The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About072391 CC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER- 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS JUL Y 23, 1991 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-26 Resolution: No. 91-74 Pastor Roger Sowder Oak Springs Presbyterian Church Councilmember Birdsall Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufloz, Parks PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 1 5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a 'Request To Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 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. 2/apnd~/072381 I 07/18/91 CONSENT CALENDAR I Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of June 25 1991 as mailed. 2.2 Approve the minutes of July 2, 1991 as mailed. 3 Resolution ADz)roving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWINO CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHI~'IT A 4 5 City Treasurer's RePort RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and File Report Resolution of Intention to Award Franchise to Southern California Gas Company RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: l '101V IVO, $1. 07118/~! 6 Aooroval of Allocation - Street Banner Program RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL4 AMEND/NO THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE ~6, 000 FOR STREET BANNERS 9 10 Release of Monument Bond - Tract No. !9939-1 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-1. 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release of Monument Bond - Tract No. 19939-2 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-2. 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release of Monument Bond - Tract No. 19939-F · RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-F. 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Acceotance of Public Imorovements - Tract No. 20591 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 20591 and authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds. 10.2 Accept the subdivision warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount and approve the subdivision agreement rider. 10.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 3 07/19/01 21aeenda/072391 1 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District Aqreement RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDING THE DISTRICT NO COST REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES TO ALL DISTRICT SCHOOL BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA 12 Resolution of the Traffic & Transoortation Commission to Initiate a Coordinated Effort to Develoo a Transoortation Plan for the Communities of the Temecu!a/Murrieta Valley. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Receive and File Resolution No. TC 91-01. 13 Aooroval of Memoranda of Understanding RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Johnson, Allen & Kinney and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 13.2 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho Core Associates No. 1 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 13.3 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho Core Associates No. 2 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 13.4 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho California City Associates I and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 13.5 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho California City Associates II and authorize the Mayor to execute same. ~egendW072301 4 07/18~1 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho California Dairy Associates and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho California Spa & Country Club and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Tamecula and Rancho California Spa & Country Club I1-1 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho California Spa & Country Club 11-2 and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Murrieta Springs and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Los Ranchitos Estates and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum.'of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Rancho Village Associates and authorize the Mayor to execute same. SECOND READINO OF ORDINANCES 14 Ordinance for Air Quality Management Plan Iml~lementation RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION 2/agenda/072301 6 07118/91 Ordinance Amendina Zoning Mao in Chanqe of Zone No. 1 1 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108 PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 16 Chanpe of Zone No. 5755 An eight (8) acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITYCOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5755 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC TO C- I/C-P ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND DIAZ ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-058 AND 059. 21eOe~da/072391 6 07/1&~1 17 AoDeal No. 16 - Parcel Map No. 25349 Property located at the eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive, between Cabrillo Avenue and Santiago Road, north of Highway 79 South. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Deny Appeal No. 16 and maintain condition No. 42 requiring submission of a comprehensive grading plan prior to recordation of the final map. 18 Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-04 PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATION$ FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BAlL OON$ COUNCIL BUSINESS 19 Uraencv Ordinance Amendment Reaardinq Soeed Limits on Calla Pina Colada and Rorioaugh Road RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Read by title only and adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 12. 02. 010(d) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS ON CALLE PINA COLADA AND RORIPAUGH ROAD AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF 2O Reconsideration of Stoo Si=ns Located at Motor Parkwav and Ynez Road (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mu~oz) 2/eoend~/0723~l I 7 07/1 B/~ 1 21 Consideration of Reaooointments - Old Town Historic Review Committee (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Lindemans) 22 Costco/Owner ParticiPation and Sales Tax Allocation Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVINO A SALES TAX ALLOCATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA DATED AS OF JULY 23, 1991 CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next adjournedregularmeeting: August 6, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California Next regular meeting: August 13, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEM;CULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:0~ CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: President J. Sal Mur3oz DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mur~oz Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. 21egende/072381 8 07118/81 CONSENT CALENDAR I Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of June 25, 1991 as mailed. 1.2 Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1991 as mailed. 2 Cham=e Order for Soorts Park Ballfield Lighting Project - Phase II RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve change order to Phase II of the Sports park Ballfield Lighting Project to replace wiring on the North and South fields in Sports Park. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting August 13, 1991,8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: AGENCY BUSINESS 1 Minutes 1.1 1.2 21eOeflcle/072591 Chairperson Peg Moore presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Approve the minutes of the meeting of June 25, 1991 as mailed. Approve the minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1991 as mailed. 07118/91 2 Costco OPA/Sales Tax Reimbursement RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt · resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 91- 2.2 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPA TION A GREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORA TION INC. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVEOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A SALES TAX AGREEMENT BY AD BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA DATED AS OF JUL Y 23, 1991. EXECUTIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT A GENC Y MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting August 13, 1991,8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California · - 2/agende/072501 10 07/1 ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JUNE 25, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:34 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c) to discuss potential litigation. The meeting was reconvened at 7:25 PM in regular session by Mayor Parks. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by Councilmember Mu~oz. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLA MA TIONS Mayor Parks proclaimed the month of July as Month of the Arts. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Meyler, President-elect of the Arts Council, presented the Councilmembers with a poster announcing this year's Arts Festival in July. He also announced that a Concert on the Green will be held Sunday, June 30, 1991 at the Sports Park from 5:00 - 7:00 PM, and encouraged the community to bring blankets and picnics and enjoy the event. Hi nut es\06\25 \91 - 1 - 07/05/91 City Council Minutes June 25, 1991 Bill Perry, 28645 Front Street, addressed the Council regarding the initiation of a business improvement district. He stated proposed improvements are the freeway, the river bed, Rancho California Road Exit and Hwy 79, Front Street Exit. He stated this is a very necessary program for businesses to grow in this area and these businesses are willing to pay for these improvements. Edward Doran, 29985 Stamos Court, asked that the Council publish a list of the its positions and salaries. CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Dixon requested that Item No. 12 be removed from the Agenda. further requested that Item No. 15 be continued to the meeting of July 2, 1991. Councilmember Birdsall stated she would abstain from Items 6 and 14. He Mayor Parks stated he would abstain on Items 7 and 8, due to a possible conflict of interest. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-11, and 13-17 with Councilmember Birdsall abstaining on Items 6 and 14 and Mayor Parks abstaining on Items 7 and 8. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks None Moore NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Minutes 2.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Approve the minutes of June 11, 1991 as mailed. e Hinutes\06\25\91 -2- 07/05/91 June 25, 1991 City Council Minutes 3. Claim for Damages - Darlene Vangalis 3.1 Deny the Claim for Damages. 4. Resolution Approving List of Demands 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 `4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ,4LLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND D£M`4NDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT ,4 City Treasurer's Report 5.1 Receive and file report. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Street Maintenance Program 6.1 Authorize the Public Works Department to solicit bids for the implementation of the FY 1991-1992 Street Maintenance Program. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Release Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-1 7.1 Authorize the release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-1. 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Hinutes\06\25\91 -3- 07/05/91 City Council Minutes June 25, 1991 10. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz None Moore Parks Release Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-2 8.1 8.2 Authorize the release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-2. Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board Supervisors. The motion was carried by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz None Moore Parks AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN: I Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-1 9.1 9.2 of Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 21 675-1 and authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds. Accept the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount and approve the Subdivision Agreement Rider. 9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818 10.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map conditions of approval. No. 21818, subject to the Hinutes\06\25\91 ~4- 07/05/91 City Council Minutes 11. 13. 14. June 25, 1991 Final Parcel MaD No. 24038 11.1 Approve Final parcel Map No. 24038 subject to the conditions of approval. Award Vehicle Bids to purchase five (5) vehicles for use by Building and Safety staff. 13,2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH A BUDGET TRANSFER Resolution Establishing City's Temporary Gann Appropriation 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING CITY'S TEMPORARY GANN APPROPRIA TION LIMIT FOR FY 1991-1992 The motion was carried by the following vote: Award of Bids for Purchase of City Vehicles 13.1 AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 15. Award of Bid for Purchase of Breathing Truck 15.1 Continue to the meeting of July 2, 1991. Ninutes\06\ZS\91 -5- 07/05/91 City Council Minutes June 25, 1991 16. Resolution Providing for the Establishment of Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, TITLES AND SALARY RANGES 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 BUDGET 17. Ordinance Establishing Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain City Streets 17.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE.CI. TY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 12.02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Costco - Zone Change No. 11. Parcel Map No. 26852. Plot Plan No. 224 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. He stated two concerns from the Planning Commission, regarding architecture, landscaping and traffic, have been addressed. Councilmember Lindemans stated he has concerns that both the recommended traffic signals need to be installed prior to occupancy. He said he would be in favor of using a temporary signal if necessary. City Manager Dixon stated that the main entrance will be operation prior to occupancy, and staff would make every effort possible to get the second light operation at the same time. Minutes\06\~5\91 -6- 07/05/91 City Council Minutes June 25, 1991 Councilmember Mu~oz asked if drought tolerant landscaping has been planned for this project. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:45 PM. Greg Erickson, representing Bedford Properties, stated the applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and is in agreement. He stated that moisture sensors will be installed and other drought tolerant measurers have been included in the plans. He explained that a signal will be installed at the main entrance of the center and Bedford is willing to provide funding for the second signal, to be reimbursed at a later point, to get this second signal operational as soon as possible. He stated that traffic guards or other mitigation measures would be taken if the second signal is not in operation prior to occupancy. Jim Allan, 27195 Rainbow Creek Drive, stated that many people will not use the signalized entrance, but will choose the closest route. He requested that the second traffic light be operational prior to opening the project. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:06 PM. Tim Serlet, City Engineer, explained that warrants must be met before CalTrans will accept installation of a light and studies show a light that is not needed can be as dangerous as the lack of one. Mayor Parks requested that staff work with CalTrans to remove the designation of Highway 79 in the City limits so that the City would have the power to install traffic signals without going through CalTrans. Councilmember Lindemans suggested installing the light on Margarita Road instead of at the main entrance of the shopping center. Mayor Parks reopened the public hearing at 8:20 PM. Greg Erickson stated that the entrance light is completed and ready for installation and Bedford would not be in favor of moving this light. He agreed that while two signals is the optimum long-term solution, this would only further delay the process. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:25 PM. Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 8:26 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 8:27 PM. Minutes\O6\ZS\91 -7- 07/05/91 City Council Minutes June 25. 1991 .... 19. It was moved by Councilmember Mu6oz, seconded by Councilmember Linderoans to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 2, 1991 to explore further possibilities with CalTrans. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks None Moore NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance Adoption Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:33 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 23, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Moore absent. COUNCIL BUSINESS 21. Reauest for Funding - Miss Temecula 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to continue this item to the meeting of July 2, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Moore absent. RECESS Mayor Parks called at recess at 8:35 PM to accommodate the previously scheduled Temecula Community Services District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the TCSD Meeting at 12:40 AM. 20. Main Street Revitalization Committee Councilmember Birdsall requested the Commissioner Evelyn Harker be authorized to attend the Main Street Basic Training, to be held August 25th through the 28th in Pacific Grove, California, as the City's representative and Minutes\06\25\91 -8- 07/05/91 City Council Minutes June 25, 1991 authorize the payment of $195 tuition. She further requested that the matter of the committee appointments be continued off calendar. A straw vote was taken to select Evelyn Harker as the City's representative to attend the Main Street Basic Training. All Councilmembers voted unanimously in favor. CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS City Attorney Field requested an executive session be held at 6:30 PM on July 2, 1991. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Lindemans requested that an item be placed on the agenda of July 2, 1991, to provide direction to the Public Safety Commission regarding the matter of researching costs to establish a City Police Department. Mayor Parks requested a report from staff detailing the time-frame for having all police and City vehicles identified with the City logo, and for having the City logo patches worn by all officers. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adjourn at 12:46 AM to a meeting on July 2, 1991 at 7:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Moore absent. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Minutes\06\25\91 -9- 07/05/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JUL Y 2, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:34 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session at 6:35 PM, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957.6 and 54957 regarding labor negotiations, salary and fringe benefits. The meeting was reconvened at 7:08 PM in regular session by Mayor Parks, with Councilmember Mu~oz. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by City Manager Dixon. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemans. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLA MA TIONS Mayor Parks presented Councilmember Lindemans and Councilmember Moore, members of the Waste Management Committee, with a hat and sample of compost produced by the facility in Corona. Minutes\07\02\91 - I - 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 --- PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Martenelli, 30255 Corte Cantania, addressed the Council regarding the need to clarify public hearing notices. She also suggested that the cable company start to broadcast at 6:30 rather than 6:00 pm. She spoke in favor of the development of parks in the community. Jayme Christian, 30762 Calle Pina Colada, requested that Calle Pina Colada be closed to through traffic. She stated that the speed limit is 55 mph and children living on this street are at risk. She reported that this matter has been before the Traffic and Safety Commission but no action has been taken. Frank J. Correa, 43121 Salt River Court, stated that Calle Pina Colada was a dead end street when many residents bought their homes. He stated there is a large volume of children in this area and the problem needs to be addressed. Councilmember Mu~oz rejoined the meeting at 7:25 PM. Laura Upton, 30569 Calle Pina Colada, addressed the Council regarding the high speed of traffic on this residential street and requested closure. Peter Huhn, 30879 Calle Pina Colada, addressed the Council regarding the high speed of traffic on Pina Colada, stating this was not a through street when his property was purchased. Linda Cloughen, 41304 Bravos Court, addressed the Council requested that photo- I.D.'s and business licenses be required for door-to-door salesmen to insure the safety of homeowners in the City. Councilmember Moore stated that licensing of door-to-door salesman has been addressed in the Business License Ordinance, however a photo identification cards deserves researching. Heather Upton, Pina Colada, stated her dog was hit on Pina Colada and asked that this street be made safer. Melissa Chilver, Pina Colada, stated her cat was hit by a car and asked that the City make this street safer. Molly Chilver, Pina Colada, stated she was afraid to cross the street and asked that this street be made safe for the children of the neighborhood. Minutes\07\02\91 -2- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 Rick Sayre, Chief of Police, announced Erma Coram, a City police officer was killed in a traffic collision and the City's department will be participating in memorial services later in the week. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-8. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Moore, Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Resolution Approving List of Demands 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 9. 1991 3.1 Approve the cancellation of the City Council meeting regularly scheduled for July 9, 1991. Minutes\07\02\91 -3- 07111/91 City Council Minutes 4. e July 2, 1991 Resolution Establishing Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A DISAD VANTA GED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) AND APPOINTING A DBE LIAISON OFFICER AND ESTABLISHING DBE GOALS Final Vesting Tract No. 21821 §.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21821, conditions of approval. Award of Bid - Purchase of Breathing Truck subject to the 6.1 Award the bid for purchase of one Breathing Support Truck for use by the City Fire Department to American Bristol Industries. 7. C.M. Agreement Modification 7.1 Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a revised letter of appointment for the City Manager. 8. General Plan Contract Approval 8.1 Approve the contract with the Planning Center for preparation of the City's general plan program. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Parcel Map No. 21769, Amended No. 3, Second Extension of Time - Appeal No. 2 Mayor Parks stated he would be abstaining from this item and turned the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall. Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the issue regarding hazardous materials has been resolved. Gary Thornhill stated that the Riverside County Health Minutes\07\02\91 -4- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 Department determined that these materials do not qualify as hazardous. Councilmember Lindemarts questioned why the resolution proposed sustaining in part and denying in part the appeal. City Attorney Field explained that the appeal is in part sustained because many of the issues in question have been addressed, however the formal appeal has been dropped. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:51 PM. David James, representing the applicant, stated the applicant concurs with the staff recommendation and the conditions of approval. Councilmember Lindemans stated there is a question whether this lot is to be split into three or four parcels. Mr. James stated this is to be split into three parcels. Phillips Jones, 31470 Corte Myroka, stated when this plan was first submitted, four parcels were proposed. He explained this has been changed to three parcels. He stated that any activity on this property would have to be accompanied by a zone change application. Don White, 31109 Via Gilberto, spoke in opposition to any development on this property. Randi Coppersmith, 701 "B" Street, San Diego, representing the appellant, stated an agreement with the property owners has been reached. He stated the proposed extension of time is for financing purposes only and no development is planned. Kathleen Montauso, 46037 Club House Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed split of property and extension of time, stating three property owners would further complicate the future of this property. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:06 PM. Gary Thornhill stated that because staff has concerns regarding this property, a condition of approval has been added prohibiting any development on the site until a plot plan has been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Minutes\07\02\91 -5- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes Council. July 2, 1991 Mayor Parks called a brief recess to change the tape at 8:07 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:08 PM. Councilmember Lindemarts stated he would be in favor of this extension if future developers of this property were warned that they should not look for approval of the maximum density allowed in that zone. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to approve staff recommendation, with the amendment that the speakers in opposition to this Parcel Map extension are to be notified of any new development proposals and that the map contain a statement that it is approved for financing only and all future development is subject to approval of density. 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, AMENDED NO. 3 BASED ON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF.REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 9.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUSTAINING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE APPEAL OF REVISED PARCEL MAP NO. 21769 BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minutet\07\02\91 -6- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks July 2. 1991 RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:19 PM to accommodate the scheduled Temecula Community Services Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the TCSD Meeting at 9:11 PM. 10. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 Gary Thornhill introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:20 PM. Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 9:20 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 9:21 PM. Alexander Urquhart, Design Engineer for the Project, 5650 El Camino Real, Ste 200, Carlsbad, advised that this is a portion of a larger map and lies within the medium range of the SWAP designation for this area. Raymond Casey, representing the applicant, 15090 Avenue of Science, Ste 200, asked that this project be approved, stating that the density has been reduced approximately 40% from.theoriginal map. He further stated that the overall project does meet the Quimby requirements. He asked that Condition No. 30 be removed, explaining the applicant feels that each individual homeowner will wish to install their own front yards. John Dedovesch, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, stated he did not believe that Quimby Credit should be given for private parks. Shawn Nelson reported that under the Quimby Act, a developer can receive a 50% credit of total requirements from private parks. He stated that staff was directed to accept the one acre park site as well as approximately 3.5 acres where the lake is located. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:44 PM. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if there is a middle ground that can be reached in regards to Condition No. 30. Gary Thornhill stated the Planning Commission is very concerned with the appearance of this development, and that it be Minutes\07\O2\91 -7- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 maintained properly. Mayor Parks suggested striking the portion of the condition requiring exterior building walls to be maintained by the Homeowners Association, but leaving the landscaping provision intact. Gary Thornhill suggested that exterior walls be addressed in the CC&R's and would be appropriate to add that to Condition No. 31. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation with the modification in the conditions of approval to remove "exterior building walls as well as" from Condition No. 30 and to add "exterior walls" to Condition No. 31. 10.1 10.2 Adopt the addendum to EIR No. 281 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- 70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26861 TO DEVELOP A 14.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO 142 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCA TED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGARITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-925. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. 11. Costco- Zone Change No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, Plot Plan No. 224 Minutes\07\02\91 -8- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report Engineer to address the concerns regarding traffic. July 2, 1991 and introduced the City Tim Serlet, City Engineer, suggested a new condition of approval 77. (a) and (B). Greg Erickson, representing the applicant, 28665 Single Oak Drive, stated the applicant is in agreement with Condition 77, but has a question regarding the wording the developer "may" receive a credit toward signal mitigation. He asked that the developer receive credit. John Dedovesch, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, spoke regarding the closure of Margarita and asked that County Center Drive be improved to accommodate this traffic. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 10:00 PM. The public hearing was reopened to accommodate an overlooked speaker at 10:01 PM. Jim Leonard, 39626 Rustic Glen, objected to the closure of the road stating it would have a serious impact on his subdivision. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 10:07 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks Minutes\07\02\91 -9- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None July 2, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendations 11.1, 11.2, 11.4 and 11.5 as follows: 11.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration of Zone Change No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, Plot Plan No. 224. 11.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 24 ACRES OF LAND FROM RoR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 24 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA. ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108. 11.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26852 TO SUBDIVIDE A 97.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 13 PARCELS AND TWO REMAINING PARCELS LOCATED A T THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS 11.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA Minutes\07\O 2\91 - 1 O- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July :2, 1991 APPROVING PL O T PLAN NO. 224 TO CONS TRUC T A 149,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER ON 19. 7 ACRES A T THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS COUNCIL BUSINESS 12. 13. Reouest for Funding - Miss Temecula 1991 City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. Karri R. Walton, 40580 Chaparral, addressed the Council requesting a grant in the amount of $1,000 to attend the Miss California 1991 Pageant. Sydney B. Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, spoke in opposition to this request. John Hunneman, KRTM News Director, 39557 Del Val Drive, Murrieta, spoke in favor of the City granting this request. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve funding in the amount of $500 to Karri Walton, Miss Temecula. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Street Banner Program Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 10:22 PM to change the tape. meeting was reconvened at 10:23 PM. The Councilmember Birdsall spoke in favor of this program but suggested that a provision be written into the policy that no political banners be allowed. Minutes\07\02\91 -11- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 Councilmember Mu~oz suggested that the banners only be allowed for a two week period of time. He also asked why non-profit organizations are not being required to provide insurance. City Attorney Field stated the City will have liability whether or not other insurance is carried. Mayor Parks stated he has a concern that the City is attempting to remove billboards and it seems these banners would be inconsistent with this program. Councilmember Lindemans suggested limiting the banners to not more than 10 days prior to an event, and require removal within two days after the event. He stated he believes the difference between the banners and billboards, is that the banners advertise community events and billboard advertise private enterprise. Councilmember Moore spoke in opposition stating that the City needs to adopt a sign ordinance and these banners may be in conflict. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue this item for 30 days. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mu~oz NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve an expenditure of $6,000 to establish a banner program at the Bianchi location with conditions added to limit the banners to a 10 day period of time prior to the event, to exclude any political banners and to require their removal within three days after the event. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mu~oz Minutes\07\02\91 - 12- 07/11/91 July 2. 1991 City Council Minutes ABSENT: 0 14. COUNCILMEMBERS: None Air Traffic - French Valley Airport It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Parks to continue this matter off calendar. 15. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Request for Funding Temecula Museum Foundation and Temecula Tourism and Visitors Center City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. Becca Nakaya, President of the Board of Directors of Temecula Museum, 45788 Creekside Way, distributed a revised five year plan to the Council. She asked that the Council take immediate action to help the museum, stating that - RDA funds may be delayed for an extended period of time. Michael Thesing, 30291 Via Brisa, spoke in favor of the City funding a Tourism and Visitors Center. He indicated that the Museum Board does not want the Visitors Center in the same building. He outlined a budget necessary to get this center operational. City Attorney Field stated that a funding request for the Museum is on the agenda, funding for the Visitor's Center is not and, therefore, no action can be taken on this issue. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to refer the matter of the Tourism and Visitor's Center to staff for a report in 30 days. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to extend the meeting until 11:45 PM. The motion carried with Minutes\07\02\91 - 13- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2. 1991 -- Councilmember Mu~oz in opposition. Nancy Maurice, 29405 Via Norte, stated that the Visitor Center's proponents have not approached the Museum Board regarding sharing a facility. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded Birdsall to support the Temecula Museum foundation $22,200. by Councilmember in the amount of Councilmember Mu~oz suggested making a small contribution and loaning the balance to the Museum. Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 11:24 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 11:25 PM. Councilmember Mu~oz amended the motion, seconded by Councilmember Linderoans to support the request to fund the Temecula Museum Foundation in the amount of $22,200 on the basis of a loan to be repaid in 36 months at a rate equal to the investment rate the City would receive if investing the funds, and specified that this loan is to be amortized over 30 years with a balloon payment at the end of five years. This matter is to be placed on the RDA agenda in 90 days for consideration of funding from Redevelopment Agency funds. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mudoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore Councilmember Moore stated she voted in opposition because she felt this funding should be in the form of a grant instead of a loan. 16. Revenues for Air Quality Management Plan Implementation City Attorney Field introduced the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: Minutes\07\02\91 - 14- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 ORDINANCE NO. 91-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION 17. City Council Policy - Police Services City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. Councilmember Moore stated she is in favor of staff recommendation to defer study of a City Police Department until the summer of 1993 if desired at that point. Councilmember Birdsall said she did not want to expend funds on such a study at this time. Councilmember Mu~oz agreed that staff time should not be expended on this issue at this time. Mayor Parks concurred with the rest of Council stating he is very satisfied with the level of service being provided by the Riverside County Sheriff under the present contract. CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon invited the community to visit the new City Hall Offices. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to adjourn at 11:45 PM to an Executive Session on July 16, 1991 at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\O7\02\91 - 15- 07/11/91 City Council Minutes July 2, 1991 Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Minutes\07\O 2\91 - 16- 07/11/91 ITEM NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $1,916,861.23 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 23rd day of July, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 196 © © Z Z © © 7/01/91 6ity o~ Temecuia Page: Statlon: 3beck l)at~----VenOar -flase-- Invoice Date P/O Date Description 000 .... 06/~I/91FLI]]{~I DOWI~W,--FLORE~iN-- 62191 06/21/91 06/21/91 f~lF~ OF CL4IBS;REPORT ~'oss l)iscmnt N~t 203.~9 0.00 ~3.99 ,:)007247 06/25/91 PETI'YC PETTY ~ 62~J91 06125191 06/2~/91 REII~iPETTY C~;TCSD P~Y&jUN 203.~ 0.00 225.74 0.00 22~.74 beck Totals: ~JK)07248 06/26/91 t"l~i~q~iT {~V~a~ITA OFFICIALS ASSOC. 06126/91 0158 02/2b/91 LIEtI~$;SSFTIh~L; I'~Y 91 225.74 1,~9.20 0.00 225.74 0~80 I,~9.20 ')007250-06 t27t9i-W tNDSOR2 4fft~SOR P~ 062791 06/27/9I beck Totals: 06/27/91 FINAL PYMT TO t{OVE;~W CITY H 1,.139.20 82,000.00 0.00 1:99.20 0.00 82.,000.00 ~ec-k-tetals~ !)007256 07/2~/91 /SBAOF'F ABt~ OFFI~ SU~t. IES 310~6-0 06/13/9110~9 05114/910FFII~ 9LPPLIES 31095 0 06/-1~I~t-t0259 ~'a/44~9t-lt~Ft~ 91iufl. I£S 552.23 12.52 O. O0 552.23 -- 0.4)0 12~-§2 ~ec~ Totals: ;XX)7257-O77~Lt9t-AL~FA-l~--ALL-FA~-49VIq6Ei~T 06102191 015~ 03/14/91 6/2-6/15;TRAFFIC COWTROL .... ~K~-TG~aLs: .~u,z58 07/23/91 ALLIED ALLIED BA~RI~ 115164-00 06/21/91 10,~i 05/10/91 9IFETV EilIIP beck Totals: .'~07259 07/23/91Aof~ONE~°FtE ONE .135I~1 564.75 4,17&.47 23.74 23.74 ~.00 0.00 564.75 0.00 4,17&.47 --0,00 4 ~ t-76,47- O. O0 25.74 O. O0 23.74 ~eck Totals: yOO7260-O7/23/91--~-B~Y-~~-INC, 062691 06/26/91 06126191REFLWI) PERMIT FEE; 72.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 72.00 ~ck-Tot~ls: · )007261 07/23/91 BgifOicO DEBBIE B~ATCI~GRD 062691 06/26/91 06126/91 REFUNI) FOR ~I~IN~ LE~ beck Totals: X)07262 07/23/91 i~TSCHI MICHAEk & JEA~i~IE I~TSUHI ......... 062191 06121191 06/21/91REFJJVI)-FGR-IkqY-UA{~'SE~SIOW - --72.~ 0.00 72.00 ..... 45.00 0.0O 45.00 45.00 O. OO 45.00 47,5.00 ....... 0.00 - - -475.00 ~n~ck Totals: O007263~07/23/~l~BtPJ<E.,~.fiF~r-~ia.l~IS,~~ 02551001 06/01/91 06/01/91REIAII~ 235t-001 06/01/91 06/01/91DIS~TS TO Chec~ Totals: 07/23/91C&CGRAVE C & C GRADING AND PAVING t4 ..... 05/07/91 0195 05/07/91B'IERG;ST;RPR;MAY_91;JOB#70091_. {5 05/07/~1 0195 05/07/91EMERG;ST;REPAI~IMAY;JOB#70091 475. O0 O, O0 475. O0 3,150.00 0.00 3,150.00 2,942.30 0.00 2,942.30 6,0~.30 0.00 762. ~ O. O0 762. ~ 151.73 0.00 35~,73 ~0072~5 07/23/91 CANYON gheck Totals: _ CANYON REPROGRAPMiCS 05121/9! 10~ C6/17191 ~P: 42142 BkUELtNES 1,113.93 0.00 1,115.93 8.3! 0.00 ~.3] ~-al Yeac: 1991 City of Tam,cola Check Register Page: Station: ~k Invoice Date P/O Date !)escription ~91 1017A 04/10/91 ~il:PRlkrT.q; -'~X48 ~{LF{ T~E$ Check Totals: ~1~1 ~/19/91 ~/19/91 Ci]~{:. J~Y ~;COUNCIL ~.91 0.00 37.91 24.00 0.00 24.00 ~7267 07/2T/91 1116918 ll[ ~BB ~ 05/14/9! 10238 f'~m~-k Tntalm~ ~/14/71 YTd.¥ ~])SCIP; ~Y 91~¥ ~ ?4.00 o,o0 ?4.00 59.00 0.00 5%00 ,37268 07/2TI9! COWIXRYJI JIM (XIM)RY 061891 o{/29/91 Check TotaLs: 59.00 0.00 59.00 4%6& o. o0 49. ~ ~7269 07/23191 ~ I y ~ _~ ~ y O62591 ~1~191 Check Totals: 06/25/91 FEFLWI) 4TH SESSION {~V 49.&6 0.00 49.66 155.00 0.00 I~5.00 ~7270 07/23/91COUNTO. E COUNTY CLSt)( AJ~D RECORDER 062691 06/26t91 06/26/91 FEE $CHEIXJLE RECORI)ATION FEE Check Totals: )7271 07/23/91COUNTYAD COUNTY OF RIVERSlOE 0508~ 0~Z07/91 10351 0~/07/91MAP~ I~qPlE~;AcLqKssOA'fi 25.00 0.00 25.00 ~11.00 0.00 Check Totals: }7272 07/23/~~TY OF~IDE/~W~PLIE~ 13191~ 06/18/91 10267 04/~/91 OFFICE SUPPLES 211.00 0.00 211.00 29.92 0.00 29.92 )7273 07/23/91DAVLIN DAVuLN B9-23:96 0~/26/91 0i85 )7274 07/23/91 DIXON DAVID F. DIXDtt _ 061491 06/17191 062491 06/18/91 Fh~k Totals: 04/26/91 TRAFFIC MTB;JUNE 26 ~eck Totals: 06/17/91PA~ ~v'M4CF;D.~.L'Z'~,7/9-12 06/18/91 SEMINAR REIMB. 6/18-6/21 I15.00 0.00 115.00 0.00 0.00 115.~ 115.® J7275 07/23/91 ELCOME ROBBIE ELCOME 062691 06126/91 37276 07/23191 FI:r.,ERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS 4~7_7{235~LllY~]__ 06126191REFUNI) FOR SWIFI~ING LESSONS C~eck Totals: 06111/91P~ 6/11191 13.00 ........... C~eck Totals: 15.00 0.00 13.00 J~27Z.O7Z23191_FREE~.F 'F~CS_OFFICE_FFo]DUCTS ...................... 131543-0 0~/21/91 10353 06/17/91 $TOF~E BOX$ i8!.16 0.00 I~942-0 05/2~/91 10244 0§/~/91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 64.58 0.00 Check Totals: 245.74 0.00 245.74 ~7278 07/23/91 GILLIS-2 C.M. "~X" GILLIS MAY BAd_. C~/OI/91 02q~J 06/01/91 BALANCE OEMAY_BILLING 84t.89 0.cQ 841.89 Check lo~aLs: 84!,89 0.00 8~i,89 Jl/9! City o~ Te~ecula ;cai Year: 1991 Check R~gister Page: 3 Statlom 3369 .ock l)atc Uen~(~ N~mc Invoice Pate P/O Pate l)escription ;Q7279 07/23/?! ~01)AL GL~I£; 11055825 06/04/91 10300 06104191 TAPE CARTRII)~ES Di~ount Net 236.88 0.00 236.88 Che~k Totals: ~7280 07123191BOU)ENST BOLI)EN STATE TRADIN~ CD. 12762 06121191 10235 05109191 PRINTER #/TRAI)E IN 2~ 0.00 2~-- 617.70 0.00 617.70 )07281 07/23/91 6TEWATTS 6TE CALIFORNIA 604)4~AV 06/16/91 ~9~Y 06116/91 6052~AY 06/16/91 ~Sg/~AY Check Totals: 0~Z16/911~/1¥ ~ATTS LIltS;.· CITY 06116191 RAY WATTS; CITY 06116191 RAY MAI'I'S; WILU)AN 617.70 O.OQ 617.70 I,~72.~ 0.00 208.13 O. O0 208.13 1,~04.57 0.00 1,404.57 ~072~2 07/2i/91 11fiFF..LITH THOliqS IIAFKI I 062491 06103191 Check Totals: 06/03/91REI~;~ILEASE 6/3-6/20 3~010.41 0.00 3~010.4] 5~.~8 0.00 51.98 '~7283 07/23/91 HILLINI)E DEE HILLIN 04,1091 04/24/9! ~ock Totalr~ 04/24/91REI~.EXPSE$;LCC C81~r.4/24-20 )1.~8 0.~0 51.90 41.65 0.00 41.65 Check Totals: .O~q4 07/23/91 INTERNAT INTEI~IATL ~ OF BL6 OFF. ~2b"/2 06/18/9t 06/48/9! ~ I)bES 7/91-7/929A. E. 41.65 0.00 41.&5 150.00 0.00 1.50.00 07285-0%L23/-91 -JORDAN --APfi IL-JORI)A~ 062691 06/26/9i Check Totals: 06/26/9i REFUN1) FROM SWIM LESSONS 150.00 0.00 150.00 70.00 0.00 70.00 i)7286 07/23/91 LAKEBF(E6 LAKE 8RE~Y 062491 06/30/91 Check-Tot, its: 06/30/91 43 TICKETS;ENTRY;JULY 2 !07~7 07/23/91 LUCKYMAR LUCKY RARKET Check Totals: .n6_/~/9! __.mNI)iI~,NTS;JLLY 20UTI~ 7000 0.00 70.00---- 193.50 0.00 193.50 193.50 0.00 193.50 70.00 0.00-- 70.00 Check Totals: .072&BJD7Y23Z91~I~ARiLYNS~IAF4LYNLS~CDFF£E-SE~VZCE 1497 05/~/91 103~ 05129191 COFFEE SUPPLIES 70.00 0.00 70.00 68.30 0.00 68.~ ,07289 07/23/91 1~4STE~'CL RASTEA%~IP GRAPHICS? INC. ,501821 06/11/91 10~: 05/29/91 GRAPHICS SOFTWARE ~6.90 '07290 07t23/9t MAURICE .... ~646~ Check Totals: 306.90 {~c~j~ICE PRINTERS OUICK PRINT 06113191 102~5 05124/91 PAPERSTOCK ................... ~54.60-- ~07291 07/25/9~ MOBIL MOB[L 88~900T,'/9, 05/01/9i Cneci: TotaLs: 754. ~0 05/0i/91 ~¥' FUEL CHARGES 216.18 0.00 754.60 0.00 216.18 07/23/9! MOOREPES PEG MOORE 04/17/9! 0.00 216.18 01791 Cisy of Temecula _=cai Year: 1~! Check Register ~ec~ate VenooK Na~e-- Invoice Date P/O Date ))escription Discount Page: Statzon: Net Check Totals: X)7293 07/23/91 NI~S{~EI JEFFERY T. NI~SHEIN 042491 04/24/71 04/24Y-~I RKIM{). CUFF. 4/24-26 0150 Check TotaLs: 02/08/9! I~TALL PHOffiE IN I)UILI) C )07LX?5 0712319! POSTMAST POSI?,ASTER ~4462-1 05/01/91 Chock Totals: 05/01191 MAY CHtGS;PAO(AGES ~ENT Check Totals: )072~6 07123191 ~IN RANCFI] INDUSTRIAL ~Y 108542 0~Y07/9! !0~125 ~/07/91 PAPE~ TC."L$ 07/23/91 RANO LTR 0104010802 0104010692 04/~/9t 0102450002-04/-18/91 0111702502 04/30/91 01117~ 04/~/91 O11170(V)32 04/30/-91 01117000~ 04/3O/91 0111700012 044/30/91 01.10f~I842 - 04/-30/91 0104~20002 0107700732 04/24/91 0401630852 04/22/71 10760077-1 04/24/91 Check Totals: 04/~/91 4/22-5/~;CALLE PANTANO;LNDgP 04122191 4/~-5/~;VIA LA VIOAILSCP 04/-t8/-91 4 / 18-S/46;~{kq~m~R. ! TA .',~.~0~ 04/~/91 4/30-5/2~;90LA{iq WYiLSCP 04130191 4/30-5/29;AUEN SONOHAiL(~CP 04/3O/91 4/3(>-S/~;CORTE CA~ffERA;LSCP 04/30/91 4/3O-5/29;CORTE CAt{TEYJI;LSCP 04/22/91 4/22-5/~198LANA NAY.~;LSCP 04/24/91 4/24-5/--~ RIESLIN6 CT;LS~P .04/24/-91-A/-24--5/~__I~.NA-WY;LSCP 04/~/91 4/~-5/~;WYNEWOOD ~.LSCP 04/24/91 4/24-5/22;LA SERENA WAYILSCP ........... 1076000g-. 2d~.124/-91 ............~)41241~I-4124=51"?-;6EN-KEA~-; LSCP 10627200-3 04/24/9! 10627900-2 04/24/91 O11603XS11 05/01/91 115001012 ~/01/91 L15015002 ~/01/31 131170052 0~/06191 1244~5001 1244b(XX)l- 05/03/91 124019181 05/03/91 12401~71 05/05/91 124009701 -~05/05/91 1160~451 05/01/91 04/24/91 4/24-5/22;HWY 395 RC I'EI);LSCP 04/24/91 4/24-5/22;MORENO; LSCP -04/-22/-9 ~ 4~22--5~20; R..a~k%10 05/01/91 5/1-5/~;KAFFIRI410M CT. LSCP 05/01/91 5/1-5/291#INC~ESTER CR.LSCP 05/01/~l-5/-1--5/29;MAW~ I-TA-RIKLSCF' 05106191 5/6-6/~;RIVERT~ I.N;LSC~ ~/03/91 5/3-5/31;CA{J.E T~O;I)ON~STIC 05/03/91 5/3-5/31; CAJ LE TAJO;IX)MESTI C 05/03/91 5/3-5/3i;KAISER PKWY;LSCP .~10Z/9~15~5~! ;P. qNC{40-UI ~A-RD; LSCP- .... 05/01/91 5/1-5/29;HUMBER DR,LS(]~ ~07~9 07/23/9i SAKA~IOTO KATHY SAttq~lOTO 062691 06/26/91 )07300 07/25/91 SC SIGNS SC SIGNS ,MAY 91 05/01/91 0110 ............. Check-Totals: 0~/26/9i REFUt~ FOR SWIM LEMONS Chec~ Totals: 11113190 F~LIC ~ARING SIGNS: MAY 91 78.59 0.00 78.59 ~9,14 O. OmO ~9.14 39.14 0.00 39.14 3,000.00 0,00 3,000.00 ],000.00 0.00 107.~ 0.00 107.55 107.~ 0.00 107.55 H.7~ 0.00 44.73 44.73 0.00 44.73 11.67 8.73 261.17 274.02 175. B8 151.66 I~.~ 142.30 34.27 59.91 ~.43 703. ~ 475.9O I~.09- 45,95 273.43 --124.-48 142.08 95.14 198.84 5.35 23..90- 45.73 --4,946.41 45.00 45.00 675,00 0.00 0.00 OrO0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 I1.67 8.73 261 ,-17 274, 02 _,-~, 154,66 1~.~ 142, 30 ----34.27- ...... 59.91 25.43 7~.~ 4~. 90 158.~ ~.~ ~.5 273.43 124.~ 162.O8 95.14 1~.~ 5.~ - 23.90 -- 45,73 0.00 ~ - 4,946.4! 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 675.00 Check Totais: 675.00 0.00 b75.~) )7/01/91 Fiscal Year: 1~1 City o+ Temecuia ~eck Register F'age: Station: C~heck Date Vendor Nase ~ Invoice Date P/O Date l)~ripti~ 0000,'r~Oq-07/23/?l ~ShUqO g£~ltN3gF 02/13/91 10347 02/13/91 OJdd~TEIil. Y SER1/I~; SEPT. 90 Di~:ount Net 0{)007302 07/23/91 $IRSI:~.ED SIR SF~,B)Y 03/24/91 10278 04t06191--t0,12~, ~cx:k Totaksi 03/24/91 ~CTI~ 1~ FORMS -Q6,,q~l~ ~...At)Y-WOi~ 41.97 0.00 41.97 53~2~- O. O0 ~.-2S 0{L~9730( 07/23/91 BlYJlll3EI) flOJT~ CALIF F. DISO~J B5-762004 04130191 04130191 ~eck Totals: 4/30-5/31;kNCHSTR]ST.LIEHT 4/30-5/31;Yl~Z;ST.LI6HT ~/~ §/311J~IST. LI84T 4/30-5/31]P~qNQ40 CAL. Y~Z.LIT 4/30-5/31;~ Ca~..DIAZ;LIT ~/30 5/311VIA :IdW~TZ~;$T.LITE 4/30--5/31;I~/~ITA;ST. LI6HT 4130-5131;Yt}RP~;ST.LI6HT 4/30 §/~;FROI~;$T.LI~ 4130-'$/31;FRI~'jMtJ310 C~.LT I7.71 0.00 17.71 120.04 0.00 120.04 28. t( 0.4)0 ~. ~1~ 2%64 0.00 29.M 30.00 0.00 30.00 32.52 0.-00-- 32.52 31.61 0.00 31.61 32.69 O.00 32.69 39.~ 0.® 39.~ 1~059.14 ----OdX) 1 ~9,14 876. ~ O. O0 ~76.83 9.0~ 0.00 9.00 %(X) 0.00 ........ 9.00 .......... 9.00 0.00 9.00 9.00 0.00 %00 9,,~0 O.00 9,W~O ........ 9.60 0.00 9.~0 10.4.i 0.00 10.43 1,%42 O.Y.~- ' ---1§,42 -- - 10.80 0.00 10.80 0.00 9.00 - 9.00- !0.80 30%97 7080231~ 03/08/91 R0~!08.1~2 ffJ/02/9t P08260~30 ~/02/91 200-~)4529 0~/~/91 30(3-465420 05106191 3~-517(~10 05/13/91 308-393819 5-3-100917 05/10/91 308-517678 O(l~191 308-~26~.7 05108/91 208-36694.0 05/02/91 ?,08-517677 04/~/91 04/~/91 4/29-6/4; ~ISER FI<WY 208-434§41 0§/02/91 0§/02/91 §/2-6/1;TRAFFIC LI{3{Hl'}~R13ITI ............... 85--7~90~.--03108191 .... 05108~t-5/8-4/~.'TRAFF-IC-L-.'IS.IT4NNG~TR 9.00 ' 9.4)0 ............ 10.80 0.00 3O9.97 0.00 ~,80-- C~eck Totals: JOOO730§-O7/23/9i--TRI~RI~-VEHI~,.E~Y-- 06/14/91 10069 03/~/91E~IFTIENT F~ F~3{.ICE MOTD(U3Y 2,824.32 0.00 2~824.32 0.00 --- - Check Totals: )0C,07306 07/23/91 U~IGtOBE ~I6LOBE BUFFERFIELD I'R/4VEL 070991 06/I9/91 06/1~/91 AIRFAFUE F~ S.M.7/9-7/14 )0007'307 07/23/91WIND~=. WINDS~3R PART"NERS C~eck Totals: 90.00 --- 061391 --06/01/91 .... 06/01191 STORA~E-SPC;-JUNE 9t ....... 100.0~ ..... 0.00 --- 3,565.95 O.00 90.00 0.~ 90.00 0.00 .100.00 ~ Totals: 100.00 00007308 07/23/91 XEROX-2 XE~OX COrPORATION-BILLING. 52"3~)71300 ~/01/91 0~3 ~/01/91 {FASE F.hc C(3F'I~;~Y PYHT i,169.~ 52~396290 Oh/01/91 02~3 05/01/91LF3L.~ ~ COPIER;JUNE PYMT i,169.04 100.00 0.00 !,i69.04 0.00 ~,169,04 Check Totais: 2,~38.08 0.00 ~ ~ C~m:k Date V~d~ Na-e Invoice Date P/O City o~ Temecuia Check Register I)~-~cription Re~rt Totale: ~'0S$ I~,,502.~2 Page: Station: Discount Net tk C~ Z Ifi I: UD tah ~ I ~'~ I h C: r: J m ~ 0 ~ 0 I- t.- I- Ll .J LI ~ ~_JLU 0 WZ<Z U ._l U.. "r IJJ iI I 1'.'3 03 ~,,-I " ? -0 r' 0 U 0 m Z~. ,-, L 0 $ m o > > o~ o~ w U ,¥ ,',r, 120' W"- r 0 u 0 L L $ 0 > > ~ h .-; "-. Z ?'.1 C) I--- W ~ ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ U U ~ U OG t.'? 1'9 r,, 0 U 0 · 'O u > > ,¥hlW WWUJ -4 I:0 m fq fq W 0 U Z U hi hi t-- _l ,..4 LLI Tf<, O0 f..;, U J:: ('4 W 0 0 U. W 0 >. Z~ W~ W W U. W >- U. Z U. Z~' >- Z om O' U 0 W -0 f.;, CD LLI .2 0 W - U r' h , )- P- f-. t'9 r- f~ W W W U~ Z Z · Z £ Z U W p- ~D 0 u Ln 0 ~ ~ C ~ Q~ 0 J .~ .,-I '~ U1 ..~ · =r' U - LI'I U W h bJ u W U I' f..) -J U ZO~ W W~ 0 0 ~- I'C, ~D O' b. W L~ Z 0 Ltl j I~ ~ J .~ Z ~ W ~- W [._1 L~ U I-- ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER7~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer July 23, 1991 City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of June 30, 1991. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code Sections as of June 30, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 1991 Cash Activity for the Month of June: City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of June 30, 1991 Cash and Investments as of June 1, 1991 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of June 30, 1991 Cash and Investments Portfolio as of June 30, 1991: Type of Investment Institution Demand Deposits Treasury Service Shares Petty Cash Certificate of Deposit Local Agency Investment Fund. Security Pacific Pacific Horizons N/A Overland Bank. State Treasurer Cash and Investments as of June 30, 1991 (1)-This amount includes outstanding checks. Yield N/A 5.610% N/A 6.750% 7.041% Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer'e Report is in compliance with the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and there are adequate funds available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures for the next thirty days of the City of Temecula. PREPARED BY DANELLE GRAY. ~_.~ ~ (-' ~'-' Maturity Date N/A N/A N/A 8/30/91 N/A $11,788,952 3,011,656 (2,424,372) $12,376,236 Balance as of June 30, 1991 (1,597,925j 1,818,361 800 100,000 12,055,000 $12,376,236 ITEM NO. 5 jec/AGDl12910 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER~ ~~---~ CITY MANAGER ~-~-~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM= DATE: SUBJECT= CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL JOHN E. CAVANAUGH, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JULY 23, 1991 GAS DISTRIBUTION FRANCHISE -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution of Intent to grant a franchise to Southern California Gas Company for the transmission and distribution of gas within the City of Temecula. DISCUSSION: We have completed negotiations with Southern California Gas Company for a franchise for the transmission and distribution of gas within the City of Temecula. The authority for the proposed franchise is the Franchise Act of 1937, set forth in Sections 6201, et seq. of the Public Utilities Code. The Gas Company is currently operating within the City pursuant to a franchise granted by the County of Riverside. The 1937 Act imposes certain minimum duties and liabilities upon the grantee of a franchise. These duties and liabilities include: Reimbursement for publication expenses incurred by the city in granting the franchise (P.U.C. §6293); Payment of the cost of repairs to public property damaged by any of grantee's operations under the franchise (P.U.C. §6295); -1- jec/AGDl12910 3. Indemnification of the city (P.U.C. §6296); Removal and relocation of facilities by grantee when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street or right of way (P.U.C. §6297); and Filing of an annual statement setting forth the total gross receipts of the grantee from the sale of electricity (P.U.C. §6299). The proposed Gas franchise, like the Electricity franchise has an indeterminate term. It will continue in effect until abandoned by the Gas Company or condemned by the State or City. Generally, the proposed Gas franchise has the same basic provisions as does the Edison franchise. However, there are a few significant differences. The Gas Company will not agree to pay franchise fees on a quarterly basis. Every other City served by the Gas Company is paid annually, and setting up a separate accounting procedure for the City of Temecula would have been unworkable. Therefore, the proposed franchise provides for annual payments; For the purposes of negotiations, we agreed to eliminate language specifically granting any city redevelopment agency the right to require removal and/or relocation of Gas Company facilities when made necessary by certain road work. However, state law clearly grants this authority to redevelopment agencies and, therefore, the City has not lost anything by the elimination of this language; and The Gas Company requested that we include language stating that any fees imposed for required encroachment permits do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. This is a requirement imposed upon the City by state law. Should state law be modified, either by legislative or judicial decision, the City would be required to calculate any fee based upon the modification. The City thus not being asked to do anything not already required by state law. -2- jec/AGDl12910 The procedure for the eventual granting of the proposed franchise is the same as that followed for the Edison franchise. A Resolution of Intent to grant the franchise must be adopted setting forth notice of a public hearing on the proposed franchise. A public hearing must be held between twenty (20) and sixty (60) days after adoption of the Resolution of Intent. After the public hearing, the Council may grant the Gas Company a franchise by adoption of an Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS= Resolution of Intent to grant a franchise for the transmission and distribution gas to Southern California Gas Company. FISCAL IMPACT= No immediate impact as a result of the adoption of the Resolution of Intent, however, eventual adoption of an Ordinance granting a franchise will result in increased franchise fees for the City. -3- jec/RESl10561 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO GRANT A FRANCHISE FOR THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY WHEREAS, Southern California Gas Company, a California corporation, has filed with the City Council of the City of Temecula an application requesting that a franchise be granted to it of the character and for the purposes mentioned in the notice hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council the public good requires that said franchise be granted; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares its intention to grant said franchise to Southern California Gas Company, that hearing of objections to the granting thereof will be held at the time and place specified in the notice hereinafter set forth, which the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish at least once within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this resolution in the Californian, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Temecula, and that said notice shall be in the following words and figures: "NOTICE OF INTENTION TO GRANT FRANCHISE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Southern California Gas Company, a California corporation, has filed its application with the City Council of the City of Temecula requesting that the City Council grant to it a franchise for an indeterminate period, pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1937, to lay and use pipes and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing gas for any and all purposes under, along, across and upon the public highways and streets within the City of Temecula. If said franchise shall be granted to it, Southern California Gas Company, its successors and assigns, hereinafter designated grantee, shall during the life thereof pay to the City two (2%) percent of the gross annual receipts of said grantee arising from the use, operation or jec/RESl10561 possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than one (1%) percent of the gross annual receipts derived by grantee from the sale of gas within the limits of the City. Said percentage willl be paid annually from the date of the granting of said franchise, and in the event such payment shall not be made, said franchise will be forfeited. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that any and all persons having any objections to the granting of said franchise may appear before the City Council at the City offices, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, the 13th day of August, 1991, and be heard thereon; and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at any time not later than the hour so set for hearing objections, any person interested may make written protest stating objec- tions against the granting of said franchise, which protest must be signed by the protestant and delivered to the City Clerk, and the City Council will, at the time set for hearing said objections, proceed to hear and pass upon all protests so made. For further particulars reference is hereby made to said application on file in the office of the City Clerk, and also to Resolution No. , adopted on the 23rd day of July, 1991, declaring the City Council's intention to grant said franchise. Dated: , 1991 By order of the City Council of the City of Temecula. City Clerk of the City of Temecula# SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. 1991. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR -2- jec/RESl10561 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK -3- ITEM NO. 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER'-~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Joe Hreha, Manager of Information System~~?~~ July 23, 1991 SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA STREET BANNER PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution to amend the FY 1991-92 budget and appropriate $6,000 from Unreserved Fund Balance to Street Banners. DISCUSSION: On July 2, 1991, the City Council approved the Street Banner Program; however, the recommendation for the City Council to adopt the Resolution that would amend the budget and appropriate the funds was not made a part of the motion that approved the program. Therefore, the attached Resolution requires the City Council's approval to amend the budget and appropriate the $6,000 needed to implement. the program. FISCAL IMPACT: The Street Banner Program is not appropriated in the FY 91/92 budget. An amendment to the budget to appropriate $6,000 from Unreserved Fund Balance is required to implement the program. A TTA CHMENT: Resolution 91- RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $6,000 FOR STREET BANNERS The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the FY 1990-91 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby amended to appropriate $6,000 from Unreserved General Fund Balance (001-301) to Signs (001- 199-999-42-5244). SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 2nd day of July, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 4\R~aoM95 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 91 o was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of July, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4\R~oa195 2 ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER $~~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department July 23, 1991 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19939-1 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-1, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On June 16, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Joshua-Towne Homes, Inc. 28999 Front Street, Suite 203 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Amwest Surety Insurance Company. On March 27, 1990, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance 460, Section 15.1~1), the County Road Commissioner reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. A:TM19939-1 1 No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the subdivision monumentation has been completed by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the exoneration of the Monument Bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to release this bond as follows: Bond No. 1118918 in the amount of $13,[~00.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. AC:ks Attachment: Vicinity Map A:TM19939-1 2 IT¥ MAP NO SCALE ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY~ FINANCE OFFICER ~- CITY MANAGER~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department July 23, 1991 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19939-2 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-2, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On June 16, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Joshua-Towne Homes, Inc. 28999 Front Street, Suite 203 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Amwest Surety Insurance Company. On April 15, 1991, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance [~60, Section 15.1(I), the County Road Commissioner reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one ( 1 ) year maintenance period. No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. A:TM19939-2 1 The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the subdivision monumentation has been completed by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the exoneration of the Monumentation Bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to release this bond as follows: Bond No. 1118925 in the amount of $20,000.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. AC:ks Attachment: ¥icinity Map A:TM19939-2 2 SEC.20,29, TSS,R2W, SBM VICINITY MAP NO SCALE ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL 5~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department July 23, 1991 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19939-F PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19939-F and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On July 28, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Joshua-Towne Homes, Inc. 28999 Front Street, Suite 203 Temecula, CA 92590 For the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Amwest Surety Insurance Company On April 15, 1991, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance 460, Section 15.1(I), the County Road Commissioner reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one ( 1 ) maintenance period. No action was taken on the monument bond at that requirements had not been met. date as several technical A:TM19939-F 1 The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the above item has been completed by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and City Staff. and the Engineering Department recommends the release of the monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to exonerate this bond as follows: Bond No. 1120868 in the amount of $11.200.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. AKC:ks Attachment: Vicinity Map A:TM19939-F 2 8EC.20,29, T8S,R2W, SBM VICINITY MAP NO SCALE ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER ~' CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager /~'l~Engineering Department July 25, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 20591 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer R ECOMMENDAT ION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 20591. AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount, APPROVE the Subdivision Agreement Rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On May 17, 1988. the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Kaiser Development Company, A California Corporation for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford as follows: Bond No. 9232335 in the amount of $412,500.00 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 9232336 in the amount of $23,000.00 to cover water improvements. A:TM20591 1 Bond No. 9232337 in the amount of $128,500.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 9232335, 9232336, and 9232337 in the amounts of $206,250.00, $11,500.00, and $64,250.00 respectively to cover materials and labor. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are a portion of Cabo Road and Santiago Road. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff,and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $371,250.00 Water: 20,700.00 Sewer: 115,650.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one I1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $41,250.00 Water: 2,300.00 Sewer: 12,850.00 Total $56,400.00 The developer has submitted a Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this Instrument of Credit will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance Bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:ks Attachments: Vicinity Map Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit Subdivision Agreement A:TM20591 2 VICINITY MAP BUTTERFIELD FINANCIAL CORPORATION 3470 Mr. Diablo Blvd., Suite A-200 Lafayette, California 94549 Telephone'. (415) 283-8162 Fax: (415) 746-8:202 CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 RE: Instrument of Credit Delivered as Improvement Security: Subdivision Warranty Gentlemen: Butterfield Financial Corporation , a financial corporation, subject to regulation by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, delivers to the City of Temecula this instrument of credit as security for certain improvements in accordance with the Subdivision Agreement, dated and referred to herein and by this reference made a part hereof, subject to the following conditions: I. We pledge that we hold and will hold on deposit the sum of FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDREDAND NO/100DOLLARS ($56,400.00) as trust funds guaranteed for payment to the City of Temecula to secure Bedford Development Company's (hereinafter referred to as "Principal") faithful performance of the Subdivision Agreement executed by Principal and City of Temecula for Subdivision Z0591 for the commencement and completion of the one year warranty period as described' in said Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Laws of City of Temecula. We will so hold this sum until the commencement, completion, and written acceptance by the City of Temecula City Council of all work and improvements under said written SubdivisionAgreement. Prior to said acceptance, upon demand by the City Engineer of the City of Temecula, the whole or any portion of said funds shall be paid forthwith to the City for use toward the commencement and completion of the work and improvement as it sees fit. II. When all of the guarantee and maintenance requirements have been satisfied, the sum of FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($56,400.00) shall be released upon written acceptance by the City Council of the completion of these requirements. Prior to said acceptance, upon written demand by the City the whole or any portion of said residual sum shall be paid forthwith to the City for use toward satisfaction of these requirements. IV. No alteration of said subdivision Agreement, or of any plans or specifications of said work, agreed to by City of Temecula and Principal, shall relieve us from liability on this letter of credit. We hereby give consent for any such alterations to be made without further notice to or consent by us. We hereby hold ourselves bound without regard to and independently of any action against Principal whenever taken. We further agree that if City of Temecula sues on this letter of credit, we will pay, all its reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys fees incurred by it in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. This instrument of credit is irrevocable. BUTTERFIELD FINANCIAL CORP. BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Mohan Vachani (Name) Vice President (Title) I swear under penalty of perjury that I have authority to bind the above-named financial institution to the terms of this letter of credit. Executed at Lafayette California, on April 8, 19 91 . By: Mohan Vachani Signature Approved as to Form: By: Mohan Vachani (Name) Vice President (Title) (Name) (Title) By' Scott Field City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA State of California County of Contra Costa eS. On April 8, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Mohan Vachani, personally known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument as Vice President on behalf of Bedford Development Company, the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that such executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ~~ //~~~' My commission expires February 7, 1992 OFFICIAL SEAL CATHERINE C. SEVlLI. A ~ COSTA COUNTY My commaion expires Feb. 7 t992 State of California County of Contra Costa ss. On April 8, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Mohan Vachani, personally known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument as Vice President on behalf of Butterfield Financial Corporation, the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that such executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ,/~~.~ ~ ~ '~ My commission expires February 7, 1992 AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and Bedford Der. Co., hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACIOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration by the County of Riverside of fina~ map approva! Tr. 20591 ' ; WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has permitted subdivlders to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 2059[ are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the ~'Riverside County Road Commissioner" contained in any documents between CiTY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 2059t are now hereby defined to refer to the "City Engineer". 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 20591 now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions, Dated: ~ '.~/~// By: BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY /,CONTRACTOR'S NAME (Print Signatore's Name) Csaba F. Ko, V±ce Pres±dent CITY OF TEMECULA Dated: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR Dated: JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS. On July 11, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Csaba F. Ko, Vice President on behalf of Bedford Development Company, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL $F.A~, CYNTHIA G. ZAJD Nobly Public California Rfi~RSIDE COUN?Y My Gommlsdofi exgiret Oct. 14, 1994 Signature /~/ ~/~~~-"/~,~'~/~~,,~'~/ (Seal) ITEM NO. 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council Joe Hreha, Manager of Informa tion Systems,/.~~"/~ July 23, 1991 SUBJECT: TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution granting the Temecula Valley Unified School District no cost refuse and recycling services in return for solid waste management public education assistance, compost purchase consideration, and City use of Temecula Valley Unified School District facilities. DISCUSSION: At its May 28, 1991 meeting, the City Council granted Temecula Environmental a Waste Management Franchise. Contained in that Franchise Agreement was a City option to provide no cost refuse and recycling services to the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). Staff has negotiated the attached agreement exercising the City's option to provide no cost refuse and recycling services to TVUSD in return for Waste Management public education assistance, compost purchase consideration, and City use of TVUSD facilities. A TVUSD official has estimated that they will save approximately $40,000 per year in refuse and recycling services. The attached agreement reserves the new Multipurpose Room (estimated completion November 1, 1991) at the Temecula Middle School, seating capacity 750, for City use. It also reserves the Multipurpose Room at the Vail Elementary School, seating capacity 200, for all Commission meetings. The TVUSD Governing Board approved the agreement at their July 16, 1991 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT.' It is estimated that $27,000 a year may be saved in facility rent and custodial services. A TTA CHMEN T: Resolution No. with attached Agreement RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDING THE DISTRICT NO COST REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES TO ALL DISTRICT SCHOOL BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California, by enactment of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ("AB 939"), has declared that it is within the public interest to authorize and require local agencies to make adequate provisions for solid waste handling within their jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 40059(a), the City Council of the City of Temecula ("City") has determined that the public health, safety, and well-being require that all citizens of the City of Temecula be educated concerning all aspects of the City's collection, transportation, recycling, cornposting, and disposal and recycling of solid waste in residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas in the City of Temecula; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula proclaims that a major emphasis for waste management education must rest with the children of the City of Temecula; and therefore declares, that the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District"), in return for waste management public education assistance and City use of District facilities, shall receive no cost refuse and recycling services from the City's exclusive franchised trash collection company, i.e., Temecula Environmental. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby grants the Temecula Valley Unified School District no cost refuse and recycling services for all District school buildings located in the City limits of the City of Temecula, as provided in the attached Agreement, pursuant to Section 5H(6)(d) of City of Temecula Resolution Number 91- 54. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the attached Agreement and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. ATTEST Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: X COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: X COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: X COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR NO COST REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES FOR ALL DISTRICT SCHOOL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN RETURN FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AND CITY USE OF DISTRICT FACILITIES This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this 23rd day of July, 1991, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA ("City") and TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ("District"), for no cost refuse and recycling services for all District school buildings within the city limits of the City of Temecula in return for waste management public education assistance and City use of District facilities. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California, by enactment of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 CAB 939"), has declared that it is within the public interest to authorize and require local agencies to make adequate provisions for solid waste handling within their jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California' Public Resources Code Section 40059(a), the City Council of the City of Temecula ("City") has determined that the public health, safety, and well-being require that all citizens of the City of Temecula be educated concerning all aspects of the City's collection, transportation, recycling, cornposting, and disposal and recycling of solid waste in residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas in the City of Temecula; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula proclaims that a major emphasis for waste management education must rest with the children of the City of Temecula; and therefore declares, that the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District"), in return for waste management public education assistance and City use of District facilities, shall receive no cost refuse and recycling services from the City's exclusive franchised trash collection company, i.e., Temecula Environmental. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1 SECTION 1. GRANT OF NO COST REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES. This Agreement grants no cost refuse and recycling services for all, service area defined below, District buildings as provided herein and pursuant to Section 5H(6)(d) of the Franchise Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Environmental, as approved by City as Resolution No. 91-54. Services shall include bins or rolloffs for the collection of refuse, recyclables, and greenwastes. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. Whenever any term used in this Agreement has been defined by Chapter 6.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code or Division 30, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the California Public Resources Code, the definitions in the Municipal Code or Public Resources Code shall apply unless the term is otherwise defined in this Agreement. A. Custodial Services. "Custodial Services" shall mean the opening and closing of a facility, setting up tables and chairs in the desired configuration, returning the tables and chairs to storage after use, and providing general janitorial services preparing a facility for reuse. Excessive janitorial problems and damage is the user's responsibility for cleaning and repairing to restore a facility to its original condition. B. Bins. "Bins" shall mean those containers provided by Grantee for commercial, industrial, construction, and multi-family residential uses. Bins are usually 3 cubic yards in size which are picked up by refuse trucks by means of front loading apparatus. C. Special Wastes. "Special Wastes" shall mean the list, which is set forth on Exhibit "B," "Special Wastes," contained in City's Resolution 91-54. SECTION 3. SERVICE AREA. A. Service Area Defined. The Service Area shall be all school buildings, District offices, and other facilities owned, operated, and under the jurisdiction of District that require refuse service and are within the City limits of the City of Temecula. New facilities constructed will require District to notify City sixty (60) days in advance of the commencement of new refuse and recycling services. As provided below, the Service Area may be changed. B. Annexations. District school buildings in new areas annexed to the City are eligible for no cost refuse and recycling services once any existing refuse collection agreements have expired or are legally canceled by District. District will notify City sixty (60) days in advance for new refuse and recycling services. SECTION 4. SERVICES PROVIDED BY DISTRICT. A. Compost Purchasing Consideration. District agrees to thoroughly evaluate, e.g., cost analysis, compost facility site visit, soil analysis, etc., the purchase and use of compost, by District and all landscaping contractors working for District, produced by Recyc Incorporated, the company that shall compost all greenwastes collected by Temecula Environmental in the City of Temecula. Compost purchases generated within the City of Temecula will reduce Recyc's greenwastes acceptance fees charged to Temecula Environmental, which are ultimately passed on to all residents in the City of Temecula. B. Brochure and Flyer Distribution. When requested, District agrees to distribute waste management brochures and flyers to all students attending school in the District. Brochures and flyers will be provided by Temecula Environmental in separated stacks of 35 to assist District in the distribution effort. C. Coloring Book Distribution. When requested, District agrees to distribute waste management coloring books to all targeted students attending school in the District. Coloring books will be provided by Temecula Environmental in separated boxes of 35 to assist District in the distribution effort. D. Presentations. Twice each school year, District agrees to assist Temecula Environmental in the coordination, audio/visual support, and facility use for Temecula Environmental to provide waste management presentations,. in an assembly type form, to all non-high school students in the District. Twice each school year, District agrees to assist Temecula Environmental in the coordination, audio/visual support, and facility use for Temecula Environmental to provide waste management presentations, in a class or group form, to all District targeted high school classes and groups in the District. E. Facility Support. District agrees to provide City with no cost use and custodial services of District facilities for primary use for all City of Temecula Commission meetings and City Council meetings and study sessions. The Temecula Middle School's Multipurpose Room shall become the designated location for all City Council meetings and study sessions upon the completion of this facility, estimated November 1, 1991. Vail Elementary School's Multipurpose Room shall become the designated location for all Commission meetings. As of the effective date of this agreement, District facilities for Commission meetings shall be provided by District and at no cost for their use and custodial services. If District facilities shall not be used by City on the designated days identified herein, City agrees to notify District as soon as possible. City agrees to provide four signs to District in support of City Council meetings and study sessions. Two free standing 2' X 2' signs, one for each parking lot, which shall read: "City Council Meeting" with an arrow pointing to the entrance to the Temecula Middle School's Multipurpose Room. One free standing 2' X 2' sign, which shall read: "Designated Smoking Area - Please Use Receptacles." One 2' X 2' sign, which shall read: "Restricted Area - School Staff Only." (1) City shall provide audio and visual equipment and connections necessary to interface with District's public address systems, their setup, removal, and storage. District shall exercise reasonable security for City property temporarily stored at District facilities; however, District shall not be held responsible for said City property. (2) City shall follow the District's rules and regulations for use of District facilities. When City uses District facilities, City shall observe and enforce the District's no smoking policy in all District facilities. An outdoor designated smoking area will be established by District. City shall enforce the use of this area and the District provided receptacles. (3) For City Council meetings and study sessfons, the facility support constitutes the use of the Temecula Middle School's Multipurpose Room for four/five days of each month. For Commission meetings, the facility support constitutes the use of Vail Elementary School's Multipurpose Room for five days of each month. Since significant logistics are involved in relocating these meetings, e.g., television taping and future live broadcasts, public notification, etc., District agrees to allow City the exclusive use of these facilities on the designated dates and times herein. (4) Each Commission meeting and City Council meeting and study session will conclude no later than 11:59 P.M. (:5) City Council meetings and study sessions are scheduled every Tuesday night beginning at 7:00 P.M. with setup occurring at :5:00 P.M. (6) Planning Commission - 1st and 3rd Monday of each month starting at 6:00 P.M. with setup occurring at 5:00 P.M. (7) Parks and Recreation Commission - 2nd Monday of each month starting at 7:00 P.M. with setup occurring at 6:00 P.M. (8) Public Safety Commission - 4th Thursday of each month starting at 7:00 P.M. with setup occurring at 6:00 P.M. (9) Traffic Commission - 4th Wednesday of each month starting at 7:00 P.M. with setup occurring at 6:00 P.M. SECTION TERM, EXTENSIONS. AND TERMINATION. The term of this Agreement shall be for ten (10) years, and shall commence on August 1, 1991, and expire on July 31, 2001; provided that this agreement may be terminated by either party upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. In the event that Temecula Environmental's Franchise Agreement is extended for an additional ten (10) years, then this Agreement may be automatically extended, upon mutual consent of both parties, to expire simultaneously with Temecula Environmental's new franchise expiration date. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent. SECTION 6. GOVERNMENT LIAISON PERSON. The District shall designate a "government liaison person" who shall be responsible for working with the City Manager or the City Manager's designated representative to resolve any problems which may surface. SECTION 7. INDEMNIFICATION. A. Indemnification of City. The District shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, employees, and shareholders harmless from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, claims, actions, causes of action, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising from or in any manner related to the acts or omissions of the District, its officers, employees, agents, or contractors under this agreement. B. Indemnification of District. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District, its affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, employees, and shareholders harmless from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, claims, actions, causes of action, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising from or in any manner related to the acts or omissions of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or contractors under this agreement. SECTION 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by telecopier(fax), or United States certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: To City: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Attention: David F. Dixon, City Manager Telecopier: (714) 694-1999 Copy to: City Attorney 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Copy To: Temecula Environmental 233 West Markham Street Perris, California 92370 To District: Temecula Valley Unified School District P. O. Box 279 Temecula, California 92390 Attention: Dr. Patricia B. Novotney, Superintendent Telecopier: (714) 699-5088 or to such other address as either party may from time to time designate by notice to the other given in accordance with this Section. Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally served or, if mailed, three (3) business days from the date such notice is deposited in the United States mail. B. Savings Clause and Entirety. If any non-material provision of this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. WITNESS the execution of this Agreement on the day and year written above. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATrF_.ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Field, City Attorney TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Joan F. Sparkman, Governing Board Clerk ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works July 23. 1991 Resolution No. TC-91-01, A Resolution of The Traffic and Transportation Commission of The City of Temecula To Initiate A Coordinated Effort To Develop A Transportation Plan For The Communities of The Temecula-Murrieta Valley PREPARED BY: Douglas MacPherson, Senior Transportation Engineer RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVE AND FILE Resolution, DISCUSSION: The attached Resolution No. TC-91-01 was adopted by the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its June 26, 1991 meeting, and is submitted to the City Council for its information and support. DM:ks A:RESOTC91.01 1 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY NANC . O ZC .R CITY MANAGER '~-~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works July 23, 1991 Resolution No. TC-91-01, A Resolution of The Traffic and Transportation Commission of The City of Temecula To Initiate A Coordinated Effort To Develop A Transportation Plan For The Communities of The Temecula-Murrieta Valley PREPARED BY: R ECOMMENDAT ION: DISCUSSION: Douglas MacPherson, Senior Transportation Engineer RECEIVE AND FILE Resolution. The attached Resolution No. TC-91-01 was adopted by the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its June 26. 1991 meeting. and is submitted to the City Council for its information and support. DM: ks A:RESOTC91.01 1 ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CiTY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFiCE~R..__~ CITY MANAGER-~_~ CITY OF TEMECUL.4 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7OO 342 IO0 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. I 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Murrieta Springs This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Murrieta Springs, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seven hundred (700) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached and made a part herein by this reference '(the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of a maximum of 2,140 residential units on 500 acres, 600,000 square feet of commercial on 60 acres, a 200-room hotel and golf course, and 1.4 million square feet of industrial on 140 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. city and Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such 07-0.T-91 1817&-__nOO0__1 G: ~)0C\152\91050020.2ll) as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality master planned residential development, hotel-resort, commercial and industrial park and golf courses creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure'systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. '(5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these 07-03-91 18174-00001 G: %DOC\I 5~\910500~0. ~1~ 2 entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, city agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to ~esidential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or 07-0.T-91 1817~-00001 G :'~)0C\15Z\91050020. Zig) 3 acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. 'In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal 07-03-91 1817&-00001 G: ~:)0C\152\91050020.211) 4 procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. ATTEST: Cit rk, City of Teme~la CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula MURRIETA SPRINGS, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: 07-03-91 1817&-00001 G: %IXX:\152\91(FoCX)20.21~ 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of ~all£orn~a, County of~ R:tverstde and :is de~cr:tbed as follows: PAR~ 1: The North half of Section 12, Tramship 7 South, Ranse 3 West, San Bernardino l~ase and Her~:lLan .... PAR~ 2: , ~e l~rt~at quarter o~ Section 7, T~h~p 7 Sou~h, ~u~e 2 ~s~, San Be~r~no Baue a~ H~r~tnn~ . - · ~C~ therefrm that ~rtiou deKrt~d is B~IH~ at '{he ~o~h&~st co~er of sam ~ort~es~ qua~ter~ . ~E ~ut~rly,- on t~ ~sterly' l~ue of ~ ~ort~est ~rter, 2660.~ fee~, to t~ South~st corer of ~ Hort~est ~arter~' 23~X.20 feet to t~ center line of t~t ~rtl~ ?arcel of land con~d to the ~un~ of RLvezstde by ~ r~orded ~ovem~r ~, 1929 ~ Book 722 ~ge .2~ of ~, Records of Rivers%de Count, · E~EK Ibrth ~' 23~ 30. ~st. 2713.73 feet, to a ~int tn the Northerly LXne o~ sa~ 110tt~est ~rter ~%ch ~ars ~vsterl~ ~705.7 feet fr~ the Hortheast corner thereo~; Ta~E ~ter~, on the Northerly l~ne of sa~ ~rt~est qurter, 1705.7 ~0 ~~ therefr~ ~ht portion con~ed to the Count~ b~ De~ recorded ~e~r ~, 1929 ~u Bo~ 722 page 421 o~ ~so P~cord8 ~0 ~~ thatelFin t~t ~t~%ou c~yed to the County of RLverB~e by Deed recor~d.Jandw 13o ~931 ~n Bo~ 5 p~ie 216 of Official Records of R~vers~e Count~, ~0 ~G the~fr~ t~t ~rt~on convaned to the State o~ ~l~orn~a b~ De~ recorded Ja~ 50 1977 as l~t~nt 1~o. 1852 o~ Offic~a~ Recor~ of Rlvers~e Co~ty, ~l~fornis; ~0 ~C~C there~r~ tht ~rt[on de~r~d as ~ollo~s: B~G at the ~ of ~nte~ect%on of the Bortherl~ prolonzat~on ~hat cer~aXn ~ne de~X~d ~E South 12' 23* 30" Mast, 1795 feet, ~re or less, to the ~ntersecvton o~ th~ South IXne of the Hort~est quarter of sa%d Section 7", ~n ~e~ 'to the Count~ o[ R~verstde recorded November 13, 192~ ~n Dook 722 pa~e ~21 o[ ~eds, ~co~ o~ R~vets~de Count~, ~l~fornta, vit~ the l:orth 89* &9e ~5" ~st. 1227.95 feet f~ a one and on~q~rter ~nch (1 iron pipe mrktn~ the 1Iort~es~ co~er of said Secv~on T~ ~lunS,' sa~d l~rtherly prolongation South 12'0 .54~ 04" tJek~, &~)f~,~4 feet~ T~K ~rt~rly, a~ong a cu~e, Con.re hsterly and havZ~g a tadluG of ~0~ feet, fr~ a t~gent ~artng North 21' 21~ 42" ~st throu~ an . SectLon 7; · H~E along sa~ 14orth l~ne, North 89* ~9u 55" ~est, 90.39 ~eet to the Fo~ut o~ Beg~nnXng. 07-03-91 1817&-OOiX)1 G: ~DOC\152\91050020 VICINITY MAP 07-03-91 1817&-00001 ~: ~XIC\152\9105aO~ .~li~ EXHIBIT L~rD USE PLP~ ! OS / 100.0 AC. I ~o.o 12 MH H 4 5.5.0 AC BP 4' ~ 12' 27.5 AC. 28.3 ! i 18 .; f UH / " 6 H // ~ / o -- ~ 41.8 AC. ~ '~ ~ { l7 ~:t ,~5 AC , · .............~ .....~'~_~/ 07-03-91 1817&-00001 G: MXX:\15Z\~10500L~ .Ztl) EXHIBIT "C" LETTER SUPPORTING CITY'S LAFCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula. SPhere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Murrieta Springs, a California limited partnership, is the owner of a 700 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside on Winchester Road across from French Valley Airport. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of.LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 700 acre Murrieta Springs property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, MURRIETA SPRINGS, a California limited partnership CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: Johnson + Johnson Development CorpoFation, general partner By: ~ 07-03-91 1817~-00001 G: ~)(X:\152%91050020.2~) APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~..~ CITY MANAGER- ]~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 700 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Spa & Country Club This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Spa & Country Club, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately three hundred forty-two (342) acres of land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference-(the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of 243 residential, 444 condominiums, 260,000 square feet commercial, 200-room hotel and existing golf course land uses (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and. Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-03-91 18162-00001 G:~0C\152\91050022.21l) otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality condominium-residential development, hotel-resort and golf courses creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. '(6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW T~EREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement 07-0]-91 181&2-00001 G:%DOC\15~\91050022.21~ 2 permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan and plot plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-0:3-91 G :'U)CX:\152\91050022.2m) 3 that nothing contained in this M0U shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or 07-0]-91 18162-00001 G:~)0C\152\91050022.211) 4 requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. ATTEST: CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation/ Mayor Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO 'FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: ~ 07-03-91 18162-004)01 G: ~C\152\91050022.2~ 5 EXWIBIT "]~" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL NO. i That portion of Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, and a portion of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California as shown on a Map of the Lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, Page 359, Records of San Diego County, California, PARCEL NO. 2 That portion of Section 13, Township.7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the District Land Office thereof, · PARCEL NO. 3 That portion of Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the District Land Office thereof. PARCEL NO. 4 That portion of Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the District Land Office thereof, 07-(23-91 18162-00001 G: ~0~152\91050022.2~) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 5 That portion. of Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,.and a portion'of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California, as shown on a Map of the Lands. of the. Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, Page 359, Records of San Diego County, California, PARCEL NO. 6 That portion of Section 13, Township 7 south, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the'District Land Office thereof, PARCEL NO. 7 That portion of Sections 13 and 24, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian and a portion of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California, as shown on a Map of the Lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, Page 359, Records of San Diego County, 07-03-91 18162-00001 G: ~D(~'~152\91050022.2]l) VICINITY MAP PAOJE~'T ~IT£ TE&~££ULW . lIEMET' MURRI~T~ WST &PI~IWG$ ,- M#RRI£TW IIOT ~RI~.~ 'RO~O · ~MLIFD&II!4 1IO ~CBLE 07-0~-91 18162-00001 EY~IBIT LAND USE PLAN RANClIO CALIFORNIA GOLF CLUB MASTER PLAN 07-0~-91 G: ~X::\152\91050022.2~D EXHIBIT "C" LETTER SUPPORTING CITYIS LAFCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 loth Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula, SPhere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Rancho California Spa & Country Club, a California limited partnership, is the owner of a 445 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 445 acre Rancho California Spa & Country Club property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: ~ 0T-03-91 18162.- _ _m2(~_ _ 1 G: ~X)C\152%91050022. APPROVAL CiTY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~R .~? CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7O0 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), proiect EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Sga & Country Club II-1 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-1, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately one hundred (100) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference '(the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of 562 residential units on 50 acres and 364,000 square feet of commercial on 50 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and'Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-03-91 181Z3-00001 G: ~(X:\15:~\91~OO2&. ~ otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality master planned residential development and commercial center creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. '(6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, city and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement 07-0~-91 18123-00001 G:%DOC\15~\910500Z&.211~ 2 permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 18123-00001 G: ~:)OC\ 152\91050024.2NO 3 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or 07-0~-91 181Z~-00001 G: ~)0C\152%91050024.2~ 4 requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. ATTEST: CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation Mayor city of Temec~lla APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-1, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corpo_ration, general~ Rartner By: 07-0~-91 181Z3-__nOO0__1 G: ~q)G\152\91050024.2XD 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE U~INCOJ~PORATED AREA OF THE STATE OF ¢ALIPORNIAe COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW$~ THE SOUTHEAST QUARTEft OF SECTION 12e TO#~SHIP '7 SOUTH, 3 WESTe SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND HERZDZANJ EXCEPTING THEREFROSl THE SOOTHWEST QUARTER THEREOF. THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTE~ OF SBCTIO~ 7, TOWNSHIP U SOOTHe ~ANGE 2 WESTe'SAN ]~E~I~A]~DINO BASE AID I~ERIDI&~, LYII(G NESTEI~LY AND NORTHWESTEI~LT OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TEMECOLA- MIllCHESTER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY '79) ~0 FEET WIDE~ AS ~AID ROAD NAS CONVEYED TO THE COOHTY OF ItIVE~SIDEe BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 13e 1931 ZI~ BOOE'5 PAGE 216 OF OFFICIAL ~ECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COOHTYe CALIFORNIAe 07-03-91 18123-00001 G: ~DCX:\152~9105002;,.2#I) EXHIBIT "/%-1" VICINITY MAP Murrieta ~~ Hot Sprin~ " / 07-0~-91 181Z5-00001 ~,~ G: ~IX)C\152~9105002&.2~) Rancho California EXHIBIT "B" USE PLAN 07-0.:3-91 181Z5-00001 G: M)0C\152\9105002~.. 2110 EXHIBIT "C" LETTER SUPPORTING CITY'S LAFCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula, Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-1 is the owner of a 100 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated .territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 100 acre Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-1 property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-1, a California limited partnership CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: Johnspn + Johnson Development CorpTation, general partner By: 07-0~;-91 1812~-00~01 G: ~JX)C\152\91 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY F'NANCE OFF'CE~ .~ CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDA T/ON: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7OO 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates//2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately twenty-four (24) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached and made a part herein'by this reference '(the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of 310 residential dwelling units on 22 acres and 40,000 square feet of commercial use on 2 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and'Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-03-91 ~1)040-OOO01 G: ~DOC\15Z~91050023 otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality residential development and commercial office use creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. '(6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement 07-0~-91 2OO.O-O00O1 G: ~DOC\15Z\910500Z5.2ffl) 2 permit applications to the city for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project tentative tract map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 200&0-00001 G: ~DOC\ 152\91050023. ~ 3 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically se't forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annekation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or 07-03-91 2OO/O-OOOO1 G: ~X)C\152\910500Z3.2~i) 4 requiring the Planning Commission or the city Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. ATTEST: CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Mayor City/C%erk, City of Tem~=G~l a APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-Z, a California limited partnership By: Bree, Allen & Kinney, general partner By: 07-([5-91 20040-00001 G: ~Doc\15;\910500Z~. 2fid 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ~,.L TH,¥T PORTION 01r TI.l~ t,l,J~lllr.TA P~ll0N 01r TK I'[I'~CUL. A R&H¢IdQ &NO a PORTION OF £0TS 1&7, ~0 ~NO ~Z AS S)4Q4M BY L~'~0 AND U&T£R C0r~AH¥, {H THE COUNTY OF I{V[IS{0[, STATE CALIF0~NJA, AS SHOU~ BY K&Je OH FILE iN i00K I PAGE 3S'I OP S£G]MING &T TH~ NO~TH[AGT CORNER OF LOT °G° OF TR&C! ?~C[ SOUTH ~O D~GR[[S.-]~' Sb' ~ST, ~G ~ L~H[ ~ iAI~ LOT 'G'e · O~S~C[ ~ 30.DO FEET T~ GOUT~RLY bJ~ O~ ~ffJ[T~ HOT SPR~S I0~ (F~IbY HOT SP~INGS' NO&D) &0.DO fEET UID[, AS SAiD I0~ UA~ C~Y[D IOOK 72 PAGE 3L&. ~ OFFZCJ~ RECORDS ~ IJ~lSl0[ C~Y~ ~ZFMNI&, SAID POINT B[3K T~ POINT ~ KGJ~I~ M T~ PMC[~ ~0 I[ ~[ ~LONG SAID SObeRlY LI~ M ~lETA ~T ~ll~S ~ T~'F~L~I~ 6 C0~S[SI TKK[ IO~H ?~ OCGf[[S &l' US' EAST, 6 0IS~KE ~ T~NCE SOUT~AST[R~Y ~ A C~ C~CA~ TO T~ i~MST SS', ~ UC'LENGTH OF 322.9& ?~NC~ S~TH S& DEGREES 36' SO' EAST, A BlIThE M Z~S.I& FK[TI T~NC[ SOUT~ASTCR~Y ~ A C~. C~A~ TO T~ S~MST~ ~Vl~ ~ ARC ~NG~H ~ Ze&.?~ T~NC[ SOUTH AS. DEGRee5 33' 2&' EAST, A' DZST~[ ~ ~0 A POINT IN T~ SOUT~RLY L]~ ~ T~? CERTAIN DECIDER 30, I~&T AS JNST~NT NO. 1323&t, t[CM0i A DJST~C[ M Z,22~.16 FEET TO ~ ~LE POINT L3N[ OF LOT 16 ~ SHO~ BY ~ ~ PiD TI~T ~NC~ NORTH &3 DIGaCES DO' DO' ~AGT, ~ T~ S~AST[~LY LiNE 0f LOTS 3 T~O~H ~S ~ LOT '0' AS ~ SAID TRACT &&?&, A 0]ST~C[ 0r llS.S~ LIN[ ~ LOTS 1, Z ~ 3 ~ LOT 'G' AS i~ TRACT &&?&, A DIST~C[ M 20&.32 PEET 70 T~ POINT M'~G]~ING. 07-0:3-91 20(O-OlXX)1 G: ~DOC\152\910500Z3.2XD EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP 07-03-91 200,40-00001 G: ~XX:\152%91 EXHIBIT LAND USE PLAN I ' "~,~ ill I1,, I J'~"~ !t !~!I! J!l ~lilll "". ! Ildllllldll · I;' I 07-03-91 20(0~)-000()1 G:~DOC\l$2\91050023.ZXD EXHIBIT "C"" LETTER SUPPORTING CITY'S L~FCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula, SPhere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2 is the owner of a 24 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice' from the City of Temecula that this property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 24 acre Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2 property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-2, a California limited partnership By: Bree,tAllen & Kinney, general partn;r ~ By: / cc: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager 07-0,]-91 G: %D(X:\15Z\910500Z]. 211) APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY F'NANCE OFF'CE~ .~' CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation, DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 700 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Johnson, Allen & Kinney This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("city") and Johnson, Allen & Kinney, a California general partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seven and twenty-nine one hundredths (7.29) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with 88 condominium residential dwelling units (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and. Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-0~-91 181~5-00001 otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality condominium-residential development creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards city and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, city and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property'Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the 07-0~-91 18155-__nC~0__1 G:%.DOC\15Z\91050025.2~ 2 City. In such instance, city agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. city agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project tentative tract map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of p~blic infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as 07-03-91 18135-00001 G: ~DOC\15Z\91050025. Z~m 3 requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve 07-0,.~-91 G:'J;)CX:\15Z\910500ZS.ZNO 4 any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. ATTEST: Cityd&Flerk, city of Temecula CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula JOHNSON, ALLEN & KINNEY, a California general partnership 07-0~-91 181~5-00001 G: '~D(:X:\15~'\910500~5. ~l) 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "A" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND THAT PORTION OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SNOWN BY MAP 0F THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AN~ WATER COMPANY FILED IN B00K 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS 0F SAN DIEG0 C0UNTY, SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLL0WS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SO~THERhY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1~ THENCE NORTH 75"30'25" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, 816.27 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURYE THEREIN, CDNCAVE S0~THERL¥, HAYING A RADIUS OF 1055.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONC SAID CUEWE THROUGh A CENTRAL ANGLE 0F 5028'56" A DISTANCE OF 100.94 FEET: THENCE NORTH 18"51'49" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL X, 303.&0 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREINs THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 89 "s6'16" WEST 270.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; 'THENCE NORTI! 0"23'44" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 75;00 FEET: THENCE SOUTN 42"37'46" EAST 20.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89"36'16" EAST 335.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 65"07'12" EAST 13~.2~ FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 8"3~'44" EAST 206.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 70~48'58" EAST 456.29 FEET T0 A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 26, ~977 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 175358, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 83." 14'4~" EAST 465.00 FEET FROM THE MOST ~ESTERL¥ CORNER OF SAID LAND$ THENCE SOUTH 55"21'15" EAST 27~.OO FEET AND SOUTH ~54'28" WEST, 143.50 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE BOUNDARY LINE 'OF SAID PARCEL 1, SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 34"23'38"' EAST 82.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3~23'38" WEST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 82.43 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-0::5-91 181:55-00001 G: %I)CX:\152\91050025.2rid EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "A"I~ -THAT PORTION OF THE MURRI~TA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN 0N MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND ~ATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8~ PAGE 359 OF MAPSt RECORDS 0F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY~ IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS= BEGINNING AT THE MOST.~ESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL S OF PARCEL MAP 20650 FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, 'RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE .COUNTY; . SAID POINT BEING ALSO DESCRIBED AS POINT "A" IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 25, 1980, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 78855; THENCE SOUTH ?~48158" ~EST, 45§.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED. RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1977, AS. INSTRUMENT NO. 175358, SAID LIN~ BEINC ALSO THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL ~ OF SAID PARCEL MAP 20650; TBENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY SOUTN 8~ 14~4" WEST, 4§5.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTH ~ 331~4" EAST, 206.9~ FEET TO THE 'POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18135-00~X)1 G:~DOC\152\91050025.2t~) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY FAReEL "A-2" THAT PORTlON OF PARCEL i OF PARCEL MAP 20650'AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS. RECORDS OF RI~'S~DE COUNTY, AND THAT PORTION OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN BY MAP OF. THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SITUATED IN 'THE COUNT¥ OF .RIYBRSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIAt DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: _ BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERL¥ CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1~ TIIENCE NORTH 75°$0~23" .WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID P~RCEL It 816.27 FEET TO Tile BEGINNIN~ OF A TANGENT CURVE THEREIN, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS'OF 1055.00 FEET~ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CUR¥~ THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF'~ 28~5§" A DISTANCE OF 100.9~ FEET~ THENCE NORTH 18°5~9" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, $05.40 FEET TO AN ANGEL POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDAR¥ LINE NORTH 89°36'1§" WEST 270.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1~ THENCE NORTH 0'23~&~" EAST ALONG SAID ~ESTEKLY LINE 7S.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH &2'37~6" EAST 20.52 FE~T; THENCE .SOUTH 8~ 36~16" EAST ~35.00 F~ET THENCE SOUTH 65'07'12" EAST 131.21 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF T~AT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE'BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 SHOWN AS HAYING A BEARING AND ~ISTANCE OF NORTH 8'35~4~" EAST 206.94 FEET~ THENCE ALONG SAID COURSE SOUTH .8°~3t44" EAST, 206.94 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1977, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 175258, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE THEREOF.NORTH 83'1~'4~" BAST, ~65 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 5~ 21~15" EAST, 274.