Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - Agenda Packets - Regular Meeting 3/20/2003
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL • March 20, 2003, 7:00 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California 1. ORGANIZATION 1 .1 Call to Order 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Invocation — Pastor Bob Sauder, Faith Tabernacle, San Jacinto 1.4 Pledge of Allegiance 1.5 Special Presentations 1.5.1 Proclamation presented to Museum Curator Phil Brigandi / Approve 1.5.2 Proclamation presented to CASA (Center Against Sexual • Assault) declaring April 2003 National Sexual Assault Prevention Month / Approve 1.5.3 Business Spotlight of the Month / Economic Development Specialist 1.5.4 Proclamation declaring April Child Abuse Prevention Month / Approve 1 .5.5 Recognition of Estudillo Mansion Volunteers / Redevelopment Operations Manager 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Now is the time for the public to address the Council on any subject within the jurisdiction of the City Council not listed on the agenda. A recap of the nonagendized comments will be addressed under item number 2.1 during the City's second regular meeting of the month. 2.1 City Manager's Public Comments Report • 3.0 PUBLIC HEARING 3.1 Ordinance No. 03-03 /An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the City Council Agenda March 20, 2003 Page 2 of 5 Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation • Fee (TUMF) Program / Introduce and Approve first reading of Ordinance No. 03-03 and by motion move to read by title only: Ordinance No. 03-03 /An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program / Community Development Director (Public Copy available at Clerk's office) 3.2 Planning Amendment 3-02 / Ordinance No. 03-04 /An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, adding Section 13.04 (16), Pet/Small Animal Crematory, to the San Jacinto Zoning Ordinance No. 340 / Adopt Negative Declaration / Introduce Ordinance No. 03-04 for First Reading of Ordinance 03- 04 and by motion read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, adding Section 13.04 (16), Pet/Small Animal Crematory, to the San Jacinto Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.340 • / Community Development Director 3.3 Planning Zone Change 4-02 / Ordinance No. 03-05 /An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, Approving Change of Zone 4-02, Re-Zoning Certain Properties located generally on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue between Seventh Street and the Riverside4 County Flood Control Channel from "A" (Agriculture and "R-1" (One-Family Residential) to "R-1 (One- Family Residential / Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration / Introduce Ordinance No. 03-05 for First Reading and by motion read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, approving change of Zone 4-02, Re-Zoning Certain Properties Located Generally on the West Side of Santa Fe Avenue between Seventh Street and the Riverside County Flood Control Channel from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-1" (One-Family Residential to "R-1" (One-Family Residential) / Community Development Director 4. CITY DEPARTMENTS 1111 City Council Agenda March 20, 2003 Page 3 of 5 4.1 Resolution No. / A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, Approving the Applicant to Apply for Grant • Funds for the Per Capita Grant Program Under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 / Approve / Community Development Director 4.2 Resolution No. /A Resolution Of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System And The City Council Of The City Of San Jacinto / Approve / Human Resource Coordinator 5. CONSENT CALENDAR The matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion by City Council Members in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the motion unless members of the City Council, staff or the public requests a specified item be removed and/or discussed. Anyone wishing to discuss a consent calendar item should come forward upon invitation of the Mayor; state their name, address and the consent calendar item number. Speakers should limit comments to three (3) minutes. 5.1 Warrant Register for Warrants, Prepaid Checks, and Payroll • Checks Period Ending 03/20/03 / Approve / Finance Director 5.2 February 27, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes / Approve / City Clerk 5.3 March 6, 2003 Minutes / Approve / City Clerk 5.4 Implementation Plan II / Receive and File / City Manager 5.5 Final Tract Map 30688 / Osborne Development Corporation West of Las Rosas Driver between Shaver and Evans Street / Approve and Authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement and Final Map / City Engineer Meeting recesses to consider the Redevelopment Agency Agenda. win the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. Regular Meeting resumes following p g Y g 6. MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS • 6.1 Committee and/or Agency Agendas / Receive and File / City Clerk g Y 9 City Council Agenda March 20, 2003 Page 4 of 5 7. CLOSED SESSION • 7.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Number of cases: Two Cases 7.2 Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager 7.3 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS California Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Vacant Land — Assessor's Parcel No 431-040-027-9 Agency Negotiator: Habib Motlagh Negotiating Parties: Ming Cheung Wong Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 7.4 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS California Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Vacant Land — Assessor's Parcel No 431-040-052 Agency Negotiator: Habib Motlagh Negotiating Parties: Calvin L. and Deborah F. Smith • Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 7.5 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS California Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Vacant Land — Assessor's Parcel No 431-040-032-3 Agency Negotiator: Habib Motlagh Negotiating Parties: Two Pac Company Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 8. ADJOURNMENT CHALLENGE TO LAND USE DECISIONS: Any person seeking to challenge a decision regarding land use made by the City Council as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that action 90 days following the date on which the decision of the City Council becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Please refer to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes final. It is the intention of the City of San Jacinto to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, or in meetings on a regular basis, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will • attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact City Hall at (909) 487- 7330, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. City Council Agenda March 20, 2003 Page 5 of 5 I, (Dorothy L. CFiouinard, City Clerkof the City of San Jacinto, do hereby certify that I caused to 6e • posted the foregoing agenda this 14th day of Karch, 2003 as required by law. • • 1 particularly for those who do not have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. For the purpose of quantifying existing and future transit trips in Western Riverside County, the SCAG RTP Model3 trip table outputs for transit trips between each of the 6 Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) in Western Riverside County were summarized for 1997 and 2025. The aggregated transit person trips internal to Western Riverside County were increased proportionately to reflect the estimated transit trips in 2000, and were then compared with the 2025 forecast to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The SCAG RTP Model trip table outputs indicate that regional transit services currently accommodate approximately 13,300 trips per day in Western Riverside County. By 2025, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 43,000 trips per day, an increase of 32,300 trips per day or 223%. SCAG RTP Model trip table outputs for transit person trips in the WRCOG region are summarized in Appendix C. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all transportation infrastructure. The need to provide additional transit services to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand, 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip -making extends beyond the local community, and contributes to the need for transportation improvements in other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve longer - distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (using TUMF revenues from the entire region), a second portion for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips (using TUMF revenues from the communities served by these roads — in effect, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds), and a final portion for improvements to the public transportation infrastructure (using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip -making is generated by residential development — when people move into new homes, they add trips to the transportation system. Some of the new trips are generated by activities associated with businesses — other than commute trips, these travel demands are not attributable to residential development. The different sources of new 3 The SCAG CTP Model is a highway only model and does not account for transit trips. The SCAG RTP Model incorporates both highway and transit modes and was used as the basis for determining existing and future transit trips. The SCAG CTP Model is derived from the SCAG RTP Model. WRCOG 10 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 travel demand led to the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: • A uniform fee will be levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. • A fee will be assessed on new residential and non-residential development. • A portion of the fee will be used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee will be returned to the area in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee will be used to fund improvements to the public transportation infrastructure within the region. WRCOG 11 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4.0 THE TUMF SYSTEM 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system, and represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements, The Regional System of Highways and Arterials does NOT include the freeways of Western Riverside County. The TUMF roadway network is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and that would be eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds, The Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County (also referred to as the TUMF Network) was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines, specifically the following: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build - out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day by 2025. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.82 (LOS E) or greater in 2025. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix D includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that satisfied the respective guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by the TUMF Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and Appendix D. WRCOG 12 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 f LEGEND Ultimate Number of Lanes 2 Lanes 9 Lanett ap� li Lanes 8 Lanes In s e rchang 1-320,000,000 2 - $10,000,000 3 - S2,000,600 Railroad Crossings }gy 1-54,500,000 per lane 0 2- S2,250,000 per lane V Bridges Freeways "Sc:r Railroad Lines City Boundaries WRCOG Boundary (Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8 Regional System of Highways & _ Arterials` 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network The TUMF roadway network was further refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at ultimate build - out', extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts (APD — the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area) or zones, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2025. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee would be specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The Backbone Network is illustrated in Figure 4.2 and in Appendix E. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF fee would be specifically designated for improvements projects on the secondary network in the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3 and Appendix E. ° Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at ultimate buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF program (2025). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF program. WRCOG 14 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 LEGEND Backbone Network Alt Route Regional TUMF Network ..:r Freeways Streets & Roads ^+.., Zone Boundaries SCity Boundaries WRGOG Boundary 0 1 2 Miles e LEGEND Recommended Networl Backbone Network Alt Route ttiNer Zone Boundaries Freeways Streets & Roads F' ,J WRCOG Boundary kes & Rivers LFLF Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8 si Figure 4. 4.3 Future Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the Network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)5, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates6 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998, Using the RACE cost estimates, initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF Network were developed and inflated to reflect an increase of 2.7%, which is the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the year 2000. A copy of the RACE cost estimate methodology and the ENR Construction Cost Index are included in Appendix F. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates (included in Appendix F) and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF program. A peer review workshop meeting was held to review the unit cost estimates. The workshop was held at the RCTC offices on June 19, 2002 with representatives of WRCOG, local jurisdictions and the BIA in attendance. The explicit purpose of this peer review workshop was the review of the unit cost estimates, leading to the evaluation of recently completed or recently bid road projects in Western Riverside County and consideration of a unit cost sensitivity analysis completed by the Keith Companies. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. A table detailing the initial unit cost estimates and the recommended revisions from the peer review workshop is included in Appendix F. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs (which includes consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs) were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses — code 1), suburban (developed residential uses — code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses — code 3) land uses, 5 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 6 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 17 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 respectively. Similarly, interchange improvement costs were varied to account for differing levels of improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development at interchange locations on the TUMF network. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were varied to account for variations in cost associated with new (or fully reconstructed - code 1), major (or partially reconstructed - code 2) or minor (individual ramp improvements - code 3) interchange improvements. Table 4.1 summarizes the cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate. Cost estimates are provided in Year 2000 values. TABLE 4.1 UNIT COSTS FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION Improvement Types (Code) Estimated Unit Cost Description Construction Terrain - Level (1) $550,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Construction Terrain --- Rolling (2) $850,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Construction Terrain Mountainous (3) $1,150,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain ROW LandUse - Urban (1) $900,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas ROW LandUse - Suburban (2) $420,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas ROW LandUse - Undeveloped (3) $240,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile undeveloped areas Interchange - New (1) $20,000,000 New Interchange/Interchange modification total cost Existing Interchange - Major (2) $10,000,000 Interchange improvement total cost Existing Interchange -- Minor (3) $2,000,000 Minor interchange improvement cost Bridge (1) $2,000 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot Railroad Grade Separation New (1) $4,500,000 New Rail Grade Separation per lane Railroad Grade Separation Existing (2) $2,250,000 Existing Rail Grade Separation per lane Intersection (1) $300,000 Upgrade existing network -to -network intersection Planning 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs Engineering 25% Project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs Contingency 10%Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. The consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 18 Revised October 18, 2002 The consolidated list of proposed improvements and associated initial cost estimates established the baseline of improvements for further development of the TUMF program. A comprehensive review process involving WRCOG, regional Public Works Directors, local developers, The Keith Companies and Urban Crossroads (retained by the BIA) was established to review the proposed network of improvements and unit costs assumptions used to estimate the cost of the system. This process was completed in nine workshops, including the unit cost assumption workshop described previously. An initial workshop was held on June 6, 2002 to discuss the proposed improvements. At this meeting it was agreed that a series of five peer review workshop meetings would be held to simplify the review of the consolidated list of improvements and associated costs. One peer review workshop meeting was held for each of the five zones in the WRCOG region, with meetings held at the Riverside County Assessors Office between June 27, 2002 and July 18, 2002. The peer review workshop meetings involved representatives from WRCOG, the respective zone jurisdictions, local developers and BIA consultants. Model plots identifying levels of service, volume to capacity ratios and total daily volumes for both 2025 and build -out, were used by the group to specifically review each segment of roadway identified within the zone and the associated improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development. Any recommendation to change the proposed network required affirmation by consensus of the group. The series of five peer review workshop meetings culminated in the development of a revised list of proposed network improvements and associated cost more accurately reflecting the improvements necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. The revisions recommended through the five peer review workshops were confirmed at a follow-up workshop meeting held on July 18, 2002 and were forwarded to the TUMF TAC for endorsement. Some of the recommended changes applying to all workshops were: 1) those facilities that were either currently under construction or known to be under construction within six months, were reduced by the known improvement being made; 2) a third category for interchange improvements was applied; 3) a second category for at -grade rail crossing separations was applied; and 4) bridges were calculated by linear feet. A final workshop was held for all City and County representatives, local developers and BIA consultants in conjunction with the TUMF TAC to review and endorse the network and unit cost recommendations from the preceding workshops. The full TUMF TAC, which includes private sector representatives, subsequently endorsed the recommended changes at the workshop meeting held on August 8, 2002. The peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. The BIA consultants have continued to participate in the process of developing the TUMF program as full members of the TUMF TAC. Eligible improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; WRCOG 19 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at -grade railroad crossings; 8. Expansion of existing Network -to -Network intersections. All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. The estimated total cost to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the TUMF network is approximately $3.07 billion with this cost including all planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs. The cost of improvements in each component of the TUMF Network is as follows: Backbone system: $1.27 billion (39.1%) Secondary system: $1.73 billion (53.4%) Intersection Improvements: $0.07 billion (2.1%) The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Appendix F, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF program. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter -community trips is generally provided in the form of public transit bus services and in particular express bus services between strategically located community transit centers. Transit needs to serve future travel in Western Riverside County via public transit bus were provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) based on the RTA Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Legislative Program and the RTA Connections Long Range Strategic Plan (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, November 17, 1999). The identified public transit needs include transit centers, bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements to develop express bus service within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF program as they typically serve longer inter -regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter -regional highway system. Cost estimates were developed for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers, bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus service within the region. The transit unit cost data derived from the RTA Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Legislative Program, the SCAG Draft 2001 RTP Cost Estimation Methodology, the RTA Connections Long Range Strategic Plan (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, November 17, 1999), and RTA Transit Capital Costs: Regional Benefits (September 2002) are shown in Table 4.2. The same percentage factors used for the TUMF network cost estimate were added for planning, engineering, and contingency costs associated with transit capital improvement projects. WRCOG 20 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 4.2 UNIT COSTS FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Improvement Types Estimated Unit Cost Description Transit Center $6,000,000 Construct transit center. Bus stop upgrade $10,000 Upgrade amenities at bus stops. Regional transit capital expenditure. $540,000 Capital costs per mile for express bus service. Express bus vehicle acquisition $325,125 Cost per vehicle for regional express bus service vehicle fleet. The estimated total cost for future transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $173 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Appendix F. 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County was asked to review their current multi -year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix F. A total of $108.8 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system, The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter - community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. The cost of unfunded existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that currently operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F, with a volume/capacity ratio greater than 0.82) and do not have sufficient obligated funds available to complete necessary improvements. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the WRCOG 21 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 overall system improvement cost, estimating the share of the roadway segment that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and adjusting the estimated cost to reflect the relative share and the availability of obligated funding, where appropriate. The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs totals $259.9 million. Appendix F includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $66.3 million representing 38.3% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix F includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. The total cost of the unfunded existing improvement needs is $326.2 million. Since these improvements are needed to provide for existing needs, their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. WRCOG 22 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 5.0 NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for improvements on the TUMF system, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points bring together this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Under current plans, the population is projected to grow from a current level of 1.2 million to a future level of over 2.2 million in 2025, while employment is projected to grow from a current level of 371,000 to a future level of over 800,000. (as shown in Table 2.3) ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since long-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at -grade rail crossings, or expansion of intersections where two network roads intersect. The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined in the future as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. WRCOG 23 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 A Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter -community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an option to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and public transportation infrastructure. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones, to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the forecast year 2025 trip tables from the SCAG CTP Model created for CETAP and provided by Transcore. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the traffic analysis zones in the model and the cities located with in the WRCOG Region. The TAZs for each city were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix G includes the detailed SCAG CTP model outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile. WRCOG 24 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 5.1 2025 FORECAST -- VEHICLE TRIPS BY WRCOG ZONE TO DISTRICT FROM DISTRICT Northwest Central Pass Area Hemet / San Jacinto Southwest Outside Western Riverside County TOTAL Northwest Central 681 62 40,8 7_ 1,488 407,206 87,789 2,058,578 1,018,275 Pass Area Hemet / San Jacinto Southwest 18,557' 11 061 486,309 ' r 24,479 61,942 27,992 111,325 447,109 604,136 1,109,952 Outside Western Riverside County 413,311 90,019 61,381 27,951 111,328 703,990 TOTAL 2,065,631 1,022,531 446,566 603,094 1,107,964 696,254 5,942,040 *Based on SCAG Comprehensive T ansportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore, TABLE 5.2 2025 FORECAST -- PERCENT VEHICLE TRIPS BY WRCOG ZONE TO DISTRICT FROM DISTRICT Northwest Central Pass Area Hemel / San Jacinto Northwest 72.13 , .4% Central Pass Area Hemet / San Jacinto Southwest Outside Western TOTAL Riverside County 19.8 % 8.6% 13.9% 4.