall require that if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. b) Facts in Support of Findings The archaeological site record for site CA -RN -644 has indicated that human remains near the site had been identified eroding out of the bank of a nearby creek, possibly Santa Gertrudis, and were recovered by public employees in the early 1970s (Humbert and A-17 Hammond, 1973) and ground -disturbing construction conducted throughout the Project area that is associated with implementation of the Project could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. However, this impact would be minimized to less than significant by implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4. 4. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources The Project could cause cumulative impacts to cultural resources including archaeological resources, fossils and human remains. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below to ensure that the Project's cumulative impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2, MM -CUL -3 and MM -C U L-4. b) Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the Program EIR includes several mitigation measures to reduce potential Project impacts to cultural resources during construction of the Project. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, the Project, with mitigation, would not contribute to the cumulative impact. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2 and MM -CUL -4, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Excavation activities associated with the Project in conjunction with other projects in the area could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, as -yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. However, the Project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -CU L-3. With the implementation of this measure, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact through progressive damage or loss of potentially significant fossils; however, the Project, with mitigation, would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4 would mitigate the Project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of A-18 formal cemeteries, and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on human remains would not be cumulatively considerable. E. Geology, Soils and Seismicity 1. Impacts to sail erosion The Project has the potential to cause an impact on water quality or waste discharge upon construction and operation of developments within the project area. Construction could include grading and other earth moving activities exposing soils to erosion, which could lead to erosion and runoff. In addition, the incremental increase of development over the span of 20-30 years is likely to contribute to pollution such as motor oil or fertilizers being washed away during rainfall or when a street, walkway, or parkway surface is being cleaned. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts associated with soil erosion are less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2. b) Facts in Support of Findings Construction activities associated with future development could disturb soils that are protected by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or concrete, resulting in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. As detailed in MM-1-IYD-1 and MM -HYD -2, individual development projects occurring during Project implementation would be required to implement the construction best management practices (BMPs), as detailed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Construction General Permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program for sites greater than one acre and each individual development project would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required by the City. These mitigation measures will reduce soil impacts to less than significant. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Construction activities occurring under the Project may occur on sites containing contamination, which could result in releases of hazardous materials As noted in the Program EIR, a number of sites within the Specific Plan area have been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons from leaking underground storage tanks or other chemical constituents such as solvents associated with dry cleaning operations that could expose individuals to ha77rdous conditions resulting from exposure of contaminated soils or A-19 groundwater. Exposure of residents to underground hazardous wastes is considered a potentially significant impact. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard E1527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of any construction activities. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils suspected of contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the County. If contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. b) Facts in Support of Findings Some of the listed sites in the Project arca have been closed indicating that there is no longer any contamination at levels that could adversely affect human health or the environment. Investigations and remediation efforts are generally required by overseeing agencies such as the County's Hazardous Materials Program, RWQCB, and the DTSC, A-20 which establish cleanup levels according to existing or proposed uses. In general, soils contaminated from releases of petroleum hydrocarbons associated with underground storage tanks (USTs) are found in limited areas around the origin of release and do not migrate very far offsite. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-la through MM-I3AZ-lc will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant levels. G. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Construction of the Project would require demolition of existing structures, pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation; these activities could expose and loosen building materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction -related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to water quality. In addition, chemicals used during the operation of the new commercial and residential structures could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface water quality. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to water quality associated with construction and operation is reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Development construction that disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. A-21 Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs or a combination thereof. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of a SWPPP and water quality -related BMPs described in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2 \iould ensure that construction -related impacts on water quality, including potential harmful materials accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, would be less than significant. In addition, future developments will be required to generate a project -specific WQMP, which will reduce impacts to surface waters, either directly or during storm water runoff events, from the use of chemicals, to less than significant levels. Impacts from Stormwater Runoff a) Findings Both construction and operation of the Project could result in impacts related to stormwater runoff. Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact associated with stormwater runoff is less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1; and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's A-22 Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential hydromodification features identified may include detention or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although construction and operation of the Project has the potential to have significant impacts associated with stormwater runoff, Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM - HYD -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. In addition, adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in MM -HYD -3, would ensure no substantial increases in storinwater runoff occur during operation of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 3. Drainage System Capacity Related to Construction and Operation. a) Findings Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts related to drainage system capacity are less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3. b) Facts in Support of Findings As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an A-23 acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity. In addition, as part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD - 3, IA ould ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur such that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. H. Noise and Vibration (operations) 1. Operational Noise New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: For project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: Individual development projects shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. A-24 Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. b) Facts in Support of Findings Under the Project, new land uses that would occur in the Project area include residential, commercial, office, and mixed-use developments. These new developments may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that arc located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. However, for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards and implement measures to reduce noise levels, per Mitigation Measure MMN01-3. In addition, to ensure that the nearby noise -sensitive uses to the Project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. In order to ensure that the future residents in the Project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldfl or CNEL of 45 dBA in any residential unit. 2. Noise/Land Use Compatibility With changes in the community noise environment in the Project area over the course of the Project's buildout period, the new development projects proposed in the Project area may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that ensure land use compatibility impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: Prior to City approval of a project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use compatibility standards arc met for the land use being developed. Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land A-25 use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, use of window insulation (double -paned glazing), and/or, where applicable, the design of adequate setback distances. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NO1-5 would require all future development associated with the Project to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would violate the City's noise/land use compatibility standards and, where necessary, implement measures to ensure compliance with the City's standards. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. L Transportation and Traffic 1. Impacts on Circulation System from Existing (2013) Plus Project Traffic Conditions The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under the Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions: • Ynez Road & Winchester Road • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by marc than two seconds. • Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent) • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road -- AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent) Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein. A-26 b) Facts in Support of Findings After implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1, the intersection at Ynez Road & Winchester Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D (delay 37.1 seconds). The intersection at Nicholas Road & Winchester Road would operate at LOS E with delay improved to 55.8 seconds (i.e., better than under existing conditions). Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Impacts on Circulation System under Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions. The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under Future Year (2035) Plus Project conditions: • Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway -- AM peak hour • Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road — AM peak hour • Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway — AM peak hour a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that the following improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street / Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -share contribution is 10 percent), • At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right - turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). • At Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). A-27 b) Facts in Support of Findings Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein. In addition, after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2, operations during the AM peak hour at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway would improve to an acceptable LOS C (delay = 31A seconds). The intersection at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour; however, delay would improve to 92.6 seconds, which is better than pre -project conditions. Finally, AM peak hour operations at Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway would improve to LOS E (delay = 613 seconds), which while an unacceptable service level, would be better than pre -project conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. J. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment 1. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Expansion and Capacity Buildout of the Project would result in the need for larger diameter or parallel sewer lines for three lengths of sewer pipe within the Project area, and the need to increase the capacity of the Temecula Valley RWRF to handle an additional 0.8 mgd of wastewater flow; the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts related to treatment facility expansion and capacity to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay Eastem Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service. b) Facts in Support of Findings The additional wastewater flow need for implementation of the Project would necessitate a future capacity expansion which would result in the construction of new wastewater A-28 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which would be significant impacts. However, payment of mitigation fees and other fees to the Eastern Municipal Water District as described in Mitigation Measures MM-UTL-la and MM-UTL-lb would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Stormwater Drainage Facilities Buildout of the Project would result in the need for the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts to stormwater drainage facilities to less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and MM HYD -3 b) Facts in Support of Findings As a part of the WQMP implemented by Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, the Project would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) into Project design, which include measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. In addition, adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, would ensure no substantial increases in on-site or off-site storm water runoff would occur and cause significant environmental effects. Lastly, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would minimize potential permanent increases in stormwater runoff during operation of the development. With the incorporation of Mitigation MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3, impacts to stormwater drainage facilities will be less than significant. VI -Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of air quality, noise and cultural resources, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Air Quality (Construction and Operations) 1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Construction Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality standards related to ROG and NOx emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at the Program EIR level. A-29 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. Although the following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project: • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible.' Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.3 • Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification_ BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel ` CARB 's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (1n -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1. 2023. Under this regulation_ PM and NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day_ respectively. in 2023. Whereas trucks that meet 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 40 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard_ trucks that meet 2010 model year NOx emissions requirements arc estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 85 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year hearty -duty- diesel engine emissions standard. 3 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California. these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such. under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards. which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead. A-30 emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved. • After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission standards, where available. Under conditions where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification. BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lb: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a development project: • Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned offwhen not in use for more than five minutes. • Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -I c: Future project -level development shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -Id: The City shall encourage all construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD -SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate clean-up of off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Program. EIR analysis of the Project determined that under an estimated worst-case construction scenario, implementation of the Project would result in significant air quality impacts associated with ROG and NOx emissions, Additionally, under potential conditions where one or more of the construction phases shown in EIR Table 3.2-6 overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of A-31 Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la through MM-AIR-ld would reduce the emissions of ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the Program LIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's thresholds for the two respective criteria pollutants. Therefore, for the analysis of the Project's worst- case scenario, impacts from construction ROG and NOx emissions would be significant and unavoidable. 2. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operations Operational activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality standards related to ROG emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at this program level. a) Findings As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would min below be above the SCAQMD's recommended threshold; thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. b) Facts in Support of Findings When the operational ROG emissions of the Project are compared to that of the existing land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the Project were associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the Project area.4 The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be above the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality Consumer products are defined in Ca1EEMod to be chemically formulated products used by household consumers that include. but is not limited to. detergents: cleaning compounds: polishes: floor finishes: cosmetics: personal care products: home. lawn, and garden products: disinfectants: sanitizers: aerosol paints. and automotive specialty products. A-32 As the Basin is currently classified as a state non -attainment area for ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM25s cumulative development consisting of the Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. This is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. With respect to the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact, according to the SCAQMD, individual construction projects that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As the Project's construction -related ROG and NOx emissions (both of which are ozone precursors) and operational ROG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds, the Project would contribute to a cumulative air quality impact with respect to ozone and NO2.5 Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measures listed below will be implemented to lessen construction and long term operational air quality impacts; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR- la and MM - AIR -lb from Section 3.2, Air Quality, would reduce constmction emissions of ROG and NOx associated with the worst-case construction scenario analyzed for the Project; however, not to below a level of significance. a) Facts in Support of Findings The Program EIR shows that the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx (ozone precursors). Therefore, the Project would exceed SCAQMD's respective thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment (i.e., ozone and NO2). The Project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 5 It should be noted that because the Basin in currently a non -attainment area for ozone and NO2, and both ROG and NOx emissions arc ozone precursors (i.e., ozone is created by sunlight acting on ROG and NOx in the air), the exceedance of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for these pollutants by the Project would result in a significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. A-33 With respect to Project operations, with the exception of ROG emissions, the total net operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, PM 10, and PM2.5. With respect to the Project's operational emissions of NOx, CO, Sox, PM10, and PM2.5, these pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. However, as the net operational ROG emissions associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's operational threshold, the Project's ROG emissions, which are ozone precursors, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. B. Cultural Resources Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that arc 50 years or older. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure will be implemented to lessen impacts to historic resources; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to the built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation ofa treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. b) Facts in Support of Findings Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be A-34 insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than - significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of MM -CUL -2, at a program EIR level analysis. 2. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in this area could occur if any other existing or proposed projects, in conjunction with the Project, had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen cumulative impacts to historic resources; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to built historic features to below the level of significance, and therefore cumulative impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: MM -CUL -2. b) Facts in Support of Findings The potential construction impacts of the Project, in combination with other projects in the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on built historical resources. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2 has been developed in order to reduce impacts to built historic resources. However, MM -CUL -2 may not reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative effects to historic built resources, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. C. Noise and Vibration (Construction) 1. Construction Noise Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. A-35 a) Findings Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant increases in noise impacts upon adjacent or nearby receptor(s). The following mitigation measures will be implemented to lessen noise impacts; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors to below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM-NQI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the Cit) of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction - related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-N0l-1 b: Project -specific development located within the Project area shall: • Ensure that noise and groundbome vibration construction activities whose specific location an a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise and vibration -sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible_ this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. A-36 • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. • Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. b) Facts in Support of Findings As described in the Program EIR, it is anticipated that the City, through the environmental review process, will consider all future developments associated with the Project on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels on its surrounding off-site uses. However, for the purposes of this LIR, it is assumed that there would likely be future developments associated with the Project that would be located in close enough proximity to existing land uses such that the construction noise levels generated would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at those existing land uses. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NDI-lb which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring under the Project would be implemented to reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the Project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Although mitigation measures would reduce the Project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the Project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. 2. Construction Vibration A-37 Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area would potentially expose their respective onsite and /or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance. c) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential to expose sensitive receptors onsite and /or offsite to substantial vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM-N0I-2a: The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction of any project -specific development in the Project area to the extent feasible. Small, rubber tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM-N0I-2b: Operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities associated with any project -specific development in the Project area, to the extent feasible. d) Facts in Support of Findings As individual development projects would be spread over the Project's buildout period and construction events are short-term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an infrequent amount of vibration events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting from the construction of individual development projects. However, depending on how close an actual receptor location is to a construction site, and the type of building the receptor is (e.g., non -engineered timber and masonry building, historical building, etc.), the vibration levels at a receptor location could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance (refer to the "Thresholds of Significance" section of the EIR for the applicable FTA vibration thresholds). As such, vibration impacts during construction associated with the Project could be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-2a and MMNOI-2b would reduce these impacts; however, not to below a level of significance. A-38 VU. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives arc potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." The Project would involve adoption of a Specific Plan with the intent of revitalizing this particular location in the City and taking advantage of its attributes, including the opportunity to create a high-density urban environment and its proximity to major transportation routes. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this Project. The Program EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR 1. Alternative One — No Project/Existing General Plan a) Summary of Alternative This alternative is analyzed within this program -level EIR as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is the revision of an existing land use policy, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(A) states that "the No Project Alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan... into the future." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents development under the currently adopted General Plan as further described below. This alternative, however, does not represent a "no build" scenario in which no future development or redevelopment would occur. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be developed according to the existing 2005 General Plan land use map, zoning, and A-39 development patterns. With buildout of the existing General Plan, total development in the Project area would amount to approximately 4.7 million square feet, representing an increase of approximately 933,708 square feet over existing conditions, including approximately 1,043,479 square feet of Community Commercial uses; 711,944 square feet of Highway Tourist Commercial uses; 1,773,719 square feet of Service Commercial uses; 1,192,150 square feet of Industrial Park uses; and 12,414 square feet of Public Institutional uses. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and traffic impacts than the proposed project due to the number of vehicle trips associated with the substantial development allowed under the No Project/General Plan Alternative. In addition, this Alternative would not emphasize the mixed use development promoted by the proposed Project, and therefore would not reduce dependence on vehicles. Finally, this Alternative would not meet the project's primary objective of updating the existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. For all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two = Reduced Project Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the total development would be reduced by 25 percent, which would result in a buildout of approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial uses (as opposed to the 1.7 million square feet that would occur under the Project), approximately 2,795 dwelling units, and 236 hotel rooms. This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. Under this alternative, these districts would contain the same provisions related to density and building heights. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in several impacts such as noise, air quality, and traffic impacts within the Specific Plan area. In addition, since the overall development would be reduced, there would be reduced impacts to aesthetics, population and housing, public services, as well as utilities and water supplies. Alternative 2 would achieve the proposed project objectives by creating a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational opportunities; strengthening opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan A-40 area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities; establishing a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street," identifying and establishing interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique identities; developing a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and built environment; creating a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking standards and establishing an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and transit improvements. However, Alternative 2 would not provide the most efficient use of the Specific Plan area and would therefore, not fully attain the economic potential of the project site because the allowable development for the project would be reduced by 25 percent, reducing the potential of the project's viability. Therefore, .Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three — Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, allowable floor area ratios (FARs) would be adjusted in order to decrease the total amount of residential space that would be constructed and to increase the total amount of commercial square foot. ge that could be developed. Commercial square footage would be increased by 3 million square feet; resulting in a buildout potential of approximately 4.7 million square feet of commercial uses (as compared to the 13 million square feet anticipated for the Project). Residential development would also be reduced by approximately 40 percent, which would result in approximately 2,176 dwelling units (as compared to the potential 3,726 that would occur under the Project). This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Due to the increased commercial development (as compared to the proposed Project) and the increased vehicle trips associated therewith, Alternative 3 would result in increased adverse air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. In addition, this alternative would not emphasize a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities nearly as much as the proposed Project, and A-41 therefore this alternative would result in greater greenhouse gas emission and climate change impacts than the proposed Project. Although Alternative 3 would achieve most project objectives and would promote economic activity within the City because commercial development would be emphasized over residential development, Alternative 3 would reduce residential development by 40 percent decreasing encouragement of developing an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods compared to either the existing Specific Plan or the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of the project objectives as well as the proposed project, and would have greater adverse impacts. Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. While none of the alternatives would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources and construction noise, the environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, as it would have potentially fewer environmental impacts to air quality, GHG, land use and planning, operational noise, and transportation and traffic as compared to the Project and the other alternatives. Alternative 2 also would meet all of the Project objectives. A summary of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the Project is provided in EIR Table 5-5 below. TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS Potential Project Impacts Alt. 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Alt. 2: Reduced Project Alternative AIt.3: Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Uses Alternative Aesthetics Reduced Reduced Reduced Air Quality Reduced Reduced Increased Biological Resources Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Similar Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Increased Reduced Increased Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Reduced Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Increased Similar Similar A-42 Noise and Vibration Increased Reduced Increased Population and Housing Reduced Reduced Reduced Public Services Similar Reduced Reduced Transportation and Traffic Increased Reduced Increased Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Reduced Reduced Reduced a. Definitions: • Increased = impacts of alternative greater than Project's impacts • Similar = impacts of alternative similar to Project's impacts • Reduced = impacts of alternative less than Projects impacts SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2013. D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project involves adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and is described in detail in the Program EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives anal y zed in the Final Program EIR and has compared them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals. More specifically, the Project as proposed strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan recognizes the need for economic activity and growth in the City but also promotes sound environmental policies due to the reduced reliance on vehicle trips (stemming from mixed use development) and proximity to public transportation. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. A-43 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Amendment to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts arc unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Program EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and cultural resources. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project: A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed Project strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. C. The proposed Project will reduce potential adverse environmental impacts compared with build- out under the currently -existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan due to its emphasis on mixed- use development and the benefits that such development provides, including reduced vehicle trips as a result of proximity to shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities. D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units beyond what currently exists in the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area or what currently could be developed in that area and thus will add to the available housing stock in the City. E. The proposed Project will augment the City's economic base by providing additional tax revenues resulting from the commercial component of the proposed allowable development. C-1 The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City. Council further finds that each of the individual Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program Elft and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. C-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program EXHIBIT C UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding, Pre -Construction / Construction City of i emecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula. project approval and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits far a project - specific development within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the shield; o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and, o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 1 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks • Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non - mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1a; Future project -level development shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project: Pre -Construction / Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer Designee sign -off by City diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible.' Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. 2 of Temecula • Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier 111 off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a 1 CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023. 2 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such, under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy -duly highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 2 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved. • After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission standards, where available. Under conditions where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1b: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a development project: ■ Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy- duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1c: Future project -level development shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1d: The City shall encourage all construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 3 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an individual development project that would have the construction equipment and activity listed below, a project -specific LST analysis shall be prepared and submitted that identifies the resulting construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. • Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per day; • Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; • Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks per day; and, • Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres Pre -Construction / Construction City of 1 emecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future Pre -Construction 1 City of City of City of project -specific residential developments within the Project area and Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula located within 500 feet of 1-15, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall Building Official project approval be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential or other and field developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources traveling along the portion of 1-15 that is adjacent to the Project area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC - exposure from 1-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally - exposed individual. These measures may include, but are not limited to, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum Efficiency Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM -B10-1: Prior to any ground -disturbing Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Certified activities for individual development projects, pre -construction Construction 'Temecula Temecula Environmental clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section Qualified Review 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP) for special -status plant species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground -disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted in the appropriate season. All special -status plant species observed shall be marked and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special -status or Biologist Document Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 4 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks habitats of concern mapping within the construction limits shall be updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit following measures: Qualified and field • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1- August 34). Biologist verification and sign -off by City of Temecula • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 -August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground - disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM -B10.3: Future development that occurs Pre -Construction / City of City of City of outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula of the Draft EI R, which depicts vegetation communities within the Qualified project approval project area, shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing awls are identified on the site during these pre - construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found: Biologist and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 5 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks • Since burrow awl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level. • However, if the proposed project cannot avoid the active burrow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the RCA. • If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an active translocation plan. if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes identifying a receptor site far the owls), may also be acceptable. • However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing awls are observed on 35 -plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation Pre -Construction / City of City of Field objectives far fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of Construction Temecula Temecula verification and the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Qualified sign -off by City Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual development project located outside of land designated as Biologist of Temecula Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall be conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human -modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey far fairy shrimp species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 6 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservationfimpact ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restriction and protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction: Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e,g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator andlor USAGE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of the a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground - disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, andlor USAGE. The biologist will document compliance with the fencing requirement through a memorandum submitted to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator andlor USACE will occur as needed. If vernal pools andlor listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented: Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 7 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods; each is described below. On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long- term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the DBESP. Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project by project basis. Mitigation through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hallow) Wetland Mitigation Bank. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing Pre -Construction f City of City of Issuance of activities associated with individual development projects, a Construction i emecula Temecula grading permit biologist or designee shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for Qualified and field roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Biologist verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Administrator. Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individual or groups of bats are found within the construction Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 8 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow conditions, or by installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities fora minimum of one week after implementing exclusion and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. Pre -Construction City of City of City of The Biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Temecula Temecula Temecula Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or Pre -Construction City of City of City of other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall Temecula Temecula Temecula be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project- qualified Project specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study Archaeologist Approval; shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an and Pechanga verification by archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for tribal City of professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseflo Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the representatives Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseflo Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 9 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on a project -specific basis. In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City. During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 10 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development Pre -Construction! City of City of City of involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and qualified Project potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential Historian or Approval; historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The Architectural verification by survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Historian City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development Pre -Construction) City of City of Verification by involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be Construction Temecula Temecula in City of retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the consultation Temecula in project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site with Pechanga consultation for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources. The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the Tribe with Pechanga Tribe San Bernardino County Museum andlor other appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided. In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 11 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate See MM -HYD -1 See MM- See MM -HYD -1 See MM -HYD -1 Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program. and MM -HYD 2 MM -HYD -1 and MM - and MM -HYD 2 and MM -HYD 2 At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification, catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. HYD 2 Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development Construction City of City of Verification by involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address Temecula in Temecula in City of the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously consultation with consultation with Pechanga Temecula in consultation disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The Pechanga Tribe with Pechanga City shall require that if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section Tribe Tribe 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2 See MM -HYD -1 See MM- See MM -HYD -1 See MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD 2 MM -HYD -1 and MM - and MM -HYD 2 and MM -HYD 2 HYD 2 Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 12 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1a: For individual development projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard El 527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of any construction activities. Pre -Construction / Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 b: Any subsurface materials Pre -Construction 1 Riverside City of Field exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of Construction County Temecula verification and contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall Department sign -off by City require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification of of Temecula of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils Environment and Riverside suspected of contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the al Health County Department of Environmental Health County. If contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1c: Any groundwater generated Construction RWQCB City of Field during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in Temecula verification and accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or Building Official sign -off by City Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation or other Designee of Temecula Facility. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 13 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hydrologyand Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 : Development construction that Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge Construction/ Post -Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official or other Building Permit, review of plans, field verification requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Designee and sign -off by City of Temecula Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the MS4 permit far construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: Asa condition of approval, each Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the Construction/ Post -Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official or other Building Permit, review of plans, field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Temecula Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling, minimization of vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: Asa condition of approval, each Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Construction/ Post -Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official or other Building Permit, review of plans, field verification Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Temecula Potential hydramodificatian features identified may include detention or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 14 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures issuance of a building or grading permit. Noise and Vibration Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-N01.1a: Prior to the issuance any grading Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula Grading or shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not Building Official Building exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see or other Permits and Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Fa construction -related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the- art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Designee field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1b: Project -specific development Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of located within the Project area shall: Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction Building Official and field activities whose specific location an a construction site may be or other verification and flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. Designee sign -off by City of Temecula • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets an the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 15 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. ■ Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. • Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited Building Official and field within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional or other verification and structures during construction of any project -specific development in the Project area, to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects where feasible. Designee sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-N0I.2b: Operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities associated with any project -specific development in the Project area, to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: For project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational Pre -Construction / Construction 1 City of Temecula City of Temecula Issuance of Grading Permit noise levels generated by the development would exceed the City's Post -Construction Building Official and field Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 16 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Pre -Construction/ City of or other Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: Individual development projects Pre -Construction / City of City of City of shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment. such as Construction / Temecula Temecula Temecula ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away Post -Construction Building Official project approval from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding far the or other and field equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels.. Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: Prior to City approval of a project- Pre -Construction / City of City of City of specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall Construction / Temecula Temecula Temecula provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use Past -Construction Building Official project approval compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed, Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls. use of landscaping. and/or the design of adequate setback distances. or other Designee and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these Engineer or and Issuance of intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by mare than two seconds. • Ynez Road & VVinchester Road —AM peak hour (Project's fair - share contribution far this mitigation measure is 10 percent) • Nicholas Road & VVinchester Road —AM peak hour (Project's other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 17 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent) Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit far each project - specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share. as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit and ensure that the following improvements occur at these Engineer or and Issuance of intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by mare than two seconds. • At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street 1 other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes. one through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair - share contribution is 10 percent). • At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right -turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). • At the 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit far each project - specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 18 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1a: Prior to the issuance of Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Temecula Temecula construction Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Building Official permits, and Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted or other sign -off by City sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Designee of Temecula Road. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1 b: Prior to issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay Eastern Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 19 ESA 1211247 July 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan') has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also requires a General Plan amendment, a zoning code amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a zoning map amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project'). C. The General Plan Amendment encompasses 1) an amendment to the Land Use Element incorporating the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU - 4), removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and amending the Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU -3), 2) an amendment to the Community Design Element incorporating the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements, and 3) an amendment to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided), collectively referred to as the "General Plan Amendment." D. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider whether to recommend the adoption of the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, zoning code admendments, and zoning map amendments, and certification of the Final EIR. On November 4, 2015, after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-27 recommending, in part, that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment including: amending the Land Use Element, the Land Use Policy Map, the Community Design Element, and the Circulation Element to create consistency between the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. E. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to review the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. F. Upon the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- , certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), adopting Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 15- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the General Plan Amendment hereby further finds, determines and declares that: (1) The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest; The General Plan Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area, is in the public interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public interest. (2) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community; The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses; The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space - Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. (4) The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan; The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan amendments will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally - owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by- side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in compatible future development, which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. SECTION 3. Amendment to the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Implementation to the text of the Land Use Element and adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -4), and removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6) as provided in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 4. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map. The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to include the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Areaas provided in Exhibit "B," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 5. Amendment to the Community Design Element. The Community Design Element is hereby amended by adding the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements as provided in Exhibit "C," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 6. Amendment to the Circluation Element. The Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is hereby amended by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided) as provided in Exhibit "D," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 7. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement these amendments. SECTION S. Consistency with General Plan. The Land Use, Circulation and Community Design Elements of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan in conformity with Government Code section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised to effectuate General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this amendment. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 15- , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA". SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk L A N L EXHIBIT A important economic and environmental relationships to both the City and area residents, However, properties within this designation may not be subject to City or County planning, zoning, and building regulations. Cooperative efforts between the City, County, and local Tribal Governments are important to ensuring that areawide issues are appropriately addressed to the benefit of all local residents. RC " RECREATION COMMERCIAL OVERLAY Intensity Range: Varies Target Intensity: N/A The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may be applied to properties designated for Open Space use. This designation provides for operation and development of resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational uses of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the City and region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation, conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts (including fractional ownership units), restaurants, parks, camp grounds, open spaces and community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and resort uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses. SPI - SPECIFIC PLAN IINPLEMINTATION Intensity Range: Varies Target Intcnsiiv: Varies • [ Formatted: Lett Lormatted: Font Felix-Inng, Bold '[be Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) designation may be applied to areas within the City which have an approved Specific Plan. This designation allows for a variety of land uses which include both residential and non-residential uses. Geographic areas designated SPI typically allow for mixed use development as specified by the approved specific plan. TARGET ®kNSrI7E.S AND INTENSITIES For various reasons, many parcels in the community have not been developed to their maximum density or intensity. Future development is expected to occur at the target level of density or intensity stated in Table LU -1 for each land use designation. For 1i L L LI L 1 (,1 ti l 14 1 1 Lll•).} L A N L SPECIFIC PLANS Many areas within the City and Planning Area are subject to the plans, policies and implementation measures of currently adopted or anticipated future Specific Plans. The purpose of Specific Plans is to provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the General Plan. A Specific Plan area designation is used to identify 25 such areas within the Temecula Planning Area, which because of size, location, and/or special development opportunities require a coordinated and comprehensive planning approach (see Figure LU - 4). In identified Specific Plan areas of 100 or more acres, approval of a Specific Plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of anv building or grading permit. In some areas, Village Center Plans, which allow greater intensities, can also be used. Planned development overlays can be used for smaller areas. Specific Plans must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 65451 of the California Goverment Code and the City's Development Code, which contains some additional requirements tailored to meet local needs and conditions. Designated areas will require detailed plans indicating land uses, circulation, major infrastructure and facilities, open space and parks, and appropriate implementation measures. All Specific Plans will be evaluated for consistency with the goals, policies, plans and programs of the General Plan. Approved Specific Plan Areas — As shown in Table LU -4, a total of 24 Specific Plans have been approved within the planning area as of October 2015. Specific Plan documents for each of these areas are available for reference at rhe City Planning Department. Approved land uses for each Specific Plan are shown on the Land Use Policy Map. 1 1 1 11 I tl 1. \ C, L \ t. I. 1 1. i I 1\ I. L A N D LI s E TABLE LLI-4 APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Label in Fig. LU- Adopted Specific Plan Location Description/Objectives General Plan Land Uses Acres 1,'.!i 1 SP -9 Redhawk South of Vail Ranch SP. Pre -incorporation Specific Pian approved in 1988 inclurding residential and corrtrneteial/industrial development. LM, M, Pl, OS SP -111 Vail Ranch South ofTanecula Creek, between Margarita and Butterfekl Stam Roads. Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 1988 including residential and commercial/industrial development. LM, PI, OS, I f1, in r, `S SP -11 Rciripaugh Ranch Along Butterfield Stage Road in the northeast cornerot the City. To develop a master planned residential community providing a variety of housing types suited to the terrain and sensitive to natural landfomis. The maximum density is not to exceed an average of three dwelling units per acre. Future development should protect sensitive natural resources of the L, LM, M, NC, OS, Pd SP -12■Y SP -12 • Willt Creek c Southern pf]it cin til the City, along Pochangi Parkway. TiCn, 1� with 1 i provide' a balance rif uses commercial and public t15ei serving the surrounding area. Intended to be a village center in the southeast portion of the City. %� �..t ems Ll'4, 11C, CC, P1, OS, M 551 SP -13 l-Haiveston Between Margarita Road, and i-15, along City limits. To provide a mix of land uses with tai aerdtnsity residential close to commercial and employment uses, and to provide open space links between residential, public and commercial uses. LM, M, I-I,SC, Pi, OS 557 H'. Ll Uptown Jefferson Specific North cif Rancho To promote revitalisation and pixide future development by cnicriurapjnp CC. SC. IIT 557. Plan California Road. west urban in -fill and a mix of uses including residential. cornrne rcial retail- hiitel IRK (7S of Interstate 15. north and hospitality. office/employment, higher education. and cultural arts -related of Cherry' Street :Intl uses that cin -exist within clinic proximity to Line another- supported by a multi - east iif 17iax Road, modal transportation ncrw, irk and connected to recreation anLl open spaces. POLO -4 POO -5 Temecula Creek Village Rancho Pueblo Along SR -79 South, between Jrxlexhah Smith Road and Margarita Road. Th achieve comprehensively plannoxl mixed-use developments with compatible/complementary mixtures crf office, support commercial, residential,and services. PO 33 49 Sphere of Influence #184 Rancho Bella Vista North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the City limit. To provide a tesidential planned community that protects the natural. resources of Skunk Hollow and hillside areas, provides a range of residential densities connected to a contiguous open space system, and links to adjacent LM, PI, OS -.()- I I 1 ', 1 1 1 11 I r I I I \ Li r C\ d: R A I 1.1;, 1 TABLE LU -6 MIXED USE OVERLAY AREAS Mixed Lase Overlay Areas Development Capacity Name Location Residential Units' Non -Residential Square seta 1 Daily Trip Cap (ADT) 1.jcftersen 111 822 670,000 900,000 ','"' • lvcntxc locst.:d arcs si Jcttcrson Avenue and Winchester Road. al. Town Center/Tower Plaza North of intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. 668-1,3373 1,090,000-1,460,000 30,000 3. South of OldTown Service Commercial areas on Front Street south of Santiago Road 94-189 160,000-210,000 6,000 1. Residential range based on 20%40% residential use a site at 28 units per net acre. 2. Non-residential range based on 60%-8O% non-residential use of site at 035:1 FAR. 3. Senior housing is strongly encouraged as a part of the residential component of the Town Center/Tower Plaza site. PRESERVING RURAL AREAS Mixed use areas and village centers will also be linked via multi -use trails, and regional and local transit service. The City will work with regional planning agencies to ensure that mixed use areas are linked to any future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to other parts of the region. Rural areas within the planning area are of special economic and aesthetic importance to the City. Community members have considered future land use options within three Rural Preservation Areas, and have expressed a desire to keep these areas rural. Rural Preservation Areas are identified in Figure LU -5, and listed in Table LU -7. l 1 1 f 1 i-. 1 h I. w i 1 1 \ { I 1 1 k. 1 1. 1.LI- •Lo I A N L1 1 L A N L UPTOWN JEFFERSON Uptown Jefferson includes much of the city's first commercial development. and once was an important, locally -serving community destination along historic route Highway 395, which was the primary vehicular thoroughfare through the area prior to the construction of Interstate 15. Following the incorporation of the City in 1989, the area continued to develop under typical Post -World War II development patterns: an eclectic mix of auto -oriented light industrial. office. strip -commercial and retail uses serving the local community. Although many of the businesses within the area are still economically -vital, the arca has been overshadowed by new development activity taking place elsewhere in the city. As a result, it vas determined that enhancing the area's economic assets would he critical to the area's and the City's long teen future. In ,carder to promote revitalization, the Uptown Jefferson Specific Phan has been developed to achieve the community's future vision and spark renewed interest and investment into the area. Uptown Jefferson will be Teinecula's newest "destination." Vibrant, sophisticated and unique, the area will become home to a diverse MIX of residents of all .ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic up -and -coining neighborhoods. These neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no other .place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be up -scale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locallt-- ser-ving uses. Esthetically- enhanced and interconnected street networks provide expanded mobility options to residents, workers and visitors. In addition, one-stop parking combined with efficient transit, tree lined sides;'alks and safe bikeways. 'These expanded networks of bicycle paths, sidewalks, and multi -use trails connect neighborhoods. businesses, and recreation areas, Trails along Murrieta Creek connect active play fields and parks in the northern area, Old Town to the south, the business park to the west, and Promenade Hall and other neighborhoods to the east. I F I C .1h L c 11 I- 1 f, I N i I 1 I I' I ti ttI -I-I ['Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, 14 pt L A N D E Figure LU -4 Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Approved Specific Plans SP- 1 Ranpaugh Hills SP- 2 Rancho Highlands SP- 3 Margarita Village SP- 4 PalomalPaseo Del Sol SP- 5 Old Town SP- 6 Campos Verdes SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center SP- 8 WestsideNillages at Old Town SP- 9 Redhawk SP -10 Vail Ranch SP -11 Roripaugh Ranch SP -12 Wolf Creek SP -13 Harveston SP -14 Uptown Jefferson PDO -4 Temecula Creek Village PDO -5 Rancho Pueblo # 106 Dutch Village # 184 Rancho Bella Vista #213 Winchester Properties/Sihrerhawk #265 Borel Airpark # 284 Quinta Do Lago #286 Winchester 1800 #238 Crown Valley Village 313 Morgan Hill Future Specific Plans Y Specific Plan Area Y Z Specific Plan Area Z Noe Rd J.., Hi coed. Rd r Rd L .�.0 • . �. Temecula City Boundary i . Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Source- Temecula GIS and Catlon;8rinjea+Assoc iales N 0 5,0oo 1000 Fee Miles a 1 2 H H I H H I L I I 1 T E M E C U L A GENERAL. I' L A fN L E - 8 L A N D 5 E. Figure LU -5 Land Use Focus Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend 0 • Mixed Use Overlay Areas Rural Preservation Areas Future Growth Area Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Source: Temecula GIS and CottonIBridgeslAssociates e[ni Rite4W Re County of Riverside Z44 44 441•44 Chang emerraomnear s 0 5,000 Feet Mites 1--I H I 4 1 2 U. } ECULA Lu 34 GENERAL N EXHIBIT B r Nictolas 022 City of Murrieta ( Sphere of Influence 5 --D 3 — County of Riverside T hor,s,n R &enc., No _Hem VA 31 ' .1.44444,,Z1' .P1 01:00' k-4 M.4.3 Pot Sonacp.001 a All Vial 14:4111 11 I 1:0;1111111 ‘ 1, .........A"."' twennirremArtvii* -"Iiifirairtio .....a4pAttilevar, .4 A oil lirtelplirPlielk6 444 . fritr ;VI 001044441 Viitterzr tirdalit2440 wow gli4.' auI ip P,N =BM . RIM __411 F r NORTH 200 100 2 ALP TAP pA99P APA.A9.9..".``` ArAA.AlattAmA e.roat= .1,11.7farn.• 0 AAAPP.P.AARAPAPPAAAPP941......ropu..... Adopted Apti112, 2005 00001004 Much OA .20021cC ANNAN.= 2-04J FigureL LU -3 Land Use Policy Mao CPT CP TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN 5,11c P10, 900PrneAS aeon IIPSAMMIAL !AMA p1,0 1 WAS MAO 97 4-02 0..4 LLi r -R-1 4..2 Low 022-0 4 Durk I.ao r1-1 Law 110 6.20 Mak MO MerSurn 0,811Ditilte11410 1.441wrn I r 0.1 9 11304.I. YLS 0-20 * 0. -AL ULL) COWLIERVAL 010200 Bilm10o010004 Caerrneread MI.. y Trourrneartetrtml rain Sow. Cwwww.L.W min Pro4-44.,, IIMISTRIAL indmAnif Pat AMU:USES A OPEN SPA SE 71F1 Nek Feollaks SP44. r1n fl0000ThIL.41 0222x20011 Ctlf1t0m.11 Sown d Pm9, Ana OLD TowN TEMECULA EXHIBIT C AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS Old Town Temecula represents a great opportunity for the City to preserve its heritage while promoting local tourism. The Old Town area is recognized as the heart of the City and a separate Specific Plan has been prepared for the area. While the area no longer functions as a "Town Center" or "Downtown," many of the attributes of Old Town help to establish the area as a special place within the City of Temecula. The placement of additional civic and cultural uses in Old Town would help revitalize and restore the area. UPTowN JEFFERSON Uptown Jefferson is located immediately north of Old Town Temecula. This area encompasses much of Ternecula's first commercial core, and was once a bustling and important locally -- serving community* destination. Since this time, the area has been overshadowed by development activity, infrastructure improvements and private investment taking place elsewhere in the city. However, enhancing this area's economic assets is critical to the area's long term future. '11 -ie revitalization of the area will occur through the implementation of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as well as through the application of various economic development strategies, land use incentives, and by allowing for greater development intensity within the area. This area is anticipated to include a mix of land uses, such as urban residential neighborhoods, commercial retail, hotel and hospitality, office/employment, higher education, cultural arts, and recreation -related uses that co -exist within close proximity to one another. This synergy in land use will create a vibrant destination, up- scale residential neighborhoods and establish viable employment opportunities within the City. II' C' F 1 I \ I t 11 1 \ C., f N I ft \ 1. p t_ \ N 1.7 17 C 0 M M u N 1 Tr 1 D L S I G N 0 M M u N T Q 7 1 (A N Figure CD -1 Community Design Plan CITY OF TEMECUL4 GENERAL PLAN Legend ActtvRy and aeslgn Elements acnmy None Cay Gat Smay ^ 0 Focadlntersect. [ 1 ory rce €mra5lgny EnMined Use QeaaIay wets /ii SzreeIscapes and Vlevestteds Meet Streets -cape Minor Streetscape Ve het Chaparral Pu6Hc, Oen spate, and Recreation Facelnes I Pi: Pudic Institutional rapid. Nature/Wilderness Trans M.N. I em.%. a,d mt es wool Comers m y TraA Local Trail Anpyardlia rrtrdtV+1 OR. Space, Parte. and N: creatlmst Facades Tarnacula Cay 1l0undary SOW 00 mnuprrx$MAS n Planrang#ea One Han 0 Con:muna, [enter Rd Pal Re City o Sphere z L SW. Re County of Riverside n licholm. 1 Buck R N �19_a 0 2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000 Feet 1710 H H H 1-1 Miles 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 II I EXHIBIT D Figure C-2 Roadway Plan CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend Interchange Improvements Urban Arterial (8 Lanes divided) illl Principal Artenal (6 Lanesdrvided) Major Arterial (4 Lanes divided) •• Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes undivided) Won ww. Modified Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes separated •�+a Limited Secondary Arterial (2 Lanes divided) Collector (2 Lanes undivided) Rural Highway (2 Lanes undivided) e X.1 ler Rd City of Murriera Sphere of Influence County of Riverside J.i. W thel s RN Auld Rd Ira o a.I Rd Riot. lied s. _ auNR0 I• a1 Ifwj '�Jf • Rd 1410. `•. v I � 0 5,000 101)00 Feet 0 2 Miles Et--ER.r.I r'I I CITY OF TEMECULA C-21 GENERAL_ I' L. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan') has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street. and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown HotellTourism District. Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3 726 new residential dwelling units. B. On October 18 2011, December 6, 2011 February 2, 2012. April 5, 2012, June 14, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the City conducted Community Visioning Workshops to provide information about the Specific Plan and to craft a community driven vision and set of policy directions that would provide the City with a clear focus for developing policies and standards for the Specific Plan. C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the `proposed Project"). D. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mel!man Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. F. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone. City staff presented a report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project, the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the conclusion of the November 4, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, including both an oral and written staff report and public comment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-27, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN." G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations: at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. On November 17 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-_ "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP. THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" which amended the Land Use Element Map of the Temecula General Plan to change the land use designations of parcels within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from Community Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), Public Institutional (PI): and Open Space Conservation (OS -C) to Specific Plan Implementation. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15- , the City Council also amended the Land Use Element text of the Temecula General Plan by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and removing the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Overlay Area. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing: the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- entitled 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" certifying and adopting the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program accurately address the impacts associated with the adoption of the Ordinance. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. Based on the evidence and all other applicable information presented, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the Specific Plan: A. The Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan (pages 3-1 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan (pages 6-1 through 6-21 of Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (pages3-19 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (pages 7-1 through 7-19 of Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (pages 2-1 and 2-3 of Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area. (2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health, safety and welfare. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. (4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan is a form -based code which emphasizes the physical form of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district. The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. SECTION 3. Adoption of Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment. A. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning District SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add the following Specific Plan area: "SP -14 Uptown Jefferson" SECTION 5. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to add the zoning classification "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A to this Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 6. Adult Business Overlay Zone Amendment. A. Legislative Findings (1) The City Council seeks to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Adult Business Overlay Zone which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1 ("Overlay Zone"). (2) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but rather to address the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. It is further the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the secondary effects of adult businesses upon the residential uses that will be located within the Specific Plan area. (3) The City Council finds that adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences, and contribute to blight and the downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding areas. (4) The City Council finds that the protection and preservation of the public health, safety and welfare require that certain distances be maintained between adult businesses and residential uses. Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020 provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -orientated retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The City Council hereby finds that the secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses that will be located in the Specific Plan area. The (5) secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disrupted to the residents of Specific Plan area. The City Council further finds that the removal of parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone will allow adequate sites for adult businesses to locate in the City. City staff has advised that 426 commercially -zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of those commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, City staff has indicated that a number of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040, approximately 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate in the Overlay Zone after it is amended to exclude the Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders at this point, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. (6) The City Council further finds that there are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 108,920. 1.8 percentage of land in the City is theoretically available to adult businesses. In addition, there are 13 sites that are potentially available for adult uses. Currently, there are no businesses that wish to offer adult entertainment in the City. Since its inception, the City has never received an application for an adult business. B. Amendment Section 17.08.020 (H) (Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add: "Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 15- , and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full." Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HTC SC PO BP LI A. Adult Businesses -subject to Chapter 5.09 of the Temecula Municipal Code' -- C C C -- -- -- 7. Only within Special Overlay Zone No. 1 as described and depicted in Ordinance No. 15 - SECTION 7. Consistency with General Plan The foregoing amendments outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 above are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 17th day of November, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk • diturtifir rip wm!b. woc--sow ki; ftilittiow lowistaxert—r= try 4A ...$ rt itlyilite tr,,, atik ma itimelt 1114PPillia Ail% witomeirm. m 1111,4111111141110Pfile/ kflridr.. 111111 r• Zoning Map City of Temecula Elfettive Date Augur. 9 2095 Len •••••••• L....WM I 1.•1 =•1...ndly .1. b<•••101.4.1•1 Mi ....o...F.. • P.m • gm. 0.1.1. =•••••••,•• Warr/. es..2•IdIE loaaett, - ▪ 1--t---'It, IMP14.1.1•MI,Ir .1i ,10/iPPA I= PPM [WM.. 1.41 I= 0,n:1,bn Lona -ram - ....IR 034,3111. i EXHIBIT B 11111at7A t. NRI .044 4,44 ► r it • s f OAP L71RK = 014 aro ■ n Tr 4o, W0' • ••Py N o 0 A rs 4,, • P �O 7* k • ,• ¢g O,/ *8+ 4k$V4.1k . • VA% sLi 4, ♦ 7/ tf d SP SPECIAL USE OVERLAY June 2015 Special Use Overlay Zone No- 1 L._.. City Parcels U 500 1,000 2.000 Feet , $4) triet SOowOOtfCIR S-waYtie* 00 two iv loot if VAt 847, roti Mita IOWA . WON yl�tls�1'1� pR 400 elf0, Aps ,44.4 ' y inti P? CALLS FA71rrq�O .VW .$:6410 0 41+ ,rprrs/i 011, 2 NO Wig Er4 Ski CS No,CALiota, ti K.'