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6' 54'28" WEST, 143.S0 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT' CERTAIN COURSE IN · TILE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID-PARCEL 1, SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTAHCE OF NORTH 3~ 23'38" ~AST 82.~3 FEET; THENCE SOUTII 3~23~38" WEST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 82.~3 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 181:5'5-00001 G: ~1)0C~152\91050025.2li) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "B" THAT PORTION OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCH0w IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP'OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8. PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWSt BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY'CORNER OF PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES ~HROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE A--L-~G THE BOUNDARY LINE :OF SAID PARCEL 5 NORTH 3~ 11t55" WEST 151.89 FEETw NORTH 52°23~39" EAST 178.94 FEET AND NORTH%~00~47" WEST 185;25 FEET TO THE BECINNINC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE IN SAID BOUNDARY LINE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY~ HAVING A RADIUS OF 979.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 4~ 00~7" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY'ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°15w~1" A DISTANCE OF 602.~6 FEET;'THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONC SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL 5 SOUTH 83°14~4~" WEST 219.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°59w27" EAST 620.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP 20650 DISTANT THEREON SOUT~ 83°1~46" WEST 218.62 FEET FROM THE POINT OF BECINNING~ THENCE NORTH 83'16~4" EAST ALONC SAID BOUNDARY LINE 218.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. · 0Z-03-91 181~5-00001 G: MX)C\152\91050025.21~ DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY P6£CEL "C" THAT PORTIO~ OF PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP. 20550 I~ THE COONT¥ OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS. RECORDS OF SAID UOUNT¥, D~SC~BED AS Fo~ows~' BEDINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY'CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 5; THENCE NORTH 7°47'19" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE THEREOF 183.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°59'27" EAST S52.75 FEET TO THE SOUTHERL~,_LINE OF SAID PARCEL S; THENCE SOUTH 8~ 14'44" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 551.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 979.00 FEETs THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF l°00'33" A DISTANCE OF 17.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF 07-0~-91 18135-(XX)01 G: ~J)OC\152~91050025.2NO E~'~IBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "~ TIIAT PORTION OF THE 'MURRIBTA PORTION OF THE T~MBCULA RANCHO AS SHOWN ON MAP 0F THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8. PAGE '359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, SATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT ~HE MOST ~ESTBRLY CORNER 6F PARCBL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 FILED IN BOOK ~AGBS THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORD OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A 979 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLYg A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 5'4~&~" WEST~ THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC 0F SAID CURVE.-(AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL S), THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1°00'33", 17.2~ FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH. 83~14w4~" EAST, 552.19 FEET; THENCE LEAVIN~ SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 0P PARCEL ~ SOUTH 77~59~27" EAST~ 620.00 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL I OF SAID PARCEL MAP 20650; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY SOUTH 83~1~44" WEST, 746.16 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 70~48~58" ~EST~ &56.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 1813'5-00001 G: ~C\152\91050025 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 07-03-91 18135-00001 G: ~.DOC\152\91050025.2~ EXHIBIT "A-1~ VICINITY MAP 07-03-91 18135-00001 G:~)0C\152\91050025.2~) EXHIBIT LAND USE PLAN f_._,._.z ......f' f_._ -. MURRIETA _HOT SPRINGS 07-03-91 18135-00001 G:MX)C\152\91050025.ZNO EXHIBTT LETTER SUPPORTING CITY'S L~FCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula. Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Johnson, Allen & Kinney is the owner of a 7.29 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 7.29 acre Johnson, Allen & Kinney property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, ALLEN & KINNEY, a California general partnership CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager 07-03-91 18135-ooool G: ~DC)C\152\9105(X)25. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY F'NANCE OFF'CE~ .~ CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDA T/ON: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the U.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 700 342 IO0 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11) Rancho Core Associates No. I 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club, a limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately thirty-two (32) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference.(the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with 193 residential dwelling units (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the 07-03-91 18059-004)01 G: ~DOC\152\91050026 County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality residential development creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, 07-03-91 1~59-00001 G: %DCX:\I 5Z\910500~6. Z~) 2 specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project~ 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to 07-B3-91 G: ~XiC\ 152%9105007.6. issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation 6f assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing 07-03-91 18059-00001 G: ~(:\152\91050026.2~ 4 district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporatioD, Mayor ATTEST: lerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: city Attorney, City of Temecula MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation By: ~ Q?-03-91 18~59-00001 G: %D(X:\15~\910500Z6. Z!~ 5 EXHIBIT "A" C466853-A Page 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY SCHEDULE C The land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: That portion of Lot 147 of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company, on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Official Records of San Diego County, California, together with that portion of Lincoln Avenue described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southwesterly prolongation of the North- westerly line of said Lot 147, with the center]/ne of Lincoln Avenue; thence Southeasterly, on the ceuterLtne of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet; thence Northeasterly, parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 147, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, parallelwith the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 147; thence Southwesterly, on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 147, 330.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2: That portion of Lot 147 of the Hurrieta Portion ~f the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map entitled: "Map of Temecula Land and Water Company", on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, together with that portion of Lincoln Avenue described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southwesterly prolongation of the North- west boundary line of said Lot 147, with the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 660.00 to the true point of beginning; thence Northeasterly, on a line paralleling the Northwest boundary line of LOt 147,. 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, on a line paralleling the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet; thence Southwesterly, on a line paralleling the Northwest boundary line of Lot 147, 330.00 feet to its intersection of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; 07-Q,~-91 180S9-00001 G: %DOC\152\91050026.2~0 EXHIBIT C466853.-A Page 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet to the true point of' beginning. PARCEL 3: ~t 147 together ~rith the underlying fee title to tb~t portion of Franklin Avenue, Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue that would pass with the conveyance of said land by reference to the recorded map of said tract, of the Lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company, as shown by map on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, San Diego County Records; EXCEPT that portion described as follows: Beginn/rig at the intersection of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue with the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwest boundary line of said Lot 147; thence Northeasterly, on said Northwest boundary line of Lot. 14? and the said Southwesterly prolongation thereof, 330.00 feet; thence Southeasterly, parallelwith the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 660.00 feet; thence Southwesterly on a line parallelwith the Northwest boundary line of said Lot 147 to its intersectionwith the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; thence Northwesterly on the centerline of Lincoln Avenue to the point of begin- ning. PARCEL 4: The Northwesterly half of Lot 158 together with the underlying fee title to those portions of Franklin Avenue and Hancock Avenue which would pass with the conveyance of said land by reference to the record map of said tract all in Hurrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land & Water Company, on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, Records of San Diego Coun- ty, California. PARCEL 5: That portion of Lot 158 of the Hurrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, Records of San Diego County, together with that portion of Elm Street described as a whole as follows: Beginning at a point in the centerline of Elm Street, distant Southwesterly thereon 660.00 feet from its intersection with the centerline of Hancock Ave- nue, as shown by said map; thenc%?_S~_~hwe~~,on the centerline of Elm Street, 165.00 feet to a point; EXHIBIT C466853-A Page 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY thence Northwesterly, on a line parallel with the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet to a point; thence Northeasterly on a line parallel with the centerline of Elm Street, 165.00 feet to a point; thence Southeasterly, on a lime parallelwith the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 6: That portion of Lot 158 of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company, on file in Book 8,-Ha_ge 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, together with that por- tion o~ Elm Street described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Hancock Avenue, with the centerline of Elm Street, as shown on said map; thence Southwesterly, on the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly, on the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, parallelwith the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet; thence Northeasterly, parallel with the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet; thence Southeasterly, parallelwith the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet .to the true point of beginning. PARCEL 7: Those portions of Hancock Avenue, Elm Street and Lot 158 of the lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company, as shown by map on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, SanDiego County Records, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Hancock Avenue and Elm Street, as shown on said map; thence Southwesterly, on the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, parallelwith the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet to a point in the centerline of Hancock Avenue; 07-~-91 1~9-00~1 ~:~D0C\152\91~0026.2)i0 EXHIBIT C466853-A Page 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet, to the point of beginning. PARCEL 8: Lot 187 of Hurrieta portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of R/verside, State of California, as shown by the map of the Temecula Land and Water Compa- ny, recorded in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. EXCEPT that portion lying North of the division line extending in an Easterly direction through Lots 172, 171, 176,. 177, 188, 187, 190 and 191, and more particularly shown on a map of a portion of the Murrieta Subdivision of_~the Temecula Rancho, adjoining the property of the Hurrieta Hot Springs, as - re-surveyed by Kingsbury Sanburn in $anuary, 1907, and on. file in Book 5, Page 184 of Haps, Records of R/verside County, California. ALSO EXCEPT that portion described as follows: Begi~ing at a point on the centerline of ~mflton Street, Northwest 860.00 feet from the centerline of Date Street. thence Northeast 220.00 feet, parallel with said centerline of Date Street; thence Northwest 215.00 feet, parallel with said centerline of Hamilton Street. thence Southwest 220.00 feet, parallelwith said centerline of Date Street to said centerline of Hamilton Street. thence Southeast 215.00 feet on last said'center~ne to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT that portion described in the deed to VUNest Communications, a California corporation recorded Jtme 25, 1986 as Instrument No. 14663&, de- scribed as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Clinton Avenue and Date Street, as shown on Record of Suz-~ey filed in Book 58, Pages 75 through 83 inclusive, Records of Riverside County; thence, North 41049'56" Nest on the centerline of Clinton Avenue 652.47 feet to a point on the Division Line as shown by said Record of Survey, sai5 point being described as Point "A" for this description; thence, on said Division Line, North 87032'30" Nest 80.75 feet; thence leaving said Division Line, South 02027'30" Nest ~56.71 feet to the true point of beginning; thence, South 26"12'13" East, lot.40 feet; 07-~-91 G:~OOC\lSZ~1~OO2~.2NO C466853-A EY~_IBIT tm~mm DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Page 9 thence, South 63a47'47" West 101.40 feet; thence, North 26"12'13" West 101.40 feet; thence, North 63"47'47" East 101.40 feet to the tr~e point of beginning. EXCEPT from Parcels 1 through 8 above, all mineral, oil and gas rights below the depth of 200.00 feet below the surface of said land without the right of surface entry, as reserved by Kaiser Development Company, a California corpora- tion in deed recorded June 27, 1986 as Instrument No. 150003. 07-Q3-91 18059-00001 G: ~0C\152\91050026.2~0 l i ~. znNz/I V:'? .... 9~aa~v~w I HI 7ZHVMZ ( DA T£ ~~N~'~E PROPERTY ST) ~ CHE~Y DESCRIPTION ® ® ;$22 ?c' EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP coilwrY ~1o 07-Q~-91 18059-00001 G: ~\152\91050026. EYTTIBIT LAND USE PLAN 07-0~-91 18059-00001 G: NDOC\15:~\91050026.2XO EXHIBIT LETTER SUPPORTING CITY~S L~FCO SPHERE ~PPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula, Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club is owner of a 32 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 32 acre Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership cc: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: ~oO~oS~t~oJnOhnson Development Q?-0~-91 18059-00001 G: %D0~\15;\91 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~R .~ CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDA T/ON: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7OO 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates//2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11) Rancho Core Associates No. I 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Dairy Associates This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Dairy Associates and Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 as tenants in common, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately eighteen-and nine tenths (18.9) acres of unimproved land located in City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with 284 residential condominium units (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. 'The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality condominium-residential development creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-0:5-91 18061-00001 G: ~lX)C\152\91050027.2#0 (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project vested tentative map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be'no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and 07-0~-91 18061-00001 G: ~DCX:\152\9105QO~.7. ~ 2 improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring city or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this.MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Mayor 07-03-91 18061-00001 G: ~:X:\152\91050027.2NO 3 ATTEST: Cit~_~lerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES %2 as Tenants in Common, a California limite4 partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: i~ 07-03-91 18061-00001 G:'dXX:\152\9105Q027. ~D 4 EXHIBIT t*A't DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES NO. 2, A CALIFO~ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 79% INTEREST; AND RANCHO CALIFOP/T/~ DAIRY ASSOCIATES, A C~LIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 21% INTEREST, AS. TENANTS IN COMMON THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HBREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TEMECULA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL PARCELS 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL HAP 20278, ON FILE IN BOOK 127 PAGES 38 AND 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: THaT PORTION OF PARCEL I OF PARCEL NAP 20278, ON FILE IN BOOK 127 PAGES 38 AND 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF P--TVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 39 OF TRACT NO. 3334, ON FILE IN BOOK 54 PAGES 25 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF R~VERSZDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT %'~ NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL l; THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES 087 49" EAST ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, 781.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 097 38" WEST ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, 653.99 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL I BEING A POIITT ON A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,945.00 FEET, SAID CURVE BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA ROAD, 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL HAP NO. 20278 A RADIAL BF-2tRING TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEING SOUTH 84 DEGREES 417 40" WEST; THENCE NORTHERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID MARGARITA ROAD 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 20t 06", 113.21 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE ON SAID EASTERLY LINE OF M~RGARITA ROAD 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH NORTH 01 DEGREES 58t 14" WEST, 412.42 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY H~VING A RADIUS OF 1,945.00 FEET; PAGE 2 07-(Z5-91 18061-00001 G: %DOC\152\910500Z?. Zig) EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 1906329 THENCE NORTHERLY ON SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA ROAD 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DF~GREES 09' 38", 107.29 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA ROAD 99.00 FEET IN W~DTH ~ND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I NORTH 76 DEGREES 117 27" E~ST, 403.05 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 087 49" WEST, 136.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 63 DEGREES 097 55" WEST, 19.46 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND IIAVING A RADIUS OF 583.00 FEET AND A I~%DI~tL BEARING TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEING SOUTH 18 DEGI~F~ES 31' 25" EAST; THENCE NORTIIEASTERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES 177 58" 94.62 FEET; _ THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 557 17" WEST, 21.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES 08' 49" EAST, 111.12 FEET TO SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, TO THE POIIqT OF BEGINNING. AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92, A LIEN NOT YET PAYABLE.' 2. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE JUNE 30, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,798.59. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-603-2. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE MAY 31, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,215.82. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-604-3. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE MAY 31, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,860.43. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-605-4. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE MAY 31, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,096.45. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-606-5. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. 4. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY 6 FEET OF SAID LAND. ALSO A 12 FOOT BY 60 FOOT P.U.E. LOCATED WITHIN PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 20278. (AFFECTS PARCELS A AND B) PAGE 3 07-Q.~-91 18061-00001 G: %DOC\152\91050027.~ EXHIBIT "A" TRA DESCRIPTION OF THE R~NCHO 013-066 ~?~?'~? 015 ' 068 PROPERTY 07-03-91 18061-00001 G: M~OC\15Z\91050027.2ND TRA 0/~. EXHIBIT "A-i" VICINITY MAP SITE MAP 07-Q3-91 18061 G: ~)0C\152%91050027. EXHIBIT "B" /i;_-_-_ LAND USE PLAN '.'-- -L'~ -- '"'~" -'"-'~o~ ~'~' ~- , 07-03-91 18061-00001 G: ~3C\152\91050027. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~R..~? CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7OO 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries~ ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates//2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho Core ~ssociates No. 2 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho'Core Associates No. 2, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately eighty (80) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 800,000 square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business park creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-0:3-91 18186-00001 G: ~)0C\152\910500~. 2_ND (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project recorded final map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as 07-03-91 18186-00001 G: ~XX:\ 15 :)%910500.32.2140 2 requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation Mayor 07-0~-91 18186-00001 G: %DCX::\15:~\91050012. ~1) 3 ATTEST: Cit , City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 2, a California limite4 partnership W R. Joh~o neral n, Partner 07-03-91 1818~-00001 G: ~D0C\152\910500:~2.2~) 4 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 2, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (AS TO PARCELS I THROUGH 14 AND 16 THROUGH 61); AND BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (AS TO PARCEL 15) THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED oR' REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELS i THROUGH 61, INCLUSIVE OF PARC~-r- ~ap NO. 21382, ON FILE IN BOOK 161 PAGES 47 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91, TO FOLLOW. 2. TI~'LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. 3. 5K/NICIPAL IMPROVEMENT BOND, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. 4. THE EFFECT OF A NOTICE OF EXISTENCE OF ASSESSMENT'DISTRICT NO. 155 (WINCHESTER BRIDGE) WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUING OF BONDS AND THE LEVYING OF A SPECIAL TAX TO PAY THE INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON SUCH BONDS UPON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY, RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 297820 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, REFERENCE HEREBY BEING MADE TO THE RECORD FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 07-0~-91 18186-00001 G: ~)~C\152\91050032.2~1) EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP I-2t5 TO RIVERSIDE 07-0.~-91 18186-00001 G: MX}C\15Z\910~00.~.. ZND EXHIBIT "B" LAND USE PLAN 07-~-91 18186-00001 G: ~)OC\15Z\9105003Z. 2NO APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE_~R. _~ CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 700 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California City Associates I This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California City Associates I, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seventy (70) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 700,000 square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business park creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-03-91 18034-00001 ;: %D0C\152\91050029.21m (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance city and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements and environmental review. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project Tentative Tract Map No. 24085 shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. city and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 1803&-00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050029.2NI) 2 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation Mayor 07-0,3-91 G: ',~DOC:\ 152\91050029.2.D 3 ATTEST: City(glerk, City of Tem~'cula APPROVED AS TO FORM: C orney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA CITY ASSOCIATES I, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: , 07-Q3-91 1803A-00001 G: ~X)C\152\91050029.2NO 4 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 4646 in the County of Riverside, State of California, per map filed in Book 6, Page 75 of Parcel ~aps in the Office of the County Recorder of.said county. Reserving therefrom, unto the Grantor, its successors and assiggs, together ~ith the right to grant and to dedicate same to others~ road easements over and across those portions thereof included ; within any s.t~.ips of land shown as "road easements," or similarI terminology, on said Map, and an easement as necessaFy for con-! striction and maintenance of such slopes at the ratio of t~ (2} horizontal to'one (1) ¥ertical and for such drainage facilities as required to accommodate the necessary roadways. Also reserving therefrom unto'the Grantor, its successors and assigns, together with the right to grant and to dedicate all or part of same to others, easements for ~e. use and benefit of the several authorized public and/or other utilities including but not limite~ to c&ble televisions,-sanitary sewers, water, gas, telephone, electric, and'drainage and equestrian purposes, ten (10) feet wide on ~ach side of common lot lines and fifteen (15~ feet wide along perimeter lot lines of said Parcel Map. Except~ in all cases where lot lines are coincident with road easement centerlines, the reservation shall be equal to one-half {1/2) of the widt~ of the total road easement plus twenty (20) feet. Together with all riparian rights to-the waters in the watershed of the Santa Nargarita River and its tributaries, that may belong to or be appurtonant ~o the above-described lands reserving to the retained lands of grantor all r/parian rights to the waters in the watershed of the Santa Margarita Rivers and its tribu- taries that may belong.to or be appurtenant to saidretained lands. It is the intention of grantor to convey hereby all %~ter rights and privileges which pertain to the above-described lands, and to reserve hereby all water rights and privileges which pertain to the retained lands of grantor. Provided, how- ever, grantee shall have no right to develop, pump, extract or divert by either conduits, canals, pumping plants, or other devices, water from the Santa Margarita River and its tribu- taries, and all percolating water. 07-0~-91 18034-00001 G: ~X)C\152\91050029.2#1) EXHIBIT "A- 1" VICINITY MAP PROJECT VICINITY MAP N .T.S. 07-0~-91 180~4-00001 G: ~)OC%15Z\910500Z~. 2~) EXHIBIT ttB" IlL I -,.I!1111 i{ li l, i{ li~,, LAND USE PLAN ( --{ i!! 07-03-91 18034-00001 G: ¥X)C\152\91050029.2J~ APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE__R ..~? CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECUL,4 ,4 GENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED 8Y JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the U.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7OO 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERST/tNDING Rancho California City Associates II This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California City Associates II, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seventy (70) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. ~he Property is proposed to be developed with a 700,000 square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business park creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-03-91 18046-00001 G: M)0C\15:~\91050030.2ND (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements and environmental review. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project Tentative Tract Map No. 24086 shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 18046-00001 G: ~\152\91050030.2NO 2 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal c.3~rporation Mayor 07-03-91 1804~-00001 G: ~0C\152\91050030.2~D 3 ATTEST: City/C~erk, City of Te~ula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA CITY ASSOCIATES II, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: 07-(L~-91 G: ~U)OC\ 152\91051X)30. ?3lO 4 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CALIFOP/~IA CITY ASSOCIATES II, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24086 BEING A DIVISION OF THE FOLLOWING: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 4646, AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. FIRST INSTALLMENT 855,598.44. SECOND INSTALLMENT $55,598.44. CODE NO. 013-014. ASSESSMENT NO. 909-120-020-1. (BOND AMOUNT INCLUDED) GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. FIRST INSTALLMENT $766.56. SECOND INSTALLMENT $766.56. CODE NO. 013-061. ASSESSMENT NO. 909-120-021-2. 2. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT BOND, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA. 4. AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC OVER ANY PORTION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN PUBLIC ROADS. 5. AN EASEMENT FOR THE HEREINAFTER SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1939 IN BOOK 434 PAGE 108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SAID EASEMENT IS FOR RIVER CHANNEL AND BANK PROTECTION WORKS, AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERLY 150.00 FEET OF SAID LAND. 07-03-91 180~S-00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050030 EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 07-03-91 1804~-00001 G: %D0C\152\91050030.2NI) EXHIBIT "B" LAND USE PLAN z 07-03-91 180~S-00Q01 G: %D0C\15~\91050030.2ND l!i , I APPROVAL City ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~ .~ CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the U.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club 7OO 342 100 24 7.29 32 PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. 1 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMOP~tNDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho Core Associates No. I This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho Core Associates No. 1, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately one hundred sixty-four (164) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 1.5 million square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business center creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: %J)(X:\157\910500~ 1 .~ (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project recorded final tract maps shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: ~QC\15;~\91050031.2~ 2 requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligation~ and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal _corporation Mayor 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: ~:)C\152\91050031 .~ 3 ATTEST: City ~erk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 1, a california limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-0~-91 18109-00001 G:'d)OC\15Z\910500~1.2ND 4 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 1848873 TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 1, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: IS SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE, STATE OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4646 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4 LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF DIAZ ROAD OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4646, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF DIAZ ROAD AND THE CENTERLINE OF THE 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL 3 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL 4, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 50 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 80.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MURRIETA CREEK; THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 30' 00" EAST ALONG SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MURRIETA CREEK 48.23 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" WEST ALONG THE A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 26.78 FEET DISTANT FROM SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 80.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" WEST LONG THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD 48.23 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RP00LONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD AND THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-0~-91 18109-00001 G: ~DOC\15ZV)10500~l EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP OVICINITY MAP 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: ~1XX:\152\91050031 EXHIBIT t'B" LAND USE PLAN 07-0~-91 18109-00001 G: %D0C\152\91050031 .~D ITEM NO. 14 ORDINANCE NO. 91-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. The City of Temecula hereby finds and declares that: A. WHEREAS, the City is committed to improving the public health, safety and welfare, including air quality; B. WHEREAS, mobile sources are a major contributor to air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin; C. WHEREAS, air quality goals for the region established by state law cannot be met without reducing air pollution from mobile sources; D. WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) calls upon cities and counties to reduce emissions from motor vehicles consistent with the requirements of the California Air Act of 1988 by developing and implementing mobile source air pollution reduction programs; E. WHEREAS, such programs place demands upon the City's funds, those programs should be financed by shifting the responsibility for financing from the general fund to the motor vehicles creating the demand, to the greatest extent possible; F. WHEREAS, Section 44223, added to the Health and Safety Code by action of the California Legislature on September 30, 1990 (Chapter 90-1705), authorizes the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to impose an additional motor vehicle registration fee of two dollars ($2), commencing on April 1, 1991, increasing to four dollars ($4), commencing on April 1, 1992, to finance the implementation of transportation measures embodied in the AQMP and provisions of the California Clean Air Act; G.. WHEREAS, forty cents of every dollar collected under Section 44223 of the Health and Safety Code shall be distributed to cities and counties located in the South Coast Air Quality Management District that comply with Section 44243 of the code, based on the jurisdictions' prorated share of population as defined by the State Department of Finance; 2lORDS/91-25 I H. WHEREAS, the City is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District and is eligible to receive a portion of the revenues from the additional motor vehicle registration fees contingent upon adoption of this Ordinance; I. WHEREAS, the prorated share of the fee revenues for cities that fail to adopt an Ordinance pursuant to Section 44243(b)(3) of the Health and Safety Code shall be distributed instead to the jurisdictions within the District that have adopted an Ordinance; J. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City of Temecula, after careful consideration, hereby finds and declares that the imposition of the additional motor vehicle registration fee by the SCAQMD to finance mobile source air pollution reduction programs is in the best interest of the City and promotes the general welfare of its residents; SECTION 2. Intent. This Ordinance is intended to support the SCAQMD's imposition of the vehicle registration fee and to bring the City into compliance with the requirements set forth in section 44243 of the Health and Safety Code in order to receive fee revenues for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. SECTION 3. Definitions. As applied in this words and terms shall be defined as follows: Ordinance, the following A. "City" shall mean the City of Temecula B. "Mobile source air pollution reduction programs" shall mean any program or project implemented by the City to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles which it determines will be consistent with the California Clean Air Act of 1988 or the plan proposed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 40460) of Chapter 5.5 of Part 3 of the California Health and Safety Code. his/her designee. "Fee Administrator" shall mean the Finance Director of the City or SECTION 4. Administration of Vehicle Registration Fee A. Receipt of Fee: The additional vehicle registration fees disbursed by the SCAQMD and remitted to the City, pursuant to this Ordinance, shall be accepted by the Fee Administrator. 