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Southwest 0, 10.0% 100.0% *Based on SCAG Comprehensive T ansportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the Backbone and Secondary highway networks. Vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter -regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane -miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The Backbone network includes approximately 41% of the lane -miles on the future TUMF system, and the Secondary network includes approximately 59% of the lane -miles. The Backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter -zonal trips plus 41% of the intra- zonal trips. The Secondary network is assigned 59% of the intra-zonal trips and none of the WRCOG 25 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 inter -zonal trips. The overall result is that 49.9% of the regional travel is assigned to the Backbone network and 50.1% is assigned to the Secondary network. TABLE 5.3 BACKBONE -SECONDARY NETWORK SHARE CALCULATION CALCULATION VALUE DESCRIPTION Total Western Riverside County Vehicle Trips INPUT VALUES 5,942,040 ess Internal/External Vehicle Trips - 1,400,244 Total Vehicle Trips Internal to Western Riverside Count Vehicle Trips Between Area Planning Districts (from Table 6) Vehicle Trips Within Area Planning Districts (from Table 6) Network Lane -Miles 4,541,796 666,184 3,875,612 3,612 BACKBONE VALUE 1,492 BACKBONE SHARE 41.3% SECONDARY VALUE 2,120 SECONDARY SHARE 58.7% Vehicle Trips within APDs (as share of intra-APD trips) Vehicle Trips between APDs 3,875,612 666,184 1,600,889 666,184 41.3% 100.0% 2,274,723 0 58.7% 0.0% Total Vehicle Trips Assigned 4,541,796 2,267,073 49.9% 2,274,723 50.1 % 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments In order to establish the rough proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, SCAG CTP model 2025 person trip productions were reported by trip purpose. The SCAG CTP model produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes including home -to - work (H-W), home -to -shop (H-S), home -to -other (H-0), other -to -work (0-W), and other -to -other (0-0). Person trip productions were aggregated into home -based person trips (combining the first three purposes) and non -home -based person trips (combining the last two purposes). The home -based person trips represent 69.8% of the total future person trips, and the non - home -based person trips represent 30.2% of the total future person trips as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix H includes the SCAG CTP model outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. WRCOG 26 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 5.4 PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION: RESIDENTIAL VS. NON-RESIDENTIAL PERSON TRIP PURPOSE PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION VOLUME PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION SHARE Home -Work 901,457 13.9% Home -Shop 624,998 9.7% Home -Other 2,988,849 46.2% Other -Work 619,362 9.6% Other -Other 1,334,156 20, 6% TOTAL 6,468,822 100.0% Home -Based Trips (Residential Uses) 4,515,304 69.8% Non -Home -Based Trips (Non -Residential Uses) 1,953,518 30.2% Eased on SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. WRCOG 27 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.24 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $108.8 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $326.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs ($2.81 billion) is attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users can be assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.81 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 69.8% ($1.96 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 30.2% ($848.1 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $1.96 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2025, the fee must be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between now and 2025. The projected residential growth from year 2000 to 2025 is approximately 317,700 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.1. Clearly, different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between single-family and multi -family dwelling units, the TUMF fee was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. According to the SCAG 2020 Socioeconomic Data for Western Riverside County included in Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 76.5% of the residential dwelling units in the region in 2020. This reflects a very slight increase in the single-family unit share from the SCAG 2000 Socioeconomic Data, also included in Appendix B, which indicates single-family dwelling units currently constitute 76.3% of all residential dwelling units in the region. Based on a continuation of the trend between the SCAG 2000 and 2020 Socioeconomic Data, it is estimated that single-family dwelling units will constitute 76.5% of the residential dwelling units in Western Riverside County in 2025. This means that by 2025 approximately 243,030 units of future new residential development in the region will be single-family dwelling units, and approximately 74,660 will be multi -family dwelling units. Data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.57 vehicle trips per WRCOG 28 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments generate 6.63 vehicle trips per unit per day7. If the fees are to be weighted in proportion to the trip generation characteristics of the units, single- family residential units should be assigned a fee level that is 1.44 times the level of the fee assigned to each multi -family unit to levy the necessary $1.96 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Appendix 1 includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. TABLE 6.1 RESIDENTIAL FEE CALCULATION RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 2000 Dwelling Units 2025 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Change Trip Generation Rate Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Fee/DU Single -Family 308,860 551,892 243,031 9.57 2,325,810 82,5% $6,650 Multi -Family 94,879 169,535 74,657 6.63 494,974 17.5% $4,607 TOTAL 403,739 721,427 317,688 2,820,784 100.0% Household data based on SCAG 2001RTP and CETAP; Trip Generation based on ITE (1997). 6.2 Non -Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $848.1 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2000 and 2020 Socioeconomic Data included in Appendix B. The relative allocation between sectors in 2020 was then applied to the 2025 CETAP forecasts to estimate 2025 employment by sector. From the 2025 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee developed by SCAG in its Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, August 20, 1990) and OCTA in its Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (June 2001). Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non- residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix J. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non-residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, and were assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial — 3.0 trips per employee, Retail — 13.0 trips per employee, Service — 5.5 trips per employee, and Public — 12.0 trips per employee. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip -making, and the S848.1 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non- residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new Based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook other types of multi -family residential development have trip generation characteristics similar to apartments. WRCOG 29 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. TABLE 6.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE CALCULATION NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Employment Change Trip Generation Rate per Em.lo ee Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Change in Square Feet of Gross Floor Area Fee/SF Industrial 98,276 3.0 294,828 9.5% 55,867,287 $1.45 Retail 91,560 13.0 1,190,286 38.5% 41,859,539 $7.81 Service 197,429 5.5 1,085,857 35.1% 61,559,537 $4.84 Government/Public Sector 43,223 12.0 518,676 16.8% 19,210,219 $7.41 TOTAL 430,488 3,089,647 100.0% 178,498,582 Employment Change data based on SCAG 2001 RTP and CETAP; Trip Generation based on ITE (1997); Change i 1 Square Peet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990) and OCTA (2001). Although mitigation fees for non-residential uses are typically established on a per square foot basis, it is recognized that some participating jurisdictions currently impose mitigation fees on a per acre basis for non-residential uses. In order to provide jurisdictions with an alternative fee structure to ensure consistency with the collection of mitigation fees through pre-existing fee programs, the fee per square foot for each sector was converted to a fee per acre using floor area ratio (FAR) conversion factors derived from the Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, August 20, 1990). A worksheet showing the development of the FAR conversion factors for each non-residential use is included in Appendix J. Table 6.3 summarizes the conversion of the non-residential fee per square foot to a fee per acre for each use sector. TABLE 6.3 NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE CONVERSION NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Average FAR Average SF/Acre Fee/SF Fee/Acre Industrial 0.23 9,840 $1.45 $94,255 Retail 0.33 14,506 $7.81 $113,227 Service 0.50 21,775 $4.84 $105,436 Government/Public Sector n/a n/a $7.41 $1 1 2,191 FAR conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990); Employment per acre conversion factors not available for Government/Public Sector category. The fee per acre for Government/Public Sec or is based proportionately on the relational value of fee per acre and fee per square foot for Retail and Service categories. Appendix 1 includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the non-residential (and residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 30 Revised October 18, 2002 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. • The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an option to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. WRCOG 31 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 7.1 TRANSPORTION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL SECTOR FUTURE CHANGE (Dwelling Units) FEE PER DWELLING UNIT SECTOR TOTAL (in millions) Single -Family Residential 243,031 $6,650 $1,616.2 Multi -Family Residential 74,657 $4,607 $344.0 RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 317,688 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT FEE PER ACRE $1,960.2 SECTOR TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR FUTURE CHANGE (Square Feet) Industrial 55,867,287 $1.45 $14,255 $80.9 Retail 41,859,539 $7.81 $113,227 $326.7 Service 61,559,537 $4.84 $105,436 $298.1 Government/Public Sector 19,210.219 $7.41 $112,191 $142.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 178,496,582 $848.1 TUMF TOTAL $2,808.3 WRCOG 32 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 EG E N D Backbone Network Boole nai TUNF Network freorays Streets & Roads ^..."Zone Boundaries City Boundarles WBCUU Boundary a 1 2 4 IEXHIIT Backbone Network A Alt Route Regional TIJNIF Network freeways Streets & Roads Zone Boundaries 2U, RAMONA EXPRESSWAY PARTNERS LP 410 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 ph # 949-376-8575 Fax # 949-376-9117 February 21, 2003 Mr. Tim Hults Planning Director City of San Jacinto 248 E. Main Street San Jacinto, CA. 92583 Ph # 909-487-7330 Fax # 909-487-6779 Dear Mr. Hults: 1 am the owner of the 223 lot subdivision known as "The Cottages of San Jacinto" located at Ramona Expressway and 7th street in San Jacinto. I had an opportunity to meet with you in late December where you were very helpful in assisting me regarding my grading permit fees. I am now very concerned over the Riverside County passage of a $6,650 per residential unit transportation fee that they are now pressuring cities to pass also. My project has a vested map on 137 lots and a final map on 86 lots. We are a senior project that does not by definition generate excessive traffic. I understand the city council will be addressing the possible imposition of the $6,650 per lot fee shortly. I believe that properties that were mapped prior to the Riverside County imposing the fee should be exempt, and in particular, age restricted properties should he exempted. The imposition of this fee which totals $1,430,000 on my project would be ruinous to the development and is nearly % of the $3,000,000 I paid for the land 1 1/2 years ago: That price never contemplated this proposed transportation fee and assumed approximately $9,500 per unit in fees. Indeed, I was informed by you in writing on December 24, 2002 that the fees are approximately $10,500 per unit for my project (calculated after your crossed out water fee is deducted) including transportation fees. (See my attached correspondence and your hand written response.) The imposition of this $6,500 per unit fee would reduce the value of the land by the same $1,430,000 and effectively destroy my chances to obtain construction financing which has never contemplated this huge fee. I left a message today and would appreciate your contacting me to discuss this matter. My cell # s 2?19-466-0022 if I am not in the office. Cr H.'Bfo cc an Jacinto City Council Mayor James Ayers RECEIVED CITY OF SAN JACINTC F 2 f Z3 3 • L uo CITY U LERK 8Y RAMONA EXPRESSWAY PARTNERS LP 410 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 ph # 949-376-8575 Fax # 949-376-9117 December 24, 2002 Mr. Tim Hults Planning Director City of San Jacinto 248 E. Main Street San Jacinto, CA. 92583 Ph # 909-487-7330 Fax # 909-487-6779 Dear Mr. Hults: Please review the attached schedule of fees and determine which fees can be paid at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. We would also propose that the certificate of occupancy be issued simultaneously with the close of escrow so the fee can be paid out of sales proceeds. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Fees and Permits The Cottages of San Jacinto Plan Check and Inspection Fee Regional Transportation (per Acre) 12.72 820 10,430 Local Transportation (per Acre) 12.72 500 Traffic Signal (per Dwelling Unit) 43 150 6,450 Water Capital Improvement (per DU) 43 2,930 125,990 City Sewer Fee (per Dwelling Unit) 43 200 8,600 Public Safety Structure (per DU) 43 50 2,150 Public Safety Equipment (per DU) 43 10 430 Park Fee (per Dwelling Unit) 43 314 13,522 Fire Station Mitigation (per DU) 43 577 24,811 Current Planning (per DU) 43 50 2,150 Advance Planning (per DU) 43 150 6,450 EMWD Treatment Capacity Fee 43 3,000 129,000 EMWD Sewer Fee 43 1,500 64,500 EMWD Water Fee 43 2,000 86,000 Carpool Mitigation Fee 43 90 3,870 TOTAL PER UNIT 12,912 Fees and Permits The Cottages of Jacinto PI&i Check and Inepection Foe Regional Transportation (per Acre) Local Transportation (per Acre) Traffic Signal (per Dwelling Unit) City Sewer Fee (per Dwelling Unit) 43 Public Safety Structure (per DU) Public Safety Equipment (per DU) Park Fee (per Dwelling Unit) Fire Station Mitigation (per DU) Current Planning (per DU) 43 Advance Planning (per DU) 43 EMWD Treatment Capacity Fe© 43 EMWD Sewer Fee 43 EMWD Water Fee 43 Carpool Mitigation Fee 43 TC7TAL PER UNIT Unit Quantity Cost 43 1,500 F 7 i . PC'(2ut, 12.72 520 crp0 i--- [ N S ?. 12.72 500 R N- 1 N S P 43 150 F, N Art_ I N5 P. 200 in1i C- 1, u5F 43 50 F(f41 - t'pS-? 43 10 }JkL bNn 43 314 p IhiftL 051 43 577 .t't 0 AL (IJ IP, 50 + nF A fi N - 15D r1IJ PrL [ N. 3,006 1p - eM'f) 1,500 2,000 90 — 12,912 i►Vk� I►4>S?. ��u r a G7 e# iR esc-y W T Y -?e e,s f?iC 7? ham( I R,S 0, CAS f/l t r-444. n.. tT r: SAN JACINTO 11114 ? RAT T Transmittal Letter RE: TUMF Protest Letters To: Dorothy Chouinard, City Clerk City of San Jacinto 201 East Main Street, San Jacinto, CA 92583 Phone: Fax Phone: Cc: Dear Ms. Chouinard, Number of Pages Date From: Phone: Cell Phone: Fax Phone: January 6, 2003 Morgan Keith Forward Planner Department of Planning & Engineering (909) 369-9318 (760) 497-5201 (909) 369-9318 Please distribute a copy of the attached letter to each member of the City Council and keep one copy with the TUMF record. Thank you. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Sincerely, Barratt American Incorporated Morgan Keith Forward Planner Department of Planning & Engineering Barran American IncorporateJ 5950 Priestly Dr., Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (780) 431-0800 • lvww.barrarrhomes.corn Contraccor's License No. 407512 January 7, 2003 Members of the City Council City of San Jacinto 201 East Main Street, San Jacinto, CA 92583 Re: Protesting the Adoption of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Honorable Members of the City Council: The attached letters protesting TUMF were submitted to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors before the public hearing held on November 26, 2002, whereat the Board of Supervisors adopted TUMF with Ordinance No. 824. The letters submitted in protest to TUMF to the Board and now part of the record are as follows: • Michael D. Pattinson, Barratt American Incorporated, "The Effects of TUMF on Smart Growth," November 26, 2002. • Law Offices of Walter P. McNeill, "Protest By Barratt American, Inc., To Proposed Ordinance No. 824 Establishing A Western Riverside County Transportation Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Public Hearing Date — November 26, 2002," November 22, 2002. • Morgan Keith, The Paladin Group, "Comments on the Adoption of TUMF," November 25, 2002. The points of protest developed and expressed within the attached letters apply to your City's proposed TUMF Ordinance due to the TUMF program's purported uniformity. Please read the attached letters and apply the arguments and comments against TUMF to your City's TUMF ordinance. Please retain these letters and this cover letter as part of administrative record to your city's public hearing on TUMF. Thank you, Barratt American Incorporated Morgan Keith Forward Planner ,.matt; zflericRn In 5950 Priestly Dr., Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (60) 431 1.8C0 1i\tti' i;2irtatrhome .c Gr1'i November 22, 2002 The Board of Supervisors County of Riverside 14th Floor, County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 •baltmcnfaol.coa TELEPHONE ;(530)'222-99*2 FACSIMILE ` (530) 222-e11/2 Via: Federal Express Protest By Barratt American, Inc. To Proposed Ordinance No. 824 Establishing A Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Public Hearing Date - November 26, 2002. To the Honorable Board of Supervisors: I represent Barratt American, Inc., a major builder of affordable housing throughout Western Riverside County, including the unincorporated area directly subject to your jurisdiction. This letter is submitted in Protest of the proposed adoption of Ordinance No. 824 to establish a Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). In addition to the grounds for protest set forth in this letter, Barratt American, Inc. incorporates and further relies upon the protests and objections lodged by other property owners and interested members of the public. We urge that you reject proposed Ordinance No. 824, and that you only reconsider adoption of a TUMF if the fundamental structure and organization of such a "regional fee" is retooled to comport with California law and fundamental fairness. On the surface it would seem sensible to address regional transportation system needs with coordinated regional planning and a regional financing mechanism that equitably spreads the cost of funding future regional transportation improvements. The TUMF may have originated with good intentions to meet these goals. However, nformational materials generated by WRCOG indicate that the total cost of RSHA (Regional System of Highways and Arterials -the TUMF "Network") is $3.243 billion and the portion attributable to future growth (86.6%) is $2.809 billion. The amount of the TUMF was therefore calculated to recover all of the $2.809 billion needed to fund TUMF projects. However, no consideration was given to the introduction of funding for TUMF projects from outside sources like Measure "A." Turning to Measure "A" and the included Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan, in "4. REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM" there is a commitment of $300 million of Measure "A" funds to matching TUMF revenues for arterial projects that are jointly eligible for "A" and TUMF funding. And in "5. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS" there is a commitment of $970 million of "A" funds for this purpose. (Also see the full breakdown of Measure "A" Revenue Allocations which lists the same amounts.) The Measure "A" funds should take care of $1.270 billion - or 45 % - of the $2.809 billion required for new development and charged out 100% in the TUMF fee. In addition to Measure "A" funds the County's FY2002-2003 Transportation Improvement Program lists no less than 220 separately identified funding sources available for transportation projects. Nowhere in Ordinance No. 824 or the supporting "Nexus Study" does the County account for contributions of funding to TUMF projects from the wide variety of collateral funding sources that will pay for a portion of the costs. To the extent that TUMF fee revenues are replaced by both the $1.270 billion of Measure "A" funds and the funding derived from the County's standard menu of funding sources, the TUMF will be illegally over -collecting fee revenues greater than the reasonable cost of providing services, in violation of Government Code §66005(a), Article XIIIB, §8(c) of the California Constitution, Article XIIIA, §4 of the California Constitution, Article XIIIC, §2(d) of the California Constitution, Government Code §53722 and §53728. Further, fee payers will be entitled to obtain refunds of the invalid TUMF payments (whether 100% or a lesser invalid portion) pursuant to the refund claims procedures of Government Code §66020. Once the County imposes and collects the invalid TUMF fees the County will become liable for refunds, even though the money is handed over to WRCOG to be spent. (WRCOG may share liability with the County, but by spending the money it will wind up with empty pockets.) The County would be ill advised to take on the liability of the TUMF program that fails to account for funding from collateral sources. 3. There is no factual basis for the County to adopt the findings required by Government Code §66001(a)(3)(4) and (b) to show a "reasonable relationship" between the TUMF fee and the impacts of development, due to the failure to review and analyze the overlap of local agency (County) development impact fees. In Section 2 of Ordinance No. 824 there are conclusory findings that the requisite "reasonable relationship" has been established, based upon the "Nexus Study" dated October 23, 2002. The "Nexus Study," though, provides absolutely no analysis or review of the effect of overlapping local agency (here the County) development impact fees and 4 actually collected, and the effect of the TUMF's replacement of DIF revenues for County transportation projects? As it now stands, there is no way for an individual property owner and prospective developer in Western Riverside County to tell from Ordinance No. 824 and the "Nexus Study" the actual amount of the TUMF fee or the combined TUMF/DIF or the combined TUMF/benefit district fee that he or she may be required to pay. From a larger perspective, there is no information put before the Board of Supervisors that tells them what the actual amounts of the TUMF charged in different areas of the County will be, or the effects of the overlaps with DIFs and benefit district fees, or the actual collective revenue projections for these overlapping fee programs as they relate to the TUMF transportation improvements. Consequently, there is no factual foundation for the Board of Supervisors, much less ordinary citizens, to even know whether or not there is a "reasonable relationship" between the TUMF fee and the impacts of development. The Board cannot legally make the findings required by Government Code §66001. 4. There are additional basic flaws in the calculation of the proposed TUMF and its purported "reasonable relationship" to the burden imposed by new development. Several of those basic flaws are summarized as follows: 70%/30% Allocation of Costs Between Residential and Non-residential Development. The "Nexus Study" arbitrarily assigns a disproportionate share of TUMF costs to "residential" transportation based upon the beginning and end points of vehicle trips. (See Table 5.4 on p. 27 of the "Nexus Study.") Any vehicle trip that has the home as either the beginning or end point is automatically assigned to the "residential" category. The "non-residential" category is defined by exclusion, consisting of all vehicle trips that don't fall in the "residential" category. By this measure, a new commercial or retail business, no matter how large, would never generate additional non-residential vehicle trips as long as the employees and customers of the business lived in Western Riverside County. This method ignores the reality that new businesses do in fact bring new jobs and new residents to the surrounding community; and a new successful retail business will certainly generate customer vehicle trips that didn't exist before. The arbitrary assignment of all vehicle trips with a residence as one node artificially inflates the residential allocation of costs to 70% and deflates the non-residential allocation to 30%. A more realistic acknowledgement of the vehicle trips added by new commercial and retail establishments would bring the relative allocation of costs into a range of 50% residential and 50% non- residential. 6 Exemption for Public Agencies. Section4, TE(ii) of Ordinance No. 824 exempts from the TUMF any new development for "government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities." There is no factual foundation or legal basis for granting such an exemption. As shown by Table 62 on p. 30 of the "Nexus Study," the "Government/Public Sector" is expected to account for 16.8% of the new trip generation in the non- residential category. Exempting the "Government/Public Sector" results in a loss of $142.4 million in projected TUMF revenues. (See Appendix I to the "Nexus Study" and the table labeled "Fee Level For All TUMF Improvements.") The loss of funds otherwise recoverable from government/public facilities improperly shifts that burden to residential and commercial developers. • Inequitable Return of TUMF Revenues to Local Agencies. There should be some reasonable correlation between the TUMF revenues generated by identifiable geographic areas and the level of return benefit of TUMF transportation improvements to the same geographic areas. Such a relationship should be particularly evident for TUMF facilities of local "Zonal Significance" (Nexus Study p. 14) which make up 53.4% of the TUMF improvements (Nexus Study p. 20). With the vast majority of development activity and TUMF fee generation coming from the incorporated cities, one should find a reasonably corresponding level of TUMF improvements going back to those jurisdictions. However, as illustrated in a table produced by the Keith Companies and Riverside BIA (see attached) the big beneficiary of TUMF expenditures is the unincorporated county. The absence of a "reasonable relationship" between geographic/jurisdictional TUMF fee generation and corresponding levels of TUMF transportation improvements, renders the entire TUMF scheme invalid. Failure To Consider Vesting Tentative Maps and Residential Subdivision Maps Protected by Government Code §65961. Though there is no analysis of this factor in the "Nexus Study," the residential building industry representatives have advised the County and WRCOG that there are large numbers of outstanding vesting tentative maps and residential tentative subdivision maps that are still within the 5-year protective period of Government Code §65961. The new housing generated by these maps will not be subject to the TUMF fee. The "Nexus Study," does not account for the residential units arising from these maps. Accounting for these nonpaying units would necessarily require a reduction in the projection of anticipated TUMF revenue and scaling back of TUMF improvements, or readjustment of the overall TUMF formula. 