►\I Etact o� OL 41 I lit ge,�IfESTA DEL SQL • a itoitivrtioicoLiwAs • tel' ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Keyser Marston, Inc., prepared a New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study for Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, dated August, 2015 (the "Fee Study'), that analyzes the impact of development within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area on the need for certain street improvements and calculated the in -lieu fee based on that analysis. B. The period of greater than ten (10) days prior to adoption of this chapter, data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative, indicating the cost of estimated cost of the streets to be funded, the revenue sources anticipated and means of spending these costs. C. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed open and public meeting, at which it considered the proposed adoption of the in -lieu fee for streets within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area ("In -Lieu Fee"). The Fee Study, which contains data indicating the estimated cost, required to provide the streets for which the In -Lieu Fee would be levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, was made available to the public at least ten days prior to the date of this City Council meeting. D. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adoption of the In -Lieu Fee and this Ordinance. Following the receipt of all staff reports, public testimony and other evidence, the public hearing was closed. E. On November 17, 2015 the Council adopted Resolution No. 15 - certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and adopting the Mitigation and Monitoring Program ("EIR"). The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the streets proposed by the Specific Plan which streets were proposed to be funded by the In -Lieu Fee. The City staff has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the adoption of this specific Ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). City staff has determined that these actions do not constitute a "project" under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because these actions involve the creation of a government funding mechanism for public improvements that have been fully analyzed under the EIR. In addition, City Staff has determined that these actions are categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) because these actions and documents are merely establishing an in fee to obtain funds for public improvements that have been fully analyzed by the EIR. F. All prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance as specified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and other applicable laws have been satisfied. Section 2. Chapter 15.20, Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee, is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE 15.20.010 Findings and intent 15.20.020 Definitions 15.20.030 In -Lieu Fees and In -Lieu Fee Credits 15.20.040 Establishment and Administration of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund 15.20.050 Payment 15.20.060 Severability 15.20.010 Findings and intent. The City Council finds, determines and declares that: A. During the visioning process for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan'), the community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit. B. In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and Targe blocks. Large blocks resulted in fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Temecula Avenue is perceived by pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting. C. The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian friendly, urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. D. The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi- modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area. 1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek. 4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7. Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. E. It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of that development by constructing or paying the In -Lieu Fee for the new streets required by that development as provided in the Specific Plan. F. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., prepared the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan dated as of August, 2015 ('Nexus Study'). Keyser Marston utilized the following methodology in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions: 1. Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary cost estimates. 2. Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3. Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4. Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5. Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. G. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for non-residential uses is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet (SF). These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. H. There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by the In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the types of development projects within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan on which they are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets. 15.20.020 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below: A. "Developer" shall mean the person who has applied for land use entitlements for a project within the Specific Plan Area subject to the applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance in Title 17 of this Code. B. "Hotel Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. C. "In -Lieu Fee" shall mean the Uptown Jefferson New Streets In -Lieu Fee established by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to this Chapter. D. "Office Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. E. "Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. F. "Residential Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. G. "Retail Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the Specific Plan. H. "Specific Plan Area" shall mean the entire area of the City subject to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. 1. "Streets" means those new streets and roads designated in the Specific Plan. J. "Study" means the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan dated as of August, 2015 prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 15.20.030 In -Lieu Fees and In -Lieu Fee Credits A. The City Council shall by resolution establish and impose the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee ("In -Lieu Fee"). B. The In -Lieu Fee shall include an annual escalator based upon an appropriate construction cost index that shall be designated in the Resolution of the City Council establishing the In -Lieu Fee C. Every person who develops a Hotel Use, Office Use, Residential Use and Retail Use, or a combination thereof, in the Specific Plan Area after the effective date of the Ordinance adopting this chapter shall pay to the City the In -Lieu Fee pursuant to this Chapter. D. The Director of Community Development shall calculate the In -Lieu Fee applicable to the proposed project and notify the developer. Developer may appeal the calculation of the In -Lieu Fee as part of the decision on its application for land use approvals and pursuant to the procedures for appeal of a decision on such application. E. In the event that a developer develops a Hotel Use, Office Use, Residential Use or Retail Use, or a combination thereof, and constructs the Streets required for such uses by the land use approval, the developer shall be entitled to a credit on In -Lieu Fees applicable to its development in the amount of the actual costs for the design, design, right of way and construction of the streets within the time called for in the project's land use entitlements. City shall enter into an improvement agreement with developer that will guarantee completion of the design, right of way and construction of such streets within a specified period of time, provide for the estimate of such work and appropriate securities based thereon and such other matters as the City Manager deems necessary to implement the street work required for the development. City Manager shall be authorized to enter into such agreements on behalf of the City. F. In the event that the design, right of way and construction costs for the new street to be constructed by the developer will exceed the total In -Lieu Fee amount for the proposed project, the developer may apply for full or partial reimbursement of such costs from the Uptown Jefferson New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund, to the extent that sufficient money is available in such fund to cover such costs. City Manager shall be authorized to enter into such reimbursement agreements with the developer on behalf of the City. G. The developer may apply to the Director of Community Development for a determination that In the event that its proposed development project will have no impact on the streets for which the In -Lieu Fee would be charged and that such project should be exempted from the In -Lieu Fee. The Director of Community Development may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the owner's application. Developer may appeal the calculation of the In -Lieu Fee as part of the decision on its land use application and pursuant to the procedures for appeal of a land use decision. 15.20.040 Establishment and Administration of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund A. The Finance Director shall establish a special interest-bearing fund entitled "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund." All fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended on the design, right of way, and construction, or a combination thereof, of the new streets designated in Specific Plan for the Specific Plan Area. B. The Finance Director shall report to the City Council the amounts in the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund and the expenditures made from the Fund, in the form and frequency required by law. 15.20.050 Payment A. The required In -Lieu Fee shall be due and paid on a lump -sum basis on the date of issuance of a building permit, final building inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; unless otherwise pre-empted by State law. B. For the purposes of this section, "final building inspection" shall mean the physical inspection of the building by the Building & Safety Division of the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula for compliance with all applicable building codes and the issuance by all applicable City, county, regional, state and federal agencies of their respective clearances for occupancy. C. For the purposes of this section, "certificate of occupancy" shall mean a document issued by the proper authority allowing the occupancy or use of a building and certifying that the structure, building or development conforms with all applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code, ordinances and conditions of approval. 15.20.060 Severability If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 17th day of November, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Short Title. This Resolution may be referred to as the "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Resolution" of the City of Temecula. Section 2. Findings and intent. The City Council finds, determines and declares that: (a) During the visioning process for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), the community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit. (b) In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks resulted in fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Jefferson Avenue is perceived by pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting. (c) The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian friendly, urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. (d) The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi- modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area. 1) Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2) Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3) Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek. 4) Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5) Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6) Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7) Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8) Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. (e) It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of that development by constructing or paying the In -Lieu Fee for the new streets required by that development as provided in the Specific Plan. (f) Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., prepared the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan dated August 2015 ("Nexus Study"). Keyser Marston Associates utilized the following methodology in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions: 1) Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary cost estimates. 2) Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3) Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4) Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5) Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. (g) The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for non-residential uses is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet (SF). These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. (h) There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by the In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the types of development projects within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan on which they are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets. (i) Words used in this Resolution shall have the definitions assigned to them by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Street In -Lieu Fee Section 3. Amount of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee. Pursuant to the provisions Chapter 15.06, including without limitation, Section 15.06.030, of the Temecula Municipal Code, the City Council hereby establishes and imposes the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Street In -Lieu Fee within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area in the amounts of: (a) $6,351 for a Residential Unit; (b) $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; (c) $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and (d) $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses. Section 4. Automatic Annual Adjustment of In -Lieu Fee. On July 1 of each year, the In -Lieu Fees described in Section 3 of this Resolution shall be adjusted by the Director of Finance based upon the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering News Record Index ("ENRI"). The Director of Finance shall compute the percentage difference between the ENRI on March 1 of each year and the ENRI for the previous March 1. Should the ENRI be revised or discontinued, the Director of Finance shall use either the revised ENRI or a comparable system as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the construction cost index. The new schedule of fees, as adjusted, shall constitute the transportation impact fees authorized by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and shall be incorporated into this Resolution. Section 5. Effective Date. The In -Lieu Fee established by this Resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days following the effective date of Ordinance No. 15 - establishing Chapter 15.06, Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee. Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: October 21, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner PROJECT Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of: SUMMARY: 1) The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan; 2) A General Plan Amendment to: (a) amend the Land Use Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of "Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) amend the Circulation Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principle Arterial to a Major Arterial; and (c) make textual amendments by incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan in various chapters of the General Plan; 3) A Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries; 4) A Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; and 5) Certification of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report RECOMMENDATION: That at the October 21, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission consider the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the draft Enviornmental Impact Report, the General, Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to remove the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay zone, take public testimony and continue the public hearing to November 4, 2015. That at the November 4, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" 3. Recommend that staff prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: City of Temecula General Plan Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Designation: Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP), and Open Space (OS) Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), Light Industrial (LI), and Open Space — Conservation (OS -C) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Alta: Retail e, V restaurant, office, hotel, gas L other uses, and vacant 2 .C.ltutiV n, service ✓ 1 Y L VNI 1111 I I LIP.I North: City of Murrieta — retail, service commercial, industrial, office, public institutional, open space and vacant South: Old Town Temecula -- retail, service commercial, restaurant, hotel, motel, gas station, residential, other uses, and vacant East: Interstate 15 and retail West: Murrieta Creek, industrial, and service commercial BACKGROUND SUMMARY The Jefferson Avenue Study Area ("Study Area") is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz RoadlMurrieta Creek and south of Cherry Street. The Study Area is approximately 560 acres and consists primarily of a mix of developed commercial property, and property designated as conservation/open space (Murrieta Creek). In January 2011, the Temecula City Council determined that enhancing the Study Area's economic assets would be critical to sustaining the area's long term future viability and established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of two City Council members: Jeff Comerchero, Michael McCracken, and Ron Roberts (former committee member). The Ad Hoc Subcommittee directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning workshops to obtain community input for the future Specific Plan area. From October 2011 through July 2012, the Community Development Department orchestrated six community visioning workshops and engaged the community in an effort to develop a Specific Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Area. The Envision Jefferson public visioning process resulted in the following Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals to guide the development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (sometimes referred to as "Specific Plan"). Guiding Principle #1 Ensure the Specific Plan is based upon economic & market realities. Guiding Principle #2 Ensure the Specific Plan is flexible in order to allow for innovation and reaction to market realities. Recommendation 1 - Strengthen Economic Development Goal: Spark the revitalization of the area through comprehensive economic development strategies that support a sustainable fiscal foundation for the future. Recommendation 2 - Expand the Mix of Uses Goal: Allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use options within the Specific Plan area. Recommendation 3 - Define Districts and Neighborhoods Goal: Encourage the definition and development of districts within the area based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate unique character. Recommendation 4 - Improve Transportation, Mobility, Connectivity and Circulation Goal: Encourage the development of a multi -modal, interconnected circulation network that improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Recommendation 5 - Integrate Recreation, Open Spaces and Trails Goal: Encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and active and passive recreation spaces. 3 Recommendation 6 - Create Updated and Flexible Development Standards Goal: Create urban development standards that will guide future development while being flexible and adaptable to changing market demands and economic conditions. Recommendation 7 - Build and Maintain a Comprehensive Utility Infrastructure System Goal: Ensure adequate infrastructure capacity to support future urban development. Recommendation 8 - Establish Distinct Identity Goal: Establish a recognizable identity, experience, and brand. To date 33 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through either the Envision Jefferson public visioning process, Jefferson Sub -committee meetings, Steering Committee meetings, City Commission meetings, and a Developer Forum. The City has also engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson website, and the City of Temecula website. Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to determine the best land uses and development standards necessary to create a new and vibrant Uptown Jefferson. Staff has completed the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan based on the guiding principles and recommendations to develop a plan based on the community's vision. Staff is now presenting the draft Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment before seeking adoption of the Specific Plan by City Council. Pending the Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council, staff intends to seek City Council adoption of the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Zoning Map Amendment and a Municipal Code Amendment, along with certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on November 17, 2015, ANALYSIS Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan The proposed Specific Plan is a form based development code which provides for a range of uses including mixed use residential development, access to open space and recreational areas, and improved pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular mobility and connectivity. Staff chose using a form based code because it focuses on building form, building placement, and the creation of a pedestrian scate environment. All aspects of the Specific Plan considered the guiding principles, recommendations and the community's vision for the area. Market Assessment - In order to ensure the Specific Plan is based on economically feasible development and an appropriate mix of uses, staff consulted with Keyser Marston Associates Inc. (KMA) to perform a market assessment of the types of land uses that the Study Area could support based on prevailing market factors, trade area growth projections, and anticipated macroeconomic changes within each major land use category. The focus of the KMA market assessment was to evaluate the potential for development of new mixed-use development in the Study Area. The assessment relied upon readily available third -party demographic and market data sources. KMA reviewed both existing and historical market trends to better understand future development potential. KMA aisc prepared 10 -year market demand projections for various land uses within the Study Area. 4 An extrapolation of the KMA study over a 20 -year period indicates that the Study Area could support approximately 5.5 million square feet of development. Anticipated 20 Year Specific Plan Development Scenario 1 Buildable Acres 2 Commercial s.f. 3 Residential d.u. Total Development Potential 128 acres ' 1.9 million s.f. 3,726 d.u. 5.5 million s.f. 1 "Nets -out" Murrieta Creek Open Space. Assumes 30% of the total gross acres to be dedicated to future streets and alleys. Assumes 50% of the remaining acreage will be dedicated to surface parking or a parking garage and is not counted in the total development potential. 2 Assumes a FAR of 1.0 for Retail and Restaurant uses and an FAR of 2.0 for Office and Hotel uses for all districts, except Uptown Center where a FAR of 2.5 was assumed for Office and Hotel uses. 3 Assumes a Residential density of 45 dulacre in all districts. The Market Assessment also considered the demographic trends and market conditions for the Study Area and surrounding trade area. KMA assessed the market support for each land use in the near-, mid-, and long term. These rankings are summarized as follows: Market Strength by Land Use Land Use Near-term 0-5 Years Mid-term 5-10 Years Long-term 10+ Years Office Weak Moderate Strong Hotel Weak Moderate Moderate Multi -Family Residential Moderate Strong Strong RetaillRestaurant Weak Moderate Moderate Districts and Land uses - The Specific Plan establishes the following six zoning districts and two overlay zones: Zoning Districts 1. Uptown Center District (UC) 2. Uptown Hotel/Tourism District (UHT) 3. Uptown Sports/Transit District (US) 4. Uptown Arts District (UA) 5. Creekside Village District (CV) 6. Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR -OS) Overlay Zones 1. Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zone (CV -CO) 2_ Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO) 5 Each zoning district and overlay zone has specific land uses and development standards which vary slightly by district in order to achieve differences between the districts. The boundaries of each district and overlay zone were established based on the existing land uses, geographic and surrounding physical features, and the desired vision of the community. Vertical or horizontal mixed-use development is encouraged to promote a more urban style environment which was desired by the community. The allowable land uses within the Specific Plan varies from what is currently allowed under the existing zoning. Industrial and heavy automotive repair uses would no longer be allowed under the Specific Plan. Residential uses, which are currently not allowed under the existing zoning, would be allowed under the Specific Plan. The industrial and heavy automotive repair uses that currently exist in the proposed Specific Plan area would be considered incompatible uses when located adjacent to residential uses. However, it is also the policy of the Specific Plan that legal non -conforming uses that were legally established prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan are allowed to continue as they were, without any restriction to their operations. Should the legal non -conforming land use be discontinued for a continuous period of 365 days or more, the legal non -conforming use shall not be reestablished. It should also be noted the Specific Plan also allows a property owner to apply to extend the legal non -conforming status beyond the initial 365 day period due to hardship, and there is no limit to the number of extensions of one-year extensions of time that may be granted. Mobility and Infrastructure - The infrastructure needed for enhancing mobility within the Specific Plan area was analyzed with the goal of improving mobility for vehicular travel, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users to achieve the community's vision for a bicycle and pedestrian friendly urban experience. To accomplish this goal, the existing right-of-way (ROW) and curb - to -curb street cross sections were evaluated to determine if on -street parking, bicycle facilities, and 20 -foot sidewalks were feasible throughout the Specific Plan area. The result was a series of new street cross sections that include 20 -foot sidewalks, on -street parking, bicycle facilities, curb bulb -outs at intersections, bus turn -outs, and painted or raised medians. The new cross sections fit within the existing ROW and curb -to -curb sections, enabling the existing street cross sections to be retrofitted with the new street cross sections without acquiring additional ROW or the need to widen any of the existing streets. New streets have been added to the Specific Plan in order to create a grid pattern street network with smaller blocks. Smaller blocks and a grid pattern street network create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods, by reducing the size of existing blocks and creating additional connections resulting in improved mobility throughout the Specific Plan area. The location of new streets is proposed as a hypothetical street network to allow for flexibility in their location as development occurs. The hypothetical street network will be constructed as new development occurs where new block size standards are exceeded. The construction of new streets will be equitably funded by all new development via an in -lieu fee, which is described in further detail below. New Streets in -lieu fee - As discussed above, the Specific Plan calls for new internal streets to enhance internal connectivity, mobility and to create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods. The new streets will be funded by new development via an in -lieu fee. The fee is based on the overall cost of the new streets and is based on a standard 66 foot street cross section. The future ..:..Ion for Spec.:rL Plan Area • rl rant. .,restrian frie dly. .. istriot .vvit}..:.. the III IULGIG VIbILII1 for JrJ L,I11L, rlc711 r IGc1 1.�7 a vibrant., tL, pellGJll ICII 1-11 IGI IVIy, urban U10L1 ll.,L WILT IIII the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the 6 Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Ran will achieve improved multi -modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek. 4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7 Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. The following methodology was used in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions: 1. Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary cost estimates. 2. Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3. Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4. Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 7 5. Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit, and for non-residential uses, it is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet. These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. The Nexus Study also concluded, however, that these fees would be economically unfeasible and recommended that the following lower fees be adopted: $6,351 for a Residential Unit; $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses. Utility Infrastructure - The infrastructure needed to support the anticipated development of the Specific Plan area was analyzed for water supply, sewer capacity, storm water conveyance, electricity, natural gas, solid waste disposal and telecommunications. Staff coordinated with service providers to determine if there is adequate infrastructure for future development in conformity with the Specific Plan. All utility service providers indicated that adequate capacity exists, with exception to wastewater system capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is the service provider for wastewater collection and treatment in the Specific Plan area. EMWD indicated the existing sewer pipelines in the Specific Plan area do not have ample capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater flow that would be generated under the Specific Plan at build -out. However, developers will pay their fair share of the EMWD mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, Via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. Plan Administration — The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan proposes a streamlined approval process for planning applications. All planning applications (with the exception of an application for a variance) will have the ability for administrative approval, when a Notice of Intent to Approve is posted on site and the notice is mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project, 20 days prior to the date of the Director of Community Development's decision to approve. The Notice of Intent to Approve must include the: 1) the date and time that the Planning Director will administratively approve the proposed project, 2) an explanation of the matter to be considered, 3) a detailed description of the proposed project and a summary of the project scope, 4) the findings being made for approval of the proposed project, 5) the general description (in the form of text or a diagram) of the property's location, 6) the location where the plans and/project file can be reviewed by the public, and 7) the procedures for requesting a public hearing. A public hearing will not be held unless a hearing is requested in writing by any member of the City Council, Planning Commission, the applicant, or by an affected party owning real property within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed project. If a hearing is requested, the hearing will be conducted by the Director of Community Development, unless the Director of Community Development defers such a decision to the Planning Commission. Specific Plan Changes Since the May 2015 Draft -- Since the May 2015 draft of the Uptown laffercnn Sparifir Plan snrac ralaacarl femr nirhfir rnmmant ca‘iaral nhangac haves haan marls to address public concerns and/or clarify the intent of the Specific Plan. These changes have 8 been incorporated into the Final Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (October 2015). A summary of these proposed changes may be found in Attachment A to this staff report. General Plan Amendments Land Use Element - The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designations for parcels within the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area to a single General Plan designation of 'Specific Plan Implementation" from their current designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP) and Open Space (OS). The purpose of the Specific Plan Implementation land use designation is to ensure consistency between the land uses and development characteristics of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian area and the General Plan by referring directly to the Specific Plan for the intended uses and development characteristics for this area. If approved, the General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU -3) for the area within the proposed Specific Plan boundaries, add Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -4), remove Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and add the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text within the Land Use Element. Circulation Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from Principle Arterial (6 -lane divided) to Major Arterial (4 -lane divided). The proposed change is consistent with the community's vision, the transition of Jefferson Avenue at the City's corporate boundary with the City of Murrieta, and with the proposed Jefferson Avenue street cross section that is south of Winchester Road. Community Desican Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element. It would also amend the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvement. Zoning Map and Zoning Code Amendments The proposed Specific Plan requires a Zoning Map amendment changing the zoning designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), and Light Industrial (LI) to the designation of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also requires an amendment to Section 17.16.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the list of approved specific plans. Adult Business Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Amendment The Specific Plan requires an amendment to Chapter 5.09 Adult Business Regulations of the Temecula Municipal Code by removing the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary from the Special Use Overlay No.1, In 1998, the City adopted the Adult Business Overlay Zone as Special Use Overlay No. 1, which 9 designated commercially -zoned parcels as possible locations for the establishment of adult businesses ("Overlay Zone"). All of the parcels in the Overlay Zone have adequate lighting, sidewalks, access roads, power and other utilities to support a commercial enterprise. Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040 requires a 1,000 -foot buffer between adult businesses in the Overlay Zone. In addition, no person shall operate an adult business without first obtaining an adult business license and a modified version of a conditional use permit. At this point, the City does not have any adult businesses operating within its borders. The Specific Plan area overlaps with 58 parcels in the Overlay Zone. Due to concerns about the secondary effects of having adult businesses operate in the proposed Specific Pian area and the incompatibility of land uses, the proposed Specific Plan and the proposed amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance would limit adult businesses to only those portions of the Overlay Zone that are located outside of the proposed Specific Pian area. If the City adopts zoning code and zoning map amendments to remove the parcels located in the proposed Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone, there would still be 426 parcels remaining in the Overlay Zone available for the establishment of adult businesses. The City seeks to remove the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone to address the secondary effects of adult businesses. The City is not seeking to regulate free speech, but is concerned about the secondary effects of adult businesses. Adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences. Because there are no adult businesses located within the City, evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult oriented businesses can be found in various studies and reports which have been considered by other municipalities and local governments including, but not limited to: • Eric S. McCord and Richard Tewksbury, Does the Presence of Sexually Oriented Businesses Relate to Increased Levels of Crime? An Examination Using Spatial Analyses, Crime & Delinquency (2012); • Alan C. Weinstein and Richard McCleary, The Association of Adult Businesses with Secondary Effects: Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 29 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 565 (2012); • Richard McCleary and Lori Sexton, Testimony on SB 3348 (March 2012); • Jacqueline Reuben, Chris Serio -Chapman, Christopher Welsh, Richard Matens and Susan G. Sherman, Correlates of Current Transactional Sex Among a Sample of Female Exotic Dances in Baltimore, MD, 88 Journal of Urban Health 342 (April 2011); • The Bureau of Business Research, IC Institute, and the Institute of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault of the University of Texas at Austin, An Assessment of the Adult Industry in Texas (March 2009); Richard McCleary and Alan C. Weinstein, Do "Off -Site" Adult Businesses Have Secondary Effects? Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 31 Law & Policy 217 (April 2009); • Richard McCleary, Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses, 19 Criminal Justice 10 Policy Review 153 (2008); • Valerie Jenness, Richard McClearly and James W. Meeker, Crime -Related Secondary Effects of Sexually -Oriented Businesses, Report to the County Attorney Palm Beach County, Florida (August 15, 2007); • Richard McCleary, Crime Related Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses: Report to the City Attorney (May 2007); • Department of Planning and Development Director's Report, Adult Cabarets in Seattle (March 2006); • Duncan Associates, Survey of Appraisers Fort Worth & Dallas Effects of Land Uses on Surrounding Property Values (2004); • Report of Richard McCleary in People of the State of Illinois v. The Lion's Den, Inc., In the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Illinois, Case Number 04 -CH -26; • Eric Damian Kelly and Connie B. Cooper, Survey, Findings and Recommendations of Sexually Oriented Businesses Toledo, Ohio (August 2002); • David Sherman, Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View, Proponent Testimony S.B. 251 Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Civil Justice (December 2002); • An Insider's View of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Testimony of David Sherman (2000); • Duncan Associates, Sexually -Oriented Business Study Rochester, New York (July 2000); and • National Law Center for Children and Families, NLC Summaries of "SOB Land Use" Studies (1996). These studies and reports establish that adult business often have a harmful effect on nearby businesses and residential areas, causing an increase in crime in both the surrounding neighborhoods and in the adult business establishments themselves, and a decrease in property values. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is intended to create a unique destination place within the City of Temecula through the careful planning of land uses, public spaces, development standards and public transportation. Uptown Jefferson will be Temecula's newest "destination." Vibrant, sophisticated and unique, the area will be home to a diverse mix of residents of all ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic, up-and-coming neighborhoods. These neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no other place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. Complemented by an expanded mix of new locally -owned and corporate businesses, collectively they will provide high quality jobs, as well as goods and services to local residents. Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020(H) provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally 11 away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan will add a significant number of new residential units to the Specific Plan Area that has been largely commercial and industrial. The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -oriented retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The urban neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson are located within walking distance to a hub of quality and thriving businesses, technologically innovative employment centers, and higher - education facilities. The vibe of Uptown Jefferson will foster creativity, stimulate innovation, and provide a place for community members to work, learn and refashion the world around them. And historically important, locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. Uptown Jefferson will also contribute to the local tourism industry with expanded hotel offerings, restaurants and shops. In addition to expanding its service to traditional weekend -oriented tourism, the stronger presence of businesses and corporations will fill hotel rooms and support small conventions and events that occur during the week. The secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses within the Specific Plan area. As noted above, the residential uses will be intermingled with commercial uses. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disruptive to the residents of Uptown Jefferson. The City Council may revise the Overlay Zone to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone if it finds that: (1) the sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market, and (2) there are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses. 1. The sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market. To be part of the actual real estate market, the sites must be zoned for commercial use, available for commercial use, or if zoned for manufacturing or industrial uses, it must be feasible for the sites to be used for commercial uses (i.e,, they must be connected to roadways and appropriate infrastructure), The GIS map prepared by staff indicates that 426 commercially - zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of these commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, many of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. These parcels could be developed to support an adult use business. Therefore, the sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market. 2. There are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses, There are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 106,780. 1.8% of land in the City is available to adult businesses. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by the Municipal Code, the map indicates that at least 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate within the Overlay Zone 12 after it is amended to exclude the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City, the City has never received an application for an adult business,.and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. Thus, there is an adequate number of sites available for adult businesses even if the parcels located within the Specific Plan area are removed from the Overlay Zone. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 11, 2015 and will be published on October 24, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Specific Plan, Zoning Code Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and an Amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Specific Plan area ("proposed Project") was processed, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. Ori June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. A Draft EIR was prepared under staff's direction by ESA (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union - Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The City received written comments and responded to each comment in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). A copy of 13 the City's response has been provided to commenting agencies as required by State law. A copy of theFinal EIR document has been provided to the Commission. The environmental analysis identified four areas where impacts were not considered to be significant (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, and Public Services) and nine areas where potentially significant impacts were identified which could be avoided or mitigated. These nine areas include Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise (operational); Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Water Supply Assessment. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Four impact areas were identified as resulting in an unavoidable, significant impact and include the following: Direct Impacts • Air Quality (construction and operations) - Construction and operation activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would violate air quality standards related to Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitorgen Dioxide (NOx) emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at the Program EIR level. Under conditions where one or more of the construction phases overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of Mitigation Measures would reduce the emissions of ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds for the two respective criteria pollutants. When the operational ROG emissions of the proposed project are compared to that of the existing land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the proposed project were associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the proposed project area. The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses associated with the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the proposed project to the extent that these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Although Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term construction and ongoing operational air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant. • Noise (construction) - Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the proposed project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measures such as noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring in the proposed project area would be implemented to reducey1hthen construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Where future construction site] YYithin the pm.,posed project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, however, a substantial temporary or periodic 14 increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Therefore, the proposed project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. Cumulative Impacts • Air Quality (construction and operations) - The Program E1R shows the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx (ozone precursors). Therefore, the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD's respective thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment (i.e., ozone and NO2). Although Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the long term air quality impacts, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant. The proposed project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable, • Cultural Resources (historic) - Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50 years or older. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation Mitigation Measures, at a program ER level analysis. In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration prior to approving the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Statement of Overriding Consideration states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 15 - The benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program E!R. Among the benefits that this proposed project provides the community are expanded economic opportunities through a more active urban downtown, an increased variety in housing types to complement the City's current housing stock, the potential for the addition of a full service hotel to serve the Temecula area, and the potential for significant new employment. FINDINGS General Plan Amendment 1. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest. 15 The General Plan Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area, is in the public interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public interest. 2. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended, and the Growth Management Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. in addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space - Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. 4. The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, f commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co=exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use 16 mix will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by- side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in compatible future development, which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Specific Plan 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, as noted on page LU -26, anticipates that the City will provide comprehensive planning of Targe areas and identifies a portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area for mixed-use development. Minor General Plan revisions will provide that the provisions of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan are integrated into the City's General Plan and are required so that the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan can continue to support the City's General Plan objectives for the area, which will include promoting revitalization and guide future development by encouraging urban in -fill and a mix of uses including residential, commercial retail, hotel and hospitality, office/employment, higher education, and cultural arts that co -exist within close proximity to one another, supported by a multi -modal transportation network and connected to recreation and open spaces. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's Development Code, after the proposed amendments are incorporated. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area_ The Specific Plan also complies with all applicable Development Code Standards required for specific plans including Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning Districts) and Section 17.01.040 (relationship to General Plan) and is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan goals, policies and objectives_ 17 2. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health, safety and welfare. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended, and the Growth Management Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. The subject area of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan consists of approximately 560 acres. As outlined in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (page LU -32), the purpose of Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive planning document for large areas so that a coordinated planning approach is provided for all anticipated land use developments. As such, the entire Specific Plan area has been reviewed based on existing structures and future build out potential and is physically suitable for the land use designations provided by the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serve as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. 4. The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. As identified within the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU -5 and Table LU -6, a large portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is identified as a Land Use Focus Area designated for mixed-use development_ As such, the adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan will provide development standards and guidelines that enhance the area economically 18 and ensure the development of a desirable character as envisioned by the community and which is compatible with existing and proposed development in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is a form -based code which emphasizes the physical form of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district. The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses_ The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. Zone Change 1. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The proposed Zone Change conforms to the City's General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element anticipates plans that parcels adjacent to Jefferson Avenue will include mixed use development. The Zone Change is also consistent with Development Code Section 17.02.020 "Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Districts" matrix which provides guidelines for zoning consistency. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments comply with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations of the General Plan and Development Code. 2. The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest and welfare of the City. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments will allow for the development of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan includes provisions regulating site design, building height, setbacks, parking, circulation, and other associated site improvements and these provisions are intended to protect the health and safety of those working andlor residing in and around the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan is consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed, and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The subject property of the Zone Change is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. 19 The proposed Zone Change is physically suitable for development in the Specific Plan Area There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. Furthermore, the standards within each proposed zone provides guidelines that are suitable for anticipated land use developments. 4. The proposed Zone Change shall ensure the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. As identified in the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU -5 and Table LU -6, a large portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is identified as a Land Use Focus Area designated for mixed-use development. As such, the Zone Change will allow for development that will enhance the Specific Plan area economically and ensure the development of a desirable character as envisioned by the community and which is compatible with existing and proposed development in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. List of Changes to the May 2015 Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Website Link to Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Draft EIR B. PC Resolution No. (Environmental Impact Report) Exhibit A Draft CC Resolution (EIR Certification) Exhibit A - Findings of Fact Exhibit B - Statement of Overiding Considerations Exhibit C - Mitigation Measures C. PC Resolution No. (Overall recommendation of City Council actions) Exhibit A Draft CC Ordinance (Specific Plan and Adult Use Overlay) Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Exhibit B Draft CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment) Exhibit A - Land Use Element Exhibit B - Land Use Policy Map Exhibit C - Community Design Element Exhibit D - Circulation Element D. Notice of Public Hearing E. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan which can be downloaded at [http:/lwww.citvoftemecula.org/Temecula/GovernmenUCommDev/Jefferson+Avenue+Stu dy+Area.htm] F. Uptown Jefferson Final Environmental Impact Report which can be downloaded at [h ttp:lf www. c i tyofte m e c u I a. o rg/Te m ecu I a/cove rn m e n t1Co m m D e v1J elle rson+Avenue+Stu dv+Area.htm] 20 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FINAL UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 22 ATTACHMENT A Summary of proposed changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1. Plan Applicability. Language was added to Section C in Chapter 2 to exempt any development and land use proposals within the proposed project area from having to comply with the Specific Plan if a planning application was submitted to and deemed complete by the City's Community Development Department on or before April 28, 2015, but was not yet approved, denied or conditionally approved by the City Council following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The language further states that the City Council may impose reasonable conditions on a conditional use permit in order to mitigate the impact of the project that would otherwise be compatible with the allowable uses and development standards under the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the duration of the incompatible use and architectural design of the project. 2. Administrative Amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsection G.6 in Chapter 2 Plan Administration was added to allow minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the Director of Community Development provided the amendments do not change existing policies and do not change the community's vision or the intended goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. 3. Extension of Legal Non -Conforming Land Uses. Subsection E.3 has been added to allow a property owner to apply for a one-year extension of time beyond the initial 365 day of discontinuance. Additional language has been added to clarify that a fire or other calamity, act of God, or public enemy does not constitute a discontinuance of use. 4. Interpretation. Table 2-1 of Chapter 2 Plan Administration was amended by removing the Interpretation Planning Application to be consistent with the balance of administrative policies in Chapter 2. 5. Land Use Matrix. Table 3-1 was amended by adding "Religious Institutions without a School or Daycare" as a permitted use in all zoning districts, "Office" as a permitted use in the Creekside Village District, and uses for health, fitness, dance, martial arts studios that are less than 5,000 square feet as a permitted use. 6. Land Uses Not Listed. A sentence was added to Section B in Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Standards, which requires the Director of Community Development determination for land uses not listed in Table 3-1. 7. Parking Requirements. Table 3-17 was amended by increasing the parking requirement for a "Residential" use from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit to be more consistent with market demands. The parking requirement for Religious Institutions was added to Table 3-17. ATTACHMENT B PC RESOLUTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 24 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ('Specific Pian") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown SportslTransit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. 11086-0 0 06\ 18922 55 v2. da c D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, , a newspaper of general circulation in the City. I. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the proposed Project and the Draft EIR at which -2- 1 1086-00O61I 892255v2. do c time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the proposed Project and the Draft E1R. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the Planning Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section N of the proposed City Council Resolution, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this referecne as though set forth in full. O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 0 of the proposed City Council resolution. P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section P of the proposed City Council resolution. -3- 11086-0006 3- 11086-0006 \ 18 9225 5 v2. d oc Q. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section Q of the proposed City Council resolution. R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section R of the proposed City Council resolution. S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any proposed Project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. SECTION 2. Review and Independent Judgment of the Planning Commission. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Planning Commission finds the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments ori the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. SECTION 3. Recommendation to the City Council. Pursuant to its obligations under 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed Project and the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Project, and written comments thereon, and has considered the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Planning Commission finds that there are proposed Project benefits that would outweigh any of the adverse impacts identified in the Draft EIR, and on this basis, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in connection with the adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as set forth in the City Council Resolution that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. -4- 11086-000611892255v2.doc PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula this 4th day of November, 2015. ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss Lanae Turley-Trejo Chairman I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly introduced at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 4th day of November, 2015, and said Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 21St day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS : NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: -5- 11086-000611892255 v2. doe Luke Watson Secretary Exhibit A City Council Resolution -6- 11086-0006 \ 18922550.doc g_ 11086-000611892255v2.doc RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown SportslTransit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the Project"). C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the -1- 11086-0006 \ 1892250v2.do 1- 11Q86-0006\1892250v2.do topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. I, In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearings, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding -2- 11686-060611892250v2.doc Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15-_, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adopting General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments related to the approval of the proposed Project. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III and IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be Tess than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a Tess than significant level despite the imposition -3- 1 1 086-000611 8922 50 v2. do c of all feasible mitigation Resolution. Q. Alternatives significant environmental Resolution. measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. T. On Novebmer 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. SECTION 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Declare that prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the -4- 11086-000611892250v2. doe administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The City Council finds the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under CEQA_ None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful `opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. SECTION 3. Certification of the Final EIR, The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the proposed Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C. SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. -5- 11086-0006 \ 1892250v2,doc SECTION 7. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Council of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November 2015. ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA -6- 11086-0006118922 50v2.doc Jeff Comerchero, Mayor EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings -7- 11086-00061i 892250v2.doc EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Program EIR. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft Program EIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. H. Project Objectives. As set forth in the Program EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Create a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational opportunities. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. A-1 B. Strengthen opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities. C. Establish a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street." D. Identify and establish interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique identities. E. Develop a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and built environment. F. Create a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking standards. G. Establish an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and transit improvements, including the French Valley Interchange, Overland Drive Extension, Rancho Way Extension, Jefferson Avenue Streetscape Beautification, and working with Regional Transit Authority (RTA) on the siting of a new transit center. H. Enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the Specific Plan area through the development of human -scaled streets, blocks, and alleys as well as incorporating public plazas and providing links with open spaces and recreational amenities. I. Ensure that new development in the Specific Plan area is adequately served by utilities. M. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in May 2013 to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agriculture and Forest Resources; (B) Mineral Resources; and (C) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the Program EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; (G) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (H) Hydrology and Water Quality; (I) Land Use and Planning; (J) Noise; (K) Population and Housing; (L) Public Services; (M) Transportation and Traffic ; and (N) Utilities and Services A-2 A. On June 6, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft ER and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, and land owners located within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested comments by July 12, 2013. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping rneeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. Comments received on the NOP included: the scope of traffic impact analysis and potential traffic impacts; scope of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses; impacts to public services and utilities, including the adequacy of water supply for the Project; impacts to Native American cultural resources and outreach with the Native American tribes in the area; impacts to biological resources, including consideration of the Project's proximity to Murrieta Creek and its location within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area; and consistency with local and regional land use plans, including the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy goals. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant without Mitigation in the Program EIR The Draft Program FIR completed in March 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Program EIR. A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 1. The Project would not generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. B. Land Use and Planning 1. The Project would not physically divide an established community. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. A-3 C. Population and Housing 1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. D. Public Services 1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or create a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: • Fire protection; • Police protection; • Schools; • Parks; or • Other public facilities. 2. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. 3. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level The Draft Program EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; transportation and traffic; and utilities and water supply assessment. With the exception of specific impacts to air quality (construction and operations), noise (construction), and cumulative impacts to air quality and A-4 cultural resources, discussed in Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts to the topic areas identified above to a less than significant level. The City Council funds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final Program EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Program EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C. A. Aesthetics 1. New Source of Light and Glare The Project has the potential to increase the intensity and density of development throughout the Project area, which could result in increased light and glare sources. In addition, although the Project would be consistent with the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and implement measures to reduce light and glare, given the proposed density and intensity of the Project, new development could substantially increase nighttime light sources. As described below, these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block Light sources and reflection from cars. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as A-5 adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non -mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. h) Facts in Support of Findings The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 requiring lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. In addition, the Project would discourage large surface parking areas, which can be a primary source of daytime glare, and would increase landscaping throughout the area, which would provide additional shielding from lighting and glare; likely reducing the overall amount of light and glare that is currently produced in the Project area. With the implementation of MM -AES -1 (above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the Project will be less than significant. B. Biological Resources 1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species The proposed Project has the potential to impact special status species within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. Development occurring as a result of the Project could result in direct and indirect impacts to special -status plants including disturbing or removing the plants or their habitat during construction. Construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds A-6 that could out -compete special status plants. All impacts to special status plants would be considered significant. Additionally, impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would include loss of foraging and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Burrowing owls present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. Lastly, future development could result in adverse effects to vernal pools and special -status vernal pool species (fairy shrimp) that may occur in flat, open areas between the developed portions of the Project site and Murrieta Creek. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to special status species remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities for individual development projects, pre -construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for special -status plant species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground - disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted in the appropriate season. All special - status plant species observed shall be marked and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special -status or habitats of concern mapping within the construction limits shall be updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1 -August 30). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 -August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience perforrning raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and A-7 MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified on the project site during these pre -construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found: ■ Since a burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level. • However, if the Project cannot avoid the active burrow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the RCA. If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be acceptable. However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35 -plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application. Mitigation Measure MM -B10-4: The specific MSHCP conservation objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of the RiparianfRiverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual development project located outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3,3-1, an assessment of the eonstn!r_.tion footprint shall he A-8 conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human - modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservation/impact ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restrictions and protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction: Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground -disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will document compliance with the fencing requirement through a memorandum submitted to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed. If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented: A-9 Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods; each is described below. On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the DBESP. Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. Mitigation through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities associated with individual development projects, a biologist shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individual or groups of bats are found within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow conditions, or by installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities for a minimum of one week after implementing exclusion and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. The A-10 biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 through MM -BIO -5 which require pre -construction and construction biological surveys, measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate species would be minimized to a less than significant level. 2. Impacts to Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat The proposed Project has the potential to impact critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities within the Jefferson Specific Plan area. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities remain less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Project could result in impacts to vernal pool resources in undeveloped portions of the Project area or could affect areas of wetland habitat that exist within the Project boundaries. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM - BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4 which require biological surveys and MSHCP vernal pool protection implementation measures would minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level. C. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Paleontological) 1. Impacts to Archaeological Resources The proposed Project has the potential to impact archaeological resources located within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. The records search indicated that a total of nine archaeological resources are located within one mile of the Project area. Three (CA-RIV-644, -717, and -1727H) are located within the Project area. Two of these resources (CA-RIV-644 and -717) are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one (CA-RIV-1727H) is a historic -period archaeological site. None have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California A-1 1 Register or local historic register. Therefore, the Project area has moderate to high potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall be subject to a Phase 1 cultural resources inventory on a project -specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians on a project -specific basis. In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground- disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City. A-12 During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, and any other local Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. b) Facts in Support of Findings Future development under the Project could significantly impact archaeological sites and/or sites of traditional cultural value to tribes; and structures 50 years old or older. Development occurring under the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to these resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 requires consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, a qualified archeologist to be on-site during ground disturbance activities, and identifies protections measures to be A-1 3 implemented in the event resources are discovered. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL - 2 requires a historic build environment survey prior to City approval of any development plans. These mitigation measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Paleontological Resources The proposed Project is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have high paleontological sensitivity and therefore the potential to cause a significant impact on paleontological resources. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to paleontological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources. The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided. In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards: The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program: At each fossil locality: field data forms shall be used A-14 to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification, catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. b) Facts in Support of Findings The potential exists for significant paleontological resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the Project area. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. However, Temecula's General Plan (implementation measure OS -26) requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological resources is identified. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 will ensure any potential impacts to paleontological resources are minimized to be less than significant. 3. Impacts to unidentified Human Remains The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact to human remains in the event human remains are discovered. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts unidentified human remains remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The City shall require that if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. A-1 5 b) Facts in Support of Findings The archaeological site record for site CA -RN -644 has indicated that human remains near the site had been identified eroding out of the bank of a nearby creek, possibly Santa Gertrudis, and were recovered by public employees in the early 1970s (Humbert and Hammond, 1973) and ground -disturbing construction conducted throughout the Project area that is associated with implementation of the Project could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. However, this impact would be minimized to less than significant by implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4. 4. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources The Project could cause cumulative impacts to cultural resoure-es including archaeological resources, fossils and human remains. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below to ensure that the Project's cumulative impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2, MM -CUL -3 and MM -CUL -4. b) Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the Program EIR includes several mitigation measures to reduce potential Project impacts to cultural resources during construction of the Project. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario not .implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, the Project, with mitigation, would not contribute to the cumulative impact. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2 and MM -CUL -4, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Excavation activities associated with the Project in conjunction with other projects in the area could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, as -yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. However, the Project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3. With the implementation of this measure, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact through progressive damage or loss of potentially significant fossils; A-16 however, the Project, with mitigation, would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4 would mitigate the Project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on human remains would not be cumulatively considerable. D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity 1. Impacts to soil erosion The Project has the potential to cause an impact on water quality or waste discharge upon construction and operation of developments within the project area. Construction could include grading and other earth moving activities exposing soils to erosion, which could lead to erosion and runoff. In addition, the incremental increase of development over the span of 20-30 years is likely to contribute to pollution such as motor oil or fertilizers being washed away during rainfall or when a street, walkway, or parkway surface is being cleaned. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts associated with soil erosion are less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -la and MM -HYD -lb. b) Facts in Support of Findings Construction activities associated with future development could disturb soils that are protected by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or concrete, resulting in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. As detailed in MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2, individual development projects occurring during Project implementation would be required to implement the construction best management practices (BMPs), as detailed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Construction General Permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program for sites greater than one acre and each individual development project would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required by the City. These mitigation measures will reduce soil impacts to less than significant. E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Construction activities occurring under the Project may occur on sites containing contamination, which could result in releases of hazardous materials A-17 As noted in the Program EIR, a number of sites within the Specific Plan area have been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons from leaking underground storage tanks or other chemical constituents such as solvents associated with dry cleaning operations that could expose individuals to hazardous conditions resulting from exposure of contaminated soils or groundwater. Exposure of residents to underground hazardous wastes is considered a potentially significant impact. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard E1527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of any construction activities. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils suspected of contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the County. If contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. A-1$ b) Facts in Support of Findings Some of the listed sites in the Project area have been closed indicating that there is no longer any contamination at levels that could adversely affect human health or the environment. Investigations and remediation efforts are generally required by overseeing agencies such as the County's Hazardous Materials Program, RWQCB, and the DTSC, which establish cleanup levels according to existing or proposed uses. In general, soils contaminated from releases of petroleum hydrocarbons associated with underground storage tanks (USTs) are found in limited areas around the origin of release and do not migrate very far offsite. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-1 a through MM-HAZ-lc will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant levels. F. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Construction of the Project would require demolition of existing structures, pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation; these activities could expose and loosen building materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction -related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to water quality. In addition, chemicals used during the operation of the new commercial and residential structures could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface water quality. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to water quality associated with construction and operation is reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Development construction that disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to A-1 9 violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs or a combination thereof. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of a SWPPP and water quality -related BMPs described in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2 would ensure that construction -related impacts on water quality, including potential harmful materials accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, would be less than significant. In addition, future developments will be required to generate a project -specific WQMP, which will reduce impacts to surface waters, either directly or during storm water runoff events, from the use of chemicals, to less than significant levels. 2. Impacts from Stormwater Runoff a) Findings Both construction and operation of the Project could result in impacts related to stormwater runoff. Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact associated with stormwater runoff is less than sinnificant. A-20 Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1; and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential hydromodification features identified may include detention or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although construction and operation of the Project has the potential to have significant impacts associated with stormwater runoff, Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM - HYD -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. In addition, adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in MM -HYD -3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff occur during operation of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Drainage System Capacity Related to Construction and Operation. a) Findings Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts related to drainage system capacity are less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3. A-21 b) Facts in Support of Findings As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity. In addition, as part of Mitigation Measure MM-11YD-3, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional RunoffManagement Plan. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD - 3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur such that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. G. Noise and Vibration (operations) 1. Operational Noise New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: For project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: Individual development projects shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, A-22 by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Mitigation Measure MM-NO1-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. h) Facts in Support of Findings Under the Project, new land uses that would occur in the Project area include residential, commercial, office, and mixed-use developments. These new developments may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. However, for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards and implement measures to reduce noise levels, per Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3. In addition, to ensure that the nearby noise -sensitive uses to the Project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. In order to ensure that the future residents in the Project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any residential unit. H. Noise/Land Use Compatibility With changes in the community noise environment in the Project area over the course of the Project's buildout period, the new development projects proposed in the Project area may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that ensure land use compatibility impacts are reduced to less than significant. A-23 Mitigation Measure MM -NUI -5: Prior to City approval of a project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed. Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise wails, use of landscaping, use of window insulation (double -paned glazing), and/or, where applicable, the design of adequate setback distances. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5 would require all future development associated with the Project to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would violate the City's noise/land use compatibility standards and, where necessary, implement measures to ensure compliance with the City's standards. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. I. Transportation and Traffic 1. Impacts on Circulation System from Existing (2013) Plus Project Traffic Conditions The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under the Existing (2013) Plus Project. Conditions: • Ynez Road & Winchester Road • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent) • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent) A-24 Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein. b) Facts in Support of Findings After implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-1RA-1, the intersection at Ynez Road & Winchester Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D (delay = 37.1 seconds). The intersection at Nicholas Road & Winchester Road would operate at LOS E with delay improved to 55.8 seconds (i.e., better than under existing conditions). Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Impacts on Circulation System under Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions. The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under Future Year (2035) Plus Project conditions: • Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway — AM peak hour • Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road — AM peak hour • Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway — AM peak hour a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that the following improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street / Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -share contribution is 10 percent). • At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right - turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). At Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). A-25 b) Facts in Support of Findings Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein. In addition, after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2, operations during the AM peak hour at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway would improve to an acceptable LOS C (delay = 31.4 seconds). The intersection at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour; however, delay would improve to 92.6 seconds, which is better than pre -project conditions. Finally, AM peak hour operations at Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway would improve to LOS E (delay = 61.7 seconds), which while an unacceptable service level, would be better than pre -project conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. J. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment 1. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Expansion and Capacity Buildout of the Project would result in the need for larger diameter or parallel sewer lines for three lengths of sewer pipe within the Project area, and the need to increase the capacity of the Temecula Valley RWRF to handle an additional 0.8 mgd of wastewater flow; the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts related to treatment facility expansion and capacity to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay Eastern Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service. b) Facts in Support of Findings The additional wastewater flow need for implementation of the Project would necessitate a future capacity expansion which would result in the cnnstruction of new wastewater A:26 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which would be significant impacts. However, payment of mitigation fees and other fees to the Eastern Municipal Water District as described in Mitigation Measures MM-UTL-1a and MM-UTL-Ib would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Stormwater Drainage Facilities Buildout of the Project would result in the need for the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts to stormwater drainage facilities to less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and MM HYD -3 b) Facts in Support of Findings As a part of the WQMP implemented by Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, the Project would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) into Project design, which include measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. In addition, adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, would ensure no substantial increases in on-site or off-site storm water runoff would occur and cause significant environmental effects. Lastly, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would minimize potential permanent increases in stormwater runoff during operation of the development. With the incorporation of Mitigation MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3, impacts to stormwater drainage facilities will be less than significant. VI.Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of air quality, noise and cultural resources, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Air Quality (Construction and Operations) 1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Construction Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality standards related to ROG and NOx emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at the Program EIR level. A-27 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. Although the following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project: • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible? Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.3 • Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel 2 CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2021 Whereas trucks that meet 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 40 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard, trucks that meet 2010 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 85 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard, 3 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such, under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead. A-28 emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved. • After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission standards, where available. Under conditions where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lb: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a development project: • Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. • Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lc: Future project -level development shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113. Mitigation Measure MM -AYR -Id: The City shall encourage all construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate clean-up of off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Program EIR analysis of the Project determined that under an estimated worst-case construction scenario, implementation of the Project would result in significant air quality impacts associated with ROG and NOx emissions. Additionally, under potential conditions where one or more of the construction phases shown in EIR Table 3.2-6 overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of A-29 Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la through MM -AIR -1d would reduce the emissions of ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's thresholds for the two respective criteria pollutants. Therefore, for the analysis of the Project's worst- case scenario, impacts from construction ROG and NOx emissions would be significant and unavoidable. 2. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operations Operational activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality standards related to ROG emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at this program level. a) Findings As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended threshold; thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. b) Facts in Support of Findings When the operational ROG emissions of the Project are compared to that of the existing land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the Project were associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the Project area.4 The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality Consumer products are defined in Ca1EEMod to be chemically formulated products used by household consumers that include, but is not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. A-30 As the Basin is currently classified as a state non -attainment area for ozone, NO2, PMto, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. This is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. With respect to the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact, according to the SCAQMD, individual construction projects that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard_ As the Project's construction -related ROG and NOx emissions (both of which are ozone precursors) and operational ROG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds, the Project would contribute to a cumulative air quality impact with respect to ozone and NO2.5 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measures listed below will be implemented to lessen construction and long term operational air quality impacts; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la and MM - AIR -lb from Section 3.2, Air Quality, would reduce construction emissions of ROG and NOx associated with the worst-case construction scenario analyzed for the Project; however, not to below a level of significance_ b) Facts in Support of Findings The Program EIR shows that the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx (ozone precursors). Therefore, the Project would exceed SCAQMD's respective thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment (i.e., ozone and NO2). The Project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other 5 It should be noted that because the Basin in currently a non -attainment area for ozone and NO2, and both ROG and NOx emissions are ozone precursors (Le., ozone is created by sunlight acting on ROG and NOx in the air), the exceedance of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for these pollutants by the Project would result in a significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. A-31 past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. With respect to Project operations, with the exception of ROG emissions, the total net operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. With respect to the Project's operational emissions of NOx, CO, SOx, PM 10, and PM2.5, these pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. However, as the net operational ROG emissions associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's operational threshold, the Project's ROG emissions, which are ozone precursors, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. B. Cultural Resources 1. Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50 years or older. a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen impacts to historic resources; however, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to the built historic features below the levet of significance, and therefore impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval to implementation. Cityapproval prior r' A-32 b) Facts in Support of Findings Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than - significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of MM -CUL -2, at a program EIR level analysis. 2. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in this area could occur if any other existing or proposed projects, in conjunction with the Project, had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant. a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen cumulative impacts to historic resources; however, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore cumulative impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: MM -CUL -2. b) Facts in Support of Findings The potential construction impacts of the Project, in combination with other projects in the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on built historical resources. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2 has been developed in order to reduce impacts to built historic resources. However, MM -CUL -2 may not reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative effects to historic built resources, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. C. Noise and Vibration (Construction) Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. A-33 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts upon cumulative air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction - related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers an construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb: Project -specific development located within the Project area shall: • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise and vibration -sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. A-34 • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. • Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. b) Facts in Support of Findings As described in the Program EIR, it is anticipated that the City, through the environmental review process, will consider all future developments associated with the Project on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise Levels on its surrounding off-site uses. However, for the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that there would likely be future developments associated with the Project that would be located in close enough proximity to existing land uses such that the construction noise levels generated would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at those existing land uses. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring under the Project would be implemented to reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the Project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Although mitigation measures would reduce the Project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the Project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. A-35 VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(0(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." The Project would involve adoption of a Specific Plan with the intent of revitalizing this particular location in the City and taking advantage of its attributes, including the opportunity to create a high-density urban environment and its proximity to major transportation routes. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this Project. The Program EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR 1. Alternative One — No Project/Existing General Plan a) Summary of Alternative This alternative is analyzed within this program -level EIR as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is the revision of an existing land use policy, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(3)(A) states that "the No Project Alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan...into the future." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents development under the currently adopted General Plan as further described below. This alternative, however, does not represent a "no build" scenario in which no future development or redevelopment would occur. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be developed according to the existing 2005 General Plan land use map, zoning, and A-36 development patterns. With buildout of the existing General Plan, total development in the Project area would amount to approximately 4.7 million square feet, representing an increase of approximately 933,708 square feet over existing conditions, including approximately 1,043,479 square feet of Community Commercial uses; 711,944 square feet of Highway Tourist Commercial uses; 1,773,719 square feet of Service Commercial uses; 1,192,150 square feet of Industrial Park uses; and 12,414 square feet of Public Institutional uses. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and traffic impacts than the proposed project due to the number of vehicle trips associated with the substantial development allowed under the No Project/General Plan Alternative. In addition, this Alternative would not emphasize the mixed use development promoted by the proposed Project, and therefore would not reduce dependence on vehicles. Finally, this Alternative would not meet the project's primary objective of updating the existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. For all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two -- Reduced Project Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the total development would be reduced by 25 percent, which would result in a buildout of approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial uses (as opposed to the 1.7 million square feet that would occur under the Project), approximately 2,795 dwelling units, and 236 hotel rooms. This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. Under this alternative, these districts would contain the same provisions related to density and building heights. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in several impacts such as noise, air quality, and traffic impacts within the Specific Plan area. In addition, since the overall development would be reduced, there would be reduced impacts to aesthetics, population and housing, public services, as well as utilities and water supplies. Alternative 2 would achieve the proposed project objectives by creating a vibrant Locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational opportunities; strengthening opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan A-37 area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities; establishing a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street," identifying and establishing interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique identities; developing a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and built environment; creating a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking standards and establishing an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and transit improvements. However, Alternative 2 would not provide the most efficient use of the Specific Plan area and would therefore, not fully attain the economic potential of the project site because the allowable development for the project would be reduced by 25 percent, reducing the potential of the project's viability. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three — Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, allowable floor area ratios (FARs) would be adjusted in order to decrease the total amount of residential space that would be constructed and to increase the total amount of commercial square footage that could be developed. Commercial square footage would be increased by 3 million square feet; resulting in a buildout potential of approximately 4.7 million square feet of commercial uses (as compared to the 1.7 million square feet anticipated for the Project). Residential development would also be reduced by approximately 40 percent, which would result in approximately 2,176 dwelling units (as compared to the potential 3,726 that would occur under the Project). This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Due to the increased commercial development (as compared to the proposed Project) and the increased vehicle trips associated therewith, Alternative 3 would result in increased adverse air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. In addition, this alternative would not emphasize a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities nearly as much as the proposed Project, and A-38 therefore this alternative would result in greater greenhouse gas emission and climate change impacts than the proposed Project. Although Alternative 3 would achieve most project objectives and would promote economic activity within the City because commercial development would be emphasized over residential development, Alternative 3 would reduce residential development by 40 percent decreasing encouragement of developing an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods compared to either the existing Specific Plan or the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of the project objectives as well as the proposed project, and would have greater adverse impacts. Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. While none of the alternatives would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources and construction noise, the environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, as it would have potentially fewer environmental impacts to air quality, GHG, land use and planning, operational noise, and transportation and traffic as compared to the Project and the other alternatives. Alternative 2 also would meet all of the Project objectives. A summary of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the Project is provided in.E1R Table 5-5 below. TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTSa Potential Project Impacts Alt. 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Alt. 2: Reduced Project Alternative Alt.3: Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Uses Alternative Aesthetics Reduced Reduced Reduced Air Quality Reduced Reduced Increased Biological Resources Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Similar Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Increased Reduced Increased Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Reduced Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Increased Similar Similar A-39 Noise and Vibration Increased Reduced Increased Population and Housing Reduced Reduced Reduced Public Services Similar Reduced Reduced Transportation and Traffic Increased Reduced Increased Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Reduced Reduced Reduced a Definitions: • Increased = impacts of alternative greater than Project's impacts • Similar = impacts of alternative similar to Project's impacts • Reduced = impacts of alternative less than Project's impacts SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2013. D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project involves adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and is described in detail in the Program EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final Program EIR and has compared them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals. More specifically, the Project as proposed strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan recognizes the need for economic activity and growth in the City but also promotes sound environmental policies due to the reduced reliance on vehicle trips (stemming from mixed use development) and proximity to public transportation. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. A-40 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations Please see attached -8- 11086-0006 \1 8- 11086 06\f 892250v2.doc EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Amendment to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Program EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council fords that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and cultural resources. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council fords that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project: A. The City Council fmds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed Project strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. C. The proposed Project will reduce potential adverse environmental impacts compared with build- out under the currently -existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan due to its emphasis on mixed- use development and the benefits that such development provides, including reduced vehicle trips as a result of proximity to shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities. D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units beyond what currently exists in the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area or what currently could be developed in that area and thus will add to the available housing stock in the City. E. The proposed Project will augment the City's economic base by providing additional tax revenues resulting from the commercial component of the proposed allowable development. B-1 The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the individual Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. B-2 EXHIBIT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Please see attached -9- 11086-0006 \ 9- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc Mitigation Monitoring and R •kg Program EXHIBIT C UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. Pre -Construction / Construction City of ' Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign off by City of Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project - specific development within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The fighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the shield; o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and, o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian MMRP 1 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks • Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. The use of highly reflective constriction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non - mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verificaion and sign -off by City diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil importlexport) to the extent feasible.1 Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. 2 Air Quality Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project: • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer Pre -Construction I Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verificaion and sign -off by City diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil importlexport) to the extent feasible.1 Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. 2 of Temecula • Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by GARB. A copy of each units certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and GARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023. 2 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such, under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead. Uptown JE Specific Plan MMRP SA/ 211247 July2015 Mitigali. ',noting and Repcning Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy fora similarly sized engine as defined by GARB regulations would be achieved. • After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier iV emission standards, where available. Under conditions where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by GARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARS or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM-A1R-1 b: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a development project: • Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy- duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1 c: Future project -level development shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project If it is shown that a development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1d: The City shall encourage all construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment. l Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP ESA/ 211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an individual development project that would have the construction equipment and activity listed below, a project -specific LST analysis shall be prepared and submitted that identifies the resulting construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would not exceed SCAQMI's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. • Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per day; • Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; • Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks per day, and, • Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres Pre -Construction t Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula i Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future Pre -Construction / City of City of City of project -specific residential developments within the Project area and Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula located within 500 feet of I-15. a health risk assessment (HRA) shall Building Official project approval be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential or other and field developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources traveling along the portion of 1-15 that is adjacent to the Project area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC - exposure from 1-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally - exposed individual. These measures may include, but are not limited to, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum Efficiency Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM -B10-1: Prior to any ground -disturbing Pre -Construction / City of City of Certified activities for individual development projects, pre -construction Construction Temecula Temecula Enviror mental clearan a surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section Qualified Review 6.0 of the MSHCP for special -status plant species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground -disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted in the appropriate season. All special -status plant species observed shall be marked and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special -status or habitats: of concern mapping within the construction limits shall be Biologist Document Uptown k Specific Plan MMRP SA/21124Z July 2075 Mitigativ litoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator. Mitigation Measure MM -B10-2: Impacts to raptors and other Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit following measures: Qualified and field • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1- August 30). Biologist verification and sign off by City of Temecula • if construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season {February 1 -August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground - disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern. and MSHCPicovered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM-13iO-3: Future development that occurs Pre -Construction / City of City of City of outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula shalt be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in Qualified project approval burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified on the site during these pre -construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. Biologist and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found: • Since burrow owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are Uptown Jefferson specific Plan MMRP 5 CSA 1 211247 July 2015 Mitigatior.. Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level_ • However, if the proposed project cannot avoid the active burrow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the RCA_ • If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be acceptable. • However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35 -plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan_ Onsite conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application. 1Mlitigal:ion Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation Pre -Construction / City of City of Field objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of Construction Temecula Temecula verification and the RiparianfRiverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Qualified sign -off by City Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual development project located outside of land designated as Biologist of Temecula Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall be conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human -modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1 )(Ai of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Uptown MMRP Specific Plan :SA J 21124? July 2015 Mitigati; +itoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Vernal Pool Branchiopods. It survey results are positive. a certain percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservationlimpactratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restriction and protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction: Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator andlor USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of the a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground - disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, andlor USAGE. The biologist will document compliance through a memorandum during the establishment of the fencing activities submitted to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator andlor USAGE will occur as needed. If vernal pools andlor listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented: Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 7 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject Flo the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods; each is described below. On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible., vernal pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long- term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the DBESP. Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project by project basis. Mitigation through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of activities associated with individual development projects, a Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit biologist or designee shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for Qualified and field roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact :the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint_ The biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Biologist verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Administrator. Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individuals or groups of bats are found within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow conditions. or by Uptown Je MMRP ipecific Plan 'Ai 2'11247 July 2015 Mitigatj 7itoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks installing one-way doors. or other appropriate methods specified by the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator andlor CDFW. The contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities for a minimum of one week after implementing exclusion andlor eviction activities. The contractor will not implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. Pre -Construction City of City of City of The Biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Temecula Temecula Temecula Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or Pre -Construction City of City of City of other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall Temecula Temecula Temecula be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project- qualified Project specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study Archaeologist Approval; shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an and Pechanga verification by archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for tribal City of professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation representatives Temecula in with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the i consultation with Pechanga Tribe Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. if potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 1 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided. the qualified archaeologist shall Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 9 ESA / 211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on a project -:specific basis. In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City. During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. if any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per GEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeclogist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropr ate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Uptoml 3parific Plan MMRP 3A l 211247 July 2015 Mitig� litoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development Pre -Construction/ City of City of City of involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and qualified Project potentially historic strictures shall be evaluated for their potential Historian or Approval; historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The Architectural verification by survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatrnent plan to indude, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Historian City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development Pre -Construction/ City of City of Verification by involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be Construction Temecula Temecula in City of retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the consultation Temecula in project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site with Pechanga consultation for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources. The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the Tribe with Pechanga Tribe San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and recordation of all identified paleontological resources_ The paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided. In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. It fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan AAMRP 11 ESA 1211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate See MM HYDia See MM See MM See MM Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed) before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program. and MM -HYD -lb HYDia and HYD'la and HYD1 a and At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the paint of identification, catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. MM -HYD -1 b MM -HYD -1 b MM -HYD -lb Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development Construction City of City of Verifica-iion by involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address Temecula in Temecula in City of the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously consultation with consultation Temecula in with Pechanga consultation disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The Pechanga Tribe with Pechanga City shall require that, if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section Tribe Tribe 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. if the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -la and MM -HYD -ib See MM HYDia See MM See MM See MM and MM -HYD -lb HYDia and HYD'la and HYD1 a and MM -HYD -1 b MM -HYD -1 b MM -HYD -lb Uptown Js MMRP ipeofiC Plan iA / 211247 July 2015 Mitigatir +itoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development l projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard El 527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of any construction activities. Pre -Construction / Construction 1 City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 b: Any subsurface materials Pre -Construction / Riverside City of Field exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of Construction County Temecula verification and contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall Department sign -off by City require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification of of Temecula of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health_ Soils Environment and Riverside suspected of contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the al Health County Department of Environmental Health County. If contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-ic: Any groundwater generated Construction RWQCB City of Field during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in Temecula verification and accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or Building Official sign -off by City Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation or other Designee of Temecula Facility. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 13 ESA / 211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM-HYD.la: Development construction that Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge Construction) Post -Construction Temecula Temecula Building Official i or other Building Permit, review cf plans, field verfication requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include filing of a Notice of intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion andsedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Designee and sign -off by City of Temecula Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the or other Permits and SDRWOCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, Compliance with the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. Designee field verification and sign -off by City of Temecuia Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -lb: As a condition of approval, each Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit. specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the Post -Construction Building Official or other review cf plans, field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the Designee and sign -off by City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordnance requirements. Temecula Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling, minimization of vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecu':a prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading Pre -Construction / City of City of Issuance of or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula Grading or shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not Building Official Building exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see or other Permits and Table 3.10-5), if it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an Designee field verification and sign -off by City of Temecuia Uptown Je >pecific Plan MMRP sA1 211247 July 2015 Mitigatic storing and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction -related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the- art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b: Project -specific development Pre -Construction 1 City of City of Issuance of located within the Project area shall: Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction Building Official and field activities whose specific location on a construction site may be or other verification and flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses. Designee sign off by City of Temecula • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 'I❑ dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. • Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. Uptown Jefferson specific Plan MMRP 15 ESA 1211247 Jury 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction of any project -specific development in the Project area, to the extent feasible, Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: Operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities associated with any project -specific development in the Project area, to the extent feasible. Pre -Construction / Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: For project -specific development. the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise bevels generated by the development would exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of 1 fandsaeping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Pre -Construction / Construction / Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Penult and field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: Individual development projects shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise Pre -Construction / Construction/ Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee City of Temecula project approval and field verification and sign -off by City Uptown J MMRP Specific Plan SA 1211 247 July 2015 Mitigatio toring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels.. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-NOl-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of Pre -Construction/ City of City of l Issuance of 45 dB in any habitable room. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: Prior to City approval of a project- Pre -Construction / City of City of City of specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall Construction / Temecula Temecula Temecula provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use Post -Construction Building Official project approval compatibility standards are met for the and use being developed. or other and field Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances. Designee verification and sign -off by City of Temecula Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair - share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent) • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent) Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project - specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein. Pre -Construction/ Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the Pre -Construction/ City of City of l Issuance of performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit and ensure that the following improvements occur at these Engineer or and Issuance of intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street I other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan MMRP 17 ESA f 211247 July 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left tum lane, two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes, ane through lane and one shared lane (Projects fair - share contribution is 10 percent). City of City of Issuance of • At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Temecula Temecula construction Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Springs Road, add a right -turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Projects fair -share contribution is 5 percent). Building Official permits, and Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted • At the 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction sign -off by City sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay Eastem Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service. Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project - specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Temecula Temecula construction Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Building Official permits, and Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted or other sign -off by City sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. Designee i of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay Eastem Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service. Uptown Je ipec+fic Plan MM RP ill / 211247 July 2015 ATTACHMENT C PC RESOLUTION - RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 25 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA " AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Specific Plan, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity and did testify either in support or opposition to the matter. C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific -1- 1 I086-000611892276v2.doe Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). D. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). E. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. F. In response to the NOP, the City received 12 written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. G. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. H. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. J. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the -2- 11086-000611892276 v2.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. K. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. L. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearing, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, on November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. SECTION 2. Recommendation Regarding Ordinance. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, including the staff reports and public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 15- , entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA", in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Recommendation Regarding Resolution. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, including the staff reports and public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN", in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. -3- 11 O86 -4Q 06\ 1892276v2.doe PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula this 4th day of November, 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairman ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015- was duly introduced at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 4th day of November, 2015, and said Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 21st day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: -4- 1 l ©86-OOOfi11892276v2.dac Luke Watson Secretary EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. -5- 11086-0006\ s92276v2.doc ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Pian area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown HotelfTourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. On October 18, 2011, December 6, 2011, February 2, 2012, April 5, 2012, June 14, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the City conducted Community Visioning Workshops to provide information about the Specific Plan and to craft a community driven vision and set of policy directions that would provide the City with a clear focus for developing policies and standards for the Specific Plan. C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Pian Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "proposed Project"). D. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and focal law, including the -1- 11086-000611892270 2.doc California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. F. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment,' and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone. City staff presented a report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project, the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the conclusion of the November 4, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, including both an oral and written staff report and public comment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN." G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Pian, the General Pian -2- 11086-000(11892270v2.doc Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. On November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-_, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" which amended the Land Use Element Map of the Temecula General Plan to change the land use designations of parcels within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from Community Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), Public Institutional (PI), and Open Space Conservation (OS -C) to Specific Plan Implementation. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15- , the City Council also amended the Land Use Element text of the Temecula General Plan by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and removing the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Overlay Area. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" certifying and adopting the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program accurately address the impacts associated with the adoption of the Ordinance. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. Based on the evidence and all other applicable information presented, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the Specific Plan: A. The Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including -3- 11086-0006 \ 3- 11086-0006\ 18922 70v2.do open space, within the area covered by the plan (pages 3-1 through 3-23 of Specific Plan), (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan (pages 6-1 through 6-21 of Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (pages3-19 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (pages 7-1 through 7-19 of Specific Plan), The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (pages 2-1 and 2-3 of Specific Plan). (5) B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Pian encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, -4- 11086-000611892270 4- 11086-000611892270 v2,doc public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area. (2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health, safety and welfare. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested !and use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient -5- 1 1086-0006! 1892270v2.doc freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. (4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Pian is a form -based code which emphasizes the physical form of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district. The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. SECTION 3. Adoption of Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian. The Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment. A. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning District SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add the following Specific Plan area: -6- 1 1 0 8 6-000611 8 922 70 v 2. d oc "SP -14 Uptown Jefferson" SECTION 5. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to add the zoning classification "Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian" to the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A to this Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 6. Adult Business Overlay Zone Amendment. A. Legislative Findings (1) The City Council seeks to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Adult Business Overlay Zone which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1 ("Overlay Zone"). (2) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but rather to address the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. It is further the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the secondary effects of adult businesses upon the residential uses that will be located within the Specific Plan area. (3) The City Council finds that adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences, and contribute to blight and the downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding areas. (4) The City Council finds that the protection and preservation of the public health, safety and welfare require that certain distances be maintained between adult businesses and residential uses. Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020 provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -orientated retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The City Council hereby finds that the secondary -7- 11086-0006\1892270v2Aloe (5) effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses that will be located in the Specific Plan area. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disrupted to the residents of Specific Plan area. The City Council further finds that the removal of parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone will allow adequate sites for adult businesses to locate in the City. City staff has advised that 426 commercially -zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of those commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, City staff has indicated that a number of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040, approximately 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate in the Overlay Zone after it is amended to exclude the Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders at this point, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. (6) The City Council further finds that there are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 106,780. 1.8 percentage of land in the City is theoretically available to adult businesses. In addition, there are 13 sites that are potentially available for adult uses. Currently, there are no businesses that wish to offer adult entertainment in the City. Since its inception, the City has never received an application for an adult business. B. Amendment Section 17.08.020 (H) (Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add: "Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 15- _, and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full." -8- 1108!-000611892270v2. doc Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HTC SC PO BP LI A Adult Businesses -subject to Chapter 5.09 of the Temecula Municipal Code' -- C C C -- -- -- 7. Only within Special Overlay Zone No. 1 as described and depicted in Ordinance No. 15 - SECTION 7. Consistency with General Plan The foregoing amendments outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 above are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. -9- 11086-0006\ 1892270v2, doc EXHIBIT "A" Zoning Map -10- 1 ins&-n006\189227nv2.d c A b— 4r�r .M VC� Own • Zoning Map City of Temecula E'MMY., Wi frawmt92095 an....... qr a.r.gn� EXHIBIT B Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 -11- 11086-0006 \ 11- 11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc Ef7G17Y oR 4i a e 0 5 a N �4 o 1 } 19040woo®G�R Lo w� y . � VP1l gRodh pR ��y _. _ $ ' O AYN.- ot)Q y oa I.', 4 NICOLE LN a ❑ cry P 140 OO ti _0 GP ;ERr 0,N" .,00' °r 0EL REY RC 00NIE VERDE Ll. PANNAro • y 'VM AS 6o.fl e -GAS [pAs fG J 6 • CALL'S � G¢ rvaxEon cc.1n o�L saL � ci N G sin a t" h VrA RvESrA oEl sot. - y SPECIAL USE OVERLAY June 2015 Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 1..�....e City Parcels 0 500 1.000 2.000 Feet e ' 4. ap a y v apt. 7,1 p kyr cOLMAB EXHIBIT "B" CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. -6- 11086-000611892276v2.dac RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown SportslTransit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also requires a General Plan amendment, a zoning code amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a zoning map amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). C. The General Plan Amendment encompasses 1) an amendment to the Land Use Element incorporating the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU - 4), removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and amending the Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU -3), 2) an amendment to the Community Design Element incorporating the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements, and 3) an amendment to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General 11086-000611891916v2.doc Plan by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided), collectively referred to as the "General Plan Amendment." D. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider whether to recommend the adoption of the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, zoning code admendments, and zoning map amendments, and certification of the Final EIR. On November 4, 2015, after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending, in part, that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment including: amending the Land Use Element, the Land Use Policy Map, the Community Design Element, and the Circulation Element to create consistency between the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. E. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to review the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. F. Upon the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- , certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), adopting Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 15- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. G. On October 13, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the General Plan Amendment hereby further finds, determines and declares that: (1) The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest; The General Pian Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area, is in the public interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the -2- 11086-0006\1891916v2.d©e businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public interest. (2) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community; The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses; The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Pian would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space - Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. (4) The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan; The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan amendments will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land -3- 11086-440611891916 v2.doc uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally - owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by- side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in compatible future development, which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. SECTION 3. Amendment to the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Implementation to the text of the Land Use Element and adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -4), and removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6) as provided in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 4. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map. The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to include the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Areaas provided in Exhibit "B," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 5. Amendment to the Community Design Element. The Community Design Element is hereby amended by adding the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements as provided in Exhibit "C," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. -4- 11©86-000611891916v2.doc SECTION 6. Amendment to the Circluation Element. The Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is hereby amended by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided) as provided in Exhibit "D," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 7. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement these amendments. SECTION 8. Consistency with General Plan. The Land Use, Circulation and Community Design Elements of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan in conformity with Government Code section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised to effectuate General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this amendment. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 15- , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA". SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. -5- 11086-00(1511891916 v2.dac EXHIBIT A The Land Use Element Text Changes -6- 11086-000611891916v2.doc 1 important economic and environmental relationships to both the City and area residents. However, properties within this designation may not be subject to City or County planning, zoning, and building regulations. Cooperative efforts between the City, County, and local Tribal Governments are important to ensuring that areawide issues are appropriately addressed to the benefit of all local residents. RC - RF -CREATION COMMERCIAL OVERLAY Intensity Range: Target Intensity: Varies N/A The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may be applied to properties designated for Open Space use. This designation provides for operation and development of resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational uses of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the City and region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation, conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts (including fractional ownership units), restaurants, parks, camp grounds, open spaces and community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and resort uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses. 5I'! - SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION_ 1 Formatted: Left ls�tcinir: R.iii Varies Formatted: Font: Felin Tiding, Bold Varies l he Sltecitic Plan lmpletnenrnion (SPI) designation may be applied to areas within the City which have an approved Specific Plan. This designation allows for a variety of land rises which include. both residential and non residential uses. Geographic areas designated SPI typically allow for mixed use development as specified by the approved specific plan. TARGET DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES For various reasons, many parcels in the community have not been developed to their maximum density or intensity. Future development is expected to occur at the target level of density or intensity stated in Table LU -1 for each land use designation. For �_. I. R \ I 1' t - SPECIFIC PLANS Many areas within the City and Planning Area are subject to the plans, policies and implementation measures of currently adopted or anticipated future Specific Plans. The purpose of Specific Plans is to provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the General Plan. A Specific Plan area designation is used to identify 25 such areas within the Temecula Planning Area, which because of size, location, and/or special development opportunities require a coordinated and comprehensive planning approach (see Figure LU - .1). In identified Specific Plan areas of 100 or more acres, approval of a Specific Plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. In some areas, Village Center Plans, which allow greater intensities, can also be used. Planned development overlays can be used for smaller areas. Specific Plans must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 65451 of the California Government Code and the City's Development Code, which contains some additional requirements tailored to meet local needs and conditions. Designated areas will require detailed plans indicating land uses, circulation, major infrastructure and facilities, open space and parks, and appropriate implementation measures. All Specific Plans will be evaluated for consistency with the goals, policies, plans and programs of the General Plan. Approved Specific Plan Areas — As shown in Table LU -4, a total of Specific Plans have been approved within the planning area as of October 2015. Specific Plan documents for each of these areas are available for reference at the City Planning Department. Approved land uses for each Specific Plan are shown on the Land Use Policy Map. CIIY i'. I° 1 L V1 L- L tI l . G f: \ fr. R -i L P i A\ 111788 TAKE W-4 APPR.OVEu SPEclIc PLAN Amiens Label in Fig. LU- 3 Adopted Specific Plan Location Descaiptian/OI jcctivrc i ° eral Plan Land USER Acres SP -9 Itedlrawk South of Vail Ranch SP. Pre-acorpnanon Specific Plan approved 1.1 1988 including residential and commercial/industrial development. I-11, 41. P1, CIS 1.3fil SP -10 1 Vail Ranch South of Temecula Creek between 1Impala and Butterfield Stage Roads. Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 19138 including residential and comfllettial/indusnml development 1 -fit, P1, OS, I IT IP b2R SP -11 Rnripaugh Ranch Alalg Butterfield Staep Road in the northeast comer of the City. To develop a master planned residential community providing .snot} of housing types suited to the tonin and Sensitive to natural bndforms. The maroon urn density is nor to exceed an average of direr rlueelling unirs per acre. Futuro development should protect sensitive natural resources of the area - L I._ M. NI, NC, OS, PI 792 SP -12 Wolf Creek Southern portion of the City,akxcg Pechangl Parkway. le provide a balance of lues with commercial and public usra aerating the Formant-ling arca- Intended to be a village renter in the soudeastpornnn of the City. l..f, NC, CC, Pf, OS, 11 551 SP -13 liancston Between Margadh Road, and 1-15. along Cry limit. To provide a mix of land uses with Ivghn density inside heel close io onun naiad aril anplo}ne..r roe; and to Imnirk open space link between resdneial, public and commercial uses. WN, ll, 11, SC, 1, OS 157 .-4'31 14jh.o•1r ILA. ro,..ri... 50lE .. . . 1.,slue-uar't...,1 .....,_in ,-j I....n.nr..lr...ltaPool arl toil tow 6. Dunn .1 n: hln:hat II16,..1...91,14:./'•r 1 C. 11I"t I 11u whin lint. u ,.euL,,aln-rrul.l IA IR at 1 a fill Jinx e.....uu imime .1ti olu I.L1}IIJ"11. ,.I.,r.I, [1L I1.-IC.L`I115.1 our L-.•1--11..,, IL...1 irhil,.tauke,lf r ir1114.,nrnit fmlNr,4Mw*lip lit anl<ylnoal.o- `r1,1, -d 9-.tr IWI a• ->.-I fl'nllllt,'EIti' tlnrtu19r1U' In -MIL aItelhtl .aJtpl.na r l tip a n 11 Olt w .bl lranw.wan.nrrr..al, out :, ...chat R...=n arm in ylhl..n,l rine,, PDO -4 Y17O-5 Temecula Creek Village Rancho Pueblo :hong SR -79 South, hownen jededrah Smith Road and Margarita Road- To achieve comprehensively planned mixed-use developments with rompaable/vanmplrmlentacy mlxturles Of office. support comntecaal. residential, and services. PO 33 . 49 Sphcre or loll urncc #] Re Raltcha Sella Pisa North of Slurries 1 lot Springs Road and the City htmL To ptmxk a nandLvhal plumed rr11nn111nnn• tlut pmtccls the natural n5lwteea of Skunk pleat- and loll -4(1e array, psnnda a raw of acs.dsnnal datums eonotard toll cotow..,,1,err lace IL [Lill, Mild 11115 to atIiamn I '[, 11, (1S ' 70 4 TABLE LU -6 MIXED USE OVERLAY AREAS Mixed Use Overlay Areas Development Capacity Name Location Residential Units, Non -Residential Square Feet Daily Trip Cap (ADT) ],,,1, lvG.-ii I 1 1 S't 40414419(4121~344 4. 44g4 Z lY Yfl:. 4o,1 ,. I. I Ia.-k St[c ,1.,ritt ,.,f .4 ..1. r i 4, J1, ff i.y,..1 'Vernsrr , 4.tat,. anj 1, I1eht. t.., itf.::- :4j. Town Center/Tower Plaza Nortb of intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. 668-1,3373 1,090,0004,460,000 30,000 South of Old Town Service Commercial areas on Front Street south of Santiago Road 94-189 160,000-210,000 6,000 i 1. Residential range based on 207' ti -40" o residential use of site at 28 units per net acre. 2. Non-residential range based rm 60°,80,.. non-residential use of site at 0.35:1 FAR. 3. Senior housing is strongly encouraged as a part of the residential component of the Town Center/Tower Plaza sire. PRESERVING [URAL AREAS Mixed use areas and village centers will also be linked via multi -use trails, and regional and local transit service. The City will work with regional planning agencies to ensure that mixed use areas are linked to any future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to other parts of the region. Rural areas within the planning area are of special economic and aesthetic importance to the City. Community members have considered future land use options within three Rural Preservation .lreas, and have expressed a desire to keep these areas rural. Rural Preservation Areas are identified in Figure LU -5, and listed in Table LU -7. 111ilL I 11 L ,. ..11 ILL of).- tijl ki•natik•1ci..11 LFormatted: Font: Felix Titling, 14 pt liVim „I) „V)T1, Ills 11 lit illeiNt„iit 13. 1 ,i1Jtswitur. tilt 111.(t41).0.1111i.na 111 PIK)• the t'•• iiit 1 1111 tle% CIj IlIdi 11111i .11 itl it‘ :11 11 tiLJ.JhliIhlIl pL1LLrI dil CiULII 1 1 ii 1011 Eficlkooitct rrIl itirinrcircw1i .111 Clt`.1111.tiiJi 't;4 111/111t 1111.l tritill •l Cajal)" 9, Jr;(I. rhk bk"r, rk • ,•vcr-41114.11 A•I.1.1 \ p, krt. I 11 1111wka ClIAVA1t f1.:1111 flic A• 111 1/2, a jt. mills. 11 Othilt11:1111; the Veil'', e10111111L 1"LI' Would he t fit iil 1,1 a irt's anti Ow City°:.; hot! recoil tut ilia_ jt -sn " •Ii plan 1a;1. Itut•It tio..eltiptci r nanuct: ili c riinstrairy'sIUfl1r vision love:qui:cut It11 IhL ,treit jeffilson will he film( -tlestimiiii ,i/Pliisticalcil am.] tiitiqtiv. Will !lett Mit 11. A divcoc nax or residriirs (L. 111 ijL. iiaI i1tr. livu-ie in r drew, rid-1111tg nogltbotip,cq,1:, IhLi Liosiblenie ,,,13:‘ ill Cpttitillt IkiIrr lilt Platte 41 Ware u.wiuj liflhItCNIVLrCr iivaLei,111 other 111110: hli I1 cir. 11 cegito Hie ‘viti bc• isktist. racli _mill it th.,rit)cl alit! itkilim 1 ,u;kl ,orbcr 14 ,1.4.1h set -4111g lli‘t-z,„„ IZ.4Th(rwI1j L11j1,IIhtI nd lilit:rci)iltItiCteti itrect cspoliticd JflI iluhily v!u pik. wticker, mitt Alain, on. 0111-!•;141) etliciem riliir. tree path, i!tilJ_ Lilt] et.1.11311 J$1.1•411111.Sricii.UIII icCl&afli iI l'rAlli•i„ Ali Milt Cala Creek CA .1191t.C1 titAtkind pilEkl.JI Flit 11.41111etil AKA. frown it, are thr; IsI.I.IJLL iiik 1.1 rlik. +irr1,1 .1/21a1.1 And ttilaq • the I' Figure LU -4 Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Approved Specific Plans SP- 1 SP- 2 SP- 3 SP- 4 SP- 5 SP- 6 SP- 7 SP- 8 SP- 9 Roripaugh Hills Rancho Highlands Margarita Village Paloma/Paseo Del Sol Old Town Carnpos Verdes Temecula Regional Cenler WestsrdeNillages a1 Old Town Redhawk SP -10 Vail Ranch SP -11 Roripaugh Ranch SP -12 Wo8 Creek SP -13 Harveston SP -14 Uptown Jefferson PDO -0 Temecula Creek Village PDO -5 Rancho Pueblo # 106 Dutch Village # 184 Rancho Bella Vista # 213 Winchester ProperliesFSilverhawk # 265 Borel Airpark #284 Ouinta Do Lago 4 286 Winchester 1800 # 238 Crown Valley Village # 313 Morgan Hill Future Specific Plans Y Specific Plan Area Y Z Specific Plan Area Z Rr Oot Rd County of Riverside Jar r6 ndn > RA a«. rad } Temecula Lily Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Aar.1,6:x_711 Planning Area Source. Tarneuda GIs and CannniandgnalAseociales 0 5,000 hrnp nrortainmoa SP- aMr 107000 Fee Miles 2 H H f H H1 I 0 1 Figure LU -5 Land Use Focus Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend Mar Mixed Use Overlay Areas Rural Preservation Areas Future Growth Area Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Source Temecula GIS and Cotlo /B, dgesIAssocaales Ren.. Rd County of Riverside r• l 0 5,000 10;000 Feet l-1 1—i l H 0 1 Miles 2 N EXHIBIT B The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 -7- 11086-0006\1891916y2.doe City of Murrieta Sphere of influence County of Riverside POehallif Ed fel !add!! uha CeolOf 7 •-• •••• -14 .. 0 , Adopted Aprii 12, 2005 1 N.., MVO 2.9. Z907 FCC F.1...AdErt }2-04) . - • — A 0 2 soe. sow ...E... .... . - ... "............... Larvalme••••,r Cs,' .., [1,....m.•••••••• m•vit•cr •NplempmmIN,...bulml-c•1 •...••3 O. one.arn •••••=.1.19,rnm, ....I. le,. mimaniam. F..0,•,:. •r.r,... ..............o.k....w...• ................ n..................—.. - -.. ,-.....- - _. - - • Figure LU -3 Land Use Policy Map FY' Of FEWCOEFLA UREAALPsvi Emile PPE Eqi......dan cFsrOEHEAL 1115xl• cad no. Mid ..BI so E cdu. r—al Low bisdak, CAA MAGNA* 1.1•41.., (1•121 13..eAG Ad] (15.11.2.3 0..A.k COIR0IALJ OFFICE N.46....1441E4.1.1.161 Camundy CarrnbroA I Aglw.my TeathrOpmsruel 0§Ell Commucil Pin Rtha.aronol R10115110AL lorlustim RAMC UILS 01.11P Inc. - Vknom.1.4,11...1 M SP•c• TAY Tn.. Wes MEd.. Coonew..10Exby d — EXHIBIT C The Community Design Element -8- 1 ! 0S6-O006\18"91416v2.doc OLD TowN TFcuLA UPTOWN JEFFERSON I AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS Old Town Temecula represents a great opportunity for the City to preserve its heritage while promoting local tourism. The Old Town area is recognized as the heart of the City and a separate Specific Flan has been prepared for the area. While the area no longer functions as a "Town Center" or "Downtown," many of the attributes of Old Town help to establish the area as a special place within the City of Temecula. The placement of additional civic and cultural uses in Old Town would help revitalize and restore the area. Uptown Jefferson is located immediately north of Old Town Temecula. This area encompasses much of Temecula's first commercial core, and was once a bustling and important locally - serving community destination. Since this time, the area has been overshadowed by development activity, infrastructure improvements and private investment taking place elsewhere in the city. However, enhancing this area's economic assets is critical to the area's long term Future. The revitalization of the area will occur through the implementation of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as well as through the application of various economic development strategies, land use incentives, and by allowing for greater development intensity within the area. This area is anticipated to include a mix of land uses, such as urban residential neighborhoods, commercial retail, hotel and hospitality, office/employment, higher education, cultural arts, and recreation -related uses that co -exist within dose proximity to one another. This synergy in tand use will create a vibrant destination, up- scale residential neighborhoods and establish tiiable employment opportunities within the City. 1! I.I i l f, r \ f R t Figure CD -1 Community Design Plan cm, OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend knew, and Design Elemerea Act NI ty Node Grit UMW./ 0 km I. nteesemain Misted. Q v. • I 11, Slireerkapei and sPsnieshinds 1,1,or ecwape EMUS,. SW. NatweWilderness Trails gerve.S. ima. rvd.mo Iv h., Maim WAP. Correniams. Sirs+ Vievvshets Iv -010A CiniWinte, nWive ()pen Seace, and Reel -easy], Fealties ic ladawsendireceeies Vq vineeniels/eigv.ven.41 MIOpen Space Pens and Kerwin...I rapliags maiiieeek inenenda City !Menden, : sph,d spheredWS, es v4 e Boned* re A Piennog Alpe One. City m Spifl1U. nce County of flivenriate .14, MI ISA es .111 a-Lo,iga 'City urrLzra-, j) w 0 2,500 5,000 7.500 10.000 Feet Miles 1.5 2 INNEN 0 0,5 1 R EXHIBIT D The Circulation Element -9- 11086-O(i06\1891916v2.doc H H i 1 Figure C-2 Roadway Plan CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ALAN Legend Interchange Improvements Urban Arterial (9 Lanes divided) Principal Arterial (6 Lanes divided) Major Arterial (4 Lanes divided) Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes undivided) Modified Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes separates Limited Secondary Arterial (2 Lanes divided) Collector (2 Lanes undivided) Rural Highway (2 Lanes undivided) Yar AF .741 City of Murrieta ,t�' Coeincy of Sphere of influence Riverside 2 a r. SN., o. ed -^+trcrwr.axc CO of Murrieta 4 • W 0 5,000 10,000 Feet Mites 0 2 ATTACHMENT D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 26 Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: LR10-0014 Uptown Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan Applicant: City of Temecula Proposal: Recommend adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use and development options within the 560 - acre Project area. In addition, the Project would focus on increasing mobility opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation options, including walking, biking, and transit, through the implementation of new "complete streets" roadway configurations, traffic calming strategies, pedestrian -oriented facilities, and bike lanes. The Project would include a form -based code to better define development regulations and design standards in order to encourage higher density urban development. Anticipated build -out of the Specific Plan assumes up to 3,726 residential units, approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial uses, and 315 hotel rooms. The project is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road (See attached map). Environmental: Based upon the information contained in the initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City completed a Draft E1R, to address any potential issues for the project described above. A Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Dale West, (951) 693-3918 City of Temecula, Council Chambers October 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www .cityoftemecula.orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www cityoftemecuia.crg — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: November 4, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner PROJECT Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of: SUMMARY: 1) The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan; 2) A General Plan Amendment to: (a) amend the Land Use Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of "Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) amend the Circulation Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principle Arterial to a Major Arterial; and (c) make textual amendments by incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan in various chapters of the General Plan; 3) A Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries; 4) A Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; and 5) Certification of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report RECOMMENDATION: That at the November 4, 2015 meeting, after taking public testimony, the Planning Commission consider the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the draft Enviornmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to remove the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay zone. That at the November 4, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN 1 JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" 3. Recommend that staff prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: City of Temecula General Plan Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Designation: Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP), and Open Space (OS) Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), Light Industrial (LI), and Open Space — Conservation (OS -C) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Retail, restaurant, office, hotel, gas station, service commercial other uses, and vacant North: City of Murrieta — retail, service commercial, industrial, office, public institutional, open space and vacant South: Old Town Temecula — retail, service commercial, restaurant, hotel, 2 motel, gas station, residential, other uses, and vacant East: Interstate 15 and retail West: Murrieta Creek, industrial, and service commercial BACKGROUND SUMMARY The Jefferson Avenue Study Area ("Study Area") is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz Road/Murrieta Creek and south of Cherry Street. The Study Area is approximately 560 acres and consists primarily of a mix of developed commercial property, and property designated as conservation/open space (Murrieta Creek). In January 2011, the Temecula City Council determined that enhancing the Study Area's economic assets would be critical to sustaining the area's long term future viability and established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of two City Council members. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning workshops to obtain community input for the future Specific Plan area. From October 2011 through July 2012, the Community Development Department orchestrated six community visioning workshops and engaged the community in an effort to develop a Specific Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Area. The Envision Jefferson public visioning process resulted in the development of eight Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals to guide the development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (sometimes referred to as "Specific Plan"). In February 2013, the Jefferson Specific Plan Steering Committee, consisting of two members of the Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission, was created to guide the technical development of the Plan. To date, 36 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through the Envision Jefferson public visioning process, Steering Committee meetings, City Commission meetings, and a Developer Forum. The City has also engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson and the City of Temecula websites. Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to determine the best land uses and development standards necessary to create a new and vibrant Uptown Jefferson. The draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is based on the community's vision, guiding principles and recommendations. On October 21, 2015, staff presented the draft Specific Plan and related General Pian amendments, Zoning amendments, Municipal Code amendments, and Final Programatic Envrionmental Impact Report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing to take public testimony either in support or oposition to the Specific Pian and related recommendations. There was one public speaker, representing the North Jefferson Business Park, who had questions regarding conflicts between existing CC&Rs and the proposed land uses of the Specific Plan. Having no further public comments, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 4, 2015 to allow ample opportunity for the public to speak on the issue, and to allow the Planning Commissioners the oportunity to digest the large amount of information presented to them and the recommended actions they are being asked to make. The project analysis, envrionmental determination, findings for the General Plan amendments, Zoning amendment, and Specific Plan are contained in the October 21, 2015 staff report as an attachment to this staff report. 