2lORDS/91-25 2 B. Establishment of Air Quality Improvement Trust Fund: The Fee Administrator shall establish a separate interest-beating trust fund account in a financial institution authorized to receive deposits of City funds. C. Transfer of Funds: Upon receipt of vehicle registration fees, the Fee Administrator shall deposit such funds into the separate account established pursuant to Subsection 2. above. All interest earned by the Trust Account shall be credited only to that account. D. Expenditure of Air Quality Trust Fund Revenues. All revenues received from the SCAQMD and deposited in the Trust Fund Account shall be expended within one (1) year of the completion of the programs. E. Audits: The City consents to an audit of all programs and projects funded by vehicle registration fee revenues received from the SCAQMD pursuant to Section 44223 of the Health and Safety Code. The audit shall be conducted by an independent auditor selected by the SCAQMD as provided in Sections 44244 and 44244. l(a) of the Health and Safety Code. SECTION 5. Legal Construction. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be construed as necessary to effectively carry out its purposes, which are hereby found and declared to be in furtherance of the public health, safety welfare and convenience. SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 8. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. SECTION 9. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted at City Hall. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of 2/0RD$/91-25 3 the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk 2/ORDS/91-25 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS. I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-25 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2nd day of July, 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of July, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney 2/ORDS/91-25 5 Ordinance No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING JUNE S. GREEK, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Temecula; That in compliance with City Resolution No. 89-9 on December 1, 1989, ORDINANCE NO. 91-__ was caused to be posted in three (3) places in the City of Temecula, to wit: [CHOOSE THREE] Temecula Library Temecula Chamber of Commerce Temecula Community Center Temecula Post Office Temecula City Hall JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK 2lORDS/91-25 6 ITEM NO. 15 ORDINANCE NO. 91-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTHSIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official I_and Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 11 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 4/O~dB91-24 -1- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-24 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2rid day of July, 1991 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of July, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4/Otnla91-24 -2- CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: 5 CHANCE OF ZONE NO: ORDINANCE NO: 9'1- 11 ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department July 23, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5755 PREPARED BY: Steve Jiannino RECOMMENDAT ION: Planning Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- Denying Change of Zone No. 5755 based on the Findings contained in the Resolution, APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: R EPR ESENTAT I VE: PROPOSAL: Bedford Properties HR Engineering, Inc. Change of Zone from M-SC IManufacturing~Service Commercial ) to C-1/C-P { General Commercial ) on an 8 acre site. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads, EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: M-SC {Manufacturing-Service Commercial) North: R- R / M-SC South: M-SC East: R-R West: M-SC I Rural Residential) ( Manufactur i ng- Set vice Commercial ) ( Manufacturi ng-Service Commercial ) ( Rural Residential) ( Manufacturi ng-Servi ce Commercial ) A:CZ5755.CC 1 PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE.' BACKGROUND: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: C-1/C-P (General Commercial) Vacant At the May 20, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended Denial of Change of Zone No. 5755 by a 5-0 vote. The Commission could not support the Staff's recommended findings and changed their resolution findings to the following: Delete environmental finding - The Commission felt there was not sufficient information to make an environmental finding without a development project for the site, e There is not a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that no development is proposed. e There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is located in a high visibility and impact area. The site is not physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that it is not known what the impacts of a project will be, especially in regard to traffic and land use compatibility. J The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C ( Commercial ), but is not beneficial at this time since no development is proposed. The Planning Commission unanimously determined that in this location with the possibility of major traffic impacts and other land use issues, a development project was necessary as a requirement for the zone change. Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- Denying Change of Zone No. 5755 based on the findings contained in the resolution. A:CZ5755. CC 2 SJ: ks Attachments: Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 20, 1991 A:CZ5755.CC 3 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Change of Zone No. 5755 Bedford Properties Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Road Change of Zone from M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) to C1/CP (General Commercial) on 8 acres Negative Declaration Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Steve liannino, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday, July 23, 1991 7:00 PM RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5755 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC TO C-11C-P ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND DIAZ ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-058 AND 059. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5755 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning. Planning and Subdivision Ordinances. which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on May 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said Change of Zone; WHEREAS. the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of Zone on July 23, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findincls. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. { 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A:CZ5755.CC 4 a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan. as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan. {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County. including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time. the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The City Council in denying the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is not a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that no development is proposed.- b) There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is located in a high visibility and impact area. c) The site is not physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that it is not known what the impacts of a project will be, especially in regard to traffic and land use compatibility. d) The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C I Commercial ), but is not beneficial at this time since no development is proposed. A:CZ5755.CC 5 SECTION 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Zone Change No. 5755 to change the zoning on 8 acres of land from M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) to C-1/C-P (General Commercial) on property located at the northwest corner of Rancho California and Diaz Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921- 020-058 and 059. Resolution. SECTION 3_~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of July, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COUNCI LMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNC I LMEMB E RS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A:CZ5755.CC 6 Recommendation: 1. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 5755 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino RECOMMEND to the City Council ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5755; and 2. ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5755 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Bedford Properties HR Engineering, Inc. Change of Zone from M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) to C-1/C-P (General Commercial) on an 8 acre site. Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads. M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) North: R-R/ M-SC South: M-SC East: R- R West: M-SC ( Rural Residential ) (Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) ( Rural Residential) (Manufacturing-SerVice Commercial) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) Vacant A:CZ5755 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: SWAP DESIGNATION: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: North: South: East: West: Vacant Commercial/Office Vacant Office Manufacturing C (Commercial) Number of Lots: 2 Total Gross Acres: 8 Total Net Acres: 6.2 Proposed Zoning: C-1/C-P This project was submitted to Riverside County on March 26, 1990. The project was transferred to the City of Temecula May L~, 1990. The applicant submitted requested information April 15, 1991 to finalize processing of the project. The project was submitted to the Development Review Committee (DRC) April 24, 1991 for formal review. The DRC had no major concerns or comments regarding the project. The project proposes the change in zoning classification on two parcels of land totaling approximately 6.7 net acres at the northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads from the current M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial ) to C-1/C-P ( General Commercial ). The surrounding areas are currently being developed with office, commercial, and light industrial type uses. Infrastructure currently exist within the area to support commercial activities on the site, such as: major streets and drainage facilities are constructed; the intersection of Diaz and Rancho California Roads is signalized; and water and sewer improvements exist which will support commercial development. The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) which has been adopted as a General Plan guideline by the City designates this site as commercial. The City has adopted the policy of processing Change of Zone requests on a case-by-case basis requiring the submittal of a development plan in conjunction with the Zone Change applicant. Upon review of the area, with the existing improvements and development, Staff has chosen to process this case with an approval recommendation without a development proposal. The proposed zoning appears to be a logical land use with the development of offices, light industrial, and A:CZ5755 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: compatible commercial uses in the vicinity. A commercial development to support the existing and proposed developments in the area would be beneficial to the proposed developments and the City. Commercial uses may be developed which could decrease the day time travel trips across Margarita Creek for required support services for the developing employment base in the area. With Diaz Road to the east, Rancho California Road to the south, and Business Park Drive to the west, a suitable circulation pattern exists for commercial development with easy access to the employment based developments being constructed west of the site. This project is consistent with the SWAP designation of C (Commercial)· The proposed zoning is also compatible with the current and proposed surrounding development. It is anticipated that the proposed zoning will be consistent with the ultimate City General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. It has been determined that the proposed Zone Change from M-SC to C-1/C-P will not have any significant impacts on the environment'· The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding current office/industrial development, zoning, and SWAP. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. A:CZ5755 3 e The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area include commercial roadways, drainage facilities. and main sewer and water lines. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C ( Commercial ). The proposed zoning provides a commercial support area for the employment based developments recently approved and under construction to the west of the site, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND to the City Council ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No, 5755; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5755 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report, SJ: ks Attachments: Resolution Initial Study Exhibits A: CZ5755 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91 .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5755 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-SC TO C- 1/C-P ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DIAZ AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-058 AND 059. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5755 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on May 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1_:. Findinqs. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 12) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A: CZ5755 5 b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The Planning Commission in recommending denial of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is not a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that no development is proposed. b) There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fa. ct.that the project is located in a high ~/islbility and impact area. c) The site is not physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that it is not known what the impacts of a project will be, especially in regard to traffic and land use compatibility. d) The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C I Commercial ), but is not beneficial at this time since no development is proposed. D. The Change of Zone is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. A: CZ5755 6 SECTION 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Zone Change No. 5755 to change the zoning on 8 acres of land from M-SC IManufacturing - Service Commercial) to C-1/C-P {General Commercial) on property located at the northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-058 and 059. SECTION 3. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNI NG COMMISSIONERS A: CZ5755 7 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNINC DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Bedford Properties Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Box 755 Temecula, CA 92390 e Date of Environmental Assessment: March 18, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Chanqe of Zone No. 5755 e Location of Proposal: Northwest corner of Diaz and Rancho California Roads 7. Proposal: Chanqe of Zone from M-SC (Manufacturinq- Service Commercial ) to C1-CP (General Commercial) on 8 Acres. II Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Ce Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A: CZ5755 8 e fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ge Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be The creation of objectionable odors? Ce Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Ce Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 9 Yes Maybe No e Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Ce Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 10 Yes Maybe No .... e e e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? be Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 11 15. 16. be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? de Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? So Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? ee Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ5755 12 Yes Maybe No 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: be Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health } ? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational' opportunities? Cultural Resources. be de Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: CZ5755 13 .... Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future, ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X A:CZ5755 14 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .a-g. 3.a-i. 4.a-d. 5.a-c. 6.a,b. 7. 8. 10.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a-f. 14.a-f. 15.a,b. 16.a-f. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. No. No project is proposed at this time, therefore no impacts will occur at this time. The proposed change from Manufacturing Service Commercial to General Commercial should not result in any increased impacts. Necessary infrastructure already exist in the area. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. The site is shown on the Southwest Area Plan {SWAP) as commercial. The SWAP is currently being used as a General Plan Guideline. The area currently has major infrastructure around the site including sewers, water, and commercial industrial roadways. No. See Item 1 above. No. The commercial only use would eliminate some possible manufacturing uses currently allowed within the existing zone which would reduce the potential impacts. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. Major circulation roadways currently exist around the site. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. See Item 10 above. No. See Item 1 above. No. The site is not currently shown as a recreational site and the commercial use will not increase the demand for recreational areas. No. See Item 1 above. A:CZ5755 15 21 .a-d. No. No project is proposed at this time. The infrastructure to support a wide range of commercial activities currently exist around the site. Therefore, no significant impacts should occur from this project. A:CZ5755 16 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X March 18, 1991 /~.'~c~L Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A:CZ5755 17 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ )RNIA VICINITY MAP CASE NO. ¢Z J" ?,.,~ P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA SP 16 0 SWAP MAP CASE NO.¢ 7_ .~'?.~3-'~'* P.C. M-.qr' · ~ / . C-P-S ~ / CZ 4727 Y'R-R CZ 2999 CA! I[-ORNIA C Z~~4 002 CASE No,£z $7~'.? P.C. DATE ,,~'..~.~...~'/ ZONE MAP ) ITEM NO. 17 APPROVAL OF C .R_ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department July 23, 1991 Appeal No. 16, Appeal For Deletion of Condition No. It2 of Parcel Map No. 253Lt9 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Steve Jiannino Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Appeal No. 16 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Anita Silliker Alba Engineering 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.2 acres Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive R-R (Rural Residential) North: R-R South: R-A-2 1/2 East: R - R West: R- R ( Rural Residential) ( ResidentialAgricultural, Minimum 2 1/2 acre lots) ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) BACKGROUND: On May 20, 1991, the Planning Commission approved Parcel Map No. 253t~9 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval by a 5-0 vote. The Conditions include Condition No. ~2 which requires a comprehensive grading plan be submitted prior to recordation of the final map. Staff and the Planning Commission feel that this is a reasonable condition A: PM25349/APP-16 1 due to the physical impacts on the property with drainage ways and the fault zone. The applicant wants the Condition deleted to enable the individual property owners to submit their own grading plans to allow custom grading. In the opinion of the applicant, this will encourage custom building pads and homes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Appeal No. 16 and maintain Condition No. SJ:ks Attachment: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 20, 1991 A: PM25349/APP-16 2 Notice of Public Henring THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Appeal No. 16 Anita Silliker Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive Appeal Condition No. 42 of Parcel Map 25349 N/A Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Steve Jiannino, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday, July 23, 1991 7:00 PM VICIHITY' EIAP UOT TO 5C.6, LF_ STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Parcel Map No. 25349 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: e ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25349; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25349, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCA T I ON: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Anita Silliker Alba Engineering 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.2 acres Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive R-R {Rural Residential) North: South: East: West: Same Vacant R-R R-A-2 1/2 R-R R-R ( Rural Residential) ( ResidentialAgricultural, Minimum 2 1/2 acre lots) ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) A: PM25349 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: SWAP DESIGNATION: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: South: East: West: Vacant Large lot rural residential Vacant Large lot rural residential 2 1/2 Acre Minimum Total Acres: Number of Lots: Minimum Lot Size: 8.2 acres 3 2.5 acres BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCR IPT ION: This project was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department September 28, 1989. The project was sent to the City of Temecula April 24, 1990. The project site is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and therefore, required a Geology Report on a Fault Study to be submitted and reviewed prior to accepting the project as complete. A Geology Study, County Geologic Report No. 769, was accepted as complete on March 21, 1991. The project has been reviewed at several Development Review Committee Meetings. The Committee's concerns have been addressed with the completion of the Geologic Report. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25349 proposes the subdivision of 8.2 acres into 3 lots with the smallest lot being 2.5 acres. The site is located at the eastern terminus of Jeramie Drive. The topography consists of vacant rolling hills with at least one natural drainage course traversing the site. The site also has a Southern California Gas easement of ~6.5 feet in width running diagonally across the property. ANALYSIS: The proposed project is south of Santiago Road between Margarita Road and Interstate 15. Jeramie Drive is partially improved with asphalt paving from just west of the subject site to John Warner Road which, in the southern direction has an asphalt connection to Cabillo Avenue. A majority of the roadways in the vicinity are graded dirt roads, but with a short extension, an asphalt roadway can be provided to this site. A: PM25349 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENV I RONMENTA L DETERMINATION: A possible active fault has been found along the southern portion of the site. The fault seems to run along the edge of the Jeramie Drive right-of-way, The fault has been delineated on the Tentative Map with the 50 foot building set back as required in the County Geology Report. Parcel 3 is impacted most by the fault and the natural drainage course. The lot is a minimum 2.5 acres and a reasonable size building pad can be provided even with the physical limitations on the lot. With the natural drainage course and the gas easement crossing the property, a large portion of the site will remain undisturbed. The Biology Study done on the site indicated that no special mitigation measures would be required for the development of the three parcels. The project is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation of 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. The site is currently zoned R-R with surrounding development being rural residential on lots of 2.5 acres or more. The proposed Parcel Map will therefore most likely be consistent with the City General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study was completed for the project· The, Initial Study included a Geology Report and Biology Study. The recommendation from these additional studies have been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval for the project. A Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. FINDINGS: e The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development zoning and SWAP. A: PM25349 3 e e 0 There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Jeramie Drive. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. A: PM25349 4 10. 11. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25349; and e ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 25349, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SJ: ks Attachments: 2. 3. Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits A: PM253~9 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25349 TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF JERAMIE DRIVE. WHEREAS, Anita Silliker filed Parcel Map No. 25349 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on May 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. {2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A: PM25349 6 There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) .There is reasonable probability that Parcel M~p' N~). 25349 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: A: PM25349 7 a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they' will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. A: PM25349 8 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development zoning and SWAP. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. q60, Schedule H. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Jeramie Drive. A: PM25349 9 The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. proposed is community. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION.3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 25349 for the subdivision of a 8.2 acre parcel into 3 parcels located at the eastern terminus of Jeramie Drive subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: PM25349 10 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held on the 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A' PM253~9 11 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parcel Map No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 25349 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.3 acres. 945-130-003 Planninq Department e The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is . Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to I and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. A: PM25349 12 e e 10. 11. 12. 13. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan. prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits, The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 25, 1990, a copy of which is attached, The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 23, 1990, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated April 18, 1990, a copy of which is attached, All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan, Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: ae Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R zone with 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size, be Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet I ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. [Geology Report Number 769 is on file and a fifty ~50~) foot setback must be maintained from the fault line, natural drainage shall stay free of obstacles. ] A: PM25349 13 14. 15. 16. The ECS shall delineate the fault line and 50 foot setback as required and shown in County Geology Report No. 769 on file in the Planning Department. The map shall delineate the natural drainage course and contain the notes. Natural drainage courses and the existing fault must be kept clear of obstructions . The following notes shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory, All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory standards. The map is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and County Geology Report No. 769 is on file in the Planning Department concerning this project. c. The natural drainage course shall be left free of obstacles. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits erosion control landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. be All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. e Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. A: PM25349 14 17. 18. 19. 20. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars I$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Ce All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. ee All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant { Class A) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. he Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten {10) feet. i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative A: PM25349 15 21. Parcel Map No. 253t~9, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66tt99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 22. Within forty-eight 148) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.~d)~2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar 1525.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and lq Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight [ITS) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~lc). 23. The applicant shall comply with the County Geologists recommendations outlined in the County Planning Department letter dated March 21, 1991, along with the mitigation measures called out in County Geology Report No. 769 on file in the Planning Department. Prior to recordation, final map recordation, and/or issuance of permits associated with this project: The "Zone of No Human Occupancy" shown on Plate No. 1, dated 3/5/91, accompanying your March 6, 1991 response letter shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) and/or project maps associated with this project. The area within this zone shall be labeled "FAULT HAZARD AREA"· b. The following notes shall be placed on the ECS and/or project maps: This property is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area. A: PM25349 16 "County Geologic Report No. 769, dated May 22, 1990, was prepared for this property by Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., and is on file at the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Planning Department. The specific items of concern are earthquake faulting and uncompacted trench backfill." Co A copy of the final project maps and/or the ECS shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval prior to project approval and/or final map recordation. / de The fault location, exploratory trenches and fault hazard area shall be surveyed and staked by the project civil engineer prior to issuance of project grading permits. ee Changes in the fault location or additional faults encountered on the site during grading operations shall be further evaluated by the project geologist and incorporated into the as-built grading geotechnical report. This report shall be submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval prior to issuance of permits beyond grading permits. 25. Subdivisions containing less than five {5) parcels will be subject to the following conditions: Upon the request of a building permit for construction of residential structures on one or more of the parcels within four years following approval of a tentative map, parcel map, or planned development, real estate development, stock cooperative, community apartment project and condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage {Plus 20% for offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel{ s) as a condition t~ the is.suance of such permit as authorized by Riverside County Ordinance NO. 1~60 as amended through Ordinance No. q60.93. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 26. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. A: PM253~9 17 27. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. L~60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 28. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality; Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 29. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 30. Jeramie Drive shall be improved with an offset cul-de-sac per County Standard No. 800A, and shall include asphalt concrete pavement with curb and gutter, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10L~, Section A 160'/~0'). 31. An all weather access road to the nearest road maintained for public use shall be constructed with a 24 foot graded section within a minimum ~O-foot part width right-of-way in accordance with a centerline profile as approved by the City Engineer or his representative. 32. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66L~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 33. Easements, when required for drainage facilities and utilities shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. All drainage easements shall be noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed." A: PM25349 18 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. The developer, or the developer's successor, shall execute a current Public Facilities Agreement with the City of Temecula which provides for the payment of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of the City Council, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual lots. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, street name, and other signing. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent, per County Standard No. 114. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 I curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two {2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit two {2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36~' mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. A: PM25349 19 The subdivider shall submit two copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities and protection shall be as required and approved by the City Engineer, The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. q60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineeris Office. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 50. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 51. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 52. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on cul-de-sac. A: PM25349 20 53. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the El R/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Department of Buildinq ~, Safety Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for Building Plan Review. A: PM253q9 21 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Anita Silliker e Address and Phone Number of Proponent: PO Box 6068 San Dieqo, CA 92106 {619) 535-1557 Date of Environmental Assessment: April 22, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA e Name of Proposal, if applicable: Parcel Map No. 253~9 6. Location of Proposal: Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive 7. Proposal: 3 lot residential subdivision of 8.2 acres Environmental Impacts {Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructuresT X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief featuresT X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical featuresT X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X A: PM25349 22 Yes Maybe No '-- e fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Ce Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Ce Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity? fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X A: PM25349 23 Yes Maybe No Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Ce Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? do Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X A: PM25349 24 Yes Maybe No -~ e 10. 11. 12. 13, Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? be Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an areaT Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X A: PM253~9 25 Yes Maybe No 15. 16. be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? de Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? fe Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? ee Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: ae Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: PM25349 26 Yes Maybe No 17. 18. 19. 20. Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Ce Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? de Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X A: PM25349 27 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ae Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory3 Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Ce Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X A: PM25349 28 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation lea. I .b,c. 1 .do 1.8. 