7 In summary, the TUMF program has not been carefully thought out beyond the broad -brush conceptual stage. Regional planning for regional transportation improvements is still a laudable idea that ought to be pursued. But the TUMF before you now in the form of Ordinance No. 824 should be rejected, so that you can go back to the drawing board and devise a program that is truly fair, equitable, and legal. WPM/rmc Attachments cc: Barratt American, Inc. Mick Pat inson, President Deborah Bittleston, Attorney Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF WALTER P. McNEILL WALTER P. McNE1LL 8 Board of Supervisors Riverside County County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: The Effects of TUMF on Smart Growth Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: As President of Barratt American and immediate Past -President of California Building Industry Association, I am in a position to see the effects of the cost of housing rising and the reduction in housing affordability in California. I am expressing some of these insights and realizations to you and my views as to how TUMF will exacerbate the critical shortages of affordable housing. TUMF adds a very expensive fee to the cost of new homes that will disqualify many prospective homebuyers. TUMF will increase the escalating median sales price for new and existing homes by raising the transportation fee component already part of the development impact fees. In October 2002, the median sales price of new or existing homes in Riverside County reached $220,000, a 15.8% increase in one year. TUMF will seriously affect the affordability of homes in this area and subsequently affect the future economic development of Western Riverside County. Today, only 29 percent of the families in California can afford to purchase a median -priced existing home, compared to 55 percent nationally. California has the second -lowest home -ownership rate in the nation, according to the Rose Institute. (Press -Enterprise, 11/23/02). There are communities in Southern California where new, even modest homes now cost more than a half million dollars. TUMF conflicts with the state's concern for affordable housing by increasing the lack of affordable housing. The shortage of affordable housing is rapidly moving from crisis to catastrophe. According to an article published by the City of Riverside's Press - Enterprise on November 20, 2002, "California needs about 220,000 new housing units a year ... About 150,000 are built in a good year, maybe 110,000 during an economic downturn. This shortage drives up prices, making home costs and rents unaffordable Barratt American Incorporated 5950 Priestly Dr., Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760) 431-0800 • www.barratthomes.com Contractor's License No. 407512 The Effects of TUMF on Smart Growth November 26, 2002 Page 2 for many." TUMF will seriously reduce the number of new homes and rental units produced in Western Riverside County. Renters will suffer harmful affects from TUMF limiting the number of new rental units build in Western Riverside County. Rents will increase due to TUMF and renters will spend even more of their income on housing. According to the Hunter Johnson writing for the Desert Sun (11/17/02), the fastest growing segments of the homeless population are seniors and families with children. One-third of all renters, half of all low-income renters, and three -fourths of all very low-income renters spend more than 50 percent of their income for housing. According to the Department of Housing and Community Development, 360,000 Californians are homeless. Many new families will not be able to find affordable rentals and will join the ranks of the homeless. TUMF changes the job -housing balance in Western Riverside County. Without housing starts, job producing non-residential builders will lose their enthusiasm to develop and build. Once the non-residential builders realize the amount of the TUMF allocated to their projects, they will move elsewhere outside of Western Riverside County. Homebuyers seeking high -paying jobs to pay for the increased housing costs due to TUMF will create more traffic congestion driving to higher paying job -centers in other counties. Meanwhile, the TUMF will curtail the number of new houses constructed in Western Riverside County because of the reduced number of families that can afford the increased housing cost due to TUMF. Barratt agrees with BIA-Riverside that the percentage of the fee requires reconsideration. The 30%/70% split requires the new homebuyer to subsidize non- residential builders. The 50%/50% appears more equitable and that issue needs attention. Barratt's other concern involves any relief to non-residential builders in terms of reducing their proportion of the TUMF payment. The nexus study developed by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., proposed fees that were determined by taking a complete capital improvement program into consideration. Although, I believe that the nexus study contains flaws due to many reasons including the incorrect percentage split between residential and non-residential development, the Board must realize that fair is fair. If a member of WRCOG reduces the non-residential TUMF, then WRCOG must also reduce the residential TUMF. WRCOG does not have taxing authority, therefore residential builders demand equal consideration to avoid any 'special tax' issue. TUMF empowers WRCOG, another layer of quasi -government, with unlawful police power. The proposed TUMF ordinance assigns authority to WRCOG to determine, administer, and contract for road improvement projects and that is illegal. Local agencies cannot handover the regulatory fees they collect pursuant to their police powers to a COG lacking any police power and allow that COG to spend their fees anyway they wish. TUMF duplicates the regulatory power of its local agency members and therefore TUMF is subject to preemptive challenges. If WRCOG lacks the police power to impose the fee, then WRCOG does not have the legal authority or discretion to The Effects of TUMF c mart Growth November 26, 2002 Page 3 determine whether the fees that Barratt pays in a jurisdiction where Barratt is building housing projects funds road improvement projects in the jurisdiction collecting the fee or in another jurisdiction. Regional arterial highways and secondary arterial highways are a matter of statewide interest and concern. The Subdivision Map Act provides a funding program for building such a system —the Road and Bridge Benefit District. The County of Riverside should look to expanding this statutory mechanism instead of attempting to development an alternate funding system through a COG that lacks any statutory authority to make such discretionary decisions involving mitigation fees. Thank you. Sincerely, Barratt American Incorporated payvicvu Run Michael D. Pattinson President, Barratt American Incorporated Immediate Past President, California Building Industry Association (CBIA) cc: Barre Winckel, Executive Officer, BIA-Riverside THE PALADIN GROUP GOVERNMENT FEE AND REGULATION CONSULTANTS November 25, 2002 Board of Supervisors County of Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Comments on the Adoption of TUMF Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors should not set the TUMF until all of the WRCOG members' governing bodies review the program within public hearings and make a determination as to whether they will participate or continue with their own DIF program. A fiscal and/or any economic impact study of the far-reaching effects of TUMF on the regional economy is conspicuously absent from the TUMF documentation. Considering the high and uniform level of the TUMF fee, this is a stunning omission and a spectacular failure of WRCOG leadership. THE NEXUS STUDY: Although members of WRCOG developed the TUMF program and the attendant fees came about as the result of the nexus study by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., no public agency has yet adopted an ordinance implementing the program. The County of Riverside proposes to conduct the first public hearing on the TUMF fee program on November 26, 2002. If the County of Riverside adopts the program, they could vicariously lead the other members of WRCOG in adopting the program by this ordinance into a libelous situation. Other members of WRCOG following the County of Riverside's example will expose themselves to the same challenges to TUMF as presented below. POST OFFICE BOX 4563 * PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263-4563 TEL: (760) 327-6528 FAX: (760) 322-2826 Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 2 The international engineering firm, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., provided a nexus study to WRCOG. WRCOG established their proposed fees to present to the County of Riverside and other cities in Western Riverside County for adoption from this nexus study. The nexus study has a couple of inherent errors in its assumptions concerning the number of dwelling units estimated to be constructed and the number of increased population in Western Riverside County estimated over the life of TUMF, the next 23 years. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., provided the following table, Table 7.1. This table displays the fees currently proposed and some of the assumptions used to establish the fees: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR DWELLING UNTTS FEE PER DWELLING UNIT SECTOR TOTAL (In Millions) Single -Family Residential 243,031 $6,650 $1,616.2 Multi -Family Residential 74,657 $4,607 $344.0 RESIDENTIAL TOTAL • 317,688 $1,960.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR SQUARE FEET FEE PER SQUARE FOOT I+'EEi PER ACRE SECTOR TOTAL (In Millions) Industrial 55,867,287 $1.45 $14,255 $80.9 Retail 41,859,539 $7.81 $113,227 $326.7 Service 61,559,537 $4.84 $105,436 $298.1 GovenunentallPublic Sector 19,210,219 $7.41 $112,191 $142.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 178,496,582 $848.1 TUMF TOTAL S2,808.3 PROPOSED NUMBERS OF NEW DWELLINGS ERROR: The assumptions provided in this chart represent the estimated increase in the number of dwelling units and the increase in number of square feet from the years 2002 to 2025, i.e. over the next 23 years. The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study relies upon SCAG and CETAP demographic data as the basis of their assumptions. Considering the estimated growth provided in the above chart, 317,688 dwelling units over the next 23 years, WRCOG projects an estimated average of 10,567 single family dwellings and 3,246 dwelling units in multi -family structures constructed each year until the year 2025. The study therefore estimates that builders will construct an average of 13,813 dwelling units each year in Western Riverside County. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 3 The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study provides an over optimistic projection of housing starts. The study, on page 29, states that Western Riverside County currently has 308,860 single-family dwellings and 94,879 multi -family dwelling units, totaling 403,739 existing dwelling units. The table above estimates that builders will build 243,031 new single- family dwellings and 74,657 new multi -family dwelling units during the period covered by TUMF. This totals 317,688 dwelling units and represents an increase of 79% over the existing housing stock. If builders add an additional estimated average of 10,567 single family dwellings and 3,246 dwelling units in multi -family structures constructed each year until the year 2025, the increase represents an additional average of 3.4% of the current housing stock the first year. The study's reliance on the production of Multi -Family (MFR) dwelling units at one- fourth of total housing production is misguided. For the past five years, the production of new MFR units has averaged 11% of total housing production, resulting in a veritable crisis in the attached housing markets due to the virtual absence of any construction liability insurance. Annually, California is producing between 110,000 and 150,000 new homes depending upon economic conditions. However, the demand created by more families moving into the home buying age is 220,000 homes per year according to Julie Bornstein, director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development. In the Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report, July 2002, John E. Husing, Ph.D., stated that Dataquick reported 12,513 seasonally adjusted existing and new home sales in Riverside County during the second quarter of 2002. Of these sales recordings, Riverside County recorded 3,978 new homes during the second quarter of 2002, up 22.4% over 2001. Concerning the percentage of new home sales to existing home sales in Riverside County, new home sales represent about 32% of these home sales. The data.derived from the Construction Industry Research Board as illustrated in this table below indicates that that an average of 10,871 new dwelling units were provided by builders in the WRCOG membership area over the past 5 years: WRCOG - COUNTY PLUS CITIES SFR MFR TOTAL 2002 Y-T-D 11,449 623 12,072 2001 13,540 1321 14,861 2000 10,086 1276 11,362 1999 9,617 1354 10,971 1998 7,906 1340 9,246 1997 6,994 920 7,914 Total: 48.143 6211 54.354 5-Year Avg. 9,628.6 1,242.2 10,870.8 Source: Construction Industry Research Board Comments on the Adoption o November 25, 2002 Page 4 TUMF will lead to consequences inapposite to the intent and expectations of its creators in that it prohibits developers and builders from meeting the population demands for new residential and non-residential development and subsequently, fail to fund the TUNE transportation facilities. The WRCOG study contains at minimum the following deficiencies:First, the WRCOG study does not consider the economic downturns in the economy and how those recessions affect the production of new housing. Second, the study did not consider interest rates. The rates today are at a historic low. Over the next 23 years, those rates will fluctuate and therefore have tremendous effects upon the housing industry's sales. Third, considering the length of time it takes to get project approval, a grading permit, or a building permit in Riverside County, the shear weight of the bureaucratic process and the lack of timely service to the development community will most definitely inhibit any growth in the number of new homes reaching the constant level of development projected by WRCOG! Virtually al] housing zoning and land use entitlement approvals for housing produced today within the WRCOG domain was obtained between four and six years ago. The current entitlement approval climate suggests a dramatic lengthening of this approval process and shall have a substantial impact on housing production numbers. Fourth, the study did not consider the effects of TUMF on the production of new housing and the construction of non-residential buildings. The amount of the TUMF and other fees imposed upon new development substantially inhibits builders from meeting the housing demands of the region because of its inflationary effect upon home pricing and affordability. TUMF will have a similar effect upon the growth ofjob-producing non-residential development. TRIPS: Table 5-4 of the WRCOG Nexus Study proposes that residential development produces 70% of the trips, verses 30% of the trips generated by non-residential development. This seems incongruent with reality. Typically trips from home lead to work, school, or to a commercial destination, not home to home. The correct proportions are a 50%/50% split. The WRCOG Nexus Study assigns all trips that interact with "Home" to the end of the trip only. For example, the study places the responsibility or burden for a person traveling from Home to Work entirely to the "Home" end of the trip. The WRCOG Nexus Study subsequently eliminates the "Work" place from consideration for their portion of the traffic responsibility. The proper way of assigning "Home -Work" Trip Production assigns one- half of such trips to the Home End (referred to in traffic modeling terminology as the "Production End" of the Trip) and assigns the other one-half of such Trips to the Work Place (referred to in traffic modeling terminology as the "Attraction End" of the Trip). Subsequently, the WRCOG Nexus Study does not include any commuter trips to the workplace in the non-residential development share of the TUMF. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 5 The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study overestimates the population growth over the next 23 years. Page 6 of the study provides the 2000 population count as 1,199,004 occupying 403,739 households, or an average of2.97 persons per household. By multiplying the number of average number of new dwelling units proposed by WRCOG, 13,813, by the average of 2.971 new persons per single-family occupancy, we can estimate an average of 41,025 new residents occupying single-family and multi -family dwelling units each year. Over the 23-year period, this calculation provides 943,575 new residents. However, this number conflicts with the population increase provided by WRCOG. On the same page, WRCOG's study prepared by Parson Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. estimates a 2025 population of 2,232,983 persons in 721,427 households, which averages of 3.1 persons per household. Therefore, WRCOG estimates the population increase as 1,033,979 or 90,404 new persons over the estimate above derived by the applying the current number of persons per households to new dwellings. This difference of 90,404 new persons represents the population of a rather large community. According to the 2000 census, this population of 90,404 persons would constitute the fourth largest city in Riverside County. The study also assumes that an average of 7,760,721 square feet of non-residential construction will occur within the WRCOG membership area per year. That number seems very low concerning the sgi'are footages the big -box stores and warehouses built each year in Western Riverside County. However, with the amount of TUMF proposed to impose on commercial and retail, development to this extent will not occur. Reduced Fees: If we were to reduce the demand for new transportation improvements expected over the next 23' years by reducing the expected number dwelling units or the square feet of non- residential development, then an obvious reduction of the TUMF should follow by the percentage of that difference. Between 1990 and 2000, Western Riverside County's population increased by 282,233 persons in WRCOG's member agencies. If we divide that growth number by 2.99 persons, we find that this increase in population theoretically created 94,392 new dwelling units at 2.99 people per dwelling unit, or an average of 9,439 new dwelling units per year. This is only 68% of WRCOG's estimated average annual new housing starts. If we use the Study's annual growth estimate of 2.5% to escalate this average number of dwellings, 9,439, over the past year starting with year one for 23 years, we shall have 16,250 dwellings constructed in year 23. The total number of dwellings for the 23-year period is 288,686 dwelling units, 29,002 Tess than the WRCOG estimate or 9% of the estimate WRCOG used to establish the TUMF. The number of persons per household in Riverside County according to the 2000 census was 2.99 persons. San Bernardino County had 3.14 persons per hoii hold in 2000. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 6 Following this analysis, WRCOG should reduce the TUMF by 9% on this point. This would result in a single-family residential fee of $6,051.50 and a multi -family fee of $4,192. MEASURE "A" AND OTHER OVERLAPS: Paladin has two issues with WRCOG's TUMF and Measure "A" recently approved by the voters in the County of Riverside. First, Paladin suspects overlapping projects between TUMF and Measure "A" in the improvements projected for State Highways 74 and 79, and Cajalco Road. Paladin requests that the Board of Supervisors seek clarification of this concern from staff immediately. Second, TUMF establishes a mitigation fee for transportation to operate in conjunction with a tax -supported program. Many of the WRCOG member cities believe that have no choice but to adopt TUMF in the form and substance of the fee adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Cities cite the language of Measure "A". Does Measure "A" as approved by the electorate on November 5, 2002, indeed compel all member agencies of WRCOG to adopt TUMF in a form identical to the fee proposed to the Board of Supervisors? The extended Sales Tax Measure does not identify what the TUMF fee(s) amount but the literature only makes reference to "a TUMF Fee" and a total fee revenue goal of $400 Million. Moreover, the extended Sales Tax Measure becomes effective some time in the Year 2009 and nothing in the Measure suggests that the WRCOG member agencies must collect "a" TUMF in 2002 or soon thereafter. Furthermore, the language of Measure "A" reads that the collection of"a" TUMF shall apply towards funding certain Regional Arterial Roads as illustrated by the inclusion of a list limited to certain Regional Arterial facilities. In addition, with exception of certain efforts by the County Transportation Department, no WRCOG member agency has published any analysis detailing the correlation between existing traffic mitigation fees and TUMF. The overlap Measure "A" and TUNIF is material and substantial. The WRCOG Nexus Study does not identify prospective outside funding sources from state, federal, or other sources that may fund future road improvements identified in their study. WRCOG must eliminate any TUMF improvement project involved in these overlaps. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 7 WINNERS AND LOSERS: Small v. Large: The Keith Companies and Riverside BIA provided the following table that provides the allocation of the revenues towards infrastructure improvements to each of the members of WRCOG based upon revenues of $3,002,438,000.00. Jurisdiction nro Back Bone Back Bone Secondary Rio Secondary Benefit Total Roads %Total Ranking Banning $ - 0.00% $ 93,816,000,00 5.41% $ 93,816,000.00 3.12% 9 Beaumont $ 89,177,000.00 7.02% $ 76,618,000.00 4.42% $ 165,795,000.00 5.52% 4 Calimesa $ - 0.00% $ 91,546,000.00 5.28% $ 91,546,000.00 3.05% 10 Canyon Lake $ 9,809,000.00 0.77% $ - 0.00% $ 9,809,000.00 0.33% 15 Corona $ 39,319,000.00 3.10% $ 113,940,000.00 6.58% $ 153,259,000.00 5.10% 6 Hemet $ 10,018,000.00 0.79% $ 28,775,000.00 1.66% $ 38,793,000.00 1.29% 14 Lake Elsinore $ 17,184,000.00 1.35% $ 87,553,000.00 5.05% $ 104,737,000.00 3.49% 8 Moreno Valley $ 87,686,000.00 6.91% $ 168,627,000.00 9.73% $ 256,313,000.00 8.54% 3 Murrieta $ 35,910,000.00 2.83% $ 42,614,000.00 2.46% $ 78.524.000.00 2.62% 11 Norco $ - 0.00% $ 41,521,000.00 2.40% $ 41,521,000.00 1.38% 13 Perris $ 62,194,000.00 4.90% $ 97,636,000.00 5.64% $ 159,830,000.00 5.32% 5 Riverside $ 67,579,000.00 5.32% $ 222,838,000.00 12.86% $ 290,417,000.00 9.67% 2 San Jacinto $ 37,064,000.00 2.92% $ 31,348,000.00 1.81% $ 68,412,000.00 2.28% 12 Temecula $ 81,079,000.00 6.38% $ 65,944,000.00 3.81% $ 147,023,000.00 4.90% 7 Unincorporated $ 732,817,000.00 57.71% $ 569,826,000.00 32.89% $ 1,302,643,000.00 43.39% 1 Totals: $ 1,269,836,000.00 100.00% $ 1,732,602,000.00 100.00% $ 3,002,438,000.00 100.00% WRCOG's Consideration Burden on TUMF: WRCOG is the big winner in TUMF. WRCOG collects and administrates TUMF. WRCOG receives 1% of the collections to cover their expenses. If the TUMF collects the $3,002,438,000 as provided in the chart above, the TUMF will retain $30,024,380 over 23 years, or an average of $1,305,408 per year. WRCOG shall have substantial sums of TUMF monies on deposit and this money shall yield considerable interest earnings. Who shall benefit from the interest earnings? FALLING OUT OF THE TUMF PROGRAM BY MEMBER CITIES: The membership of WRCOG consists of the incorporated area of the County of Riverside and 14 member cities. Smaller cities are now realizing that the unincorporated area of Western Riverside County dominates the TUMF. Riverside County dominates each zone and TUMF. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 8 TUMF is a fee -sharing scheme. Smaller cities' collections of TUMF will benefit larger cities near build -out. The cities that are close to build -out have diminished potential to collect any future development impact fees. Therefore, when TUMF is collected in any particular zone, a percentage of the 50% that does not return to source will go to Riverside County or to one of the larger cities that has limited fee collection potential. Money flows to local agencies that do not legally merit receipt of the funds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Except for Canyon Lake, larger cities like Corona, Temecula, and Riverside are closer to build -out than smaller cities, yet these three large cities require in excess of $500 Million in Secondary Road improvements alone. As these cities are close to build -out they have diminished potential to collect any future development impact fees. On the other hand, cities like Norco, Hemet, and San Jacinto, each strong future growth candidates, have a need for about $100 Million in Secondary Roads. Should development in these latter cities largely pay for roads in these largely built -out cities? Recent discussion speculates on the issue of whether all of the member cities of WRCOG will participate in the TUMF program. Dissention within any City's governing body that causes their withdrawal from the TUMF program will reduce the required infrastructure allocated to that city and subsequently the TUMF should see a proportionate reduction based upon that city's percentage of TUMF. For example, if Beaumont, Calimesa, Corona, Lake Elsinore, Norco, Perris, and Temecula do not adopt TUMF, then the total TUMF roads allocated to these cities, 20.94% of the total, will not obtain funding from these cities. Therefore, the TUMF should be reduced by that amount. This ends up being $1,393 Tess than currently proposed by WRCOG. This reduction by itself would reduce the $6,650 single-family dwelling fee by $1,393 to $5,257 within Western Riverside County and participating cities. If we reduce the amount of TUMF for the single-family dwelling unit previously reduce by reducing the number of new dwellings during the TUMF period, $6,051.50, by 20.94%, we would reduce the $6,051:5Q by $1,271 to $4,781, or $1,869 less than currently proposed. This represents a 28% reduction in the single-family residential TUMF. LOST REVENUES: The Paladin Group is concerned about the Toss of potential revenue sources identified by WRCOG that are now exempt by the proposed ordinance or by waiver by member agencies of WRCOG. The WRCOG Executive Committee voted to eliminate in sum total the entire "Governmental / Public Sector Component" of the TUMF Program at $142 Million. The proposed TUMF Ordinance also proposes to exempt low-income residential housing, guest dwellings, and second units on the same parcel without identifying from where the funds to cover the deficit created by these eliminations. Recent objections to TUMF by non-residential builders may bring relief to those builders by WRCOG member agencies. WRCOG member agencies must make up any reduction to the TUMF Program with funds from sources (i.e. General Fund sources) other than the builders and land developers. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page9 THE "M" WORD: Those public sector members present at a number of meetings convened to discuss TUMF occasionally mentioned the "M" (moratorium) word in the context of probability without TUMF. Since the development of TUMF is a reaction to the prospective demand upon regional transportation facilities created by new development, a symbiotic relationship appears to exist between transportation improvements and new development. Without new transportation improvements, saying quality new development will not occur is a fair TUMF assumption. The corollary to this statement provides the likely result of the TUMF program. New transportation improvements will not occur without new development. With the proposed amount of TUMF where it is, TUMF will put a brake on new development. In this sense, TUMF is a moratorium. RECOMMENDATION: TUMF is self-defeating. The amount of the TUMF prohibits the growth projections used as assumptions in the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study. TUMF and other prospective fees increase the selling price of homes and therefore reduce the demand as prices remove consumers from the market. This will ultimately reduce the number of new homes built. The members of WRCOG need to direct WRCOG and its consultants to revisit the projections concerning new development and population increases with the objective to revisit the amount of facilities necessary and the amount of TUMF to pay for those. facilities. This study provides the basis for that review. The Board needs to look at the real world of development before accepting WRCOG's TUMF proposal and the assumptions used to develop those proposed fees. The historic record does not support a straight line of development increasing 2,5°%o per year. Development occurs in cycles with peaks and valleys. During the peaks, local government development departments delay the processing of projects due to service demands and work overload. Development will not occur to the extent estimated by WRCOG without remedying the cause of these delays. Any regional transportation program must be developed though the various local agencies individual plenary powers granted by the state constitution and agreements executed between the agencies to implement the construction program. The program must fund only the "back -bone" transportation facilities. The delegation of each local agency's police power to WRCOG to allocate and spend fees collected by individual local agencies outside their territory represents an unlawful delegation of police powers.' 2 The City's police power can be applied only within its own territory and is subject to preemption by general state law, but otherwise is as broad as the police power exercisable by the state legislature. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkelev, 17 Gal. 3d 129, 130 Cal Rptr. 465 (1976). Comments on the Adoption of TTJMF November 25, 2002 Page 10 Finally, The Board should not set the TUMF until all of the WRCOG membersgoverning bodies review the program within public hearings and make a determination as to whether they will participate or continue with their own DIF program. Please call me at (909) 369-9318 to discuss these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, The Paladin Group Morgan Keith Vice -President of Legal Research cc: Mick Pattinson, Immediate Past -President, CBIA, and President, Barratt American Incorporated Borre Winckel, Executive Officer, BIA-Riverside RAMONA EXPRESSWAY PARTNERS LP 410 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 ph # 949-376-8575 Fax # 949-376-9117 Mr. Tim Hults Planning Director City of San Jacinto 248 E. Main Street San Jacinto, CA. 92583 Ph # 909-487-7330 Fax # 909-487-6779 Dear Mr. Hults: I am the owner of the 223 lot subdivision known as "The Cottages of San Jacinto" located at Ramona Expressway and 7th street in San Jacinto. I had an opportunity to meet with you in late December where you were very helpful in assisting me regarding my grading peuiiit fees. I am now very concerned over the Riverside County passage of a $6,650 per residential unit transportation fee that they are now pressuring cities to pass also. My project has a vested map on 137 lots and a final map on 86 lots. We are a senior project that does not by definition generate excessive traffic. I understand the city council will be addressing the possible imposition of the $6,650 per lot fee shortly. I believe that properties that were mapped prior to the Riverside County imposing the fee should be exempt, and in particular, age restricted properties should be exempted. The imposition of this fee which totals $1,430,000 on my project would be ruinous to the development and is nearly '/z of the S3,000,000 I paid for the land 1 %z years ago: That price never contemplated this proposed transportation fee and assumed approximately S9,500 per unit in fees. Indeed, I was informed by you in writing on December 24, 2002 that the fees are approximately $10,500 per unit for my project (calculated after your crossed out water fee is deducted) including transportation fees. (See my attached correspondence and your hand written response.) The imposition of this $6,500 per unit fee would reduce the value of the land by the same $1,430,000 and effectively destroy my chances to obtain construction financing which has never contemplated this huge fee. I left a message today and would appreciate your contacting me to discuss this matter. My cell # is ' 9-466-0022 if I am not in the office. Y OF SAN J,a,C±fkeTr> C 4 '. H. '. own cc ' an Jacinto City Council Mayor James Ayers RAMONA EXPRESSWAY PARTNERS LP 410 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 ph # 949-376-8575 Fax # 949-376-9117 December 24, 2002 Mr. Tim Hults Planning Director City of San Jacinto 248 E. Main Street San Jacinto, CA. 92583 Ph # 909-487-7330 Fax # 909-487-6779 Dear Mr. Hults: Please review the attached schedule of fees and determine which fees can be paid at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. We would also propose that the certificate of occupancy be issued simultaneously with the close of escrow so the fee can be paid out of sales proceeds. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sin CrH. Brown Fees and Permits The Cottages of San Jacinto Quantity Unit Cost Amount Plan Check and Inspection Fee 43 1,500 64,500 Regional Transportation (per Acre) Local Transportation (per Acre) Traffic Signal (per Dwelling Unit) Water Capital Improvement (per DU) City Sewer Fee (per Dwelling Unit) Public Safety Structure (per DU) Public Safety Equipment (per DU) Park Fee (per Dwelling Unit) Fire Station Mitigation (per DU) Current Planning (per DU) Advance Planning (per DU) EMWD Treatment Capacity Fee EMWD Sewer Fee EMWD Water Fee Carpool Mitigation Fee TOTAL PER UNIT 12.72 12.72 43 43 43 43 820 10,430 500 6,360 150 6,450 2,930 125,990 200 8,600 2,150 50 43 10 430 43 314 13,522 43 577 24,811 43 50 2,150 43 150 6,450 43 3,000 129,000 43 1,500 64,500 43 2,000 86,000 43 90 3,870 12,912 Fees end Permits The Cottages of San Jacinto Plan check and Inspection Fee Regional Transportation (Pet Acre) Local Transportation (per Acre) Traffic Signai (per Dwelling Unit) City Sewer Fee (per Dwelling Unit) Public Safety Structure (per DU) Public Safety Equipment (per DU) Park Fee (per Dwelling Unit) Fire Station Mitigation (per DU) Current Planning (per DU) Advance Planning (per DU) EMWD Treatment Capacity Fee ENiWD Sewer Fee EMWD Water Fee Carpool Mitigation Fee TOTAL PER UNIT Unit Quantity Cost 48 1,500 Ft.4}6,, (24A, 12.72 820 rrNAr:_ t S-P. 12.72 500 i N kt- /N O 43 '150 F1 N k -. , N6' p 43 200 Fixifit. Ai Sp, 43 50 . FINAL- 00S? 43 10 ' nt441'L. Jni n 43 314 FIN?L. i 015P. 43 577 .1`41RL itJ?, 43 .43 43 43 43 43 50 150 3,000 1,500 2,000 90 — 12,912 kr k t' i%rIJJkL 9*eri. WIC pi g TiNAct, INS? J chee-ice61 L 7 M,w - canC* jpu a de,rtopplpe (4 esc- (s . 71 ,eee5 /2.44e frA-{ )(.,5 p a-6474e /. 44, 1 2S ed :87' ae--t18-z1 BROADCAST REPO TIME FAX NO./ DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT COMMENT 10:16 919099556686 56 04 OK ECM 10:10 919094076779 57 04 OK ECM BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE NG : POOR LINE CONDITION CV : COVERPAGE RECEIVED CITY OF SAN JACINTO JAIN-1 2 03 Transmittal Letter Numbe RE: TUMF Protest Letters Date To: Dorothy Chouinard, City Clerk City of San Jacinto 201 East Main Street, San Jacinto, CA 92583 Phone: Fax Phone: Cc: Dear Ms. Chouinard, of Pages Januai From: Morgan Keith Forward Planner Department of Planning & Engineering Phone: Cell Phone: Fax Phone: (909) 369-9318 (760) 497-5201 (909) 369-9318 Please distribute a copy of the attached letter to each member of the City Council and keep one copy with the TUMF record. Thank you. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Sincerely, Barratt American Incorporated - Morgan Morgan Keith Forward Planner Department of Planning & Engineering Barran Ariicriciu 111COITVElted 5950 Priestly Dr., Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760) 431-000 • www.bArrattllomes.coni ConmcniEs License No. 407512 Members of the City Council City of San Jacinto 201 East Main Street, San Jacinto, CA 92583 Re: Protesting the Adoption of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Honorable Members of the City Council: The attached letters protesting TUMF were submitted to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors before the public hearing held on November 26, 2002, whereat the Board of Supervisors adopted TUMF with Ordinance No. 824. The letters submitted in protest to TUMF to the Board and now part of the record are as follows: • Michael D. Pattinson, Barratt American Incorporated, "The Effects of TUMF on Smart Growth," November 26, 2002. • Law Offices of Walter P. McNeill, "Protest By Barratt American, Inc., To Proposed Ordinance No. 824 Establishing A Western Riverside County Transportation Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Public Hearing Date — November 26, 2002," November 22, 2002. • Morgan Keith, The Paladin Group, "Comments on the Adoption of TUMF," November 25, 2002. The points of protest developed and expressed within the attached letters apply to your City's proposed TUMF Ordinance due to the TUMF program's purported uniformity. Please read the attached letters and apply the arguments and comments against TUMF to your City's TUMF ordinance. Please retain these letters and this cover letter as part of administrative record to your city's public hearing on TUMF. Thank you, Barratt American Incorporated Morgan Keith Forward Planner Barran l`irr,';ic. *, )ncorporauc'.". 5950 Priestly Dr., Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (7(0) 4:31. V,KK)V ® N'Sl`w,barratthcqu2s.com Colitractoc's License. No. 3'! i 1 I 13ARRATT. November 26, 2002 Board of Supervisors Riverside County County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14`h Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: The Effects of TUMF on Smart Growth Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: As President of Barratt American and immediate Past -President of California Building Industry Association, I am in a position to see the effects of the cost of housing rising and the reduction in housing affordability in California. l am expressing some of these insights and realizations to you and my views as to how TUMF will exacerbate the critical shortages of affordable housing. TUMF adds a very expensive fee to the cost of new homes that will disqualify many prospective homebuyers. TUMF will increase the escalating median sales price for new and existing homes by raising the transportation fee component already part of the development impact fees. In October 2002, the median sales price of new or existing homes in Riverside County reached $220,000, a 15.8% increase in one year. TUMF will seriously affect the affordability of homes in this area and subsequently affect the future economic development of Western Riverside County. Today, only 29 percent of the families in California can afford to purchase a median -priced existing home, compared to 55 percent nationally. Califomia has the second -lowest home -ownership rate in the nation, according to the Rose Institute. (Press -Enterprise, 11/23/02). There are communities in Southern California where new, even modest homes now cost more than a half million dollars. TUMF conflicts with the state's concem for affordable housing by increasing the lack of affordable housing. The shortage of affordable housing is rapidly moving from crisis to catastrophe. According to an article published by the City of Riverside's Press - Enterprise on November 20, 2002, "California needs about 220,000 new housing units a year ... About 150,000 are built in a good year, maybe 110,000 during an economic downturn. This shortage drives up prices, making home costs and rents unaffordable Barratt American Incorporated 5950 Priestly Dr., Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760) 431-0800 • www.barratthomes.com Contractors License No. 407512 The Effects of TUMF, on Smart Growth November 26, 2002 Page 2 for many." TUMF will seriously reduce the number of new homes and rental units produced in Western Riverside County. Renters will suffer harmful affects from TUMF limiting the number of new rental units build in Western Riverside County. Rents will increase due to TUMF and renters will spend even more of their income on housing. According to the Hunter Johnson` writing for the Desert Sun (11/17/02), the fastest growing segments of the homeless population are seniors and families with children. One-third of all renters, half of all low-income renters, and three -fourths of all very low-income renters spend more than 50 percent of their income for housing. According to the Department of Housing and Community Development, 360,000 Californians are homeless. Many new families will not be able to find affordable rentals and will join the ranks of the homeless. TUMF changes the job -housing balance in Western Riverside County. Without housing starts, job producing non-residential builders will lose their enthusiasm to develop and build. Once the non-residential builders realize the amount of the TUMF allocated to their projects, they will move elsewhere outside of Western Riverside County. Homebuyers seeking high -paying jobs to pay for the increased housing costs due to TUMF will create more traffic congestion driving to higher paying job -centers in other counties. Meanwhile, the TUMF will curtail the number of new houses constructed in Western Riverside County because of the reduced number of families that can afford the increased housing cost due to TUMF. Barratt agrees with BIA-Riverside that the percentage of the fee requires reconsideration. The 30%/70% split requires the new homebuyer to subsidize non- residential builders. The 50%/50% appears more equitable and that issue needs attention. Barratt's other concern involves any relief to non-residential builders in terms of reducing their proportion of the TUMF payment. The nexus study developed by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., proposed fees that were determined by taking a complete capital improvement program into consideration. Although, I believe that the nexus study contains flaws due to many reasons including the incorrect percentage split between residential and non-residential development, the Board must realize that fair is fair. If a member of WRCOG reduces the non-residential TUMF, then WRCOG must also reduce the residential TUMF. WRCOG does not have taxing authority, therefore residential builders demand equal consideration to avoid any `special tax' issue. TUMF empowers WRCOG, another layer of quasi -government, with unlawful police power. The proposed TUMF ordinance assigns authority to WRCOG to determine, administer, and contract for road improvement projects and that is illegal. Local agencies cannot handover the regulatory fees they collect pursuant to their police powers to a COG lacking any police power and allow that COG to spend their fees anyway they wish. TUMF duplicates the regulatory power of its local agency members and therefore TUMF is subject to preemptive challenges. If WRCOG lacks the police power to impose the fee, then WRCOG does not have the legal authority or discretion to The Effects of TUMF on Smart Growth November 26, 2002 Page 3 determine whether the fees that Barratt pays in a jurisdiction where Barratt is building housing projects funds road improvement projects in the jurisdiction collecting the fee or in anotherjurisdiction. Regional arterial highways and secondary arterial highways are a matter of statewide interest and concern. The Subdivision Map Act provides a funding program for building such a system -the Road and Bridge Benefit District. The County of Riverside should look to expanding this statutory mechanism instead of attempting to development an alternate funding system through a COG that lacks any statutory authority to make such discretionary decisions involving mitigation fees. Thank you. Sincerely, Barratt American Incorporated MAdia14 Michael D. Pattinson President, Barratt American Incorporated Immediate Past President, California Building Industry Association (CBIA) cc: Barre Winckel, Executive Officer, BIA-Riverside The Board of Supervisors County of Riverside 14th Floor, County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 6.41.cora (SSO) 222-8952 (530) 222-8892 Via: Federal Express Protest By Barratt American, Inc. To Proposed Ordinance No. 824 Establishing A Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Public Hearing Date - November 26, 2002. To the Honorable Board of Supervisors: I represent Barratt American, Inc, a major builder of affordable housing throughout Western Riverside County, including the unincorporated area directly subject to your jurisdiction. This letter is submitted in Protest of the proposed adoption of Ordinance No. 824 to establish a Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). In addition to the grounds for protest set forth in this letter, Barratt American, Inc. incorporates and further relies upon the protests and objections lodged by other property owners and interested members of the public. We urge that you reject proposed Ordinance No. 824, and that you only reconsider adoption of a TUMF if the fundamental structure and organization of such a "regional fee" is retooled to comport with California law and fundamental fairness. On the surface it would seem sensible to address regional transportation system needs with coordinated regional planning and a regional financing mechanism that equitably spreads the cost of funding future regional transportation improvements. The TUMF may have originated with good intentions to meet these goals. However, somewhere along the way, the political primacy of establishing a regional impact fee pushed aside basic legal requirements and considerations for: establishment of a valid administrative framework for collecting and administering the fee; an equitable distributionof the burden of the fee so that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the costs of the transportation facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; an equitable allocation of the relative amounts of the fee so that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for transportation facilities and the types of development on which the fee is imposed; and an equitable appropriation formula for fee revenues so that there is a reasonable relationship between the fees use and both the type and geographic location of the development on which the fee is imposed. Even worse, it would seem that those who crafted the TUMF (probably WRCOG staff) have no legal expertise, and received no competent advice as to the legal conflicts and limitations inherent in a combined effort of local agencies to act with "regional" authority and the interplay of this proposed "regional" fee with other fees and assessments already in place in the local agency jurisdictions. As a result you have cobbled together a regional enterprise with no true regional legal authority or jurisdiction, to implement a dysfunctional regional fee that will have haphazard and inequitable effects as it is collected and applied in different areas of Western Riverside County. Because of the fundamental flaws in the legal structure and approach to this fee, the deficiencies in the TUMF multiply as it is examined more closely, making it impossible to submit an exhaustive list of the deficiencies. Following are some of the most salient deficiencies of the TUMF before you for consideration, not necessarily in order of priority. 1. There is no legally recognized "regional authority" for the adoption and imposition of a "regional" TUMF. Ordinance No. 824 before you for consideration pertains only to the unincorporated lands in Western Riverside County over which you have jurisdiction for adoption of an impact fee pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000 et seq.). While the Ordinance recognizes the coordinated effort to be made with "thirteen other cities situated in Western Riverside County" and the administrative role of Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Ordinance nonetheless addresses only the unincorporated territory within the County's jurisdictional power. It is contemplated that the referenced thirteen cities in Western Riverside County will adopt identical ordinances (substituting only the name of the City for the County where appropriate), but there is nothing in the Ordinance that makes its effect conditional on the fulfillment of this conceptualized plan and adoption of like ordinances by the Cities. Furthermore, there is no underlying state legislation or contractual agreement that integrates the ordinances to be adopted by fourteen separate and distinct local agencies. This is a scatter -shot effort to assemble pieces of a jurisdictional jigsaw puzzle that has no central legal organizing authority to put the pieces together or hold them together. 2 Then, in order to make this scheme operate as if there was a legal basis for a "regional" authority, the County's Ordinance No. 824 immediately delegates to WRCOG all of the County's legislative and administrative` authority for future handling' of the TUMF. In Section 4, ¶B, of Ordinance No. 824 it states that "The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee" -thereby assigning and delegating to WRCOG the County's legislative authority and responsibility for review and adjustment of the TUMF applicable to the unincorporated area of Western Riverside County. Under Section 6, ¶D, all fees collected pursuant to Ordinance No.' 824 are simply handed over to WRCOG. Under Section 6 of Ordinance No. 824 "Detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordinance shall be forth in a Resolution adopted by WRCOG" -thereby turning over control, administration and usage of the TUMF funds to WRCOG for WRCOG to implement the TUMF program on its own authority using its own discretion. The County does not have the power or legal authority to abdicate and transfer over its inherent legislative authority and administrative duties to WRCOG. Chapter 5 of the Mitigation Fee Act, for example, places continuing duties upon the local agency adopting a development fee to properly control and administer the funds, to account periodically for fund revenues, and to make refunds under specified circumstances, etc. Under Ordinance No. 824 the County of Riverside becomes nothing more than a collection agent of TUMF fee revenues for WRCOG. The County's attempt at divestiture of its legislative, administrative, and statutory authority and duties is legally invalid and void. The pernicious effect of the TUMF scheme is manifest when you begin considering the possibilities. WRCOG will be established as a multi -billion dollar third - party agency with no legal responsibility or political accountability to citizens, fee payers, and businesses/developers in Western Riverside County. If a fee payer objects to the amount of the TUMF (after offsets, credits, and so on that are yet to be determined by WRCOG) or the manner in which the TUMF is administered, to whom can the fee payer complain? Who should be removed from office or answer politically for potential failures, incompetence, or malfeasance by WRCOG? What check or balance comes into play when WRCOG, pursuant to the authority given it by Ordinance No. 824, increases the amount of TUMF on its own initiative? Unfortunately, once the TUMF is established the County and the citizens and fee payers in Western Riverside County will not be able to reign it in as it gallops off in its own direction. Rather than a "regional fee" the TUMF is a rogue exaction that you should not approve in the first place. 2. The TUMF does not account for the contributions of funding to TUMF projects from sources other than the TUMF fee. The "Nexus Study" and related 3 informational materials generated by WRCOG indicate that the total cost of RSHA (Regional System of Highways and Arterials -the TUMF "Network") is $3.243 billion' and the portion attributable to future growth (86.6%) is $2.809 billion. The amount o the TUMF was therefore calculated to recover all of the $2.809 billion needed to fund TUMF projects. However, no consideration was given to the introduction of funding for TUMF projects from outside sources like Measure "A.." Turning to Measure "A" and the included Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan, in "4. REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM" there is a commitment of $300 million of Measure "A" funds to matching TUMF revenues for arterial projects that are jointly eligible for "A" and TUMF funding. And in "5. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS" there is a commitment of $970 million of "A" funds for this purpose. (Also see the full breakdown of Measure "A" Revenue Allocations which lists the same amounts.) The Measure "A" funds should take care of $1.270 billion - or 45%-- of the $2.809 billion required for new development and charged out 100% in the TUMF fee. In addition to Measure "A" funds the County's FY2002-2003 Transportation Improvement Program lists no less than 220 separately identified funding sources available for transportation projects. Nowhere in Ordinance No. 824 or the supporting "Nexus Study" does the County account for contributions of funding to TUMF projects from the wide variety of collateral funding sources that will pay for a portion of the costs. To the extent that TUMF fee revenues are replaced by both the $1.270 billion of Measure "A" funds and the funding derived from the County's standard menu of funding sources, the TUMF will be illegally over -collecting fee revenues greater than the reasonable cost of providing services, in violation o.f Government Code §66005(a), Article XIIIB, §8(c) of the California Constitution, Article XIIIA, §4 of the California Constitution, Article XIIIC, §2(d) of the California Constitution, Government Code §53722 and §53728. Further, fee payers will be entitled to obtain refunds of the invalid TUMF payments (whether 100% or a lesser invalid portion) pursuant to the refund claims procedures of Government Code §66020. Once the County imposes and collects the invalid TUMF fees the County will become liable for refunds, even though the money is handed over to WRCOG to be spent. (WRCOG may share liability with the County, but by spending the money it will wind up with empty pockets.) The County would be ill advised to take on the liability of the TUMF program that fails to account for funding from collateral sources. 3. There is no factual basis for the County to adopt the findings required by Government Code §66001(a)(3)(4) and (b) to show a "reasonable relationship" between the TUMF fee and the impacts of development, due to the failure to review and analyze the overlap of local agency (County) development impact fees. In Section 2 of Ordinance No. 824 there are conclusory findings that the requisite "reasonable relationship" has been established, based upon the "Nexus Study" dated October 23, 2002. The "Nexus Study," though, provides absolutely no analysis or review of the effect of overlapping local agency (here the County) development impact fees and 4 benefit district fees. It has long been acknowledged by the County, WRCOG, and the other public agencies preparing to participate in TUMF, that the TUMF fee overlaps to varying degrees the development impact fees and benefit fees previously adopted by the local agencies. That is, a portion of the highway, arterial, or other transportation improvements that are to be funded by TUMF may already be designated for at least partial funding by the local agency fees. There is consensus that a developer should not pay twice in the TUMF and the local agency development impact fee (DIF) and/or benefit fee for the same transportation improvement But the manner of resolving that overlap and the net effect of attempting to resolve the overlap has not been analyzed or explained in the "Nexus Study" or anywhere else. This betrays a fundamental fallacy of the TUMF -which is promoted as a "uniform" regional fee to pay for transportation improvements. In truth, the amount and effect of the TUMF fee varies tremendously from one local agency to another, depending upon the amount and nature of the local agency fee programs for funding transportation improvements. In Section 4 of Ordinance No. 824, under Subsection F under the designation "Local Tier" it states: The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a recognized benefit district established. If there is a recognized benefit d9istrict established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF. Thus the TUMF acts as a replacement for the overlapping portion of a standard local agency DIF, but if the local agency fee is part of a "recognized benefit district" (such as road and bridge benefit districts, community facilities districts, etc) the TUMF will be reduced while the benefit district fee remains intact No supporting factual analysis has been carried out to determine the extent to which the TUMF would either replace local. agency (County) standard transportation DIF fees and/or be lowered by overlapping transportation fees paid to a "recognized benefit district" The County staff report dated October 28, 2002, submitting Ordinance No. 824, lamely asserts that "The Transportation Department has examined the existing County Development Impact fees and the Road and Bridge Benefit District fees and has submitted changes and recommendations to ensure that there are no conflicts between those programs and the proposed Ordinance." Where is the factual foundation of the "submitted changes and recommendations"? Where is the necessary analysis of the effects of those changes and recommendations on the amount of the TUMF fee that is 5 actually collected, and the effect of the TUMF's replacement of DIF revenues for County transportation projects? As it now stands, there is no way for an individual property owner and prospective developer in Western Riverside County to tell from Ordinance No. 824 and the "Nexus Study" the actual amount of the TUMF fee or the combined TUMF/DIF or the combined TUMF/benefit district fee that he or she may be required to pay. From a larger perspective, there is no information put before the Board of Supervisors that tells them what the actual amounts of the TUMF charged in different areas of the County will be, or the effects of the overlaps with DIFs and benefit district fees, or the actual collective revenue projections for these overlapping fee programs as they relate to the TUMF transportation improvements. Consequently, there is no factual foundation for the Board of Supervisors, much less ordinary citizens, to even know whether or not there is a "reasonable relationship" between the TUMF fee and the impacts of development. The Board cannot legally make the findings required by Government Code §66001. 