3 Since the publication of the October 21, 2015 staff report, minor changes have been made to the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings), Statement of Overiding Considerations (SOC), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Changes include minor clarifications and corrections to incosistencies between these documents. The revised Findings, SOC and MMRP are attached to this staff report and will be incorporated into the staff report that will be presented to the City Council. Pending the Planning Commission recommendations on November 4, 2015, staff intends to seek City Council adoption of the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Zoning Map Amendment and a Municipal Code Amendment, along with certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on November 17, 2015. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 11, 2015 for the October 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and a second notice of public hearing was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 24, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius for the November 4, 2015 Planning Commission public hearing. ATTACHMENTS A. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings B. Statement of Overiding Considerations C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D. October 21, 2015 staff report for Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 (Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan) E. Notice of Public Hearing 4 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: LR10-0014 Uptown Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Located in the northwestern area of Temecula, bounded by Cherry Street on the north, 1-15 on the east, Rancho California Road on the south, and Diaz Road on the west Proposal: Recommend adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use and development options within the 560 -acre Project area. In addition, the Project would focus on increasing mobility opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation options, including walking, biking, and transit, through the implementation of new "complete streets" roadway configurations, traffic calming strategies, pedestrian -oriented facilities, and bike lanes. The Project would include a form -based code to better define development regulations and design standards in order to encourage higher density urban development. Anticipated build -out of the Specific Plan assumes up to 3,726 residential units, approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial uses, and 315 hotel rooms. The Proposal will include certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the Adult Business Overlay boundaries, and adoption of a New Street In -Lieu Fee. The project is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road (See attached map). Recommendations: The City Council will consider the following recommendations: 1) Adopt the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan; 2) Adopt General Plan Amendment to: (a) Amend the Land Use Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of "Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)' and specifying that all land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) Amend the Circulation Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial to a Major Arterial; and (c) Make textual amendments by incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan in various chapters of the General Plan; 3) Adopt a Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries; 4) Adopt a Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area: and 5) Certification of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. 6) Adopt a New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee, which will fund new internals streets within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary Ordinance. 7) Direct staff to prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. 8) Direct staff to change the name of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. Environmental Action: Based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City completed a Draft EIR, to address any potential issues for the project described above. A Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) was distributed to responsible agencies; interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6; 2015. Copies of the documents were made available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. Beginning on November 6, 2015, the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee will be imposed and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues and the nexus reportwill be available for public review at City Hall at the location and time described in the last paragraph. The Council will hear a presentation from Staff on the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee and hear comments from the public on November 17, 2015 but will not act on the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee at this time. The public hearing on the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee will be continued to December 8, 2015 at which time the City Council will consider and may take action on the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee On November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommended to the City Council that it approve these recommendations by a unanimous vote. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 65009 of the California Government Code, and Section 21167 of the California Public Resources Code. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, petitioner shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application and the public data concerning the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center. Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Dale West, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 693-3918. PLACE OF HEARING DATE ❑F HEARING TIME OF HEARING City Council Chambers 41000 Main Street Temecula, California November 17, 2015 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No. 23 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Appoint Member to the Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint Gary Watts to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: On October 27, 2015, the City Council authorized the recruitment of a member to the Planning Commission to fill a vacancy for a term expiring on June 15, 2016. The recruitment period ran from October 28, 2015 — November 20, 2015. Nine applications were forwarded to the subcommittee of Mayor Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tempore Naggar for review and recommendation. One application was subsequently disqualified due to inadequate voter registration. All applicants are registered voters and live within the city limits of the City of Temecula. Mayor Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tempore Naggar recommend the appointment of Gary Watts to the Planning Commission. If the City Council ratifies the recommendation of the committee by appointing Mr. Watts to the Planning Commission, a vacancy results on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission of which Mr. Watts is currently a member. As such, staff also asks for authorization to recruit for the resulting vacancy on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. The recruitment period would run from December 10, 2015 — December 31, 2015. The appointment to fill that vacancy for the remaining term expiring on October 10, 2017 will likely be made at the January 26, 2016 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Nine Planning Commission Applications City of Temecula 41000 Main Street -tECEIIVE Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org NOV 0 (951) 694-6444 trlw r,t cues, Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Ple se check one: V Planning Community Services Public Traffic Safety Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident / 2. + Are you a City Registered Voter? ✓ NAME:I—; C., 7 - ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE: fi orVi OCCUPATION: RE ITY/STATE/ZI P P EMPLOYER NAME: frac EMPLOYER ADDRESS:. r, Natal EMALA IL Arra - - Phi J 1 -PRA/ `l e,n / Educational Background/Degrees: � � � p L� 10-4L t�irTi.Lf1C,4 �) - L LPrj) , L- T,A4130Li (0 } ^'C 5 1 C , r `' , 191'-1 e fru AN)C115-1-65z €111 List any City or County board, Comma ee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: pO l EVENING PHONE: • -- CDL List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): N5-71 I r egt--) State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) q5 -Lc&- /gip understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: Date: Please mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE November 1, 2015 City of Temecula Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Ms. JohI-Olson: Enclosed please find my Planning Commission application. Because I have recently applied for other city commission openings, I am including letters of recommendation that I used before. I am happy to provide additional letters or references if needed. Sincerely, �v- Juliet Grossman Organizations Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce • Affiliate member Realtor, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage (Temecula -Vail Ranch) • I obtained my real estate license and affiliated with Coldwell Banker in 2015 The Grossman Law Firm, A.P.C. • Shareholder/Co-Owner, 2001 -Present • My husband Scott and I own a small practice focusing on trust and probate litigation with offices in Riverside, Temecula, and San Diego. I am currently a marketing consultant to the firm. National Charity League, Inc., Temecula Valley Chapter • President, 2015-2016 • Founding board member, President -Elect and Treasurer, 2013-2015 Hillcrest Academy • Member of Competitive Academics Program and co-director of Odyssey of the Mind program, supervising five coaches of three student teams, 2015 -present • Member of marketing committee (appointed by Board of Trustees), 2013-2014 Girl Scouts of San Gorgonio Council • Southwest Region, Temecula Service Unit Events Coordinator, 2013-2014 • Brownie troop co -leader 2013-2014 • Junior troop leader, 2011-2012 Destination Imagination • Reality Rally Kidz Checkpoint Challenges organizer, 2014 and 2015 • Captain, Paloma Elementary School/Temecula Middle School team, 2010-2012 Rady Children's Hospital Auxiliary, Temecula Unit • Founding board member and Treasurer, 2005-2007 MOMS Club of Temecula -Central • President, 2009-2010, Treasurer, 2008-2009 Junior League of Riverside • Sustaining member, 2000 -present • Fundraising Director, 2005-2007, Membership Director, 2001-2003 Friends and family know me as the "Temecula Answer Lady" because I am their go -to source for information about what is going on in our community. I am passionate about Temecula, and enjoy sharing my enthusiasm for our city whenever I can. I have a meaningful contribution to make of responsible stewardship to help maintain an excellent quality of life for all residents while operating our city in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner. My husband Scott and I are proud to be raising our two daughters in the beautiful communities of Paloma del Sol (2003-2013) and Redhawk (2013 to present) and we are frequent patrons of our city's parks, museums, venues, shops, theaters, and other amenities which are the backbone of our very high quality of life here in Temecula. In short, my passion for our city and all it has to offer to our residents is my top qualification for commission service. In addition, I am an energetic, dynamic leader. When I see a need in our community, I gather the people and resources necessary to fill the void. Over the past two and a half years, I helped create a Temecula Valley chapter of National Charity League. NCL is a membership organization of mothers and daughters in grades 7-12. During the six-year program, we strive to fulfill the mission of strengthening the mother -daughter bond in a philanthropic organization through community service, leadership development, and cultural activities. My leadership experience with this organization and many others is a strong qualification for a commission appointment, because I understand that the strongest leaders are collaborative. I have a proven ability to bring people together, work well in groups of all sizes, and to step back and follow when needed. I work on a regular basis coordinating with and volunteering for our NCL partner philanthropies, including Michelle's Place, Reality Rally, Jacob's House, Hope's Community Closet, Community Mission of Hope, Champions Baseball, Our Nicholas Foundation/Kick with Nick, and the City of Temecula including the Ronald Reagan Sports Park and Pennypickle's Workshop. Networking with these groups to share ideas, inspiration, and manpower has been informative and rewarding. Temecula's leaders approach all that happens in our city with careful thought, planning, and foresight, and I know my background as a collaborative board member and networker with various and diverse local organizations makes me a highly qualified Planning Commission candidate. t C� ` att-02u.JI Cr: rG2r j - „F,C9�tic. f(rl1,Cta AND 9.-anyhtrt.; S VTiIC CCMMUN111ES.fy-Moo May 11, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: As the President of National Charity League, Inc., Temecula Valley Chapter, I work -closely with many of the community volunteers. I consider Mrs. Juliet Grossman to be one of the most studious and responsible members of our organization_ I have come to know her well, and would like to recommend her as a candidate for Community Service Commissioner for the City of Temecula. Mrs. Grossman is a dedicated member of the National Charity League, Inc. and has donated countless hours of her time to our local communities through the following philanthropies; Jacob's House, Michelle's Place, Service From the Heart, Temecula Valley Champions, Binky Patrol, Community Mission of Hope, Littlefield at the Park, City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, and Susan G. Kamen, who we support. She has not only worked with members of the community, she has also helped to implement plans and programs through National Charity League, Inc., Temecula Valley Chapter. Juliet's leadership and organizational skills have been invaluable to our Board, which she has been involved in from the ground up. She is currently our President Elect and will take office on June 1, 2015. In my opinion, Mrs. Juliet Grossman unwavering devotion to his community exemplifies strong moral fiber and character_ She is a trustworthy individual and would be an excellent candidate for Community Services Commissioner_ Sincerely, PIMf0.)11 en U Jacqueline Hunter President, National Charity League, Inc., Temecula Valley Chapter P.O. Box 891381 Temecula, CA 92589-1381 Website: http:l/NCLTemeculaVallev.org May 13, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in support of the appointment of Juliet Grossman to the position of Temecula Community Services Commissioner. I have served with Ms. Grossman on the marketing committee for Hillcrest Academy, and I have been delighted to have the opportunity to get to know her and her work. She is enthusiastic, committed and consistently achieves excellent results. Juliet has made every effort to have a positive impact on our community. She has a long history of volunteering with organizations known for their efforts at community improvement. In addition to her work supporting Hillcrest Academy's non-profit Board, she is a sustaining member of the Junior League of Riverside and a founding member of the Temecula chapter of the National Charity League, where she currently serves as treasurer and president elect. She is extremely active in her local Temecula Girl Scout Troop. And she makes a concerted effort to be aware and in touch with what's happening in Temecula. If I want to know about something in our community, Juliet is my information resource. On top of her extensive volunteer contributions, Ms. Grossman is an attorney who has worked locally for almost two decades. Currently she and her husband maintain a trust and probate litigation practice with offices in Riverside, Temecula, and San Diego, and she serves as the firm's director of marketing. As a legal counselor she has many years of experience listening to client concerns and successfully dealing with complex, high-stakes matters. Before embarking on her current practice area, Ms. Grossman worked as an attorney with the Riverside County Public Defender's Office, proving she is intimately familiar with accepting both favorable and unfavorable decisions rendered by juries and the courts. Aside from her impressive professional and volunteer background, I want to tell you about Juliet Grossman personally. She is hard-working, dedicated, and compassionate. She is always willing to listen, to pitch in, and to get her hands dirty to help a cause. She has excellent communications skills and expertise in social media that would serve her well in her role as a Commissioner. Whether she is raising money for Rady Children's Hospital or letting the public know about new businesses in the area via Temecula Talk, Juliet approaches it with the same enthusiasm. Juliet is a genuinely friendly, capable, approachable person and in my opinion the exact type of person we need m an appointed public office. When we say we have a government "by the people" this is one of the people about whom we should be speaking. Thank you for your consideration of Juliet Grossman for this position. Sincerely yours, Christine Dull Hillcrest Academy Board of Trustees Date: May 11, 2015 To Whom 1t May Concern: 1 have had the pleasure of knowing Juliet Grossman for more than fifteen years. When I first met her, she was serving on a committee for new Junior League of Riverside members. I was one of the new members that year. Junior League is a non- profit organization dedicated to training women to developing their potential and improving communities through the effective action and leadership of trained volunteers. I quickly saw that Juliet was exceptionally professional, and had an amazing ability to relate to people. Juliet represented Junior League of Riverside so well and personified the mission of League. Over the years that I served various leadership positions and Board positions at Junior League of Riverside (JLR),1 had a constant working relationship with Juliet. Juliet also served in a leadership position every year in League, either on the Board or as a Committee Chairperson. Her incredible knowledge of the workings and functions of all the diverse Junior League committees; how the committees contributed to the community, as well as the policies and procedures of each committee are some of the reasons why Juliet was an exemplary contributor to Junior League. Each year as the new positions were taken within League, different working relationships were established with both JLR and community members, city officials and city committees. Because of Juliet's ability to work with all the diverse committees and people, Juliet was often the candidate chosen to interact with the different parties, and on various community projects. Five years ago Juliet became very interested in a non-profit educational afterschool program, called Destination Imagination, that I was working with. She saw the value that children could gain from participating in that kind of program, that encouraged children to think outside of the box, and promote higher-level thinking. She formed and managed a team of children to participate in the program, as well as became a Temecula area representative, to help other school children become involved in the program. Juliet also formed a committee, representing Destination Imagination, to participate in Temecula's Reality Rally Fundraiser. • Juliet would make an exceptional addition to the Temecula Community Services Commission, and I unequivocally recommend her. Sincerely, Ann Guthrie ALLISON JAMES` Garan & Lisa Forss #Swi E5:6'+OMES Associate Broker, Realtor E -PRO, CNS, QSC May, 14, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: Team Forss Ready Group 45100 Redhawk Parkway Temecula, CA 92592 Lisa Forss Goran Forts I have been Juliet Grossman's Realtor, neighbor and friend since 2013 and in that time have seen her interest and involvement in community affairs here in Temecula. I believe she is highly qualified to serve as a Community Services Commissioner and recommend her appointment. Since Juliet and her husband Scott moved to Temecula in 2003, she has been very involved with Local volunteer organizations, including PTA at her childrens' schools (first Paloma Elementary, then Temecula Middle School and Vail Ranch Middle School), Hillcrest Academy, and Girl Scouts. In addition, Juliet has taken on the challenge of bringing new organizations to Temecula when she saw a need in the community. She was one of the founding members of the local branch of Rady Children's Hospital Auxiliary, raising money and support for the hospital locally. She also saw a need for a parent -teacher organization at Congregation B'nai Chaim, so she was a co-founder of that organization. Recently, Juliet was a founding member together with another local woman of the Temecula Valley Chapter of National Charity League, a group for mothers and daughters in middle and high school to volunteer together while developing leadership skills. The group began in 2013 and continues to expand, giving members a chance to volunteer for many local nonprofits, like Community Mission of Hope food pantry and Jacob's House. Professionally, Juliet and her husband Scott own a small law office. They are very invested in the Temecula community, supporting local events and activities whenever possible. Juliet currently works as Marketing Director for the firm. Personally, Juliet is level-headed, professional, and easy to get along with, and I believe these qualities would make her a very successful member of the Commission. She is open-minded about new ideas and works well in groups, listening to all sides before making up her mind. She also is a hard worker and willing to give generously of her time and energy. There is no one I could recommend more. Juliet would be a great asset to the City of Temecula Community Services Commission. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -C4/-1,1,D Lisa Forss Owner Forss Realty Group WWW. e a m orss.com As Seen on TV endorsed by Barbara Corcoran and on Radio with Kfrog 92.9 ,rtECE1VED NOV 0 9 �. 14 Fr. City of Temecula CLE 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 11-09-15PO4:28 RCVD Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: Planning Community Services Public Traffic Safety _ Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Are you a City Registered Voter? 1 NAME: Mor4A L • M4,gz41.4.MES OCCUPATION: PIQ..Ec roQ., STRATI ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: 11ME L. t 146 14 ou9E 42.7 S. F r-TH Sr EMPLOYER ADDRESS: L.ousSvia.i.E, Ky EMAIL 1 NII -r1 ATI Vc5 PISA5E SEE tlT Au-1rD Educational Background/Degrees: �7Ir,1 W-rs ,- List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information tor public Information purposes. Signature: 2.!/!.. Date;41,04 Please mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE November 9, 2015 MONA L. MORALES, MBA City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Planning Commission Dear Sir or Madam, Please consider my Commission and Board Appointment Application for the open Planning Commission position for the unexpired term ending on June 15, 2016. Included herein are the completed application questions for proper consideration. I am a current resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of Temecula. I have been a City of Temecula resident and property owner since 2008. COMMISSION AND BOARD APPOINTMENT APPLICATION Education Background/Degrees: • Bachelor of Science, Business Administration Degree Conferred 2005 University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ • Master of Business Administration, Business/Marketing, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ Degree Conferred 2003 • Doctoral Coursework: Doctorate in Management, Organizational Leadership Field of Study: Transformational Leadership and Innovation / Communication Strategies - 3.71 GPA University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 2006 - 2008 List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the years of service: • COMMITTEE MEMBER, WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD COMMITTEE (SOUTHWEST CA REGION) (PRESENT) - ACTIVE PARTICIPANT OF WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS TO SUPPORT WORKFORCE INITIATIVES AND ADVANCEMENT • TEAM PARENT, TEMECULA VALLEY GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION (TVGSA) (2011 - PRESENT) - ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE LOCAL GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE TO ENCOURAGE ATHLETIC SKILL DEVELOPMENT, TEAMWORK, AND PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT FOR ITS PLAYERS; RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION DF SCHEDULES, TEAM UNIFORMS, AND FUNDRAISING List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): Non-profit Leadership • ADVISORY COUNCIL, NATIONAL HOSA (HEALTH OCCUPATION STUDENTS OF AMERICA) (2011 — PRESENT) - WORK WITH HOSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND GOVERNMENT LEADERS, ON VARIOUS PROJECTS TO FOSTER SKILL AND CAREER OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT AND ADVANCE SKILL AND COMPETENCY IN NEXT GENERATION HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE Professional Organization • THE LEARNING HOUSE, LOUISVILLE, KY (REMOTE) DIRECTOR — STRATEGIC INITIATIVES 2015 — PRESENT Through a proprietary cloud -based technology platform, helps more than 75 not-for-profit colleges and universities create, manage and grow high-quality online degree programs and courses. Enables institutions to efficiently and affordably achieve their online goals. Supports partnership development through product development and market research, marketing and lead generation, enrollment management, student retention, curriculum development and management, faculty training and professional development, and learning management systems. Builds coalitions between partnering colleges/universities and industry associations/policy makers State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the positions. Please be specific. I have attached my Professional Resume and Biography for the Planning Commission's review. My solid business acumen is supported by senior -level experience in post -secondary education, ruled by government and state regulatory bodies. My expertise is in designing and implementing industrial strategy across the United States with responsibility over product development and curriculum design, brand marketing, business development (B2B partnerships), administrative management, student success, and operations. Included in these responsibilities is a need for planning specific to the placement of campus resources and products to meet regional needs. My experience includes for-profit, not-for-profit, and independent professional settings; allowing for a vast perspective of higher education and business structures. This broad-based experience has provided insight to the independent roles of academia, government and enterprise, their standalone strengths, and the benefit of collaboration between all three. Most importantly, I am a City of Temecula resident whose aim is to contribute to my community with purpose and impact. [ am forward thinking and creative, and believe in delivering quality communication and outputs. 1 have a collaborative style and an intrinsic desire to make a difference. I seek an opportunity to work in a city government forum that promotes challenging and meaningful work. I hope to leverage my professional experience and skills set, along with my Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree, to continue contribute to the growth and prosperity of the City of Temecula. Along with my resume, I have enclosed a collection of peer recommendations that will speak candidly to my work ethic, leadership style, and capabilities. I hope in reviewing them you may see a professional history and personal approach that serves the City of Temecula well. Please feel free to reach out to me if my experience meets your needs. I thank you in advance for your professional consideration and truly hope for the chance to be a factor in Temecula's continued excellence. Mona L. Morales, MBA 21 Page MONA L. MORALES, MBA Education and Experience Mona's professional experience centers on innovation and strategy in leadership practice. During her professional tenure, she has driven many corporate initiatives from inception and directed multiple divisional units across functional lines delivering outcomes that have delivered $20-72 million in revenue year over year annually within a multi -billion dollar organization. Mona has the ability to recognize areas of opportunity for corporate innovation. She is adept at compiling data and conducting extensive analysis of business patterns for effective deployment of company resources to deliver on mission critical business and workforce strategy assignments. Mona is the recipient of numerous awards recognizing her ability to yield strong results in each role and function. Her leadership style and people -centered philosophy is a staple in her professional brand. Her roll -up -the -sleeves attitude connects her vision and strategy to tactical execution. Prior to her extensive contribution to higher education and training, Mona held executive leadership roles in both the public and private sectors. She has served in business development and operational leadership roles, including CEO of a private organization whose work included collaboration with the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, The Ritz- Carlton organization, theknot.com, celebrity clients and charity events. Mona's dedication stems from her family. She is the proud mother of two daughters, ages 19 and 10, who thrive academically and through various extra -curricular activities. Mona is an avid contributor to her community through her volunteer efforts. Her personal interests take shape by way of creative outlets in interior design, cooking, and gardening. Mona brings over 20 years of business experience to the market along with her academic achievements. Mona graduated from the University of Phoenix with a Bachelor of Science in Business and a Master in Business Administration - Marketing. MONA L. MORALES, MBA BUSINESS EXECUTIVE A top -performing Senior Executive credited with successful organizational growth outcomes by bridging operations and policy to create organizational solutions with the aim of increasing applicability and accessibility in education. Strong expertise in communication, coalition building, strategic thinking and problem solving. Highly accomplished in program development to build workforce competency and skill, brand marketing, operational infrastructure, and business development in post -secondary education. AREAS OF EXPERTISE • National/Sr. Executive Leadership • Strategic Initiatives and Planning • Innovation / Thought Leadership • Policy and External Agencies ■ Research & Analysis ■ Revenue & Market Expansion • Business Development • Training and Workforce Development ■ Sales & Marketing/ Branding • Design & Implementation • Operating Model Strategy • Program Development PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE THE LEARNING HOUSE, LOUISVILLE, KY (REMOTE) 2015 - PRESENT DIRECTOR - STRATEGIC INITIATIVES • Through a proprietary cloud -based technology platform, helps more than 75 not-for-profit colleges and universities create, manage and grow high-quality online degree programs and courses. ■ Enables institutions to efficiently and affordably achieve their online goals. • Supports partnership development through product development and market research, marketing and lead generation, enrollment management, student retention, curriculum development and management, faculty training and professional development, and learning management systems. • Builds coalitions between partnering colleges/universities and industry associations/policy makers THE WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, TEMECULA, CA 2014 — 2015 MANAGING DIRECTOR - WORKFORCE / EDUCATION TO CAREER ADVANCEMENT CONSULTING • Provided leadership and partner with educators and employers to understand and analyze the need for education and training in the labor market and regional economy • Identified targeted industries, occupations, regional clusters, hiring needs, and populations to be served ■ Provided relevant sources of data, including labor market information and other tools or reports to support strategic workforce initiatives • Built strategy and infrastructure to connect employers and educators to advance workforce skill and proficiency APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP, PHOENIX, AZ (REMOTE) 2002 - 2014 NATIONAL DIRECTOR - INDUSTRY STRATEGY 2009-2014 Head of Healthcare Industry Strategy. Directed national leadership and field team of 500+ employees for academic partnership development / enrollment for Apollo Education Group, and all of its subsidiaries. Increased healthcare industry contracts for student placement from 5 to 1200+ in less than 4 years; equal to approximately 45% of all Apollo partnerships. Delivered the highest partnership growth across all industry sectors. • Developed a Smart Team and served on strategic planning teams. Spearheaded cross -functional initiatives, guided R&D, marketing, business development, student services, and campus leaders across the country to influence industry program relevancy, academic program placement and student development within compliance requirements. ■ Designed and implemented education and operational programs which were replicated across the organization. • Created new revenue streams by generating 7500+ new students nationwide in 30 months by setting strategic direction, design and effective plan implementation. • Led implementation of more effective resource alignment and allocation by launching a new operational infrastructure and training for national delivery and student outcomes. • Built coalitions with industry associations and policy makers to advance workforce initiatives Achieved 9 promotions through the University of Phoenix organization into Apollo Education Group, its parent Company, and earned 26 performance/recognition awards within the overall employment term of 11 years, 10 months. Listed below are roles and functions held within the Apollo subsidiary of University of Phoenix. Resume, Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, SAN DiEGO CAMPUS LEADERSHIP 2009 - 2009 SENIOR MARKET MANAGER / SENIOR WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS MANAGER UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CAMPUS LEADERSHIP 2002 - 2009 SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER - HEALTHCARE SR. ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT / ADMISSIONS (CENTRAL ADMIN) - ALUMNI SR. ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT / ADMISSIONS - LEARNING CENTER ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT / ADMISSIONS (CENTRAL ADMIN) - MATURE LEADS CORPORATE EDUCATION LIAISON / BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - BUSINESS OPERATIONS/ANALYST L'OREAL USA, NEW YORK, NY (REMOTE) 2000 - 2002 CONTRACTED CORPORATE EXECUTIVE, TERRITORY LEADER: LUXURY GOODS DIVISION • Negotiated product placement of 26 brands with major retailers to support corporate national strategies. • Managed a high ranking and top performing 23 -person remote sales team in a competitive and expansive market. • Captured 33% market share from effective resource optimization. ■ Developed and directed sales strategies resulting in selling $1M in product at singular department store. WHITE WEDDINGS, MISSION VIEJO, CA 1992 - 2000 PRESIDENT/CEO • Drove revenue to $5M annual from an initial investment of $10K. Founder of start-up organization. • Managed executive cabinet of 9 and all functions pertaining to achievement of immediate and long term organizational objectives. ■ Negotiated 70+ high profile events/contracts including work with the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, Ritz-Carlton, TheKnotcom and celebrity clientele. • Governed P&L, divisional budgets and revenue forecasts. EDUCATION & TRAINING Master of Business Administration, Business/Marketing, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ Bachelor of Science, Business Administration University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ Degree Conferred 2003 Degree Conferred 2005 2006 - 2008 Doctoral Coursework: Doctorate in Management, Organizational Leadership Field of Study: Transformational Leadership and Innovation / Communication Strategies - 3.71 GPA University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ LICENSURE Department of Real Estate Salesperson License 2005 - 2009 Identification Number: 017166013 KEY SKILLS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP - Lead and govern focused teams to further organizational objectives and purpose. OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE - Committed to identifying process improvements, optimizing structural processes and implementing adjustments to increase efficacy and business outcomes. NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - Advance and implement directed and tactical sales and marketing avenues to attract new business accounts and interests creating new revenue streams. Resume, Page 3 SOFTWARE PROFICIENCIES • MS Office Suite • Publisher ■ Internet Explorer, Safari, Chrome • Outlook, Outlook Express • Business Works • EMSI Analyst • Burning Glass Technologies • Wanted Technologies • SalesForce • Goldmine • AMIE • Adobe Illustrator AWARDS & DISTINCTIONS OVER 40 PERFORMANCE AND RECOGNITION AWARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP, INC. / University of Phoenix • 450% Total Increase in FY12 UOPX National Signed Healthcare Partnerships • Ranked #1 Nationwide in Workforce Solutions Managers • National Leadership Recognition Top Performing Campus Team ■ Individual Merit Award: OWN IT AWARD for new initiative development • Individual Merit Award -- Outstanding Management Achievement for new initiative development • Individually Ranked Top 10 Team for FY07, Merit Award: Outstanding 4th Quarter Mentor Achievement • Apollo Group Corporate Advancement & Promotion Program Achievement • Southern California Mentor/Leadership Program Achievement • Individual Merit Award - Outstanding Achievement for new initiative development in FY04 • Individual Merit Award - Top Team Performance/Sperling Club • Individual Merit Award - Outstanding Achievement/Club August • Individual Merit Award - Top Team Performance/Sperling Club in FY03 L'OREAL USA ■ Ranked #1 Account in May Corporate (National Sales) • Top 10 Sales Account for L'Oreal USA WHITE WEDDINGS • Recognized by Elegant Bride for Best Design Services and Boutique Offerings • Voted Best Bridal Boutique by Orange County Register Book • 70+ independent companies represented in Design Center VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER ORGANIZATION (2000 - 2003) - APPOINTED LEADER OF A PARENT/TEACHER/STUDENT ORGANIZATION WHOSE FUNCTION WAS TO UPHOLD BI -LAWS AND FACILITATE INTERACTION BETWEEN EACH GROUP TO ADVANCE ACADEMIC INITIATIVES AND STUDENT OUTCOMES ADVISORY COUNCIL, NATIONAL HOSA (HEALTH OCCUPATION STUDENTS OF AMERICA) (2011 - PRESENT) - WORK WITH HOSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND GOVERNMENT LEADERS, ON VARIOUS PROJECTS TO FOSTER SKILL AND CAREER OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT AND ADVANCE SKILL AND COMPETENCY IN NEXT GENERATION HEALTHCARE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE MEMBER, WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD COMMITTEE (SOUTHWEST CA REGION) (PRESENT) - ACTIVE PARTICIPANT OF WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS TO SUPPORT WORKFORCE INITIATIVES AND ADVANCEMENT TEAM PARENT, TEMECULA VALLEY GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION (TVGSA) (2011 - PRESENT) - ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE LOCAL GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE TO ENCOURAGE ATHLETIC SKILL DEVELOPMENT, TEAMWORK, AND PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT FOR ITS PLAYERS; RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION OF SCHEDULES, TEAM UNIFORMS, AND FUNDRAISING MONA L. MORALES, MBA PROFESSIONAL PEER REVIEWS BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS FOR SUCCESS - Establishing effective internal and external relationships are vital to organizational outcomes. Leadership and a people -centered philosophy are the foundation of a professional brand. Listed below are senior executives, colleagues, clients, supporting work groups, and former subordinates who have shared their personal knowledge and encounters to provide professional recommendations, These recommendations are representative of all functions of interaction within an organizational structure and are also available on Linkedln. SENIOR LEADERSHIP / COLLEAGUES "I am writing to recommend Mona Lea Morales who works as National Director, Healthcare -National Industry. I have had the privilege of working with Mona the last 10 years. Within these years Mona has been consistently recognized for her high levels of performance as a leader. Her insight, understanding of the business and ability to execute has allowed her to be a very successful director. " John Del Campo, Vice President at University of Phoenix March 4, 2013, John managed Mona L. indirectly at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "Mona is a hard-working, dedicated professional who has proven to be very committed to University of Phoenix's social mission in her decade of service to the University. She has worn many hats and always strives to bring together groups and ideas to optimize the potential of a project, program or initiative. Mona has a demonstrated passion for the Healthcare sector and has worked to bridge academic, marketing and brand gaps to deliver client -centric solutions that can increase applicability and accessibility to critical education resources for those serving in the many niche areas of the American healthcare system. Look for Mona to stand on her convictions and compel her organization to look holistically at tackling business or operational challenges, to ensure all points of view are heard and considered." Jason Lyons, Senior Vice President Workforce Solutions at Apollo Education Group March 4, 2013, Jason managed Mona L. indirectly at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "Mona is one of the most innovative professionals I have associated with. She consistently meets goals and generates ideas to improve processes. She understands how to connect vision/strategy to tactical execution. Her ethical management style builds trust and innovation amongst her team members." Jason Windsor, Region Vice President, WorkforceSolutlons at Apollo Education Group May 21, 2013, Jason worked directly with Mona L at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix Professional Recommendations, Page 2 "I have had the pleasure of working with Mona on several projects related to our College of Nursing strategic development. Mona is always knowledgeable and prepared to lend expertise, and support. She is good at establishing external relationships that support the goals of the University." Tammy Fernandez, Executive Director, Corporate Social Responsibility, Apollo Group March 10. 2013, Tammy managed Mona L indirectly at Apollo Group. Inc. - University of Phoenix "I have had the pleasure of working with Mona for over 2 years on several integrated initiatives with multiple work streams and stakeholders. She has a strong ability to build infrastructure that works and is effective with corporate communication to leadership, field and diverse work groups. She is professional, fun and offers realistic solutions to project challenges." Amanda Gillespie, Senior Director Brand Marketing at University of Phoenix March 30, 2013, Amanda worked with Mona L at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "I worked with Mona and witnessed directly her vision, creativity and thoughtfulness. Mona is an extremely dedicated worker and truly understands the "big picture" of higher education. In particular, Mona works to align the skill needs of the healthcare industry with the educational programming offered by the organization she works for. This alignment is critical as we all work together to improve employment opportunities for individuals and create a "talent pipeline" to fill open jobs and help people become upwardly mobile in the labor market. Mona is a true talent and an asset for any organization. She is also a great person to work with, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to do so." Mason Bishop, Principal, WorkED Consulting, LLC May 16, 2013, Mason worked directly with Mona L at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix EXTERNAL BUSINESS PARTNERS CLIENTS "I have had the opportunity to witness first-hand the extraordinary leadership and analytical skills Mona brings to her position at the Apollo Group, Inc. In my role as director of the I-IOSA Future Health Professionals Office, I .. b honored work of the r1VJf1 Future Health TrVIG3J1Ulldl? Washington VIIIIC, 1 have been IIUIIUI Ctl to WUI K with Mona to coordinate and highlight collaboration and to identify synergies with Mona's innovative and highly effective coordination from the perspective of her role at Apollo. It is indeed a pleasure to work with and recommend Mona, a thought leader and leading collaboration innovator." George Sifakis, President and CEO at Axela LLC March 4, 2013, George was with another company when working with Mona L at Apollo Group, inc. - University of Phoenix Professional Recommendations, Page 3 "Mona has exceptional skills in negotiation, strategy and planning. She is well versed in a variety of settings including healthcare, education, marketing and business intelligence. She is people oriented yet business savvy. Her interpersonal skills are exceptional with a strong and solid foundation in business growth." HELEN FIGGE, CPHIMS, FHIMSS, VICE PRESIDENT, ALERE ACS; HIMSS NATIONAL LIAISON, NEW YORK; VISITING PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, SAGE COLLEGES OCTOBER 7, 2014, HELEN WAS WITH ANOTHER COMPANY WHEN WORKING WITH MONA L. AT APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP, INC. FORMER SUBORDINATES "Mona Lea Morales is an inspiring leader. Her open communication style is both motivating and purposeful. Her tenacity, resolution, and vision have directly resulted in implementation of projects that have positively impacted our organization, partners and customers. Mona possesses an instinctive ability to grasp business concepts and develop business strategies second to none." Angelica Harris, Account Executive, Workforce Solutions at Apollo Education Group March 21, 2013, Angelica reported to Mona L. at Apollo Group. Inc - University of Phoenix "I have had the pleasure of knowing Mona for nearly five years. Initially, Mona served as a mentor to me. She then became my manager, and immediately my friend. Mona inspires everyone she works with - she is passionate, kind, hard-working, trustworthy, and an asset to our organization. Mona has a unique ability to blend strategic and critical thinking with strong interpersonal and relational skills. Mona has not directly managed me for over two years yet I still continue to draw on the lessons she taught me." Kerrith Gray Miller, Account Executive, Apollo Education Group April 1,2013, Kerrith reported to Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "Mona is a detailed and excellent leader. Her business and education knowledge makes her an excellent addition to any team." Dan Vaccaro, Workforce Solutions National Advisor University of Phoenix March 4, 2013, Daniel reported to Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc - University of Phoenix EXTERNAL FIELD / SALES TEAM "In collaboration with Mona on projects over several years, specifically, in the development of strategic alliances in the healthcare industry, Mona has excelled in her keen ability to create strategy in support of an organizational "blueprint." When directing projects her leadership skills are above reproach. I highly recommend Mona's skill and talent to enhance any organization she pursues." Adrienne Montgomery, Corporate Advisor March 22, 2013, Adrienne worked with Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix Professional Recommendations, Page 4 "Mona is an expert in the industry of Healthcare and a valuable resource to the University of Phoenix. She is skilled at virtual collaboration, a novel/ adaptive thinker, and overall a team player! Mona embraces challenges as opportunities that enable her to practice strengthening her skill sets; recently exemplified when 1 leaned on her for insight/advice to brainstorm/ create an event for a client focused on topics related to the "future in healthcare" from scratch." Katrina Davis, Workforce Solutions Advisor - University of Phoenix March 24, 2413, Katrina worked with Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "Mona is an industry expert connecting advanced education and higher productivity in healthcare. Her background, education, and experience have uniquely prepared her to bring innovation to the alignment between higher education and healthcare. She is the quintessential professional whose attention to quality and detail are second, only, to her passion for the advancement of healthcare professionals." James W. Officer III, National Market Manager, Workforce Solutions March 14, 2413, James W. worked with Mona L. at Apolio Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "Mona is an expert in providing healthcare solutions to our clients. I enjoy working on projects with Mona because her enthusiasm is contagious and her events are well planned and effectively executed!" Sandra Griggs, Manager, National Accounts March 12, 2013, Sandra worked directly with Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc, - University of Phoenix "Mona and I met two years ago. In the first month of my transition, I spent a day with her learning how she led Workforce Solutions teams in this new -to -me business at the University of Phoenix. She remained a mentor as I came up to speed. The University has appointed her National Director, Healthcare recognizing her leadership and expertise in the market. As 1 have significant Healthcare in this market, it is great to have both dedication and experience available at headquarters. Mona helps us focus on serving our clients and growing the skills of our Advisors." George Twiss, National Markets Manager, Workforce Solutions at University of Phoenix March 5, 2013, George worked directly with Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc- - University of Phoenix Professional Recommendations, Page 5 "Mona is a highly dedicated professional. Mona demonstrates a high level of loyal commitment to her team and customers. Mona is able to prioritize the demands of multiple superiors and she does not miss a beat. Another great skill is she makes certain that employees have the equipment, tools, and resources to achieve their goals. Mona is a extremely strategic thinker and has high energy. Anyone would be blessed to work with Mona because she consistently exceeds expectations." Suzanne Merrick, Workforce Solutions Manager at University of Phoenix March 5, 2013, Suzanne worked directly with Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix SUPPORTING WORK GROUPS "Mona Lea is a natural innovator with a unique ability to take a trans -disciplinary approach to strategic situations. Mona Lea's participatory leadership style promotes staff engagement and communication among multiple work groups. It is a true pleasure to work with Mona Lea." Maurice Gibson, Manager - National Account Implementation Team - Workforce Solutions at University of Phoenix March 5, 2013, Maurice worked indirectly for Mona L at Apollo Group, Inc. - University of Phoenix "I had the pleasure of working with Mona in a cross functional capacity while with University of Phoenix. I worked closely with the Corporate Education Liaison team that Mona directed. Mona was a well respected and important leader within our organization. Her attention to detail with her team made the relationship with the Enrollment Department a smooth and successful one." Austin Crigger, Admissions Director April 9, 2013, Austin worked with Mona L. at Apollo Group, Inc - University of Phoenix City of Tewocula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 9259(} 1 v 2915 www.cityoftemecula' g (951) 694-6444CIITY CLBKKa boar 1. Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: Planning Community Services Public Traffic Safety Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident _ 7 Are you a City Registered Voter? Yes NAME: DONALD LUNDAY OCCUPATION: RETIRED ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: RETIRED EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EMAIL Educational Background/Degrees: Master of Arts in Consciousness Studies, Holmes Institute, Denver, CO Graduate Studies - San Francisco Theological Seminary R University of CA Berkeley - '1955-57 Bachelor of Arts in English, Lewis & Clark College. Portland, OR - 1955 List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: While I have not been directly involved in city or county committees or commissions. I served four years as a member of the Board of Directors of the "Cityhood Committee" for Menifee, CA (2005-2008) List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): After retmng in December 2008, I remained active for 4-1/2 years as a hospice chaplain. Prior to my retirement and as pan of my career. l served my community in many ways. Sales 8 marketing Executives of Los Angeles (40 years. President 1975-76). Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assoc. (40 yrs): International Festivals 8 Events Assoc. (18 years) (Executive Director 4 yrs). California Festivals & Events Assoc. (Founding Member' 120 yrs - Executive Director 2 yrs.). Optimist International, Pasadena, CA & Greeley. CO (15 yrs). International Chili Society (10 yrs). Rotary international (10 yrs - President 2009) (Menifee & Murrieta, CAI State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged-) It has always been important to me to be "involved" in my community. It will always be important to me that I actively contnbute. My career has always been as a leader and one who can relate to others. Since moving to Temecula, I am a frequent attendee and active financial supporter of "The Merc" and he "Old Town Temecula Community Theater." I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: Fz'fa t 4,1 Date: November 2, 2015 Please marl or ret to: City of,, emecula. City Clerk's Office 41000 Maid Street. Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE --\\ City of Temecula 41 000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 NOV 1 3 201 www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 CITY cuutpcso Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: /Planning Community Services Public Traffic Safety Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 13 Are you a City Registered Voter?'S NAME: LI -IN,/ !z OCCUPATION: -f EMpZ)f4-177 fl 1s hr' ADDRESS: ITY/STATEIZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: 5cZ br4-11)Lvy,!-10 EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EMAIL Educational Background/Degrees: / y r4-rL� 21 Gu crufr1— 4 - Tim cJ1 A/' V- /N 517 r se r Fr FN.? Ai/Am-A cc— /96a- Zq List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: p -'; E Fv-r C40-7754) v/ 7-"/ /eke 774 4/-201475 — / 1977-19 J ke /SS DA, Vaaccyr y 7'/ LoApt/I5,yd/f&---/2'5 c./A-Y t2006 - '1 5vT List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) ; ` l r i ft c, j4cb I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: Date: 11/9 JcO1 Ple- entail or return to.'gity of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Stre t, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE Larry R. Metz To Whom It May Concern: As a resident of Temecula since February 2002, I have seen the outstanding growth of this city. Temecula is my home and I have been privileged to live here the past 13 years. As a small business owner i have had several businesses and offices in Temecula. My Primary business is Suncoast Marketing which is a Manufacturers Rep firm representing Major Consumer Electronics firms. 1 have called on Major Retailers including, Wal-Mart, Costco, Target and BestBuy. I have also called on Pechanga Resort and Casino selling their retail gift shops. t have owned a restaurant delivery service called We Just Deliver, from 2006 to 2009. We employed up to 3.1 drivers and delivered for 30 of the local restaurants. After 4 years we sold to our competitors Dine -In Delivery. After Senior Management positions at Emerson Radio, Packard Bell Electronics and Panasonic, 1 decided to venture out on my own and started Conquest Marketing Group, Inc. to represent Manufacturers who wanted to sell to the Major Retail Chains, Buying Groups and Distributors. I have been self-employed since 1992. I have a great deal of knowledge in regard to building businesses, contracts, negotiating skills and working with all levels of people, from senior management to floor sales people. f believe that I would be an asset to the planning commission board. Larry R. Metz 1992 -Present — President of my own manufacturer's rep company. Originally Conquest Marketing Group, Inc and now called Suncoast Marketing. Selling to major retailers, including Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Costco, Target, and BestBuy, also Distributors and Buying Groups on a national basis. Consulting to and Representing Audiovox, RCA, TERK, Emerson, Acoustic Research, Energizer, Kona Bars, Kinfine-USA, Concept Green Energy Solutions, TPK, Inc. and IZZI Gadgets. 1990-1992 — Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing, EMERSON Computer Corp. I was recruited to run Emerson's new Computer Division that I took from zero to over 200 million dollars in sales in less then 18 months. EMERSON bought out my contract when they asked me to move to New Jersey and I chose not to accept. 1983-1990 — Executive Vice President, Packard Bell Electronics. I purchased the name Packard Bell from Teledyne for $90,000 for three partners. I took the company from zero to over $650 million dollars in sales. Packard Bell owned 42% market share for the retail computer category. 1980-1982 — President Filmway's Audio Group. I was originally hired to run Filmway's Audio Concepts a high-end Audio retailer catering to the recording and broadcast industry. After successfully turning that profitable they asked me to run two other companies Filmway's Audio and RF Wireless Rents. Eventually they made me president of all companies in their Audio Group and after turning them profitable, I helped negotiate the sale of these companies. 1974-1979 — S. California Sales Manager, Panasonic Inc. I controlled sales for 12 divisions of Panasonic, including Technics, Video, Audio, Microwaves, Vacuums, Batteries, and even Bicycles. Took the territory from Si million to over $10 million. Prior employment, Edwards of California, Christian Dior Menswear and American Airlines. Personal — Divorced, three grown children, Avid Golfer, Temecula resident since 2002. President Chatsworth Youth Sports 1977-1980 Commissioner Valley Conference Youth Basketball 1981 Commissioner Golfer's Getaway 2006 to Present Education — NY State University Agricultural & Technical Institute Farmingdale 1962-64 American Airlines Management Training 1966 4Emerson November 12, 2015 To Whom it May Concern. I am writing a fetter of recommendation on behalf of my longtime friend and business associate Mr. Larry Metz. Larry and l began working together more than 20 years ago and have maintained an even greater friendship at the same time. I have always appreciated Larry's ability to communicate well even in extreme environments such as the large retail market. His professionalism has always made it possible in all our business ventures to succeed_ His biggest attribute may be his integrity and respect for making sure projects were completed as promised. Larry's keen ability with follow up and follow thru skills made his career in our industry a great success. I believe Larry Metz would be a great asset to the City of Temecula and possibly improve the abilities of others to build better bridges of communication within your community. Best of luck as I know Larry would be a great addition to your team. Best regards, Mike Churchman Sr_ Vice President Emerson Radio Corp EMERSON RADIO CORP. 3 UNIVERSITY PLAZA #405 HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07061 973.428.2000 1 SLP Enterprises Steven L Padgett Thursday, November 12, 15 City of Temecula Planning Commission To whom it may concern: This letter should serve as letter of reference (both professional and personal) for Mr. Larry R Metz who is seeking to fill an open position on the City of Temecula Planning Commission. [ have known and worked with Larry for over 40 years. In many situations we were peers and in many He was my supervisor. In that period of time we have become close personal friends as well. Larry would make a good candidate for your position for some of the following reasons: Never ending work ethic Works well with other professionals Good organizer Excellent and professional sales person Completely honest with uncompromising principals. I hope this letter will help you make a favorable decision for Larry to fill the position you have available. You could not do better. Respectfully, Steven L Padgett WESTERN COMPUTER November 9, 2015 Temecula City Planning Commission Re: Larry Metz To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to provide a letter of reference for a good friend Larry Metz. I have known Larry Metz for approximately 10 years and have found him to be a man of great moral character and honesty. One of Larry's many strengths is his ability to work with others in problem solving issues between parties. He is a very kind individual who always believes in fairness between people demonstrating great communication skills. He has many friends which is a testament to his success in life and being someone we have great respect for. It has been a pleasure to be associated with Larry Metz. i would highly recommend him as a member of the Temecula City Planning Department. Sincerely, Tom Bardos CEO Western Computer Western Computer 351 Candelaria Road ! Oxnard, California 93030 (805) 581-5020 www.westerncomputer.com 11112'2015 Gmail - City of Temecula Planning Commission Position Available - Clues 11/20/2015 GaiI t, Larry Metz City of Temecula Planning Commission Position Available - Closes 11/20/2015 DAN VUICICH To: Larry Metz Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:04 PM I have known Larry Metz both personally and professionally for 30 plus years. Two words immediately come to mind -Integrity and perseverance. I have witnessed Larry grow companies against the toughest odds and succeed only to shoulder the burden of others shortcomings. The relationships he has gained in the CE world are legion and very loyal. From computers, peripherals, audio products, furniture and video products Larry has blazed the trail with unique offerings and creative procedures. But far and away where Larry has shined beyond most human capabilities is with his family. He has faced down incredible odds and brought his family through. l know his family very well and all are people you would love to know and would enhance your lives. They arrived at this place only by the love and strength of Larry. Obviously Larry's attributes would make him an excellent commissioner. Dan Vuicich From: Larry Metz Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 5:11 PM To: John Spinelli; Mike Churchman; Pete Thorsen; John Gentleman; Steve Padgett; Dan Vuicich; Robert Vassallo; Tom Bardos Subject: Fwd: City of Temecula Planning Commission Position Available - Closes 11/20/2015 [Quoted text hidden] tR1psJ/m ail.google.comlmaillanui=2&i k=e9431f5cf4&view= pt&search= robe»&mstr 150196159f83035e&si m1=150f9dd59f83035e 1/1 11/812015 Gmail - RE: Reccomendation for operrngon the Temecula City Planning Commission G. 11 Larry Metz RE: Reccomendation for opening on the Temecula City Planning Commission 1 message Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 3:01 PM To: "Metz, Lary" To whom it may concern, I have known Larry R. Metz for many, many years. We first met in the 5th grade in 1953. We have remained good friends over the years. Larry has always had an excellent rapport with people of all ages. His excellent communication skills allow him to connect with all kinds of people. He is one I can recommend with complete confidence and I know that he will measure up to your expectations. In summary, I highly recommend Larry for any position or endeavor that he may seek to pursue. He would be a tremendous asset to any organization. Sincerely, Peter R. Thorsen haps://mail.google.cam/mailfuttYtui=28ik=e843Ifracf. ,view=pt$search=inbox8th=150e958975363cOasim1=150e95597gaR3r0c 1!1 Robert Vassallo November 8, 2015 To whom it may concern: I have been friends with Mr. Metz for over 50 years. I am certain he will be an asset to the planning commission as he is a personable, logical and intelligent individual. His past successes can attest to this. I know he is happy and proud to be a resident of Temecula and would work hard for the future of your city. Robert E Vassallo Sent from my iPhone City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 www. Cit yof tem ecu la. org (951) 694-6444 s =�i`.>rrri6.�lD Noy 1 2015 Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: X Planning Community Services Public Traffic Safety _Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Are you a City Registered Voter? NAME: Gary Watts State Park District OCCUPATION: Superic,tendpnnt-Retired ADDRESS: On file with City CITY/STATE/ZIP Temecula, CA.92591 DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: Retired - California State Parks 17801 Lake Perris Dr. EMPLOYER ADDRESS: Perris CA 92571 EMAIL Educational Background/Degrees: Humboldt State University -Bachelor of Science -Natural Resources Management UC Riverside- Executive Management Program -Graduate School of Management List any City or County Board Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: 2015 -Temecula Public/Traffic Commission 1997-2008 Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority Board 2008 -2015 -Temecula Old Town Local Review Board 2003-2007-Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District Board Member 2001 -2008 -Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee 2005 -2008 -Riverside County MSHCP Reserve Management Oversight Committee List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizati ig98s T4/(Sal- 616e Adjunct Faculty 2006-2008 Temecula Film Festival Volunteer 2002-2008 Villages Community HOA Board of Directors 2008-2015 Peace Officer Research Assn of California -Retired Member State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) Please see attached II understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature:D// l6 2� S . ate: I Please marl or return to: City o1 Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE Planning Commission Appointment Application Gary Watts, Temecula, CA I am currently a Commissioner on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission after serving 7 years on the Old Town Local Review Board. It has been exciting to see Old Town continue to change and I am proud to have been involved with the development and adoption of the Old Town Specific Plan. I -believe that this -experience as well as that referenced -below provides a solid foundation to serve on the Planning Commission. My family and I moved to Temecula in 1993. I love this city and all that it has to offer. We have great schools, parks, recreational venues and activities, culture, and a thriving business sector. Our thy is safe .and provides an -outstanding quality of life for those who live, work and visit here. My two children graduated from Temecula schools with a solid educational foundation that has served them well in their adult lives. I have seen great positive change in Temecula in my 22 years here and have been pleased to give back to the city by serving on the OTLRB for 7 years, recently appointed to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, and as a volunteer for various entities. 1 retired from California State Parks in December 2008 with 31 years of service as the regional manager for the Riverside County/ San Bernardino County/ eastern Orange County State Parks District. I served 11 years as the Inland Empire District Superintendent and interacted extensively with community groups, nonprofits, elected officials, and government representatives at the local, state, and federal level. Specifically I worked with representatives from the cities of Riverside, Perris, Brea, Chino Hills, Moreno Valley, Yorba Linda, Orange County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, Cal Trans, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. My professional responsibility included evaluation of development projects and its resultant impacts on the region's state parks under my stewardship. That responsibility included a significant understanding of both CEQA and NEPA requirements and considerations. It also included the operation of specific State Parks that are located in various local, state and federal jurisdictions. I was also involved in the development and adoption of three protected area general plans (Mt. San Jacinto State Park, Chino Hills State Park, and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National. Monument). My prior work experience included serving as the Chief Ranger for the San Diego State Park District from 1993 to 1997 (while living in Temecula) and before that in various locations throughout the state as a State Park Ranger. I believe that my professional and personal experience from a local, regional and statewide perspective will serve me and the residents of Temecula well if I am appointed to the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for your consideration. City of Temecula 41000 Main Street 1t4CCommission and Board t.'V Temecula, CA 92590 Appointment Application www.cityoftemecula.org NOV 1 U 2011 (951) 694-6444 CITY G4etu►a war 11 -i8 -15A11:32 RCVQ For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: XPlanning Community Services Public Traffic Safety Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 2.1 Are you a City Registered Voter? NAME: ,C<, e3 OCCUPATION: ADDRESS: ITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: 5 ',S '50)0 EMPLOYER ADDRESS:30d x is l` 1 Q #'7EMAIL EVENING PHONE: Educational Background/Degrees: ___LOO) (9 7$ fr, r,, 4 C�© t(f e5� o -Lore/ yL e 77- 78" List any City or County oard, Committee or Commi sion on which you have served and the year(s) of service: (40 (4 1, - JrGct -eDe54, �r rec..T' 4 y -ea' 11 core, v, , .Pc -r L�� �i�� o + � air/cell �� O {� F(eci..fIv( a Qs(' °At ye4"'' CG.c., r-n.a" pfami,+y "r ,v`_ O tc y,// - List any organizations to which you belong (pr fessional, technical vo nteer groups, non-profit organizations se ice clubsI� etc.): .e546�4- p. r (lib 640 6, rt (P ec LAI a__,.t.. ' � o 9i��7e'F .F, " a v at -or) J.C. C vey eaw R r cJ Qn State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if nese nary. Fetters pf Recommendation nfj�•Vor references are encouraged.){,.y. wout IA I, � 3{rile / Ci -- (4- iJf' , +t e ct-{ 1 -4 ( Ci 4-y ,l 16 1 .3cly. /''ta.,,c I3ec,i rc5p' ✓+ % L r ci (OD 1i1'i,JIf"'1 (1�l(cxi` lat; e 4.4 been 14 Chcr .Q 04 Pjaet, , ', 4,_ Aw.c40L /tl r 1 understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. l consent to the release of this information for public forma urposes. Signature:. Date: 1(— r 5 - Please mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 www, cityoftem ec ul a. org (951) 694-6444 11-20-15P01:20 RCVD Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula ,and Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is l submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: Manning Community Services Public Traffic Safety Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 6 Are you a City Registered Voter? NAME: QCke OCCUPATION: dc' ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: S-‘21 1 t 02015 71P:E DEPT. EMPLOYER NAME: C 77011/ c'c i.4 o c,e )r' .S EMPLOYER ADDRESS: StA,' 3$7- EMAIL _C/4 '/ z S-61 1 .9 (4��.,:, -y C�z l� 5 C��,,1,- .:�,�-�. � l`� Educational Background/Degrees: ! 9 01-A r .J• 12�3�ci,Hf7 111ed=tom. 1 I�Jot' o►- h• �°�r-,s feroscei LAfro.v �f a c (A 41; t/- S.- °'c) 5( J ' 1 eck c 1 QTc (A. c. D; e9 „ L l) 0 List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: ,/✓ r, List any organizations to which you belong (pro/fessio al, technical, volunteer roups, non-profit I organizations, service clubs, etc.): ; _C �� hr: S i c 1 (v 4, cr us+ f f € 1 / L1j - r~'1e �i 1 Sky°, L. ^ ,E',rwtrl ��, %,,her-,�C .i{ �d•+1.�c.,� c4 , State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper 2f necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) 1 understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: 0,4 4.4 Date: I l// 2_ S! lease mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE G. Carleton Wallace, M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery • Total Joint Replacement Arthroscopic Surgery Richard L. Rouhe, M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Total Joint Replacement Sports Medicine Bradley L. Baum, M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Foot & Ankle Disorders Total Joint Replacement Sports Medicine Arthroscopic Surgery Ghassan S. Toomo, M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Hand Et Upper Extremity Surgery Total Joint Replacement Sports Medicine Industrial Injuries Mario E. Luna, M.D. Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon Adult arid Pediatric Spine Surgery Amy Starry, D.O. General Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine Shoulder Surgery John Locke, M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine Shoulder Surgery Reza Roghani, M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine Shoulder & Elbow Surgery Total Joint Replacement Demetria Quismorio, Jr., PA -C Orthopaedic Physician Assistant Steven M. Hinojos, PA -C Orthopaedic Physician Assistant Da-Thao Nerio, PA -C Orthopaedic Physician Assistant ti Corona- Temecula Orthopaedic Associates MEDICAL GROUP Nov 18, 2015 I would like to be considered for a position on the Temecula Planning Commission. I have been a resident of Temecula for 6 years. Prior to that I was in the U.S. Navy Station in various places from Oakland California, 29 Palms California and Portsmouth, Virginia. I was born and raised in northern California (Hayward), a suburb of the San Francisco bay area and saw what can happens when growth is planned for and also saw what happens when it is not. Some areas and cities did better than others simply because they were proactive and took time to plan for change. My career in the Navy lasted 25 years and retired as a Navy Captain (Medical Corps) three years ago. In addition to being a doctor, I served as a department head and director and chaired or was on several committees such as process improvement, ethics, credentialing and moral, welfare and recreation. These experiences taught me the value of proactive planning and improved my communication and teamwork. Temecula is clearly a wonderful place with a great future. My background in the military and in medicine has given me a breadth of experience working with a variety of people, paperwork and issues. I would like to be a part of and contribute to this great future. If you have any questions, I can be reached at Thank you for your time. John S. Locke M.D. 341 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 101 • Corona, California 92379 • Telephone: (951) 735-6060 • Fax: (951) 735-4510 28078 Baxter Road, Suite 330 • Murrieta, California 92563 • Telephone: (951) 677-2157 ' www,CTOAt MG.coan City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 www .cityoftem ecu la.org (951) 694-6444 11-20-15P02:50 RCVD Commission and Board Appointment Application For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the tirne the application is. eV submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: /Planning Community Services Public Traffic Safety Old Town Local Review Board 4" U3PT• Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident III Are you a City Registered Voter? yts_ NOV 0 2015 1 OCCUPATION: ATt Z1 CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: C.R`PIFF A< GIATE 2J07 4.01 041-4 C,eareR Jp R ., S"l-E . K . EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EMAIL_ Educational Background/Degrees: --$►‘ X11~ A4.4zLirs crilS C -' y asp u,%veltSti) - g-1 0 to r.1 1 VEVA c T -y S J NO�t_ of LA uJ) List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: TP-r.v Are clueg v tce List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): - 1"N:irR of CAc..t,0-0 atA -- / M£Rtc+„+. sSec - VD LIA 1aTErIC '1~ y j t E . ('L r) t 5 ,SEP S aria) } - j� vA LL c LCT7 L E LESuE (-2.470L4 'S sotA) 9c_ay. "Akey _AcA.TSP93+-j •/ s) State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) ( 5EE inti rA-cE CAAti I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: Date: VW • i 8, Z4:36- P'ase mail or retuin to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE GRAFF & ASSOCIATES Attorneys & Counselors at Law November 19, 2015 City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Dear City of Temecula: Please accept my application to serve on the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula. I have lived in Temecula for more than 14 years and would consider it an honor to fill the current vacancy. love this town. My wife and I have six children, three of whom are still in the Temecula Valley schools. We moved here because of the incredible family -friendly spirit in the community; we have stayed because we recognize the devotion to families and positive growth fostered by the City. I started my legal career as a law clerk in the San Bernardino Valley more than 25 years ago and have witnessed first-hand cities like Rialto and San Bernardino fall into decay because of the lack of direction from their municipal leaders. Temecula is different and I want to help keep it unique. Cities are dynamic, living organisms that can thrive or die with municipal policies and procedures. Over the course of my career, I have successfully guided hundreds of entrepreneurs in starting, developing, and sometimes closing their businesses here in Temecula, Additionally, I have also represented hundreds of individual clients in property disputes, zoning or CC&R issues, or private lawsuits. This on -the -ground experience has instilled in me a strong sense of issues impacting the population here in Temecula that translate well to my service on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must maintain a vision that extends many years into the future of Temecula; decisions of the Commission impact the next generation that lives here. In addition to the broad spectrum of legal work I have done, I have also given thousands of volunteer hours over the years to the rising generation. Often, that pro bono time has taken the shape of working with the local Pony Baseball and Little League teams. Other work has centered as financial and volunteer support for the Boy Scouts of America troops in town. I am a quick -study and a dedicated worker. I consider myself a true team player. My expansive work and volunteer experience provide me with a basis to relate to the needs of citizens, businesses and the City as they interact in the Planning Commission responsibilities. am including a letter of reference and several additional local references for your convenience. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, or to schedule an interview. edy,, C. BENJA ' IN GRAFF� 40880 County Center Drive, Ste. K, Temecula, CA 92591 TELEPHONE: E-MAIL: C. BENJAMIN GRAFF, Attorney at Law 40880 County Center Drive, Ste. K, Temecula, CA 92591 PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Seasoned Civil Attorney, with more than 14 years practicing in Temecula. Highly accomplished at issue - spotting and resolving conflicts. A quick study with strong critical thinking and team synthesis skills. Experienced in land use, HOA and CC&R matters. Hands-on skill set with master plan, inverse condemnation and eminent domain issues. Well-qualified for a position as Board member for Temecula Planning Commission. Fluent in Spanish. EXPERIENCE and CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION • Inverse Condemnation and Eminent Domain Issues, Land Use, EIR • Adobe Redaction Tools, FOIA Requests, Civil Discovery Demands, Privilege Exemptions, Privacy Act (PA) KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Drafting Legal Memoranda • Municipal Immunity and Agency Liability, Conflict of Laws Issues • Master Plan Development, HOA Issues, CC&Rs, Entitlement Laws • Researched and drafted appellate pleadings for successful inverse condemnation action against City of Indian Wells in "Takings Clause" violations regarding Desert Horizons Country Club. • Worked directly with City Attorney of Calimesa to ensure compliance with city plan and developer entitlements. ■ Filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request against DON seeking disclosure of data on Disposition Matrix on Anwar al Awlaki (currently on appeal). • Artfully advised multiple clients on adverse possession and constructive easements to secure fallow real estate worth more than $2 Million. ■ Aggressively protected client against eviction, allowing client to stay in home for 19 months. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE GRAFF & ASSOCIATES (Temecula, CA) Owner; Civil Trial Attorney: 2002 — Present EXECUTIVE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. (Temecula, CA) General Legal Counsel: 2005 — 2014 BOLTE & GRAFF, LLP (Temecula, CA) Managing Partner and Trial Attorney: 2002 EDUCATION and CERTIFICATIONS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: Licensed Attorney (2000 - Present) STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA: Licensed Attorney (2000 — Present) CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW (Orange, CA): Juris Doctor BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY (Provo, UT): BA, Broadcast Communications C. BENJAMIN GRAFF E-mail: 40880County enter rive, te. , emecula, California 92591 Telephone: PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES JOHN JACOBSEN, Vice -President-- Partners In Leadershi 8 Inc. Known for 10+ years) MICHAEL F. GILLE, CEO-- The Best Books, Inc. (Known for 10+ years) MARK NILSEN, CFO-- Inland E e S eec1alists Known for 12+ years) November 19, 2015 City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Letter of Recommendation for C. Benjamin Graff Appointment to Planning Commission Dear City of Temecula: I moved my family to Temecula in 1991. For the past 14 years, Benjamin Graff has been my neighbor and friend. During that time, I have seen a dedication in him towards the youth of Temecula. For example, for the past 6 '/2 years, I served as a Scout Master over a local Boy Scout troop. During that time, Mr. Graff has personally helped me by volunteering hundreds of hours working with the boys, serving as a chaperon on campouts, driving the troop to activities, and helping with Eagle Scout projects to better the community. I see Benjamin Graff as a man with similar values to my own and as a man who is a dedicated asset in the community. He values the rising generation and wants to give them the best opportunities possible. He is a skilled attorney with many years of practice in town. I think he would be a strong addition to the Temecula Planning Commission and consider him a worthy candidate for the position. Please call me if you have any questions or would like more insight into Mr. Graffs abilities and character. Very Tru' o s, Tom Paulson Item No. 24 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager ..Li CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for Calendar Year 2016 PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Appoint the Mayor, effective January 1, 2016, to preside until December 31, 2016; 2. Appoint the Mayor Pro Tem, effective January 1, 2016, to hold this office until December 31, 2016. BACKGROUND: The City Council appoints a member to serve as Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem annually. These appointments are effective January 1, 2016. The newly appointed Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will preside through calendar year 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None DEPARTMENT REPORTS Item No. 25 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. City of 'Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT DECEMBER 8, 2015 PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Interstate -15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 Construction of ramp system that will improve access to Interstate 15 from Temecula Parkway / State Route 79 South $50,646,123 • Request for Authorization expected by December 2015 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (continued) City Hall Exterior LED Lighting/"Light It Up", PW15-05 Installation of exterior LED lighting at City Hall for the "Light It Up" events $67,482 • Received one Proposal to the RFP on October 1, 2015 • Negotiations are on-going with the Vendor based on City needs Fire Station 73 Living Quarters Upgrade, PW13-07 Improvements to living and sleeping quarters to accommodate staff $1,859,500 • Under construction • Project completion expected in December 2015 Pavement Rehabilitation Program Old Town Front Street Pavement and Storm Drain Rehabilitation, PW12-14 Replacement of the cross gutter at the south end of Old Town Front Street with underground pipes; rehabilitate Old Town Front Street from Temecula Parkway to First Street $585,000 • Bid opening was held on September 10, 2015 • Construction Contract awarded to Beador Construction Company, Inc. at the October 13, 2015 City Council Meeting • Construction is scheduled to start on November 30, 2015 Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 Acquisition of property, design, and construction of a park and ride facility in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street $2,764,093 • Authorization for Bid advertising was approved at the September 22, 2015 City Council Meeting • Authorization (RFA) of Federal Funds was submitted to Caltrans on September 24, 2015 • Project will be advertised for construction bids once the authorization is received YMCA Repair and Remediation, PW12-10 Repair and remediate the YMCA building and correct building deficiencies $1,448,569 • All Bids received were rejected at the October 27, 2015 City Council Meeting • Staff is directed to develop a recreational program for the facility that aligns with the Community's priorities City of 'Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT DECEMBER 8, 2015 PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - continued PARKS & RECREATION PROJECTS: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Enhancement, PW12-20 Design and construct a new innovative play area to replace the existing equipment $648,888 • Notice to Proceed with Design and Fabrication was issued on June 9, 2015 • Design plans (60%) have been reviewed and comments were provided to the Designer • An agreement for construction will be executed at a later date. PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED / CURRENT MILESTONES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS City Facilities Rehabilitation — Mary Phillips Senior Center Rehabilitation Install new flooring throughout various areas of the facility, paint interior, upgrade front reception area, repair damaged trim molding, and replace ceiling tiles $125,000 • First Phase completed October 9, 2015 • Second Phase Restroom Upgrades started November 16, 2015 • Estimated completion date of all rehab work is June 2016 Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing Replace aging play structures and associated safety surfacing $275,000 • Priority list and replacement program being prepared City of 'Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT DECEMBER 8, 2015 PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DePortola Professional Building Located at the corner of DePortola Road and Margarita Road • Sewer main installation started at the Margarita intersection along the eastbound lanes of DePortola • All work will be conducted at night from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., and appropriate traffic detours will occur Murrieta Creek Restoration Project Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Trucking of excess soils from the creek began October 2015 will continue off and on for approximately one year Old Town Sewer Project EMWD project located at located at Front Street and Moreno Road to First Street • Sewer pipe installation from Third Street to the North Entrance to Old Town (North Arch) is currently underway • Portions of sewer pipe installation between the U - Haul site and Third Street, and Moreno Road and the North Entrance to Old Town (North Arch) are complete Terracina Standard Pacific Housing Development in County • The sewer main project along deer Hollow is currently underway from Peach Tree Street to Peppercorn Drive Walcott Estates Walcott Lane • Developer continues to work on the landscaping and trail in front of the property REQUESTS TO SPEAK I wish to speak on: Public Comm REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: I-241(3-01Y— SD -24 1(3-01Y— SD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) Subject: Agenda Item No. For Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podiu d state your name for the record. ' Name: el eCC c,,1J\ rS 1 Address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: 4;nya Fes, Phone Number: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: I wish to speak on: Subject: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) UM U V 11di Agenda Item No. For Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 1-3 VI --evVl D Cly Address: Phone Number: - If you are rI Y� representing an organization or group, please give the na e: of rck D? ?Su S Chl�1- i.ffPim-) - Satih Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) Subject: v +-ree,L C (�n (I reS REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: / L� S f �J Agenda Item No. For Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. ay 1\)a✓Q(l l7 Name: Address: Phone Number:( If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. I wish to speak on: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Vet, V c 1� Public Comment CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) Subject: 4:1/C--1'C� r cam,, CJ �•c/�u�vc_ s L, 1 t? 44, IJ / �n Date: i 2 e A 0 /S Agenda Item No. For Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: _IA /'t}E 5 7)J/ / l> Address: ( representing -an organization or group, please give the name: Phone Number: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. I wish to speak on: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA .eiv%-\leycktit 1 Date: 141,5k i �'� - 636e V Public Comment CITY COUNCI/ CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle O ne) v). • '�'C Subject: Agenda Item No. For 1 Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Address: an organizatio or gr.up, please ggive the name: Phone Number: Please ote that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public reco d. All information provided is optional. I wish to speak on: Subject: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) v )(\Qen Vev)• tr Agenda Item No. For Against /0 8it,1/47/s--- Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: (, 11 1 Y/J-) ),r,L 0 // Lt f 6/ Address: Phone Number: (.., If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: ✓er reen liejockAr€5, n Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. I wish to speak on: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: - �C b Public CommentFY COUNCIL► CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) Subject: (/ 1 Agenda Itemo. Z2 For Against r Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: KS t.