1.f. 1 .go 2.a-c. .ae 3.b. Yes. The site is within the Alquist-Priolo Study zone, an area of possible faulting active. A special geology report was performed on the site for fault investigation activity. A fault was found and located by the geologist. The project will not have a significant impact because the site must be developed to the recommendations of the geologist as contained in County Geologic Report No. 769. Maybe. A new development causes displacement and overcovering of soils. The area consists of rolling hill type topography and the resulting building pads will result in the alteration of the current topography. All the proposed lots contain over 2.5 acres. The grading for the pads will result in less than half the lot being impacted by grading activities. The grading and building activities must conform to State, County and City Standards. Prior to any activity, a proper permit must be obtained and maintained. Adherence to the permit process will mitigate any adverse impacts that may result from this project. No. The overall character of the area should be maintained. No unique geologic or physical features exist on the site, therefore, no significant impact will occur. Maybe. The project will require the creation of cut and fill slopes to develop the building pads. This will increase the possibility of water and wind erosion. These possible impacts will be mitigated by adherence to standards erosion control techniques and will be inspected during the grading and building activities with obtaining and maintaining proper building and grading permits. No. The area is removed from existing rivers, creeks, and lakes. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. Yes. A possible active fault was found on site, but adherence to the mitigation measures in County Geology Report No. 769 will mitigate possible significant impacts. No. The project is a proposal for a 3 lot residential subdivision and no air impacts are anticipated. No major activity affecting air quality should occur. No. The area is far removed from maine or fresh water areas. Therefore, no impact shall occur. Maybe. The construction of new buildings will result in changes in absorption and runoff rates. The relatively small buildings in comparison to the large lots will result in a minimal impact to absorption and runoff rates. A: PM25349 29 oC. 3.d,e. 3.f. 3og. 3.h. 3.io oao Sob. oc. No. The project is required to maintain all natural drainage courses, therefore, there will be no significant impact. No. See Item 3.a. No. The size of the proposed cuts in regards to the groundwater table will not result in any alteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. No. The proposal does not include direct withdrawal or addition to the area groundwater. The project will use septic tanks for sewage disposal. The current water table and size of lots will not result in the contamination of the groundwater due to the use of septic tanks. The project is consistent with current County and State Standards for septic disposal. No. The proposal is for only 3 residential units and will not impact available public water supplies due to the small amount of use. No. The area is not located within a flood hazard zone or liquefaction zone. All natural drainage courses are required to be free of buildings or obstructions. No. The project will require grading activities to provide the building pads. A majority of the area will not be graded so the overall impact will be minimal. No. There was no unique or rare plant species seen on the site. No. The project area contains large lots and natural areas shall remain. No. The area is currently vacant and is not used for any agricultural purposes ~ Maybe. The project includes grading activities which will displace existing animal species. The majority of the site will be maintained in its natural state however, so there shall be no significant impact from the project. Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat study area. The County currently has a 10-A permit for the incidental take of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. The payment of the appropriate fee will provide mitigation for this project. Maybe. The project is for three residential units. Each lot will maintain the natural drainage area and the majority of the site will be ungraded. There will not be a significant impact to existing wildlife habitat. A: PM253~9 30 10.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a-f. 14.a-f. 15.a,b. 16.a,b,c, e,f. 16.d. 17 .a,b. 18. 19. 20.a-d. No. The project is for three residential units on over 8 acres of land. There will not be a significant noise impact. No. The three additional residential units will not create a significant impact to light and glare. No. The current area is zoned for residential property of 1 dwelling unit per 2 1/2 acres. No. The three residential units will not adversely effect natural resources. No. The project consists of only three residential units and shall not pose a risk of upset. No. The small size of the project, 3 additional units, will not alter population trends or densities. No. See Item 11. No. See Item 11. Maybe. All residential projects impact public services. The project will be required to pay the appropriate fees for mitigation. Therefore. there will not be an adverse impact to public services. No. See Item 11. No. These necessary utilities are provided to the site. Yes. The project will be required to install septic systems for each lot. The size of the lots exceeds the requirements of the County and State for subsurface sewage disposal in this area. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. No. The addition of three residential units shall not pose any health hazards. No. The project is not in any planned or designated view sheds. There will not be an adverse aesthetic impact with the project as proposed. No. The site is not shown as a recreational or open space site on SWAP and is not used as a public recreational area. No. No known cultural, religious or historic materials or sites are located within the project area. A: PM25349 31 21 .a-c. 21 .d. No. The addition of three residential units on the site of over 8 acres will not pose a significant impact. Maybe. Due to the possible active fault, a hazard may exist. but adherence to the mitigation measures in County Geologist Report No. 769 will provide safeguards for the project. A: PM253Lt9 32 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ...... On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X April 22, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: PM253~9 33 ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER~'~ CITY MANAGER~;- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department July 23, 1991 Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance PREPARED BY: Oliver Mujica RECOMMENDATION: 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-04 PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONSAND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS." APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Ambient Air Balloons. LOCAT ION: City Wide BACKGROUND: On May 1~, 1991, the City Council considered an Ordinance which included the following: A maximum size of 1,500 square feet (as measured at the cross section of the balloon used); a maximum height of 30 feet (as measured from the point of anchor to the highest portion of the balloon); and a time period not to exceed fifteen (15) days within any ninety (90) day period. In addition, a thirty (30) day permit may be issued by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. A:AIRORD-B 1 DISCUSSION: At the conclusion of the public hearing. the City Council continued this item in order to allow the Planning Department staff the opportunity to further define the term "site", as it relates to an entire business complex or individual businesses; and to include a provision for separation between balloons. According to the California Government Code, revisions to a "Draft" Ordinance must be first reviewed by the Planning Commission, in order to allow the Commission the opportunity to forward a formal recommendation. Thus, on July 1, 1991, the Revised "Draft" Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance was considered by the Planning Commission, in which a recommendation of approval was forwarded by the vote of 5-0, subject to the following modifications: A time period not to exceed ten (10) calendar days within any ninety (90) calendar day period as opposed to fifteen (15) calendar days. An application for an exemption shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Based on the direction given by the City Council, staff has included the following definitions for "site" within Section 19..8(b) of the proposed ordinance, "b. For the purpose of this Section, a site shall be defined as the following: 1. One or more contiguous parcels of land identified by the Assessor's records wherein an individual building or an integrated building development has been approved. 2. A building wherein two or more separate independently owned or operated commercial, office or industrial businesses are contained." In regards to separation between balloons, Section 19.8(c)(5) includes the following: "Spacing shall be a minimum of five hundred (500') feet between the ambient air balloons·" A:AIRORD-B 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: OM: ks Attachments: It should be noted that a provision has also been included within this Section of the proposed ordinance to waive the maximum allowable number of balloons and minimum spacing requirement during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival, This will encourage the Citywide promotion if such event is held, Staff has also included the following provision for exemptions within Section 4 of the proposed ordinance: "Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install an ambient air balloon. they may apply to the Planning Director for an exemption to this Ordinance, Such application for an exemption shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council, Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon." In Addition, staff has eliminated the phrase "and other similar inflatables" in order to ensure that only hot air type balloons as typically depicted in the City of Temecula's Annual Balloon and Wine Festival are used. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO, 90-0~4 PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS." Ordinance No. 91- A:AIRORD-B 3 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-04 PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONSAND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: ll) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being- considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. 13) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. A:AIRORD-B 4 The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Covernment Code, to wit: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91- will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. SECTION 2. City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the Non-Codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348. Article XIX of the Ordinance No. 348 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 19.8. TEMPORARY AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS. a. For the purpose of this Section, a temporary ambient air balloon shall mean a sign, not otherwise permitted by Article XlX, which is a temporary structure supported by forced cold air (non-helium), constructed of fabric materials, and affixed to the ground or roof top with cable using steel anchoring systems. Such signs may be illuminated at night using electrical lighting systems. All such signs under this Section using electrical lighting systems shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, adopted by reference by the City of Temecula, and all other applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code regulating the installation of such electrical lighting systems. b. For the purpose of this Section, a site shall be defined as the following: 1. One or more contiguous parcels of land identified by the Assessor's records wherein an individual building or an integrated building development has been approved. 2. A building wherein two or more separate independently owned or operated commercial, office or industrial businesses are contained. A:AIRORD-B 5 c. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, temporary ambient air balloons are permitted only in commercial and industrial zones subject to the following limitations: 1. The maximum allowable size of any such sign shall be limited to no more than 1500 square feet, as measured at the cross section of the balloon used. 2. All such signs shall be ground mounted or roof mounted. The allowable height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, as measured from the point of anchor to the highest portion of the balloon. 3. All such signs shall not be free-floating (tethered) nor constructed in a shape different from the "hot-air balloon shape" typically depicted in the City of Temecula's Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. For example, such balloons in the shape of blimps or cartoon characters shall not be permitted. All such signs shall be permitted to be displayed for a period not to exceed a total of ten (10) calendar days within any ninety (90) calendar day period. In lieu of the maximum allowable ten 110) calendar day period herein, a thirty (30) calendar day permit may be issued by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival, if such event is held. 5. The number of signs proposed to be used shall be limited to no more than three (3) on any one site during any allowed time period as set forth in subparagraph c. q. Spacing shall be a minimum of five' hundred ~500') feet between the ambient air balloons. In lieu of the maximum allowable three (3) signs on any one site and minimum five hundred ( 500' ) foot spacing between balloons herein, the provisions of subparagraph c. 5. may be waived by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival, if such event is held. 6. No such sign shall be erected, placed or maintained unless first approved by both the City Building Director and the City Planning Director. Approval shall be obtained by the submittal of an application and payment of required fees (to be established by Resolution). The application shall be accompanied with a drawing, utilizing the Site Plan, specifying the location of the sign to be approved with the specified dates of the proposed set-up and take down of the sign(s). 7. All such signs shall be removed no later than the last day permitted in the approved application. 8. No temporary ambient air balloon shall be erected, placed or maintained so that it does any of the following: |a) Mars, defaces, disfigures or damages any public building, structure or other property; and (b) Endangers the safety of persons or property. A:AIRORD-B 6 9. Any temporary ambient air balloon erected, placed or maintained in violation of any provision of this Section may be removed by the City five (5) days after notice of the violation given to the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession of the property. Any temporary ambient air balloon which constitutes an immediate danger to the safety or persons or property or which has not been removed within ten (10) days as provided in subsection c. 7.. may be removed by the City summarily and without notice. The City may bring as an action to recover the reasonable costs of sign removal under this subsection." SECT ION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project d---~es not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b) SECTION 4. EXEMPTIONS. Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should and-party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install an ambient air balloon, they may apply to the Planning Director for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such application for an exemption shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this~rdinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence· paragraph· or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) d-~ys after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted .in three designated posting places. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A: AIRORD-B 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS. I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula. do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No, 90- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of · 1991· and that thereafter· said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of · 1991. by the following vote· to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE So GREEK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney A: AIRORD-B 8 ITEM NO. 19 · '~ .',. · . APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER °~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM'/~ Department of Public Works DATE: July 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Establishing a 30 MPH Speed Limit on Calle Pina Colada Between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way and a 25 MPH Speed Limit on Roripaugh Road Between Nicolas Road and Winchester Road PREPARED BY: Douglas MacPherson, Senior Transportation Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a 30 MPH speed limit on Calle Pina Colada between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way and a 25 MPH speed limit on Roripaugh Road between Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. DISCUSSION: The investigation of existing speeds on both (1) Calle Pina Colada between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way and (2) Roripaugh Road between Nicolas Road and Winchester Road was initiated at the request of the residents living adjacent to these roadways. If a speed limit is to be enforced through the use of radar, local authorities must conduct an "Engineering and Traffic Survey" (CVC Section 627) in order to establish a prima facie speed limit other than 25 MPH (CVC Section 22357, 22358). A 25 MPH prima facie "residence district" speed limit cannot be installed on either Calle Pina Colada or Roripaugh Road. The number of dwelling houses required by CVC Section 515, Residence District (defined), i.e., 13 dwelling houses on one side, or 16 dwelling houses on both sides within a distance of a 1/4 mile (or a similar ratio within a longer distance) is not satisfied on either street. -- 1 -- pwO 1 \agdrpt\O 718.001 Calle Pina Colada The Engineering and Traffic Survey has been completed for Calle Pina Colada. The survey included measurement of prevailing speeds, traffic collisions, visibility restrictions, roadway conditions, pedestrian activities, on-street parking, and land use. The major findings of the survey were the 85th percentile speed (35.6 MPH) and the 10 MPH pace (26-35) with 67.7% of the sample within the pace. To maintain enforcement, this survey must be updated at least every five years. Conclusion (Calle Pina Colada) Typically, the accepted practice is to set the speed limit at or within the 5 MPH increment below the critical speed (in this case 30-35 MPH) unless other factors require a lower limit. Based on the comfortable speed on the existing 550 foot radius horizontal curves (33 MPH) and the appropriate design speed (30 MPH) based on corner sight distance at Calle Pina Colada and Yuba Court, the recommended safe and reasonable speed limit is 30 MPH. This recommendation has been reviewed by, and recommended by, the Traffic Commission. Roripaugh Road The Engineering and Traffic Survey has been completed for Roripaugh Road. The survey included measurement of prevailing speeds, traffic collision, visibility restrictions, roadway conditions, pedestrian activities, on-street parking, and land use. The major findings of the survey were the 85th percentile speed (30 MPH) between Sanderling and Mimulus and 34 MPH south of Nicolas Road. To maintain enforcement, this survey must be updated at least every five years. Conclusion (Roripaugh Road) Typically, the accepted practice is to set the speed limit at or within the 5 MPH increment below the critical speed unless other factors require a lower limit. Based on the sight distances at the horizontal curve between Sanderling Way and Mimulus Way (because of on-street parking), the maximum safe speed is 25 MPH. This recommendation has been reviewed by, and recommended by, the Traffic Commission. Staff is requesting that the recommendation for both Calle Pina Colada and Roripaugh Road be adopted as an urgency ordinance to safeguard the health and public welfare of residents on both roadways. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for signs and posts for the installation are available in the street maintenance budget. attach me nts: Ordinance Recommendation of Traffic and Transportation Commission -- 2 -- pwO l\~gdrpt\O 716.001 ORDINANCE NO. 91-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 12.02.010(d) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS ON CALLE PINA COLADA AND RORIPAUGH ROAD AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 12.02.010(d) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add the following speed limits: Name of Street and Portion Affected Declared Prima Facie Speed Limit. Miles Per Hour Calle Pina Colada - Del Rey Road to La Serena Way 30 Roripaugh Road - Nicolas to Winchester Rd. 25 Section 2. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency ordinance and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The facts constituting the basis of the urgency are that both streets cross through residential tracts in which there are currently no designated speed limits. Protection of the health and safety of the residents and their young children dictates establishing a reasonable speed limit. Section 3. The speed limits established by this Ordinance are in addition to those established pursuant to Ordinance No. 91-22. Neither this Ordinance or Ordinance No. 91- 22 should be construed as repealing the other in whole or part. Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. 2/ORD5/29 I Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of ,1991. ATI'EST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk 2/ORD5/29 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk July 23, 1991 Item No. 20 - Reconsideration of Stop Signs at Motorcar Parkway and Ynez Road BACKGROUND: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mu6oz. Attachment: Memorandum from Director of Public Works dated July 18, 1991 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: /~Department of Public Works DATE: July 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Status of Proposed Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer On July 18, 1991, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. David Olson, Facilities Manager for Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, regarding the construction schedule for the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Ynez Road with the driveway to the Advanced Cardiovascular System building and Motor Car Parkway (a private road). Mr. Olson informed me that he anticipates the signal controller and signal standards will arrive at the construction site the week0f August 12, 1991; and the preliminary trenching, conduit runs, etc., will begin being installed the first part of August. If this schedule is adhered to, the signal could be energized by the end of September. Also, attached for your review is a copy of a letter from Mr. Olson regarding the signal installation, along with a copy of the contractor's construction schedule. Attachments. pwO1~drpt~0723.002 RUDOLPHgSLKTTEN July 18, 1991 Mr. David Olson Advanced Cardiovascular Systems ~531 Ynez Road Teme~ ~ ~90 ACS-Temeeula, Bldg. 'E" R&S Job No. 18780 5UB.~CT: Motor Car Parkway Signalizafion ~w..hedule Dear David: The tentative schedule for installation of me signals at Motor Car P.arkway i~ a~ £ollows: Start Demolition 8/05/0t Light Pole C~livery 8/12/91 Completion Date 8/30/91 Please note all dates m'e tentative and may change due to any ~ore~-~n delays. Also upon your request, Rudolph and Sleuen h~ expedited delivery of the sigttal pol~ for an add/tion~l cost of $2,400 which decreased the signal pole lead time by one month. If you have ~my questions, do not hesitate to call you, Robert W. Stokes Project Engineer RWS:pac Bernie Taylor, AC~ Tim Serlett/City Endneet 97/18/91 15:55 ~714 694 21~I aC$-AD¥IN ~002 Mr. Tim Serle~ city of Temeoula Mng£neering Department Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Tim: Thank you ~or your inquirf on the traffic signal at Motor Car Par~way. A copy of a memo to me from Rudolph & Sletten concerning the schedule for the signal is attached. The signal should be completed by the end ef August. The ~rawings were approved by your office, signed by Mr. StEwart, on April 30, 1991. Your e~erience should indicate that four months to install a traffic signal is a short ~eriod of timm, considering the lead times for the e~uipment and the bid process. Although ACS did not promise to have the signal inmtailed within a specific time frame, we haye expedited t-him proc~ a~ agreed with Mr. Stewart lamt $~r~n~. The $2,400.00 oharg~ for expedited ~elivery of the eq~liDment im a clear indication of that fact. ACS appreciates the support an~ a~=i~tano~ of your staff on this project. Please ca1! m~ with any questions that may arise. Best regar.&lfu_,, David S. Olson Facilitiem Manager D.DiMon R.Park~ B.Taylor ITEM NO. 21 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk July 23, 1991 Item No. 21 Consideration of Reappointments - Old Town Historic Review Committee BACKGROUND: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Lindemans. The Temecula Historic District was established by the county in 1980 by Ordinance No. 578. The historic district encompasses a 15-block area in downtown bounded by 6th Street to the north, River Street to the West, 2nd Street to the south and Interstate 15 to the east. Ordinance 578 provided for the establishment of a local review board to oversee preservation activities and review development proposals in the historic preservation district. At the time of incorporation, the committee had dwindled to two members and therefore did not constitute a quorum. At the City Council meeting of July 3, 1990, the Council appointed five members and an alternate to serve on a reactivated Architectural Review Committee for the Old Town Temecula Historical Preservation District. The Council action also made the appointment for a period of only six months. The committee, comprised of Donald Cummins, Bob Morris, Bob Taylor, Dallas Grey, Bill Harker and Tony Tobin, have continued to meet on an "as necessary" basis, even though the six month appointment has expired. Councilmember Lindemans has asked that the Council review the matter at this time. ITEM NO. 22 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager July 2, 1991 Item No. 22 - Costco OPA/Sales Tax Reimbursement PREPARED B~ City Clerk June S. Greek BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff forward it to you under separate cover. JSG report on this item and SERVICES LA-i~'~COMMUNITY ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD JUNE 25, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:46 PM. PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Moore Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve the minutes of June 11, 1991, as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Mu~oz None Moore Award of Vehicle Bids Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, introduced the staff report. 4/Minutes/062591 -1- 07/O5/91 CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve staff recommendations as follows: 2.1 Award the bids for the purchase of two (1) vehicle. 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF D/RECTORS OF THE TEMECUIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 1990- 1991 BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH A BUDGET TRANSFER. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore PUBLIC HEARINGS TCSD Creation of Zones and Proposed Rates and Charges and Second Reading of Ordinance City Clerk June Greek stated all affidavits of mailing and publication were available. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Birdsall to receive and file the affidavits of mailing and publication. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Moore absent. President Mu~oz asked City Clerk Greek if letters of protest had been received. Ms. Greek reported that 63 letters of protest have been received and she outlined the various reasons for protest. She stated that all letters have been copied and presented to the Board of Directors. Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, introduced the staff report, describing the various changes from last year, one of which is the inclusion of refuse collection. 4/Minutes/O62591 -2- O7/O5/91 ..... CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, presented an explanation for the various service levels. Joe Hreha, gave a presentation regarding the refuse service, giving a brief explanation of State Law AB939 and the implications for the City of Temecula. He also outlined services that would be received. Director Birdsall asked if all letters of protest would be answered. Mr. Nelson stated that all letters would receive a written response. President Mu~oz opened the public hearing at 9:29 PM. Lois J. White, 43021 Agena, addressed the Board asking that the users of parks pay for them and also stated that senior citizens need consideration. J.F. Seguin, 41640 Avertida de la Reina, asked that this matter be tabled to allow further citizen input. Joseph R. Terrazas, spoke in opposition to the ability of the Board to levy fees. He also opposed the waste disposal agreement. President Mu~oz called a brief recess to change the tape at 9:37 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:38 PM. Samuel B. Ramos, 40122 Calle Medusa, stated that he does not have any street lights near his property, yet is being assessed for street lights. Shawn Nelson stated that an appeal could be filed to correct such errors. Mary Ann Pavlik, 31121 Buena Duerte, objected to the Waste Hauling Service being included on the property tax bill. Lynn Owen, 28990 Nuevo Valley Drive, Nuevo, objected to vacant property being assessed at a higher rate than a single family residence, stating he is being penalized for not developing his property. John O'Toole, 29699 Vailbrook, objected to the fact that CR&R has been awarded the franchise for Waste Disposal, when Inland Disposal has been providing excellent service. Jack Mowry, 27147 Rainbow Creek Drive, objected to trash services being placed on the tax bill. 4/Minutes/062591 -3- 07105/91 CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 ..... A. J. Moore, 1300 Wilson Avenue, National City, representing Bay Cities Services, Inc., stated that Bay Cities was the low bid for waste disposal and cautioned the City to proceed slowly and carefully. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, objected to the method used to communicate the charges and the items to be included. Sharon Miller, P.O. Box 355, asked if the funds collected last year were spent and what happens to these funds if they are not. David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, asked the Board what would be done with all the old garbage cans, stating he has not been able to find anyone to collect the old containers. He also stated that the product to be used by CR & R for the trash containers is toxic material because it is a cross link product. Mr. Michael, representing the Homeowners of the Villages, stated that the Villages will be asked to pay over $14,000 in additional charges for the TCSD to maintain their slopes, and asked that ownership be returned to the Homeowners Association. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Parks to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Moore absent. Samuel Levine, 42367 Cosmic Drive, objected to the lack of communication between the Board, staff and citizens. He also requested that services be made available to the seniors of the community. Stan Klock, 413 N. Bullis Road, Compton, stated that his property was split into two 2 1/2 acre lots and was assessed separately. He explained that through an appeal last year, he was only charged for one parcel. He asked that this be done again this year. Eleanor L. Klein, 31130-122 S. General Kearney Road, spoke in opposition to the assessment of mobile homes in her area. Grace Kelly, 40371 Calle Medusa, objected to the increase in assessments that have steadily risen since incorporation. She also stated that the County has rebated the funds collected for slopes in 1989 and 1990. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated that the City has not been able to collect the fund balance from the County of Riverside. 4/Minutes/062591 -4- 07/05/91 CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 Roger H. Holley, 11762 Dorada Avenue, Garden Grove, representing Western Waste Industries, cautioned the Board about moving too quickly on unproven systems. He also suggested that old trash cans be converted to earthquake preparedness cans for homes. Rita Hernandez, 31149 Corte Alhambra, stated she feels an increase in taxes should be done by referendum and asked that this issue be tabled. President Mu~oz called a brief recess at 10:36 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 10:37 PM. President Mu~oz stated he has been presented with a petition with 123 signatures objecting to the increased assessments. Ed Doran, 39985 Stamos Court, spoke in opposition to the slope maintenance charges. Del Graves, 40150 Holden Circle, spoke in opposition to the levy and stated that no one has been willing to explain these charges. Allen Maslowski, 40409 Calle Medusa, stated he would like a refund of the taxes he has paid in previous years for slope maintenance. Cleades D. Chaney, 39648 June Court, spoke in opposition to the rates and charges. Rosemary Barrett-Smith, 31448 Corte Mallorca, spoke in opposition to the rates and charges and objected to the inclusion of trash services on the tax bill. Sal Simonertl, 2174 Steiger Lane, Oceanside, spoke in opposition to the rates and charges and stated that vacant land derives no benefit. Mr. and Mrs. Black, 39561 Linnitt Circle, spoke in opposition to assessments for slopes that their association maintains. Jerry Olguin, 40180 Roripaugh Road, thanked the Board for progress being made. He objected to the method used to determine benefits. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Parks to extend the meeting until 11:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Moore absent. 4/Minutes/062591 - 5- 07/05/91 CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 Joseph Clevoski, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, spoke in opposition to the imposition of these new rates. Larry Morris, 40491 Yardley Court, asked for an explanation on how Level C is divided into Service Level 1 and 2. Shawn Nelson, responded that developments having extensive landscaping fall into service Level I and those having minimal landscaping fall into service level 2 at a lower cost. Jean Mezak, Corte Senora, spoke in opposition to the trash collection being included on the tax bill. Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, stated that both the 1990-1991 assessments and the proposed 1991-1992 assessments are posted and staff will be happy to answer any questions. Lillian Smith, 41960 Greentree Road, questioned the parks assessment and the reasons developers have not paid park fees. Mary Manley, 30329 Via Canada, spoke in favor of putting this matter on the ballot for a decision from all citizens of the City. Director Parks stated that out of a $13,000,000 City budget, only $1,000,000 is collected from property taxes.. Hestated that $4,000,000 is from sales tax from places like Costco. Shawn Nelson reported that all new developments are required to either set aside land for parks or pay park fees. President Mu~oz closed the public hearing at 11:20 PM. RECESS President Mu~oz called a recess at 11:21 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11:41 PM. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Lindemans to extend the meeting until 12:30 AM. 4/Minute s/062591 -6- 07/05/91 June 25, 1991 CSD Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore Director Lindemans requested that the Board consider if the charges for refuse service should be included in the property tax bill or billed separately. Director Parks stated that in order to support the mandate of the state for reducing the waste stream, he feels that the City is obligated to take these steps. Director Lindemans stated he feels this is not a tax, but rather a service that property owners derive, even though it is billed through the property tax bill. RECESS President Mu~oz called a brief recess at 11:54 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 11:55 PM. Director Lindemans suggested a straw vote be taken on Level D - Refuse Collection and Recycling. The vote was unanimous in favor with Director Moore absent. Director Parks addressed the $49.00 Parks and Recreation fees, stating that with the additional $16.50 per year, the TCSD will have the ability to provide bonding capacity to accomplish the Capital Improvement Program. He explained by so doing, many new services would be available to the citizens of the community. Director Lindemans requested a straw vote on the Parks and Recreation fees. All members voted in favor of the increase to $49.00 per year with Director Moore absent. Director Lindemarts initiated the discussion on street lights. Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, stated that arterial street lights have been raised by $3.00 per year for Level A & B. A straw vote was taken with all members in favor with Director Moore absent. 4/Minutei/062591 -7- 07/05/91 CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 .... Director Lindemans suggested that the City set up a fund account to track the slope maintenance services by individual tract. Director Birdsall stated that this may increase charges due to overhead for accounting purposes. Director Parks stated when slopes are properly maintained it increases the value of property. He suggested that the slope maintenance be continued to allow staff to educate the public on this service. City Attorney Field reported that the ordinance requires adoption to meet the July 31, 1991 deadline. He stated the rates and charges resolution could be continued to a later date. It was moved by Director Parks to approve staff recommendations for all Service Level Zones expect Zone C, and directed that rates be advertised and a special meeting held on July 16, 1991. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Parks to approve staff recommendation 3.3 as follows: 3.3 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. CSD 9 I-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Moore David Michael asked if the homeowners would be able to get their slope back. City Manager Dixon reported that the homeowners need to present a petition, outlining their desires to have ownership of the slopes returned. 4/Minutes/062591 -8- 07/O5/91 '--~- CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 It was moved by Director Birdsall to adopt staff recommendations 3.1 and 3.2. The motion died for a lack of a second. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to adopt staff recommendation 3.2 and 3.1 to approve zones for Community Services/Parks, Service Levels A, B and D and to reconsider approval of Service Level C at a special meeting to be held on July 16, 1991. 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR PARK AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, STREET LIGHTING, SLOPE MAINTENANCE, RECYCLING AND REFUSE PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 91-09 Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 BUDGET The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Moore 4/Minutes/062591 -9- 07/05/91 CSD Minutes June 25, 1991 It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Lindemans to extend the meeting until 1:00 AM. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz NOES: I DIRECTORS: Parks ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Moore COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given. CITY ,4 TTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemarts, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 12:37 AM. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Moore absent. J. Sal Mu~oz, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary 4/Minutes/062591 -10- 07/05/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD JUL Y 2, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:33 PM. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS Leigh Engdahl, 41985 Corte Selva, spoke in favor of funding the Community Recreation Center and stated that 92% of citizens surveyed agreed more recreational services are needed in the City of Temecula. Rocky Hill, Rancho California Road, thanked the Board for their support of the Community Recreation Center, stating it makes him proud to be a member of this community. Melody Brunston, 21705 Como, Wildomar, spoke in favor of supporting the CRC and Parks in the Community. She read.excerpts. from letters from pastors in the community who support these programs. Timmy D. Daniels, 27475 Ynez Road, spoke in support of the CRC stating hopefully this is the last summer the youth of the community will be without a facility. John Cloughen, 41304 Bravos Court, questioned the Council about its decision regarding the property located off La Serena Way containing the Metropolitan Water District Easement. He stated that Ridgeview Homeowners Association is interested in subleasing this property as originally proposed. He reported the Ridgeview Homeowners Association supported this issue by an over 2/3rds majority. Jim Meyler, 29930 Santiago Road, spoke in support of the CRC. He also addressed the Council requesting that a 110 volt electric circuit be installed at Sports Park. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, reported staff in the process of obtaining quotes to install a 110 volt circuit. 4/Minutes/070291 -1- 07/11/91 CSD Minutes July 2, 1991 CONSENT CAI. ENDAR It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to approve Consent Calendar Items I and 2. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Lindemarts, Moore, Parks, Amendment to Contracts with California Landscape Maintenance and MacKensie Landscape 1.1 Approve an amendment to contract with California Landscape Maintenance, Inc. to provide continued landscape maintenance services for parks, slopes and medians through August 31, 1991. 1.2 Approve amendment to contract with Mackensie Landscape to provide continued landscape maintenance services for TCSD slopes through August 31, 1991. Cancellation of the Regular Meeting of July 9, 1991. 2.1 Cancel the regular meeting scheduled July 9, 1991. DIS TRIC T BUSINESS 1. TCSD Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 1991-1992 Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report. Director Parks questioned the estimated $3.5 million allocation for the CRC. Shawn Nelson stated that this was based on $125 per square foot. 4/Minutes/070291 -2- 07/11/91 ..... CSD Minutes July 2, 1991 William D. Hillin, 40715 La Colima Road, speaking as a Director of the Soccer Association and as an educator, urged the Board to approve the proposed CIP stating that many potential problems can be avoided through adequate recreation programs. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 1991-1992. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu5oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None President Mu~oz asked that staff look closely at the inclusion of a water slide in connection with the Community Pool. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given, CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Birdsall thanked staff for an efficiently run swimming program and asked if the pool would be open on holidays. Shawn Nelson reported that the pool is open 7 days a week, including holidays. Director Lindemans stated he appreciated the full page ad in the newspaper thanking the Board of Directors and staff for what the TCSD has done for the youth of the community. 4/Minutes/070291 -3- 07/11/91 CSD Minutes July 2, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemarts to adjourn at 9:08 PM to a special meeting on July 16, 1991 at 7:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary J. Sal Mu~oz, President 4/Minutes/070291 -4- 07/11/91 ITEM NO. 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON JULY 23, 1991 PHASE II - SPORTS PARK' BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve change order to Phase II of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project to replace existing wiring on the North and South fields. This wiring does not meet building code requirements and was installed several years ago when the lights were originally installed. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to install the necessary wiring improvements will not exceed $16,000.00. As of June 30, 1991, $33,648.00 was unencumbered for account #029-190-101-44-5804 due to cost savings on the original contract. The amount was recorded as Fund Balance designated for Sports Park Lighting Project at June 30, 1991. Staff recommends that $16,000.00 be appropriated for FY 1991-92 from Fund Balance for the change order. DISCUSSION: Phase II of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project included retrofitting the existing lights on the North and South fields, and installing lights to the upper south soccer field. The retrofitting of the lights on the North and South fields included the installation of glare control lights, using the existing wiring system to save costs. I was informed last week by our Building and Safety Department that when the lights on North and South fields were installed several years ago, wires were used that do not meet building code requirements. Also, a junction box located by the snack bar was found to have substandard wire connections that creates a serious safety hazard for the public. It was recommended that these wires be replaced immediately to protect the safety of the general public, as well as protect the newly installed lighting system from damages. TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 ~. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD JUNE 25, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 6:34 PM. PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemane, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: I AGENCY MEMBERS: Moore Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. Vice Chairperson Karel Lindemane adjourned to an executive session at 6:35 PM to pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to discuss potential litigation. Vice Chairperson Lindemane called a recess at 7:20 PM. The meeting was called to order in regular session at 12:37 AM by Vice Chairperson Lindemane. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Birdsall to approve the minutes of June 11, 1991 as mailed. The motion was unanimously carried with Chairperson Moore absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None given. GENERAL COUNSEL 'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS Member Parks requested that a presentation redevelopment to the citizens of the community. be given on the July 16th, to explain ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Mu~oz, seconded by Member Birdsall to adjourn at 12:40 AM to a meeting on July 2, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried with Chairperson Moore absent. Peg Moore, Chairperson ATTEST: June S. Greek, Agency Secretary 4~DAM]~0~2$91 -2- 07/05/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD JUL Y 2, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 12:35 AM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Cancellation of the Regular Meeting of July 9, 1991 It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Mufioz to cancel the regular meeting scheduled July 9, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore None None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Dixon stated that the Redevelopment Agency is officially run by the City of Temecula as of July 1, 1991. He suggested this meeting be adjourned to July 16, 1991 so that a presentation can be made to the citizens explaining the function of the Redevelopment Agency. GENERAL COUNSEL 'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS 4\RDAMIN\051491 -1- 07/11/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes None given. July 2. 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Lindemans to adjourn at 9:11 PM to a meeting on July 16, 1991 at 7:00 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: June S. Greek, Agency Secretary Peg Moore, Chairperson 4\RDAMlN\051491 -2- 07/11/91 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJEC T: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Redevelopment Agency Executive Director July 2, 1991 Item No. 2 - Costco OPA/Sales Tax Reimbursement PREPARED B~ City Clerk June S. Greek BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff report on this item and forward it to you under separate cover. JSG ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~R..~ CITY MANAGER- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager's Office July 23, 1991 APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHNSON AND JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION RECOMMENDA T/ON: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 13 attached memorandums of understanding between the City of Temecula and various property owners who are a part of Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation. DISCUSSION: Attached are 13 proposed memorandums of understanding (M.O.U.'s) between the City of Temecula and various property owners (Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation). Six of the M.O.U.s are written to memorialize the intended cooperation between the parties in supporting the inclusion of the noted properties in the city's sphere of influence and ultimately, the annexation of the properties into the city's boundaries. The final seven M.O.U.'s are written to serve as a blueprint for future development agreements for the development of properties owned by Johnson and Johnson Development Corporation which are within the City of Temecula's incorporated area. The properties total over 1,668 unimproved acres at locations as depicted in the vicinity maps attached to each of the M.O.U.'s. The property owners and properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s are as follows: PROPERTY OWNER (Unincorporated Area) ACRES 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Murrieta Springs Rancho California Spa and Country Club Rancho California Spa and Country Club I1-1 Rancho California Spa and Country Club 11-2 Johnson, Allen, and Kinney Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club PROPERTY OWNER (Within City Boundaries) 700 342 100 24 7.29 32 ACRES 7) Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 18.9 8) Los Ranchitos Estates 30 9) Rancho California City Associates I 70 10) Rancho California City Associates II 70 11 ) Rancho Core Associates No. I 164 12) Rancho Core Associates No. 2 80 13) Rancho Village Associates 30 The M.O.U.'s acknowledge the benefits derived if the subject properties are developed within the city, which include job opportunities, sales and ad valorem taxes, development of high quality master planned residential and commercial development, financial contributions to public infrastructure, and others. In return, the city agrees to certain understandings related to the processing of the specific plan(s), project EIR's, zoning, and other entitlement permits. It is important to note that none of the memorandums of understanding waive or alter the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or the City Council in considering the development of the properties addressed in the M.O.U.'s, nor do they provide specific terms for development agreements. a:agenda.jul MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Johnson, Allen & Kinney This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Johnson, Allen & Kinney, a California general partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seven and twenty-nine one hundredths (7.29) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with 88 condominium residential dwelling units (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and. Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-0~-91 181:55-0(XX)1 G: ~J)OC\ 152\91050025. ~#0 otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality condominium-residential development creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, city and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the. Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property'Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the 07-03-91 18135-04)4X)1 G: ~X)C\152\91050025 .~ll) 2 City. In such instance, city agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by city at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project tentative tract map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. .City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as 07-03-91 18135-QOG01 G:~)0C\152\91050025.2~1) 3 requiring City or city Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consid~rati0h"'for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the city; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve 07-Q]-91 18135-00001 any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set ~orth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY'OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula JOHNSON, ALLEN & KINNEY, a California general partnership By: By: 07-03-91 18135-00~)I G: %D(X:\152\91050025. ~ 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "A" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVeRSiDE COUNTY, AND THAT PORTION OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN BY MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AN~ WATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8, PACE 359 OF HAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SITUATED IN TIIE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE H09T SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1~ THENCE NORTH 7So30t23" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, 816.27 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE THEREIN, CDNCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1055.00 FEET{ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5'28'56" A DISTANCE OF 100.94 FEET{ THENCE NORTH 18'51'49" BAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, 303.40 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 89 '36'16" WEST 270.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1{ 'THENCE NORTH 0'23'44" BAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 75;00 FEET{ TIIENCE SOUTH 42e37'46" EAST 20.52 FEET{ THENCE SOUTH 89°36'16" EAST 335.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 65°07'12" BAST 131.21 FEET TO TIIE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 8'33'44" EAST 206.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 70e48t58" BAST 456.29 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1977 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 175358, DISTANT THBREON NORTH 83 ~14'44" EAST 465.00 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTH 55°21'15" EAST 274.00 FEET AND SOUTH 6'54~28" ~EST, 1~3,50 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT C~RTAIN COURSE IN THE BOUNDARY LINE 'OF SAID PARCEL 1, SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 34°23'38"' EAST 82.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3~°23'38" ~EST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 82.~3 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18135-00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050025 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "A-l" -THAT PORTION OF THE MU~£IETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN ON MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND ~ATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8, PAOE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF. $A~ DIEGO COUNTYI IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST.WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 5 OF PAREEL MAP 20650 FILBD IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, 'RECORDS OF ~iYBRSfDE COUNTY; SAID POINT BEIN~ ALSO DESCRIBED AS POINT "A"- IN DEED7~E~ORDED APRIL 25, 1980~ AS INSTRUMENT NO. 78855~ THENCE SOUTH 48t$8" WEST, 456.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LIN~ OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL ~ IH DEED RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1977, AS. INSTRUMENT NO. 175358, SAID LINE BEING ALSO THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP 20650; THENCE ALON~ SAID BOUNDARY SOUTH 8~ 14~44" WEST, 465.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTH ~33~44" EAST, 206.94 FBBT TO THE 'POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18135-0(0X)1 G:~\152\91~.2~11) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "A-2" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCSL HAP 20550 AS SHOWN BY HAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUGH OF PARCEL HAPS, RECORDS OF RIV'~J~t'$'IDE COUNTY, AND THAT PORTION OF THE HURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN BY HAP OF. THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8, PAGE $59 OF NAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF .RIYERSIDE, STATE OF 0ALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1~ THENCE NORTH 75o$0~23" WBST ALON~ THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID P~RCEL 1, 816.27 FEET TO THE BE~INNIN0 OF A TANGENT CURYE THEREIN, CONCAYE SOUTHERLY~ ~A¥ING A RADIUS 'OF ~055.00 PEETJ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ~ 28~5§# A DISTANCE OF 100.9~ FEET~ THENCE NORTH 18'51~9" EAST ALONQ THB BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ~ $05.~0 FEET TO AN AN~EL POINT THERBIN~ THENCE CONTINUING ALON~ SAID BOUNDARY LINB NORTH 89'3§~§" WEST 2?0.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1~ THENCE NORTH 0°25~&4" EAST ALON~ SAID ~ESTERLY LINE 7S.00 FEBT~ THENCE SOUTH ~2~$7~6" EAST 20.52 FEET~ TgENCB .SOUTH 8~ 36~1§~ BAST ~5,00 FEBT THENCE SOUTH 55~07~12# EAST ~31.21 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERHINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THB'BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARI~6 AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 8~$$t~" EAST ~06.9~ FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID COURSE SOUTH .8°33~44" EAST, 205.94 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1977~ AS INSTRUMENT NO. 175558, THENCE AL0~G THE SOUTHBRLY LINE THEREOF.NORTH 83°1~44" EAST, 465 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5g 21~5" EAST, 274.00 FBBT~ THENCE SOUTH ~54~28" ~EST, 143.50 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY TERHINUS OF THAT' CERTAIN COURSE IN TIIE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID. PARCEL 1, SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 3~ 23~38" EAST 82.~3 FEET; THENCE SOUTII 3~°23'38" WEST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 82.&$ FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18135-00~X)1 G:~X)C\152\91050025.21~) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL "B" THAT PORTION OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECHLA RANCHO, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS $HO~N BY MAP 'OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY FILED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF NAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~ BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY 'CORNER OF PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 AS SHOWN BY MAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES ~HROUGH OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID RI~BRSIDE COUNTY; THENCE ]~'6'~G THE BOUNDARY LINE : OF SAID PARCEL 5 NORTH ST 11~55" WEST 151.89 FEET, NORTH 52°25t$9" EAST 178.94 FEET AND NORTH%~00~47" ~EST 185;25 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF I NON-TANGENT CURVE IN SAID BOUNDARY LINE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUOH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 4~ 00~47" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY'ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35'15'~1" A DISTANCE OF 602.46 FEET;'THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL SOUTH 83°14~44" WEST 219.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77~9'27" EAST 620.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL i OF SAID PARCEL MAP 20650 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 83014~4&" WEST 218.62 FEET FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING~ THENCE NORTH 83'14~44" EAST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 218.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. · 07-03-91 18135-00(X31 G:~IXIC\152\91050025.2~) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ~CEL THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN BY HAP FILED IN BOOK PAGES THROUOH OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF S~I~ ~OUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOL~0Wg:' BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY'CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 5; THENCE NORTH 7'47'19" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE THEREOF 183.52 FEET~ THENCE SOUTH 77e59~27" EAST 552.73 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY_LINE OF SAID PARCEL 5; THENCE SOUTH 8~ 14'44'* WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 552.19 FEET TO THE BECINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE THEREIN, CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 979.00 FEETJ THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUCH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1'00'33" A DISTANCE OF 17.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18135-00001 ~:~XX:\152\91050025.2~) E ~X~ IBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL TIIAT PORTION OF THE 'MURRIETA PORTION OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN ON MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND ~ATER COMPANY FILED IN BO0£ 8, PAGE '3S9 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, SATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT ~HE MOST WESTERLY CORNE£ OF PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP 20650 FILED IN BOOK ~AGES THROUGH OF PARCEL NAPS, RECORD OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A 979 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLYi A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS HORTH 5°4&t&~" WEST; THENCE BASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE..(AND ALONG THE SOUTHBRLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL S)~ THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1'00"33"~ 17.24 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 83~4t~4" EAST, 552.19 FEET~ THENCE LEAVIN~ SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OP PARCEL ~ SOUTH 77~§9"27" EAST, 620.00 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP 20650; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY SOUTH 83~14~44" ~EST, 7~6.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°48"58" WEST~ 456.29 FEET TO THE POINT 0P BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18135-00001 G:~)0C\152\91050025.2~) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 07-03-91 18135-00001 G: %DOC\I 5Z\91051~:)~ - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho Core Associates No. i This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho Core Associates No. 1, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of Juhe 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately one hundred sixty-four (164) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 1.5 million square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. .. ~.. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business center creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: \~3C\152%91050031. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the. protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project recorded final tract maps shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: ~D0C\152\91050031.2#0 2 requiring City or city Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligation~ and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor 07-03-91 18109-00001 (k %D(X:\152\91050031.2#0 3 ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 1, a California limite4 partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-05-91 1810<)-00001 G: %DOC\ 152\910~0031. ~ND 4 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 1848873 TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 1, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF 'CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: IS SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE, STATE OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4646 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4 LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF DIAZ ROAD OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4646, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE ,OF DIAZ ROAD AND THE CENTERLINE OF THE 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL 3 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL 4, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 50 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 80.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MURRIETA CREEK; THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 30' 00" EAST ALONG SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MURRIETA CREEK 48.23 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" WEST ALONG THE A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 26.78 FEET DISTANT FROM SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 80.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30' 00" WEST LONG THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD 48.23 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RP00LONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD AND THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 07-03-91 18109- 00001 G: %DOC\152\910500:31 EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP OVIC..INITY MAP 07-0~-91 18109-00001 G: ~X3C\152\910500~1 EXHIBIT "B" LAND USE PLAN 07-03-91 18109-00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050031.2NO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho Core Associates No. 2 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho Core Associates No. 2, a California limited partnership ("P~operty Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately eighty (80) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 800,000 square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business park creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-03-91 18186-00001 G:~DOC\152\91050032.2#O (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the, protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project recorded final map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as 07~03-91 18186-00001 G:%J)(X:\152W1050032.2#O 2 requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligatiQns and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing- contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commissign. or ~he City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor 07-03-91 1818~-00001 G:~(X:\152\910~0032.2#O 3 ATTEST: city Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: city Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 2, a California limite4 partnership By: William R. Johnson, General Partner 07-03-91 18186-00001 G:~O(X:\152\91050032.21iO 4 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 2, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (AS TO PARCELS i THROUGH 14 AND 16 THROUGH 61); AND BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (AS TO PARCEL 15) THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED oR' REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELS i THROUGH 61, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21382, ON FILE IN BOOK 161 PAGES 47 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, OF pARC~r. MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91, TO FOLLOW. 2. THE 'LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. 3. ~/NICIPAL IMPROVEMENT BOND, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. 4. THE EFFECT OF A NOTICE OF EXISTENCE OF ASSESSMENT'DISTRICT NO. 155 (WINCHESTER BRIDGE) WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUING OF BONDS AND THE LEVYING OF A SPECIAL TAX TO PAY THE INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON SUCH BONDS UPON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY, RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 297820 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, REFERENCE HEREBY BEING MADE TO THE RECORD FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 07-03-91 18186-00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050032.2NO EXHIBIT "A-I" VICINITY MAP !-~IS TO R V~-ER~!DE / /, · / ! 07-03-91 18186-00001 G: ~3C\15~\91050032.2140 EXHIBIT "B" LAND USE PLaN 07-0~-91 18186-00001 G: MX)C\152\91050032 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California City Associates I This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("city") and Rancho California City Associates I, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seventy (70) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 700,000 square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business park creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-03-91 18034-00001 G: ~DOC\ 152\91050029.2ND (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the.protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements and environmental review. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project Tentative Tract Map No. 24085 shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 180:~- 00001 G: ~D0C\152~91050029.2NO 2 that nothing Contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing progra~ to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property. which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor 07-0~-91 180~4-00001 ;: %D0C\152\91050029.2~) 3 ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA CITY ASSOCIATES I, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: 07-03-91 18034-00001 G: %00C\152\91050029.2140 4 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 4646 in the County of Riverside, State of California, per map filed in Book 6, Page 75 of Parceli Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of.said county. Reserving therefrom, unto the Grantor, its successors and assiggs, together l~tth the right to grant and to dedicate same to other$~ road easements over an~ across those portions thereof included within any ~t~.ips of land shown as "road casements,# or similar! terminology, on said Map, and an easement as necessary for con-i strugtion and maintenance of such slopes at the ratio of tvm (2} horizontal to'one (1) yetfica1 and for such drainage facilities as required to accommodate the necessary roadways. Also reser%'lng therefrom unto'the Grantor, its successors and assigns, together with the right to grant and to dedicate all or part of same to others, easements for ~e-use and benefit of the several authorized public and/or other utilitie~ including but not linited to cable televisio~l,. sanitary sewers, water, gas, telephone, electric, and'drainage and equestrian purposes, ten (10) feet wide on ~ach side of common lot lines and fifteen (15[ feet wide along perimeter lot lines of said Parcel Map. Except~ in all cases where lot lines are coincident with road easement centerlines, the reservation shall be equal to one-half (1/2) of the widt~ of the total road easement plus twenty (20) feet. Together with all riparian rights to-the waters in the watershed of the Santa Margarita River and. its.tributaries, that may belong to or be appurtonant 2o the above-described lands reserving to the retain~ lands of grantor all riparian rights to the waters: in the watershed of the Santa Margarita Rivers and its tribu- taries that may belong.to or be appurtenant to saldretained lands. It is the intontion of grantor to convey hereby all %~.ater rights and privileges which pertain to the above-described lands, and to reserve hereby all water rights and privileges which pertain to the retained lands of grantor. Provided, how- ever, grantee shall have no right to develop, pump, extract or divert by either conduits, canals, pumping plants, or other devices, ~ater from the Santa Margarita River and its tribu- taries, and all percolating water. 07-03-91 18034-00001 G: ~)0C\152\91050029.2#O EXHIBIT "A- 1" VICINITY MAP PROJECT Srl'E ~-X~ VICINITY MAP N .T.S. 07-0]-91 18~4-00001 G: ~D0C\152\91050029.2#D EXHIBIT LAND USE PLaN ./ 1 I 07-03-91 18o34-ooool G: XDOC\152\91050029.2ND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California City Associates II This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California City Associates II, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seventy (70) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 700,000 square foot industrial park (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation'of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality industrial-business park creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-0~-91 18046-00001 G: %DOC\152%910500~,0.2NO (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities'districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the. protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements and environmental review. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project Tentative Tract Map No. 24086 shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-Q5-91 18046-00001 G: %DOC\152W1050030.2NO 2 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the'Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or .requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor 07-03-91 18046-00001 G:~)OC\152\91050030.2ND 3 ATTEST: City Clerk, city of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA CITY ASSOCIATES II, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-03-91 18046-00001 (;: ~)0C\152\91050030.2HD 4 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CALIFORNIA CITY ASSOCIATES II, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24086 BEING A DIVISION OF THE FOLLOWING: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 4646, AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. FIRST INSTALLMENT $55,§98.44. SECOND INSTALLMENT 855,598.44. CODE NO. 013-014. ASSESSMENT NO. 909-120-020-1. (BOND AMOUNT INCLUDED) GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. FIRST INSTALLMENT $766.56. SECOND INSTALLMENT 8766.56. CODE NO. 013-061. ASSESSMENT NO. 909-120-021-2. 2. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. 3. MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT BOND, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA. 4. AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC OVER ANY PORTION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN PUBLIC ROADS. 5. AN EASEMENT FOR THE HEREINAFTER SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1939 IN BOOK 434 PAGE 108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SAID EASEMENT IS FOR RIVER CHANNEL AND BANK PROTECTION WORKS, AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHEASTERLY 150.00 FEET OF SAID LAND. 07-03-91 18046-00001 G:~DOC\152\91050030.2NO EXHTBTT "A-:l? VICINITY M~P PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 07-03-91 18046-00001 G: ~)C\ 152\91050G~0.2ND EXHIBIT L~ND USE PLKN 07-0:~-91 180~6- 00001 G: ~XX:\ 152\91050030.2ND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Dairy Associates This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Dairy Associates and Rancho California Dairy Associates #2 as tenants in common, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately eighteen and nine tenths (18.9) acres of unimproved land located in City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with 284 residential condominium units (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. 