4. There are additional basic flaws in the calculation of the TUMF and its purported "reasonable relationship" to the burden imposed by new development. Several of those basic flaws are summarized as follows: • 70%/30% Allocation of Costs Between Residential and Non-residential Development The "Nexus Study" arbitrarily assigns a disproportionate share of TUMF costs to "residential" transportation based upon the beginning and end points of vehicle trips. (See Table 5.4 on p. 27 of the "Nexus Study.") Any vehicle trip that has the home as either the beginning or end point is automatically assigned to the "residential" category. The "non-residential" category is defined by exclusion, consisting of all vehicle trips that don't fall in the "residential" category. By this measure, a new commercial or retail business, no matter how large, would never generate additional non-residential vehicle trips as long as the employees and customers of the business lived in Western Riverside County. This method ignores the reality that new businesses do in fact bring new jobs and new residents to the surrounding community; and a new successful retail business will certainly generate customer vehicle trips that didn't exist before. The arbitrary assignment of all vehicle trips with a residence as one node artificially inflates the residential allocation of costs to 70% and deflates the non-residential allocation to 30%. A more realistic acknowledgement of the vehicle trips added by new commercial and retail establishments would bring the relative allocation of costs into a range of 50% residential and 50% non- residential. 6 Exemption for Public Agencies. Section 4, ¶E(ii) of Ordinance No. 824 exempts from the TUMF any new development for "government/public' buildings, public schools and public facilities" There is no factual foundation or legal basis for granting such an exemption. As shown by Table 6.2 on p.`30 of the "Nexus Study," the "Government/Public Sector" is expected to account for 16.8 % of the new trip generation in the non- residential category. Exempting the "Government/Public Sector" results in a loss of $142.4 million in projected TUMF revenues. (See Appendix I to the "Nexus Study" and the table labeled "Fee Level For All TUMF Improvements.") The loss of funds otherwise recoverable from government/public facilities improperly shifts that burden' to residential and commercial developers. • Inequitable Return of TUMF Revenues to Local Agencies. There should be some reasonable correlation between the TUMF revenues generated by identifiable geographic areas and the level of return benefit of TUMF transportation improvements to the same geographic areas. Such a relationship should be particularly evident for TUMF facilities of local "Zonal Significance" (Nexus Study p.14) which make up 53.4% of the TUMF improvements (Nexus Study p. 20). With the vast majority of development activity and TUMF fee generation coming from the incorporated cities, one should find a reasonably corresponding level of TUMF improvements going back to those jurisdictions. However, as illustrated in a table produced by the Keith Companies and Riverside BIA (see attached) the big beneficiary of TUMF expenditures is the unincorporated county. The absence of a "reasonable relationship" between geographic/jurisdictional TUMF fee generation and corresponding levels of TUMF transportation improvements, renders the entire TUMF scheme invalid. • Failure To Consider Vesting Tentative Maps and Residential Subdivision Maps Protected by Government Code §65961. Though there is no analysis of this factor in the "Nexus Study," the residential building industry representatives have advised the County and WRCOG that there are large numbers of outstanding vesting tentative maps and residential tentative subdivision maps that are still within the 5-year protective period of Government Code §65961. The new housing generated by these maps will not be subject to the TUMF fee. The "Nexus Study," does not account for the residential units arising from these maps. Accounting for these nonpaying units would necessarily require a reduction in the projection of anticipated TUMF revenue and scaling back of TUMF improvements, or readjustment of the overall TUMF formula. 7 In summary, the TUMF program has not been carefully thought out beyond the broad -brush conceptual stage. Regional planning for regional transportation improvements is still a laudable idea that ought to be pursued. But the TUMF before you now in the form of Ordinance No. 824 should be rejected, so that you can go back to the drawing board and devise a program that is truly fair, equitable, and legal. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF WALTER P. McNEILL WPM/rmc Attachments cc: Barratt American, Inc. Mick Pattinson, President Deborah Bittleston, Attorney /,.//lia WALTER P. McNEILL 8 GOVERNMENT FEE AND REGULATION CONSULTANTS November 25, 2002 Board of Supervisors County of Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Comments on the Adoption of TUMF Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors should not set the TUMF until all of the WRCOG members' governing bodies review the program within public hearings and make a determination as to whether they will participate or continue with their own DIF program. A fiscal and/or any economic impact study of the far-reaching effects of TUMF on the regional economy is conspicuously absent from the TUMF documentation. Considering the high and uniform level of the TUMF fee, this is a stunning omission and a spectacular failure of WRCOG leadership. THE NEXUS STUDY: Although members of WRCOG developed the TUMF program and the attendant fees came about as the result of the nexus study by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., no public agency has yet adopted an ordinance implementing the program. The County of Riverside proposes to conduct the first public hearing on the TUMF fee program on November 26, 2002. If the County of Riverside adopts the program, they could vicariously lead the other members of WRCOG in adopting the program by this ordinance into a libelous situation. Other members of WRCOG following the County of Riverside's example will expose themselves to the same challenges to TUMF as presented below. POST OFFICE BOX 4563 * PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263-4563 TEL: (760) 327-6528 FAX: (760) 322-2826 Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 2 The international engineering firm, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., provided a nexus study to WRCOG. WRCOG established their proposed fees to present to the County of Riverside and other cities in Western Riverside County for adoption from nexus study. The nexus study has a couple of inherent errors in its assumptions concerning the number of dwelling units estimated to be constructed and the number of increased population in Western Riverside County estimated over the life of TUMF, the next 23 years. Parsons BrinckerhoffQuade & Douglas, Inc.,provided the following table, Table 7.1 This table displays the fees currently proposed and some of the assumptions used to establish the fees: RESIDENTIAL SECTOR DWELLING UNITS FEE PER DWELLING UNIT SECTOR TOTAL (In Millions) Single -Family Residential 243,031 $6,650 $1,616.2 Multi -Family Residential 74,657 $4,607 $344.0 RESIDENTIAL TOTAL - 317,688 $1,960.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR SQUARE FEET FEE PER SQUARE FOOT FEE PER ACRE SECTOR TOTAL (In Millions) Industrial 55,867,287 $1.45 $14,255 $80.9 Retail 41,859,539 $7.81 $113,227 $326.7 Service 61,559,537 $4.84 $105,436 $298.1 Governmental/Public Sector 19,210,219 $7.41 $112,191 $142.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 178,496,582 $848.1 TUMF TOTAL S2,808.3 PROPOSED NUMBERS OF NEW DWELLINGS ERROR: The assumptions provided in this chart represent the estimated increase in the number of dwelling units and the increase in number of square feet from the years 2002 to 2025, i.e. over the next 23 years. The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study relies upon SCAG and CETAP demographic data as the basis of their assumptions. Considering the estimated growth provided in the above chart, 317,688 dwelling units over the next 23 years, WRCOG projects an estimated average of 10,567 single family dwellings and 3,246 dwelling units in multi -family structures constructed each year until the year 2025. The study therefore estimates that builders will construct an average of 13,813 dwelling units each year in Western Riverside County. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 3 The WRCOG TEJTMF Nexus Study provides an over optimistic projection of housing starts. The study, on page 29, states that Western Riverside County currently; has 308,860 single-family dwellings and 94,879 multi -family dwelling units, totaling 403,739 existing dwelling units. The table above estimates that builders will build 243,031 new single- family dwellings and 74,657 new multi -family dwelling units during the period covered by TUMF. This totals 317,688 dwelling units and represents an increase of 79% over the existing housing stock. If builders add an additional estimated average of 10,567 single family dwellings and 3,246 dwellingunits in multi -family structures constructed each year until the year 2025, the increase represents an additional average of 3 4% of the current housing stock the first year. The study's reliance on the production of Multi -Family (MFR) dwelling units at one- fourth of total housing production is misguided. For the past five years, the production of new MFR units has averaged 11% of total housing production, resulting in veritable crisis in the attached housing markets due to the virtual absence of any construction liability insurance. Annually, California is producing between 110,000 and 150,000 new homes depending upon economic conditions. However, the demand created by more families moving into the home buying age is 220,000 homes per year according to Julie Bornstein, director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development. In the Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report, July 2002, John E. Husing, Ph.D., stated that Dataquick reported 12,513 seasonally adjusted existing and new home sales in Riverside County during the second quarter of 2002. Of these sales recordings, Riverside County recorded 3,978 new homes during the second quarter of 2002, up 22.4% over 2001. Concerning the percentage of new home sales to existing home sales in Riverside County, new home sales represent about 32% of these home sales. The dafaderived from the Construction Industry Research Board as illustrated in this table below indicates that that an average of 10,871 new dwelling units were provided by builders in the WRCOG membership area over the past 5 years: WRCOG - COUNTY PLUS CITIES SFR MFR TOTAL 2002 Y-T-D 11,449 623 12,072 2001 13,540 1321 14,861 2000 10,086 1276 11,362 1999 9,617 1354 10,971 1998 7,906 1340 9,246 1997 6,994 920 7,914 Total: 48,143 6211 54,354 5-Year Avg. 9,628.6 1,242.2 10,870.8 Source: Construction Industry Research Board Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 4 TUMF will lead to consequences inapposite to the intent and expectations of its creators in that it prohibits developers and builders from meeting the population demands for new esidential and non-residential development and subsequently, fail to fund the TUMF transportation facilities. The WRCOG study contains at minimum the following deficiencies: First, the WRCOG study does not consider the economic downturns in the economy and how those recessions affect the production of new housing. Second, the study did not consider interest rates. The rates today are at a historic low. Over the next 23 years, those rates will fluctuate and therefore have tremendous effects upon the housing industry's sales. Third, considering the length of time it takes to get project approval, a grading permit, or a building permit in Riverside County, the shear weight of the bureaucratic process and the lack of timely service to the development community will most definitely inhibit any growth in the number of new homes reaching the constant level of development projected by WRCOG! Virtually all housing zoning and land use entitlement approvals for housing produced today within the WRCOG domain was obtained between four and six years ago. The current entitlement approval climate suggests a dramatic lengthening of this approval process and shall have a substantial impact on housing production numbers. Fourth, the study did not consider the effects of TUMF on the production of new housing and the construction of non-residential buildings. The amount of the TUMF and other fees imposed upon new development substantially inhibits builders from meeting the housing demands of the region because of its inflationary effect upon home pricing and affordability. TUMF will have a similar effect upon the growth of job -producing non-residential development. TRIPS: Table 5-4 of the WRCOG Nexus Study proposes that residential development produces 70% of the trips, verses 30% of the trips generated by non-residential development. This seems incongruent with reality. Typically trips from home lead to work, school, or to a commercial destination, not home to home. The correct proportions are a 50%/50% split. The WRCOG Nexus Study assigns all trips that interact with "Home" to the end of the trip only. For example, the study places the responsibility or burden for a person traveling from Home to Work entirely to the "Home" end of the trip. The WRCOG Nexus Study subsequently eliminates the "Work" place from consideration for their portion of the traffic responsibility. The proper way of assigning "Home -Work" Trip Production assigns one- half of such trips to the Home End (referred to in traffic modeling terminology as the "Production End" of the Trip) and assigns the other one-half of such Trips to the Work Place (referred to in traffic modeling terminology as the "Attraction End" of the Trip). Subsequently, the WRCOG Nexus Study does not include any commuter trips to the workplace in the non-residential development share of the TUMF. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 5 The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study overestimates the population growth over the next 23 years. Page 6 of the study provides the 2000 population count as 1,199,004 occupying 403,739 households, or an average of 2.97 persons per household. By multiplying the number of average number of new dwelling units proposed by WRCOG, 13,813, by the average of 2.971 new persons per single-family occupancy, we can estimate an average of 41,025 new residents occupying single-family and multi -family dwelling units each year. Over the 23-year period, this calculation provides 943,575 new residents. However, this number conflicts with the population increase provided by WRCOG. On the same page, WRCOG' s study prepared by Parson BrinckerhoffQuade & Douglas, Inc. estimates a 2025 population of 2,232,983 persons in 721,427 households, which averages of 3.1 persons per household. Therefore, WRCOG estimates the population increase as 1,033,979 or 90,404 new persons over the estimate above derived by the applying the current number of persons per households to new dwellings. This difference of 90,404 new persons represents the population of a rather large community. According to the 2000 census, this population of 90,404 persons would constitute the fourth largest city in Riverside County. The study also assumes that an average of 7,760,721 square feet of non-residential construction will occur within the WRCOG membership area per year. That number seems very low concerning the square footages the big -box stores and warehouses built each year in Western Riverside County. However, with the amount of TUMF proposed to impose on commercial and retail, development to this extent will not occur. Reduced Fees: If we were to reduce the demand for new transportation improvements expected over the next 23'years by reducing the expected number dwelling units or the square feet of non- residential development, then an obvious reduction of the TUMF should follow by the percentage of that difference. Between 1990 and 2000, Western Riverside County's population increased by 282,233 persons in WRCOG's member agencies. If we divide that growth number by 2.99 persons, we find that this increase in population theoretically created 94,392 new dwelling units at 2.99 people per dwelling unit, or an average of 9,439 new dwelling units per year. This is only 68% of WRCOG's estimated average annual new housing starts. If we use the Study's annual growth estimate of 2.5% to escalate this average number of dwellings, 9,439, over the past year starting with year one for 23 years, we shall have 16,250 dwellings constructed in year 23. The total number of dwellings for the 23-year period is 288,686 dwelling units, 29,002 less than the WRCOG estimate or 9% of the estimate WRCOG used to establish the TUMF. The number of persons per household in Riverside County according to the 2000 census was 2.99 persons. San Bernardino County had 3.14 persons per household in 2000. Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 6 Following this analysis, WRCOG should reduce the TUMF by 9% on this point. This would result in a single-family residential fee of $6,051.50 and a multi -family fee of $4,192. MEASURE "A" AND OTHER OVERLAPS: Paladin has two issues with WRCOG's TUMF and Measure "A" recently approved by the voters in the County of Riverside. First, Paladin suspects overlapping projects between TUMF and Measure"A" in the improvements projected for State Highways 74 and 79, and Cajalco Road. Paladin requests that the Board of Supervisors seek clarification of this concern from staff immediately. Second, TUMF establishes a mitigation fee for transportation to operate in conjunction with a tax -supported program. Many of the WRCOG member cities believe that have no choice but to adopt TUMF in the form and substance of the fee adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Cities cite the language of Measure "A". Does Measure "A" as approved by the electorate on November 5, 2002, indeed compel all member agencies of WRCOG to adopt TUMF in a form identical to the fee proposed to the Board of Supervisors? The extended Sales Tax Measure does not identify what the TUMF fee(s) amount but the literature only makes reference to "a TUMF Fee' and a total fee revenue goal of $400 Million. Moreover, the extended Sales Tax Measure becomes effective some time in the Year 2009 and nothing in the Measure suggests that the WRCOG member agencies must collect "a" TUMF in 2002 or soon thereafter. Furthermore, the language of Measure "A" reads that the collection of"a" TUMF shall apply towards funding certain Regional Arterial Roads as illustrated by the inclusion of a list limited to certain Regional Arterial facilities. In addition, with exception of certain efforts by the County Transportation Department, no WRCOG member agency has published any analysis detailing the correlation between existing traffic mitigation fees and TUMF. The overlap Measure "A" and TUMF is material and substantial. The WRCOG Nexus Study does not identify prospective outside funding sources from state, federal, or other sources that may fund future road improvements identified in their study. WRCOG must eliminate any TUMF improvement project involved in these overlaps. Comments on the Adoption ofTUMF November 25, 2002 Page WINNERS AND LOSERS: Small v. Large: The Keith Companies and Riverside BIA provided the following table that provides the allocation of the revenues towards infrastructure improvements to each of the members of WRCOG based upon revenues of $3,002,438,000.00. Jurisdiction Back Bone Back Bone Secon Benel Secondary Total Roads %Total Rant i g Banning $ - 0.00% $ 93,816,000.00 5.41% $ 93,816,000.00 3.12% 9 Beaumont $ 89,177,000.00 7.02% $ 76,618,000.00 4.42% 8 165,795,000.00 5.52% 4 Calimesa $ 0.00% $ 91,546,000.00 5.28% $ 91,546,000.00 3.05% 10 Canyon Lake $ 9,809,000.00 0.77% $ - 0.00% $ 9,809,000.00 0.33% 15 Corona $ 39,319,000.00 3.10% $ 113,940,000.00 6.58% $ 153,259,000.00 5.10 'l 6 Hemet $ 10,018,000.00 0.79% $ 28,775,000.00 1.66% $ 38,793,000.00 1.29% 14 Lake Elsinore $ 17,184,000.00 1.35% $ 87,553,000.00 5.05% $ 104,737,000.00 3.49% 8 Moreno Valley $ 87,686,000.00 6.91% $ 168,627,000.00 9.73% $ 256,313,000.00 8.54% 3 Murrieta $ 35,910,000.00 2.83% $ 42,614,000.00 2.46% $ 78,524,000.00 2.62% 11 Norco $ - 0.00% $ 41,521,000.00 2.40% $ 41,521,000.00 1.38% 13 Penis $ 62,194,000.00 4.90% $ 97,636,000.00 5.64% $ 159,830_000.00 5.32% 5 Riverside $ 67,579,000.00 5.32% $ 222,838,000.00 12.86% $ 290,417,000.00 9.67% 2 San Jacinto $ 37,064,000.00 2.92% $ 31,348,000.00 1.81% $ 68,412,000.00 2.28% 12 Temecula 8 81,079,000.00 6.38% $ 65,944,000.00 3.81% $ 147,023,000.00 4.90% 7 Unincorporated 8 732,817,000.00 57.71% $ 569,826,000.00 32.89% $ 1,302,643,000.00 43.39% 1 Totals: $ 1,269,836,000.00 100.00% $ 1,732,602,000.00 100.00% $ 3,002,438,000.00 100.00% WRCOG's Consideration Burden on TUMF: WRCOG is the big winner in TUMF. WRCOG collects and administrates TUMF. WRCOG receives 1 % of the collections to cover their expenses. If the TUMF collects the $3,002,438,000 as provided in the chart above, the TUMF will retain $30,024,380 over 23 years, or an average of $1,305,408 per year. WRCOG shall have substantial sums of TUMF monies on deposit and this money shall yield considerable interest earnings. Who shall benefit from the interest earnings? FALLING OUT OF THE TUMF PROGRAM BY MEMBER CITTFS: The membership of WRCOG consists of the incorporated area of the County of Riverside and 14 member cities. Smaller cities are now realizing that the unincorporated area of Western Riverside County dominates the TUMF. Riverside County dominates each zone and TUMF. Comments on the Adoption o November 25, 2002 Page 8 TUMF is a fee -sharing scheme. Smaller cities' collections of TUMF will benefit larger cities near build -out. The cities that are close to build -out have diminished potential to collect any future development impact fees. Therefore, when TUMF is collected in any particular zone, a percentage of the 50% that does not return to source will go to Riverside County or to one of the larger cities that has limited fee collection potential. Money flows to local agencies that do not legally merit receipt of the funds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Except for Canyon Lake, larger cities like Corona, Temecula, and Riverside are closer to build -out than smaller cities, yet these three large cities require in excess of $500 Million in Secondary Road improvements alone. As these cities are close to build -out they have diminished potential to collect any future development impact fees. On the other hand, cities like Norco, Hemet, and San Jacinto, each strong future growth candidates, have a need for about $100 Million in Secondary Roads. Should development in these latter cities largely pay for roads in these largely built -out cities? Recent discussion speculates on the issue of whether all of the member cities of WRCOG will participate in the TUMF program. Dissention within any City's governing body that causes their withdrawal from the TUMF program will reduce the required infrastructure allocated to that city and subsequently the TUMF should see a proportionate reduction based upon that city's percentage of TUMF. For example, if Beaumont, Calimesa, Corona, Lake Elsinore, Norco, Perris, and Temecula do not adopt TUMF, then the total TUMF roads allocated to these cities, 20.94% of the total, will not obtain funding from these cities. Therefore, the TUMF should be reduced by that amount. This ends up being $1,393 less than currently proposed by WRCOG. This reduction by itself would reduce the $6,650 single-family dwelling fee by $1,393 to $5,257 within Western Riverside County and participating cities. If we reduce the amount of TUMF for the single-family dwelling unit previously reduce by reducing the number of new dwellings during the TUMF period, $6,051.50, by 20.94%, we would reduce the $6,051:5Q by $1,271 to $4,781, or $1,869 less than currently proposed. This represents a 28% reduction in the single-family residential TUMF. LOST REVENUES: The Paladin Group is concerned about the loss of potential revenue sources identified by WRCOG that are now exempt by the proposed ordinance or by waiver by member agencies of WRCOG. The WRCOG Executive Committee voted to eliminate in sum total the entire "Governmental / Public Sector Component" of the TUMF Program at $142 Million. The proposed TUMF Ordinance also proposes to exempt low-income residential housing, guest dwellings, and second units on the same parcel without identifying from where the funds to cover the deficit created by these eliminations. Recent objections to TUMF by non-residential builders may bring relief to those builders by WRCOG member agencies. WRCOG member agencies must make up any reduction to the TUMF Program with funds from sources (i.e. General Fund sources) other than the builders and land developers. Comments on the Adopttun o November 25, 2002 Page 9 Those public sector members present at a number of meetings convened to discuss TUMF occasionally mentioned the "M" (moratorium) word in the context of probability without TUMF. Since the development of TUMF is a reaction to the prospective demand upon regional transportation facilities created by new development, a symbiotic relationship appears to exist between transportation improvements and new development. Without new transportation improvements, saying quality new development will not occur is a fair TUIVIF assumption. The corollary to this statement provides the likely result of the TUMF program. New transportation improvements will not occur without new development. With the proposed amount of TUMF where it is, TUMF will put a brake on new development. In this sense, TUMF is a moratorium. RECOMMENDATION: TUMF is self-defeating. The amount of the TUMF prohibits the growth projections used as assumptions in the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study. TUMF and other prospective fees increase the selling price of homes and therefore reduce the demand as prices remove consumers from the market. This will ultimately reduce the number of new homes built. The members of WRCOG need to direct WRCOG and its consultants to revisit the projections concerning new development and population increases with the objective to revisit the amount of facilities necessary and the amount of TUMF to pay for those facilities. This study provides the basis for that review. The Board needs to look at the real world of development before accepting WRCOG's TUMF proposal and the assumptions used to develop those proposed fees. The historic record does not support a straight line of development increasing 2.5% per year. Development occurs in cycles with peaks and valleys. During the peaks, local government development departments delay the processing of projects due to service demands and work overload. Development will not occur to the extent estimated by WRCOG without remedying the cause of these delays. Any regional transportation program must be developed though the various local agencies individual plenary powers granted by the state constitution and agreements executed between the agencies to implement the construction program. The program must fund only the "back -bone" transportation facilities. The delegation of each local agency's police power to WRCOG to allocate and spend fees collected by individual local agencies outside their territory represents an unlawful delegation of police powers.2 2 The City's police power can be applied only within its own territory and is subject to preemption by general state law, but otherwise is as broad as the police power exercisable by the state legislature. Birkenfeldv. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 130 Cal Rptr. 465 (1976). Comments on the Adoption of TUMF November 25, 2002 Page 10 Finally, The Board should not set the TUMF until all of the WRCOG members' governing bodies review the program within public hearings and make a determination as to whether they will participate or continue with their own DIY program.' Please call me at (909) 369-9318 to discuss these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, The Paladin Group Morgan Keith Vice -President of Legal Research cc: Mick Pattinson, Immediate Past -President, CBIA, and President, Barratt American Incorporated Borre Winckel, Executive Officer, BIA-Riverside Date: March 20, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Tim Hults, Community Development Directo SUBJECT: Adoption of Negative Declaration and Introduction of Ordinance No. 03-04 for Zoning Amendment 3-02 — Pet Crematoriums RECOMMENDATION: By motion adopt a Negative Declaration and introduce Ordinance Number 03-04 approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3-02. BACKGROUND: In March, 2002 a proposal was made to the Planning Department for a pet/small animal crematorium in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district. Since there was no equivalent use within this zoning district. Staff referred the matter to the Planning Commission for a determination. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to include development standards for this type of use. Staff researched what other jurisdictions have done with regard to pet/small animal crematoriums. Research indicated that Cities or Counties have done little to establish a standard for which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established. Within the Riverside and San Bernardino area there are a number of pet crematoriums but when asked on the standards they used to establish the use, staff was often referred to specific department which addressed specific issues and it was left to the governing body to decide if the use is appropriate for the location. Staff did find standards for the operation of pet crematoriums from the Accredited Pet Cemetery Society (APCS) and Dr. Clay Johnson, DVM who operates the Circle of Life clinic in Valle Vista also provided input as to the operation of this type of facility. The Planning Commission reviewed location issues, the hours of operation, size of pets and disposal of ashes. Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 2 As a conditionally permitted use, hours of operation and size of pet remains can be a Planning Commission determination. A typical cremation system can cremate animal remains at a rate of 75-pounds per hour. With regard to disposal of the cremated pet ashes, staff has contacted Matt Hickman, Program Coordinator for Hazardous Wastes at Riverside County, who indicated that the Lamb's Canyon landfill would accept bagged cremated pet remains with no special handling required. These regulations address operation of the crematorium with the intent to make pet crematoriums a conditionally permitted use within the Light Manufacturing Zone (M-1). JUSTIFICATION: The Planning Commission determined that a pet/small animal crematorium with the standards implemented would be conditionally consistent with the intent of the M-1 zoning district. BUDGETARY IMPACT: Slight increase in the number of Conditional Use Permit applications ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -January 16, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution Attachment ' B" - CEQA Document Attachment "C" - Planning Commission Approved Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of December 12, 2002 Commissioners Rao and Whitefield abstained their' vote from Consent Calendar item 4.1, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of December 12, 2002, because they were not present at the meeting. 4.2 Request for a 2"d extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 29447 — four parcel subdivision of 109 acres. Applicant: Record Family 920 w. Ramona Expressway San Jacinto, CA 92582 Meeting of the Planning Commission of December 12, 2002, and 4.2, Request for a 2"d extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 29447 as presented. Ayes: Cope, Rao, Whitefield, Warneke, and Mansperger Noes: None Abstained: Rao and Whitefield abstained their vote from Consent Calendar Item 4.1., due to their absence. M/S/C (COPE/RAO) to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.1, Minutes of the Regular 5.0 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3-02 Applicant: City of San Jacinto 248 E. Main Street San Jacinto, CA 92583 A proposal to amend section 13.02 to establish standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium would be a permitted use within the M-1 zoning district. Information Planner Clayton presented his staff report dated January 16, 2003. Chairman Warneke was concerned with the set backs. He felt that as proposed, a use could be established too close to residential property. Director Huits indicated that the Commission had the ability to change the requirements to limit this type of project from areas near residential properties. Commissioner Cope indicated that 20 feet is adequate for set backs in a commercial zone, because the traffic volume in not very high. Chairman Warneke wanted to add in the provisions that a pet crematorium would not be allowed in or next to a residential area. Public Hearing opened. Dr. Johnson, Circle of Life, addressed the Commissions concerns with regard to the setbacks. He indicated that noise and smell could travel as far as 100 feet. Page 2 ATTACHMENT A Mr. Dan Mesina agreed with the Commission on the set back on 20 feet being too close. Commissioner Rao indicated that he would support increasing the distance of the setbacks. Director Hults indicated that the Commission could agree to modify the language as follows: Exhibit A, No. 1 to read as follows: Development Standards - The use shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building on any M-1 zoned property located not less than 150 feet from any R-zone property. Also deleting 1 (b) he -se of a freestanding building abutting non M properties.` Qet backs from any residential The Commission agreed. Public Hearing closed. M/S/C (RAO/COPE) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 02-35, recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3-02, with the changes to Exhibit A, No. 1 to read as follows: Development Standards - The use shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building on any M-1 zoned property located not less than 150 feet from any R-zone property. Also deleting 1 (b) an the case of as -free nding building abu kiting nonJl�o�_� _rt _ prooperties.Set bbacks-Ft oom-any re ssiden ia1 district -or uses: Prent-yard - 30 feeet; side yard— 20-feet-rea, yard 79feet. 5.2 TENTATIVE TRACT 30942 Applicant: GKH Diversified L.P. 28715 Los Alisos Boulevard, Suite 7 #407 Mission Viejo, CA 92692 A proposal to divide approximately 19.55 acres into 77 residential lots and a retention basin located on the east side of Kirby Street between 7th Street and Cottonwood Avenue, adjacent to Roanoke Street. Prior to the meeting the City Engineer had requested that the Commission continue this agenda item, Tentative Tract 30942 due to design issues. Staff will re -notice this item when the issues have been resolved. Page 3 ATTACHIVIENT B II CITY I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: INITIAL STUDY Project Case Type (s) and Number(s): Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3-02 Lead Agency Name: City of San Jacinto Address: 248 E. Main Street Contact Person: David Clayton Telephone Number: 909-487-7330 Applicant's Name: City of San Jacinto Address: 201 East Main St; San Jacinto, CA 92583 I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to project grading, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation): The project is to amend section 13.02 of Ordinance 340 to establish standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium would be a permitted use within the M-1 zoning district. B. Type of Project: Site Specific ❑ ; Citywide Community El; Policy P. Two or more of the above may apply. A Site Specific Project involves fewer than 1000 property owners in a definable area and results in a change in existing land uses, zoning, open space designations or Community Plan land use designations. If Site Specific Project was checked fill out the remainder of this page. If Site Specific Project was not checked and the project covers a defined area, fill in only Item C "Total Project Area" and G below. C. Total Project Area: 26.81 square miles To the extent possible, fill out the remaining information for Item "C" as it applies to the project. Residential: Acres ; Lots ; Units ; Projected No. of Residents Commercial: Acres ; Lots ; Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area ; Est. No. of Employees Industrial: Acres ; Lots ; Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area ; Est. No. of Employees Other: D. Assessor's Parcel No(s): E. Street References: F. Section, Township & Range Description or reference/attach a Legal Description: G. Brief description of the existing environmental setting of the project site and its surroundings:. ATTACHMENT e I1. APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE POLICIES AND ZONING This page must only be completed for proposals that qualify as Site Specific Projects. The information on this page is not required for projects which are not Site Specific; however, completion of this section is encouraged. A. Open Space and Conservation Map Designation(s) B. Land Use Planning Area (L.U.P.A.) Information 1. L. U.' P. A. Name(s): 2 Subarea, if any: 3. Community Policy Area, if any: C. Community Plan Land Use Allocation Map Information 1 Community Plan, if any: 2. Community Plan Land Use Designation, if any: D. Adopted Specific Plan Information 1. Name and Number of Specific Plan, if any: 2. Specific Plan Planning Area, and Policies, if any: E. Existing Zoning: F. Proposed Zoning, if any: G. Adjacent and Surrounding Zoning: 2 111 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below ( ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a'Potentially Significant Impact' or "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Other Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED 1 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project, described in this document, have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment NOTHING FURTHER IS REQUIRED because all potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously -certified EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be considered by the approving body or bodies. I find that at least one of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section'15162 exist, but I further find that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation;, therefore a SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IM PACT REPORT is required that need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. I find that at least one of the following conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, exist and a SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information` of substantial importance; which was not known and could riot have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any the following - (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. 9/11/02 Signature Date David Clayton For TIM HULTS, Community Development Director -Jrtnted Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in its explanation following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does riot apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must descrihe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reds ice the effect to a less than significant 4 level (mitigation measures trom "Earlier Analyses" as cited in Section VI may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: ) Earlier Analysis Used. 'Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation' Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address the site -specific conditions for the project. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances) should be included. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify (a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 5 V.ENVIRONMENTAL`ISSUES ASSESSMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 - 21178.1), this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the proposed project to determine any potential significant mpacts upon the environment that would result from construction and implementation of the project. In accordance with California' Code of Regulations, Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the City of San Jacinto, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies; to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the proposed project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the decision -makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Potentially Significant Impact AESTHETICS Would the project Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 1. Scenic Resources a) Have a substantial effect upon a scenic highway corridor within which it is located? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and unique or landmark features; obstruct any prominent scenic vista or view open to the public; or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established . No development projects are currently proposed the environmental effects of such projects will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 2. Other Lighting Issues a) Create a new source of substantial light or glare • which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? b) Expose residential property to unacceptable light levels? • 6 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source:.: Findingsof Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established . No development projects are currently proposed the environmental effects of such projects will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required.` Mitigation: None Monitoring: AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project 3. Agriculture a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ( agricultural preserve) contract (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conservation Contract Maps)? to c) Cause development of non-agricultural uses within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property? • d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? • Source: SJGP (MEA-IV-15) Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: AIR QUALITY Would the project 4. Air Quality Impacts a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant ' No Impact MitigationImpact Impact Incorporated mos c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? • .d) Expose sensitive receptors which are located within 1 mile of the project site to project substantial point source emissions? e) Involve the construction of a sensitive receptor located within one mile of an existing substantial point source emitter? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Source: SJGP as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment which a pet/small animal crematorium could be the environmental effects of such projects will be will be required. Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned because the project involves only the standards under established. No development projects are currently proposed evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed Mitigation: None Monitoring: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project 5. Wildlife & Vegetation a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan? s b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? • c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? • 8 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated d) Interferesubstantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • ) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California 'Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? • g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established. No development projects are currently proposed the environmental effects of such projects will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project 6. Historic Resources a) Alter or destroy an historic site? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established. No development projects are currently proposed the environmental effects of such projects will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring 9 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 7. Archaeological Resources o) Alter or destroy an archaeological site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Source: as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established environmental effects of such projects will be evaluated Findings of Fact No environmental impacts are envisioned because the project involves only the standards under and operated. No project is currently under review the and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. lvlitigation: None Monitoring: 8. Paleontological Resources Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • Source: as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established environmental effects of such projects will be evaluated Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned because the project involves only the standards under and operated. No project is currently under review the and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Definitions for Land Use Suitability Ratings Where indicated below, the appropriate Land Use Suitability Rating(s) has been underlined. NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted a. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, inLury, or death involving: including the risk of loss, IL 10 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 9. Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault Hazard Zones Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? A-P Zones NA ✓ PS U R CFH Zones NA V PS U Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated .`No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. No Impact Mitigation: None Monitoring: 10. Liquefaction Potential Zone Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? • NA ✓ S PS U R Source: SJGP (MFA-IV-6) Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 11. Groundshaking Zone Strong seismic ground shaking? • NA ✓ S PS U R Source: SJGP (MEA-IV-6) Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: Building Department 11 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated No Impact 12. E..andslide`Risk /VA S PS U R Se located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, or rockfall hazards? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under and operated. No project is currently proposed the environmental specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None which a pet/small effect animal crematorium of each such could be project will be evaluated established and rv1onitorinq: 13. Ground Subsidence Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ground subsidence? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated. No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 14. Other Geologic Hazards Such as seiche, mudflow or volcanic hazard? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: b. Would the project: II 12 Less than Potentially Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15, ;dopes el) Change topography or ground surface relief features? • b) Create cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher than 10 feet? c) Result in grading that affects or negates subsurface sewage disposal systems? Source: Findings of Fact No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None which a pet/small effect animal crematorium of each such could be project will be established evaluated Monitoring: 16. Soils a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? e b) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e Source: Findings of Fact No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 17. Erosion a) Change deposition, siltation or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? e b) Result in any increase in water erosion either on or off site? e II 13 Date: March 20, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Tim Hults, Community Development Directo SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Introduction of First Reading of Ordinance No. 03-5 for Planning Zone Change No. 4-02 RECOMMENDATION: By motion adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and, introduce Ordinance Number 03-05 approving Zone Change 4-02. BACKGROUND: On January 16, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 4-02. The property associated with this application is located on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue between Seventh Street and the Riverside County Flood Control Channel. At this location the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 30770 and Variance 1-02, which proposes to divide 4.25 acres into 19 single family residential lots. The Change of Zone is necessary to bring the property into conformance with the use proposed. As shown in Attachment "A," the current zoning on the property is "A" (Agriculture) and R-1 (One -family residential) and would be re -zoned "R-1" (One -family residential) with the approval of this Ordinance. The site has most recently been used for agricultural purposes but is currently idle. JUSTIFICATION: The current General Plan Designation for the property is Medium Density Residential - PUD as such a residential development with a density of 5.51 dwellings per acre is consistent with the Land Use Designation. The project also conforms to the proposed City Council preferred Land Use Map developed for the Comprehensive General Plan Update. Appro� .s City Manage Page 1 of 2 Finance Director: BUDGETARY IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" - Current and Proposed Zoning Attachment "B" — January 16, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution Attachment "C" — CEQA Documents Attachment "D" - Proposed Tentative Map Page 2 of 2 mZU dirt@/ e 4.1110111 0t0 SWIGAMCAL•01W 0i01 NM i a nw NOW mr rwv..vna w L sIS MAW w'�7,4:1R al AM, W 01f Flom dGOP AwM1IIV ®U 1��4V- ni_ — a LW IN Amoral r Nf C.COQ SE am. ar-m AVe MN SI _ dw a uvr 2044VG A!#U LAA U — 4110 - Ml Rat MSI Mr NOWP f�iM'IEW ApV/p: # 0 ENOWEER/APPL.C>N7 ALL /C 41110 .. meow DI E � R-2 PUG w v r IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ZONE CHANGE EXHIBIT PORTION OF LOTS 2 & 3 OF GARDEN SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 9, PAGE 84, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS, LYING IN RANCHO SAN JACINTO VIEJO SAKE ENGINEERS, INC. R-7 A JULY 2002 R-2 PUD EJST. RFSDENTAL JS -It✓'K d WCO CHANNEL re/A. _ APR 4J5-240-023 BUENA VISTA REF. U4SiN R-1 Y!C/Nlri MAP ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. aQ-aa.wr MILL ar LSI AL ElSAN4DE AIR C— 6.0 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 TENTATIVE TRACT 30770, Change of Zone 4-02, and Variance 1-02 APPLICANT: Encore Homes 4405 Manchester Avenue, Suite 106 Encinitas, CA 92024 A proposal to divide approximately 4.25 gross acres into 19 residential lots. The Change of zone would change 2.61 acres of agriculture (A) zoned land and 1.64 acres of one -family residential (R-1) zoned land to one -family residential (R-1). The Variance reduces the minimum lot width on one corner lot from 72 feet to 62 feet. The project is located on the west side of Santa Fe and approximately 400 feet south of Seventh Street. Information Planner Clayton presented his staff report dated January 16, 2003. The Commission had some concern with a certain lot on the tract. They also had some questions as to the storm drain. Public Hearing opened. Sam Akbarpour, Sake Engineers and representative for the project indicated that he was there to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public Hearing closed. M/S/C (WHITEFIELD/RAO) to adopt a De Minimis Impact Finding, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planning Commission Resolution 02-41, recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 4-02, subject to the Findings of Fact; Planning Commission Resolution 02-66, approving Variance 1-02; and Planning Commission Resolution 02- 42, approving Tentative Tract Map 30770, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 6.2 Tentative Map 29447, Amendment 1 Applicant: Record Family 920 W. Ramona Expressway San Jacinto, CA 92582 The amendment recognizes the changes proposed in the Comprehensive General Plan Update with regard to Ramona Boulevard and the proposed realignment of Sanderson Avenue. The Amendment also combines two of the four previously approved parcels and divides the 48+ acre remainder parcel into two 20+ acre parcels and a 2.21 remainder parcel. Information Planner Clayton presented his staff report dated January 16, 2003. The Commission had some questions with regard to the various zoning of the project. Information Planner Clayton responded to their concems. He indicated that the specific plan for the project had expired, but the zoning had remained the same. Page 4 -1-1- I-1 fV1EE Nm B CITY OF SA JACINTO ENVIRONNIENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: INITIAL STUDY Project Case Type (s) and Number(s): TentativeTract 30770 and change of zone 4-02 Lead Agency Name: City of San Jacinto Address: 248 E. Main Street Contact Person: David Clayton Telephone Number: 909-487-7330 Applicant's Name: Encore Homes Address: 4405 Manchester Avenue Suite 106 Encinitas, California 92024 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to project grading, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation): The applicant proposes to divide the 4.25 gross acres into 19 single family residential lots. Each lot has a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet. The site is located on the west side of Santa Fe between Seventh Street and the RCFC channel . B. Type of Project: Site Specific ; Citywide o; Community o; Policy O. Two or more of the above may apply. A Site Specific Project involves fewer than 1000 property owners in a definable area and results in a change in existing land uses, zoning, open space designations or Community Plan land use designations. If Site Specific Project was checked fill out the remainder of this page. If Site Specific Project was not checked and the project covers a defined area, fill in only Item C "Total Project Area" and G below. C. Total Project Area: 4.25 acres To the extent possible, fill out the remaining information for Item "C" as it applies to the project. Residential: Acres 3.4 Lots 19 ; Units ; Projected No. of Residents 54 . Commercial: Acres ; Lots ; Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area ; Est. No. of Employees Industrial: Acres ; Lots ; Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area ; Est. No. of Employees Other: D. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 435-240-021 E. Street References: west side of Santa Fe between Seventh Street and the RCFC channel F. Section, Township & Range Description or reference/attach a Legal Description: Section 34; Township 4 South; Range 1 West ATTACHMENT C G. Brief description of the existing environmental setting of he project 'site and its surroundings:' The site is generally flat sloping to the eastern property line. Most of the site has little vegetation except for locally occurring weeds. There is existing residences along Seventh Street and Santa Fe Most of the residential lots rear the site. The land appears to be currently idle and has historically been used for agricultural purposes. 2 I. APPLICABLE GENE L PLAN LAND USE POLICIES AND ZONING This page must only be completed for proposals that qualify as Site Specific Projects. The information on this page is no required for projects which are not Site Specific; however, completion of this section is encouraged. A. Open Space and Conservation Map Designation(s): B. Land Use Planning Area (L.U.P.A.) Information 1 L. U. P. A. Name(s): 2 Subarea, if any: 3. Community Policy Area, if any: C. Community Plan Land Use Allocation ap Information 1. Community Plan, if any: 2. Community Plan Land Use Designation, if any: D. Adopted Specific Plan Information 1. Name and Number of Specific Plan, if any: 2. Specific Plan Planning Area, and Policies, if any: E. Existing Zoning: One Family Residential (R-1) and Agriculture (A) F. Proposed Zoning, if any: One Family Residential (R-1) G. Adjacent and Surrounding Zoning: One -Family Residential (R-1) and R-2 (PUD). III ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact .lat is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture Resources Hydrology/Water < Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Other Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project, described in this document, have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1/ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment NOTHING FURTHER IS REQUIRED because all potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously -certified EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be considered by the approving body or bodies. 