} k�gaQ rS Address: Phone Number: ( If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One) Subject: rk Agenda Item N For Against Request to Speak forms %r_ ubtic Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and tate our name .!.?r the rec rd. Name: /JO � L �� Address: t an or nizati n or gr up, lease give the name: Se -LF Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. COOPERATIVE PATIENT SERVICES, INC., et al. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES Riverside County Superior Court, Main Courthouse 1 Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees 2 Request for Judicial Notice 3 [Proposed] Order Awarding Fees and Costs 4 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees 5 Declaration of Cynthia Pollard in Support of Defendant's Opposition 6 [Proposed] Order Denying Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees 7 City of Temecula's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion 8 Evergreen's Objection City's Reply 9 City's Supplemental Briefing 10 City's Supplemental Declaration of Patrick Bobko 11 Evergreen's Supplemental Briefing 12 Evergreen's Request for Judicial Notice 13 Evergreen's Objection to Supplemental Declaration of Patrick Bobko 14 Evergreen's Objection to Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice and Dec of J. Lloyd 15 Notice of Order Continuing Hearing on Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 16 Notice of Order Sobs-;, + Under Rd) i«eovh,z1 lay R„ixri- ler Reply To; Riverside County Office: 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: 951.600.2733 Facsimile: 951.600.4996 TYLER BURSCH, LLP LAWYERS & ADVISORS Orange County Office: The Logos Building 3000 West MacArthur Boulevard Suite 440 Santa Ana, California 92704 www.tylerbursch.com Telephone: 949.707.2733 Octoher 5, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC AND U. S. MAIL City Council City of Temecula Civic Center c/o Mr. Peter Thorson, City Attorney 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Email: pthorson@rwglaw.com Re: People v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Dear City Council Members: I'm writing this letter as a follow-up to a meeting that my client and I had with Councilman Mike Naggar regarding the above referenced litigation. This case is on appeal and I'm hopeful that this letter will find favor before the Council for purposes of settlement. My client is James Pollard, an 82 -year-old gentleman who, through his company, owns the business park property located at 28900 Old Town Front Street, in Temecula. The property was acquired by Mr. Pollard's company many years ago. The original company was JDC Industries and the name was changed to Evergreen Ventures in 2004. Mr. Pollard first moved to Temecula in 1988. He once owned five buildings in Temecula, was a member of Hope Lutheran Church, a member of the Chamber of Commerce and a founding member of Temecula Valley Bank. Now in his retirement years, this litigation has been quite burdensome to Mr. Pollard and his wife. I'm hopeful that you will continue to read this letter for the purpose of' understanding the untenable position my client found himself in as a result of the underlying dispute between the City of Temecula ("City") and Cooperative Patients' Services ("CPS"). Evergreen leased one of its suites to CPS who began occupying the property in approximately early 2011 after it obtained a business license and occupancy permit from the City. The lease agreement between CPS and Evergreen expired on May 31, 2011. CPS vacated the premises in April 2011, which was before its lease term expired and very shortly after the City filed a lawsuit against CPS and Evergreen. Evergreen was managed by Mr. Pollard's daughter, Cynthia Pollard. CPS told Ms. Pollard that it intended to provide education and information to individuals with health conditions that qualified them for access to legally -prescribed medical marijuana. Ms. Pollard was specifically told that CPS would never be selling or distributing marijuana from its building. I lad Mr. or Ms. Pollard Mr. Peter Thorson, Esq. October 5, 2015 Page 2 of 4 known or suspected that CPS might be selling marijuana from Suite 105, it would never have rented the space to CPS and would have taken action to remove CPS. However, Evergreen had no reason to suspect that CPS sold marijuana from its location. There were no reports of odors emanating from Suite 105. Evergreen received no warnings or other concerns from anyone. Indeed, Evergreen was never informed that law enforcement and City officials suspected that CPS was selling marijuana from its building until receiving notice of this lawsuit on approximately March 2, 2011. On April 7, 2011, the court granted the City's motion for a preliminary injunction because CPS was in violation of the City's zoning ordinance when it sold "medical marijuana" to an undercover police officer who presented a medical marijuana card. CPS vacated the premises within days thereafter. CPS had an obligation to indemnify and defend Evergreen under the terms of the lease. CPS' attorney represented that it would resolve the case for Evergreen. Mr. and Ms. Pollard believed that the litigation was resolved when CPS vacated the premises in April of 2011 since this was the remedy sought by the City. Unbeknownst to Evergreen, CPS appealed the injunction and the City continued to litigate the matter notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing further to litigate except for a desire on the part of CPS and the City to set legal precedent with regard to zoning law. There was no ongoing violation of the zoning ordinance as of April 2011. Suffice it to say, Mr. Pollard had no dog in this fight. If the City had followed its own municipal code as it has required Mr. Pollard, this litigation could have ended before it ever started. There has never been any dispute that the City failed to provide the required "safe harbor" notice to Evergreen, pursuant to Section 8.12.030(A) of the Municipal Code. That section provides that the City "shall direct compliance by removal or correction of the condition which is in violation of the provisions of this code within a minimum of seven calendar days from the date of the notice." The same section further provides that "Nile notice shall further describe the consequences of failure to comply." Section 8.12.140(A) provides, "Whenever any person ... has been given notice ... to abate ... and such person fails ... to comply within the specified herein, or if such a time is not specified, then within a time reasonably sufficient to enable such compliance, such noncomplying person shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with or enforcing the law as referred to or encompassed within said notice." In Section 8.12.140(B), "costs and expenses" are defined as including "legal costs or expenses, including attorneys' fees." The controlling ordinances are intended to provide a "safe harbor" — a time for the citizenry to correct violations of the zoning ordinance or to abate a nuisance before the City takes action. Since Mr. Pollard was never given the notice and "safe harbor" set forth in the City's Municipal Code before the lawsuit, he was never able to prevent this litigation from occurring. He did, however, quickly act to comply by not renewing the lease agreement with CPS and by CPS vacating the property shortly after notice of the litigation. Mr. Peter Thorson, Esq. October 5, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Mr. and Ms. Pollard were surprised to learn from CPS' attorney that this action was still pending early August 2014 and that CPS had filed bankruptcy. Mr. and Ms. Pollard were told that a motion for summary judgment was pending and a deposition was scheduled. Mr. Pollard then retained my firm, Tyler & Bursch LLP on August 6, 2014. On August 11, 2014, my office requested that the court continued the trial date as neither the City nor Evergreen had performed any discovery concerning Evergreen's liability in this case. The court granted our request in order to adequately defend Evergreen. Attorney Stephanie Cao appeared on behalf of the City. At the hearing, I informed the court that I believed this case was moot because CPS vacated the building back in 2011 and because CPS file bankruptcy. Ms. Cao explicitly represented to the court that the only reason this case was proceeding against Evergreen was to collect more than $250,000 in attorney's fees it had incurred litigating with CPS. Mr. Pollard had no choice but to make a decision to defend himself. Even though Evergreen has no culpability in this case except for the fact that it is a property owner, the court awarded the City attorney's fees for the period after August 2014, when the City's attorneys made Evergreen the target. It was only after the dust had settled after years of wrangling between the City and CPS that Evergreen recently became a player in this case and nuisance abatement was no longer the goal. The court's award of attorney's fees was based upon the nuisance abatement statute in the Penal Code which awards attorney's fees when a penal violation is abated. This rationale is the basis for our appeal because this case did not concern a penal violation but, as the court articulated, concerned a violation of the zoning ordinance. The City's attorneys initially attempted to recover attorney's fees based on City Municipal Code 8.12.140(A) and (B), but that ordinance was found to be invalid by the court just as we had argued. It wasn't until just recently in a new argument that the City's attorneys raised the Penal Code as a basis for recovery of attorney fees. In short, the City had no need to continue litigating this case as of August 2014 when it proceeded against Evergreen. CPS had filed bankruptcy and had vacated the premises long ago in 2011. In its motion for attorney fees, the City attorneys only sought recovery of the attorney's fees spent litigating against Evergreen after the appeal was concluded. There were no other damages or recovery. It would have been wiser on the part of the City to discontinue the litigation rather than spend the taxpayer' s money on attorney's fees only to ask one of its taxpayers to repay those same attorney fees and nothing more. In other words, there was absolutely no upside for the City. I doubt this is how the City Council intends to treat the businesspeople of the community it serves. 1 can hardly imagine that the City would be willing to punish landlords for the unlawful acts of their tenants where the landlord has no knowledge of a code violation and the City never informs the landlord of such code violations before it racks up tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. Believing that this City Council intends to provide a favorable business and investment atmosphere, I'm writing to ask the City Council to consider settling this case with Mr. Pollard. It is Mr. Peter Thorson, Esq. October 5, 2015 Page 4 of 4 not that 1 believe our case on appeal is weak. Rather, I encouraged my client to make a business decision in considering the cost of appeal and the uncertainty of future litigation. My client has therefore authorized me to offer the City $20,000 for a complete settlement and release of all claims, costs and attomey fees. I would appreciate the City Council reviewing this settlement proposal at its meeting on October 6, 2015, and responding to this offer before the end of the week. Sincerely, Robert H. Tyler, Esq. cc: Patrick Bobko: p_bobko@rwglaw.com cc: James Pollard: jasdel2@gmail.com RHT/mlf 0 II • 1 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 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko@rwglaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor - Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and TI4E CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTS, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC 1103777 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF PATRICK K. BOBKO ORDER CURRENTLPROPOSEY HEREWITH) LODGED [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Defendants. Date: March 12, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 Trial Date: Vacated Judge: John D. Molloy TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 12, 2015, Plaintiff City of Temecula (hereinafter "City") will and hereby does move for an order awarding the City its reasonable costs from the abatement of nuisances at $7,868.02 relating to the above -entitled PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 1 matter and its attorneys' fees in the total amount of $88,342.00, pursuant to California 2 ! Government Code section 38773.5 and Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140. The 3 total amount the City seeks to recover from Defendant Evergreen Ventures is $96,210.02. 4 This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of 5 Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Patrick K. Bobko, and any other matter that the 6 Court may consider at the time of the hearing. 7 8 Dated: February 12, 2015 9 10 o 11 z g 12 ce W9 < 13 2 o" ^ 14 W 15 11) 5 ace 16 z Fe 0 17 ala 18 rzn 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO STEPHAN CAO By: Pa 0 ' . Bo lo A orneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California -2- PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 11086.068811789638v8.doc MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. 3 Introduction 4 The People of the State of California and the City of Temecula (collectively the 5 "City") seek to recover $96,210.02 in abatement costs and attomeys' fees reasonably 6 incurred in connection with the City's efforts to bring Defendant Evergreen Venturc, Inc.'s 7 ("Evergreen") property at 28900 Old Town Front Street in Old Town Temecula into 8 compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code" or simply, the 9 "Code"). 10 The City incurred its costs and fees during protracted and vigorous litigation with z o 11 Evergreen and its medical marijuana dispensary tenant, Cooperative Patients' Services, o IA g 12 Inc., over the past 4 years. The City obtained a preliminary injunction against the - 13 dispensary and its landlord, as well as a ruling in the City's favor from Division 2 of the Z � 0 14 Fourth Appellate District on October 9, 2012. Upon remand, the City continued to pursue 15 its nuisance action against the dispensary and its landlord, most recently obtaining an Order c 16 granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment against both. A true and correct copy of § 17 the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A, declaring the Property a nuisance. oc < r%Y 18 Although the fees and costs the City incurred pursuing this action total more than 19 $274,000, the City is only looking to recover the portion incurred following the California 20 Supreme Court's decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & 21 Wellness Ctr., 56 Ca1.4th 729 (2013) ("Inland Empire") on May 6, 2013.1 Following the 22 Supreme Court's decision in that case there was no credible dispute about the validity of 23 Temecula's ordinance, or the inevitable outcome of this litigation. 24 The City seeks to recover $96,210.02 from Evergreen. 25 26 1 The California Supreme Court sustained a city's right to prohibit marijuana dispensaries under its inherent "Police Power" in Inland Empire. Following the Supreme Court's 27 decision in Inland Empire, marijuana dispensaries are only permitted under California state law only where local law allows. 28 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. I II. 2 The City is Entitled to Recover Its Fees and Costs 3 California Government Code section 38773.5(b) says "[a] city may, by ordinance, 4 provide for the recovery of attorneys' fees in any action, administrative proceeding, or 5 special proceeding to abate a nuisance." Attorney fees are allowable when authorized by 6 contract, statute, or law. See City of Santa Paula v. Narula, 114 Cal.App.4th 485, 492 7 (2003) ("Narula") (quoting Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Ca1.4th 599, 606 (1998) and Code Civ. 8 Proc. § 1033.5 (a) (10)). "The City's ordinance is a law. A city ordinance passed by a 9 municipality has the same force within its corporate limits as a statute passed by the 10 Legislature itself throughout the state." Narula, 114 Cal.App.4th 485, 492 (2003) (internal 11 quotations omitted). • 12 Under the Municipal Code the prevailing party in any proceeding associated with the ce 13 abatement of a public nuisance is entitled to attorneys' fees. The Code says that any • 14 ! "noncomplying person shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the 15 city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with or a N 16 enforcing the law...". See Municipal Code §8.12.140(A). - 17 Similarly, Section 8.12.140(B) says that, "[c]osts and expenses, as referred to in .4�4' 18 subsection (A) of this section, may include, but are not limited to ... legal costs or expense, 2.550, 19 including attorneys' fees, claims against the city arising as a consequence of the nuisance or 20 violation, and procedures associated with collecting moneys due hereunder." 21 The attorneys' fees incurred here were associated with the abatement of the public 22 nuisance on Evergreen's property. As discussed in detail below and in the attached 23 ! Declaration of Patrick K. Bobko, the City Attorney's office was involved with every step of 24 the nuisance abatement, from negotiating with Evergreen, to preparing pleadings, motions, 25 appellate briefs, responding to Petitions for Review, and engaging in extensive discovery 26 for the past 4 years. 27 An award of attorneys' fees furthers public policy. As the Court of Appeal said in 28 Narula, "[i]t would frustrate code enforcement efforts and reward noncompliance if the Al -2- PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 11086-0688\ l7 8963 8v 8. doe o� x� a oe L.J., e — 0 o� cn LL a0. d IA a V � � 4 1 City had to bear the fees it incurred as a result of [defendants'] recalcitrance. Requiring 2 i [defendants] to reimburse the City for its counsel fees induce[s] compliance with [the 3 City's] regulatory authority.' [Citation.]" Narula, 114 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 (2003). 4 The Municipal Code, the Court's order, and public policy all favor an award of 5 attorneys' fees to reimburse the City for fees associated with abating the public nuisances 6 created by Evergreen. 7 8 III. 9 The Fees and Costs Incurred Were Reasonable and Necessary 10 All fees and costs sustained by the City were necessary and directly related to the 11 abatement of the nuisance that existed on Evergreen's property. The City was forced to 12 contend with Evergreen and its prior tenant, and had it not the nuisance on Evergreen's 13 property would have continued unabated. 14 15 A. The City Seeks to Recover Costs and Fees Incurred After the Inland Empire 16 Decision 17 The costs and fees associated with the abatement of the nuisance upon Evergreen's 18 ! Property have been limited to those incurred after the Inland Empire decision in May 2013. 19 Inland Empire confirmed a city's right to prohibit marijuana dispensaries under its inherent 20 "Police Power." Consequently, despite incurring over $274,000 in costs and fees 21 associated with abating the nuisance from Evergreen's Property since the commencement 22 of this lawsuit, the City only seeks the reasonable and fair costs and fees of $96,210.02 23 incurred since May 2013. 24 25 B. The Time Spent on This Case Was Reasonable and Necessary 26 The case required considerable work both before and after the Supreme Court's 27 decision in Inland Empire. Prior to May 6, 2013, the City Attorney's Office was forced to 28 brief issues concerning pre-emption, the validity of the Compassionate Use Act and -3- PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 11086-0688\1789638v8.doc 0 2 0 oe 0 1 Medical Marijuana Program Act, and all the nuances and intricacies of the Temecula 2 Municipal Code and Zoning ordinance. Following the decision, the City was forced to do 3 battle with Evergreen's very capable Counsel. The issues the City Attorney was forced to 4 litigate included: 5 6 ➢ Analysis of the procedural posture of the case following remand, and research 7 on the controlling authorities in preparation for filing the City's Motion for 8 Summary Judgment; 9 ➢ Collecting information and marshaling evidence for the City's Motion; 10 ➢ Multiple ex parte applications; 11 ➢ The exchange of comprehensive written discovery exchange with Evergreen; 12 ➢ Preparation and attendance at the deposition of the Person Most Qualified to 13 testify on behalf of Evergreen, and the PMQ to testify for the City; 14 ➢ Analysis of Evergreen's Opposition to the City's Motion for Summary 15 Judgment and the research and writing of the City's Reply; 16 ➢ Analysis of Evergreen's motion for summary judgment against the City; and 17 ➢ Preparing for and appearing at the hearing on the City's Motion for Summary 18 Judgment and subsequent correspondence with Evergreen's Counsel 19 concerning the attorneys' fee issue. 20 All told, since May 2013, the City Attorney's office spent 396.6 hours on this matter, 21 incurring costs of $7,868.02 and attorneys' fees in the amount of $88,342.00.2 22 23 C. The Rates Requested Are Reasonable 24 The hours spent on this matter since May 2013 were incurred primarily by three 25 attorneys: Patrick Bobko, a shareholder with more than fifteen years of experience 26 27 2 The City's costs included duplication, production of color photographs for exhibits, legal 28 research, and travel to court appearances and inspections of the Property. -4- PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 11086-0688U 789638v8.doc 0 ce W O z S 171 0 Z 0 0 cn 5 rizr U 0 Mr 2.140, 1 handling litigation matters for public agencies, Stephanie Cao, an associate with more than 2 three years' experience, and Youstina N. Aziz, an associate with more than two years of 3 experience.3 The attorneys' fees were billed to the City of Temecula at a range of $110 to 4 $260 per hour depending on the level of experience. 5 There can be no question that these rates are reasonable, if not considerably lower 6 than those charged by other Los Angeles and San Bernardino attorneys, given the 7 qualification, experience, and skill of the attorneys involved. 8 9 Dated: February 12, 2015 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO STEPHAN - , CAO By: Pa At . rneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California 3 The City Attorney, Peter M. Thorson, also worked on the case, as did T. Peter Pierce, a Shareholder at the firm and Certified Appellate Specialist. Stephen A. Macala is a paralegal who was also assigned to the case. -5- PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 11086-068811789638v8.doc DECLARATION OF PATRICK K. BOBKO 2 3 I, Patrick K. Bobko, hereby declare: 4 1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before all of the courts of 5 the State of California, and I am a Shareholder with the law firm of Richards, Watson & 6 Gershon, A Professional Corporation. I am one of the attorneys responsible for 7 representing Plaintiff City of Temecula in this action. I have personal knowledge of the 8 facts set forth herein and if called as a witness I could and would testify competently 9 thereto. 10 o 11 Attorneys' Fees o cn a 12 2. The City seeks an award of $88,342.00,in attorneys' fees in this case for ce 13 ! 396.6 hours of billable work and an award of $7,868.02 in legal costs. Z N 14 3. I have reviewed the bills in this matter and have only included in this Motion o V I Q � 3 # 15 those fees and costs incurred after the City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health OL 16 & Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Ca1.4th 729 (2013) ("Inland Empire") decision in May 2013. ° 17 The City incurred the balance of the fees it now seeks to recover in direct response to the E alt 18 defense initiated by Evergreen Venture, Inc.'s ("Evergreen") following the remand of this 19 case from the Court of Appeal. 20 4. Evergreen engaged in significant discovery. For example, on September 15, 21 2014 Evergreen propounded 40 Interrogatories on the City, and made 77 Requests for 22 Production of documents. There were also 30 Requests for Admissions and a deposition of 23 the Person Most Qualified to testify on the City's behalf. Responding to all of this 24 discovery required a significant amount of work from the City Attorneys' Office as well as 25 from City Staff. 26 5. Evergreen also engaged in substantial law and motion practice. For example, 27 Evergreen applied ex parte for an order to continue the trial date on August 11, 2014. One 28 month later, Evergreen attempted to apply ex parte again to continue the hearing on the PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 1 City's motion for summary judgment. It was only after my office initiated a "meet and 2 confer" process with Evergreen's Counsel that it withdrew this second ex parte application. 3 See Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto. The next month after that, on October 30, 2014, 4 Evergreen filed its own motion for summary judgment, prompting further work by the City 5 Attorneys' Office in order to oppose the motion. 6 6. Before resorting to this Motion, I unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a 7 settlement to this case. I invited Evergreen's Counsel to provide a settlement proposal but 8 as of the date of this declaration, have not heard back from them. 9 10 The City Attorneys' Hourly Rates 11 7. The hourly rate for the City of Temecula's attorneys was billed at a range of 12 $110 to $260 per hour for this case depending on the level of attorney's experience. I 13 understand these rates to be at or below the prevailing market rate charged by firms with 14 attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the Los Angeles and San Bernardino area 15 markets. 16 8. A breakdown of the time billed for this case from May 2013 to the present is 17 attached as Exhibit "D." The billable time has been itemized for ease of reference into the 18 following categories: court appearance/prepare for and attend, depositions, discovery, ex 19 parte, memorandum of costs, motion for summary judgment, settlement, status/strategy, 20 and trial preparation. 21 9. Attached as Exhibit "E" are the billable entries from May 2013 to the present. 22 Privileged information has been redacted. 23 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 25 foregoing is true and correct. 26 Executed this 12th day of February, 2015, at Los; geles, California. 27 28 -2- Patrick K. Bob PLAINTIFFS' NOTICF. OF MOTION AND MOTION COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, ETC. 1 1 086-068 80 7 8963 8v9. doc EXHIBIT "A" 1 1 PETER M. TIIORSON CITY ATTORNEY 2 CITY OF TEMECULA 3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 4 PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko@rvvglaw.com 5 STEPHAN E CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 6 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor I,os Angeles, California 90071-3101 7 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \CJ IE n/7 SLIPERIOr 'ALIIFEORNt4 DEC12 2014 C. Andrews SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH TI -IE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corrppo�rr�ation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 ORDER GRANTING CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, VACATING TRIAL DATE, AND SETTING HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO 'FAX COSTS [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Date: Time: Dept: December 12, 2014 8:30 a.m. 3 Trial Date: Vacated Judee: John D. Molloy Plaintiff City of Temecula's (hereinafter "City") Motion for Summary Judgment against Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc. and Evergreen Ventures, Inc. came on regularly for hearing in Department 3 of the Riverside Superior Court on December 12, 2014 before the Honorable John D. Molloy, judge presiding. Plaintiffs appeared through their attorneys ORDER GRANTING Ma_JTV UMMARY JUDGMENT 11086-0688\1776471v2.doc 1 Evergreen Ventures, Inc. ("Evergreen") appeared through its attorneys of record, Tyler & 2 Burch, LLP, by Jesse E.M. Randolph. Defendant Cooperative Patients Services, Inc. 3 ("CPS") did not appear. 4 Having read and considered the briefs, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the 5 parties, and having heard the argument of Counsel, and being fully advised of the premises, 6 now therefore, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be, and 8 is hereby, GRANTED on the ground that there is no triable issues as to any material fact 9 and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds that the following facts are 11 undisputed and the following issues are without substantial controversy: cf)0 12 ➢ Issue No. 1: Defendants Cooperative Patients Services, Inc. and Evergreen (? d 13 Ventures failed to obtain a valid business license for the medical marijuana dispensary they • 14 operated at 28900 Old Town Front Street in the City. Q - a 15 ➢ Issue No. 2: Defendant Cooperative Patients Services, Inc. operated a 16 medical marijuana dispensary at.a location owned by Evergreen Ventures and marijuana E - 17 dispensaries are prohibited by the City. 18 > Issue No. 3: Defendants Cooperative Patients Services, Inc. and Evergreen 19 Ventures' operation of an illegal medical marijuana dispensary and its failure to obtain a 20 valid business registration permit constitutes a public nuisance. 21 ) Undisputed Facts 22 • CPS occupied the premises at 28900 Old Town Front Street in the City of 23 Temecula which Property Evergreen owns; 24 • CPS was in the business of selling, providing, or otherwise making available 25 medical marijuana; 26 • CPS applied for a license to locate a business at the Property, and the City 27 issued a license with the following disclaimer: "Medical marijuana 28 dispensaries are not permitted by the Temecula Municipal Code. Nothing in Al ORDER GRANTING MU�1`1 NZ5ISlUMMARY JUDGMENT 11086-068811776471v2.doe 1 this business license is intended nor shall it be construed to authorize a 2 medical marijuana dispensary or other use or action that violates any 3 provision of the Temecula Municipal Code."; 4 • The City inadvertently issued a renewal license without the disclaimer that 5 was printed on the original, but corrected the error as soon as it was made 6 aware of it; 7 • Temecula's Municipal Code says, "[t]he granting of a certificate under this 8 chapter shall not be deemed in any sense whatsoever a permit or certificate to 9 conduct the business referred to therein, in any unlawful manner..."; 10 • Sergeant Eric Hernandez of the Riverside County Sheriffs' Department 11 testified that he witnessed an undercover purchase of marijuana at the 12 Property in February 2011; 13 • 'Temecula Municipal Code prohibits a medical marijuana dispensary 14 anywhere in the City; 15 • Section 8.12.180 B of the Temecula Municipal Code declares all violations of 16 the Code to be a public nuisance; 17 • Section 8.12.180 A of the Temecula Municipal Code states that "any 18 condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this 19 code or any code adopted by reference by this code or any ordinance of the 20 city not included within this code, or any such threatened violation, shall be 21 deemed a public nuisance and may be summarily abated as such by the city." 22 • Temecula Municipal Code declares that "[i]t is unlawful for any person to 23 transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation 24 I within the city unless such person first procures a certificate from the city to 25 do so, and complies with any and all applicable provisions of this chapter." 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING M(]j `I 9OIUUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 1086-068811716471 V2.doc 1 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 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on a Motion to Tax Costs is set for March 12, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the above -entitled court. Dated: December , 2014 JOHN MOLLOY John D. Mo11oy Judge of the Superior Court ip-4-- ORDER GRANTING MOjpTION FUMMARY JUDGMENT 11086-0688\ 1776471v2.doc Z F a O K z a. CZ ce w $ 1.7 4 —x C a 6. VI ¢a 3 VI 0 ¢E u E21 °` W.1!, ESIn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I am a resident of the State of California. and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On December 16, 2014,1 served the within document(s): ORDER GRANTING CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, VACATING TRIAL DATE, AND SETTING HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO TAX COSTS I on the interested parties in this action as stated below: 8 [ X ] (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. 1 placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered town agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 41391 Kalmia Street, Ste. 300 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: 951.200.2020 Facsimile: 951.200:2027 E -Mail: lubranilawr@vnail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [] [] Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 249.10 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtylcr@@tyylerbursch.com j randolphQtylerbursch. com i nbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califo is true and correct. Executed on December 16, 2014, ;t Los Angeles, Califo 110g6-0688\1343509v1.doc at the above A drey EXHIBIT "B" Patrick K. Bobko pbobko@ nnglsw.com INN RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ie ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3S5 South Grand Avenue, ao'h Floor, Los Angeles. California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8464 Facsimile 213.626.0078 September 19, 2014 VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE Jordan Nils Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, #110 Murrieta, California 92562 Re: City of Temecula v. Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. et al. (RIC 1103777) Dear Counsel: I write this letter in response to the e-mail we received from your office concerning Defendant Evergreen Ventures' intention to make an ex parte appearance on Monday, September 22, 2014. The City will appear and oppose Evergreen's application. The City questions the necessity of this application. Based on the e-mail exchange between your offices and ours on Tuesday, September 16, 2014, we agreed to continue the hearing date for the City's Motion for Summary Judgment until November 13, 2014. The additional 30 -day continuance provides sufficient time for Evergreen to complete whatever discovery it thinks necessary to oppose the City's Motion. Based on the City's proposed November 13, 2014 hearing date Evergreen would have almost two full weeks after receiving the City's responses before its Opposition would be due. We also question the exigency of this ex parte application. On August 25, 2014, the Court continued the trial date to allow Evergreen time to conduct discovery - and yet Evergreen did not propound any for almost a month afterwards. Evergreen's self-inflicted delay does not justify a further continuance. The City noticed its Motion for Summary Judgment on May 19, 2014 with an original hearing date of August 7, 2014. At. Defendant's request, the City stipulated to continue the hearing date until September 3, 2014. On August 11, 2014 the City again continued the hearing date until October 14, 2014. The RICHARDS 1 WATSON I GERSHON AITORNE✓5 A! LAW - A ,0.O1 dS51ONAt CORPORAI'OV Jordan Nils Bursch September 19, 2014 Page 2 City has now agreed to afourth continuance until November 13, 2014. And although the City remains willing to accommodate reasonable requests, Defendant's desire to continue the date of the City's Motion for tactical reasons does not trump the City's right to have its Motion heard pursuant to the notice provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. If Evergreen wants to file a cross-motion against the City and have that heard on January 11, 2015, it may do so. But that has no impact on the timing of the City's Motion. A last point. Your e-mail says the reason for the ex parte application is to continue the October 14, 2014 hearing date for the City's Motion — but the City already agreed to do this. As you know, on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 the City agreed to continue the hearing date for another 30 days and received no response as to the further accommodation. We had no further contact with your office until this morning when, at exactly 10:00 a.m., we received an e- mail notifying us of your intention to appear ex parte on Monday, September 22, 2014. This afternoon we received the 19 -page ex parte application and order, the length of which and work entailed perhaps explaining why Evergreen was unable to give the City notice until literally the last minute. It may also explain why there was no further communication with our office on the subject. Regardless, if there was more to discuss it was incumbent on Evergreen to continue the dialog with the City before making this application. S incerely, ti Patrick K. Bobko • 1 1086.0688\175 1944v3.1oc EXHIBIT "C" RICHARD RICHARDS (1918-,988) GLENN R. WATSDH (1917-2010) HARRY GERSHON 0912-7007) STEVEN L OORSEY WILLIAM L STIAUS2 MITCHELL f. ABBOTT 3 RECO RY W. STEPANICICN QUINN M. SARROW CAROL W. LYNCH GREGORY M. Ku NEAT THOMAS M. LIMBO ROBERT C. CECCOM STEVEN N. KAUFMAMN KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS MICHAEL ENTRADA LAURENCE S. WIENER I.T'LOEN TUN SASKM t. ASAMURA KAYSER O. SUM( PETER M. THORSON LAMES L MARNMAN CRAG A STELLE T. PETER PIERCE TERENCE 1. BO5A USA IS OND IAN ET E. COLESON RONANNE M. DIAL RIM G. GRAYSON ROT A. CLARKE MICHAEL T. 30114111 REG148 N. DANNER PAULA OUTIERRQ SAM B RUCE W. GALLOWAY DIANA R. CHUANG PATRICK K. 00000 NORMAN A. DU,IOMT DAVID M. SNOW LOUT A. ENRIOUE2 4)00333 R. BOWMAN GINETTA L. 6,0VIMCO TRISHA 01711 CANDICE K. LEE MOWER PEIR6313 STEVEN L FLOWER TOUSSAINT 1. BAILEY AMY GREY3ON D EBORAH R. HARMAN D. CRAIG ION AMRICEIA E. MARR00u1N K438ERINE L WISIHSK1 SECT* R VOJIIG SHIRT KLIMA 151A3A N, VARA? SEAN 3. GIBBONS Awe A. HAMILL *AEON C. 010ELL AMANDA L. STEIN 01EPHA1414 CAO SPENCER 1. R*6L1CK PATRICK 0. 3KAHAN STEPHEN 0 LEE YOUSTIMA M. 1712 KYLE H. 1000.4111) NICHOLAS R. GHIRELL. OF COUNSEL ROCHELLE BROWN E SAYRE WEAVER 1E0E53 111-U RANO GENA M. 3TIN NET, SAM PRAMOSCO WINCE TE,EPHOME 445.411.8484 ORANGE COUNTY OFrCE TELE/HOME 714.990.0901 TEMECULA OFFICE TE.EPH0NE 951 6952373 INky RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ! CI .ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue. yoth Flow. Los Angeles. California 90071.3101 Telephone 213.6)6.84864 Facsimile 213.626.0078 September 19, 2014 VIA FACSIMILE VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Jordan Nils Bursch jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Re: People v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et a! (RIC 1103777) Dear Mr. Bursch, Please allow this letter to confirm that we have agreed that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication ("Motion") currently scheduled to be heard on October 14, 2014 shall be continued to December 8, 2014 to afford your client an opportunity to conduct discovery. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c(b)(2) and (b)(4), your client's Opposition shall be due on or before November 24, 2014, and our clients' Reply will be due on or before December 3, 2014, with both parties agreeing to accept service of these papers via electronic mail. Based on the aforementioned agreement, this confirms that your client has withdrawn its ex parte application for Monday, September 22, 2014. If any of the above does not comport with your understanding, please let me know immediately, As always, please feel free to contact me at the number listed above if you wish to discuss this matter further. I ..O86-0688\1744375v2.doc EXHIBIT "D" CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 10/11/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 25.50 10/15/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.6 153.00 10/16/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 51.00 10/16/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.9 153.00 10/17/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 3.3 561.00 10/17/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 17.00 10/18/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 25.50 10/21/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 34.00 10/22/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 25.50 10/22/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 17.00 2/4/2014 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.4 74.00 2/19/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.9 229.50 2/20/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 4.8 1,224.00 4/18/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.4 102.00 4/21/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 5 1,275.00 8/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 41.00 8/16/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 1.6 416.00 8/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 41.00 8/20/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.3 78.00 8/20/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 1.9 361.00 8/20/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attena 0.2 38.00 8/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.5 102.50 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 8/22/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 1.4 266.00 8/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.7 143.50 8/25/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.5 95.00 8/25/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 4.1 779.00 8/25/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepdre for and Attend 0.2 38.00 8/25/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 38.00 8/25/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 38.00 8/26/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 19.00 8/26/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.3 57.00 8/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 41.00 9/2/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 19.00 9/9/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.3 78.00 9/15/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 38.00 9/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 20.50 9/16/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court. Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 19.00 9/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.1 20.50 10/2/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.2 38.00 TOTALS: 31.1 6,792.00 7/25/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 1.8 369.00 7/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.3 61.50 7/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 7/31/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.4 104.00 7/31/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.2 41.00 7/31/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.3 61.50 8/5/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.4 104.00 2 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 8/5/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 1.4 246.00 8/6/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 8/6/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 2.7 553.50 8/7/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.8 208.00 8/9/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 2.1 546.00 8/14/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.2 41.00 8/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.6 123.00 8/26/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 8/27/2014 CAO Depositions 0.4 82.00 _STEPHANIE 8/27/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.6 123.00 8/28/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.5 130.00 8/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 1 205.00 8/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 9/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.3 61.50 9/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 9/8/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 9/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 9/10/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 9/18/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.4 104.00 9/18/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 9/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 9/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 2.2 451.00 9/25/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.7 182.00 9/25/2014 T. PETER PIERCE Depositions 0.8 208.00 9/25/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 3.5 717.50 9/26/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.4 104.00 9/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 8 1,640.00 9/29/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 9/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 9/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.5 102.50 10/24/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.4 104.00 10/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 1.2 246.00 10/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20 50 10/28/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.4 104.00 10/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 10/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.3 61.50 10/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.2 41.00 10/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.3 61.50 10/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO,Depositions 0.1 20.50 10/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.2 41.00 10/30/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.1 26.00 10/31/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 1.7 348.50 10/31/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 10/31/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.6 156.00 11/4/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 3 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 11/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 11/5/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.2 52.00 11/5/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.1 20.50 11/6/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 1.7 348.50 11/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.4 82.00 11/11/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.8 208.00 11/12/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 4.1 1,066.00 11/14/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 8.6 2,236.00 11/14/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.6 123.00 11/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Depositions 0.9 184.50 11/17/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.8 208.00 11/17/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 2.6 676.00 11/20/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.3 78.00 12/8/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Depositions 0.3 78.00 TOTALS: 59.7 13,677.00 6/6/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 40.00 6/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.4 80.00 6/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.4 80.00 8/27/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 0.4 104.00 9/18/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 9/18/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.3 61.50 9/18/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 9/18/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 9/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.5 102.50 9/23/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.3 61.50 9/27/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 1.8 369.00 9/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 2.8 574.00 9/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 3.3 676.50 9/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 2.5 512.50 9/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 9/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 2.9 594.50 9/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 2 410.00 9/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 1,7 348.50 10/5/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.4 82.00 10/6/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 2.6 676.00 10/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.6 123.00 10/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 1.8 369.00 10/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.7 143.50 10/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 10/9/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 1.4 364.00 10/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO _Discovery 0.7 143.50 4 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 10/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 3 615.00 10/10/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 0.2 52.00 10/10/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.7 143.50 10/13/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 0.5 130.00 10/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 1.1 225.50 10/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.7 143.50 10/15/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 0.4 104.00 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.3 61.50 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.6 123.00 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.8 164.00 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/71/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 1.1 225.50 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.8 164.00 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.7 143.50 10/22/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Discovery 2 520.00 10/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 10/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.2 41.00 10/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.3 61.50 11/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0,1 20.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.4 82.00 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.4 82.00 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 10/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.5 102.50 12/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Discovery 0.1 20.50 TOTALS: 45,5 9,735.00 8/8/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Ex Parte 2.3 598.00 8/8/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 0.2 38,00 8/8/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 0.7 133.00 8/8/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 2.7 513.00 8/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Ex Parte 4.8 984.00 5 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 8/11/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 2.6 494.00 8/11/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 0.4 76.00 8/11/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 0.2 38.00 8/11/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Ex Parte 1 190.00 8/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Ex Parte 0.2 41.00 8/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Ex Parte 0.3 61.50 9/19/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Ex Parte 4.1 1,066.00 9/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Ex Parte 3.8 779.00 10/2/2014 PATRICK K. B0BKO Ex Parte 0.1 26.00 TOTALS: 23.4 5,037.50 8/30/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Memo of Cost 0.1 25.50 9/9/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0.1 13.00 9/10/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.4 102.00 9/10/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 2.6 338.00 9/11/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 1.7 221.00 9/25/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.4 102.00 9/25/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0.1 13.00 9/27/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0,1 13.00 9/27/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0.2 26.00 10/13/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Memo of Cost 0.1 25.50 10/18/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0.6 78,00 10/18/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0.4 52.00 10/21/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.3 76.50 10/21/2013 STEPHEN A. MACALA Memo of Cost 0.4 52.00 10/22/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.5 127.50 10/24/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 1.6 408.00 10/30/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.2 51.00 11/4/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.3 76.50 11/4/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Memo of Cost 0.6 102.00 11/5/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.4 102.00 11/5/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Memo of Cost 2.3 391.00 11/5/2013 KYLE H. BROCHARD Memo of Cost 0.3 33.00 11/6/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.1 25.50 11/6/2013 PATRICK D. SKAHAN Memo of Cost 2.8 476.00 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.6 123.00 12/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.3 61.50 12/16/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.3 78.00 12/17/2014 PETER M. THORSON Memo of Cost 0.3 78.00 12/17/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.4 82.00 1/5/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.5 130.00 1/7/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.1 26.00 1/8/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.2 47.00 6 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 1/8/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.9 211.50 1/12/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.2 52.00 1/12/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.2 47.00 1/13/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 0.2 52.00 1/13/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.2 47.00 1/19/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.8 188.00 1/19/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 3 705.00 1/19/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.4 94.00 1/19/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Memo of Cost 0.4 94.00 1/20/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Memo of Cost 2.6 676.00 1/21/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Merno of Cost 0.8 208.00 TOTALS: 29 5,930.00 4/18/2014 T. PETER PIERCE MSJ 0.1 25.50 4/21/2014 T. PETER PIERCE MSJ 0.2 51.00 4/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 4/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0,2 40.00 5/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.9 380.00 5/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.9 380.00 5/5/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 4.9 980.00 5/5/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.7 140.00 5/6/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.6 520.00 5/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.3 260.00 5/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.00 5/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.00 5/8/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.2 51.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.5 500.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.5 100.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.6 120.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 80.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 80.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ C.3 60.00 5/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.1 220.00 5/9/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 2.1 535.50 5/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.00 5/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.00 5/10/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 3.7 943.50 7 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 5/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.8 560.00 5/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.00 5/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 40.00 5/13/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.3 76.50 5/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.3 60.00 5/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.3 60.00 5/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.00 5/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.7 340.00 5/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1 200.00 5/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.5 100.00 5/16/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.7 178.50 5/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1 200.00 5/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.3 460.00 5/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.6 120.00 5/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 80.00 5/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.3 60.00 7/22/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 82.00 7/24/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.3 78.00 7/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 7/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.8 574.00 8/1/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.4 104.00 8/4/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.2 52.00 8/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.3 471.50 8/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 8/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MS1 0.1 20.50 8/28/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ MS1 0.2 38.00 9/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MS1 0.1 20.50 9/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.4 287.00 9/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.8 369.00 9/11/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ MSJ 1,6 304.00 9/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 9/16/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.6 156.00 9/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 9/19/2014 T. PETER PIERCE MSJ 0.5 130.00 9/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.7 348.50 9/20/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.4 104.00 9/25/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.1 26.00 9/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 9/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MS1 0.2 41.00 9/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/6/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/7/2014 PETER M. THORSON MSJ 1.2 312.00 10/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/14/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MS1 0.4 82.00 10/14/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.6 123.00 8 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 10/15/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 1.5 390.00 10/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.5 307.50 10/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.5 102.50 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.7 143.50 10/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/17/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ - 0.3 61.50 10/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 10/30/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.5 130.00 10/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 82.00 10/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 10/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 10/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/30/2014 • STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 10/31/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 11/24/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 2.3 598.00 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 82.00 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 11/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.1 20.50 11/25/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.9 234.00 11/25/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.7 553.50 11/25/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.5 102.50 11/26/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 1.4 364.00 11/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.1 225.50 11/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1 205.00 11/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.9 594.50 11/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.8 164.00 11/26/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.9 184.50 11/28/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 5.7 1,482.00 11/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.6 123.00 11/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 82.00 11/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.5 102.50 11/28/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 11/29/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 5.5 1,430.00 12/1/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO M51 7.1 1,846.00 12/1/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.9 184.50 12/1/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.5 102.50 12/2/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 5.6 1,456.00 12/2/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 2.1 546.00 9 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 12/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.3 266.50 12/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.9 184.50 12/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 2.2 451.00 12/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.5 307.50 12/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.4 287.00 12/2/2014 T. PETER PIERCE MSJ 0.8 208.00 12/2/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MS1 0.6 123.00 12/3/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 1.3 338.00 12/9/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.6 156.00 12/10/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.5 130.00 12/11/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.5 130.00 12/11/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 4.6 1,196.00 12/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 1.5 307.50 12/12/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 5.6 1,456.00 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 4.1 840.50 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.6 123.00 12/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.2 41.00 12/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO MSJ 0.4 82.00 12/15/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 1.2 312.00 12/31/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO MSJ 0.2 52.00 1/11/2015 STEPHANIE CAO MS1 0.4 94.00 TOTALS: 140.2 31,765.50 2/10/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.8 204.00 2/10/2014 T. PETER PIERCE Settlement 0.2 51.00 2/25/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.5 127.50 3/7/2014 PETER M. THORSON Settlement 1.7 433.50 3/12/2014 PETER M. THORSON Settlement 0.6 153.00 3/13/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.9 229.50 4/10/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.6 153.00 8/27/2014 PETER M. THORSON Settlement 0.4 104.00 8/27/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Settlement 0.1 20.50 TOTALS: 5.8 1,476.00 5/6/2013 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.4 100.00 5/6/2013 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 1.3 325.00 5/7/2013 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.9 225.00 5/8/2013 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 1 250.00 5/8/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.1 25.00 6/19/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.3 75.00 6/21/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Status/Strategy 0.1 25.00 7/31/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Status/Strategy 0.1 25.50 10 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 1 8/1/2013 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.5 127.50 8/4/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Status/Strategy 0.1 25.50 8/5/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.2 51.00 8/6/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.3 76.50 8/12/2013 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.2 51.00 10/9/2013 T. PETER PIERCE Status/Strategy 0.2 51.00 10/16/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.4 102.00 10/17/2013 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.2 51.00 2/7/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.3 76.50 7/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 1.6 328.00 7/29/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.4 104.00 7/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 1.7 348.50 7/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 7/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.2 41.00 7/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 1.9 389.50 8/6/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.8 164.00 8/7/2014 JENNIFER L. PETRUSIS Status/Strategy 0.3 78.00 8/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 1.3 266.50 8/11/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.4 104.00 8/11/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Status/Strategy 1.2 228.00 8/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.3 61.50 8/12/2014 T. PETER PIERCE Status/Strategy 0.1 26.00 8/12/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Status/Strategy 0.1 19.00 8/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.2 41,00 8/13/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.8 208.00 8/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.3 61.50 8/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.2 41.00 8/14/2014 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.4 104.00 8/14/2014 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Status/Strategy 0.2 38.00 8/15/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 2.1 546.00 8/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 8/25/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.9 234.00 8/25/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.2 41.00 8/29/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.2 41.00 9/3/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 9/3/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 9/3/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 9/3/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 9/11/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 2 520.00 9/11/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.3 61.50 9/16/2014 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.5 130.00 9/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 1.6 328.00 9/16/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 9/17/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 11 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 9/19/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 9/20/2014 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.5 130.00 10/2/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.1 26.00 10/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.4 82.00 10/15/2014 B. TILDEN KIM Status/Strategy 0.2 52.00 11/17/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.2 41.00 11/17/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 20.50 12/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.6 123.00 12/12/2014 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.8 208.00 12/12/2014 CANDICE K. LEE Status/Strategy 0.1 26.00 12/17/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.2 52.00 1/8/2015 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 2.1 546.00 1/8/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.5 130.00 1/9/2015 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 1.1 286.00 1/14/2015 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.3 78.00 2/26/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.4 102.00 2/28/2014 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.5 127.50 TOTALS: 35.8 8,430.00 7/3/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.3 78.00 7/3/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.3 61.50 7/3/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.6 123.00 7/7/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.4 104.00 7/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 7/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 7/25/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.9 234.00 7/25/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.9 184.50 7/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 3.2 656.00 7/31/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 4.4 902.00 8/4/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.3 78.00 8/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 1.4 287.00 8/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.5 102.50 8/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 8/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 8/10/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 10/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 1.7 348.50 10/7/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 1 205.00 10/8/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 10/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 10/13/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.3 78.00 10/13/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.6 123.00 10/16/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.3 78.00 10/17/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 12 2/12/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. (11086-0688) Breakdown of Total Costs Billed from May 2013 - Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 10/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 10/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.4 82.00 10/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 1.1 225.50 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.9 184.50 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20,50 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.3 61.50 10/21/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 1.7 348.50 10/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 10/24/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 10/27/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 11/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 11/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 11/5/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 11/9/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.5 102.50 11/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 11/12/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 11/14/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.9 184.50 11/17/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.1 26.00 11/18/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 11/20/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 12/1/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 12/1/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.1 20.50 12/4/2014 PATRICK K. BOBKO Trial Prep 0.1 26.00 12/4/2014 STEPHANIE CAO Trial Prep 0.2 41.00 TOTALS: 26.1 5,499.00 13 2/12/2015 EXHIBIT "E" Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - )11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client•11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 1. IntlsF DAN Inllwla NIMa / invoice N0406N0406.4!nc : 119Yft •0.90 Amount QtK11PRtlP . . •- Menet N�mW/ CITY MM4AGER AND 110!6-0688 34023126 _ 05/07/2013 0148 PETER M THORSON 225.00 VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL WITH _ -- 00/14/2013 Invaet•100375-�- 0.90 225.00 EXECUTIVE STAFF 110640686 3023135 05/08/3013 0146 PETER 2.00 25000 REVIEWED MEDICAL MARLAJANA LITVGATION DOCUMENTS M. THORSON 1 00 260.00 AND DRAFTED MEMORANDUM TO SARAH BLRGE OF PRESS 001142013 Invoke0190375 ENTERPRISE - -4----- _ -- REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY 110034488 3023200 0540612013 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.10 25.00 In oIc4.190376 0.10 25.00 REGARDING 08/14/2013 PREPARE 110640688 3038068 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.30 75.00 REVIEW NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT ANO 06/19/2013 Inv,008.190052 0.30 75.60 NOTICE CONFER WITH CITY ATTORNEY AND 07/15(2013 MR. PIERCE REOARDINO 3042249 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.10 25.00 REVIEW NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE 110064606 08/21/2013 Invoice+190862 0.10 25.00 TRASK. 07115/2011 3052382 0138 T DETER PIERCE 0.10 26.60 RECENE NOTICE FROM SUPREME COURT 11080.0688 07/31,2013 08/15/2013 10v5ww=191314 0.10 25.50 DRAF 1 E•MA4 TO MR. THORSON ; REGARDING 1,006.0606 3054780 05!01/2013 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.60 127.50 p11AFTEO MEMORANDUM f0 CC4JNCIL REGARDING 09/12/2013 Involos0191781 0.50 127.501 3067958 08/042013 0133 T. PETER PIERCk 0.10 25.50 RECEIVE AND REVIEW REM/1'717LP 11086.0088 09112/2013 000040191791 0.10 25.50 08/05/2013 0204 PATRICK K. 80BKO 0.20 51.00 CONFER WITH MR PIERCE REGARDING 11088-0686 3C01704 0911212013 Irv4ice0191791 020 51 001 - 08(06/2013 11008.0886 3061774 0204 PATRICK K. BO0K0 0.30 70.50 CONFER WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING 09/17/2013 Involot•101791 0.30 16.50 RCViEW CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING FROM DISPENSARY 3083937- 11080-0688 08/12/1013 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.20 51.00 DRAFTED MEMORANDUM TO STAFF REGARDING - 0.2) 61.00 09112/2013 Invoice•19t791 08/304013 0133 T. PE rER PIERCE 0.10 26.50 EXCHANGE E-MAILS REGARDING 11068-0680 3088102 Invo4010191791 0.10 25.60 09/12/2013 09/00/2013 0549 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.10 13.00 COMMUNICATI0N5 REGARDING 11088-00/38 3088450 10/11/2013 M44000192306 0.10 13.00 09110(2013 D204 PATRICK K. 809K0 0.40 102.00 CONFER WITH MR. MACALA REGARDING 11086.0688 3075765 '001112013 Invo4ce• 192306 0.40 102.00 09/13/2013 0549 STEPHEN*. MACALA 2.60 338.00 REVIEW AND ANALYZE CASE FILES REGARDING .. 11088.0688 3086139 1 0/1 1120 13 Invol0e0192308 2.60 338.00 EVIEW AND ANALYZE CASE FILES REGARDING 11080.0688 3088147 0941112013 0549 STEPHEN A. MACALA 1.70 221.00 0 011 1/2 013 ii v01ce=192305 1.70 22. 00 --- SUPPLEMENT AND FINALIZE SAME 09/2512013 0204 PATRICK K. 600K0 0.40 102.00 PHONE CAU. WITH COUNSEL FOR CPS REOAROING 11000.0880 3076002 0.40 102.00 CONFER 10/11/2013 8040s0192300 WITH MR MACALA REGARDING - 0925/2013 0649 STEPHEN A.MACALA 0.10 13.00 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING ,108030808 3084770 A 10/1112013 Invoke+192300 0.10 19.00 1108813680 43068295 09127/2013 0549 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.10 1300 REVIEW M40 ANALYZE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS Invo1010192306 0.10 13.00 REGARDING 10/1172013 09/2112013 0549 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.20 2000 LEGAL RESEARCH REOAROING 11080688 3068298 _" 1011//2003 Invoice .192300 020 28.00 -__ Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - )11086-0688 - COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES. INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 2 Index •' One' .In19011 Nem,IlnvojfiNvmW4" -Hoaei ?c/h0!i1t;r•. ,• ;`' ;�4*I�. AstaliN0ei14u ' 110 840688 3092147 110/0912013 0133 L PETER PIERCE 020 51 00 REVIEW NOTICE OF RULING AND SETTING OF STATUS 11/12/2313 Invoke =102604 0 20 51.00 CONFERENCE AND EXCHANGE 5.MAILS REGARDING 10/11/2010 0204 PATRICK K. 9013K0 0.10 25.60 CONFER WITH IAS 8KAHAN REGARDING 110860008 3090500 11/1212013 Involce=.192084 0.10 25 5/1 10/' 3/2013 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.10 25.50 EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH MR BOBKO REGARDING 11080-0588 3002170 11/12/2013 Involu' 192864 0.10 25 50 0.80 0.60 153.00 553.00 CONFER WITH MR. SKAHAN REGARDING 110880066 3091484 0204 PATRICK K. 80860 10/13/2013 11/12/2010 1054i094192064 - A20 PHONE CALL WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING - CONFER WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING 10/16/2013 0204 PATRICK K. 00860 0.40 0.40 102.00 ANALYZE ISSUES REGARDING 111086-0066 3091491 Invoko4192884 102.00 _ - 11/1212013 WITH MESSRS. PIERCE ANO SKAHAN 10/18/2013 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0 20 51.00 CONFERENCE REGARDING 110884658 3002200 11/12/2013 lnvoic8.102864 0.20 51.00 10/15/2013 0291 PATRICK D. SKAHAN 0 90 153.00 PREPARE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11006-0616 3103139 11112/2013 Invoke+192684 0.90 153.00 APPEARANCE 1 10117/2013 0204 PATRICK K. 008K0 0.20 51.00 CONFER WITH MR. SKAHAN REGARDING 11066-0068 3001407 11/12/2013 Swolce-192884 0.20 51.00 10(17/2013 0291 PATRICK D. SKAHAN 3_30 3.30 561.00 PREPARE FOR ANO ATTEND STATUS CONFERENCE 11000.0696 3103200 11/1272013 In4vk9+192884 561.00 0.10 0.10 17.00 17.0011 PREPARE NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE 110064 -Lae 3103261 --_-- 10/17/2013 0291 PATRICK D. SKAHAN 11/12/2013 9wo4ce•1925134 '0001500 10/18/2013 0204 PATRICK K- 60860 0.10 25.50 CONECIS WITH MR. SKAHAN REGARDING 11085.0861 11(1212013 Invobo.192884 0.10 25.50 AND 78,00 10118/2013 0540 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.00 REVIEW. ANALYZE AND OROANI7E BACKUP DOCUMENTS 110560600 3103535 11/12/2013 Invoice =192E1134 0.80 78.00 :011812013 0640 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.40 62.00 CONFERENCE WITH MR BROC HARD REGARDING 11088.0888 3103537 11/12/2013 Invelce+182084 0.40 5200 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - 01086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:0956 PM Page 3 49149r Rumba Index ,.0.14 .18777.8)4 NoRu7IA�IgiNilm 96 : Fjo, ..; Amo1Ti •;`1, Deetrlp)lon ! • • ISSUES CONCERNING 11066.0660 ]092306 10/2112013 0204 PATRICK 8. 8081(0 000 0.30 76 50 M4ALYZE 78 50 iln2I2013 Imdce•l92664 10771/2013 0291 PATRICK D. SKAHAN 0.20 34.00 PREPARE NOTICE. OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE 11046-0686 3103278 ' Involcu-+02884 0.20 34.00 1!12/2013 113860606 3103564 102112013 0549 STEPHEN A. 1AAC.ALA 0.40 52.00 REVIEW. ANALYZE ANO ORGANIZE BACKUP • 1/12/2013 I 8169.192684 0.40 62 00 DOCUMENTATION 10/22/013 0133 7 PETER PIERCE 0.10 25.60 REVIEW NOTCE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE. 1'088-0868 3082230 Invoice=192884 0.10 25.60 i1/12/2013 10/22/2013 0204 PATRICK K. 808KO 0.50 0.50 127 127.501 CONFER WITH MR. BROCHARD REGARDING ANO 11086.0888 3092371 11/12/2013 Invace4192664 DRAF T ANO REVISE LETTER TO CPS REGARDING 0.10 17.00 PREPARE NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE FOR 11086.0088 3103288 1012212013 0291 PATRICK O. SKAHAN 11/12/2013 5nvoice-192884 0.10 17.00 1 4/2013 0201 PATRICK K. 80880 1.80 407.00 RESEARC I DRAFT AND REVISE OPPOSITION 11086,0886 3093124 11/12/2013 Invoke•192681 1.60 401.00 CONFER WITH (94. BRGCHARD REGARDING 0.201 0.20 51.00REVIEW 51.00 CPQ S REP1 Y SUPPORTING MOTION TO TAX 1108843660 3093680 1013012013 0204 PATRICK K. 130680 Involce.192684 11 /12/20a COSTS 11104/2013 0204 PATRICK K 8081(0 0.30 70.50 CONFER WITH MR. SKAHAN REGARDING 11088-0688 3105520 12112/2013 Invoke•193611 0.30 76.60 - DRAFT AND REVISE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 0.60 102.001PREPARE FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO TAX COSTS 11068.0888 3111658 11/04/2013 0291 PATRICK D. SKAHAN 12/17/2013 126v0ice.193611 0.60 102.00 /1105/2013 0204 PATRICK 1C 80880 0.40 102.00 CORRESPONDENCE AND PHONE CALLS WITH OPPOSING 11080-0088 3105835 12/17/2013 Invoke -193611 0.40 102.00 COUNSEL REGARDING . CONFER WITH - MR, SKAHAN REGARDING 1110612010 0291 PATRICK 0. SKAHAN 2.30 391.00 PREPARE FOR HEARING ON MOTION 70 TAX COSTS 11008.0068 3111871 12/12e2010 Invo4ca=193611 2.30 391.00 11/0572013 5023 KYLE H. BROCHARO 0.30 33.00 CONFERENCE WITH MH. SKAHAN REGAROING 11046.0088 3'.12015 12/12/2013 Invold•193611 0.30 33.00 11/082013 0204 PATRICK K. 0001(0 0.10 25.50 ANALYZE ISSUES REGARDING 11086.0868 3105941 12/12/2013 Involc9=193811 0.10 25.50 ' 240 178.00 PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND HEARING ON MQTION TO TAX 11060.0666 5111675 1110612013 3291 PATRICK 0 SKMHAN 12/1212013 9wolca.193011 2.80 418.00 COSTS 110660609 13146561 02/04/2C 14 0291 PATRICK D. SKAHAN 0.10 7100 REVIEW DOCKET AND PREPARE FOR TRIAL SETTING 03/12/2014 6ivo1ce•195000 040 74.00006IFERENCE 02/07/2014 0204 PATRICK K. ROBKO 0.30 76.50 RESEARCH REGARDING AND /10660666 3141201 T912/2014 Nv61c89196000 0.30 76,50 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 02/10/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.60 201.00 REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL FOR CPS 11086.0086 2111710 03/12/2014 Nwla•105008 0,80 201.00 REGARDING AND REVISE RESPONSIVE LEITER. CONFER WRH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING 02/10/2014 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.20 51.00 REVIEW LE ITER FRCM OPPOSING COUNSEL REGAIWING 110860988 3149843 53/12/2014 Invola-105006 0.20 51.03 , EXCHANGE E-6IA/LS Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Cetail - [11086 0668 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:110136 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 4 Osu ..--- IMUtle 1111,1.A Y.0P !:t1'11W •` y?- ,�4 .; y� 5. -+ :.•,:_i?.!rrl'�1. .. . .' . ' 1'yt a,1.e+Kei:. 4 N410? r ^index WITH INA 809140 REGARDING PATRICK K. 90660 090 220.30 PHONE CALL WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REOAROING 110984086 0102645 02119/2014 03/12,2014 0204 Invoae•185006 -' - 090 229.60 ANALYZE THE REMAINING ISSUES ' PREPARE WITH MR. PIERCE. FOR TRULL SETTING CONFERENCE REGARDING 02/2010014 0204 PATRICK K. BOOK0 4.80 1,224.00 PREPARE FOR TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE W1TW JUDGE 11085-0088 /1142852 03/12/2014 ImANc44103006 4.60 1,224.00 WATERS IN RIVERSIDE ANO ATTEND SAME DRAF- ANO REVISE NOTICE OF ORDER REGARDING SAME. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING WITH CITY ATTORNEY 02/25/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 806KO 0.50 127 50 GRAFT AND REVISE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL 110800608 3143746 03112/2014 Invok4.196006 0.50 127.50 REGARDING 02126!2014 0204 PATRICK K. 60860 0.40 102.00 PHONE CALLS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING 11099.0888 3144740 07/12/2014 1500409.195005 0.40 102.00 COUNSEL 02/28/2014 0148 PETER M THORSON 0.50 127.50 WORKED ON OPINION LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL 11006-0568 N 144679 07/12/2314 Inva(ce-195000 0.50 127.50 03/07/2014 0140 PETER M. THORSON 1.70 433.53 REVIEWED LEGAL MEMORANDA ANO DRAF TED OPINION 11088-0688 3151921 04/18/2014 Invoke -195531 1.70 413.50 LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING 03/12/2014 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.00 153.00 DRAFTED MEMORANDUM 10 MR, 00860 REGARDING 11066.0088 3153424 04/16/2014 Invo: ce4105531 0.80 15n.r,o 03/13/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 90960 0,90 229.60 DRAaT AND REVISE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL 11006.0088 3153470 04/18/2014 Invoica•19553I 0.90 229.50 REGARDING . ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING PATRIK K. EO8k6 0.90 153.00 RESEAR2KANd REVIEW CASE FILE AND GRAFT AND 11080.0688 3167844 64110(2014 0204 05116/2014 Invdce•196040 0.60 153.00 REVISE CORRESPONDENCE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 04/16/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 90860 0.40 102.00 FILE REVIEW AND PREPARE FOR TRIAL SETTING 11086.0608 3167666 05116/2014 Invoice=196049 D-40 102.00 CONFERENCE 04/10/2014 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.10 25.50 EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH MR. 80860 REGARDING 1',086.0666 3169909 0511020(4 Involu•106049 0.10 2550 34/21/20' 4 0204 PATRICK K. 00560 5.20 1,276 02 NEARING ON TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE 1,0960889 3188858 05/15(2014 Involoe•196040 5.00 1.275.00 REIMER .N RIVERSIDE. DRAFT AND REVISE NOTICE OF SAME TO OPPOSING COUNSEL. DRAF T AND REVISE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING . PROVIDE TO CITY ATTORNEY 04/21/2014 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.20 51.00 CONFER WITH MR. 80560 REGARDING 11000-0088 3468916 00/1012014 Inv0l4a=196049 0.20 51.00 AND 04/21/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 40.00 STRATEGIZE WITH MR. 008K0REGARDING 11086.0666 3173675 05/162014 Invo4Ce4196049 0.20 40.00 04/30/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 4000 CONFERENCE W1TH MR. 00060 REGARDING 11086-0886 3874208 06/1 612 01 4 Invales=190049 0.2C 40.00 05/02/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 1.90 380.00 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF FILE MATERIALS REGARDING 11006.0688 3109057 08116/2314 9rvoIn4108421 1.90 380.00 IN PREP/NATION OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 05/022014 0269 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 40.00 PREPARE NOTICE CF THE CRY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11060-0889 31690611 00116/2014 18volee•190421 0 20 40.00 JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 06!04/2014 0209 STEPHANIE GAO 1.00 360.00 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 0c 11396 0688 3169060 061162014 Invok4.190421 1.90 300 09 W PREPARATION OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES Billed and Unbilled Recap O( Time Detail - 111086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Page 5 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1120(2015 3:09:56 PM Oat• 10 �_,• y��jH• "P, /.•t: -' .. i,+6r ; ' is 1 'r. ONuinWr ledoat 05,0:/2014 0299 S'IEPNAME CAO 4.90 9E0.00 PREPARE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1N 110680889 3189709 06/5882014 1Avo408.106421 4.90 990.00 SUPPORT OF THE COY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES t 1088-0688 3199114 057052014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1 0.10 140.00 PREPARE PROPOSED JUDGMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE , 09/1612014 Invoice -196421 0.70 I40.00CITYS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATE./ PATIENTS' SERVICES ANO EVERGREEN VENTURES 0100 STEPHANIE CAO 2.80 520.00PREPA/50 SEPARATE STATEMENT O( 0SPUTEO 11066.0889 3189138 515{014 06/182014 NE910.496421 2.00 520.001MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGNNST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 51072014 6299 STEPHANIE (SAO 1.30 260.O01FURTHER PREPARATION OF SEPARATE STATEMENT OF71088.0688 3199162 0881612014 illyoice•190421 1.301 260.00 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE Tars MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AONNST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 05,07/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 020 4000 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO THE CITY'S REVENUE 110860688 3189165 08/162014 involcoA196427 0,201 40.00 MANAGER REGARDING 05/0712014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.2 4000 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY 11085-0886 5189198 06)162014 INlAINF 108421 0.2 40.00 SHERIFFS' DEPARTMENT REGARDING 05/072014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO 909.01NG SAFETY AND 11086.0688 3189197 08116/2014 km59E3•196421 0.10 20.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT REGARDING 05107/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.1 20.' ATTENTION TO VOICEMAIL FROM THE CITY REGARDING 11066.0688 199192 0811812014 bwoIce•196421 0.1 20. 05/08)2014 0204 PATRICK K.808k0 0.20' 01.00 ANALYZE ISSUES REGARDING 11090.0688 3102380 00/102014 1/ Nola.198421 0.20 61.00 065/2014 0208 STEPHANIE CAO 2.80 50000 CONTINUE PREPARATION OF SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 11088.0688 3189190 0811812014 I6v0k••198421 2.60 500.001UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OP THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATNE PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 05/0812014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 40.00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY REGARDING 110880688 3199193 06/1812014 Invoice -198421 0.201 40.00 05/0812014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO O. 40.00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY REGARDING 11086-0006 0189194 08/10/2014 Invoice 199421 0.20 40.00 05706/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO Invoice -186421 a.4of 0.60' WOOD 100.00 PREPARE DECLARATION OF MR. HOMO IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST 11086-0868 3189197 08/18)2014 COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICER AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 05/08122014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 4040 PREPARE DECLARATION OF MR. LANKENAU M SUPPORT 11086-0890 _ 3100190_ 06;1012014 Invoice -108421 0.20 40.00 OF THE CITY'S NOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - AGMNST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS SERVICES ANO EVERGREEN VENTURES 09108/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.80 120.00 PREPARE DECLARATION OF MR. GARCIANO 44 SUPPORT 11086-0888 589199 08/16/2014 Invo.c4-196421 000 120.04 OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES OSS iT.014 0299 STEPHANIE GA0 0.40' 80.00 PREPARE DECLARATION OF MR. VILLAIN SUPPORT OF 11009.0689 310200 0071812014 Invoke -198421 0.40 00.00 THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPEMTNE PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - (11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Page E Clienh,11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09 56 PM D•! Initltl4 ' .}110nre llarlq.NurmlrN/t .' H�.. re . Anuw'1 •,NYN: °•• D:C/PIK!0 •,. • MNaAIO 1 , 10644 05/38I2014 MEM 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 010 50 CO REP ARP PROPOSED ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S 11096-0688 K 189206 00)16120 11 Invoico-196421 0.40 60 00 •NON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE -- PATIENTS' SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENIURES 116E231:111121ENIEMEMIZEM111111=1 08!16)2014 Invo1ce-100421 0 3 0.3• 60.00 PREPARE COMPENDIUM 05 EVIDENCE in SUPPORT OF HE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11080-0086 189209 JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FCR SUMMARY -- • OJUDICATION ON ITS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 06/0812014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.10 22000 ONTINUE PREPARATION CF MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 11068.0668 3189210 38/16,2014 Invoice -198421 1.1 • 220.00 • 110 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE ' PATTEN IS' SERV.CES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 35/0912014 0204 PATRICK 1(.1506K0 1535.50 RESEARCH, REVIEW, TWD REVISE MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11286.0668 3162372 051180014 Involc,43196421 MIME 535.50 20.00 JJD>MFNT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS AGAINST CPS 0./0012014 08/10/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO Invoice -196421 RECEIVE AND RESPOND TC CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. REGARDING 1!0860686 3189223 ==VILLA 25/094014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.00 RECEIVE AND RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. 11086.0688 3189221 06/102014 -Involes•198421 i I 20.00 GRACIANO RE3AROING 05/10/2014 PATRICK K. 00680 makEguimED 3,70 T 943.50 RESEARCH, DRAFT AND REVISE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS AGAINST CPS 11386-0688 08/1520 4 Uwo/c4 196421 •ND EVERGREEN 0:1122014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.80 660.00 FURTHER ANALYS'S OF 11388.06159 3189243 06110/2014 - Invoice -196421 • 600.00 , FURTHER PREPARATION OF MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOT ON FOR SUMMARY - 111M ERVICES- JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES-- ANO EVERGREEN VENTURES 08/12)2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.1 20,00 FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO THE CITY 11088.0688 3180153 06/18/2014 Invoke•186421 0.1 20.00 REGARDING I 0611872014 0290 -Involce•190/21 MIN IMEMEEHEMI=.111112040.00 0.20 MIMI 40.00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 10 THE CITY'S REVENUE MANAGER REGARDING 110860898 MEM 05/1320/4 06/18/2014 1111=111 _ PATRICK K 80080 111.11201111111111511S ANALYZE ISSUES REGARDING 110800688 lnvolco•108421 301111.1002 05/13/20/4 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 00.00 ATTENTION TO VOICEMAIL FROM AND TELEPHONE 110660308 3189229 00118/2014 Invoko=180421 0.30 00.00 COMMUNICATION (MULTIPLE CALLS) WITH THE CITY REGARDING --CORRESPONDENCE E-MAIL TO MR. LANKENAU REGARDING 05/13/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 60.01 FURTHER PREPARATION OF DECLARATION OF RUDY 11088.0886 3189280 rairEZIIIIMEMEI0.3' MEI MN=SERVICES _ _-MR. 80.00 _ RACIANO IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERAI1VE PATIENTS' AND EVERGREEN VENTURES. TELEPHONE MEM COMMUNICATION AND EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH ORACIANO REGARDING 06)43/2014KEMENEMZEIRLIMMEM2IE 06/18/2014 MEM -Involce•190421 0 10 200' 20.00 E-MAIL EXCHANGE WITH CITY'S DIRECTOR OF 11288.0600 .189261 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING 05/'.312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.70 340.1' FURTHER PREPARATION OF SEPARATE STATEMENT IN 11088.0088 3189271 08/181014 Inv0lce•196421 1 70 340.00 SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS SERVICES AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 061' 3)2014 0298 STEPHANIE CAO 1 00 200.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF COMPENDIUM OF EV'.DENCE '1006 0088 06/16/2014 Inv2lce•198421 100 200,00 IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY Bi(fed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - (11086.0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client' l 1086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 7 . Dale . 11116•Me Wire,/ Invoke Number r" Noun • AmaiM` . i.!4, ,4 k ::.i,R ffIP4 S: .• I VMedMNambe 4ii , JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS SERVICES AN0 EVERGREEN VENTURES 09/13,2014 0209 ST&PHN41E CAO 0.50 0.50/ 100.0DiPREPARE 100.00 OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 810680696 3189277 00116/2014 ywaa>'196421 AGAINST COOPERATIVE PATIENTS SERVICES ANO EVERGREEN VENTURES _ 05/18/2014 0';04 PATRICK K. 8008 0 0.70 178.50 DRAFT ANO REVISE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11086.0668 3163806 06/16/3014 7ma(ce•I96421 0,70 178.50 AGAINST CP$ AND EVERGREEN 05718/2014 0289 STEPHANIE CAO 1.00 200.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF REQUEST FOR JlmIC:AL 11000.0688 3169320 06/16/2014 1499494196421 1.00 200.00 NOTICE AND EXHIBITS THERETO IN SUPPON I OF THE CITY OF TEMECLWYS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUOGMENI; TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION AND E-MAIL EXCHANGE WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING THE SAME 05/76/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.30 480.00 CONTINUE PREPARATION OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 17086.0688 3709331 08/1072014 Involce•196421 2.30 460,00 AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO BE IN ADVANCED IN 114E CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES 11086.0688 3189349 0511012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 120.00 COMPLETE PREPARATION OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 06/182014 Mrvic6.196421 0.6' 120.00 AND ALL OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO 8E 04 ADVANCED IN THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAGAI145T CO.OP PATIENTS' SERVICES 05/1912014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 60.00 E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE WITH CITY 11086-0688 3169351 06(1612014 -I Nvolce•196421 0.40 60.00 HEGARDING . ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS REGAROI NG 06(1912014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0,$0 0.30 - 60.00IPREPARE 60.00 CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR CD -OP PATENTS' SERVICES REGARDING 11080.0888 3180378 06/1672014 kwoico.196421 _ n. 0.20 40,00 ANALYSIS OF REGARDING 11086-0888 3199024 08106/2014 07/1812014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO _ Iwoke•190914 0.20 40.00 ; CONFER AND STRATEGIZE VWITII MR. 8068(0 REGARDING 00/09/2014 0299 STEPHANIE GAO 0.40 80.00 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF 11066-0688 3199065 07118/2014 k vOke.196914 0.40 80.00 AND PREPARE SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY TO COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC 06709/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 80.00 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF 11086-0880 3199069 07/18/2014 IA98W-8.198914 0.40 80.00' AND PREPARE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. 0204 PATRICK K. 8008(0 0.30 78.00'REVIEW AND REVISE EXPERT WITNESS DEMAND WITH 710080860 3201185 07103/2014 08(13/2014 Invoice -197346 0,30 70.00 CPS AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE(GAROINO 07/03/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 81.60 ANALYSIS OF 110800888 3214828 06/7312014 Inveioe•197346 0.30 81.50 07/03/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 080 123.00 PREPARE OEMANO TO EXCHANGE EYAERT WI7NE8S :1086-0688 3214827 06/13/2014 Invoic8.197348 0.60 123.00 INFORMATION 07/07/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 8081(0 0.40 104.00 ANALYZE ISSUES ANO 11086.0806 3200773 08/13!2014 Involco197348 0.40 104.00 RESEARCH ISSUES CONCERNING 07/07/2014 0299 $TEPHANIE CAO 0,20 47,00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF DEMAND TO EXCHANGE 11086-0686 3214636 08/1312014 Invoke=197346 0.20 41.00 EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION 07/07/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 120 41.00 REVIEW RELEVANT COURT AND STATUTORY OEAOUNES 11086.0688 3214085 08/13/2014 Mvolce•197346 0.20 41.00 IN FURTHEIIANCE OF Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail -111086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC.-MARIJUANA VENDOR) Page B Client:11086 • CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Dote‘1 1�11tlili N.ii•niyclyeJ-Jflb�r 1S o�7►- �lAilb'0}Ml? :: ^�` .Diicrtptloir'" • • Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 9 10..I9 IntdiO4 WIml11 ?wip4!C Ia0109P: r.: .. _', :L,. : ._ ..: .,9840P9011 •i., t: '.•. �. �• .• '..!I/M, �V! ;.,.%' .)110,1 1=1:11�� 08113!2014 y�y+, STEPHANIE CAO 8200 REVtEWCORREBPONDENCE EXC/VINGE ROM COVNSEI FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING 11088.0668 Inv01c0=497948 82 I . CONFER WITH MR. 808K0 REGARDING 07/24/2014 NM EMI U PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.30 7400 PHONE CALL AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH COUNSEL FOR 110560588 3209040 08/13!2014 Invokes• 197340 0.30 78 00 EVERGREEN CONCERNING MEM 0299 STEPHANIE CAO ANALYSIS OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST 110060686 3216420 _ 08/13/2014 0.20 41.00 EVERGREEN IN PREPARATION FOR -Irn01tt•107345 07/2512014 0224 PATRICK K. 008K0 0.93 234.0 REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL 11006.0880 08113/2014 sC1111111111 -Invok4=197340 0.90 234.0 REGAROING ANALYZE ISSUES ONCERNING . TRIAL PREPARATION AND MEMORANDUM TO CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING 07!2512014 0299 STEPHANIE coA 1111117ailliEMANALYSIS 0.00 MUM OF EVERGREEN VENTURE'S DESIGNATION OF EXPER1 WITNESSES ANC FILE REGARDING - --' - 11086-0888 SELLIIIII 08!13/2014 CInvoice•191346 CONFER WITH MR. MEM MIN BOBKO REGARDING BEM EMI=_ 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.B0 369.0' PREPARE DEPOSITION NOTICE OF PERSON MOST 11080 0888 3215453 rwolce=197346 1.80 30900 QUALIFIED AT EVERGREEN VENTURES AND - - CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN REGARDING 0293 STEPHANIE CAO 2 60 -VENTURES 574.00 CONFER WI'H MR. BOOKO REGARDING 11086.0580 3215400 Invoke=197348 2.0' 574.00 LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS REGARDING 07128!21114 _ 0295 STEPHANIE CMJ ®� 11111.BEIMBEREVIEW 1111M11.103E FILE REGARDING 11085-0888 3215820 08,13!2014 inganolig ® Mill. MEI inVOIC4=197340 4OPATRICK K 808110 0.40 104.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11008-0505 3209063 involco•IYT9Ml 0.40 104.00 RESEARCH REGARDING _ 07/29/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAA 0.10 20.60 RECEIVE AND REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL 11088.0888 3215505 08/132014 Involce'197346 0.10 20.50 FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING . eiri=11 08/132014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO ®' FURTHER LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS REGARDING liCal0 Invo4ca=107348 1.70 340.50 _- _ ; RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS REGARDING 07129/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO IIMIENIMICEI 7.1 20.50 CONFER WITH MR. BOBKO REGARDING 11088-0688 215523 08/13/2014 Inv0ice=197346 07!202014 029'; STEPHANIE CAO 0.2' 41.00 ANALYSIS OF 110060480 3215527 08!1312014 Invotca• 191346 0.20 41 00 AND PREPARE ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE TO MR THORSON REGARDING 07/30/2014 STEPHANIE CAO EMI 1 90 389.50 CONTINUE LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS REGARDING 11066-0808 3215574 08!13!2014 InvOlce•197345 1.60 389.50 07/30/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 320 656.00 COMMENCE PROCEDURAL HISTORY REVIEW 11080.0568 321;'571 08113420/ -In,oiea■197318 ® 858 00 07/31,2014 MEM 0204 PATRICK K.130800 MINIM OA 104 00 REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL 1 066'0590 '® 08!1312014 Inv0ke.197345 0.44 104.00 REGARDING ANO ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING _ 07/312014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 932.00 FURTHER REVIEW OF PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF ENTIRE 110680588 %M allied and UnbO Ied Recap Of Time Detail - 111086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] CI:ent:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 10 . Oft} • ti,.-;....; 'pljlili ..•h„- : �.,x :.e n0 / 1V. f,n411Nnbf14: ,�:1 197348 �n�akp;x.,...... 4,40 .,.4. An !!nt:'4 802_00 MATTER ,:.-.,x.,.•. , - .., { - y ;' . ,47. f - '. Rr'41dP"CtI - ' . . AND COMMENCE IN DEPTH ANALYSIS .. M'((Nur mM • 1011•X ' 06/ 13/2014 Involce� 07131/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 020 41.00 ATTENTION TO VOICEMAIL FROM COUNSEL FOR 11086.0686 0215601 06/13/2014 Ime1c0=197346 010 41.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES AND CONFER WITH MR. 808K0 REGARDING 07/31/2014 0299 81 EPHANIE CAO 0.30 6150 PREPARE FIRSTAMEN0E0 OEPOSITION NOTICE OF 1.19960686 3215803 08/13/2014 Imam 197346 0.30 81.50 PERSON(SI MOST QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF EVERGREEN VENTURES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 11060 0888 3210846 08101/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 008K0 0.40 104.09 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 09/1812014 Invoke=197775 0.40 104,00 . RESEARCH AND PREPARE 71/91 BRIEF 08104/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0 20 62.00 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11006.0686 3213831 09/16/2014 Invoi00-101176 020 52.00 06104/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 808K0 0.30 78.00 ANAL YZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11060-0006 32/3832 09/16/2014 Inv0l0e4197775 0.30 78.00 08/04/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.30 471.60 LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING 110660606 3226433 0 911 612 014 Involw=197775 2.30 471.50 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 400-ONFER WITH MR. BOBKO REGARDING 11066.0699 3220476 08/05/2014 09/15/2014 ~1nv9ka• 0.00 0.00 08105/2014 0204 PATRICK K. HOMO 0.40 104.00 PREPARE -FOR DEPOSITION OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' 110660806 3217247 09/18,2014 invoice -197773 0.40 104.00 PERSON MOST OUALIFIEC 08/05/2014 0219 STEPHANIE' CA0 1.20 248.001ANALYS/S OF F/LES 1N FURTHERANCE OF 110660888 3228458 09/10/2014 Involce•197775 1.40 267.00 J 00/0E/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.20 52.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11080.0868 _ 3219051 09/16/2014 1m:4 99.197776 0.20 52.00 STEPHANIE CAO 0.80 --1 184.00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR 1308-0680 3228487 08/0612/114 0290 09116/2014 Invoice=197775 0.0) 164.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING RESEARCH REGARDING , CONFER WITH MR. B08KO REGARDING ; PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN _ --- VENTURES REGARDING O8/06/2-014 0299 STEPHANIE CAD 2.70 553.50 FURTHER LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS REGARDING 11066.0606 3228403 09/10,2014 10voice+197175 2.70 559.50 06107/2014 0204 PATRICK K.0019K0 0.00 208.00 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING AND PREPARE FOR 11006.0900 3210061 09/1812014 Im6co.197775 0.90 206.00 DEPOSITION OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' PERSON MOST QUALIFIED REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING PREPARE FOR PMO DEPOSITION AND POSSIBLE EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PROPERTY OWNER FOR CONTINUANCE OF SAME 06/07/2014 0260 JENNIFER L PETRUSIS 0.30 0.30 78.00 70.00 EXCHANGE ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE WITH MS. BOARD REGARDING 11018.0808 3226193 09/16/2014 Invotoo•197775 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:11086 • CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 11 .1 .,. I 11LfA1/M IMF �' '' ' r.'1,./4 0)u 1nI1I Nims flnvOc ITIt*0 •'J.KO9 -'AE49g1 l / ,,51/n�. . r. ‘r `::••:'. : 'I a 1�F.1 ;r• / -3{h Y;' - •• . . • . - . l OETERMe EITA�TVS O,44,.,;„ THE APPiARANCE 1.40 267,00 ANALYSIS OF 110864666 3220622 0810712014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 00118/2014 111,41 .3=187775 1.40 207.00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO CITY STAFF AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFFS' DEPARTMENT REGARDING ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE TO LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ ANO MESSRS VILLA AND GRACIANO REGARDING CONFER WITI1 NMR 008K0 REGARDING 08/07,2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 1.30 266.50 RECEIVE ANO REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL 1•,080-0808 3228523 09118/2014 invoke- 197775 1.30 268.50 FOR EVEROREEN VENTURES REGARDING ; CONFER WITH MR. 80890 REGARDING ;TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REOARDINO _ 08/07/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 060 102 50 REVIEW AND /.NALYSIS OF - 110980090 3226537 09718/2314 NWICs-190776 0 50 102 50 CONFER WITH AML. 130840 REGARDING 08/07/1014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 010 20.80 RECEIVF. ANO REVIEW ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE 110660608 3228530 09116/2014 I1w01c8•197776 0.'0 70.60 FROM COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURCS REGARDING 32239E3- 22399209/1512014 08/0812014 0290 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0 10 19.00 EMAIL TO MS. CAO REGARDING 11006-0008 00/1512014 lnv0l0e- 0.00 0.00 - 08106/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 80890 2.30 69800 PHONE CALLS AND CORRESPONDENCE WI1H COUNSEL FOR 590 00\EVEROREEN VENTURES REGARDING 11060.0666 3220079 09/18/2014 Inve1694197775 2.30 RESEARCH AND /PREPARE FOR EX PARTE HEARING ANO DRAFT AND RCVISC OPPOSITION FOR SAME 08)06/2014 I 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.20 38.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH MS. CAO ANC MR. 006KC 11068.0608 3223981 09118/2014 lnvolcs4197775 0.20 38.00 REGARDING 06/0812014 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.701 133.00 CONFERENCE WITh MS. CAO AND MR. 808K0 REGARDING 11010.0660 3223982 39/1812014 Invo4c0=107/75 0.70 133.00 2.70 513.00 REVIEW DOCUMENTS. OPPOS"T.ON ID EX PARTE 11080.0088 3223983 08/0612014 0298 YOUSTIMAN. AZIZ 04/16)2014 Imwlcs4197776 2.70 613.00 APPLICATION, AN0 PREPARE FOR EX PARTE HEARING ON 8/11114 081082014 0299 STEPHANIE CAD 0.10 20.50 PREPARE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN WORD FORMAT 11086.0866 3229610 09118/2014 I04lco4197775 0 10 20.50 REGARDING METADATA FOLLOWING COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURE'S REQUEST FOR SEPARATE STATEMENT 04 SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 08/01/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 PREPARE ELECTRONIC CORRESPONOENCE TO CITY STAFF 11080.0086 3228645 09;;10/2014 Invoke= 107775 0.20 4 •.00 WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REIIAROINO 08/0612014 0208 STEPHANIE CAO 4.80 694 00 RECEIVE AND REVIEW COUNSEL FOR EVFRGREEN 11088-0888 3228559 09110/2014 8/441644197775 4.60 984.00 VENTURE'S EX PARTE NOTICE TO CONTINUE TRIAL. CONFER WITH MR. 9094C REGARDING ;TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING ; ANALYSIS OF . - , CONOUCT LEGAL RESEARCH. AND PREPARE OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE; STRATEGY MEETING WITH MS. AZIZ AND MR. 60840 REGARDING 0810612014 0208 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 FURTHER TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH LIEUTENANT 41.0011ERNANDEZ 11688.0888 3220558 09/18/2014 Inv6684197775 0 20 08/0942014 0204 PATRICK K. 80890 2.10 648.00 RESEARCH ANO PREPARE FOR DEPOSITION OF 11009.0688 0220080 09/15/2014 Invoice.197775 2.10 548.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES' PERSON MOST OUALIFIEO ON1012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 ELECTRONIC CORRFSPONOFNCF EXCHANGE WITH 110889688 3228574 091180014 IMo4ce4197775 0.10 20,50 LIEUTENANT HERNAMOEZ REGARDING - 08/1112014 0204 PATRICK K. 60600 0.40 104.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL ANO CITY 11066.0861 3220407 Billed and Unhilied Recap Of Time Detail - (11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC.-MAR•JUANA VENDOR] Page 12 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20!2015 3:09:56 PM .Dtl.. - .11n1Ue_f. ,N.ln4llnY4tl#NVP11.r..,,:, : M9Pf!..':pTouPi ‘: -•., .. "... ..D..[tipjfpq .� oa ., Nadu NumWr Mdjx - 09/18/2014 Involce=197776 0.40 104.00 ATTORNEY REGARDING ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 08/11/2014 0206 YOUSTINA N. A212 2 60 494.00 PREPARE FOR AND ArTE40 HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S 11088"5698 3723995 03/18/2014 Invozu=197775 2.80 494.00\EX PARTE APPLICATION TC CONTINUE TR/AL DATE 0811 02014 0299 YOUSTINA N. AZ12 040 48.00 MEETING WITH MR. 808KO AND MS. CAO REGARDING 110860688 3223990 02/18/2014 I1woh;44197775 0.40 76.00 08/11/2014 0298 YOUSTINA N. A2R 1.20 226.00 REVIEW DOCUMENTS AND TIMEUNE: E-MAIL TO MR. MR. 006K0, AND MS. KAO REGARDING (1088.0688 3224302 00/19/2014 Involce•197775 1.20 228,00THORSON. 08/1112014 0296 YOUSTINA N. 1212 0.20 38.00 E•MA9•S TO MS. CAO ANO MR. 608140 REGARDING 110680688 3224016 09/16112014 !maks -197775 0.20 38,00 06/11/2014 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 1.00 190.00`REVIEW HEARING NOTES AND CASE FILE AND ORAFT 11086"0688 3224017 09/1012014 Involce4107775 400 190.00 NOTICE RDINO BRIEFING SCHEDULE. NEW DATES AND )E401 INES 08/11/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 61.60 ELECTRONIC CORRE6PONOL'NCE TO CITY STAFF ANO 110880668 3226560 09i19i2014 Invohe'197776 030 61,50 RIVERSIOE SHERIFFS- DEPARTMENT REGARDING 08/11/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 RECEIVE AND REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURESEA PARTE 11006.0605 3228561 09/16/2014 Ow/564197775 0.20 41.00 APPLICATION FOR ORDER 11.1 CJNT:NUE TRIAL DATE; ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN REGARDING 08/11L4014 0289 STEPHANIE CAO 090 61.50 ANALYSIS OF CASE STATUS AND CONFER V1TH MS. 11086-0688 3228569 09/1612014 Invoice4197775 0.00 81.60 AZIZ REGAROINO EX PARTE TO CONTINUE TRIAL 08/1242014 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.10 20.00 26.00 ASCERTAIN DATE WHEN REMITTITUR ISSUED ANO JURISDICTION RETURNED TO TRIAL COURT 11086.0808 3222233 09/16/2014 hrok.4197776 0.10 08/12/2014 0290 VOUS I INA N. A212 0.10 0.10 19,00 19.001 EMAIL TO MS. SAUNDERS REGARDING 11086.0636 3224020 09/18/2014 in40109=197775 08/122014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 020 41, ATTENTION TO VOICEMAIL FHOM.AND TELEPHONE 11008.0580 1228627 09110/1014 Involce=197375 020 41.00ICOMMUNICATION TO MR. ORACIANO REGARDING 06/13/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 13013K0 0.60 20800 REVIEW CORRESPONOENCE REGARO'NG 11088_0698 3223097 09/18/2014 Involce=197775 _ 0.80 206 00 AND CONFER WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING . DRAFT AND REVISE LETTER TO EVERGREENS COUNSEL REGARDING AND REVISE DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR EVERGREEN'S PERSON MOST QUAL IF ED 08/13/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 61.50 C0NFER WITH MR. 008140 REGARDING 11086.0808 3228652 09'162014 Inwlco6107176 0 30 61.60 ; FURTHER ANALYSIS OF AND PREPARATION OF TIMELINE 08/11/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 4400. - NALYSIS OF 11088-0086 3228864 09/16/2014 Involce4197775 0.20 41.00 08/1420/4 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.40 104 00 REVIEWED STATUE OF CASE AND MOTION FOR /1086.0880 3221039 09/182014 Involce=197775 0.40 104.00 CONTINUANCE 08/14/2014 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZ12 0.20 38.30 PHONE CALLS TO MS. CAO AND MS. POWEU. REGARDING 11060-0868 3224071 09/166014 Involce=197775 0.20 38.30 08/144014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 ANALYSIS OF 11060.0888 3226103 09/18/2014 Invoce=197775 0.20 41.00 IN FJRTHERANCE OF NOTICING DEPOSITION OF EVERGREEN VEN1URES PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 08/1872014 0204 PATRICK K 900K0 2.10 548.00 REVIEW CPS'S FURTHER BRIEFING CONCERNING 110860880 3220109 09/10/2014 Invoke4197775 2.10 548.00 . DRAfTANDREVIBE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING . RESEARCH. DRAFT, AND REVISE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client.11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 13 MN 1610011'' ' • 1!8100.I16414R.I]Iiinber. I(Ho is. • ry�y,�;,, 1 � (a.1 Jr ...I, ' 1 .. _.•••• • , _, l�eiIl 9umbI4 . InaeK• . TRIAL CATE ® 1=10-Nvcice•197775 0200 STEPHANIE CAO EMI mommpaz RECEIVE AND REVIEW SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY OF 11086.0686 3228185 ME 20 .5, EVERGREEN VENTURES COUNSEL MEM LEELEZI MN 029, STEPHANIE CAO 11111131EMERE Invoice=197775 EMI um= mom RECEIVE AND REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11086-0688 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING MM. MINIM MEM MIMI STRATEGIZE REGAROINO PATRICK K. 5K0 08 416.00 - ESEARCH. DRAFT, AND REVISE OPPOSITION TO 410E30608 09/16/2014 -- -Invoice-19T7T5 min416.001 IME111111210 MIKE -_0071912014 MIMI R R -N V=N UR 'S R • T 6.R F RTH4. CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATES 00,19/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO ALYSIS REGARDING 11006-0808 3725702 0911612014 - I0v6ice=187770 0289 STEPHANIE CAO NALYSIS OF FILE 1N PREPARATION OF 11080.0688 3220784 09416/2014 Invo1ce-197776 0 60 123 00 MIMI NM 0 10 19 PHONE CALL FROM MS. CAO REGARDING 11088-0686 3224155 08R 0296 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 00/15/2014 Invoice= 0.00 0.00 08,29/2014 0204 PATRICK K BOOK() 0.30 7000 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11088-0686 3220683 09/1612014 Involce•197775 0.30 76.00 AND PREPARE FOR FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 00/2012014 09716,2014 )(OUST INA N. AZIZ Invoice -107775 MIMI 111111EDINIEMIE I.00 361.00 PREPARE FOR HEARING; REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF. 11086-0808 224162 OPPOSITION, AND COURT OF APPEAL'S OPINION 11.11113CIMBnMEETING WITH MR. BOBKO AND MS. CAO REGARDING 11088-0688 '224183 08 0/2014 YOUBTINA'N,-AZIZ 09/16 014 Invoice=197776 11111LEMIKELD .1111.111110111. =1111 III 1111101.1111111.111 08/2 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.50 102 50 YSIS OF FILE 1N FURTHERANCE OF 11086-0888 3226649 09/1612014 -Invoka•197775 OEM -- NM 102.50 ; CONFER - WITI I MR. 000K0 AND MO. P212 REGARDING - s� 1.40 266. PREPARE FOR HEARING ON FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF 11086-0608 3224197 ' !N 0298 OLSTINA N. AZIZ 0971612014 1.40 , THE TRIAL GATE: REVIEW COURT 00 APPEAL'S MEM 09118,2014 -Imo108-197775 MEM 0299 _Invoke=197175 STEPHANIE GAO moommANALYS:S OPINION; REVIEW CASE DOCKET AND MOTION PAPERS OF FILE REGARDING 1.086-0668 0.70 --SUPPLEMENTAL _-DATES �-REGARDING 0.90 143.60 234.00 IN FURTHERANCE OF HEARING ON LVERGREEN VENTURES' BRIEFING REGARDWG CONTR4UANCE OF AND DEADLINES; CONFER WITH MS ADZ ' - ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11086-0888 3221125 /�, PATRICK K. 80BK0 09/16/2014 - _ Invoice197775 IIIIIIXZ �-REVISE 234.00 . CRAFT ANO LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING ANO REVISE DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR EVERGREENS PERSON MOST QUALIFIED. PHONE CALL FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL REOAROING 5812 0295 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 770.0 TTEND HEARING ON EVERGREENS MOTION TO FURTHER 11066-9505 3224217 00/182014 _ Invoke=197775 4.10 779.0 CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 0912612014 0 98 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.2 . 38.00 REVIEW NOTES FROM HEARING AND E•MNL TO MR. 11068-0689 0',1812014 Inv:8ce=197775 36.00 808K0 AND MS CAO REGARDING Billed and UnOilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:11086 • CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 109!56 PM Page 14 .ON* NltYeb 'N,6:11443e;r7!•u{r1 [ . •-,Alnount ti :; '.-• ,,�• j11 t.. , 1;!}iN.15:.. .9 - .. ,..,...4.11 _or Niimber. 111411)_ 0812612014 0208 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.20 38 00 CALL TO MR. 600K0 AND M$. CAO REGARDING 110860666 091192014 Irvo!c4.107776 0.20 36 00 13224200 081/912014 0298 YOUSTINA N AZIZ 0.20 38.00 E-MAIL TO MR. 800K0 REGARDING 11086.0698 3224224 09/16/2014 8vo1C1.107776 0.20 38 00 0812512014 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.50 95 00 DRAFT NOTICE REGARDING NOW TR. AL DATE AND 1 10860088 3224236 L 0911912014 Involon107776 0.60 95 00 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 08/2572014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41 00 TELECONFERENCE WITH MR. 800K0 AND MS AZIZ 11066-0680 3226925 09/16/2014 InvOlee•197773 0.20 41 00 REGARDING 08/2612014 0204 PATRICK 14.800KO 0.20 52.00 PHONE CALLS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11088.0680 221136 00/16/2014 Involce•191715 0.20 52.00 0812612014 0296 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 3 I O :9.00 E-MAIL TOMS. CAO REGARDING 11090-01360 3224255 09/1612014 Involce097776 C. 10 19.00 08126/2014 0299 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.30 5700 REVIEW CASE DOCKET ANO PREPARE NOTICE REGARDING 110860686 3124204 09118/2014 _ _ Invoke097775 0.30 0100 EW DATES 1322083 00/2612014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF NOTICE REGARDING NEW 11066.0660 09116/2014 Invoice -097775 0.20 41.00 TRIAL DATE AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; CONFER WITH MS AZIZ REGARDING 110860668 '3223010 08/2712014 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.40 104.00 REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON 09/1612014 trwo11.197775 0.40 104.00 004772014 0204 PATRICK K. 8013K0 0.40 104.00 PHONE CALLS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11068-0666 3223124 09/18/2014 InvoIce•107775 0.40 104.00 06/2712014 0299 STEAHANIOCAO 0.40 82.00 ANALYSIS OF 110084066 3229014 00!162014 Invoke•197775 0:40 82.00. IN FURTHERANCE OF DEPOSITION . SCHEDULE STRATEGY; 1 ELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING 08127/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE WITH MS 11086-0680 3229047 06/18(20/4 Invoice -197775 0.10 20.50 A212 AND MESSRS. THORSON AND 908K0 REGARDING 09/2112014 0299 ST2PHANIE CAO 0.80 123.00 ANALYSIS OF FILE ANO PREPARATION OF DEPOSITION 11086-0660 3229059 09/16120(4 Invokr197776 0.60 123.00 MATERIALS REGARDING 00/28/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 000K0 0.50 430.00 DRAFT AND REVISE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL 11006-0898 3223129 09/16/2014 Invole8097775 0.50 130.00 REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE WITI1 OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 09/2012014 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.20 38.30 REVIEW CASE CALENOAR AND E-MAIL TO MS. PETRUSIS 11069-0680 3224347 09/1612014 I0ro10e097170 0.20 36.00 REGARDING 08/28/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.0D 205.00 FACTUAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING 110960688 3220065 08/16/201 4 11y0100.197775 1.00 205.00 ;FURTHER TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING ; PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE MEMORIALIZING : CONFER WITH MR. 808K0 08/28/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 2050 RECEIVE AND REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL 11080-0688 3220079 09/16/2014 Involce.197775 0.10 20.50 FCR EVERGREEN VENTURE REGARDING 3229111 08/912044 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCE FROM 11009.0886 09/16/2014 trtvok$•197176 0.20 41.00 COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURE, INVEST/OATION REGARDING :FURTHER TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 70 COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARD NG Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - (11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC -MARIJUANA VENDOR; Page 15 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3.09:56 PM ;;,,,,q,,,,,:,!:_ !.a.,,:l 0010 74 .hp pl. y_ :. 0290 S:� w:r1. Y4� • �.6it ,4,-...4,),,A4„. i . tt•�':.='[Jtt"..2`, STEPHANIE CAO 1u„i','i 030 ;,� ,19 [� ',I•--X,-0•I'. 61.550 7 ; - rT . y. •... �i 1 ..-9 99•w...t `..;.1t ...' •` � 'v�. J N;:4. ' c:4' aN7�i/' •.:' 1..,.:;; 'i is y;:4•ki. '•, {,' e i y!�,.• •'kms, ... ,L4'„' ' ,. LT 91� '- TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR 11006.0698 3240091 10/1642014 Invoke4198257 0.30 01.50 EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING •PREPARE FOLLOW UP CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING 3240101 09/02/2014 0296 YOUSTINA N. A21Z 0.10 16.03 E-MAIL TO MS. BIGORNIA REGARDING 11c86-096 10/1612014 Invoice•198257 0.10 19.00 09/0312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TC MR. LANKENAU 11006-586 3240953 10/1512014 Involce•196267 0.10 20.50 REGARDING 09/0312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.60 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH MR. GRACIANO 11066.0686 3240954 10/1512014 Invoice=198257 0.10 20.50 REOAROING . 090312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.13 20.60 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO MR. VILLA REGARDING 11088-0800 3240065 10715/2014 Involc44198257 0.10 20.60 09/03/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION TO LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ 11080.0988 3240066 10/15/2014 Invola4196267 0.10 20.50 REGARDING 0904/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR 110660680 3241010 to/15/2019 Invoko•19B257 0.10 20.50 EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING 00/08/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 00000 0.20 52.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11086-0555 3231000 10/16/2014 Invoice=196257 0.20 52.00 09/06/20,4 0298 STEPHANIE CAO 0.13 20.60 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR 110860568 3241065 10/15/2014 Inva0c44190267 0.10 2030 EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING 09/09/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 00600 0.30 78.00 REVIEW LETTER FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL REOARDING 11050-3654 3232549 10/15/2014 lnvolce=100257 0.30 70.00 - . ANALYZE ISSUES REGARDING 09/09/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE AND REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL 11066-0608 3241156 10/15!2014 Invuiw=196251 0.10 20 50 FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING : CONFER WITH MR. 001300 REGARDING 00/10/2014 0204 PATRICK K 80800 020 52.00 REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL 11066.0566 3232557 10/15(2014 Invu04196257 _ 0,20 62.00 REGARDING - REVIEW REVISED DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR CPS'S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED 09/11i2014 0204 PATRICK K. B00KO 2.00 520.00 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11088-0606 3232552 10/15/2014 Inyolce.108257 2.00 520.00 ,--- REVIEW ANO REVISE. FOR REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY. RESEARCH ISSUES CONCERNING RESEARCH CONCERNING 09/1112014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 1.40 257.00 MEET ANO CONFER WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN 110860685 3241210 10/16/2014 Invoice= 108257 1.40 287.00 VENTL RES REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISCOVERY; CONFER WITH M.R. 80800 AND BRIEF LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING 0011/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 0 33 81.501PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO MESSRS. THORSON AND 61.50 80800 REGARDING 11086.0688 3241226 10116/2011 Invoke4196257 09111/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO1.81 1 BO 309.00\CONFER AND STRATEGIZE WiTN MR, 80600 AND MS. 369 00 AZIZ REGARDING 110050686 3241240 10/1642014 Invoice.' 90257 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:1 1086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 I'M Page 1/3 D{In InIUa1a N3rnu,IDv01coNumov- Noujs..i .Af1110Y1N ,,. ••',5..•'I. ./D4• -!1'," ,5 '.. ., .M0104rNumbar: 196ox PREPARE RESPONSE REGARDING EVERGRFON VF NTURF'S PROPOSED ST1PULATION REGARDING THE SAME. FURTHERPREPARATION OF arcs OBJECTION TO _ _ b.V8RGREENS PROPOSED ORDER 09111/2014 0290 YOUSTINA N. AZ1Z 1.60 304.00 REVIEW CASE DOCKET AN0 COURT'S RECORO, 110860688 329/249 10/1512014 Invoice=198257 1.80 309.00/CONFERENCE WITH MR. 1300110 AND MS. CAO REGARDING 09,154014 0298 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ Invoice=196257 0.20 0.20 38.00 38.00 E-MAIL TO COURT REPORTER REGARDING E -MAR TO MS. CAO REGARD,NG 11086 0888 3241292 10/15/2014 001154014 0298 STEPHANIE CAO 0 10 20.50 CONFER WITH MS AZIZ REGARDING 11088-0608 0241347 10/15/2014 19904094198257 0.10 20.50 08/15/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE ANC) REVIEW CORRESPONUENCE FHUM 000NSEL 11086.0686 3241349 101192014 Invoice= 199257 0,10 20.52 FOR EVERGREEN VENTURE'S REOAROING 09/18/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 008110 0.60 156.00 REVIEW MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL 11086-0688 3232991 '0/15/2014 Involve=198257 0.60 155.00 REGARDING ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING REVIEWAND J REVISE MEMORANDUM TO CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING 11086.0888 3233105 09/19/2014 0140 PETER M. THORSON 0.50 130.00 REVIEWEO ISSUES 10/15/2014 Invok49190257 0.50 130.00 09116/2014 0290 YOUSTINA N. AZIZ 0.10 18.00 E-MAIL TO COURT REPORTER REOAROINO 11086-0688 3241327 1011512014 1nvoice• 198257 0.101 19.601 00;1612014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 CONFER WITH MS. AZIZ REGARDING 1, 1086.0668 0241346 10/15/2014 16961669198267 0.10 20.60 09/18/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN 11006.0888 3241350 10/1642014 19401c0.196257 0 10 20-50 VENTURE'S REGARDING 09/18/2014 10/15/2014 STEPHANIE CAO 1.60 326,00 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COLNSEL FOR 11066.0688 3241368 _0299 Inv49c9=198257 1.60 328.00 EVERGREEN REGARDING . ANALYSIS OF CITY'S Cent REGARDING ; CONFER WITH MR, B08I 0 09/16/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 0 10 20,50 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE TO MESSRS. 606110 AND 11088068E 324'350 10/15/2014 Invo;c49196267 0.10 20.50''MORSON REGARDING 09r 712014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50/;ONFER 20.54 WITH MESSRS. THORSON ANO 908K0 REGARDING 11089.0685 3241414 10/1512019 Invoice•108257 0. ID 09/18/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 808K0 0.40 0.40 104.04, 104.001 REVIEW AND ANALYZE EVERGREEN VENTURES' ODJECTION TO CITY'S DEPOSITION NOTICE FOR 110080886 3233028 10/15/2014 Invoice -106257 PERSON IA051 QUALWIED AND 'WRITTEN DISCOVERY 09/1012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 41.00 RECEIVE. REVIEW. ANO ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES' 9PEC'AL INTERROOATORIES 11058.0800 3241544 10/18/2014 134010x•198257 0.20 (SET ONE) TO THE CITY; ANALYSIS REGARDING 09118/2014 C299 STEPHANIE Can 0.30 61.50 RECEIVE, REVIEW. AND ANALYSIS CF D_FENDANT 11058.0866 0241546 10/15/2014 Involc99198257 0.30 81.60 EVERGREEN VENTURES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) TO THE CITY: ANALYSIS -_ REGARDING ._.---- 08/18/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0 20 41.00 RECEIVE, REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANT 11086.0686 3241550 10/154019 I099Io0-19625T 0.20 4100 EVERGREEN VENTURES' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET - -- --- ONE) TO THE CITY: ANALYSIS REGARDING 09/1812014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE, REVIEW. ANO ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANT 11088 0598 324,551 10/15/2014 Involca44190257 0.10 20.50 EVERGREEN VENTURES' FORM INTERROGATORIES (BET ONE) TO THE CI TY; ANALYSIS REGARDING Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Clien1:11066 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 17 Dale InIll4i0 .. N0ei141,4m0.1.4e jtiiOit .N. '" . 14noyeL.' . 'Dli4eriplkwl' .. :. . - ilii iti4061m. . . .171041 • 0911812014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE AND REVIEW DEFENDANT EVERGREEN 110060680 3241556 101.5!2014 Involce.198257 0.10 20.60 VENTURES' OBJECTIONS TO CITY'S DEPOSITION NOTICE OF PERSON MOST OWtUFIED TO TESTIFY ON 0EI4ALF OF EVERGREEN 09(1912014 0204 PATRICK K. 800K0 4.10 1.560 Ott REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE AND EX PARTE APPLICATION 110680680 3233220 10/15)2014 tt1v01co-196267 -.10 1,266.00 FRCM EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING RESEARCH REGARDING AND DRAFT AND REVISE LETTER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING RESEARCH ISSUES REGARDING ANO DRAFT AND REVISE OPPOSITION . PHONE CALLS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 00110.2014 0133 T. PCTER PIERCE 0.50 190.00 6TRATEOIZE W,TN MR. BOBKO REGARDING 11096.C868 5234942 10/15/2014 Invoke.190207 0.60 130.00 0011912014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO Involco.198257 0 10' 0.101 20 50 20.60 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR 11086 C685 p241007 1011612014 EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING 001(012014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 1.70 348.60 RECEIVE AND REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11000.0680 3241678 10/16/2019 " uwoIc .196267 1.70 346.60 COUNSEL'S EX PARTE NOTICE REGARDING CONTINUANCE " OF CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CONFER '-` WITH MR 800K0; ANALYSIS OF FILE AND PREPARE DECIARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OF T P- EVERGREEN'S EX PARTE APPLICATION 0911912014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 3.60 779.00 RECEIVE AND REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' FX PARTE 110860600 3241586 10/15/2014 Invoke•190251 3.80 779.00 APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON THE _ CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: ANALYSIS OF AND PREPARE -^ OPPOSITION TO EVERGREENS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE: COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGRFEN REGARDING- - - 09120/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOOKO 0.40 104 00 RESEARCH REG.4ROlNG 110880580 3233226 10115/2014 Inv01c6.186257 0.40 104.00 ANO ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 00,20/2014 0149 PETER M. THORSON 0.50 130.00 REVIEWED LITIGATION ISSUES 110660866 3234280 10/154014 Inv5ice= 198257 0.50 130,00` 092012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.1 20.60 CONFER WITH MESSRS. 1HORSON AND (OBKO REGARDING 11080.0680 3241646 I- 10/15/2014 Invoice=198257 0.1 20.50 09/22/2014 0289 STEPHANIE CAO 0.50 102.60 FACTUAL INVESTIGATION OF FILE ANO TELEPHONE 11000-0808 3241081 10/15/2014 Involce.198267 0.50 102.00 COMMUNICATION WITH MR. GRACIANO. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT REGARDING 00/23/2014 0298 ITEPHANIE CAO 0 30 01.50 ANALYSIS OF FILE .AND TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 110880600 3241693 10,152014 Invoke. -190257 0 30 81.50 WITH MS. BOARD REGARDING 09(242014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 2.20 451 00,ANALYSIS OF FILE MATERIALS AND COMMENCE 11080-0000 3241894 1011512014 Invoice=108261 2.201 451.00 ..- 36/25/2514 0204 PATRICK K.150800 0.70 102.00ANALYZE ISSUES AND PREPARE FOR DEPOSITION Of 11088-0888 0234302 10116/2014 Involce,198257 0 1D 182.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES' PERSON MOST QUALIFIED 09(25/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 5001(0 0 10 26.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 110300080 '3234313 10/152014 lnvalc6•198261 0.10 26.00 0902912014 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 11 80 208.00 CONFERENCE WITH MR. t300K0 AND MS. CAO REGARDING 11786.0688 3234990 10,1512014 InvEIC0=196257 0,80 20000 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:11080 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1120/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 18 OL19 `' .fowl:. .. 'k�°0}t• +s' Nole1. \Ani9nt t.{ .,/ 111A4pl 17§* Muiber., e Id1• 09125/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 3.60 711.50 REPARE FOR AND MEETING WITH MESSRS. PIERCE AND 11089-0638 3241910 101162014 Invoicea196267 3.50 7/7.50 BOBKO REGARDING : CONTINUE PREPARATION OF DEPOSITION MATERIALS 09/26/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 8001(0 0.40 104.00 • ALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11086-0686 3234382 101162014 lovoie4=198267 0.40 104.00 09128/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 8.00 1.040.00 PREPARE MATERIALS, APPEAR FOR AND ATTEND 110880880 3241951 (011512014 invoice=598267 8.00 1,84000 DEPOSITION OF EVERGREEN VENTURE'S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED 0912712014 0299 STEPHANIE CAC 180 289.00 ANALYSIS OF VOLUMINOUS CITU DOCUMENTS AND 11088.0686 3242200 10/15/20'.4 Irvo1c4=198267 1.00 369.00 CORRESPONDENCE IN FURTHERANCE OF RESPONSE TO EVERGREEN VENTURES' INITIAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 674 00 09,26/2014 0299 S I EPHAN(E CAO 2.80 PREPARE CITY'S RESPONSE TO EVERGREEN VENTURES' 110866688 3242118 10/16/2014 Involoe•198267 2.50 674.00 FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMOER ONE) 3236643 08/29/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 80BK0 0 20 6200 RE'VIE'W CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL 11056-0696 10/1542014 9vo4c9.198257 0.20 62.00 REGARDING ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 0949/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAD 0 10 20.50 COMMUNICATION WITH COURT REPORTER REGARDING 110600688 3242016 10/15/2014 I0v04c9198257 0.10 20.50.. 0812012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN 11088.0888 3242018 10/15/2014 Involrea190257 0.20 41.00 VENTURE REGARDING 09/29/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 102.60 RECEIVE AND REVIEW ROUGH ORAFT TRANSCRIPT OF 110680698 3242036 10/15!4014 Inv6lc4•198257 - -• • •-- 0.50 102,50 DEPOSITION OF EVERGREEN VENTURE'S PERSON MOST OUALIFIEO; CONFER WITH MR 000150 0.207 41.00 ANALYSIS OF 11080.0086 3242067 09/29/2014 0289 $1EPHANIECAO 10/15/2014 invoice=195257 0.201 41.03 : REV1EW STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 03128/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAC 3.301 675.60 PREPARE CITY'S RESPONSE TO EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11088.0686 3242201 10116/2014 Invoice=198287 3.30 976.59 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE) 09/29/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.50 512 50 PREPARE RESPONSE TO 600u96' FOR PRODUCTION OF 11066.0638 3242292 10/15/2014 Invcice198257 2.50 512 50 DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED B1' DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES TO CITY (SET ONE/ 00/30/20/4 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE WITH 11066.0668 3242087 10/1512014 0vo1ce•106257 0.10 20,60 TEMECULA OFFICE SPECIALIST REGARDING N FURTHERANCE OF CITY'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES 09/30/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN 110660668 3242085 10»6/2014 Invoke•198257 0.10 20.60 VENTURES REGARDING 00130/2014 0295 STEPHANIE CAO 2.90 594.50 REVIEW OF RECENTLY RECEIVED CITY DOCUMENTS 11006.0888 3242090 10/16/2014 Invoice=198267 2.90 594.50 REGARDING FOR RELEVANCY. RESPONSIVENESS, ANO PRIVILEGED MATERIAL 09/3012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.00 410.60 FURTHER PREPARATION OF CITY'S RESPONSE TO 11088-0888 3242202 10/15/2014 Invoice•195257 2.00 410.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (EFT NUMBER ONE) 09/3012014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.70 346.50 PREPARE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 110860508 3242263 10/15!20/4 Invo,ce=100267 1.70 3413 50 PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES TO -- CITY (SET ONE) -- - ..-.-----! 10172/2014 0204 PATRICK K.808150 010 20.10 REVIEW TRANSCRIPT Of PROCEEDINGS FROM 11008-0680 3237110 Billed and Jnbilled Recap OT Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Page 19 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Dale ioillele ',.mol lnvolu NumOir 140.411 Amount Oeeal4tlon Ma1Iof Numbol IIOei 11 /1 212 01 4 Invoke•198708 0 10 26.00 OEFENOANT S 0% PARTE APPLICATION 10(0212014 0204 PATRICK K. 6081(0 0 10 2600 REVIEW NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER PROVIDED RV 11088 Pan 3237111 1111212014 Invoice=106708 0 10 2,; 00 COURT CLERK 325354? 10102/2014 0298 YOUST INA N. AZIZ 0.20 36.00 REVIEW TRANSCRIPT OF AUGUST 25, 2014 HEARING 11066.0680 11/12/2014 Invoka•100708 0.20 35.00 AND E-MAIL TO MR. D08KOAND MS. CAO REGARDING 10105(20148590 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 62.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO EVERGREEN 11066.0885 3245754 11112(2014' Involce•196708 0.40 0200VENTURES' INITIAL SET 67 WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO ' THE CITY; CONFER WITH MR 8081(0 REGARDING 1010812014 0204 PATRICK K. 0061(0 1.80 678.00 REVIEW AND REVISE CITY'S RESPONSES TO EVERGREEN 11066-0688 3244581 11/122014 Invoke4198708 2 60 678.00 VENTURES' WRITTEN DISCOVERY (DOCUMENT ,---- PRODUCTIONS, INTERROGATORIES. REQUESTS FOR ADMI6610N8, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES). RESEARCH REGARDING /0/0812014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.53 RECEIVE. AND REVIEW 8ORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL 11086-0566 3245700 t /112/2014 involcc=198708 0.101 22 501 FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES REGARDING / 76/07/2014 0140 PETFR M. THCRSON 1.20' 312.00 REVIEWED ANO ANALYZED LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING 11060-0686 3245325 1'02/2014 InvoIco=198706 ' .20 312.00 10(07/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.101 346.50IANALY6IS OF FILE IN PREPARATION OF 71088.0506 3246773 11112/20(4 1nv00=198708 1.7Y 346.60 1 . PREPARATION OF MEMORANDUM REGARDING 11056.0688 13245751 10107/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 1.001 205 00 ANALYSIS OF 11112,2014 Invmce=190706 1.00 205.00 ; PREPARE MEMORANDUM REGARDING l 010772014 3290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.80[ 123.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO 11028-0096 3245704 11112/2014 Invoice -108708 0.907 123.00 FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE( PROPOUNDED BY CvrRGREEN VENTURES 10/07120014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO Involve•198700 1.00 1.60 369.00 309.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED 0Y 11086.0660 r 3245785 11(132014 EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/07/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 0.70 143.50 FURTHER PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR 110860886 3216787 11/12/2011 Invoke•198706 0.70 143.50 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED 9Y DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES (SET ONE) 10108/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE WITH MS. 11008.0686 3248606 11/122014 Involve -196700 0.10 20.50 80N60 REGARDING Billed and Unbilled Recap Df Time Detail - 01086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:11066 - GTY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 20 qui 15161 ts• e • ' %Hq!0 dula�r fT.- r . :, Noyli}!' • AmQtill�`I" _1 i..., . I/ •7;1i 4..: - i 1`)t:1C•``7ffllltt (�-, 4 :,�5 ��^ ,• .� .. i�: 'Atli. IIM s.e... r.. a ~ .. ' • IL�,UOKi. r 10l06F2014 0299 ST IE CAO 0.40 82.00 CcM urac TION WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING 1"085-0688 3248868 61/1212014 Invo:ce•196768 0.40 82.00 ---. •010812014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 020 4f 00 ANALYSIS co-- 16066.0666 3246672 '1/1212014 h volco4196706 5.20 41 00 - 1 10/0812014 0299 STEPHANIE GAO 0.10 20 50 ELECTRONIC CORRESPONOENCE TO MR. 808140 1108130668 3248093 11112,2014 Invoice 190706 0.10 20.50 REGARDING • 0204 10/09/2014 PATRICK K. 60060 1.40 364.00 REVIEW AND REVISE CITY'S R98PONSES 70 CPS'S 110884886 3245044 11/12/2014 Invok4.196708 1.40 364.00 DISCOVERY REQUESTS (REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND .- SPECIAL INTERROGATORICS). REVIEW DOCUMENT PRODUCTION TO EVERGREEN VENTURES. TRIAL PREPARATION 10109)2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 REVIEW 0• FILO ANO CONFER WITH MR. 9OOK0 11086.0686 3240731 1111212014 Irwo166.196706 0.10 20.50 REGARDING 10106/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.70 143.50 CONTINUE PREPARATION OF CITTS RESPONSE TO 11086.0668 3240732 11012)3014 Invoice -193706 0.701 142.50 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNOED BY DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SET ONE) AND CONFER WITH MR. OOOKC REGARDING 10(0912014 ' 0299 STEPHANIE CAO- 3.00 515.00 CONTINLJE PREPARATION OF COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE 11088-0606 2240733 11/12/2014 Irwa5244196706 3 00 01500 TO FORM INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED SY DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SET ONE): CONFER WITH MR. 808140 REGARDING 10/10/2014 0204 ' PATRICK K 006160 0.20 52.00 REVIEW ANO REVISE DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO CPS 11086.0566 9245406 11)12/2014 I1wcice=198706 0.20 52.00 10/10/201 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.70 143.60 CONTINUE PREPARATION OF CITY'S RESPONSES TO 11066-0668 2246767 1 111 2/2 014 34w/140.108708 /140.108708 0.70 143.60 EVERGREEN VENTURES' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET NUMBER ONE) 10/1312014 0204 PATRICK K. 00060 0.50 130.00 REVIEW AND REVISE CITY'S RESPONSES TO 111088-0888 3245418 11112/2014 Invok8 IO8IO6 0.601 130.00 OEFENDANT'S WRITTEN DISCOVERY 10/1 3/2014 D204 PATRICK K. BOOK() 0.30)) 76.00 ANALYZE ISSUES RELATED TO 11088.0686 3245417 11112/2014 Invo/ce•198706 0.30 78.00 11086-0688 3248760 10/1312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.10 225.507FURTHER PREPARATION OF R0860048E TO REQUEST FOR 11/1212014 Invdc84189706 1.10 229.50 ADMISSIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES (SET ONE) 0.20 41.0$ PREPARE VERIFICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF ALL RESPONSES TO INITIAL SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY 11085-0605 3248761 10/13/2014 9299 STEPHANIE CAV 11/12/2014 Invd04608706 020 41.00 PROPOUNDED BY EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/1312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 123.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF PERTINENT PRETRIAL DATES 11086.0666 3240763 11/1212014 Invoke -198700 0.60 123.00 AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES IN PREPARATION OF TRIAL: CONFER WITH MR. 608140 REGARDING 10113)2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.70 143.50 COMMUNICATION WITH CITY MANAGERS' OFFICE 11000.0600 3240704 11/1212014 Invoice:199708 0.70 143.50 REGARDING 10/1312014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0,10 20.50 COMMUNICATION WITH COURT REGARDING 11088.0668 3248765 1111212014 InvOI1)e•198706 0.10 20.60 ' Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - (11088-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Page 21 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Date I • r 14•itoViAdNumber .i4 •Hui ' M1dlfl�t C 1i` p•crlptl00 ... , - - �I 14•:Humber. .Indiil4. NEB MEM 10/14/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO t 02.rr FURTHER COMMUNICATION WITH COURT REOAROING 11066-0888 248775 t0/14/2014 - IMMO NEM 0299 Invoke=198708 0.40 8? 00 STEPHANIE CAO EMI 0 60 060 - IIIIIIIII IIIIMM IIIIIIILEIEIMANALYSIS MUM OF COURT ORDER REGARDING NEw MO -ION FOR SUMMARY JUOOMEN7 DATE AND COMMUNICATION 11006.0098 3246;80 11/12/20' 4 _ Invake•198706 ITH COUNSEL FOR PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING 1 INIIIIII NM OMNI • 10/1512014 0204 PATRICK K. 808K0 0.40 104.00 REVIEW AND REVISE CRY'S WRITTEN RESPONSES TO 11086.0084 246236 11/1212014 Invoice•190708 0.40 104.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES' DISCOVERY, CORRESPONDENCE _ ITH CITY STAFF REGARDING - 10/1512014 0204 PATRICK K 800KO 1.50 390 00 ANALYZE ISSUES RELATED TO C'TY'S MOTION FOR 11CH-0895 • -Invoke-198708 1.60 390.00 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EVERGREEN VENTURES' PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. RESEARCH ANO ANALYZE MIMI 10,1512014 0187 Il. TILDEN KIM 0.20 62.00 MEET WITH MR. 8001(0 REGARDING 11086.0608 3247259 II=I Invoice•106706 0.20 62.00• MEN MEM M 0209 STEPHANIE CAO ® 307.50 CONFER WITH MR. 6081(0 REGARDING 11000-0068 3248789 IIIMEEMEIMMInvoice•198705 INIMEIIIIMMM 10/1512014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 PREPARE 1401100 OF ORDER TO CONTINUE I IEARINO ON 11000.0000 4246798 11/12/2014 Involce•198706 0.24 11.00 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IIMMEll _� r ' ®E4 MEM M 0299 STEPHANIE C 0 COMMUNICATION WITH ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER 11066-0098 3248801 Mv0lce•198706 1111111123 -_ 1 REGAROING - CONTINUE - PREPARATION Of DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO INITIAL SET OF DISCOV9 Y FROM EVERGREEN VENTURES _ MEN 10/16/20,4 0204 PATRICK K. 8081(0 0.30 73.00 RESEARCH ISSUES 11080-0608 3240262 11/12/2014 Involc••198706 0.30 78.00 10/16/2414 0208 STEPHANIE CAO 1) ,)0 102.50 FACTUAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING 11088-0586 3248804 11/1I(2014 Invdra=108106 0.50 102.60 AND COMMUNICATION WITH _ LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ REGARDING 1•0n612014 STEPHANIE CAO MEM 0.70 FACTUAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING 11088.0068 3248800 � INOU - hlvolce=198708 0.70 -- : C+MMUNICATION WITH ITY PLANNER AND HILLCREST ACADEMY REGARDING B lied and Unbillod Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 22 D1io In!Uile Milile%I6vokvi.NUMee7 •.1.144lif••` 1010.J'.r -•,•I( S" •0. •4?:_ _ •, ..- •ItiIIsr Numbir i.' 800K0 REGARDING t 1086000 3240809 '16116/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0 10 20,50 CONFtl4 WITH MR. 11/1212014 Ywo4...198700 0.10 20.50 11086.0688 3248010 10/1812014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 030 61.60 FINALIZE RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET 11/12/2014 In oce-198706 030 61.50 14UM8ER ONE) PROPOUNDED BY EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/1612014 0200 STEPHANIE CAD 0.80 123.00 fINAIJZE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 11080.0088 3248811 129.00 (SET 'VENTURES KAISER ONE) PROPOUNDED BY EVERGREEN _ 111/2/2014 hw64ce• 2416706 000 10/1812014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 FINALIZE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 110086-0688 3246812 11/1202014 Invo ce=190706 0.20 41.00 (SET N/XA0ER ONE) PROPOUNDED BY EVERGREEN VENTURES 10,1612014 0206 STEPHANIE CAO 0.80 104.00 FINALIZE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 11086.0668 3246813 11/1272014 Involce=198706 0.90 164.00 DOCUMENTS (SET NUMBER ONE) PROPOUNDED BY EVERGREEN VENTURES 1011712014 0299 SIEPHAr4IE CAO 0 ID 20.60 COMMUNICATION WITH LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ 11006 0699 3248853 11(12(2014 Invoice= i98706 0.10 20.60 REGARDING 10/17/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 2050 REVIEW UPDATE FROM LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ 110660908 3240002 11112/2014 Invoice=198706 0.10 20.30 REGARDING 10/2012014 0299 S"EPI-IAMIE CAO 0.10P 20 50iCOMMLNICATIDN WITH LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ 1200E 0696 3249881 1 111 212 01 4 Invoice.1139706 0.10 20 50 REGARDING 0.30 61.60(CONTINUE 10/20/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO FACTUAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING 11080.0688248627 11/12/2014 Inv 31ca='90706 0.30 01.50 AND COMMUNICATION WITH HILLCREST ACADEMY REGARDING 10/20(2014 0290 STEP, IANIE CAO Invoice+190706 0.20 0 20 41.0011V4ALY818 41.00 OF AND COMMUNICATION WITH MR. 110050886 3248078 11/12/2014 FISK REGARDING 10/30/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAC 0.40 87 CO CQMIAUNICATION W177( MR. HORSEMAN REGARO94G 11006.0686 3246079 11/12/2014 Inv01ce.196708 0.40 02.00 10720/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO. 1.10 225.50 ANALYSIS OF FILE MATERIALS REGARDING '11080-0680 3240801 11/12/2014 1nvolce=198706 I/O. 226.50 IN PREPARATION OF TRIAL MATORtAL, PREPARE MEMORANDUM REGARDING 10/21/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR PROPERTY OWNER 110060088 3248984 11/12,2014 01/0)4=108709 0.20 41.00 REGARDING 10/21/2014 0599 STEPHANIE CAO 0.90 194.50 FACTUAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING 11066 0096 3240803 -1 11 212 01 4 Invoice -198700 0.90 104,50 COMMUNICATION WITH ft VBRSICE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' OFFICE AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT -. ADMINISTRATION REOAROING 1012172014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00, PREPARE FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET MAWR ONE) 110050680 3240096 110212014 11001642.196708 0.20 41.00 TO EVERGREEN VENTURES 3240097 10(21/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 1.10 225.50 PREPARE SPECIA/ INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER 11088-0680 11/12/2014 Inwtcc•198706 1.10 225.50 ONE) TO PROPOUND UPON EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/21/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.60 COMMUNICATION WITH ,MEAD OF HiLLC REST ACADEMY 11080.0680 3248898 11/1212014 Invoice=190706 0.10 20.50 AND PROPERTY AT ISSUE 10(21/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.80 164.00 PREPARE FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO 11088-6688 3246900 1111202014 Invoice -/98700 0.80 104.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/21/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.70 143.60 PREPARE FIRST SET OF REOUeeSTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 110600986 3248001 11/12/2014 Invelce•188709 0.70 140.00 DOCUMENTS T0EVERGREENVENTURES 11006.0008 3248902 . 10121/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 030 81 *PREPARE DECLARATION Or CHRISTOPHER LINCOLN Billed and Unbilled Recap 01 Time Detail - ;11086-0613S - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client 11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:00:56 PM Page 23 Due .. .46.!;411;:- .'y6 116yb1ft. Anal Houn •.'Ain9uni:... 61.50 .. ;L . 4; : • 044CS1694"_ .. M.iI4/NVAb4t ..1•100( 777175-571- ld Invoke=198708 030 _ . REGARDING 10/21/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 1.70 U40.50 ANALYSIS OF VOLUMINOUS DECLARATIONS OF 110110.6688 3248904 11/12/2014 Involc4=199706 1.70 348 50 DISPENSARY CUSTOMERS IN SUPPORT OF DISPENSARY AND LEGAL RESEARCH REOARDINO - - - - - - - 10122,2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 2.00 520.00 REVIEW ANO REVISE WRITTEN DISCOVERY FOR 11086.0689 3246938 11/12/3014 100,04c40190700 200 520.00 EVERGREEN VENTURES. REVIEW NOTICE FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT OF DISCHARGE ANO ANALYZE .7 ISSUES REGAROINO . REVIEW DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT FOR EVERGREEN VENTURES PERSON M051 QUAL IF 1E0 10/2212014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 70.501 FINALIZE FORM NTERROGATORIES (SET NUME) BER ON 11088-0388 3248939 11/12/2014 Invoic6.1913700 _lat. 2u' 50I TO EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/22/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 0. 0.21 41.00 41.00 FINALIZE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NLMMER ' 1006.0808 3248940 11112/2014 Invoice 196706 ONE) TO EVERGREEN VENTURES 10/22/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAC 0.20 41.00 FINALIZE REQUESTS 00R ADMISSIONS (SET NUMBER 11006.3688 3240941 11/1242014 Invoke=196708 F 0.71 41 00 TO EVERGREEN VENTURES 110880688 3248942 I0NE) 10122/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 81.50 FINALIZE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 11/1212014 Invoke+190708 0.3of 81 53 (SET NUMBER 044E) TO OVEROREEN VENTURES 10/24/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 600800 0.40j 104.00 REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 11088.0980 32409'.0 11112)2014 Nwo(ee• 198106 0.401 104,00 OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED. PROVIDE TO CITY ATTORNEY 10/2412014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR DRUG EWORCEMENT 11080-0668 3240984 11/12/2014 Invoke+199706 0.10 20.50\ ADMINISTRATION REGARDING 10124/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0 10 20.50 COMMUNICATION WITH HEAD OF SCHOOL AT HILl.CREST 11086-0688 3248905 11112/2014 Nvolcb• 198708 0.10 20.50 ACADEMY REGARDING 10/24/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.30r 216.30 ANALYSIS OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF EVERGREEN 110000800 3248090 11/12/2014 Invoice•18870a 1.201. 248.10 VENTURES' PERSON M08T QUALIFIED (PAGES 1461 AND PREPARE MEMORANDUM /0124/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO f- 0.10 20.5D RECEIVE AN0 REVIEW NOTICE OF 0EPOSITION OF 110884680 32490/0 11/12/2014 1/1.9441=196700 0.10 20.50 PERSON MOST QUALIFIED FOR CITY OF TEMECULA 0.10 20.50' FURTHER COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR DRUG 11608.0800 32490.5 19,27/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 11(12/2014 Invoke=198706 0.10 2050 ENFORCEMENT ACMINIS1 RATION REOAROING 10/28/2014 0204 PATRICK K.808K0 04Q 104,001 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11085.0808 324708'. 11/12/2014 Invoce+198709 0 4. 104.00" ANO REVIEW CORRESPONOENCE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 10126,2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50ANALY6160F 11086-0588 3249002 11/12/2014 Inv)Jce 198700 0.10 20.50 10128/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 3.30 51.504 ONFER WITH MR. 1308800 REGARDING 110950688 3249100 1 1/1 27201 4 Invoce-190708 . 30 91.50 10/2972014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 0 20 41 00 COMMUNICATION MATH MR. FISK REGARDING 11088.0680 3249102 11(12/2014 1949k6e(99706 0 20 41.00 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - 01086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENOOR) Client 11086 - CITY OF TEMECJLA 1/20/2015 3.09:56 PM Page 24 IIIINIU.:i..NRJ114AyM1V �;.... �Iq N�lrtlpal..; 11:HOYfa'. :. r 3•.. 1V.)-. • ,Y... '.ga4al�vn •. ' ti :. :<•�ln•. .�i.:Vl$;i .. ,.,'el., ...�.., • .. •:.oti•}•: :, IM106R' : .} r..-. ;JI• C '09 STEPHANIE CAO 030 61.60 PREPARE RESPONSE TO COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN 110664666 3249103 11/1212014 Invoke•198706 0.30 81,50 TURES TO EVERGREENS 0EPOSIT/ON NOTICE OF - PERSON MOST OLALIFIEO FOR THE CITY Qli• 11112/2014 0299 Invoke•108708 STEPHANIE CAO MICE Ems= COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR PROPERTY OWNER 11096.0688 3249193 iac4MEEK] -MN Mi . MIEMIIIIICIM 1111111111 0 50 REGARDING 41.5 130 10129(20)4 ®- 0299 STEPHANIE CAO Invoke=198700 PATRICK K. 60860 COMMUNICATION WTH MR FIEK REGARDING 110860688 249195 10/302014 0204 REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11088.0686 2240440 111.12!2014 Invoke• 196706 0.50 130.00 JUDGMENT AND PROVIDE TO CITY 10/3- 0 -PATRICK TTORNEY K. BOBKO 0 1 28 00 REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING 1/0963688 248441 11/12/2014 Involce•198708 0.1• 2600' . . .. • . ..._ . ---- i0/30/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.1•' 20.`0 COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR PROPERTYOWNER 11006-0886 3249266 11/12/2014 Invoice=198705 0.1 20.50 REGARDING MEM ili 81 CO 10/30/20140299 STEPHANIE CAO RECEIPT ,ANO REVIEW OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11008-0000 11/12/2014 Inv0944,108700 0.4 • 82,00 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT •� 11/S2/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO Involce•188708 0.20 41.00 41.00 RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11060.0688 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FUR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13/30/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.21 41.00 RF.CF.IPT AND REVIEW OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11080 0658 3249272 11/12/2014 Invoice=196708 0.20 4'..01 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION - FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10/30/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' 110860680 3240273 11/12/2014 Invcice=194700 0.10111111112MREUUE2T EMI . 16 --_SUMMARY MINI ® 1.70 n 001RECEIPTAND 4 I 346.60 FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS 00104 F OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11086.0808 10130/2014 11/12/2014 �� STEPHANIECAO Inv01Ce=198706 REVIEW OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' MEM PROPOSED ORDER IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 11/12/2014 - .• Invoice•108706 JUDGMENT ' ALY5IS 00 11066.0688 3249205 - ANO COMPLETE MEMORANDUM ®" 0.10 20.50 ' 1131E101® ERE= STEPHANIE CAO ONFER WITH MR. 808K0 REGARDING 11066-0660 3249296 = 10/31/2014 0 99 - STEPHANIE CAO Invoice=190708 �" MEM �+' 20 50 COMASLLNICATION WIT/, COUNSEL FOR EVERGREEN 110660688 3249298 11112/2014 VENTURES' COUNSEL_ REGARDING OMME 10131/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.60 106.00 REVIEW DEPOSITION SUMMARY OF CPS'S PERSON MOST 11096-0006 3250499 11/12/2014 Invcice=195708 060 156 00 QUALIFIED 111=21131.213M 12/17/2014 PATRICK K. BOOKO 0.20 62.00 REVIEW EVERGREEN'S REVISED DEPOSITION NOTICE 11086-0888 257328 Invoice.' 69405 0.20 52 CO FOR CITY'S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED 11/04/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 FOLLOW-UP COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR DRUG 11080.0088 267020 12/17/2014 Invoice=199405 0.10 20.50 ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION REGARDING 11/04/2014 MIMI 02gg STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE ANC REVIEW FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF 11088.0688 9267029 12/17/1014 Inv.:80•199405 0.10 20.50 DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED FOR CITY OF TEMECLLA _ 11/04/2014029g STEPHANIE CAO URTHER COMMUNICATION WITH OFFICE MANAGER AT 110800668 3267030 I2/17/2011 Invoice=19840; ' ILLCREST ACADEMY REGARDING - 0.20 52 00 110860688 3257337 11705/2.014 0204 PATRICK K. 80060 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY STAFF Involce=199405 . 1 5200 Billed and UnbIlled Recap Of Time Detail - [1 1086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR} Cllcnl:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 25 00s Tr•,Wal.` , f, �-,s:1.T'. •., _or 1.11j4o(S0 Num 1 -j '2, Hoq -'A019r, I•t ;t' ;.14 1i�; �1 1A '.: ... w .A, :•I_ ,, r i a 14. ';• • :: . Matter Numbef "`Indow 3267075 11/05/7014 2117014 0.299 STEPHANIE CAO 0 20 1+ COMMUNMCATTON WITH HILLCREST ACADEMY REGARDING 11086-0888 Inv -804109405 - 0.20 41.00 IMMO 11405/2014 0280 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 2050 COMMUN.CArION WMTH MR FISK REGAROING 1/066008B 1211 712 01 4 Invmce•199405 0.10 20.50 11108/20140209 STEPHANIE CAO 1 70 34650 PREPARE COMPREHENSIVE OBJECTIONS TO EVERGREEN I tooe.ction 207136 1211112014 1/949.199405 1 70 348 54 VENTURES' FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION NOTICE OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED FOR CITY OF TEMECULA 11/0112014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO MIE ME MENPERSON 62,00 82.00 - FINALIZE COMPREHENSIVE OBJECTIONS TO EVERGREEN '1086.0689 12/17/2014 Invoke=100405 VENTURES' FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION NOTICE OF MOST QUALIFIED FOR CITY OF TEMECULA ANO E REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS � 0.50 11/09/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO REVIEW OF HILLCREST ACADEMY RECOROS AND FURTHER 11060.0688 3261100 12417/2014 - lnvolcs.10940` 0.50 102.50 PREPARATION OF DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER LINCOLN (HEAD CF HILLCREST ACADEMY) IN 11/1112014 MM. ME 0204 --PREPARATION IIIII.1 OF TRIAL MATERIALS PATRICK K.8O8K0 0.80 208.... PREPARE FOR MEETING WITH STUART FISK IN 11088.0668 32d/329 12/17/2014 Involco=190405 0-80 208.0 PREPARATION FOR HIS DEPOSITION A5 THE CITY'S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED LIMIlpirm.PATRICK IMMO-Involce•109405 K. 008K0 4.1 4.101 1 066 00 050.09 MEETING AT TEMECULA TO PREPARE CITY'S PERSON 110860000 MOST QUALIFIED FOR DEPOSITION 11/12/2014 0239 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20:50 FOLLOW-UP COMMUNICATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF 11095.0008 3201316 INALEIDI Invoice=199405 0.10 20.50 JUSTICE REGARDING DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INFORMATION AS 10 DISPENSARY IN PREPARATION OF MIMITRIAL 11/1 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.1 20.50 FOLLOW-UP COMMUNICATION WITH LIEUTENANT 110860608 3107310 12/1712014 _ Invok09093405 0.11 --DISPENSARY 20.60 HERNANDEZ REGARDING CONTROLLED PURCHASE AT IN PREPARATION OF TRIAL 11/14120/4 0204 PATRICK K. 809K0 8,00 2,236.00 PREPARE FOR OEP0SIT10N OF CITY'S PERSON MOST 11080-0660 3281357 1 2111/2 01 4 Involce=199405 8,00 2,236.00 QUALIFIED AND DEFEND DEPOSITION IN MURIETTA 1111412054 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 123.00 ' NALYSIS OF FILE AND ISSUES ATTENDANT TO 11086 OMB 12/17/20'4 _Invok9=199405 ®a.= =-TESTIFY 0.90 104,50 DEPOSITION OFCITYSPERSON MOST QUALIFIED TO LEGAL RESEARCH REOAROINO PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE 3487439 0299 STEPHANIE CAO /1114/2014 11086.0980 12/1712014 Invoice=199405 0.90 184.50 CLAIM IN PREPARATION OF TRIAL 11/5/20140299 STEPHANIE CAO MIMI REVIEW UEPOSYRON TRANSCRIPT DF CITY'S PERSON 11086-0680 3267440 Involce=199405 0.00 104.50 war aUAUFIED TO TESTIFY 1111712014 0204 PATRICK K. 00BK0 0.80 206.00 SUMMARIZE NOTES AND TESTIMONY FROM FISK 11066-0688 3282' 15 12/17/2014 I0volce4199405 1 1 206.00 DEPOSITION - 11/1 0204 PATRICK K BOOKO 2.80 876.00 RESEARCH. DRAFT. AND REVISE LITIGATION STATUS 11088.0886 3282110 1 2/47/2014 Involce=599405 2.60 876.00 REPORT AND DEPOSITION SUMMARIES FOR CITE' _ A'T'ORNEY 11/17/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 606140 0.10 26.00 REVIEW DECLARATION FROM PRINCIPAL AT HILLCRES' 11066.0066 3262117 12117/2014 Invoice= 199405 0.10 26 00 SCHOOL _ ' 11 12117/2014 I'-' STEPHANIE CAC InvO)c1 189405 0.20 111.1:121111.3001SPOSITIVE -_ 41.00 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ATTENDANT TO PENOING 110880606 MOTION AGAINST DISPENSARY IN FURTHERANCE OF LITIGATION STRATEGY 11/1712014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 FURTHER PREPARATION OF MEMORANDUM TO MR. 11008-0008 3207490 12/1112014 Mvol e-199405 0.10 20,50 THORSON REGARDING STATUS OF 1 171GATION -- 11/18/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH V IILLCREST ACADEMY /1006.0626 i1 12/17/2014 - Nvol94-199405 0.10 20.50 REGARDING DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER LINCOLN 11120/2014 0204 PATRICK 10.8091<0 0.30 78.00 REVIEW DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT FOR STUART 015K 11000-0086 4202165 12117/2014 /n4 -0i084199405 030 70.00 11,20/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO ®' 1 20.00 1 20.60 COMMUNICATION TO COUNSEL FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT 11086-0600 3267614 1211712014 Invoi69.199405 ADMINISTRATION REGARDING POTENTIAL RAID AT pilled and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0686 - 000P. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 26 Da14 1614 .47'L.�11,. •.�, w . . Amou it 17:1'.4.7� '. '` ( 11� .�i:s�, ^'ye:; 1`NR�if Nuln6�7 ' ' IBA�z, 11/218014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE WITH COUNSEL FOR 1 10660588 3267697 12/17/2014 Invoice -199405 0.10 20.50 PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING 11124/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 2.30 59800 REVIEW DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES OPPOSITION 110060660 3262700 12/77/2074 Invoice=109405 2.30 598.00 TO CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASSCC1ATEDDOCUMENTS. RESEARCH REGARDING 11/24/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0./0 20,50 COMMUNICATION WITH COUNSEL FOR PROPERTY OWNER 11066-0866 3267757 12/17/2014 Invoice=199405 0.10 20.50 REOAROINO 11/24/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.60 COMMUNICAT'ON WITH COUNSEL FOR PROPERTY OWNER ` 1366.0668 3267705 12/17/2014 Invoice=100405 0.10 20.50 REGAROING 11/24/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 82.00 RECENE ANO REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11366-0888 3267610 12/17/2014 InvolCe=189405 000 82.00 OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PREPARATION OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION 11/24/2014 0299 STEPhAN E CAO 5.10 20.5RECENE AND REVIEW DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA 11088-0803 320701' 12/17/2014 Invoice=190405 0.10 20.5 POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PREPARATION OF REPLY 1iN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION 110860668 3267812 11/24/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAC 0.10 0.10 20.50 20.561N RECEIVE AND REVIEW REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUPPORT OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' OPPOSITION TO 12/17/2014 Invo4Ee=199405 TI IE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PREPARATION OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S i MOTION 11/24/2014 3299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE AND REVIEW APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN 11066-0680 3267613 12117(2014 Inv01.ce=199405 0.10 20 50 SUPPORT OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' OPPOSITION TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PREPARATION OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CITYS MOTION 11/24/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 RECEIVE AND REVIEW DECLARATION OF JESSE 11088-0880 3281614 1211712014 Invoice -105405 0.213 41.03 RANDOLPH IN SUPPORT OF EVERGREEN VENTURES' OPPOSITION TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PREPARATION OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION 11/24/2014 0399 STEPHANIE CAO 1.10 20.50 RECEIVE AND REVIEW RESPONSE TO SEPARATE 11088-0888 3267615 72/17/2014 Invoice=199405 0 10 20.517 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF EVERGREEN VEN I ORES' OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PREPARATION OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MOTION 11/25/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.90 234.00 RESEARCH. DRAFT. AND REVISE CITY'S REPLY 1108806.68 3262721 12/17/2014 Invoice -168403 0.00 234.00 SUPPORTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11125/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.7fii 2.70 553.50jWALYSIS 553.00 OF AND 11066-0686 3257918 12117/2014 Involce.199405 COMMENCE PREPARATION OF CITY'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY J000MENT 111512014 0299 STEPHANIE 060 0.50 102.50 ANALYSIS OF issues ATTENDANT TO 11086-0666 3267944 12/17/2014 Invoice=199405 0.50 102.50 1112872014 0204 PATRICK K. 008E0 1.40 384.00 RESEARCH, ORA- T. ANO REVISE REPLY MEMORANDUM 110860088 3264367 12/17/2014 Invo1ce=199409 1.40 '364.00 SUPPORTING CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES ANSWER TO THE CITY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAIN- AND A7FIRMATIVF. DEFENSES CONTAINED THEREIN Billed and Unbillec Recap Of Time Detail - [11006-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES. INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Paye 27 Client•11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM DIN 1 !II " i•OT. �-' f lints• •AYa r 1 4 :10.11 ••1�C'h!,J.ii-i,irvYnf� 4 r A cf . fi .�»• :'�`.'•.Fei• . "'.-..v ''` �..1' ,. AwNos! +114!X• . 11/26/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 1 10 125.50 FURTHER PREPARATION OF CRYS RESPONSE TO 110860688 3267878 12/1712014 Inv0Ic0=199405 1.10 227.50 SEPARATE STATEMENT W SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11/20/20/4 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 1.00 205.00 ANALYSIS OF AND PREPARE RESPONSES TO 11086-0888 3267891 12/17/2014 Invoke -189405 1.00 205.00 EVERGREEN'S ADDITIONAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMMARY AOJUD/CATION __,- 11/26)2014 12/17/2014 0209 61 EPHANIE CAO 2.00 694.50 ANALYSIS OF DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA POLLARD IN 11086.0688 3207894 Involc.-109405 2.90 594.50 SUPPORT OF EVERGREENS OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ANALYSIS OF IN FURTHERANCE OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE. AND PREPARE RADENTIARY OBJECTIONS THERETO it/2612014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 184 00 ANALYSIS OF 11088.0668 3287917 1 211 71201 4 Invoice=190405 0.80 104.00 -. REGARDING STRATEGY AS TO 083001/074 THERETO 11/20/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.90 164.60 ANALYSIS OF 11086-0606 3287026 12/17/!014 Involca199405 0.90T 184.50 IN FURTHERANCE 0= REPLY MA1 ERIALS IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11/28/2014 0204 PATRICK K, 906K0 5.70 .482.00 RESEARCH, ORAF T, ANO REVISE REPLY MEMORANDUM 11088.0888 3284370 12/172014 Invoke.199405 5.70 1,482 00 SUPPORTING CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11/28/2014 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.00 123.