'The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality condominium-residential development creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-0:5-91 18061-00001 G: %,DOC\152\91050027.2NO (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the.protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project vested tentative map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public'facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be'no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and 07-0~-91 18061-00001 G: %DOC\ 152\91050027.2#l) 2 improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or city Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this.MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor 07-03-91 18061-00001 {~: %00C\152%91050027.2#0 3 ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES #2 as Tenants in Common, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-03-91 18061-00001 {~: ~)0C\152%91050027.2NO 4 EXHTBTT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: RANCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES NO. 2, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 79% INTEREST; AND R~NCHO CALIFORNIA DAIRY ASSOCIATES, A C&LIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AS TO AN URDIVIDED 21% INTEREST, AS. TENANTS ~N COMMON THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN TH~ LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: IN FEE THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TEMECULA. AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL &: PARCELS 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 20278, ON FILE IN BO0~-127 PAGES 35 AND 36 OF PARCEL HAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF PARCEL i OF PARCEL M~P 20278, ON FILE IN BOOK 127 PAGES 35 AND 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECOItDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND THaT PORTION OF LOT 39 OF TRECT NO. 3334, ON FILE IN BOOK 54 PAGES 25 THROUGH 30, IN~USIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, C~LIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ~AID PARCEr. 1~ THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES 08v 49w F.A~T ON ='~ EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL l, 781.25 FEET; T~NCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 09* 35w WEST ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, 653.99 FEET TO ~ SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVINO A RADIUS OF 1,945.00 FEET, SAID CURVE BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA ROAD, 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 20278 A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEING SOUTH 84 DEGREES 41e 40" WEST; THENCE NORTHERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID MARGARITA ROAD 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 20* 06", 113.21 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE ON SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA ROAD 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH NORTH 01 DEGREES 58* 14" WEST, 412.42 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,945.00 FEET; PAGE 2 07-03-91 18061-00001 G: ~X3C\152\910500Z?. 2#D EXHiBiT "~" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 1906329 THENCE NORTHERLY ON SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA RO~D 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH THi~OUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 DEGREES 09" 38", 107.29 FEET; THENCE LF~VING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA RO~D 99.00 FEET IN WIDTH AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 NORTH 76 DEGREE~ 11' 27" EAST, 403.05 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES OS' 49" WEST, 136.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 63 DEGREES 09' 55" WEST, 19.46 FEET TO A POINT ON A (~JRVE CUNCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 5S3.00 FEET AND a RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT ON ~WJRVE BEING SOUTH 18 DEGREES 31~ 25" EAST; T~rv~CE HORTHEASTERLY ON THE ARC OF SA~D CURVE THROU~q:I A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES 17' 58" 94.62 FEET; _ Trance SOtFTH 22 DEGREES 55* 17# WEST, 21.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3.7 DEGREES 08t 49" EAST, 111.12 FEET TO SITD HORST CORNER OF PARCEl, 3., TO THE POIHT OF BEGI. HN'F_NG. AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92, A LIEN NOT YET PAYABLE. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE JUNE 30, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF 98,798.59. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-603-2. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE MAY 31, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF 83,215.82. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-604-3. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 19S9-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE MAY 31, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF 82,860.43. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-605-4. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90. SECOND INSTALLMENT DUE MAY 31, 1991, IN THE AMOUNT OF 83,096.45. ASSESSMENT NO. 050-693-606-5. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. 4o AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY 6 FEET OF SAID LAND. ALSO A 12 FOOT BY 60 FOOT P.U.E. LOCATED WITHIN PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 202?8. (AFFECTS PARCELS A AND B) PAGE 3 07-03-91 18061-00001 G: M)OC\152\91050027. . EXH'rBTT -An DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 07-03-91 18061-00001 G .' \IX}C\ 152\91050027. ~ EXHIBIT "A-l" VICINITY MAP SITE MAP 07-03-91 18061 - 0~)01 G :'~X3C\ 152\91050027.2ND EXHIBIT LAND USE PLAN 07-03-91 18061-00001 G.-~00C\152\91050027. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Spa & Country Club This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Spa & Country Club, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECITALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately three hundred forty-two (342) acres of land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-l" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of 243 residential, 444 condominiums, 260,000 square feet commercial, 200-room hotel and existing golf course land uses (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and. Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-0~5-91 18162-0~X)01 otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality condominium-residential development, hotel-resort and golf courses creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City.. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation'in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may 'process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement 07-03-91 18162-0~)01 ~;: ~)0C\152\910500~. ;~]1) 2 permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan and plot plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 18162-00001 G:\OOC\152\910'30022.2ND 3 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applicatigns for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU,' Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a 6eparate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or 07-03-91 18167.-00001 G: %DOC\152W1050022.~ 4 requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU, CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-03-91 G: ~.DOC\15:~\91050027.~ 5 EXWIBIT ~tAW~ DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL NO. i That portion of Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, and a portion of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California as shown on a Map of the Lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, Page 359, Records of San Diego County, California, PARCEL NO. 2 That portion of Section 13, Township.7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and ~eridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat. on file in the District Land Office thereof, · PARCEL NO. 3 That portion of Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the District Land Office thereof. PARCEL NO. 4 That portion of Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the District Land Office thereof, 07-03-91 18162-00001 G:~DOC\152\91050022.211) EXHTBTT "~ DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 5 That portion. of Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and ~eridian,.and a portion'of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California, as shown on a Map of the Lands. of the. Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, Page 359, Records of San Diego County, California, PARCEL NO. 6 That portion of Section 13, Township 7 south, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of Riverside, State of California, according to the Official Plat on file in the District Land Office thereof, ' PARCEL NO. 7 That portion of Sections 13 and 24, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian and a portion of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California, as shown on a Map of the Lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, Page 359, Records of San Diego County, 07-0.5-91 18162.-00001 G: ~\15Z\910500ZZ.ZI~ EXHIBIT VICINITY MAP i ~flY~f$1~G I!l¢1111/'Y/It/IP 11o ~C~LE 07-03-91 18162-00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050022.2ll) E_Y~IBIT LAND USE PLAN RANCHO CALIFORNIA GOLF CLUB MASTER PLAN 07-03-91 18162-(X)001 G: ~)0C\152\91050022.~1) EXH~'BXT "C" .... LETTER SUPPORTING CITYeS LAFCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: ?AFCO 90-118-1 & 3 ¢Citv of Temecula. Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Rancho California Spa & Country Club, a California limited partnership, is the owner of a 445 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 445 acre Rancho California Spa & Country Club property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: CC' David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: 07-03-91 18162-00001 G: ~)0C\152\910500Z2.2~E) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Ranoho california Spa & Countr~ Club II-1 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-1, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. RECI~AL~ A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately one hundred (100) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of 562 residential units on 50 acres and 364,000 square feet of commercial on 50 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and'Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-03-91 181Z3-00001 G: otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality master planned residential development and commercial center creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property-to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement 07-03-91 1812~-00001 G: ~oc\152\91050024.2N0 2 permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit.against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 181Z3-OOOO1 G: ~DOC\ 152\91050024 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applicatigns for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations-and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent an~ Ci-~Y .agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or 07-0:~-91 181Z]-00001 G: %.1)0C\ 152\91050024.2NO 4 requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEHECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula I~_NCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-1, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-0~-91 18123-00001 G: ~OC\ 152\91050024.2NO 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 13~ THE ONIIK:ORPORATED AREA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COONTY OF HIVERSIDE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~ THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12e TO#~SHIP '/ SOUTH, 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO B~SE AND HERIDIANI RANCE EXCEPTING THEREFROst THE SOOTHWEST QOARTER THEREOF,, PARCEl, THAT POHTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SB~TI(M '2', TOWNSHIP 7 BOOTHe RANGE 2 WESTe'SAN BERNARDINO BASE AI~D XERZDZAI~w LYING WESTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TEMECOLA- #INCHESTER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY '79) 60 FEET HIDE, AS SAID ROAD WAS CONVEYED TO THE OO~HTY OF HIVERSIDEw BY DEED lIECORDED JAN(IARY 13e 1931 IN BOOK 5 PAGE 216 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COOHTYe CALIFORNIA. 07-03-91 181Z3-00001 G: ~c\ 152\91050024 EXHIBIT WWA-l~ VICINITY MAP 07-0~-91 181Z.~-00001 G: M)OC\ 152\91050026 Murrieta . Hot Springs HOT · / Rancho California EXHIBIT USE PLAN 07'-03-91 181Z3-00001 G: ~D0C\152\91050026.2lid EXHIBIT LETTER SUPPORTING CITY'S LAFCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula. Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-1 is the owner of a 100 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 100 acre Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-1 property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-1, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: 07-0~-91 18123-04)04)1 G: ~q~,OC\152\91050024 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Rancho California Spa & country Club II-2 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. E~TALS A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately twenty-four (24) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with' mixed uses consisting of 310 residential dwelling units on 22 acres and 40,000 square feet of commercial use on 2 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and'Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not 07-03-91 20040-00001 G: ~C\152\91050023.2~ otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality residential development and commercial office use creating significant job opportunities and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, city and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement 07-0~-91 ~: ~C\152%9105{X),!3.2.D 2 permit applications to the city for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City ~iling or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the Countyts processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project tentative tract map shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Ownerrs fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property.O.wn~r agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City~s public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-03-91 2~)40 -IX)001 G: ~00C\152~9105007J. 2ND 3 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and. City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or 07-03-91 ~-QQ4~I G: ~DOC\ 152\91050023.2~0 4 requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula .... APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-Z, a California limlted partnership By: Bree, Allen & Kinney, general partner By: By: 07-03-91 2(X)40-00001 (;: %1)0C\ 152\910500Z~. 2NO 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IEGIWING AT T~ HORT~AST C~W ~ LOT 'G' ~Pi, RECORDS ~ RI~IilO[ C~TY, C~IF~NIAI Li~ ~ I*~ LOT 'G', A 0IS~C[ ~ 3O.D0 FEET 10 T~ E0UT~RLY LiE ~ ~11[TA KT SPIJKS I0~ (F~I~Y ~[KC~A HOT SPNI~S m0~) 60.00 fEET VID[, AS ~lO I~ M&L C~YCO I~ ?Z fAG[ 3L&. ~ OFFICl~ R[COR0S ~ IJ~ISi0[ C~Y~ C~1FMNI&, I[ 1~[ ~LO~ SAID S~R&Y LZK M ~RJ[TA ~T T~[ SO~H 7% OCGk[[S &l' OS' EAST, A 01S?KE T~NC[ SO~AST[R~Y ~ A C~ C~A~ ?0 T.~ I~ST 65', ~ ~C'LE~TH OF 32%.~& F[ETI ~NCE I~H 66 DEGRttS 36' iD' EAST, A 016T~% T~[ SOUT~AS1[R~Y ~ A C~.C~A~ TO T~ ARC ~NG~H M ~6.73 PCETI TH~tdCE SOUTH TO A P0fNT IN THE SOUTHERLY 'LINE OF DESIGnTED ~ D[CE~[R 3D, 1~6~ AS INSTReNT NO. 1323&1, t[CMOS C~TV, C~IFORNIA; i OIST~C[ ~]N[ 0F LOT IS T~NCE NORTH ~J~ ~ LOTS 3 T~C[ ~R~H 10 DEGREES 1~' SS' EAST, ~ Y~ LINE 0P LOTS TRACT &&?&, A OIST~C[ 07-0~5-91 G: ~OC\152\91QSQOZ3.224) EXHIBIT VICINITY NAP 07-03-91 G:~\152\91~.~#0 EXHIBIT 07-03-91 G: ~,D0~\152\910~00~S. ~ Z ~ 8 O_ Z # ~:i!i I. il,~ '"~' ~J'i;li: I. ,II,: ;,lld l';II! [ II.lll]lltl][ ,,., IlIIIIIIl]111 USE PLaN · , I LETTER SUPPORTING CITY~S LAFCO SPHERE APPLICRTION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula. Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2 is the owner of a 24 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that this property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members .of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 24 acre Rancho California Spa & Country Club II-2 property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPA & COUNTRY CLUB II-2, a California limited partnership By: Bree, Allen & Kinney, general partner By: By: CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager 07-05-91 G: %DOC\152\910500Z~. ~ MEMORANDUM OF D~RDERSTANDING Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club, a limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately thirty-two (32) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with 193 residential dwelling units (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (#LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the 07-03-91 18059-00001 G: ~00C\152\91050026.2N0 County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality residential development creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastr%/.cture systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all'discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, 07-03-91 18~39- 00001 G: %DOC\152\910500Z6.2~4D 2 specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon. the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided. in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities. districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to 07-03-91 18059-00001 G: ~C:\ 152%91050026.214) 3 issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction. over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City. and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration"for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formatioff 6f assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The.parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing 07~03-91 18059-00001 G: %D0C\152%,91050026.2~0 4 district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, city of Temecula MURRIET~ HOT SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation By: By: 07-Q3-91 18059-00001 G: ~X~C\15Z\9105007.6. ~ 5 EXHIBIT C466853-A Page 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY SCHEDULE C The land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: That portion of Lot 147 of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company, on file in Book 8, Page 359. of Official Records of San Diego County, California, together with that portion of Lincoln Avenue described as a ~hole as follows: Beginning at the tmtersection of the Southwesterly prolongation of the North- westerly l~ne of said Lot 147, with the centerline of L~ncoln Avenue; thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of LincoLn Avenue, 264.00 feet; thence Northeasterly, parallelwith the Northwesterly line of said Lot 147, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, parallel with the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet to the Northwesterly l~ne of said Lot 147; thence Southwesterly, on the Northwesterly line of said LOt 147, 330.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2: That portion of Lot 147 of the Hutrecta Portion ~f the Temecula Rancho, as sho~ra by map entitled: "Hap of Temecula Land and Water Company", on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, Records of San Diego County, California, together with that portion of Lincoln Avenue described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southwesterly prolongation of the North- west boundary line of said Lot 147, with the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 660.00 to the true point of beginning; thence Northeasterly, on a line paralleling the Northwest boundary line of Lot 147, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, on a line paralleling the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet; thence Southwesterly, on a line paralleling the Northwest boundary line of Lot 147, 330.00 feet to its intersection of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; 07-03-91 18059-00001 G: ~X)C\152\91050026 EXHTBTT 853-A Page 6 DESCRTPTZON OF THE PROPERTY thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 264.00 feet to the true point of beginning. PARCEL 3: Lot 147 together ~r~th the underly~ fee title to that portion of Franklin Avenue, Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue that would pass with the conveyance of said land by reference to the recorded map of said tract, of the lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company, as shown by map on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, San DieEo County Records; EXCEPT that portion described as follows: Begt-nt-E at the intersection of the centerline of IAncoln,Avenuevith the Southwesterly prolonEation of the Northwest boundary line of said Lot 147; thence Northeasterly, on sa~d Northwest boundary line of Lot 147 and the said Southwesterly prolongation thereof, 330.00 feet; thence Southeasterly, parallel with the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, 660.00 thence Southwesterly on a line parallel with the Northwest boundary line of said Lot 147 to its intersection with the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; thence Northwesterly on the centerline of Lincoln Avenue to the point of begin- ninE. PARCEL 4: The Northwesterly half of Lot 158 toEether ~r~th the underlyinE fee title to those portions of Franklin Avenue and Hancock Avenue ~hich would pass with the conveyance of said land by reference to the record map of said tract all in Hurrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as sho~n by map of the Temecula Land & Water Company, on file inBook 8, Page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego Coun- ty, California. PARCEL 5: That portion of Lot 158 of the Murrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, toEether with that portion of Elm Street described as a whole as follows: Beginning at a point in the centerline of Elm Street, distant Southwesterly ..... ereon 660.00 feet from its intersection with the centerline of Hancock Ave- e, as shown by said map; thenc%?_So~_q;~hwe~_~,on the centerline of Elm Street, 165.00 feet to a point; G: ~X)C\152\91050026.2~0 EXHIBIT "A" C466853-A Page 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY thence Northwesterly, on a line parallel with the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet to a point; thence Northeasterly on a line parallel with the centerline of Elm Street, 165.00 feet to a point; thence Southeasterly, on a line parallel with the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 6: That portion of Lot 158 of the Hurrieta Portion of the Temecula Rancho, as shown by map of the Temecula Land and Water Company, on file in Book 8,-Ra_ge 359 of Haps, Records of San Diego County, California, together with that por- tion o~ Eh Street described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Hancock Avenue, with the centerline of Elm Street, as shown on said map; thence Southwesterly, on the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly, on the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, parallelwith the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet; thence Northeasterly, parallel with the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet; thence Southeasterly, parallelwith the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet .to the true point of beginning. PARCEL 7: Those portions of Hancock Avenue, Elm Street and Lot 158 of the lands of the Temecula Land and Water Company, as shown by map on file in Book 8, Page 3S9 of Maps, San Diego County Records, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Hancock Avenue and Elm Street, as shown on said map; thence Southwesterly, on the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet; thence Northwesterly, parallel with the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with the centerline of Elm Street, 330.00 feet to a point in the centerline of Hancock Avenue; 07-03-91 18059- 00001 G ?d)OC\ 152\91050026.2~O EXHIBIT ~-~6853-A Page 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY thence Southeasterly, on the centerline of Hancock Avenue, 660.00 feet, to the point of beginning. PARCEL 8: Lot 187 of Murrieta portion of the Temecula Rancho in the County of R~verside, State of California, as shownby the map of the Temecula Land and Water Compa- ny, recorded in Book 8, Page 359 of Haps, in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. EXCEPT that portion lying North of the division line extending in an Easterly direction through Lots 172, 171, 176, 177, 188, 187, 190 and 191, and more particularly shown on a map of a portion of the Murrieta Subdivision of_~he Temecula Rancho, adjoining the property of the Hurrieta Hot Springs, as - re-surveyed by Kingsbury Sanburn in January, 1907, and on file in Book 5, Page 184 of Haps, Records of Riverside County, California. ALSO EXCEPT that portion described as follows: Beginning at a point on the centerline of ~lton Street, Northwest 860.00 feet from the centerline of Date Street. =nce Northeast 220.00 feet, parallelwith said centerline of Date thence Northwest 215.00 feet, parallel with said centerline of Hamilton Street. thence Southwest 220.00 feet, parallelwith said centerline of Date Street to said centerline of Hamilton Street. thence Southeast 215.00 feet on last said'center~ine to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT that portion described in the deed to VUWest Communications, a California corporation recorded June 25, 1986 as Instrument No. 146634, de- scribed as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Clinton Avenue and Date Street, as shown on Record of Survey filed in Book 58, Pages 75 through 83 inclusive, Records of Riverside Countyl thence, North 41049'56" Nest on the centerline of Clinton Avenue 652.4? feet to a point on the Division Line as shown by said Record of Survey, said point being described as Point "A" for this description; thence, on said Division Line, North 87~32'30" Nest 80.75 feet; thence leaving said Division Line, South 02°27'30" Nest 156.71 feet to the true ~ 'int of beginning; thence, South 26°12'13" East, 101.40 feet; 07-0]-91 180S~-00001 G:~)0C\152~1~0026.2#0 EXHIBIT "A" 3466853-A Page 9 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY :heuce, South 63°47'47" West 101.40 feet; thence, North 26°12'13" West 101.40 feet; thence, North 63Q47'47" East 101.40 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPT from Parcels I through 8 above, all mineral, oil and gas rights below the depth of 200.00 feet below the surface of said landwithout the right of surface entry, as reserved by Kaiser Development Company, a California corpora- tion in deed recorded June 27, 1986 as Instrument No. 150003. 07-03-91 18059-00001 G: ~,00C\152\91050026 E_~q~IBTT "&" DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The land referred to in this policy is $iCuated in the County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: Parcel 2 of Parcel Hap 14395, as shown by Hap on file in Book 121 pages 77-78 of Parcel Haps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Said land is located in the Unincorporated area of Riverside County. The land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: Parcel I of Parcel Hap 14395, as sho~n by Hap on file in Book 121 pages 77-78 of Parcel Haps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Said land is located in the Unincorporated area of Riverside County. 07-Q3-91 18111-00001 G: V)OC\ 152\910500T1.2ll) EXHTBTT "A- 1" VICINITY MAP ,t 1. Library School 2. Chambel 3. Mimicipal Court Admi.. ~ Rancho ~ 3. .~ ~ hzlornmlion ~i " Center TEl California " Plaza Fire Sia. '.llL/~ bUSINESS DISTI ICT 0 114 1/2 SCALE ' t MILE Copyright ~{, 1988 by Sullivan Publications Inc. MORAGA on. TEMECULA Center Pest Scm'~ Lksmc~ ¢~e. Indicates Traffic SignalsJ ,NCHO !RNIA ZIP CODE 92390 C~SR/LLO P,~;,- RD. > 29800 To Aguanga 07-03-91 18111-00001 G: UXX:\152\91050033.2ND i !! 't (~) ~ ~- ~,., ........, .....-,-,-~;- .....,.,~.,_ I ~. ® ® ® J J: I JJ . _' ( CHERRY 07-03-91 ;$22 ?e' ~.: EXHIBI'T V~C~N~TY I V1¢11~111'7 ifil,o 07-03-91 18359-00001 G: ~(~(:\1S2\91050026.2NO ..... EXHTBTT ~B~ LAND USE PLAN 07-Q3-91 18059-00001 G: ~DOC\I 5:'\910500?.6.214D EX~[BIT "C" LETTER SUPPORTING CITY~S L~FCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula, Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club is owner of a 32 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 32 acre Murrieta Hot Springs Country Club property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation By: CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: 07-03-91 18059-00001 G: ~XX:\152\91050026. ZNO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Murrieta Springs This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Murrieta Springs, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. R~CITALS_ A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately seven hundred (700) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of a maximum of 2,140 residential units on 500 acres, 600,000 square feet of commercial on 60 acres, a 200-room hotel and golf course, and 1.4 million square feet of industrial on 140 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is .attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such 07-03-91 18174-00001 G: ~00C\152\91050020 as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality master planned residential development, hotel-resort, commercial and industrial park and golf courses creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these 07-0~-91 1817&-00001 G: %D(X:\152\910500~). 2~D 2 entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City .in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With'regards to ~esidential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or 07-03-91 1817&-O4X~01 G: %DOC\152%91050(k~O. ZI~ 3 acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and city understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal 07-0]-91 18174-00001 G:\DOC\152\9105002G.211) 4 procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California munioipal oorporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula MURRIET& SPRINGS, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-03-91 18174-00001 G: ~DCX:\152\91050020.2l~ 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY land reierr~d to in this policy t~ situated %n the State of PARC~ 1: ' The Horth half of Section 12, Tornship 7 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Her~d~an .... . PAR~ 2: . ~e l~rth~st q~rter o~ Section 70 T~h%p 7 Southe h~e 2 Vest, Be~Ed~ rase a~ Her~ianl . ' · B~X~ at '{ha ~ort~&ast co=~r of sam Hort~es~ qua~er[ .... '" ~E ~utbrlyo on tb beverly' l~ue of ~ ~rt~est ~tter, 2660.~ feet, to t~ South~st co~r ~f uM Hott~est T~'~E ~aster~y0 on t~.Southe~X~ l~ of ~ No~t~st quarter, 23~X.20 feet to ~ c~ter X~ne o~ the ~rU~ Yarce~ of h~ to the ~un~ ~ ~vetslde by ~ r~or~d H~m~F ~o X920 ~ 722 ~ie ~2L o~ b~, Records o~ Riverede Count, ~Xtfor~a~ T~K l~rLh X2° 23e 3~ hat, 2713.73 feet, to a ~lnt In tile ~ortherXy ~%ue o~ sa~ Hottest ~rter ~%ch bears ~estet~y ~705.7 feet fr~ Hurtbeast corner thereof; THREE hateFly, on the Uortherly lLne of sl~ ~rt~est quarter, 1705.7 feet, to the Potut of ~0 ~~ therefr~ t~t ~rt~n con~yed to the County of ttve~e by De~ recorded ~r ~, 1929 in Bud= 722 ~ge 421 ot b~s, t~cords o~ R~vers~e County, ~0 ~~ therefr~ t~t ~r~ion c~wyed to tbe County of Riverede by ~ed recor~d.Jand~ 13, 1931 ~n B~ 5 pale 216 of Official Records ~0 ~lNG there~r~ t~t ~rtLon conwyed to the State of by De~ recorded Ja~ 5, 1977 as Z~t~nt Ho. 1852 of Official Recor~ of Rlvets~e County, ~0 ~C~ therefr~ t~t ~rtiou decried as fol~s~ B~G at the ~nt of ~nte~ectlon of the Hortherly prolon~ation of that certain ~ne de~r~d TH~E South ~2~ 23t 30" ~est, X~95 ~eet, ~re or less, to the at the South ~Xne of the Hort~est quarter of sa~d Section 7", %n ~e~ -to th~ ~ounty o~ R~vers~de recorded November ~3, ~929 ~n ~o~ 722 page ~2~ o~ ~eds, ~cords o~ R~vers~de County, ~X~forn%ao v~th the l:orth lXne of saxd S~ction 7, sold ~lnt ~tn~ d~stant-~]ong sa~d Uorth line of sa~ Section 70 said ~nt beln~ distant along said North line South 89e ~ ~" ~st, 1227.95 feet ft~ a one and onequarter ~nch (1 iron pipe turktug the Ilort~est co~er of said Section 71 T;~EI:I:: ~lons,' i~id Northerl~ prolongation South J2* ~ 04" ~t, i}~,~ feet; TII~E ~r~herly, alon~ ~ cu~e. con.re Easterly and hav~n~ u radius of a.sle of 5' 12t 32", a ~lstance of ~59.~6 feet to said North line ot Section 7; TEElEE alon8 sa~ l/orth line, North 89* 49' 55" Uest, 90.39 ~eet to the Poznc oi Beginning. 07-0~-91 1817~- 00001 G: U)OC\152\91050020 VICINITY MAP SUBJECT SITE'-" ! · ' ~;' : .... /'%: ::;' ..-.'~ :; 't ~ (. ,\ ~g--' ~, '~" 'A:"- wINCHESTER PROPERTIES '.,,/~ ', , .~'... ~ -, .... , · . . 07-0..T-91 18174-00(X)1 G: ~!XX:\152\91 E~IBIT L,a. ND USE PL]tN 1 10.0 ACJ H 27.5 4 MH 12 BP 28.3 M 418 AC. 8 16.6 AC. · ~ . r- 10 '%~o.3 ac// /? ,~;, ,,.,,c. PREPAREO FOR: ,JOHNSON & JOHNSON PROPERTIES 07-03-91 18174-00001 ~;: ~x)c\ 152\91050020.2ll) EXHTBTT LETTER SUPPORTING CITyIS L]tFCO SPHERE APPLICATION , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula. Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Murrieta Springs, a California limited partnership, is the owner of a 700 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside on Winchester Road across from French Valley Airport. We have received notice from the City of Temecula that our property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of.LAFCO of our support for the inclusion of the 700 acre Murrieta Springs property within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. Very truly yours, MURRIETA SPRINGS, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: CC: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager By: 07-03-91 181Z4-(XX)01 G: ~D0C\15:~\9105002~. 21l) KE~o~U~ OF UNDERST~rDZN~ I~S Ranchi~os Estates This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("city") and Los Ranchitos Estates, a California limited partnership ("Property Owner-) to be effective as of Ju~e 11, 1991. A. Property Owner is the fee owner of.approximately thirty (30) acres of unimproved land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-l" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with a 350,000 square feet of highway scenic commercial land uses (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue,'public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the city. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property owner contemplated by sUCh development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality highway scenic commercial center creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share, cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-10-91 1~07~-(}~)01 G: ~[X~C\ 1§2\91050028.3RI) (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the. protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements and environmental review. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project plot plan and zone change shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair sha~e cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. 4. Upon the'request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged 07-0~-91 1807'5-00001 G: ~OC\152\910500Z8.2~O 2 that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring city or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) amendment of the City's zoning ordinances; and (ii) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor 07-03-91 18073- 00001 G: ~DOC\152\91050028.2HO 3 ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula LOS RANCHITOS ESTATES, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: By: 07-03-91 18073-00001 G: ~C\152%91050028.2ll) 4 EXHIBIT minAram DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 6813, in the County of Riverside, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 23, Pages 25 and 26 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. 07-03-91 18073-00001 G: ~3C\152\91050028.2NO EXHIBIT wl~-lWE VICINITY MAP VICINITY NAP 07-03-91 18073-00001 G: ~0C\152\91050028.2N0 I~HO~UH OF UNDERBT~DING Rancho V~aqe ~ssociates This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOb") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Rancho Village Associates, a limited partnership ("Property Owner") to be effective as o~ June 11, 1991. A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately thirty (30) acres of land located in the City as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of 136 residential units on 11 acres and 250,000 square foot office use on 20 acres (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. city and Property Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City. The benefits and impacts to the city and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality residential development and office park creating ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. 07-10-91 C:~J)0C\152\91050033.3i~) (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the. protection of significant natural resources. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements and environmental review. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project plot plan and zone change shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 2. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 3. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in a development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development~ the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 4. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or 07-03-91 18111-00001 G:~3C\152\9105003'3.2~D 2 acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring city or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 5. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner shall use their best efforts to enter into a development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving a development agreement. 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (ii) the formation'of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to. the Property. 07-0.]-91 18111-00001 G: ~,DOC\ 152\910500-'.'.'.'.'.~]. 2NI) 3 WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: city Attorney, City of Temecula RANCHO VILLAOE ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership By: Johnson + Johnson Development Corporation, general partner By: 07-03-91 18111-00001 G: ~D0C\152\91050033.2fid 4 EXHIBIT 07-03-91 18111-00001 G:~)OC\152\910500..T3.Z. NO