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF CITY'S RESPONSE TO 110860888 3267944 12/17/2014 Invoice=199405 0.80 123.20 EVERGREEN VENTURES. INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT ANO ADDITIONAL PURPORTED DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 11/28/2014 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 82.00 CONTINUE PREPARATION CF RESPONSE TO EVERGREEN'S 110880608 3267945 12117/2014 htvolce•199405 0.40 82.00 ADOITIONAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 11086 0688 3267940 11/28/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.59 102.59 CONTINUE PREPARATION OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 12/17/2014 Invoice. 199405 0.50 192.50 TO DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD 11/28/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 ANALYSIS OF 1,088.0886 3207947 12/17/2014 InvolteJ199405 0.20 41.00 - - IN FURTHERANCE OF REPLY PAPERWORK 11/29/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 800K0 5.50 1.430 00 RE8EARCI I, ORAFT, AND REVISE REPLY MEMMORANOVM IN 110980088 3264379 12/17/2014 Invol0e•I99405 5.50 1.430.00 SUPPORT OF CITr6 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12101/7014 0204 PATRIOK K. 6084/0 7.10 184800 RESEARCH. DRAFT, AND REVISE CITY'S REPLY 11086 0888 3285592 01/13/2015 Invoke•100766 7.10 1.848.00 MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR SIJ/ IIARY JUDGMENT. RESEARCH ISSUES CONCERNING 12/01/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 3.90 164.50 ANALYSIS OF . IN 1 f 0860088 3273096 01113/2015 Invoice=190708 0.90 164.50 SUPPORT OF REPLY REGARDING CITY'S MOTION FOR BUMAARY JUDGMENT: CONFER WITH MR. 9084/0 REGARD' NO 12/0112014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 2050 E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO HILLCREST ACADEMY 11086-0086 3273097 01/13/2015 Invoice -199708 010 2050 REGARDING IN FURTHERANCE OF CITYS TRIAL PREPARATION MATERIAL 12/01/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO LIEUTENANT HERNANDEZ 110800688 3273098 0'./13/2015 Invoke=199708 0.10 20.50 REGARDING W FURTHERANCE OF CITY'S TRIM, MATERIALS 12/01/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.50 102.50 REVIEW OF IN PREPARATION OF MT'S 11005 0888 3281484 01/1317015 Invo.c 190708 0.50 102.50 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail -111086-0688 • COOP. PATIFNTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client 11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Page 28 ',bite15111414 -.Neni9 / 16./iRi Nud�bir• ':'Ng+ fyth-: `W96jl�+t, 11 ' t +. >'I:._.:. 'Opemipyibll ....... � ,. '•,,. • *IT Ii, r •, ' •: '2/02/2014 0204 PATRICK K 000140 5.6'0 1.45500 RESEARCH. ORAF1, AND REVISE REPLY SUPPORTING 11286.0880 3285895 01/13/2015 Mvoe:e•199706 5.85 1,458.00 CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESEARCH ISSUES CONCERNING 12,02/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOOK() 2.10 646.00 RESEARCH. DRAFT, ANO REVISE EVIDENTIARY 110864686 /3265897 01/13/2015 8,,,,,,c4 =199706 2.10 546.00 OBJECTIONS TO EVERGREEN'S OEC '_ARAT.ONS IN OPPOSITION TO CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DRAFT AND REVISE RESPONSE TO EVERGREEN'S RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACT 12/02/2014 0289 STEPHANIE CAO 1 30 286.50 PREPARE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 11086-0688 3273099 01/13/2016 lmow8.199706 1.30 266.60 NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM OF PCINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY - - - ADJUDICATION 120)212014 0299 SI EP HANIE CAO 0.90 184,60 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF 11088.066e 3273100 01/13!2015 Invoice=199706 0.00 184.50 IN PREPARATION OF REPLY MEMORANOUM OF POINTS ANO AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN 711E ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY AOJUOICATION 12/02/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 2.20 451 OD ANALYSIS OF ANO FURTHER 1(086.0688 3273101 01/1312016 Involve=199708 2.20 451.00 PREPARATION OF REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMtr'ARY • ADJUDICATION 12/02/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 1.50 1.50 307.50 307.50'CITY'S LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC:S 11088-0688 3273102 01/13/2015 Invoke=199706 SEPARATE STATEMENT AND ADDITIONAL PURPORTED DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND FINALIZE THE SAME 12102/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.40 287.00 FINALIZE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION 11086.0000 3273103 01/13/2015 Invoice -190708 1.40 287.03 OF CYNTHIA L POLLARO IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S REPLY REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12/02/20'4 0133 T. PETER PIERCE 0.80 208.00 REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS TO MR. BOBKO 11086.0688 3276462 01/13/20`5 Involve -199706 0.00 206.03 REGARDING I 12/02/2014 0290 STEPHAN,E CAO 3.60 123.00 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF 11066-0667 3281468 31/13/2015 Invo,c9=109705 0.60 123.20 IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 12/0312014 0204 PATRICK K. BOOKO 130 338.00 REVIEW AND REVISE REPLY SUPPCRT ING CITY'S 15086-0060 3208516 01/13(2010 1nvoice=199705 1.30 338.00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASSOCIATED PAPERS 12/04/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.10 28.00 REVIEW CITY'S DEMAND TO EXCHANGE EXPERT 11086.0080 3266920 01/132015 lnvoka•190706 0.10 20.20 WITNE88ES WI1I- EVERGREEN VENTURES ANT) CPS STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 ¶23.001 ANALYSIS OF IN FURTHERANCE OF 11098.0680 3213104 12/04/2014 0299 01/13/2015 involve=199706 0.80 123.00 NEXT LITIGATION STEPS REGARDING 000E OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEADLINES 12/04/2054 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 PREPARE DEMAND TO EXCHANGE EXPERT WITNESS 11086-0688 3273105 01/13/2015 Invoke -159706 0.20 41.00 INFORMATION 12/08/2014 5204 PATRICK IC BOBKO 0.30 78.00 PHONE CALLS WITH MR FISK REGARDING 11088.0688 3271685 01/13/2016 In44ice•190705 0.30 79 JD 12(09/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.60 156.00 RESEARCH AND PREPARE FOR HEARING 014 CITY -3 110660688 3271892 01/13/2015 Invo0e=199706 0.00 150.'X1 MOiTII N FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (2!09/2014 0290 6TE1)1-101I5 CAO 0.10 25.52 PREPARE CITY OF TEMECULAS SUPPLEMENTAL 11088.0058 .0273172 01/132810 Invoke=199108 0.10 20.55 INTERROGATORY TO COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES INC. (SET ONE) 12/09/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.00 PREPARE CITY OF TEMECUTA'S SUPPLEMENTAL 11006.0886 3273173 01/13/2019 Invoice=190708 0.10 20.55 INTERROGATORY TO EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. (SET Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Page 29 Clien(.11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09.56 PM • o•4N1:. • !music • oirci,/ipvOI.Numb, r-: ileum' Arnow n(` -ten �. r 1 t.R7,jf .:ti. •• • t • Ty p'r• • -tt 4t f., • -; M4tS,, ,: 1:U01x. ONE) 11085.0688 3273171 12/09,2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.11) 20.507PREPARE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST 01/13/2015 Involr8.199709 0.10 23 50 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES INC (SET ONE) 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.50 PREPARE C:TY OF TEMECULAS SUPPLEMENTAL RECUEST 11086-0888 3273175 _12/09/2014 01)13/2016 Involce.198708 0.10 20 50 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO EVERGREEN VENTURES. INC. (SET ONE) 12/09/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.13 2J 57 RECEIVE ANO REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES 11086-0688 3273183 01/13/2015 Involc8•190708 0.10 20.50 OBJECTIONS ANO RESPONSES re REQUEST FOR AOMISSI0MIS (SET ONE) PROPOUNOEO BY CITY 12/09/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 82 0D RECEIVE. REVIEW. ANI ANALYSIS OF EVERGREEN 11085-0688 3213184 01/13/2015 Involve -199706 0.40 02 00 VENTURES' OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 11\TERROGATORIEB (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY CITY: PREPARATION OF MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS REGARDING THE SAME 12108/2014 02911 STEPHANIE CAO 0.1D 20.50 RECEIVE ANO REVIEW EVERGREEN VENTURES' 11086-0688 3273135 01/13/2016 InvoIce•199708 0.10 2050 OBJECTIONS ANO RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION CF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)PROPOUNDED BY CITY 12/09/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 42.04RECEIVE. REVIEW. AND ANALYSIS OF EVERGREEN 110860888 3273110 01/13/2015 Invoice=190706 0.40 82.00 VENTURES' OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (5E1 ONE) PROPOUNDED BY CITY IN PREPARATION FOR MEET AND CONFER CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE SAME 12)10/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 0000 0,50 136.00 RESEARCH AND PREPARE FOR HEARING ON CITY'S 11006.0686 3271002 0111 3/2 01 5 Involco.199708 0.60 130.00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12(11/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.50 130.00 RESEARCH AND PREPARE FOR HEARING ON CITY'S 11066-0688 3272101 01/13/2016 Invoice=109706 0.50 130.00 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST EVERGREEN DISPENSARY AND CPS 12111/2014 0204 PATRICK K 8013K0 4.60 1,196.00JRESEARCH AND PREPARE FOR HEARING ON CITY'S 11086-0888 3272402 01113/2015 Involce41997C8 4.80 1.196. CO -MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CPS AND EVERGREEN VENTURES 12/71)2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.50 307.50 ANALYSIS OF ATTENDANT TO 11080.0688 3273234 01/13/2015 Involce4199706 1.50r 307.50 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1-.OAR(N0 AGAINST EVERGREEN VENTURES 12)12/2014 0148 POeTER M. THORSON 0 90 208.00 DRAFTED MEMORANDUM TO STAFF REGARDING 11086-0886 3272378 01113/2016 In4oice=199706 0 80 208.00 12/1212014 0204 PATRICK K. 600K0 5 00 1.450.00 PREPARE FOR I TEARING ON CITY'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ACAIIVST CPS AND EVERGREEN 11088.0098 3272407 01/13/2015 Involce=109706 5.40 1,4511 00-sUMMLARY VENTURES ARGUE SAME BEFORE JUDGE MALLOY IN RIVERSIDE. REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL REGARDING 12112/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 4.10 840.50 ATTEND CITY'S MOTK)N FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11086-0878 3273241 01/13/2015 Irvoice.199708 4.10 840,50 HEARING 12/12/2014 0267 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 123.50 PREPARE MEMORANDUM TO MR. THORSON REGAROI NG 11086.0988 3273247 01/13/2015 Invoice=199709 0.80 123.00 12/12/2014 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 123.00 LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS REGARDING 11086.0688 3273248 01/13/2015 Invoice.I09706 0.60 123.00 12/12)2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 N0T10E OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF CITY OF 11080-0088 3273249 01/13/2015 lrvolce4199708 0.20 41.00 TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND VACATING TRIAL GATE 12112,2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAD 0.10 20.50 RECEIVE AND REVIEW EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMEN'AL 110880888 3272271 01113)2015 Invoice.199706 0.10 20.50 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE CITY 12/12/2014 0298 STEPHANIE CAO 0.10 20.60 RECEIVE ANO REVIEW EVERGREENS SUPPLEMENTAL 11068.0688 3273272 01/13/2015 Involco=106708 0.10 20.50 INTERROGATORY TO THE CITY Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Delait - [11086-0588 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR[ Page 33 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:09:56 PM Qo., -. 1 ., 1: , •�1x r,., Y'. .. . STEPHANIE CAO 1 :/0/0/01/2 . 3 : : f 0.10 Nnornt . 1 1.� 2050 ::;1:«. .' ,1 .1 •. - �. . -a�.;,Y.w: • .. } r. ; .-�: ' RECEIVE ANO REVIEW EVERGREENS REQUEST FOR _; . Yw*'loo or 11086.0600 , Ind"Y 3273273 12,1212014 ..,' 0200 01,13/2015 Invok.=109706 010 20.50 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE CITY (SET IWO) 12/12/2014 0242 CANDICE K. LEE 3.10 28.00 REVIEW E-MAIL FROM MR. THORSON REGARDING 11008-0688 3274110 01/13/2015 Inv0lce•190706 0.10 26 00 12/15/2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 62.00 FURTHER PREPARATION OF OROER GRANTING CITY OF 11066-0888 3273275 01/13/2015 Invoice .109708 0.40 02.00 TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, VACATING TRIAL DATE, ANO SETTING HEARING GATE FOR MOTION TO TAX COSTS 12115,2014 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 61.50 ANALYSIS OF 11096-0088 32/3210 01/13/2016 Involve -180706 0.30 . 0/ 50 IN FURTHERANCE OF SETTLEMENT STRATEGY PATRICK K. 50060 1.20 312.001REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY 5T FF AN5 11088.0888 3273481 12/15/2014 0204 01/73;2015 Y1voIce.199708 1.20 312 00 COUNCIL REGARDING RESEARCH, CRAFT, P,NU REVISE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12/113/2014 0204 PATRICK K. 80660 0,30 78.00 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 11066.0688 3273402 01/1 312 01 5 10voice=199706 0.30 78 00 . 12/17,2014 0204 PATRICK K. B00KO 0.20 52.00 REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY 11000-0000 3273502 01/13/2015 Invoice .199706 0.20 62.00 REGARDING 12117120/4 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.30 78.00 RESEARCHED LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING 11080-0680 3274383 01/13/2015 I/wok26.199706 0.30 78.001• 12/172014 0229 STEPHANE DAO 0.40 82.00 ANALYSIS OF AND CONFER 11056 0658 3280992 01113/2015 I11V01711=109700 0.40 82.00 WITH MR. THORSON REGARDING 0.20 52.00 REVIEW COURTS ORDER GRANTING CIWS MOTION FOR 110860668 3276617 12/31/2014 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 01,13/2015 InvoIcn=199700 0.10 52.00 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CPS AND EVERGREEN VENTURES. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 01105/2015 0204 PATRICK K. 00860 0.50 130 00 DRAFT AND REVISE SETTLEMENT LETTER TO COUNSEL 110800668 3283271 FOR EVERGREEN VEN'URES. RESEARCH REGARDING 01107/2015 0204 PATRICK K. BOBKO 0.10 26.00 CORRESPONOENCG WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11006.0808 3286319 01!08/2015 0148 PETER M. THORSON 2.10 546.00 DRAFTED LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING 11088-0680 2286186 01108/2015 0204 PATRICK K. 80060 0.50 130.00 REVIEW ANO REVISE TO CITY MANAGER 1100E -06B8 3266326 AND COUNCIL AND ANALYZE WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING . PHONE CALL WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING 01;05/2015 0290 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.00 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF IN 11000.0088 3266677 1 FURTHERANCE OF SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNER 01108/2015 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.90 104 60 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF 11088-0806 3200903 REGARDING SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION TO CITY COUNCIL 01/09/2016 0148 PETER M. THORSON 1.10 286.00 REVISED OPINION LETTER TO C',TY COUNCIL 11086-0688 3268105 REGARDR4G 01/11/2015 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 82.00 PREPARE NOTICE OF ORDER GRANTING CITY'S MOTION 11086.06813 3208993 FOR SUMMARY JUOGMENT AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ATTENDANT TO IN FURTHERANCE OF RECOVERY CF COSTS AND FEES 01/12/2015 0201 PATRICK 6. BOBKO 0.20 52.00WNALY7E ISSUES CONCERNING 11088-0668 3488346 0171212015 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.20 41.03 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ATTENDANT TO 11066-0688 3267020 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail • X11086-0685 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES. INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Page 31 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 1/20/2015 3:00:56 PM oats�1! . ry•w z_1�'PWI Li04011t.i. . , .14:.':•.1,:.'.c.. • •,,. r �- i. ... •I 4..''r.. • ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING !ir 1J,••- index M'7. , 0,11312018 0201 PATRICK K8OSKO 0.20 . 52.00 11086.0868 325635 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING 01/13/2018 0299 STEPHANIE C.A0 0.20 41.00 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 1'086.0688 3257048 REGARDING 006T RECOVERY X01/1412015 0148 PETER M. THORSON 0.30 79.00 DRAFTED MEMORANDUM TO MR. 800K0 AND MS. CAO 11080.0568 3255230 REGARDING 01/19/2015 0289 STEPHANIE CAO 0.90 184.00 LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING 11088-0600 3207142 01119/2015 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 3.00 515 00 PREPARE MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND 11086-0088 3287147 COSTS 01/19/2015 0289 STEP-IANIE CAO 0.40 82.00 PREPARE DECLARATION OF PATRICK 800K0 IN SUPPORT 11086-0086 3207145 OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 01119i2015 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.40 82.00 PREPARE PROPOSED ORDER AWARDING ABATEMENT COSTS 11086.0888 3287149 A70 ATTORNEYS' FEES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a 11 o` = 2 12 w $ = 13 2 o" " 14 N LL Q ` 15 '" 16 i i v 0 17 cc t I 18 ave, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure § 1011) 1 am an employee of First Legal and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026. On February 18, 2015, 1 served the within document(s): PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF PATRICK K. BOBKO on the interested parties in this action as stated below: Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: 951.600.2733 Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 41391 Kalmia Street, Suite 300 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: 951.200.2020 [X] (BY MESSENGER) By personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 18, 2015, at Los Angeles, Califo'a. e or print name 11086-068811802257v1.doc -1- (Signature) • • 1 2 Z = ;--• Y o V Q oW Q 3 cnce 4 W V 0 ce 4Win 1 CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA 2 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 3 A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) 4 pbobko@rwglaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) 5 scao@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and the People of the State of California 6 7 8 9 10! 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCII THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and The CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENT SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Assigned for All Purposes To Hon. John D Molloy Dept: Dept. 3 Date: April 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. I1086 -0688\I821873 1.doc REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(b) and 453, Plaintiff City of Temecula 2 hereby requests the Court to take judicial notice of the following documents in support of 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. 4 5 Exhibit A — Certified Copy of Ordinance 15-03 Amending Section 8.12.140 of the 6 ! Temecula Municipal Code Relating to the Recovery of Abatement Expenses in Public 7 Nuisance Actions (April 14, 2015). 8� 9 Dated: April 21, 2015 10 z o 11 00 12'' Ws z o 13 oLn 14 a 15 tr) 16 c o 17 -62 Et 18 v, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO STEPHANIE • O By: PA. RICK K. BOBKO Attorneys for Plaintiffs The Cityof Temecula and the People of the State of California -2- t108G-OG88\1821R73yI.doc REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE EXHIBIT "A" 1 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 8.12.140 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE RECOVERY OF ABATEMENT EXPENSES IN PUBLIC NUISANCE ACTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Section 8.12.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.12.140 Nuisances—Recovery of abatement expenses. A. Whenever any person creating, causing, committing, or maintaining a public nuisance, as referred to in Section 8.12.140, or other public nuisance, as defined under state law or other ordinances or regulations, has been given notice, by or on behalf of the city attomey or by any other city officer, employee or policing agent authorized to give such notice, to abate such nuisance or cease and desist from continuing such nuisance or violation of law, and such person fails, refuses or neglects to comply with the notice within the time specified therein, or if such a time is not specified, then within a time reasonably sufficient to enable such compliance, such noncomplying person shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and In obtaining compliance with or enforcing the law as referred to or encompassed within said notice. B. Costs and expenses, as referred to in subsection A. of this section, may include, but are not limited to, any and all direct costs and expenses related to such things as personnel salaries and benefits, operational overhead, rent, interest, fees for experts or consultants, or claims against the city arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation, and procedures associated with collecting moneys due hereunder. Additionally, in any legal action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a nuisance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees. The recovery of attorneys' fees by the prevailing party shall be limited to those individual actions or proceedings in which the City elects, at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attomeys' fees. In no action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding shall an award of attomeys' fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding. C. The provisions of subsection A of this section shall also apply to any person who received a notice, as specified therein, abated the nuisance or violation, but subsequently allowed or was responsible for a recurrence of the nuisance or violation. Ords 15-03 1 1 WW.by candy, unor the penally or» U Y, that the above and fongdng la a true and cooed copy of an ptpinal on d,a of to CRY of Tama* bhy QYVYN R.47 ' ES, CMC, BY Ar . �. 1 1 1 D. The liability of any person for the payment of the costs and expenses provided for in subsection A of this section may be waived in whole or in part by the city attorney in any case where he or she determines, in his or her sole discretion, that the failure or refusal of such persons to comply with the notice therein involved was based upon a good faith and bona fide issue of law or fact specially involved in the circumstances of the case. Any determination or decision of the city attomey in this regard shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to appeal as prescribed in Chapter 2.04. E. Money due to the city pursuant to this section may be recovered in an appropriate civil action, Alternatively, such liability may be enforced by special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed, which proceedings may be conducted in a manner substantively similar to proceedings described in Sections 39574 et seq. of the California Government Code relating to weed abatement assessments. Section 2. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The amendment to Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.12.140 by this Ordinance is declaratory of existing law. B. Government Code Section 38773.5 requires that in all city nuisance abatement actions the "prevailing party" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees even if the ordinance limits recovery of attorney fees to the city and further provides that ordinances providing for nuisance abatement shall state that the prevailing party may be entitled to recovery of reasonable attorneys fees in any such abatement action. C. This provision is similar to Civil Code Section 1717 that provides that even if a contract provides for the payment of attorneys fees to a particular party to the contract, the court will award attomey fees to the prevailing party In a legal action involving the contract. D. Section 8.12.140 is construed as providing for the award of attomey fees in a legal action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding for nuisance abatement to the prevailing party and not just to the City_ The wording of the section should, however, be amended to specifically state this construction of Section 8.12.140 in order to prevent confusion and provide for a clear statement of the law. Section 3. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Ords 15-03 2 1 h. certify, un the penalty of penury, n»t the it true and correct copy of an origkul on deposit vithin the Dads of the City of _ Tenaatta, lith -_bay orQ L `s O 1V4 t RLORES, CMC, R rd$ nepot 1 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the CIty Council of the City of Temecula this 14th day of April, 2015. ATT//E$T` ? Ran Joh - Ison City Clerk [SEAL] Orris 13.43 3 Jeff Comerchero, Mayor I Aeby catty, under the penalty of perjury, that the above and f3repatrg is a true and correct copy den Apra an deposit within the records. the City ofTomo OWYN R. , CMtay o1 t3WYpES,CMC,R BY: ��� 1 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at 8 meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 24' day of March, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 14'' day of April, 2015, the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Ord* 1543 a I Johf-Olson, City Clerk a hereby eg 9 s tunder die rueanndcoratty of ro Caat en tean the d the rq at _ TR. .. • . 3, CMC, ot3rd>t Manager z = 0 o� w 8 (� J 4 z o N O Qa to 5 0 a Q M L o a V wi 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 PROOF OF SERVICE 1, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; any business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On April 21, 2015, I served the within document(s): REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: [X] (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Finn's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 25600 Barnes Lane Menifee, California 92584 Telephone: 951.231.8564 Facsimile: 951.880.1781 E -Mail: lubranilaw@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. [1 [ 1 Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler@tylerbursch.com jrandolph@tylerbursch.com inbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californ. at the above is true and correct. Executed on April 21, 2015, at Los Angeles, i alifornia. 11086-0688\1810164v1.doc owcll 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z z 11 O 4 v=i g 12 oe c 1.7 W � 13 z- '") O" " 14 cc ` • 15 vi - 5 • 16 a Q v o 17 pleir � c 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING FEES AND COSTSI [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Date: Time: Dept: March 12, 2015 8:30 a.m. 3 Trial Date: Vacated Judge: John D. Molloy TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 12, 2015, Plaintiff City of Temecula's (hereinafter "City") Motion for Award of Abatement Costs and Attorneys' Fees was heard by the above -referenced Court, Honorable John D. Molloy presiding. Plaintiffs have shown that the City of Temecula incurred $96,210.02 in reasonable and necessary costs and attorneys' fees in connection with the City's efforts to bring Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc.'s property into compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. Pursuant to this Court's December 18, 2014 Order Granting City of Temecula's Motion for Summary 11086-068811789657v2.doc [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING PEES AND COSTS 1 Judgment against Evergreen, California Government Code § 38773.5(b), and Temecula 2 Municipal Code section 8.12.140, the City of Temecula is entitled to recover these costs 3 and fees. After considering all papers filed in support and opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion 4 for Award of Abatement Costs and Attorneys' Fees, the Court rules as follows: 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees is 6 granted. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. shall be liable 8 to the City of Temecula in the amount of $96,210.02/$ , representing reasonable 9 and necessary attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City of Temecula to bring 10 Evergreen Ventures, Inc.'s property into compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. z z 11 O Lt-) 12 LLJ o 13 Dated: March , 2015 z� v9 0 14 1— E 15 John D. Molloy i, S Judge of the Superior Court o 16i a V K 17 � 4 an 18 D. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING FEES AND COSTS 11086-0688\1 789657v2.doc aft PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure § 1011) 2 3 I am an employee of First Legal and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 4 90026. 5 6 7 On February 18, 2015, I served the within document(s): [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: 8 Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph 9 Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 10 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: 951.600.2733 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 41391 K.almia Street, Suite 300 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: 951.200.2020 0 (BY MESSENGER) By personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 18, 2015, at Los Angeles, California. rr\\ \)"CA\f\\t (Type or print name) 11086.068811802257v1.doe -1- (Signature) 02/27/2415 FRI .3:39 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER b SURSCH U0)2/023 1 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jesse E.M. Randolph, State Bar No. 221060 Jordan N. Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (951) 600-4996 6 rtyler@tylerbursch.com jrandolph@tylerbursch.com 7 jnbursch@tylerbursch.com 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 02/27/2015 A.TORRES BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES [Filed concurrently with Declaration of Cynthia L. Pollard and [Proposed] Order] Hearing. Date: March 12, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. ("Evergreen") respectfully submits this Opposition to the Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiff The City of Temecula ("the City")_ I. INTRODUCTION The City asks this Court to order Evergreen to pay $96,210.02 in costs and attomoys' fees the City incurred in a lawsuit that, from its inception nearly four years ago, was targeted primarily at another defendant — Defendant Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc. ("CPS"). DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTFFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 The City seeks to persuade this Court that the nearly $100,000 it now seeks to recover from Evergreen is "reasonable," by pointing out that it has actually incurred $274,000 in costs and attorneys' fees since it first filed its lawsuit in early 2011. The City misses the point. Whether it were seeking $274,000 or $96,210.02, the fact remains that Plaintiff's claims in this action were aimed primarily at CPS — not Evergreen. Since CPS and its principals have declared bankruptcy and otherwise vanished, the City is not pursuing them. Rather, it is pursuing a recovery of its costs and attorneys' fees exclusively from Evergreen. It is doing so not on account of Evergreen's degree of culpability, but apparently on account of its perceived solvency. The City's motion fails principally because the local ordinance under which it seeks to recover its costs and attorneys' fees is unenforceable as a matter of law, as the ordinance only permits the City to recover attorneys' fees as a prevailing party, and no one else. Clear California precedent compels a finding that such an ordinance is unenforceable, as it is in violation of Section 38773.5(b) of the Government Code. The City's motion separately fails because this entire action, including any attorneys' fees and costs that were incurred by the City during the action, was instituted prematurely and in violation of the City's own "safe -harbor" ordinance. The City's "safe -harbor" ordinance requires that both notice (not a summons) and a seven-day opportunity to voluntarily abate be provided to any "noncomplying person" in a nuisance abatement proceeding. No such notice was provided here before the City filed its lawsuit. The City cannot now recover from Evergreen costs and attorneys' fees from a civil action that potentially could have been avoided had the City followed its own nuisance abatement procedures. Moreover, it is settled that the courts of this state have vast equitable powers and discretion in ruling on a motion for costs and attorneys' fees. This includes the ability to equitably apportion an award of costs and attorneys' fees when a case involves multiple defendants. The equities here weigh against the City's request for an order that Evergreen pay nearly $100,000 for costs and attorneys' fees that the City incurred largely in pursuit of its claims against CPS. This lawsuit, and all of the costs that were incurred in connection with it, originally can be traced back to the City's contention that CPS allegedly sold and/or distributed marijuana from its facility. If there is a defendant who, equitably speaking, ought to be left holding the bag for the City's attorneys' fees, it is CPS — not Evergreen. 2 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 Finally, the Court can and should, in weighing the equities, consider the fact that the costs and attorneys' fees the City now seeks through its motion were incurred exclusively over a period of time during which the alleged nuisance no longer existed. As explained below, CPS was no longer a tenant of Evergreen as of April 2011. Thus, any alleged nuisance created by CPS on Evergreen's property abated as of April 2011. The City should not be awarded costs and attorneys' fees for work it did in 2013 and 2014, when by 2013 and 2014, the City's very purpose in originally filing its lawsuit — i.e., preventing CPS from selling or distributing marijuana from Evergreen's building — had already been accomplished. For each of these reasons, the City's motion to recover from Evergreen the costs and attorneys' fees it incurred in this action should be denied. 1I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Evergreen is the owner and manager of an office building located at 28900 Old Town Front Street, in Temecula. See Declaration of Cynthia L. Pollard ("Pollard Decl.") ¶ 2. For less than a year during the 2010-2011 time frame, Evergreen leased one of its suites — Suite 105 — to CPS. Id. 113-4. CPS began leasing Suite 105 on June 1, 2010. Pollard Decl. ¶ 4. The lease agreement between CPS and Evergreen expired on its own terms on May 31, 2011. Id. CPS vacated the premises, however, in April 2011 — before its one-year lease term expired. Id. Based on representations made by CPS's principal, and based on the paperwork it received from CPS in connection with CPS's lease application, at the time it leased Suite 105 to CPS, Evergreen believed that CPS's business was to provide education and information to individuals with health conditions which qualified them for access to legally -prescribed medical marijuana, but who were unfamiliar with how or where to access medical marijuana. Pollard Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Evergreen did not believe, and had no reason to suspect, that CPS would be selling or distributing marijuana from its building. Id. ¶ 6. Had Evergreen known or suspected that CPS might be selling or distributing marijuana from Suite 105, it would never have rented the space to CPS. Id. Further, once CPS began renting space from Evergreen, Evergreen had no reason to suspect that CPS was issuing or selling marijuana from its location. Pollard Decl. ¶ 7. There were no reports of distinct fumes or odors emanating from Suite 105. Id. Nor did Evergreen receive any reports of CPS's 3 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 clientele being suspect in appearance or demeanor. Id. Further, Evergreen received no warnings or other stated concerns from any co -tenants, building patrons, law enforcement officials, or other City or local officials. Id. Indeed, before receiving notice of this lawsuit, Evergreen had never heard that either law enforcement officials or other City officials suspected that CPS was selling marijuana from its building. Id. Evergreen first received notice that something was awry in Suite 105 when the City filed its lawsuit in this action on March 2, 2011. Pollard Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. At the same time it filed its original Complaint, the City also filed a request for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction, to prevent the further sale or distribution of medical marijuana from Suite 105. On March 4, 2011, the Court granted the City's request for a TRO, and on April 7, 2011, granted the City's motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 10, 2011, CPS sought a writ of supersedeas from the Court of Appeal, in order to stay this Court's injunctive order. The Court of Appeal issued the writ. On October 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal affirmed this Court's injunctive order, and thereby rejected CPS's appeal. CPS filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which initially granted the Petition on December 12, 2012. However, the California Supreme Court later dismissed the Petition for Review on July 31, 2013 (in light of its ruling in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 729 (2013)), and the case thereafter was remanded to this Court. It was not until early August 2014, shortly after discovering that this action was still pending, that a motion for summary judgment was pending against it, and that CPS had noticed a deposition of its person(s) most knowledgeable, that Evergreen retained its present counsel, Tyler & Bursch LLP. Pollard Decl., ¶ 13. Through its counsel, Evergreen submitted its opposition to the City's then -pending motion for summary judgment, and also filed a summary judgment motion of its own. On December 12, 2014, this Court heard and ruled on the City's motion for summary judgment against both Evergreen and CPS. The Court concluded that both Evergreen and CPS were liable for the nuisance that the Court found existed in the suite CPS had been leasing from Evergreen at the time this action was originally filed in early 2011. 1/1 4 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 The City now seeks to recover from Evergreen $96,210.02 in costs and attorneys' fees. 111. LEGAL ARGUMENT Notwithstanding the fact that Evergreen had nothing to do with any alleged unlawful activity that CPS may have been conducting in the suite it leased from Evergreen, notwithstanding the fact that any alleged nuisance existing on Evergreen's property abated close to four years ago, and notwithstanding the fact that the party that the City has been wrangling with most to date has been CPS (not Evergreen), the City seeks to recover its costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action exclusively from Evergreen. There are several reasons why this Court should reject the City's motion. A. The City's Request For Costs and Attorneys' Fees From Evergreen Should Be Rejected Because The Ordinance Under Which The City Seeks Recovery Of Its Costs and Attorneys' Fees Violates Government Code Section 38773.5(b) The City seeks to recover attomeys' fees on the basis of Government Code section 38773.5(b), which states: "[a] city may, by ordinance, provide for the recovery of attorneys' fees in any action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a nuisance." The local ordinance under which the City seeks recovery of its costs and attorneys' fees is Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (B). The City's Motion states: "Under the [Temecula] Municipal Code, the prevailing party in any proceeding associated with the abatement of a public nuisance is entitled to attorneys' fees." This sentence is highly misleading. The local ordinance at issue does not provide that the "prevailing party" is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees in a nuisance abatement proceeding. What the ordinance actually says is that "any noncomplying person shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with or enforcing the law." See Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A). Section 8,12.140(B) then states: "costs and expenses, as referred to in subsection (A) of this section, may include, but are not limited to ... legal costs or expense, including attorneys' fees, claims against the city arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation, and procedures associated with collecting moneys due hereunder." /11 5 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 Contrary to the City's suggestion that the ordinance at issue is "mutual," the ordinance is, on its face, non -mutual. The ordinance plainly does not provide for mutual recovery of attorneys' fees. Only the City is eligible to recover attorneys' fees in a nuisance abatement action. The operative local ordinance is in direct conflict with Section 38773.5(b) of the Government Code. City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1530 (2007) is directly on point. There, the City of Monte Sereno filed a nuisance abatement action against two of its residents in connection with the residents' building plans for their residential property. Relying upon a local nuisance abatement ordinance, the trial court awarded the city over $150,000 in attorneys' fees for its efforts in pursuing its nuisance abatement action. The ordinance, Section 6.17.170 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code, stated: "[S]hould the City commence a civil or criminal proceeding to abate a public nuisance, the costs of abatement which may be recorded shall include all legal costs including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City in commencing and pursuing civil or criminal remedies." City of Monte Sereno, 149 Cal. App. 4th at 1536 (emphasis added). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to the city, holding that Section 6.17.170 was in direct conflict with Government Code section 38773.5(b), which requires an ordinance allowing the recovery of attorneys' fees to permit their recovery by any prevailing party — not just a municipality if it prevails. The Court held that Government Code section 38773.5(b) "simply requires that the ordinance provide for recovery by the prevailing party and forbids the unilateral recovery by the city. The City's ordinance in this case therefore violates section 38773.5, and its application cannot be upheld." Id. at 1537. Just as in City of Monte Sereno, the unilateral language of Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (B) (allowing for the recovery of attorneys' fees only by the City, not by "prevailing parties" generally) is in direct conflict with Government Code section 38773.5(b). As in City of Monte Sereno, this Court should conclude that Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (B) is unenforceable, and decline to rely upon that ordinance as a basis for an award of costs and attomeys' fees to the City. For this reason alone, the City's request for recovery of costs and attorneys' fees against Evergreen should be rejected. 6 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 B. The City's Request For Costs and Attorneys' Fees From Everereen Should Be Rejected Because The City Failed To Comply With Its Own "Safe Harbor" Ordinance Before Commencing This Action As noted above, the City is relying upon Section 8.12.140(A) and (B) of the Temecula Municipal Code as the basis for its request for recovery of costs and attorneys' fees. Section 8.12.140(A) provides, "Whenever any person ... has been given notice ... to abate .. . and such person fails ... to comply within the specified herein, or if such a time is not specified, then within a time reasonably sufficient to enable such compliance, such noncomplying person shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with or enforcing the law as referred to or encompassed within said notice." In Section 8.12.140(B), "costs and expenses" are defined as including "legal costs or expenses, including attorneys' fees." The controlling local ordinances, then, incorporate a "safe -harbor" period during which, after having received notice from the City of the existence of a nuisance, the "noncomplying person" is given the option to voluntary .abate the nuisance. This "safe -harbor" period can be found in Section 8.12.030(A) of the Temecula Municipal Code, which provides that the notice from the City "shall direct compliance by removal or correction of the condition which is in violation of the provisions of this code within a minimum of seven calendar days from the date of the notice." The same section further provides that "[t]he notice shall further describe the consequences of failure to comply." There has never been any dispute in this action that the City did not provide the required notice to Evergreen, pursuant to Section 8.12.030(A) of the Municipal Code. Because the City failed to comply with the requirements of the "safe -harbor" provision, it cannot now fairly claim a right to recover attorneys' fees incurred in a civil action that wrongly bypassed the City's own administrative procedures. The City's ability to obtain its costs and attorneys' fees is and was, based on its own ordinances, conditioned on it providing proper notice to any "noncomplying person," and to give such a "noncomplying person" the opportunity to abate any alleged nuisances before resorting to litigation where financial penalties (such as costs and attorneys' fees) could later be imposed. 7 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 The City's failure to do so follow its own codes and procedures should not and cannot result in Evergreen being penalized. The City's motion should be denied on this basis, as well. C. The City's Request For Costs and Attorneys' Fees From Evergreen Should Be Rejected Because Evergreen Was Not The Primary Target Of The City's Lawsuit, And Because The Fees The City Seeks To Recover Were Incurred After The Alleged Nuisance Was Abated. In the event the Court, notwithstanding the above arguments, decides to entertain the City's request for recovery of its costs and attorneys' fees from Evergreen, the Court should still reject the City's request on the ground that the alleged "bad actor" here was not Evergreen, but instead was CPS. As the history and allegations of this litigation show, Evergreen was never the primary target of the City's lawsuit. It was CPS's alleged marijuana dispensary that the City was seeking to shut down when it filed this lawsuit. It was CPS who the City locked horns with over the legal capacity of a municipality to shut down a suspected marijuana dispensary within its borders. It was with CPS that the City fought over these issues all the way to the California Supreme Court. While it was always a named party to this case, it was only after the dust had settled after years of wrangling between the City and CPS that Evergreen recently became a player in this case. And this was only because Evergreen, by default, became the City's primary target once CPS filed for bankruptcy and otherwise disappeared from the scene. While the City understandably would like someone to foot the bill for the attorneys' fees and costs it has racked up in this case, this Court has great discretion, and should exercise that discretion, in declining to have Evergreen shoulder the cost of the City's pursuit of CPS. Evergreen's lack of culpability (compared to that of CPS) is one of the factors the Court can consider in declining to order Evergreen to pay the full amount of the attorneys' fees sought by the City. See, e.g., Sokolow v. County of San Mateo, 213 Cal. App. 3d 231, 250-51 (1989). In Sokolow, the plaintiff filed a sex discrimination lawsuit after she was denied a position with the all-male Mounted Patrol of San Mateo County. She named as defendants both the County of San Mateo and the Mounted Patrol of San Mateo County, in addition to certain individual defendants. The plaintiff prevailed on summary judgment. The trial court denied plaintiff her attorneys' fees, which 8 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal, citing federal employment civil rights laws that govern fee awards in civil rights litigation, concluded that the trial court had erred in rejecting the plaintiffs requests for attorneys' fees. The Sokolow court concluded, however, that in deciding the amount of fees to be awarded on remand, the trial court could take into account the particularly "invidious" discrimination engaged in by one of the named defendants — the County — and apportion its attorneys' fee award accordingly between the County and the Patrol. As the Sokolow court put it, "Neither the federal nor the state attorney fees statute specifically addresses the question of the propriety of apportioning attorney fees between different defendants. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate for the trial court to assess a greater percentage of the attorney fees award against the County rather than making an equal assessment between the County and the Patrol." 213 Cal. App. 3d at 251. As in Sokolow, this Court can and should weigh the relative degrees of culpability between CPS and Evergreen. If any marijuana was illegally sold or distributed out of Suite 105, it was sold or distributed by CPS. Put another way, CPS created and caused any alleged nuisance. CPS — not Evergreen — should be the defendant held primarily responsible for the payment of any attorneys' fees or costs the Court may ultimately award. Another factor the Court can and should consider in evaluating the costs and attorneys' fees the City seeks from Evergreen is that those costs and attorneys' fees were incurred exclusively at a time that the alleged nuisance no longer existed. CPS was no longer a tenant of Evergreen's as of April 2011. Pollard Decl.,11 4. Thus, any alleged nuisance created by CPS on Evergreen's property abated as of April 2011. The City should not be awarded costs and attorneys' fees for work it did in 2013 and 2014, when by 2013 and 2014, the City's very purpose in originally filing its lawsuit — i.e., preventing CPS from selling or distributing marijuana from Evergreen's building — had already been accomplished. This Court should exercise the broad discretion it has in ruling on requests for costs and attorneys' fees, and decline to saddle Evergreen with the full amount of costs and attorneys' fees now being sought by the City. 9 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 IV. CONCLUSION For each of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff The City of Temecula's Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees should be denied. TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Dated: February 27, 2015 By: 10 Robert H. Tyler, Esq. Jesse E.M. Randolph, Esq. Jordan N. Bursch, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On February 27, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TIIE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on February 27, 2015. ❑ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted ❑originals ❑ true copies of the above - referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission February 27, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. • BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by GSO Overnight/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. ❑ BY MAIL. As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I ani aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on February 27, 2015, at Murrieta, California. • (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (?7(..32"' Joy A. oyd 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Grinestaff & Cha, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 43537 Ridge Park Drive INC. Temecula, California 92590 Tel: (951) 331-3067 Fax: (951) 848-0957 Email: mlubrani@lubranibrown.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 02/27/2015 FRI 13:43 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER 6 BURSCH 0014/023 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 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jesse E.M. Randolph, State Bar No. 221060 Jordan N. Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (951) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 02/27/2015 A.TORRES BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, VS. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES [Filed concurrently with Opposition and [Proposed) Order] Hrarij: Date: March 12, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 DECLARATION QF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD I, Cynthia L. Pollard, declare as follows: 1. I am a Director of Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. ("Evergreen"). I am providing this declaration in support of Evergreen's Opposition to Plaintiff The City of Tetnecula's Motion for Costs and Attomeys' Fees. I have personal knowledge of each of the facts attested to in this 1 DECLARATION OP CYNTHIA L. POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 declaration. If called as a witness to testify in this matter, I could, and would, competently testify to the facts stated herein. 2. Evergreen is the owner and manager of a commercial office building located at 28900 Old Town Front Street, in Temecula, California. Evergreen has owned the building since 1999. 3. The building has seven suites. From 2010 to the present, Evergreen has leased space in the building to a variety of businesses, including a motorcycle shop, a children's fashion boutique, a prospector's shop, a chiropractor's office, a medical office, an insurance agency, and a metalworks gallery. In addition to these businesses, Evergreen at one time leased office space — Suite 105 — to CPS. 4. CPS began leasing Suite 105 from Evergreen on June 1, 2010. CPS's lease agreement was for a term of one year. The lease agreement between CPS and Evergreen expired on its own terms on May 31, 2011. CPS was actually opened for business January 2011 to April 2011. 5. In his conversations with me leading up to the execution of its lease with Evergreen, CPS's principal, Douglas Lanphere, informed me that CPS intended to operate a medical marijuana - related "patient resource center" out of Suite 105. The business license application and supporting paperwork that CPS submitted to the City were consistent with Mr. Lanpherc's representation to me that CPS was planning to operate a "patient resource center" — not an illegal medical marijuana dispensary — from Suite 105. 6. Based on Mr. Lanphere's representations and the paperwork I received from CPS in connection with CPS's lease application, at the time I leased Suite 105 to CPS, I was of the understanding and belief that CPS's business was to provide education and information to individuals with health conditions which qualified them for access to legally -prescribed medical marijuana, but who were unfamiliar with how or where to access medical marijuana. I did not believe, and had no reason to suspect, that CPS would be selling or distributing marijuana from its space. Had I known or suspected that CPS might be selling or distributing marijuana from Suite 105, I would never have rented the space to CPS. 7. Further, once CPS began renting space from Evergreen, I had no reason to suspect or believe that CPS was issuing or selling marijuana from its location. I received no reports of any 2 DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 distinct fumes or odors emanating from Suite 105. Nor did I receive any reports of CPS's clientele being suspect in appearance or demeanor. I also did not receive any warnings or concerns arising from any co -tenants, building patrons, law enforcement officials, or other city or local officials. Indeed, before receiving notice of this lawsuit, we had never heard that either law enforcement officials or other City officials suspected that CPS was selling marijuana from its building. 8. CPS has not operated any business -- marijuana -related or otherwise, legal or illegal — from Evergreen's building since its lease expired and it vacated the premises nearly three -and -a -half years ago. Nor could it have since, as explained above, CPS was no longer a tenant of Evergreen's as of May 31, 2011. 9. We were not provided with prior notice from the City of the Temecula of the existence of any alleged nuisance at our building, were not given an opportunity by the City to voluntarily abate any alleged nuisances existing at our building, and were not provided with any written findings or decision from the City concerning our building. 10. The City also never gave Evergreen any notice that CPS's business license had been revoked or rejected during the time CPS was leasing Suite 105. If we had become aware that CPS was operating without a valid business license, we would have exercised our right to evict CPS under the terms of Evergreen's lease with CPS. 11. Upon our receiving initial word of this lawsuit from our registered agent for service of process in March 2011, CPS agreed to indemnify Evergreen and to retain counsel to defend not only CPS's interests in this action, but Evergreen's, as well. We were assured by CPS that CPS's counsel would adequately represent the interests of not just CPS, but also Evergreen. 12. After filing our Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on July 15, 2011 (through our previous counsel, Jonathan Preston), Evergreen was not informed by our counsel of any of the remaining developments that occurred in this lawsuit in the second half of 2011, all of 2012, all of 2013, and for the first half of 2014. /1/ /// /1/ 3 DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 13. In early August 2014, after discovering that this action was still pending, discovering that a motion for summary judgment had been filed against Evergreen (and had not been responded to), and discovering that CPS had filed for bankruptcy, Evergreen retained its current counsel, Tyler & 13ursch LLP. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 27, 2015, at Murrieta, California. CYNTHIA L. POLLARD 4 DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al, v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On February 27, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA L. POLLARD IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. 1 caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on February 27, 2015. ❑ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted ❑originals ❑ true copies of the above - referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission February 27, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. • BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by GSO Overnight/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. ❑ BY MAIL. As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on February 27, 2015, at Murrieta, California. ® (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 1 (51.11-Jo-f/9.e..L61-get— PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213)626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Grinestaff & Cha, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 43537 Ridge Park Drive INC. Temecula, California 92590 Tel: (951) 331-3067 Fax: (951) 848-0957 Email: mlubrani@lubranibrown.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 02/27/20L5 PRI L3:44 FAX 951 600 4996 TLLER 6 BURSCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [7 18 19 20 21 72 23 24 25 26 27 28 2020/023 Received: 02-27-2115 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. RIC 1103777 CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING a California Municipal Corporation, PLALNTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES vs. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation: and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. J-Iearina: Date: March 12, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 The Motion of Plaintiff The City of Temecula ("Plaintiff') for Costs and Attorneys' Fees came on for hearing before this Court on March 12, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. Upon consideration of the papers filed in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion, the evidence, files and records herein, and the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ordered that: 1 [PROPOSED[ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 The Motion for is DENIED as against Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. The Court concludes that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of its costs or its attorneys' fees from Evergreen in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Submitted by: TYLER & BURSCH, LLP 4041 By: Jesse E.M. Randolph Attorneys for Defendant, EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. Dated: February 27, 2015 2 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 'PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING: PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On February 27, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as [PROPOSED ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ▪ by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on February 27, 2015. ❑ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMLSSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted ❑originals ❑ true copies of the above - referenced documents) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission February 27, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transtnission was reported as complete and without error. • BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. I deposited in a box or othcr facility regularly maintained by GSO Overnight/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. ❑ BY MAW. As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter datc is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on February 27, 2015, at Murrieta, California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Joy A. bl'oyd PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071.3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213)626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Grinestaff& Cha, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 43537 Ridge Park Drive INC. Temecula, California 92590 Tel: (951) 331-3067 Fax: (951) 848-0957 Email: mlubrani@lubranibrown.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12 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 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko@rvvglaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 355 Sbuth Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 CITY OF TEMECULA'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE CITY'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Date: March 12, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 Trial Date: Vacated Judge: John D. Mollov REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1 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 I. Temecula Incurred Substantial Fees and Costs to Enforce Its Ordinance Evergreen argues that it should not be responsible for the City's fees and costs because it was only a bit player in the dispute with the City. According to Evergreen, its tenant Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc. was the real culprit and as such they should be the ones responsible for the City's legal fees and costs, That the City reduced its total fee claim by 65% is immaterial. "Whether it were seeking $274,000 or $96,210.02, the fact remains that Plaintiff's claims in this action were aimed primarily at CPS — not Evergreen." See Opp'n at page 2, lines 4-5. CPS was certainly front -and -center during most of this litigation, but to portray Evergreen as an innocent bystander is a post hoc rationalization that does not square with the facts. As stated in the Moving Papers, the City incurred nearly $274,000 pursuing this action against both CPS and Evergreen and nearly 1/3 of that amount was spent after the California Supreme Court's decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr., 56 Cal.4th 729 (2013) ("Inland Empire"). The record also reflects that the costs for this case were inflated largely because of CPS and Evergreen's scorched earth litigation tactics — the City had no choice but to spend the time and resources it did to enforce its Zoning Ordinance. Evergreen says "the equities here weigh against the City's request" for fees. See Opp'n at page 2, lines 23-24. To the contrary, the fees and costs about which Evergreen now complains would have been greatly reduced (perhaps even eliminated?) had Evergreen taken action to evict CPS as soon as it learned about the illegal activity that was occurring on its property. Instead, Evergreen chose to use the same counsel as its tenant and fight— and continues to fight even in the face of dispositive authority favoring the City. Likewise, Evergreen's claim that it was unaware of the illegality occurring on its property is not supported by the facts and this issue was adjudicated in the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. /// REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS 0 J 0 3 V1 0 C V 75 1v. ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 Evergreen also says the City "should not be awarded costs and attorneys' fees for work it did in 2013 and 2014" because by then the dispensary was no longer in operation. See Opp'n at page 9, lines 22-25. The only thing to distinguish 2011 from what happened in 2013 and 2014 is that CPS and Evergreen had exhausted their appeals. The City still had a case, and by that time Evergreen — not CPS — was the party that propounded discovery following remand. See Bobko Decl, at 114. Evergreen — not CPS — noticed multiple ex parte applications (some as long as 19 -pages) to which the City was forced to respond. See Bobko Decl. at ¶5. At the time, the City questioned whether the ex parte applications were necessary. See Bobko Decl. at 115 (Exh. "B"). Evergreen — not CPS — filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the City to which it was forced to prepare a response. All of this activity drove the costs of the case up even further. These costs, not ones incurred in 2011 or 2012 are the ones about which Evergreen now complains.' The City's request is justifiable and reasonable in light of the circumstances, and the Court should award the City the costs it incurred to enforce its Zoning Ordinance. II. In Addition to Its Municipal Code, Civil Code Section 3496 Authorizes Temecula's Recovery of Fees in this Case In addition to the Temecula Municipal Code, California Civil Code section 3496 expressly provides authority for the award of the City's fees and costs in this case. Section 3496 says: "In any of the following described cases, the court may award costs, Evergreen's so-called "safe harbor" and "mootness" arguments (Opposition pages 7-9) are resurrected from its unsuccessful arguments against the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. These arguments were not persuasive there, and there is no reason for the Court to reconsider the arguments for a second time here. The issue of Evergreen's culpability for the illegal dispensary has already been adjudicated. -2- REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS 11086.0688\1807128v2,duc ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 including the costs of investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorney's fees, which are not compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law, to the prevailing party: (c) In any case in which a governmental agency seeks to enjoin the use of a building or place, or seeks to enjoin in or upon any building or place the unlawful sale, manufacture, service, storage, or keeping or giving away of any controlled substance, as authorized in Article 3 (commencing with Section 11570) of Chapter 10 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code. (Emphasis added). The Order entered against Evergreen says its tenant, CPS, "was in the business of selling, providing, or otherwise making available medical marijuana." See Order Granting Summary Judgment (Exh. "A" to Moving Papers). The Order further says that "Defendant Cooperative Patients Services, Inc. operated a medical marijuana dispensary at a location owned by Evergreen Ventures ...". The elements entitling the City to its fees under Civil Code section 3496 have been met: the City was the prevailing party; Evergreen allowed "the unlawful sale" of marijuana from its property; the City incurred the fees and costs in the abatement action to enjoin that activity, and marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. See Health & Safety Code § 11054(d) (13). The City of Oakland v. McCullough, 46 Cal.App.4th 1 (1996) ("McCullough") directly supports the City's position. In McCullough, the City of Oakland sued the owner of a property under the drug house abatement law and the court consequently awarded it costs, including attorneys' fees, totaling $100,005.48. See McCullough, 46 Ca1.App.4th 1 at 4. Apropos of the costs Temecula incurred here, the court in McCullough held that "necessary support services for attorneys" are a compensable element of attorneys' fees in -3- REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS 11086-0688\1 807128v2.doc ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 an abatement action like this. See McCullough, 46 Cal.App.4th 1 at 7. Additionally, the court found the descriptions of the attorneys' time, "(e.g., meetings, trial preparation, legal research, document review, trial)" were "sufficiently descriptive categories" to warrant the court's fee award. See McCullough, 46 Cal.App.4th 1 at 9. III. Disallowing the City to Recover Its Fees Would Be Contrary to the Purpose and Policy of Nuisance Abatement Evergreen says the City should not recover any fees because Government Code section 38773.5 (b) conflicts with section 8.12.140 (A) of the Temecula Municipal Code. That section of the Government Code says a city may pass an ordinance to recover attorneys' fees and costs in nuisance abatement actions and if it does, "it shall provide for recovery of attorneys' fees by the prevailing party, rather than limiting recovery of attorneys' fees to the city if it prevails." See Gov't C. § 38773.5 (b). This, Evergreen says, conflicts with the relevant portion of Temecula's Ordinance which enables the City to collect its costs and fees for nuisance abatement from any "noncomplying person." See Temecula Municipal Code § 8.12.140 A. Although the City's Code says a "noncomplying person shall be liable to the City for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance," the ordinance does not limit the recovery of attorneys' fees exclusively to the City. The language in Temecula's Ordinance is not "unilateral" and if a party to a nuisance abatement action chose to recover its fees there is nothing inherent in Temecula's Municipal Code to preclude them from doing it. Cf City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett, 149 Cal.App.4th 1530 (invalidating ordinance that "forbid" anything other than "unilateral" recovery of fees by the city). The reason for the rule that a City can recover its fees and costs associated with nuisance abatement is plain — as between the taxpayers and the non-compliant party, the latter should be the one to foot the bill for remediating the illegality. The authority -4- REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS 11086-0688\1807128v2. doc z = o -- � G Lu O O 0 gr ?v, ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PR 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 supporting the City's recovery of its costs and fees for abating a public nuisance like this one is well-established. See City of Santa Paula v. Narula , 114 Cal.App.4th 485, 493 (2003) ("There is a strong public policy to encourage cities to abate nuisances and provide attorney fees to help defray the costs of such actions.") See also Alford v. Pierno, 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 688 (1972) ("One of the cardinal rules of construction requires that words be given such interpretation as will promote rather than defeat the General purpose and policy of the law.") See also Silberman v. Swoap, 50 Cal.App.3d 568, 571 (1975) ("Statutes should be given a construction consistent with the legislative purpose and that purpose should not be sacrificed to a literal interpretation.") It would defeat the purpose of the City's nuisance abatement ordinance to allow Evergreen to avoid compensating the City for the result of its illegal action and would be contrary to the purpose and policy of the law. Dated: March 5, 2015 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO STEPHANIE CAO By: P. rrf kIo•ko torneys for Plainti he City of Temecula and People of the State of California Ts -5- REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS 11086-068811807128v2.doc O 'W^ V K VC 0 J 0 VI O " VI te F— ; ° viee r Vp_ 0 a =s'i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On March 5, 2015, I served the within document(s): CITY OF TEMECULA'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE CITY'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: [] [1 (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. 1 placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. [X] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(cs) set forth below. Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler@tyylerbursch.com irandoTph@tylerburseh, com jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys far Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 41391 Kalmia Street, Ste. 300 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: 951.200.2020 Facsimile: 951.200.2027 E -Mail: lubranilaw@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California . is true and correct. Executed on March 5, 2015, at Los Angeles, Cali +rnia. / -VII 2-4 11 lif Ira 11086-0688\1343509v1.doc the above 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 Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jesse E.M. Randolph, State Bar No. 221060 Jordan N. Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 1 10 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (95 1) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com j randolph{c@tylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 03/09/2015 K.GARCIA BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR TIIE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TIIE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, VS. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, U1 Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. TO PLAINTIFF TEE CITY OF TEMECULA'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES Hearing: Date: March 12, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES l 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 After more than four years of litigation and just a few days before its Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees is scheduled to be heard, Plaintiff The City of Temecula ("the City") has completely changed the theory of recovery underlying its motion. In the notice accompanying its motion, the City's position was clear — it was relying exclusively upon Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140 in support of its request for $96,210.02 in costs and attorneys' fees. In its Memorandum and Points and Authorities, the City similarly has tied its theory of recovery exclusively to "the Municipal Code." In its Opposition, Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. established that the City's requests for its costs and attorneys' fees under Section 8.12.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code is preempted by Section 38775(b) of the Government Code. See City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1536-1537 (2007). In Reply, the City essentially is calling a mulligan on its initial argument that it should be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees under the Temecula Municipal Code, and for the first time in this litigation is now arguing that it should be awarded its fees and costs under a completely new statute — Section 3496 of the Civil Code. This it cannot do. It is established law and practice in this state that "points raised in a reply brief for the first time will riot be considered unless good cause is shown for the failure to present them before." Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre, 149 Cal. App. 3d 1002, 1010 (1983); see also Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1537-1538 (2013). Evergreen objects to the City's new arguments, raised for the first time in its Reply. Evergreen has had no meaningful opportunity to respond to the City's arguments, and it would be prejudicial, at this late stage (and with all that is riding on it), for the Court to consider the City's new theory in support of its request for costs and attorneys' fees. /// /// /// /// /// 2 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 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 The City's new arguments should be rejected, and for all the previous reasons given in Evergreen's Opposition, the City's Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees should he denied. TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Dated: March 9, 2015 By: Robert H. Tyler, Esq. Jesse E.M. Randolph, Esq. Jordan N. Bursch, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. 3 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES 1 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On March 9, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. TO PLAINTIFF TIIE CITY OF TEMECULA'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to th addressee(s) noted above, on ❑ BY MAIL. ❑ As follows: 1 am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ▪ BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Norco Overnite/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. • BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, 1 transmitted ❑originals ® true copies of the above - referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission March 9, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. Executed on March 9, 2015, at Murrieta, California. • (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients ' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Lubrani & Associates, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 25600 Barnes Lane INC. Menifee, California 92584 Tel: (951) 231-8564 Fax: (951) 880-1781 Email: mlubrani@lubranibrown.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE z = o� =.. g ., z ° o v, A w Q vi 5 o a c a r =. -62 U 0 1 J�� 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 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko glaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213,626.8484 Facszmile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES AND COSTS [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Date: April 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 Trial Date: Vacated Judge: John D. Molloy CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re! FEES AND COSTS CITY'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING FEES AND COSTS 2 3 Defendant Evergreen Ventures supplemental opposition to the City's Motion for 4 Attorneys' Fees and Costs under California Civil Code section 34961 claims it is not 5 responsible for them because: (1) the case was a "zoning violation" that had nothing to do 6 with "the unlawful sale, manufacture, service, storage, or keeping or giving away of a 7 controlled substance" that would bring it within section 3496's purview; (2) section 3496 8 cannot apply because the City could be "compensated for" its fees and costs pursuant to 9 "some other provision of law," namely, it's own municipal code, and; (3) the requested fees 10 and costs are unreasonable. z x 11 Each of Evergreen's arguments will be addressed seriatim, below. 0 cn Q 12 a w 13 1• 14 This Case Was About Evergreen and CPS "Selling, Providing, or 3 a 15 ! Otherwise Making Available Medical Marijuana" 16 Evergreen claims the City is not entitled to its attorneys' fees and costs under section 22 17 3496 because the Court did not issue an order "enjoining the illegal sale of a controlled 18 substance that is required for recovering attorney's fees under Section 3496." See Supp. 19 Brief at page 2, lines 16-17. According to Evergreen, "this action was brought as a zoning 20 violation, and nothing more." See Supp. Brief at page 2, lines 19-20. 21 Evergreen's attempt at separating the "zoning violation" from the sale of marijuana 22 is like trying to separate the speeding ticket from the car. It simply can't be done. 23 Evergreen's tenant, CPS, sold marijuana from its property and this is now an 24 adjudicated fact. See Order Granting Summary Judgment (Exh. "A" to Moving Papers) 25 (CPS "was in the business of selling, providing, or otherwise making available medical 26 27 All references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise specified. 28 AT CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS TTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 marijuana.") Marijuana is statutorily classified as Schedule I drug and as such is a controlled substance. See Health & Safety C. §11054(d) (13). The City initiated this lawsuit to enjoin Evergreen's tenant from selling a controlled substance from its property, which is the exact situation section 3496 was intended to address. See City of Oakland v. McCullough, 46 Ca1.App.4th 1 (1996) ("McCullough") (section 3496 "was amended in 1987 to encompass drug house abatement actions"). Moreover, contrary to allegations in Evergreen's brief, this action was not "brought as a zoning violation, and nothing more." The First Amended Complaint stated a claim for "Narcotics Abatement Under Health & Safety Code §§ 11570 et seq." and alleged "[t]he Property is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, being used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away the controlled substance of marijuana." See First Amended Complaint at ¶15, lines 12-14. It is also noteworthy that Evergreen does not mention City of Oakland v. McCullough, 46 Cal.App. 1 (1996). As discussed in the Moving Papers, McCullough involved an award to the City of Oakland for the fees and costs it incurred during a drug house abatement action. Evergreen makes no attempt to distinguish McCullough on either the law or facts from this case. Presumably no attempt was made because it is indistinguishable. This case was, and always has been about prohibiting the unpermitted sale of marijuana in Temecula. Section 3496 applies. 1I. Section 3496 Authorizes Temecula's Recovery of Fees Section 3496 says "the court may award costs, including the costs of investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorney's fees, which are not compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law, to the prevailing party" in a case like this involving the sale of controlled substances. (Emphasis added). Evergreen seizes upon the phrase "compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law" and says that language precludes Temecula -2- CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS 11086-068811816111v6.doc = Q rc 11 2 W 8 .4 - R Z � 0 ¢a vt - 5 CeQ Z V a � 4 v, 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 from recovering its fees and costs because its own municipal code is "some other provision of law." By Evergreen's reading, section 3496 will not apply if a city has another potential avenue to recover its fees and costs. This is too narrow a reading. Evergreen's interpretation would also defeat the main reason for the statute. There is nothing in the statute's plain language to suggest it applies only if a city has no other avenue for the recovery of attorney's fees and costs. Had the legislature intended the narrow construction Evergreen suggests it would have stated that intention clearly. Instead of saying "compensated for," the Legislature could have used language used words like "provided for under some other provision of law." It did not. "This court has no power to rewrite the statute so as to make it coliform to a presumed intention which is not expressed. This court is limited to interpreting the statute, and such interpretation must be based on the language used." Anderson v. I.M. Jameson Corp., 7 Ca1.2d 60, 67 (1936). The Legislature chose the word "compensated" which according to BLACK'S means: "That which is needed to restore an injured party to his former position. Remuneration for services rendered, whether in salary, fees, or commissions." BLACK'S at page 283 (West's 1990). Use of the word "compensated" leads to the common-sense conclusion that the Legislature wanted cities to recover whatever they were forced to spend on nuisance abatement, but not more. This is consistent with the policy of the law; the city could not turn abatement actions into profit -centers by collecting attorneys' fees and costs from multiple responsible parties. That would do more than "restore" the city to its position prior to the litigation. It would be more than compensation. The Court is obliged when interpreting the statute to give the words chosen by the Legislature their "usual and ordinary meaning." See Tucker Land Co. v. State of California, 94 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1197 (2001). If there is no ambiguity in the statute, and here there is not, then the "plain meaning of the Language governs." See Day v. City of Fontana, 25 Ca1.4th 268, 272 (2001). If the Court determines section 8,12.140 (A) of the Temecula Municipal Code is inapplicable then section 3496 applies because the City has -3- CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS 1 1086.0688\ 1816111 v6.duc Z Z 0 0 z VI n W z O cn LL VI 5 0 tr- ee ee Q U 0 PE gig MN! 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 not been otherwise "compensated" for its costs and fees. Evergreen's interpretation of the statute will prevent the City from being restored to its former position prior to this lawsuit and this would be contrary to the purpose of the law. The reason for statutes and ordinances that allow cities to recover their attorney's fees and costs for nuisance abatement actions is plain — as between the taxpayers and the non-compliant party, the latter should be the one to foot the bill. "There is a strong public policy to encourage cities to abate nuisances and provide attorney fees to help defray the costs of such actions," City of Santa Paula v. Narula, 114 Cal.A.pp.4th 485, 493 (2003). Evergreen's suggested interpretation would defeat the purpose of section 3496 as well as the idea that parties who are responsible for a nuisance should pay for them. III. The City's Fees and Costs Were Reasonable Evergreen says the City's fees are not "reasonable" because they were really incurred fighting against CPS. "While it was always a named party in this case," Evergreen says, "it was only after the dust had settled after years of wrangling between the City and CPS that Evergreen recently became a player in this case." See Supp. Brief at page 7, lines 14-15.2 As stated in the City's Moving Papers, the City reduced its total fee claim by 65% (from $274,000 to $96,210.02), limiting the fees claimed to those incurred after the California Supreme Court's decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr., 56 Ca1.4th 729 (2013) ("Inland Empire") during the litigation with Evergreen. See Moving Papers at pages 1-2. Evergreen claims it was an unwillingly draftee in this fight with the City, but the volume of fire did not slacken when CPS deserted 2 This is beyond the scope of the supplemental briefing on Civil Code section 3496 the Court requested and should be disregarded. Evergreen had ample opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of the City's fees in its original Opposition. -4- CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS !1086-0688\1 816111v6.doc ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 Evergreen's position. If anything, the tempo increased once the case was returned to this Court on remand and Evergreen took complete control of the litigation. It is important to emphasize the City incurred $274,000 in this case and is seeking only 1/3 of that total cost from Evergreen, and then only the costs and fees from May 2013 forward. The City is certainly entitled to recover these costs incurred litigating with Evergreen after Inland Empire. Evergreen also spills a considerable amount of ink recounting the procedural history of this case and concludes (in bolded underlined print) that "those attorneys' fees were incurred exclusively at a time that the alleged nuisance no longer existed." See Supp. Brief at page 5, lines 10-11. For a third time Evergreen resuscitates this "mootness" argument as a reason why it should not be made to compensate the City. This argument was not persuasive in Evergreen's Opposition to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, it was not persuasive in the original opposition to the City's Motion for fees, and there is no reason for the Court to consider it again here. Evergreen's culpability for the illegal dispensary has been adjudicated. Finally, Evergreen quibbles with the City's bills and says the redactions make it impossible to determine "whether or not the billing entries are reasonable." See Supp. Brief at page 8, lines 1-2. For example, Evergreen complains about a billing entry concerning Hillcrest Academy because "Hillcrest was never involved in this lawsuit." See Supp. Brief at page 9, lines 2-5). Hillcrest Academy — a school — is located within 600 -feet of the dispensary Evergreen allowed on its property and the City planned to advance these facts as grounds for abatement at trial. But for the fact that the City was forced to prepare for a trial against Evergreen — and only Evergreen - no research about Hillcrest Academy would have been required. It is true that Hillcrest Academy was not a party to the lawsuit but it was definitely going to be "involved" had the City not prevailed on summary judgment. Evergreen likewise complains about the City Attorney communicating with his client about the status of this litigation. See Supp. Brief at page 8, lines 14-15 ("Peter M. Thorson billed 1.1 hours for "REVISED OPINION LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL -5- CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS 11086.0688\1816111 v6 doc 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 REGARDING.") Mr. Thorson is the City Attorney. It is reasonable to expect he would communicate with his client about their case. The clients tend to like it, especially when the client is a City Council involved in important litigation. See Bus. & Prof. C. §6068 (m) (citing it is a lawyer's duty "to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attomey has agreed to provide legal services.") There is no dispute that the City actually paid these fees or that the fees themselves were unreasonable. The hourly rate for the City's attorneys was "$110 to $260 per hour for this case depending on the level of attorneys' experience." See Declaration of Patrick K. Bobko at ¶7, lines 11-12. Utilizing the lodestar method of fee calculation (hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate) as required under section 3496, the City is entitled to the $96, 210.02 it claims. See City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, 191 Cal.App.4th 65, 71 (2010) ("As section 3496 did not provide for a specific method to be used for fee calculation, the lodestar method was applicable.") The City supplied a declaration and breakdown of costs by the date they were incurred. The Court of Appeal in McCullough approved a similar submission: "The two attorneys submitted declarations in which they documented their time in sufficiently descriptive categories (e.g., meetings, trial preparation, legal research, document review, trial)." 46 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 (1996). /1/ 1/1 -6- CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS 11086.068811816111v6.due 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z z 11 0 • 12 CZw 13 � LL 14 15 16 • 17 110, 18 YJ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AT The City's costs and fees incurred in this case were reasonable. The City respectfully submits that it is entitled under section 3496 to recover its fees and costs. The Court should award the City $96,201.02. Dated: April 3, 2015 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO STEPHANIE CAO Bv: Ptr 'k 13+ k ttorncys for Flail ti The City of Temecula and People of the State of California -7- CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re: FEES AND COSTS 11086-06881181611Iv6.doc zo 0 v1 ce Lu g z Q o� H. 4 o a ce z V k � a pir Vitor PROOF OF SERVICE I, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I atn a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On April 3, 2015, I served the within document(s): CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: [ X ] (13Y MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler tylerbursch.eoni jrando ph etylerbursch.com inhursch@tvlerburseh.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 25600 Barnes Lane Menifee, California 92584 Telephone: 951,231.8564 Facsimile: 951.880.1781 E -Mail: lubranil aw(7a,ginail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Californ is true and correct. Executed on April 3, 2015, at Los Angeles, 11086-0688\1810164v1.doc iforni at the above well 0 0 1.71 0 a 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 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko@rwglaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 355 Sbuth Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK K. BOBKO RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Date: May 22, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 Trial Date: Vacated Judge: John D. Molloy DECLARATION OF PATRICK K. BOBKO I, Patrick K. Bobko, hereby declare: 1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before all of the courts of the State of California, and I am a Shareholder with the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon, A Professional Corporation. I am one of the attorneys responsible for SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION Re: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 1 representing Plaintiff City of Temecula in this action. I have personal knowledge of the 2 facts set forth herein and if called as a witness I could and would testify competently 3 thereto. This declaration is supplemental to the one I provided on February 12, 2015 with 4 the City's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. 5 6 Attorneys' Fees 7 2. The City seeks a total award of $121,834.00 in attorneys' fees and costs for 8 the work conducted in this case from May 2013 to present. This represents 499.8 total 9 hours of billable work. 10 3. Prior to the hearing on the City's fee motion on March 12, 2015, the City had Z o 11 incurred $88,342.00 in attorneys' fees for 396.6 hours of billable work and $7,868.02 in o� d 12 legal costs. The City's total fees and costs from May 2013 to March 2015 was $96,210. t 13 The details of these fees and costs are provided in the prior declaration I provided the Court zN o 14 on February 12, 2015. 3 3 k5 4. The City has incurred an additional $24,834 for 103.2 hours of billable work N 5 E16 on this case from March 2015 to present. Fe 17 5. I have reviewed the bills in this matter and have only included in this Motion >Y < 18 those fees and costs incurred after the City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health 771.5. 19 & Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 729 (2013) ("Inland Empire") decision in May 2013. 20 The City incurred the fees it now seeks to recover in response to the defense initiated by 21 Evergreen Venture, Inc.'s ("Evergreen") following the remand of this case from the Court 22 of Appeal. 23 24 The City Attorneys' Hourly Rates 25 6. The hourly rate for the City of Temecula's attorneys was billed at a range of 26 $110 to $260 per hour for this case depending on the level of attorney's experience. 1 27 understand these rates to be at or below the prevailing market rate charged by firms with 28 /// -2- SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION Re: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 11086-0688\ 1835745v2.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 o 11 o� tll o 12 LU 4 W e W = 13 z2 o" " �14 LL 15 f. a 16 L., 0 17 E 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the Los Angeles and San Bernardino area markets. The Bills and Breakdown of Fees and Costs 7. A breakdown of the time billed for this case from May 2013 to the present is attached as Exhibit "F." The billable time has been itemized for ease of reference into the following categories: Court Appearance/Prepare for and Attend, ex parte, Motion re: Fees/Costs, Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs, Motion to Amend, Settlement, Status/Strategy, and Supplemental Brief. 8. Attached as Exhibit "G" are the billable entries from January 2015 to present. Privileged information has been redacted. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12th day of May 2015, at L • s Angeles, California. -3- Pa 'ck K. o ko SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION Re: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 11086-068811835745v2.doc EXHIBIT "F" CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. Breakdown of Costs Billed from January 2015 through Present DATE NAME CATEGORY HOURS AMOUNT 3/11/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.7 182.00 3/12/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 5.5 1,430.00 4/6/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 4 1,040.00 4/27/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend - 3.4 884.00 4/28/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 4.6 1,196.00 4/29/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 0.4 104.00 4/30/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Court Appearance/ Prepare for and Attend 5.6 1,456.00 TOTALS: 24.2 6,292.00 4/3/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Ex Parte 4.8 1,248.00 TOTALS: 4.8 1,248.00 1/20/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion re: Fees/Costs 2.6 676.00 1/20/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.9 211.50 1/20/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.3 305.50 1/21/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.8 208.00 1/21/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.3 70.50 1/23/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.2 27.00 1/30/2015 STEPHEN MACALA - Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.6 216.00 2/02/154 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.1 13.50 2/4/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 3.3 445.50 2/4/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.5 117.50 2/5/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.3 78.00 2/5/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.7 94.50 2/5/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.4 54.00 2/10/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.8 188.00 2/11/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.1 286.00 2/11/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.2 27.00 2/11/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.8 108.00 2/12/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.6 216.00 2/12/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.3 175.50 2/13/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 3.4 459.00 5/11/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. Breakdown of Costs Billed from January 2015 through Present 2/13/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.1 13.50 2/16/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.6 376.00 2/17/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.2 52.00 2/17/2015 STEPHEN MACALA Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.2 27.00 TOTALS: 24.3 4,445.50 2/27/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.5 130.00 2/27/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.2 47.00 2/28/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.5 117.50 3/2/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 1.3 338.00 3/3/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 6.5 1,690.00 3/4/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 6.6 1,716.00 3/4/2015 PETER M. THORSON Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.6 156.00 3/4/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.9 211.50 3/5/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 3 780.00 3/5/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.5 117.50 3/9/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.7 182.00 3/9/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Reply to Motion re: Fees/Costs 0.2 47.00 TOTALS: 21.5 5,532.50 4/10/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion to Amend 0.2 52.00 4/13/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion to Amend 1.2 312.00 4/14/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion to Amend 1.7 442.00 4/22/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Motion to Amend 0.4 156.00 TOTALS: 3.5 962.00 2/25/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.3 78.00 2/26(2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.7 182.00 5/11/2015 CITY OF TEMECULA v. CPS, Inc. Breakdown of Costs Billed from January 2015 through Present 2/26/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Settlement 0.2 47.00 3/25/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.1 26.00 3/25/2015 PETER M. THORSON Settlement 0.3 78.00 3/26/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.8 208.00 3/26/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Settlement 0.1 23.50 3/27/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.6 156.00 3/27/2015 PETER M. THORSON Settlement 1.3 338.00 3/31/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 1.1 286.00 3/31/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Settlement 0.2 47.00 4/3/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.4 104.00 4/9/2015 PETER M. THORSON Settlement 0.5 130.00 4/9/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Settlement 0.5 130.00 TOTALS: 7.1 1,833.50 2/24/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.1 26.00 3/3/2015 T. PETER PIERCE Status/Strategy 0.3 78.00 3/16/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.3 78.00 3/17/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.4 104.00 3/19/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.2 52.00 3/22/2015 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 1.1 186.00 3/30/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Status/Strategy 0.1 23.50 4/2/2015 PATRICK K. 808K0 Status/Strategy 0.1 26.00 4/3/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.2 52.00 4/8/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.2 52.00 4/20/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Status/Strategy 0.6 156.00 4/30/2015 PETER M. THORSON Status/Strategy 0.6 156.00 TOTALS: 4.2 989.50 3/31/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Supplement Brief 0.1 23.50 3/31/2015 STEPHANIE CAO Supplement Brief 0.1 23.50 4/1/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Supplement Brief 6.6 1,716.00 4/2/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Supplement Brief 5.6 1,456.00 4/3/2015 PATRICK K. BOBKO Supplement Brief 1.2 312.00 TOTALS: 13.6 3,531.00 5/11/2015 EXHIBIT "G" Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - (1 1086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTSSERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Client:1 1088 - CITY OF TEMECULA 5/5/2015 1:47:21 PM Page 1 -' ' • I.'', j7 •• - Ii12912.44 oz.ci. kkiiittv....0.6.,....s....,2 SW' .00 6•14.• , V, • . i ,- . . . .e 1.., , -44.• '4P1:21. -14-f . .. . e6.r00 R "Eswaccoirekt,QiHIee Arda,.e-,.,.., -• 3 , 4 • , A•t0e. . * ......,.,....: !" ? . ,. 6• lanai. 03113/2065 Ilwok44200176 2,60 676.00 ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 0 • '. 6 • ' • STEPHANIE CAO 0.00 211.50FURTHER PREPARATION OF MOTION FOR AWARO OF 11141130664 3290082 CON 2016 knolc..200175 0.90 211.50 ArroancYr FEES ANO COSTS 0142012015 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 1.30 306.50 REVIEW PROCEOURAL POSTURE ANO FURTHER PREPARE 11060.0886 3116803 0311312010 INAN444100115 1.30 305,50 0001/,RATION OF PATRICK BOOK° REOAROING • __........ 011016 0201 PATRICK K. BOOM 0.60 208.00 REVIEW AND REVISE CirrS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' 11006.0460 SIMS 001=015 lawc44442001711 0.60 20000 reEs AND COSTS. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNI1IG • • OU211201$ 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 70.60 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF SILLS At4D COSTS REGARDING 1108641666 Mae • Mims Involce.4200176 OM 7010 . - - ---- ____ 01.023,2016 0649 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.20 27.00 -REVIEW ANO ANALYSIS OF BLUM STATEMENTS FOR 110111-1308 3204003 0.20 27,00 . 31-ig-16 Irwolc•4200175 0i'.' .16 0640 STEPHEN A. MACALA 1.60 2l6.00 -PREPARE P210 OROANIZE EXHIBIT 04 SUPPORT OF 1 iossane 3263743 NJ -gaols Mook6.2001 78 1.60 216.00 MOTION FOR COSTS ANO FEES, REVIEW ANO ANALYSIS . _ . OF TIME DETAILS REGARDING 0240242016 64UT- neerini A. MAMA 0.10 13.50 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING 11006.4466 3309363 0361912015 Inko4ow42007141 0.10 13.50 11080 - - 3300077 0260362015 0644 STEPHEN A. MAGMA 0.90 121•50 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF WINO STATEMENTS 031194016 INANcf4200718 0.90 121.50 02' • '65 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 0.60 117.50 FURTHER ANALYSTS OF 0ILUN{3 RECORDS afismet4G 110843-0686 3304190 -63/10/2010 1/440404+20071111 0.00 117.50 02/04/2015 0501 STEPHEN A. MACALA 3.30 445.60 CONTINUE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF BILLING 16055-0655 3300101 0341902015 60,01c9.200716• 11.30 446.50 STATEMENTS . 0210512016 0204 PATRICK K. 1106140 0.30 Ma REVIEW AtToaNEye FEES ANO COSTS saEssoOwN FOR 11056060e 3297644 0361912065 MYNA...200110 0.30 75.00 CITYS 91071014 FOR FEES AM) CoSTS. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING --. - 924054701$ 0540 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.70 9410 FINALIZE REVIEW MID ANAveSia or BILUNG 11066.0006 3310019 .6 .16 InviXo0-.2007111 0.70 04.50 STATEMENTS .--.... . . , 62105/27Ept4EN A. MACALA 0.40 54.00050644 Review AND ANALYSIS OF .81U.04/1 STATEMENT 11010-0610 3310022 03,1912065 Irroolce.200718 0.40 64.00 atoms an672616 OM STEPHANIE CAO oho 106.40 FURTHER PREPARATION OF IA0T10N AND MOTION FOR -11011106111 6301322 0e16e62066 invo4c#4200716 0.60 100.00 COSTS A140 ATTORNEYS" FEES AND DECLARATION Of PATRICK K 11011K0 ------ ----arm' , 02013 0204 PATRICK K BOOK° ' tIO 288.00 RESEARCH, DRAFT. MO REVISE CRY'S 64076044 5016 11068.0888 am . 10001044200718 130 206.00 ATTORNEYS' FEES AIWT.WEVERGREEN 4240 09* - ------1 0.20 -Trcee•oia- i101/00 .• 112015 0549 SWHEN A. MAGMA 21.00 REVIEW ANO 1105110440 10 MULTIPLE ELECTRONIC 00/19/2016 Irre044.4.200716 020 27.00 MESSAGES FROM 6411. 9066040 REGAROING - - .3200803-- 027114204 R49 STapHat4 A. MACAU 0.80 100.00 A�440 AND UPDATE CHART TRACKING COSTS IN 11U1S-0568 NiWIS km1444200718 0.50eo 100.03.SUPPORT OF 6407)044--, 127-71-01 0540 STEPHEN A. MACALA 1.00 216,00 CONTINUE TO PREPARE MO ORGANIZE EXHIBITS TO 11060.000 iiiiiiiiiiii- - inyolce. norm 1.60 216.00 monoN FOR cons AND FEES - ..-.. . ''' 5:16914.1- 02/12120$5 4646 STEPHEN A. MACALA 1.30 175.50 ritIAUZE MEL CHART 70 00 ATTACHED TO MOTION 116.0610 -.., 0311142015 Involan.2007 IS 1.3e 67550 FOR COSTS -- 0649 STEPHEN?, IlmcAtA 340 464c0 Pavane morn TO MOTION roR COSTS ANO FEW- 11=4505 stia2.- 01112120f5 SAO 419.00 - - - - • -- 011/1912015 Involes.2001111 Billed and Unbilled Recap 01 Time Detail -111088-0688 - COOP. PATIENTSSERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:1108B - CITY OF TEMECULA 515/2015 1:47:21 PM Page 2 ;40V4i.' • ..e. .; 1-.E,', TiggiWAa -.TS". . 3,•:•.4.:7.'11 tit) 1 4wiiii0r4443',31,1)ANY4WilM.zigi:LEFT.;:._.,i.:': .. XX,!' -.4k.1.1. .i."LVS97,a1/...24:•*.ka.:A•z.:IiAL'i..'iialgi31,•-.• .-: .• . 2:: . 'r - 'I 010 1360 Renew ANO ANALYSIS OF CAU MSS ng . ...104i'.i - .• :..1-' r'. ; ' • ' : '1 11000-0861 '; • ' • ' 3309047 4: 02/1a; 16 0 STEPHEN A. AMCALA 03119/2015 InYo8.4.200710 0.10 13.50 - - 02/16/2016 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 1.00 376,130 FINALIZE MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES 110660006 3304441 1.08' 371100 AND COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT WE ImTERIALS oanarkma Inm:446.200716 02/17/2015 0204 WWI( K. SOSICO 0.20 52.00 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 110416-01120 snail OiO 62.80 03/1412016 Invoic4•2007111 -_- 02117/2015 0548 STEPHEN A. MACALA 0.10 13.60 REVIEWAND RESPOND TO ELECTRONIC MESSAGE FROM 11036-0620 3310107 03/19/2016 Irna1ce*2007111 010 13.60 MS. CAO REGARDING 02424/2015 0204 PATRICK K. BOW 0.10 2600 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11000-061111 3301057 0.10 2060 03,19/2016 Invo4c4.260714 02/24/2016 0204 PATRICK 14.8001(0 0.30 7680 CORRESPONDENCE WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 110464166 mem 63/1W13 Invokna200716 0.30 TS 00 03126/2015 0264 PATRICK K. limo - 0.70 12200 WONG CAU. WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 1101410 3302473 03/184015 Involm•3007111 0.70 162.00 DRAFT AND REVISE MEMORANDUM FOR CITY ATTORNEY 01/25/7015 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 0.30 47.00 ANALTS13 OF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING 11066-0909 3302e57 03719/2015 8nvq936.2007111 0.20 47.00 02/27/2015 eaot PATRICK K. 0013K0 0.50 13000 REVIEW EVERGREEN'S OPPOSITION TO CITY'S FEE 110640668 3302479 0371412016 InynicaY200716 0.60 130 00 MOTION 73-2727•201S Wer STEPWISE CAO 0.20 47.00 RECEIVE A8 REVIEW DEFENDANT EVERGREEN'S 11066-0686 3304910 0317612015 Inyeks.200716 0.20 47.00 OPPOSITION 10 11-06 CITY'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES - • - • - 021211/2015 0200 STEPHANIE CAO 010 1 HAS MEAL P ESEARCH REGARDING I 10911.0600 3304950 i. I UNWZill entookom200710 0.50 117.60 03/02°011 0204 PATRICK K. WOW 1.30 332.00 RESEARC71. 01441 1. AND REVISE REPLY SUPPORTING 110850012 3303785 1 0406/2016 Involce•201114 1.30 333.00 CAWS FEE MOTION RESEARCH CONCERNING I 0310312015 0204 PATRICK K. 130431(0 6.50 1650.00 RESEARCH REGARDING 1101141-06811 3303213 0.50 1.89000 0411672016 0,vo100-201114 RESEARCH, DFTAFT. ANO REvta REPLY SUPPORTING cirrs MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. CORRESPONDENCE ANO STATUS UPDATE TO CITY ATTORNEY REGAR PETER PIERCE 0.30 Taos CONFERENCE WITH 1414. 808140 REGAIN:WV -174iVala iiiiiiiii 03103/2016 0133 T. 047c05t5 Involom.301tt 4 0.30 WOO • - - • - 03/0612015 0204 P41141014 14. (IMMO SI* 1.71600 RESEARCH. DRAFT, 4010 8811160 REPLY SUPPORTING 11054001 3307900 . 8.90 1.7113.000CITVII 015T1ON FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ANO COSTS 04/W015 Inyolca.201114 0343412015 0140 PETER 01.1010148001 0.60 ism 14EYIEWE0 Evenoffe-fars OPPOSFRONTO orrs 1101643655 3333012 0.00 116.00 ArbRMEY FEED MORON 05/15/2015 9N0155.201 114 • . -111791715 0200 0.00 111.00 LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING. 110460006 031041616 8180104408 1240 .........._.. Inyo14r201114 080 211.90 04/1513615 °swam 0204 PATRICK 14.008140 3.00 710.00 aeseaecii, DRAFT. 4010 14611458 REPLY SUPPOR7003 110910818 7310411 . 1 - , .1 Invdce•301114 3.00 7i000 CM'S 010710010011 ATTORNEYS' 0E68 • - 'Haan ona STEPHAME-CAO 0.60 -WM:FURTHER PREPARATION OF REPLY MEMORANDUM Of 1 losWkiV --5T-am 44,16STri Awoimm201114 0.60 14904T3 AND AtrnioratIES SUPPORT TNE efrY1 MOTION FOR FEES ANO COSTS .-- .... .......4-...M7--TiVgisowse mA2mmt n 741 NG 0682viEW EVERGREEN'S vemcnow TO CRY'S RE110r.-...... Billed and Unbilled Recap 01 Time Detail -111088-0688 - COOP. PATIENTSSERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Client:1108B - CITY OF TEMECULA 515/2015 1:47:21 PM Page 2 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time Detail - [11086-0688 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR) Page 3 Client:11088 - CITY OF TEMECULA 5/5/2015 1:47:21 PM • 1!2.00 AND ANALYZE ISSUES REGARDING CORRFAP0N0ENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING :. PREPARE F R HEARING ON CITYS MOTION FOR AtTORII YTFEES AND COSTS 00018 020/ STEPHANIE cAo 020 47.00 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES CONCERNING 0M16S2016 IAvola.201114 0.20 47.00 11038.0668 613/043 03vtlnoln- 3304 PATRICK K.000KO 04/15/2016 kwolc0.2011 N 0 70 182.00 RESEARCH MID PR PARE F011 HEARING*/ CRRY$PEE 110660668 0315107 Aro 162.00 MOTION �. 03/1212015 0204 PATRICK K 008K0 04/1-03W Inwok.+201114 6.60 1,430.00 PREPARE FOR AND APPEAR AT REARM ON CTIY•8 11066.0668 640 1,43000 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'SFEES BEFORE JUDGE MOLLOY W RNERSIOE. ANALYZE ISSUERCONCERNING 3313114 . DRAFT AND REVISE NOTICE OF .0110E14 CONCERNING 03/102015 0204 PAIRICtt K. 808K0 0411512015 kw0106.201114 0.30 0.30 7300 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 7300 REVISED ORooTANce REVIEW 3196300 33/000 03/17/2016 0204 PATRICK K. eoo*O r04715128'OI1 kwo*c.-501114 oy,wm-rai PATRICK K. 900K0 04/1612018 0.40 104.00 REVIEW DRAFT OF STAFF REPORT CONCERNING 0.40 104.00 __, , . Imck.-201114 11008.0666 3313601 0.20 52.00 REVIEWOEFENOANTEVERGREEN'S N0TICE OF APPEAL . ....._ 0.70 62.00 AND ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 110660666 3314669 0312172016 116 PETER M. THORSON 00192015 Iiwoloe.201114 1.10 366.00 DRAFTED To CITY COu1JC' L CONCERNING 110660666 1.10 200.00 00/25/2015 0204 PATR*CK K. 5001(0 041612015 Inv06.201111 3314491 0.10 28.00 ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 0.10 2060 11068.0681 3314596 • • 03/26/2015 0148 PETER M. THORSON Ort 16 Invoke+201114 0,30 0.30 78.00 DRAFTED MEMORANOIAA REGARDSNG 031*I2b15 0204 PATRICK K. BO8K0 04/15/2015 9'vo34.2011 N 70.00 110660060 3316161 0.60 206.00 RESEARCH, DRAFT, ANO REVISE SETTLEMENT LETTER 110660686 0.60 206.0 TO EVERGREENS COUNSEL. ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING 5316010 03/26/2015 0299 STEPHANIE CAO 5001672018 Inv0k..201114 0.10 2390 ANALYSIS of ISSUES REGARDING - 1101130601 010 23.50 03/3712015 0204 PATRECKKBook° GNI 2/2015 IRve*46.201114 0.60 0.10 OOt2T�}A15 011 PETER M. THORSON 3320130 1 166.00 REVIEW NOTICE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL 163100 REGARDING AND PROVIDE STATUS REPORT TO CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING . ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE W1TH OPPOSING COU_, 446 L REGARDING 110/60686 3316097 _ 1.30 336.00 RESEARCHED SETTLEMENT ISSUES 01n6/2015 Inv/No.201114 1.30 333.00 031r0120t5 0200 STEPHANIE CAO '0t/16f2016 5w0144.201114 110860856 3316269 0.10 23.50 ANALYSIS OF issues REOAPOINO 0.10 23.60 S PATRICK K 000X0 0v1V/Z0�' l0cMt-201114 mound 0209 STEPHANIE CAO 11006.0668 3:30102,_ 1.10 256.00 P/1 ---CALL WITH OPPOSING coUNBa 00/201203(0 1.10 286.00 ', ANALYZE ISSUES CONCERNING REVIEW 0.20 0431 •1 Irtvoko•201114 020 47,00 EVERGREENS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF CONCERNING RESEARCH. 110/60836 3366265 DRAFT, AND REVISE RESPONSE TO SAME 47.00 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES CONCERNING 110/60666 332042 03/3//22316 02K STBPHAME CAO 0.10 2310 RECEIVE AND REVIEW DEFENDANT EVERGREEN 11086 001 04/15,2015 kwolw-2011 N 0.10 23.60 TIME �Y8 OR CSS AND A ORNBYS PEES Billed and UnbDied Recap Of Tlme Detail - (11088-0686 - COOP. PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR( Cllent:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 5/5/2015 1:47:21 PM Page 4 --,, , , I �• i;1 . �•.�7 .1`.�j-1 ' �`j. 1 �i.4f; fi. �JY':i EPMAI4IO .11 I:'.� BTEPHANi6 CAO �1:-[uq 1 .1 . f. f�,j� �]�/1�: :' •`.h. . ,�:.. pl11ti_4 5_ J y1.;t1:17:1'-.C•-'IN T, i:.: -::, ~`1 ul i'- j•i ......t..:. , .;i' •. '.4, ..Qw >2``;a. J:.. k .A 410664E4 0.10 27.60 RECEIVE ANO REVIEW DEFENDANT EVEROREE4y 1..r 1•., "....�...., 0220065 114,10,2016 14.4k4+201414 0.18 2710 VEN1URE6 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 10, _- SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO THE CITYS MOTION . FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 11060.0666 6.80 I7II.O0R6$ ARCFlORIFI.ANOREVISESUPPLE*IENIM.BRIEF CONCERNING 23I0304 ' 4�(0if2016 0204 PATRICK K.800(0 - 114066:'0666 0312026 04(00,2015 0204 PATRECKK. 8068(0 1106 . 1,45100 RESEARCH, GRAFT. AND REVISE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF CONCERNING Who 04(02/2046 0204 PATRICK K. 0041K0 0.10. 26.00 PHONE CALL FROM OPPOSNOCOUNSEL 11001'00141 04103f20t6 0204 PATRICK k.808K0 4.60 1,246.00 PHONE CALLS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING 11066-0608 8317931 REVIEW 2X PARTE APPLICATION AND RESEARCH. DRAFT. ANO REVISE OPPOSTIION 70 BAMS MR. TYLER REGARDING 11081.0666 013934 04,0312016 6204 PATRICK K. BOat(O 0.40 104.00 Piot& CALL WITH 1101111.006! 3617126 08031016 0204 PATR1b( K. BOBKO 1.20 312,00 RESEARCH. DRAFT. ANO REVISE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF CONCERNING 8317036 -• 04(0312013 TRICK K. 6068(0 020 6200 PROVIDE TO CITY 11066-0660 ATTORNEY CONCERNING 0/106/3016 0204 PATRICK K. 8088(0 4.00 1,040.00 PREPARE FOR HEARING ON EVERGREENS EX PARTE 11066.)661 3321101 'APPUCATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME. HEARING BEFORE JtEOE TRASK REGARDING SAME. PROVIDE ..._ TO CITY ATTORNEY _ ..__-- ...... 04/0612016 .. 0409/2016 0204 PATRICK K. 800%0 0.20 52.00 CaRREBPONOENCE ANO PHONE CALL WITH EVERGREEN'S 01060.0868 33227014 .. COUNSEL _ 0146 PETER M. THORSON 0.60 130.00 R emade° MOTION AND SETTLEMENT RESPONSE FROM 110060886 3326603 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL • 04(0912015 0204 PATRICK K.0091(0 0.50 43000 ANALYZE IES4JES CONCERNING 41066.0680 3327023 94400,E CALL INTIM EVERGREENS COUNSEL REGARDING ANALYZE ISSUES - - --'- REGARDING 110684188/ $321036 0441012616 0204 PATRICK K. 0088(0 0.20 62.00 REVIEW NOTICE OF ORDER CONCERNOVG 332706,* 0441912016 0204 PATRICK K. BOBK0 120 312.00 RESEARCH.ORAPT.ANO REVISE OPPOSITION TO 11060-0061 EVERGREEN'S M071OM TO AMEND COURr3 ORDER 33270-W". _. «- 0 111/2016 004 PA�Li(1 K.1109%0 1.70 442.00 RESEARCH, DRAFT. AND REVISE OPPOSITION TO 1106606/6 _ EVEROREENf6NOTION TOAWED CEDER .,,_,_...__ �» 042612046 • 0201 PATRICK K.1108%0 0.60 166.00 CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY STAFF CONCERNING 11146-0608 M9001 --- ANE REVIEW DRAFT AND REVISE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTION: . FOR IN ADVANCE OF . HEARING ON CITY'ItMOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES ' EVERGREEN'S REPLY SUPPORTING 11016.06)18 3820414 04123/2016 r 0204 PATRICK 6. OOBK0 0.40 104.00 REVIEW DEFENDANT _..-__ 127 MOTION FOR RECON8IDERATIZN ....._� 3326679 _ - 0442442016 0204 PATRICK%. 8008(0 3.40 484.00 RESEARCH ANO PREPARE FOR NEARING ON CITY'8 110664 6M4 ENOAN MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' PEES AND DEFTB NOTION TO AMEND COURT'S ORDER. PHONE CAU.B -,r_,., WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL REGARDING r,,,, 04128/2018 0204 PATRICK 6. BO8KO 4.60 1.106,00 PREPARE FOR HEARING ON CRY'S MOTION FOR 11661466 23$222 ATTORNEYS' FEES ANO MOTION TO AMEND ORDER. BEFORE JUDGE MOLLOY APPEAR AT HEARING CONCERNING 8AME --' 410060/61 303021 - -_-- ---_. __.. _-..- .n.ma GCl ewrApetMAN4ePAEPAReFORHBARNOH 0.40 Billed and Unbilled Recap Of Time DataII - [11065-0688 - COOP. PATIENTSSERVICES, INC. -MARIJUANA VENDOR] Page 5 Client:11086 - CITY OF TEMECULA 5/5/2016 1;4721 PM 471)irt • '6V1.t: MOTION FOR AT Yr FEES AND DEFELNDANT'S -T. 64 TION TO AMEND (mars ORDER OV30/2018. WO PETER AI, THORSON 000 165.00 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. GOMM AND DRAFTED 11066-0665 3330104 . MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL ..... 04t30,201$ 0204 PATniCx K. BOOKO 6.60 1.464.00 RESEARCH ANO PREPARE FOR HEARING ON core 11046-051m 3330233 $.10TK*4 FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND DEPENDANTS .MOTION TO AMEND COURTS ORDER. APPEAR BEFORE PAIGE MOLLOY 114 RIVERSIDE FOR SAME. PROVIDE TO CITY AT TORREY URDU -LEO TOTALS; WORK 41.60 11.'26.00 21 r6colds UteILLED TOTALS: BILL: 42.60 11,116.00 8e.1.00 TOTALS: WORK: etz) 13.562.00 50 records BALED TOTALS: MU: 61.20 13,14200 GRAND TOTALS: WORK: 104.00 24.190.00 00 roma ARANO TOTALS: BILL: 104.03 24.0000 M = 0 v.) g w a L7 z- 0 O N Lil Q a — x v1 S 0 4 ¢W V E K a ;01 Et y� PROOF OF SERVICE I, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On May 12, 2015, 1 served the within document(s): SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK K. BOBKO RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: [ l (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. 1 am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing thc envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler tylerbursch.com jrando ph a,tylerbursch.com inburschitylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 25600 Barnes Lane Menifee, California 92584 Telephone: 951.23L8564 Facsimile: 951.880.1781 E -Mail: lubranilaw@a gmail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2015, at Los Angeles, C 11086-0688M H 10164v1Apt; ifornia. 03/30/2015 MON 15:54 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER 6 BURSCH 1 2 3 4 5 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jordan N. Bunch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brims Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (951) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com 6 jnbursch@tylerbursch.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e002/017 FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 04/01/2015 K.GARCIA BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CTIY OF TEMECULA, a California ivlunicipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES in Date: April 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 1N OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. ("Evergreen") respectfully submits this Supplemental Brief in Support of Its Opposition to the Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiff The City of Temecula ("the City"). Evergreen has concurrently filed a request for judicial notice herewith seeking judicial notice of material that is part of the file in this court, which will be available in the courtroom at the time of the hearing pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306(c)(2). I. INTRODUCTION At the March 12, 2015 hearing on the City's motion for attorneys' fees, this Court indicated that Evergreen had the better of the legal arguments when it came to the theory of recovery the City thus far has been pursuing in its quest to recover from Evergreen $96,210.02 in costs and attorneys' fees. As the Court apparently recognized, the City's request for an award of nearly $100,000 in costs and attorneys' fees from Evergreen in this action cannot rest upon Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (B), as this local ordinance is preempted by Section 38773.5(b) of the Government Code. See City afMonte Sereno v. Padgett, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1536 (2007). Seemingly aware of this reality, in its reply in support of its motion, the City diverted attention away (without completely abandoning) its arguments under Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (13), and for the first time in this litigation invoked Section 3496 of the Civil Code as the basis for its request for attorneys' fees and costs. Citing the familiar (and common-sense) rule that matters not raised in the initial moving papers cannot be raised in the reply, Evergreen objected to the City's eleventh -hour addition of its new theory of recovery. At the above-mentioned hearing, the Court requested supplemental briefing concerning the City's contention that Civil Code section 3496 is a tenable basis for the recovery of its attorneys' fees and costs from Evergreen in this action. It is not, as explained below. II. THE CITY CANNOT RECOVER ITS ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 3496 Civil Code section 3496 provides, in pertinent part: "In any of the following described cases, the court may award costs, including the costs of EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorney's fees, which are not compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law, to the prevailing party ... (c) In any case in which a governmental agency sceks to enjoin the use of a building or place, or seeks to enjoin in or upon any building or place the unlawful sale, manufacture, service, storage, or keeping or giving away of any controlled substance, as authorized in Article 3 (commencing with Section 11570) of Chapter 10 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code." There are multiple reasons why the City's request for $96,210.02 in costs and attorneys' fees from Evergreen is not supported by Section 3496 of the Civil Code. A. Civil Code Section 3496 Is Not Annlicable In This Case Because The Order Granting The City's Motion For Summary Judgment Was For A Zoning Violation And Not A Result Of Illegal Sale Of A Controlled Substance The Order Granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Order") identified Temecula Municipal Code violations as the basis for granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the Order states, "Temecula Municipal Code prohibits a medical marijuana dispensary anywhere in the City." See Order. It was not an order enjoining the illegal sale of a controlled substance that is required for recovering attorney's fees under Section 3496. In addition, the Order states, "Section 8.12.180 B of the Temecula Municipal Code declares all violations of the Code to be a public nuisance." Id. Accordingly, this action was brought as a zoning violation, and nothing more. Section 3496 never contemplates the recovery of attorney's fees related to zoning violations. Moreover, the City never contemplated Section 3496 before they were put on notice that the Temecula Municipal Code's ordinance for the recovery of attorney's fees was drafted in violation of the Government Code, thereby making the ordinance unenforceable. Furthermore, Section 3496 was established to allow a civil recovery for violations of Health and Safety Code Section 11366. However, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775 make qualified marijuana transactions exempt from these penalties. Therefore, the statutory scheme contemplated by Section 3496 is irrelevant to the present facts. The Order does not support a finding that the City may recover its attorney's fees under Section 2 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 3496. If the Court grants the City's request for attorney's fees based on Section 3496 it will be a drastic expansion of the scope of the statute because no case law supports an award of attorney's fees based on a zoning ordinance. B. There Is Some "Other Provision Of Law" That Provides For The Recovery Of Attorneys' Fees; Civil Code Section 3496 Therefore Is Inapplicable. On its face, Section 3496 of the Civil Code states that a prevailing party may recover attorneys' fees and costs under its provisions only where attorneys' fees and costs are not "compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law." This is not the case here. Indeed, the initial motion the City filed with this Court to recover its attorneys' fees and costs concedes there is "some other provision of law" under which the City could seek such a recovery. That "other provision of law" is the City's own Municipal Code, namely, Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (B). Unfortunately for the City, that "other provision of law" is preempted by controlling state law, as it does not provide for the mutual recovery of attorneys' fees by any prevailing party, as expressly required by Government Code section 38773.5(b). But the remedy for this apparent drafting error by the City is not to stick Evergreen with a nearly six -figure cost bill. The appropriate remedy here is not judicial — but rather is legislative in nature. The City is required to rewrite its ordinance to comply with California law. This Court should not do the City's work for it, and certainly should not penalize Evergreen in the process. Moreover, the City is judicially estopped from now contending (as it likely will) that there is no "other provision of law" that arguably would provide a basis for its requests for attorneys' fees and costs, since all along the City has been pointing to the existence of this same "other provision of law" as the law which requires Evergreen to pay its attorneys' fees and costs. It would surely be an inequitable result for the City to point to its own Municipal Code for the entirety of this litigation as being the law that authorizes it to recover its fees and costs, only now to turn around and argue that this "provision of law" is actually not a "provision of law" at all. The City is bound to its Municipal Code not only because it has argued for its enforcement in this action; the City is bound to its Municipal Code because 3 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 the City created it. Because there is "some other provision of law" that not only exists, but the City has consistently and expressly sought its fees and costs under, the plain language of Civil Code section 3496 is not satisfied here. The City's request for its fees and costs under this newly -raised statute should be denied in its entirety. C. The Citv's Request For Attorneys' Fees and Costs Does Not Meet The "Reasonableness" Requirement of Civil Code Section 3496 Civil Code section 3496 permits, in cases in which it applies (which it does not here), the recovery of "reasonable attorney's fees." The attorneys' fees sought by the City under the circumstances and posture of this case are not "reasonable." The City's request for its attorneys' fees should be rejected separately on this basis. Understanding the facts and circumstances related to this case is essential in making a determination as to the reasonableness of the City's request for attorney's fees. CPS began leasing Suite 105 on June 1, 2010. See Evergreen's Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("RSUMF") 1136 filed in opposition to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. CPS's lease agreement was for a term of one year. Id. ¶ 37. The lease agreement between CPS and Evergreen expired on its own terms on May 31, 2011. Id. ¶ 38. CPS vacated the premises in April 2011 — before its one-vear lease term expired. Id. ¶ 39. • On September 23, 2010, CPS obtained a business license from the City providing no notice to either Evergreen or the City that CPS intended to sell marijuana. RSUMF ¶ 3- 5. • On January 3, 2011, the City granted CPS a Certificate of Occupancy. See Plaintiff s Compendium of Evidence in Support of the City of Temecula's Motion for Summary Judgment, Ex. "A." • On January 12, 2011, the City renewed CPS's business license. RSUMF 117. • On February 16, 2011, an undercover officer purchased marijuana from CPS. RSUMF ¶ 12. • On March 2, 2011 the City filed the original complaint in this action. 4 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 • On March 4, 2011, the Court issued a temporary restraining order against CPS and Evergreen. RSUMF ¶ 25. • On March 8, 2011, Evergreen was first served with the Summons and Complaint. See Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint. • On April 7, 2011, the Court issued a preliminary injunction. RSUMF ¶ 26. • In April 2011, CPS vacated the premises. • Thereafter, on June 7, 2011, after CPS had already vacated the premises, the City filed their First Amended Complaint. RSUMF ¶23. An additional factor weighing against the "reasonableness" of the attorneys' fees the City now seeks from Evergreen pursuant to Section 3496 of the Civil Code is that those attorneys' fees were incurred exclusively at a time that the alleged nuisance no longer existed. CPS was no longer a tenant of Evergreen's in April 2011. Thus, any alleged nuisance created by CPS on Evergreen's property abated as of April 2011. It would not be "reasonable" to award the City nearly $100,000 in costs and attorneys' fees against Evergreen for work it did in 2013 and 2014, when by 2013 and 2014, the City's very purpose in originally filing its lawsuit — i.e., preventing CPS from selling or distributing marijuana from Evergreen's building — had already been accomplished. When filing the First Amended Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, the City should not have named Evergreen as a defendant. It may be reasonable to award fees against CPS, but not Evergreen. In his conversations with Cynthia Pollard leading up to the execution of its lease with Evergreen, CPS's principal, Douglas Lanphere, informed Pollard that CPS intended to operate a medical marijuana -related "patient resource center" out of Suite 105. RSUMF ¶ 40. The business license application and supporting paperwork that CPS submitted to the City were consistent with Lanphere's representation to Pollard that CPS was planning to operate a "patient resource center" — not an illegal medical marijuana dispensary — from Suite 105. Id. ¶ 41. Evergreen did not believe, and had no reason to suspect, that CPS would be selling or distributing marijuana from its building. Id. ¶ 43. Had Evergreen known or suspected that CPS was selling or distributing marijuana from Suite 105, it would never have rented to CPS. Id. ¶ 44. Further, once -CPS began renting space from Evergreen, Evergreen had no reasons to suspect 5 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 that CPS was issuing or selling marijuana from its location. RSUMF ¶ 45. There were no reports of distinct fumes or odors emanating from Suite 105. Id. 1146. Nor did Evergreen receive any reports of CPS's clientele being suspect in appearance or demeanor. Id. ¶ 47. Further, Evergreen received no warnings or other stated concerns from any co -tenants, building patrons, law enforcement officials, or other City or local officials. Id. ¶ 48. Indeed, before receiving notice of this lawsuit, Evergreen had never heard that either law enforcement officials or other City officials suspected that CPS was selling marijuana from its building. Id. As noted above, CPS's lease with Evergreen expired on its own terms on May 31, 2011, shortly after Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. RSUMF ¶ 38. However, CPS actually vacated Suite 105 a month earlier, in April 2011. Id. ¶ 39. CPS has not operated any business — marijuana -related or otherwise, legal or illegal — from Evergreen's building since its lease expired and it vacated the premises nearly three -and -a -half years ago. Evergreen was not provided with prior notice from the City of the existence of any alleged nuisance on its property, was not given the opportunity to voluntarily abate any alleged nuisance on its property, and was not provided with any written findings or a written decision from the City (from which Evergreen, if warranted, conceivably could have taken an appeal). RSUMF ¶ 18. Instead, the City went straight to court, suing Evergreen and its tenant (CPS) on March 2, 2011. On April 10, 2011, CPS sought a writ of supersedeas from the Court of Appeal, in order to stay this Court's injunctive order. See Evergreen's Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. G, filed in support of Evergreen's Motion for Summary Judgment; RSUMF ¶ 27. The Court of Appeal issued the writ. See RJN, Ex. I. On October 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal affirmed this Court's injunctive order, and thereby rejected CPS's appeal. See RJN, Ex. H. CPS filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which initially granted the Petition on December 12, 2012. However, the California Supreme Court later dismissed the Petition for Review on July 31, 2013, and the case thereafter was remanded to this Court. Importantly, each writ, appeal, or petition taken between June 21, 2011 and July 31, 2013 was taken exclusively by CPS — not Evergreen. RJN, Ex. 0, H, 1. The counsel who purported to represent both CPS and Evergreen never advised Evergreen that these appeals were being taken. Evergreen's 6 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMP") filed in support of Evergreen's Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶ 133. Evergreen was never asked to review any briefing, was never given an opportunity to meet with counsel concerning any appeal, was never consulted about the merits or grounds for appealing, and was never advised that in the event the appeals were unsuccessful (as they were), that it (Evergreen) could be on the hook for Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in responding to those appeals. Id. 11134. As an initial matter, and has been pointed out in previous submissions to this Court, the alleged "bad actor" here was not Evergreen. It was CPS. As the history and allegations of this litigation show, Evergreen was never the primary target of the City's lawsuit. It was CPS's alleged marijuana dispensary that the City was seeking to shut -down when it filed this lawsuit. It was CPS who the City locked horns with over the legal capacity of a municipality to shut -down a suspected marijuana dispensary within its borders. It was with CPS that the City fought over these issues all the way to the California Supreme Court. While it was always a named party to this case, it was only after the dust had settled after years of wrangling between the City and CPS that Evergreen recently became a player in this case. And this was only because Evergreen, by default, became the City's primary target once CPS filed for bankruptcy and otherwise disappeared from the scene. While the City understandably would like someone to foot the bill for the attorneys' fees and costs it has racked up in this case, it would not be "reasonable," given the circumstances and litigation history of this action, to require Evergreen to do so. CPS — not Evergreen — should be the defendant held primarily responsible for the payment of any attorneys' fees the Court may ultimately award. A further reason undercutting the "reasonableness" of the City's request for attorneys' fees is the plain impropriety of certain of the City's billing entries, and the lack of specificity provided in other entries (due to the heavy redaction of those entries the City has submitted to the Court). For example, counsel for the City, Stephen A. Macala, billed 2.6 hours on September 10, 2013 for "REVIEW AND ANALYZE CASE FILES REGARDING." It is impossible to know whether or not the entry is reasonable due to the redaction. Nearly every entry reflected in the City's billing statements are 7 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 redacted to such a degree that it is impossible to determine whether or not the individual entries are reasonable. As a result, by failing to provide this Court with the necessary evidence in support of its request, the City's motion for attomey's fees should be denied. Moreover, the City's billing shows that it is attempting to recover fees from Evergreen that were incurred as a direct result of CPS's involvement. Although it is difficult to determine what billing entries were actually directed against CPS due to the City's redactions, some entries identify CPS. For example, on October 30, 2013, Patrick K. Bobko billed .2 hours to "REVIEW CPS'S REPLY SUPPORTING MOTION TO TAX COSTS." Subsequently, Mr. Bobko billed 2.8 hours for preparing for and attending the motion to tax costs.' Multiple entries reference CPS. It would be unreasonable to order Evergreen responsible for fees incurred as a result of CPS. Additionally, the City is attempting to include attorney's fees that are unrelated to the lawsuit. For example, on January 9, 2015—after the Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, Peter M. Thorson billed 1.1 hours for "REVISED OPINION LETTER TO CITY COUNSEL REGARDING." This is yet another example where Evergreen is prejudiced by the City's redactions in the billing statements because Evergreen is unable to determine why the City's attorneys were conducting research, communicating with individuals other than the City, and drafting documents. Nonetheless, the January 9, 2015 billing entry is a prime example of an instance where because of the redaction it is arguable whether or not the expense was directly related to this lawsuit and whether or not it is reasonable. Further, the City is unreasonably claiming fees on May 8, 2014 for time spent speaking to the media. That appears more "political" than "legal." Similarly, the billing statement reflects numerous entries regarding an unrelated party, Hillcrest Academy. On October 16, 2014 the billing statement states, "FACTUAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING...AND COMMUNICATION WITH CITY PLANNER AND HILLCREST ACADEMY REGARDING." Then on October 21, 2014 it further states, "COMMUNICATION WITH HEAD OF 1 It must be noted that the City's attorneys double billed for preparing for the motion to tax costs. On November 4, 2013 Patrick D. Skahan billed .6 hours, and on November 5, 2013 Mr. Skahan billed an additional 2.3 hours to prepare for the hearing, which Mr. Bobko again billed for preparing and attending the same hearing. 8 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 HILLCREST ACADEMY AND PROPERTY AT ISSUE." Thereafter, on November 9, 2014 the billing statement reflects, "REVIEW OF HILLCREST ACADEMY RECORDS...." Hillcrest was never involved in this lawsuit. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to allow the City to recover attorney's fees that it cannot prove were incurred as a result of this lawsuit, and more specifically, that were incurred as a direct result of Evergreen's involvement. III. CONCLUSION For each of the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons originally stated in its Opposition, Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. maintains that Plaintiff The City of Temecula's Motion for Costs and Attomeys' Fees should be denied. Dated: March 30, 2015 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP . y er, Esq. •9dan N. Bursch, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC 9 EVERGREEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On March 30, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ▪ by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on March 30, 2015. ❑ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted ❑originals ❑ true copies of the above - referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission March 30, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. • BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by GSO Overnight/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. O BY MAIL. As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on March 30, 2015, at Murrieta, California. • (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 1 Melody L. Fix PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Grinestaff & Cha, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 43537 Ridge Park Drive INC. Temecula, California 92590 Tel: (951) 331-3067 Fax: (951)848-0957 Email: mlubrani@lubranibrown.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 03/30/2015 KON 15:59 PAX 951 600 4996 TYLER 6 suRSCH aO14/017 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 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jordan N. Bunch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile; (951) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 04/01/2015 K.GARCIA BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. 1 Case No. RIC 1103777 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES [Filed concurrently with Supplemental Brief in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Attorney's Fees] Date: April 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.rn. Dept: 3 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL $REIF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 Pursuant to Sections 452 and 453 of the Evidence Code, Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. ("Evergreen") respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents that are part of the record of this court filed in relation to this lawsuit. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306(c)(2), the material subject to this request shall be available in the courtroom at the time of the hearing. This request is made in support of Evergreen's Supplemental Brief in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff The City of Temecula's Motion for Attorney's Fees: 1. Plaintiff's Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint for Evergreen. 2. Plaintiffs Compendium of Evidence in Support of the City of Temecula's Motion for Summary Judgment, including the declarations and exhibits attached thereto. 3. Evergreen's Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, including the declarations and exhibits attached thereto. 4. Evergreen's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed in support of Evergreen's Motion for Summary Judgment. 5. Evergreen's Request for Judicial Notice filed in support of Evergreen's Motion for Summary Judgment, including all exhibits attached thereto. TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Dated: March 30, 2015 B 2 H. Tyler, rdan N. Bursc Attorneys for Defendant EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BREIF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On March 30, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. 1 caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to th addressee(s) noted above, on March 30, 2015. ❑ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted ❑originals ❑ true copies of the above - referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission March 30, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. • BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. 1 deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by GSO Overnight/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. ❑ BY MAIL. As follows: 1 am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on March 30, 2015, at Murrieta, California. ® (State) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Melody L. Fix PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Grinestaff & Cha, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 43537 Ridge Park Drive INC. Temecula, California 92590 Tel: (951) 331-3067 Fax: (951)848-0957 Email: mlubrani@lubranibrown.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 03/31/2015 TUE 8:59 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER 6 EURSOK ®0J2/004 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 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jordan N, Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (95I) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com j nbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant, EVERGREEN VENTURES FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 04/01/2015 K.GARCIA BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE l AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., el al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On March 31, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC., SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES and DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC., REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST • by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to th addressee(s) noted above, on March 31, 2015. ® BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted El originals Zj true copies of the above - referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission March 31, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. ® BY OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE. 1 deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by GSO Overnight/Federal Express, an express service carrier, in Murrieta, California, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, a copy of the above -referenced documents. 111 BY MAIL. As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business, 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on March 31, 2015, at Murrieta, California. • (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 671111 PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Attorneys for Plaintiff, Stephanie Cao PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Richards, Watson & Gershon CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com VIA EMAIL ONLY scao@rwglaw.com Michael D. Lubrani Attomey for Defendant, Lubrani & Associates, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 25600 Barnes Lane INC. Menifee, California 92584 Tel: (951) 231-8564 Fax: (951) 880-1781 VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Email: lubranilaw@gmail.com ONLY 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 05/18/2015 MON 15:51 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER $. HURscH u002/006 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 TYLER. & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jordan N. Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile; (951) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch,com Attorneys for Defendant, EVERGREEN VENTURES FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 05/18/2015 0 ROSENBLOOM BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, aNevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK BOBKO REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Hearing: Date: May 22, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 43 I INTRODUCTION Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. ("Evergreen") respectfully submits this Objection to the Supplemental Declaration of Patrick K. Bobko Re; Attorneys' Fees and Costs ("Supplemental Declflration") filed by Plaintiff The City of Temecula (the "City"). Evergreen objects on the grounds that the additional $24,834 fees requested in the Supplemental Declaration were incurred after the conclusion of the case as a result of (I) the City's errors in its proposed order on its Motion for Summary Judgment, which resulted in Evergreen bringing its successful motion to amend the order, and (2) the City improperly raising a new legal theory in its Reply to Evergreen's Opposition to the 1 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK BOBKO RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 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 City's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, which resulted in the Court requesting supplemental briefing. The City is essentially requesting that Evergreen pay $24,834 for the consequences of the City's mismanagement of the case. The Court should use its broad discretion to deny this inequitable and unreasonable request. II. THE CITY'S REQUEST FOR FEES INCURRED CORRECTING MISTAKES THAT REULTED FROM ITS PROPOSED ORDER The trial court has broad discretion in determining the reasonable amount of attorney fees and costs to award to a prevailing party. Metabolite Intern. Inc. v. Wornick (S.D.Ca1.2002) 213 F.Supp.2d 1220. Here, the City incurred additional attorneys' fees because its proposed order contained factual findings inconsistent with the evidence received by the Court, was ambiguous as to the Court's findings, and it did not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312. As a result, Evergreen was forced to bring a motion to amend the order. Although the motion was successful and the order was amended to make it conform with law and justice, Evergreen incurred its own attorney fees fixing the City's mistake. Now the City is requesting that Evergreen also bare its attorney fees and costs incurred fixing its own mistake. It would be patently inequitable (and nonsensical) if Evergreen were forced to do so. Il. THE CITY'S REQUEST FOR FEES INCURRED BY ITS FAILURE TO INCLUDE ITS THEORY OF RECOVERY IN ITS MOVING PAPERS The City is requesting fees for the supplemental briefing required after it switched its theory for recovery of attorneys' fees in its reply to Evergreen's opposition to the City's motion. In its moving papers, the City argued for its fees under Temecula Municipal Code section 8.12.140(A) and (B). After Evergreen's opposition to this motion, the City realized section 8.12.140(A) and (B) was not a tenable basis for recovery, and for the first time in this litigation, in its reply to Evergreen's opposition, the City invoked Section 3496 of the Civil Code as the basis for its request for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court then requested supplemental briefing wherein Evergreen would have an opportunity to properly respond to the new theory of recovery presented in the City's reply. Now the City seeks to he compensated for attorneys' fees and costs that resulted from correcting its own mistakes. Had the City done its due diligence, it would have invoked Section 3496 of the Civil Code in its motion, instead of 2 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK BOBKO RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 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 presenting it in its reply in the eleventh hour. Thus, the Court should use its broad discretion to ensure that Evergreen is not penalized by having to pay attorneys' fees the City incurred as a result of its mishandling of its case. The additional $24,834 fees requested in the Supplemental Declaration were incurred by the City as a result of its faulty legal work. Thus, the City is not entitled to the additional $24,834 in attorneys' fees and costs. Dated: May 18, 2015 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP By: v Robert H. Tyler, Esq. Jordan N. Bursch, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, EVERGREEN VENTURES 3 DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK BOBKO RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS I 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On May 18, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PATRICK BOBKO REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing List: ® BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on ® BY MAIL ® As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. • BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, 1 transmitted ❑originals ® true copies of the above -referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission May 18, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. Executed on May 15, 2015, at Murrieta, California. ® (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Lubrani & Associates, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 25600 Barnes Lane INC. Menifee, California 92584 I el: (951) 231-8564 Fax: (951) 880-1781 Email: Iubranilaw@gmail.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 04/29/2015 WEE 16:26 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER & aURSCH 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 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert II. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jordan N. Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (9S1) 600-4996 rtyler a@tylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch.conn Attorneys for Defendant. EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. �J015/ois FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 04/30/2015 C. Marias BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE On or about April 21, 2015 Plaintiffs, People of the State of California and City of Temecula (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's fees. The Request for Judicial Notice is untimely pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 453. Specifically, Plaintiffs failed to give Defendant Evergreen Venture's ("Evergreen") sufficient notice of the request to enable Evergreen to prepare to meet the request, and failed to furnish the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. (See Cal. Evid. 1 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 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 Code §453.) Accordingly, Evergreen requests an order from this Court denying Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice. TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Dated: April 29, 2014 B 2 . ylcr, n N. Bursch,, ttorneys for Defendant, EVERGREEN VENTURES OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On April 29, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on ® BY MAIL ® As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ® BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I transmitted ['originals ® true copies of the above -referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission April 29, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. Executed on April 29, 2015, at Murrieta, California. ® (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Joy A.,l.loyd 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tel: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, Lubrani & Associates, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 25600 Barnes Lane INC. Menifcc, California 92584 'Fel: (951) 231-8564 Fax: (951)880-1781 Email: lubranilaw@gmaiI.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 04/29/2015 WED 16:23 FAX 951 600 4996 TYLER 6 EURSCH 0002/018 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 TYLER & BURSCH, LLP Robert H. Tyler, State Bar No. 179572 Jordan N. Bursch, State Bar No. 275735 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (951) 600-4996 rtyler@tylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant, EVERGREEN VENTURES, INC. FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Riverside 04/30/2015 C. Marias BY FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No, RIC 1103777 DECLARATION OF JOY A. LLOYD IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1, Joy A. Lloyd, declare as follows: 1. I am a legal assistant at Tyler & Bursch, LLP. I have personal knowledge of each of the facts attested to in this declaration. If called as a witness to testify in this matter, I could, and would, competently testify to the facts stated herein. 2. One of my duties at Tyler & Bursch is to collect the mail on a daily basis. The mail is opened, scanned, named and electronically put on our server. Along with sending a copy of the document to the client's electronic file, copies are then emailed to the client and each attorney on the DECLARATION OF JOY A. LLOYD 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 case is courtesy copied on the email, and a hardcopy of each document is printed for each attorney involved in the matter for their information and review. 3. On April 28, 2015, I collected the mail at approximately 12:15 p.m. In that stack of mail, a Request for Judicial Notice was received relating to this case. The mail process mentioned in paragraph 2 above was followed to completion. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the Request for Judicial Notice that I obtained from the mail on April 28, 2015. Moreover, I checked the mail on April 27, 2015 after the daily delivery, and no such Request for Judicial Notice was received. Therefore, the first time Tyler & Bursch, LLP received the attached Exhibit "A" Request for Judicial Notice was on April 28, 2015. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 29, 2014, at Murrieta, California. 2 '54-2S-Joy.4 LOYD DECLARATION OF JOY A. LLOYD EXHIBIT "A" 1 CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA 2 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 3 A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) 4 pbobko@@rwg1aw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) 5 scao@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626, 8484 7 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and the People of the State of 9 California 10 11 12� 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH TILE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and The CITY OF TEMF,CULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENT SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. 11086-06881182I873v1.doc Case No. RIC 1103777 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Assigned for All Purposes To Hon. John D. Molloy Dept: Dept.3 Date: April 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE. 1 Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(b) and 453, Plaintiff City of Temecula 2 hereby requests the Court to take judicial notice of the fallowing documents in support of 3 Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, 4 5 Exhibit A — Certified Copy of Ordinance 15-03 Amending Section 8.12.140 of the 6 Temecula Municipal Code Relating to the Recovery of Abatement Expenses in Public 7 Nuisance Actions (April 14, 2015). 8 9 Dated: April 21, 2015 PETE A M. THORSON CORNEY 10 CITY OF TEMECULA 11 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 12 PATRICK K. BOBKO STEPHANIE C.;A0 13 14 15 B 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PSK K. BOBKO V Attorneys for Plaintiffs The Cityof Temecula and the People of the State ofCalifomia -2- 11086-068811821875vI.Jx REQ1JEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE EXHIBIT "A" 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 8.12.140 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE RECOVERY OF ABATEMENT EXPENSES IN PUBLIC NUISANCE ACTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Section 8.12.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.12.140 Nuisances --Recovery of abatement expenses. A. Whenever any person creating, causing, committing, or maintaining a public nuisance, as referred to in Section 8.12.140, or other public nuisance, as defined under state law or other ordinances or regulations, has been given notice, by or on behalf of the city attorney or by any other city officer, employee or policing agent authorized to give such notice, to abate such nuisance or cease and desist from continuing such nuisance or violation of law, and such person fails, refuses or neglects to comply with the notice within the time specified therein, or if such a time is not specified, then within a time reasonably sufficient to enable such compliance, such noncomplying person shall be liable to the city for any and all costs and expenses to the city involved in thereafter abating the nuisance and in obtaining compliance with or enforcing the law as referred to or encompassed within said notice. B. Costs and expenses, as referred to in subsection A. of this section, may include, but are not limited to, any and all direct costs and expenses related to such things as personnel salaries and benefits, operational overhead, rent, interest, fees for experts or consultants, or claims against the city arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation, and procedures associated with collecting moneys due hereunder. Additionally, in any legal action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a nuisance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees. The recovery of attorneys' fees by the prevailing party shall be limited to those individual actions or proceedings in which the City elects, at the initiation of that Individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attomeys' fees. In no action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding shall an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding. C. The provisions of subsection A of this section shall also apply to any person who received a notice, as specified therein, abated the nuisance or violation, but subsequently allowed or was responsible for a recurrence of the nuisance or violation. Ords 15-03 1 I hs i aNN, snow tM pwuM or Wary, Rut the above and torepdnq to ■ sura and correct copy d en plane on n Rh IN City�� of TM►Nab.11L1�UEyISS CMC. a ma ma"' R. 1 1 D. The liability of any person for the payment of the costs and expenses provided for in subsection A of this section may be waived in whole or in part by the city attorney in any case where he or she determines, in his or her sole discretion, that the faifure or refusal of such persons to comply with the notice therein involved was based upon a good faith and bona fide issue of law or fact specially involved in the circumstances of the case. Any determination or decision of the city attomey in this regard shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to appeal as prescribed in Chapter 2.04. E. Money due to the city pursuant to this section may be recovered in an appropriate civil action. Alternatively, such liability may be enforced by special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed, which proceedings may be conducted in a manner substantively similar to proceedings described in Sections 39574 et seq. of the California Govemment Code relating to weed abatement assessments. Section 2. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The amendment to Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.12.140 by this Ordinance is declaratory of existing law. B. Government Code Section 38773.5 requires that in all city nuisance abatement actions the "prevailing party" shall be entitled to reasonable attomey fees even if the ordinance limits recovery of attorney fees to the city and further provides that ordinances providing for nuisance abatement shall state that the prevailing party may be entitled to recovery of reasonable attomeys fees in any such abatement action. C. This provision is similar to Civil Code Section 1717 that provides that even if a contract provides for the payment of attomeys fees to a particular party to the contract, the court will award attorney fees to the prevailing party In a legal action involving the contract. D. Section 8.12.140 is construed as providing for the award of attomey fees in a legal action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding for nuisance abatement to the prevailing party and not just to the City. The wording of the section should, however, be amended to specifically state this construction of Section 8.12.140 in order to prevent confusion and provide for a clear statement of the law. Section 3. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Ords 15-03 2 1 hereby Certify. under the pendty of perjury, that the above and luregotng M e true and cored copy of an original on dapoait vt rin the ptcwds d the dry of 1h11, •._'Oa of GYM • • E3, CMC. R 1 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 14th day of April, 2015. ATTESTf"? Ran Johl- !son, City Clerk PEAL] Oris 15-03 3 Jeff Comerchero, Mayor 1 hefty certify, order the penalty of fury, mai the above and faegdnp Is a we end correct copy o/ an 04110111 flopkalt Tweak tlMi,2ni»y ohin of `ecadt are City d GWYN Ft ES, CMC, R a �' ay: Y van_9 nU,a- _ 1 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Cleric of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-03 was duly introduced and placed upon Its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 24th day of March, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 141" day of April, 2015, the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Edwards, Nagger, Rahn, Comerchero NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Olde 15-03 4 'KamJohl-Olson, City Clerk 1 hereby duty, under a tnnie endooed dopy et of periury, Othe fn °love ern ae°Neel On ged the as of the CV Twee,* thia.ALL c3Nf(NR.R.•.r8,CMC, er 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 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On April 21, 2015, I served the within document(s): REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: EX] (i3Y MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. 1 placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Finn's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on (notion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Robert H. Tyler Michael D. Lubrani Jesse E.M. Randolph Lubrani & Associates Jordan Bursch 25600 Barnes Lane Tyler & Borsch, LLP Menifee, California 92584 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 'Telephone: 951.231.8564 Murrieta, CA 92562 Facsimile: 951.880.1781 Tel: (951) 600-2733 L' -Mail: lubranilaw@gmail.eom Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant jrandolph@tylerbursch.com Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. inbursch@tylcrbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califtuntat the above is true and correct. Executed on April 21, 2015, at Los Angeles, alifornia. [ [1 11086-0688\1810164v I .doe 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 PROOF OF SERVICE The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 I am employed in the county of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110, Murrieta, California 92562. On April 29, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as DECLARATION OF JOY A. LLOYD IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused to be delivered copies of the above -referenced documents to the addressee(s) noted above, on ® BY MAIL ® As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at or near Murrieta, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. • BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Pursuant to agreement and written confirmation of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, 1 transmitted noriginals ® true copies of the above -referenced document(s) on the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission April 29, 2015 before 5:00 p.m. Said electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error. Executed on April 29, 2015, at Murrieta, California. ® (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Steil; • <LV__e,09 Joy A. L18yir PROOF OF SERVICE 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 SERVICE LIST The People of the State of California, et al. v. Cooperative Patients' Services, Inc., et al. Riverside County Superior Court, Case No.: RIC 1103777 Patrick K. Bobko Stephanie Cao Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Tcl: (213) 626-8484 Fax: (213) 626-0078 Email: pbobko@rwglaw.com scao@rwglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CITY OF TEMECULA Michael D. Lubrani Attorney for Defendant, I.ubrani & Associates, APC COOPERATIVE PATIENTS' SERVICES, 25600 Barnes Lane INC. Menifee, California 92584 Tel: (951) 231-8564 Fax: (951) 880-1781 Email: lubranilaw@gmail.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko@rwglaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Temecula and People of the State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENT SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON CITY OF TEMECULA's MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Assigned for All Purposes To Hon. John D. Molloy Dept: Dept. 3 Date: April 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. 11086-0688%18104t4v1.doc NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING [TEARING 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 z x 11 O 12 w 13 14 15 16 17 %`' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AT TO ALL PARTIES ANI) THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Court has continued the hearing on the City's Motion for Attorneys' fees and costs until April 28, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the above -captioned Court. The Court further ordered Defendant Evergreen Ventures, LLC's supplemental Opposition papers due on March 30, 2015 and the City's response, if any, is due on April 6, 2015. Dated: March 12, 2015 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Profession Corporation PATRICK K if OBKO By: P • RICK K. BOBKO Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California -2- 11036-0688\1810414v1.duc NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Audrey J. Powell, declare: 1 am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On March 12, 2015, I served the within document(s): NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON CITY OF TEMECULA's MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: X ] (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [] Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suits 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler@tylerbursch.com jrandolph cc tylcrbursch.com 1nbursch(cr�,tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 25600 Barnes Lane Menifee, California 92584 Telephone: 951.231.8564 Facsimile: 951.880.1781 E -Mail: lubranilaw@g_mail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under'the laws of the State of Califon is true and correct. Executed on March 12, 2015, at Los Angeles 11086-0688 \ 1810164v I .doc California. that the above . Powell ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSlONALCORPORATION 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 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. BOBKO (Bar No. 208756) pbobko@rwglaw.com STEPHANIE CAO (Bar No. 279195) scao@rwglaw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Temecula and People of the State of California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE BRANCH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. COOPERATIVE PATIENT SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, EVERGREEN VENTURES, a Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. RIC 1103777 NOTICE OF ORDER [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] Assigned for All Purposes To Hon. John D. Molloy Dept: Dept. 43 Trial Date: TBD 11086-0688\182998Rv3.doe NOTICE OF ORDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 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 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Defendant Evergreen Ventures, LLC's Motion to Amend came on for hearing in Department 43 of the Riverside County Superior Court on April 30, 2015 before the Honorable John D. Molloy, judge presiding. The City of Temecula appeared through its attorneys of record, Richards Watson & Gershon by Patrick K. Bobko. Defendant Evergreen Ventures appeared through its attorneys of record Tyler & Bursch, LLC by Robert H. Tyler and Jordan N. Bursch, Defendant Cooperative Patients Services, Inc. did not appear. Following briefing and argument the Court GRANTED Defendant's Motion to Amend the Order granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTED the City's Motion for Attorneys' Fees. The Court further set an Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Judgment on City's Motion for Summary Judgment on May 22, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 43. Dated: May 7, 2015 PETER M. THORSON CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation PATRICK K. t OI3KO STEPHANI AO By: P RICK K. BOBKO Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Temecula and People of the State of California -2- f 1685-068811829988v3.doo NOTICE OF ORDER 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 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Audrey J. Powell, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 355 South Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On May 8, 2015, I served the within document(s): NOTICE OF ORDER on the interested parties in this action as stated below: [X] (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for ailing in affidavit. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by transmitting an electronic version of the foregoing document(s) to the electronic mail addresses of the parties set forth below. (13Y OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to 'an agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Robert H. Tyler Jesse E.M. Randolph Jordan Bursch Tyler & Bursch, LLP 24910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110 Murrieta, CA 92562 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996 E -Mail: rtyler@tylerbursch.com jrandol'phtZtylerbursch.com jnbursch@tylerbursch.com Attorneys for Defendant Evergreen Ventures, Inc. Michael D. Lubrani Lubrani & Associates 25600 Barnes Lane Menifee, California 92584 Telephone: 951.231.8564 Facsimile: 951.880.1781 E -Mail: lubranilaw@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendant Cooperative Patient Services, Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califonu. is true and correct. t the above Executed on May 8, 2015, at Los Angeles, Cal I brnia. 1 ] 086-0688\ 1810164v I .d oc owel l