4 I find that at least one of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist, but l further find that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation;;, therefore a SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT REPORT is required that need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. i find that at least one of the following conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, exist and a SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant' environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any the following - (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (C) Mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or altematives; or (D) Mitigation measures or altematives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. 9/26/02 Signature Date David Clayton For TIM HULTS, Community Development Director Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in its explanation following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. °Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the iricorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a —Less l han Significant impact." 1 he lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses" as cited in Section VI may be cross-referenced).`> Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration: California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). ran this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address the site -specific conditions for the project. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances) should be included. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,` where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. (c) 7) Sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 6 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 - 21178.1), this initial Study has been prepared to analyze theproposed project to determine any potential significant impacts upon the environment that would result from construction and implementation of the project. In accordance with California Code of Regulations, Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the City of San Jacinto. in consultation with other; jurisdictional agencies, to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated ;Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the proposed project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the decision -makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated AESTHETICS Would the project 1. Scenic Resources a) Have a substantial effect upon a scenic highway corridor within which it is located? • b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and unique or landmark features; obstruct any prominent scenic vista or view open to the public; or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Source: Site Visit Findings of Fact: The site is vacant. Development of the site would not create a visual impacts to residential homes adjacent this project. Additionally, the site is flat with no rock outcroppings Mitigation: None Monitoring: Planning 2. Other Lighting Issues a) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • b) Expose residential property to unacceptable light levels? Source: Site Visit Findings of Fact: The project will produce slightly higher levels of light and glare due to night lighting. However the level of light is considered to well within acceptable levels. Mitigation: None Monitoring: AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project 7 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 3. Agriculture a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? • b) Conflict with existing agricultural use, or a Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conservation Contract Maps)? c) Cause development of non-agricultural uses within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property? • d) involve' other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source: SJGP (MEA-IV-15) are classified as being prime agricultural soils. Despite the amount of urbanization in the community, the development severely constrain the viability of uses to more urbanized uses is expected and is Findings of Fact: All of the soils in the San Jacinto area the suitability of the soils of San Jacinto area for agriculture, high cost of water and present pressures for additional agriculture as a dominant use. The transition of agricultural consistent with City objectives for the future. Mitigation: None Monitoring: AIR QUALITY Would the project 4. Air Quality Impacts a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? • d) Expose sensitive receptors which are located within 1 mile of the project site to project substantial point source emissions? • 8 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated e) Involve the construction of a sensitive receptor located withinone mile of an existing substantial point source emitter? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Source: SJGP term dust, smoke and odors. As stated these will be is completed. With the completion of additional motor vehicle usage into the area. Individually, air quality in the SCAB, but the cumulative effects from air quality problems in the SCAB. be watered to control dust. Regular sweeping and clean dirt shall be removed from construction equipment and is minor in nature when considering the increased pay the carpool mitigation fee in effect at the time. Findings of Fact: Grading Activities will generate short primarily short term in nature and will cease when construction construction of the 19 single-family homes will induce this development will not have a significant impact on the development of the site will contribute to the overall Mitigation: During construction and grading, the site will up of adjacent streets shall be undertaken. Mud and vehicles prior to leaving the site. The proposed project amounts of emissions. Therefore the developer shall Monitoring: B&S BIOLOGICAL' RESOURCES Would the project 5. Wildlife &Vegetation a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan? o b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? o c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? o d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? a 9 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact ` Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source: Site Visit use and routine discing, the site is continually As such, there will be no impact on endangered Findings of Fact: The site is vacant. Because of agricultural changing and has no significant vegetation, flora or fauna. species. Mitigation: None Monitoring: Planning CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project 6. Historic Resources a) Alter or destroy an historic site? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? • Source: Site Visit historical resources. Findings of Fact: The site is not in an area of potential Mitigation: None Monitoring: 7. Archaeological Resources a) Alter or destroy an archaeological site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? e c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? • 10 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Source. Site Visit Findings of Fact: The site is not in an area of potential archaeological resources. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 8. Paleontological Resources Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Source: Site Visit Findings of Fact: The site is not in an area of potential paleontological resources. Mitigation: None Monitoring: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Definitions for Land Use Suitability Ratings Where indicated below, the appropriate Land Use Suitability Rating(s) has been underlined. NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS -Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted a. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial injury, or death involving: adverse effects, including the risk of loss, 9. Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault Hazard Zones Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? A-P Zones NA e/ PS U R CFH Zones NA ✓ PS U R Source: Special Studies Zone Map review Findings of Fact: The site is not in a known seismic/fault hazard area. The site is predominately vacant with no unique landforms or features. Mitigation: None Monitoring; 11 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 10. Liquefaction Potential Zone Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? NA 'S ✓ PS U ;R Source: SJGP (MEA-IV-6) Findings of Fact: Liquefaction is generally not a problem in the San Jacinto area because ground water levels tend to be in excess of 30 feet deep. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 11. Groundshaking Zone Strong seismic ground shaking? NA "S PS ✓ U R • Source: SJGP (MEA-IV-6) Findings of Fact: Strong ground shaking accompany earthquakes generated by slippage on the San Jacinto or Casa Loma faults is probably the most important geologic intensity of the ground during large earthquakes during particularly strong ground shaking. Mitigation: Building standards, including provisions for hazard in the recent earthquakes stabilization are planning area. indicate that routinely applied Evaluation of the the area is subject to to aii structures built in this area. Monitoring: Building Department 12. Landslide Risk NA S✓PS U R Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, or rockfall hazards? Source: Site Visit, SJGP (MEA-IV-6) Findings of Fact: Land slides and slope instability are relatively minor hazards in the urbanized portions of the San Jacinto. They represent a severe hazard in the northern portion, where the valley floor intersects with the San Jacinto Mountains. This tentative tract is not located in the area where the valley floor intersects with the mountains. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 13. Ground Subsidence Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ground subsidence? 12 Less than Potentially Significant" Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source: SJGP (MEA-IV-6) Findings of Fact: Settlement occurs along fault traces as a result of differential movement probably due to water extraction. This site is not located in a known subsidence area. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 14. Other Geologic Hazards Such as seiche, mudflow or volcanic hazard? Source: Site Visit Findings of Fact: The site that is being developed is not located in a flood zone and is not near a source of standing water. Mitigation: None Monitoring: b. Would the project: 15. Slopes a) Change topography or ground surface relief features? • b) Create cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher than 10 feet? • c) Result in grading that affects or negates subsurface sewage disposal systems? Source: Plan Review Findings of Fact: The site is relatively flat. The proposal is not creating slopes higher than 10 feet and no slope will be greater than 50% Mitigation: None Monitoring: 16. Soils a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • b) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? • 13 Less than Potentially Significant' Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation impact Impact Incorporated Source: U.S:D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys to expansion Findings of Fact: The soil type in this area is not subject Mitigation: None Monitoring: 17. Erosion a) Change deposition, siltation or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? • b) Result in any increase in water erosion either on or off site? Source: U.S:D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys of water runoff because of the increased area of materials. The additional runoff can be directed into Findings of Fact: The project would increase the amount impervious surfaces of asphalt, concrete and roofing existing and proposed flood control facilities. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 18. Wind Erosion and Blowsand from project either on or off site Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off site? • Source: RCGP significant issue in this part of San Jacinto. Findings of Fact: Wind erosion is not considered a Mitigation: None Monitoring: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project 19. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? • b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? • c) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? • 14 Less than Potentially Significant ` Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact ' Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? e) 'Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The approval of this project will not increase the risk of upset interfere with emergency response or adversely impact human health. Mitigation: None Monitoring 20. Airports a) Result in an inconsistency with an Airport Master Plan? b) Require review by the Airport Land Use Commission? c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or heliport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The project is not located within an airport control zone. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 21. Hazardous Fire Area Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 15 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source:'RCGP Findings of Fact: The Riverside County General Plan indicates that the site is not located in a high fire hazard area. Mitigation: None Monitoring: HYDROLOGY AND WATER. QUALITY Would the project 22. Water Quality Impacts a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site? b) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? o d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? do e) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? do f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? m g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? do Source: SJGP, Flood insurance Map Findings of Fact: The project is not located within a 100 or 500 year flood zone (Zone X unshaded). Mitigation: None Monitoring: City Engineer, Building & Safety 16 Less than Potentially Significant" Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 23. Floodplains': NA U R a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? • b) Changes in absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Dam Inundation Area)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Source: Project Map Findings of Fact: The project would increase the amount of water runoff because of the increased area of impervious surfaces of asphalt, concrete and roofing materials. The additional runoff can be directed into exist and proposed flood control facilities. Mitigation: The applicant is conditioned to prepare grading plans and obtain an easement for use of the RCFC channel. Monitoring: City Engineer LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project 24. Land Use a) Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b) Affect land use within a city sphere of influence and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries? • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The General Plan calls for Medium Density Residential (MDR) uses. The residential uses proposed is below the density for this land use designation. The draft General Plan proposes the entire area to remain Medium Density Residential. Mitigation: None Monitoring: Planning Department 25. Planning a) Be consistent with the site's existing or proposed zoning? • b) Be compatible with existing surrounding zoning? • 17 Less than Potentially Significant < Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated c) Becompatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses? o d) Be consistent with the land use designations and policies of the Comprehensive General ` Plan (including those of any applicable Specific Plan)? e e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Source: SJGP, Zoning Ordinance zoned as One Family Residential (R-1) and zoning for the area: The site is bounded, to the Residential (R-1). To the west is R-2 (PUD) and to the is Medium Density Residential (MDR-PUD) and Residential land uses. The Medium Density Residential defines those areas developed to medium densities Application with this Tentative Map Findings of Fact: The site of the development is currently Agriculture (A) and would not substantially alter the existing north Two-family Residential R-2 (PUD) and One -Family south is Agriculture (A). The existing General Plan Designation the proposed General Plan indicates Medium Density does include single-family detached units. The designation that wish to preserve as lower density character and appearance. Mitigation: The applicant is processing a Change of Zone Monitoring: Planning Department MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project 26. Mineral Resources a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in an area classified or designated by the State that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine? o d) Expose people or property to hazards from proposed, existing or abandoned quarries or mines? o Source: SJGP gravel as well as limestone quarry operations in the city. The most significant mineral extraction operation is is not located where it would impact mining operations. Findings of Fact: There are several sources of sand and area. These are all located in the northern part of the located adjacent to the San Jacinto River. This proposal Mitigation: None Monitoring: 18 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact ' Mitigation ' Impact Impact Incorporated NOISE Would the project result in Definitions for Noise Acceptability Ratings Where indicated below, the appropriate' Noise Acceptability Rating(s) has been underlined. NA - Not Applicable A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 27. Airport Noise a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA VABCD b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA✓ A B C D 0 Source: SJGP Findings of Fact. The project is not located within the flight pattern of an existing airport or private airstrip Mitigation: None Monitoring: 28. Railroad Noise NA✓ A B C D • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The project will not be impacted by railroad noise Mitigation: None Monitoring: 29. Highway Noise NA ✓ A B C D s 19 Less than Potentially Significant ; Less Than Significant with Significant No ImpactMitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source:'SJGP (MEA-II-2) vehicles. With land use intensification and more traffic, in community noise exposure are not expected to be Findings of Fact: The primary source of noise is motor noise levels increase. However, estimates of the increase significant. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 30. Other Noise NA A B C t] e Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: 31. Noise Effects on or by the Project a) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • b) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? d) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? Source: similar to surrounding single-family residential homes. noise levels. However, the proposed noise being similar Findings of Fact: The intensity of the proposed use is Additionally, approval of the Tentative Map will increase to the surrounding uses, the impact will be minimal. Mitigation: None Monitoring: POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project 20 Less than =< Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated 32. Housing a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b) Create a demand for additional housing, particularly housing affordable to households earning 80% or less of the County's median income? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) Affect a City Redevelopment Project Area? e) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? f) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The approval of the project will increase population and housing in the area. However, the proposal is expected to increase the availability of housing in the community. Therefore, the proposal is not expected to affect population projections. Mitigation: None Monitoring: PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 33. Fire Services Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal may slightly increase the demand for fire services. However a Fire Station mitigation fee has established to cover the increased demand. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 34. Police Services e 21 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal may slightly increase the demand for police services. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 35. Schools + Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal will to increase the demand for schools. However fees have been established to cover the demand. Mitigation: Pay school fees in accordance with state law Monitoring: HUSD 36. Libraries + Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for libraries. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 37. Health Services + Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for health services. Mitigation: Monitoring: RECREATION 38. Parks and Recreation a) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? + b) Would the project include the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? + c) Is the project located within a C.S.A. or recreation and park district with a Community Parks and Recreation Plan (Quimby fees)? + 22 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation ' Impact Impact Incorporated Source SJGP Findings of Fact There is a continuing need for parks in the city of San Jacinto. Given the size of this project it is anticipated this tentative tract not create a significant demand for additional parkland. Mitigation: Pay the current park fee prior to individual building occupancy. Monitoring: Building & Safety 39. Recreational Trails. Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: This tentative tract is not located near City recreational trails. Mitigation: None Monitoring: TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project 40. Circulation a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Result in inadequate parking capacity? m c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways? d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? e) Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? f) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g. , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? g) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or altered maintenance of roads? h) Cause an effect upon circulation during the project's construction? m i) Result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? j) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 23 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source:'SJGP by this development include Seventh Street and to a Jacinto General Plan, both Seventh Street and classified as a Secondary (88' R-O-W) and a Major amount of traffic in the immediate area. to pay traffic signal mitigation fees prior to building Santa Fe Avenue. Findings of Fact: The roadways likely to be impacted lesser degree Esplanade Avenue. According to the San Esplanade Avenue, are primary east/west roadway is Roadway (100' ROW).' The project will increase the Mitigation: Because of the project size, it is conditioned permit issuance and to provide improved surfaces on Monitoring: Building & Safety 41. Bike Trails Source: Findings of Fact: The project is not in a bike trail system Mitigation: None Monitoring: UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project 42. Water a) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? o b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? o Source: City Engineer of San Jacinto Water service area. Water service is plans and fees have been paid. by the Water Department Findings of Fact: This project is located within the City available to every lot in the subdivision after appropriate Mitigation: Conditioned to install water facilities as determined Monitoring: City Water Department 43. Sewer a) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? o ?4 Less than Potentially SignificantLess Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated b) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • Source: City Engineer of San Jacinto to EMWD standards Findings of Fact: Sewer service is provided by the City Mitigation: The applicant is conditioned to provide improvements Monitoring: City Water Department 44. Solid Waste a) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • b) Comply, with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP (County Integrated Waste Management Plan)? Source: City of San Jacinto on a contractual basis. Contractors may use multiple Findings of Fact: The city provides solid waste disposal waste disposal sites throughout Riverside County. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 45. Utilities Would the project impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? a) Electricity? m b) Natural gas? m c) Communications systems? m d) Storm water drainage? m e) Street lighting? m f) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? m g) Other governmental services? m h) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? m 25 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact ` Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source: Planning Department Findings of Fact: The appropriate agencies have been contact with regard to this project those comments have been forwarded to the applicant Mitigation: None Monitoring: OTHER 46. Other: Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: 47. Other: Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: 48. Other r Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 49. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, or endangered plant or animal to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 26 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Source`. This review impact on the environment or habitat of fish or wildlife Findings of Fact: This review indicates that no substantial would occur 50. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while Tong -term impacts will endure well into the future.) Source: This review on the environment are expected. Findings of Fact: No short-term or long term impacts 51. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15130)? • Source: This review Findings of Fact: No impacts are expected 52. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • Source: This review beings are expected Findings of Fact: Nor direct or indirect impacts on human VI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Earlier Analyses Used, if any: Location Where Earlier Analyses, if used, are available for review: 27 //7 RFVENTH ST background a a City LimitsCitylirnits.sh 6 Chnes.shp Cr Change of Zone 4-02 N�s VRuv4T /R.wtAY OUR* some ew a slAr/ — flora WgdW 4f eR �gµp?Sly Afal pV AZ MCI PVT ./- SW ALMA ma c a9 sc 4r gem MICM p N9 S 4MY9 $ IAY6 a u GLUE Ik NQA,V 14 Ea 917.SC — 1d/ Dam= SaY ul< 49B W♦Ai UMW. emu' E 1A S]: 4C d COJ IONING ANA Imo /A 0 C a1.6 ._ ng asge ar' iUM1sav- ,411MIIRg lmn MUM, a ,. m AM I6 Or MY Y^—e ENGtN£EA/APP(ACANT J0 O' a aer 4 Cd6� TANM IF ,SIT STRFET SECIMN Yu AA'C 1 MO• IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 30770 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LOTS 2 & 3 OF GARDEN SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 9, PAGE 84, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS, LYING IN RANCHO SAN JACINTO VIEJO R-2 - SAKE ENGINEERS, INC, JULY 2002 R-2 PL°A COCATON MINI TY A/AP U14MES arcaec .awns.' O1141111M4 AMON Fa q ilR( qT SOMUM 500* 0* 411 Raamrm AW WWI MY 0'SW 0000 1P/E*W jr swdm0R 645 aw6 rind aw,.a 0_a sm mv54 +.. —M .09'NN IN env,. L WHEN at a wwaaaar (�P /A'RIO 2 NINO AM 14M IPii MA; fl (ipMAI 4 A 5 - M 1/APPLMANT Ym01®q Ru AUaW .nc aloe air • q 1m gm lure R-2 PUD IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ZONE CHANGE EXHIBIT PORTION OF LOTS 2 & 3 OF GARDEN SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 9, PAGE 84, RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDS, LYING IN RANCHO SAN JACINTO VIEJO SAKE ENGINEERS, INC. R-1 EXIJ� RiEso mt. JULY 2002 R-2 PUD ASSESSORS R EXHIBIT A STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) ORDINANCE NO: 03-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE 4-02, RE -ZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF SANTA FE AVENUE BETWEEN SEVENTH STREET AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL FROM A,(AGRICULTURE) AND R-1 (ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On January 16, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of a proposal to Change the Zoning for the subject site, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. On March 20, 2002, the City Council conducted a public hearing and approved the Change of Zone of the subject site, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3. That the official Zoning Map of the City Council is hereby amended by adding thereto Change of Zone 4-02 as herein set forth. Section 4. That the official Zoning Ordinance 340, of the City Council is hereby amended by adding thereto Change of Zone 4-02 as set forth herein. Section 5. That the zoning of the property in the City of San Jacinto, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby established. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Riverside, State of California. Introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 20th day of March, 2003. MOVED,' PASSED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Counci on the 3rd day of April, 2003 by the following vote. Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard City Clerk CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) I, Dorothy L. Chouinard, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. duly adopted by the City Council of City of San Jacinto, California at a regular meeting thereof held the 3rd day of April, 2003. WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Jacinto this 3rd day of April, 2003. Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM March 20, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Tim Hults, Community Development Directork SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Application for Grant Funds for the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Resolution No. authorizing the application for grant funds for the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. BACKGROUND: On October 3, 2002 the City Council approved a Cooperation Agreement for the Renovation of Sallee Park with Valley -Wide Recreation and Park District. Additionally, the Council authorized the expenditure of up to $275,000 in undesignated Park Development funds toward the project. As part that action, Staff and Valley -Wide agreed to work together to obtain an estimated $156,000 in Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 grant funds. The $156,000 in grant funds would partially reimburse the Park Development Fund. The attached resolution authorizes Staff to submit the requisite application to the State. Sam Geopp, General Manager of Valley -Wide Recreation and Park District, has agreed to complete and submit the application for funding. Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 2 JUSTIFICATION: Adoption of the Resolution provides the necessary legislative authority for the submittal of an application for grant funds for the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. BUDGETARY IMPACT: Staff anticipates that the City will receive approximately $156,000 in Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 grant funds, which can be utilized to reimburse the Park Development Fund. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment RESOLUTION Page 2 of 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RESOLUTION NO: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Per Capita Grant Program which provides funds to meet the urgent need for safe, open and accessible local park and recreational facilities for increased recreational opportunities that provide positive alternatives to social problems; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing body to certify by resolution the approval of the Applicant to apply for the Per Capita Allocation, and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California 1. Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and 2. Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s); and 3. Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; a.nd 4. Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of project(s). Page 1 of 2 APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 2003. ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM March 20, 2003 TO: FROM: Carolyn Durden, Human Resources Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution amending contract between California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and the Local Safety Personnel The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION: By motion adopt Resolution No. , a Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the Local Safety Personnel. BACKGROUND: During June 2001 negotiations with the Police Officers Association, the Council agreed to adopt the retirement plan of 2% @ 50 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4 for each Police Unit Employee and to be effective on July 1, 2003. As part of the MOU, Page 8, item 5.6 "Retirement," and adopted June 2001, the City's program shall be as follows for swom members: July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: Two percent at age 55, average of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. Completed July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003: Two percent at age 50, average of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. Completed July 1, 2003 and on: Two percent at age 50 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. Action to implement - completes the MOU Adopted June 2001. JUSTIFICATION: Adoption of proposed resolution completes the June 2001 MOU as agreed and adopted. Finance Director: Page 1 of 2 The costs associated with this plan amendment are as follows. 1) Change in the Present Value of Benefits $293,350 2) Change in the Accrued Liability $154,384 3) Change in the Total Employer Rate 2. 00 4) Estimated budget impact for FY 03/04 between $35,000 to $40,000 Our estimated annual payroll for FY 03/04 $1,641,255 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Section 5.6 Retirement, page 8 of MOU between the City of San Jacinto and the San Jacinto Police Officers Association. Exhibit B — Disclosure of cost of amendment presented by Retirement System (CaIPERS) Change in the Present Value of Benefits Califomia Public Employees' Change in the Accrued Liability ..... . Change in the Accrued Liability Exhibit C — Resolution of Intention Page 1 . Page 2 Page 3 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT'A *** the position An Example of this would be job -related college or university courses when the specification for the classification calls for high school graduation. b) ` Employees shall be reimbursed 100% of the first $500, and 50% of all spent in excess of $500 for tuition, registration fees, parking fees, and texts required for the eligible courses during any fiscal year.. Expenses for parking, travel, lodging, meals, processing fees, transcript fees, materials and any other costs are not reimbursable. c) Employees shall be reimbursed up to the dollar amount charged for the same number of units per term by California State University, except that those enrolled in University of California courses shall be reimbursed up to the dollar amount charged for the same number of units by the UC campus attended. d) Course work must be related to the employee's current occupation or to a City classification to which the employee may be eligible for promotion within the city employee's current job series within the next five years. e) Courses must be for courses provided at college or universities and approved by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. f) Course work should not be duplicate training which the employee has already had or which is to be provided in-house or previously taken courses unless special approval has been granted by the department head and the Personnel Department. g) Courses may be approved which are required for the completion of the pre - approved job -related major. An example would be general education or elective requirements for the major as stated in the school catalog. Remedial courses or those taken as required for a non -approved major shall not be eligible. h) Classes related to the use of purchased City -approved computer equipment may be authorized under the tuition reimbursement program if pre -approval is granted before commencement of a non -accredited class. i) Employees who terminate their employment with the City of San Jacinto shall reimburse the CITY for all tuition reimbursed by the CITY under this Section within the 24 months immediately prior to employee's termination date. 5.6 Retirement. As a member of the Public Employees' Retirement System ("CaIPERS"), CITY will contribute the normal employer's full share of CaIPERS retirement for each Police Unit employee. CITY's program shall be as follows for swom members: July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: Two percent at age 55, average of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4 July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 Two percent at age 50, average of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. July 1, 2003 and on: Two percent at age 50 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. For non -sworn members, CITY's program is 2% at age 60 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. -8- EXHIBIT B CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS - VALUATION BASIS: JUNE 30, 2001 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF SAN JACINTO EMPLOYER NUMBER 839 Benefit Description: Section 20042, One -Year Final Average Compensatio Present Value of Projected Benefits The table below shows the change in the total present value of benefits for the proposed plan amendment. The present value of benefits represents the total dollars needed today to fund all future benefits for current members of the plan, i.e. without regard to future employees.The difference between this amount and current plan assets must be paid by future employee and employer contributions. As such, the change in the present value of benefits due to the plan amendment represents the "cost" of the plan amendment. However, for plans with excess assets some or all of this "cost" may already be covered by current excess assets. As ()finny 30, 2001 Current Plan Post -Amendment Total Assets at Market Value (MVA) Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) AVA / MVA Present Value of Projected Benefits (PVB) Actuarial Value of Assets (A VA) Present Value of future Employer and Employee Contributions (PVB — AVA) Change to PVB 5 6,416,813 6,775,158 105.6% 10,641,308 6,775,158 3,866,150 8 6,416,813 6,775,158 105.6% 10,934,658 6,775,158 4,159,500 293,350 Accrued Liability It is not required, nor necessarily desirable, to have accumulated assets sufficient to cover the total present value of benefits until every member has left employment. Instead, the actuarial funding process calculates a regular contribution schedule of employee contributions and employer contributions (called normal costs) which are designed to accumulate with interest to equal the total present value of benefits by the time every member has left employment. As of each June 30, the actuary calculates the "desirable" level of plan assets as of that point in time by subtracting the present value of scheduled future employee contributions and future employer normal costs from the total present value of benefits. The resulting "desirable" level of assets is called the accrued liability. A plan with assets exactly equal to the plan's accrued liability is simply "on schedule" in funding that plan, and only future employee contributions and future employer not ittal costs are needed. A plan with assets below the accrued liability is "behind schedule", or is said to have an unfunded liability; and must temporarily increase contributions to get back on schedule. A plan with assets in excess of the plan's accrued liability' is "ahead of schedule", or is said to have excess assets; and can temporarily reduce future contributions. A plan with assets(AVA) in excess of the total present value of benefits is called super - funded, and neither future employer nor employee contributions are required. Of course, events such as plan amendments and investment or demographic gains or losses can change a plan's condition from year to year. For example, a plan amendment could cause a plan to move all the way from being super -funded to being in an unfunded position. rlrr.rnh,r 77. 7002 Page 1 of 7 CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS - VALUATION BASIS DUNE 30, 2001 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF SAN JACINTO EMPLOYER NUMBER 839 Benefit Description: Section 20042, One -Year Final Average Compensation The changes in your plan's accrued liability, unfunded accrued liability, and the funded ratio as o 30, 2001 due to the plan amendment are shown in the table below. June As otJune 30, 2001 Current Plan Post-., end n Entry Age Normal Accrued Liability (AL) S 7,763,733 S 7,918,1 17 Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 6,775,158 6,775.158 Unfunded Liability/(Excess Assets) (UAL = AL- AVA) S 988,575 5 1,142,959 Funded Ratio (AVA / AL) 87.3% 85.6°A, Change to AL 154,384 Total Employer Contribution Rate While the tables above give the changes in the accrued liability and funded status of the plan due to the amendment, there remains the question of what will happen to the employer contribution rate because of the change in plan provisions. CaIPERS policy is to implement rate changes due to plan amendments immediately on the effective date of the change in plan benefits. This change is displayed as the "Change to Total Employer Rate" on the following page. lithe contract amendment effective date is on or before June 30, 2003, the change in the employer contribution rate should be added to the employer's current rate. In general, the policy also provides that the change in unfunded liability due to the plan amendment will be separately amortized over a period of 20 years from the effective date of the amendment and all other components of the plan's unfunded liability/excess assets will continue to be amortized separately. However, your actuary may choose to apply different rules to plans with a current employer contribution rate of zero. The pre -amendment excess assets in these plans were sufficient to cover the employer's normal cost for one or more years into the future. A plan amendment will use up some or all of the pre - amendment excess assets. In order to maintain our goal of providing rates that are relatively stable, while taking into account known or expected future events, your actuary may decide to spread any remaining excess assets over a single number of years. This is known as a "fresh start" and will generally be for a period not Tess than 15 years, and in no case less than 5 years. You may call your actuary to discuss further alternative financing options. II -the amendment uses up all excess assets and creates an unfunded liability (i.e. from being ahead of schedule to behind schedule), the total post -amendment unfunded liability may be amortized over 20 years. In no case may the annual contribution with regard to a positive unfunded liability be less than the amount which would be required to amortize that unfunded liability, as a level percent of pay, over 30 years. The table on the following page shows the change in your plan's employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment for fiscal 2003-2004. December 27, 2002 Page 2 of 7 CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS - VALUATION BASIS: JUNE 30, 200 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF SAN JACINTO EMPLOYER NUMBER 839 Benefit Description: Section 20042, On e r final Average Compensation As ofJune 30, 2001 2003-2004 Employer Rate Payment for Normal Cost Payment on Amortization Bases Payment for 1959 Survivor Benefit Program Total Employer Rate Change to Normal Cost Change to Total Employer Rale Current .Amortization Base Amendment Amortization Base - Fresh Start 2 -Multiple Base 2003-2004 Employee Rate Total Employee Rate Change to Total Employee Rate Current Plan Post -Amendment 12.559% 6.446°/n 0.000% 19.005% Multiple Base 9.000% 13.591% 7.547% 0.000% 21.138% 1.032% 2.133% N/A 20-year 9.000% 0.000% 2004-2005 Estimated Employer Rate ° (recognizing -6% 24.6% investment return for 2001-2002) Projection Amortization Base Multiple Base 26 7% Multiple Base I - Details of the current amortization base are shown on page 7 of June 30, 2001 annual valuation report. If you have adopted any other subsequent amendments, the current amortization base is the schedule after these adopted amendments. 2 - 11 a fixed number of years is shown, it means that the current unfunded actuarial liability is projected and amortized over this fixed number of years. This amortization replaces the amortization schedule shown in your June 30, 2001 annual valuation and any other subsequent amendments you have adopted. 3 - If 20-year is shown, it means that the change in liability due to plan amendments is amortized separately over a 20-year period. This amortization schedule is in addition to the amortization schedule shown in the June 30, 2001 annual valuation and any other subsequent amendments you have adopted. 4 - Excludes 1959 Survivor Benefit Program rate. in the above table, the information shown in the 2003-2004 box represents the actual initial contribution rate that will apply during fiscal 2003-2004 if you adopt the amendment. However, these figures do not incorporate the —6% investment return in 2001-2002. The estimated employer rates shown in the 2004- 2005 box do take the negative return into consideration and will give you a better estimate of what to expect in 2004-2005. Note that the change in not ittal cost in the table above may be much more indicative of the long term change in the employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment. The plan's payment on amortization bases shown in the table above is a temporary adjustment 10 the employer contribution to "get the plan hack on schedule". This temporary adjustment to the employer rate varies in duration from plan to plan. For example, a plan with initial excess assets being amortized over a short period of time will typically experience a large rate increase when excess assets are fully amortized. While a plan amendment for such a plan may produce little or no increase in the employer contribution rate now, the change in normal cost due to the plan amendment will become fully reflected in the employer contribution rate as soon as initial excess assets arc fully amortized. ne o t Pr �7 9.in7_ Pagc 3 of 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies my elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and WHEREAS, the following is a statement of proposed change: To provide Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation) for local safety members. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, determined and ordered by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, hereby gives Notice of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the Contract between the City of San Jacinto, California, and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment attached hereto, as an "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof. vote APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20Ih day March 2003 by the following Ayes: Nays: Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor Page 2 of 2 AMEN California Public Employees' Retirement System )MENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of San Jacinto The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 31, 1970, and witnessed November 17, 1970, and as amended effective September 28, 1973, October 7, 1976, January 13, 1983, January 21, 1988, May 2, 1999, October 21, 2001 and June 24, 2002 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 24, 2002, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members, age 55 for local fire members and age 50 for local police members. Public Agency 'shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirernen System from and after December 31, 1970 making its employees as hereinafter, provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); c. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for local miscellaneous members shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service prior to December 31, 1982, termination of Social Security, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local fire member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21369 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local police member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full). Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1974 for local miscellaneous members and local police members only. SiGN "EXHIBI I O L Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer" shall include employees of a police department who were employed to perform identification or communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members).` Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation). Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on October 7, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members and local safety members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. c. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be eJctive on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION- CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF SAN JACINTO c. = BY -, BY KENNETH W- MA�jON, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFIC ACTUARIAL & E , RLOYER SERVICES DIVISION ti PUBLIC EMPI-,E`�;Y ES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM \�;: Cs: Witnes Dale Su Att�s`t�' z=„ Clerk AMENDMENT ERV 0839 PERS-CON- 02A(Rev.8102) TO: FROM: Bernie Simon — Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve Warrant Register for Warrants, Prepaid Checks, and Payroll Checks The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve the warrant register for the warrants and prepaid items and payroll checks issued since the last Council meeting, for the period ending March 20, 2003 BACKGROUND: The following are the warrant and check numbers for this cycle: Warrant/Prepaid # s Cycle Dates Payroll Checks Cycle Date 63452-63571 March 20,2003 15401-15428 March 20,2003 Payroll information is available for Council review in the Finance Department. JUSTIFICATION: All warrants, pre -paid checks and payroll checks require Council approval. BUDGETARY IMPACT: Adequate funds have been budgeted to cover the subject expenses. ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Detailed listing of invoices paid and warrant register. City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 1 Cityof San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63452 3/3/03 Platinium plus for business REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 REQUEST 3/8/03 Credit card annual fee League of ca city/seminar Millies/luncheon Staples/office software Manchester hyatUlodging Z-best pizza/luncheon Pride of italy/luncheon Hyatt regency/lodging Hyatt regency/lodging Hyatt regency/lodging Hyatt regency/lodging 010-1200-412.21-10 010-1200-412.31-20 010-1100-411.31-20 010-1400-414.40-45 010-1700-417.31-20 010-1100-411.31-20 010-1100-411.31-20 021-4150-410.31-20 050-9000-450.31-20 055-4170-450.31-20 025-7100-410,31-20 25.00 450.00 31.75 422.27 593.40 72.07 32.33 106.43 106.43 106.43 106.41 2,052.52 63453 `- 3/4/03 Chris carlson-buydos REQUEST 3/04/03 Reimbursmentloffice suppl 010-1700-417.31-20 75.00 75.00 63454 ` 3/7/03 Texaco fleet management STMT 2/1/03 STMT 2/1/03 STMT 2/1/03 STMT 2/1/03 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 021-4150-410.21-70 056-4150-410.21-70 050-9000-450.21-70 025-7100-410.21-70 684.06 656.36 11.40 63.57 1,415.39 63455 - 3/10/03 Simon, bernard REQUEST 1/22/03 Reimbursment travel/perdi 010-1400-414.31-20 596.63 596.63 63458 3/11/03 Bohn, cindy REQUEST 3/10/03 Reimbursement parma conf 010-1400-414.31-20 664.05 664.05 63459 3/11/03 Calpers REQUEST 3/10/03 3/3/03 type 03 contributi 085-0000-202.21-28 18,804.57 18,804.57 63460 3/11/03 Eye care of america REQUEST 3/10/03 REQUEST 3/10/03 REQUEST 3/10/03 Vision ins prem 3/3/2003 Vision ins prem 3/3/2003 Vision ins prem 3/3/2003 085-0000-202.21-35 085-0000-202.21-36 065-0000-201.08-64 665.25 77.97 18.95 762.17 63461 3/11/03 Hartford life insurance companies REQUEST 3/10/03 Def comp cont grp# 109947 085-0000-202.21-29 3,537.08 3,537.08 63462 3/11/03 lobo REQUEST 3/10/03 Renewal of certificate 010-3300-431.31-20 50.00 50.00 63463 3/11/03 Icma retirement trust REQUEST 3/10/03 Def comp cont march 6,03 085-0000-202.21-29 125.00 125,00 63464 3/11/03 " Lincoln life REQUEST 3/10/03 Def comp cont march 03 085-0000-202.21-29 921.54 921.54 63465 3/11/03 Nextel communications REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3111103 Telephone Telephone Telephone 010-1200-412.35-17 010-1700-417.35-17 010-1400-414.35-17 5.79 64.67 63.39 961.55 Page 1 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63465... 3/11/03... Nextel communications... REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telehpone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Celluar telephone 010-1700-417.35-17 099-1700-417.35-17 010-3300-431.34-05 021-4150-410.35-16 025-7252-410.35-16 021-4150-410.35-16 010-1400-414.35-17 025-7252-410.35-16 010-3300-431.34-05 025-7252-410.35-16 050-9000-450.35-16 050-9000-450.35-16 010-1110-411.35-17 029-8662-410.35-17 010-1200-412.35-17 63.39 63.39 73.16 63.39 63.39 39.11 39.11 46.51 63.39 68.50 75.70 74.44 31.34 65.98 -3.10 961.55... 63467 3/11/03 Pacificare of california REQUEST 3/10/03 REQUEST 3/10/03 REQUEST 3/10/03 Health ins prem march 03 Health ins prem march 03 Health ins prem march 03 085-0000-202.21-39 085-0000-202.21-40 065-0000-201.08-64 27,549.36 3,534.22 1,169.64 32,253.22 63468 3/11/03 Preferred benefit insurance admin. REQUEST 3/10/03 REQUEST 3/10/03 Dental ins prem 3/3/2003 Dental ins prem 3/3/2003 085-0000-202.21-32 065-0000-201.08-64 3,345.23 88.00 3,433.23 63469 3/11/03 Toyota financial services REQUEST 3/11/03 REQUEST 3/11/03 Lease 010712-67154 Lease 010712-67120 063-1700-410.40-45 063-1700-410.40-45 516.12 516.12 1,032.24 63470 3/12/03 Staples credit plan J010155001 61323 69590 73325 L003972003 A216481001 Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies 010-1210-412.21-10 010-3100-431.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 010-3100-431.21-10 010-1400-414.21-10 010-4100-410.21-10 28.60 277.95 168.56 476.46 25.71 301.43 1,278.71 63471 3/12/03 Clca REQUEST 3/11/03 Certificaton landscaping 025-7100-410.31-20 160.00 160.00 Page 2 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63472 3/12/03 Gutierrez, joe REQUEST 3/11/03 Subsistence "basic crime 010-3100-431.31-20 744.00 744.00 63480 3/20/03 A -a greatamerican golf 5786 Golf cart repairs 050-9000-450.33-30 49.95 49.95 63481 3/20/03 A-1 lock & key service ' 29056 29032 29079 29033 29039 29026 Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies 050-9000-450.33-50 021-4150-410.33-30 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.21-19 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 35.00 83.98 174.70 4.85 10.78 6.47 315.78 63482 3/20/03 AI's kubota tractor 137906 Supplies 021-4150-410.21-80 82.51 82.51 63483 3/20/03 ` Alert barricade, inc. 202-415 Supplies 050-9000-450.21-35 25.05 25.05 63484 3/20/03 Allen,michael fred REQUEST 2/7/03 Refund balance candidate 065-0000-201.08-79 57.00 57.00 63485 `-3/20/03 American forensic nurses 14678 14693 Blood draw Blood draw 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 480.00 30.00 510.00 63486 = 3/20/03 Anady's trophies 3/5/03 Deposit premium 010-1110-411.21-10 36.42 36.42 63487 ' 3/20/03 Aqua metric sales company 19397 Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 1,891.01 1,891.01 63488 3/20/03 Arrow printing 3121 Office supplies 050-1400-414.21-10 284.46 284.46 63489 3/20/03 " At & t REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone 010-2500-425.35-16 010-3100-431.35-16 010-7400-425.35-16 021-4150-410.35-16 050-9000-450.35-16 010-2500-425.35-16 025-7252-410.35-16 010-6100-425.35-16 962.54 809.07 4.24 52.99 52.98 506.14 15.19 15.72 2,418.87 63490 3/20/03 B & k systems 1299 1298 3/4/03 Software Hardware/office supplies Consulting services 010-1400-414.40-45 010-2500-425.33-05 010-1400-414.40-45 9,030.00 786.18 2,000.00 11,816.18 63491 3/20/03 Best best & krieger llp 3/3/03 Professional services 010-1111-411.30-90 13,506.35 20,855.09 Page 3 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63491... 3/20/03... Best best & krieger Hp... 3/3/03 3/3/03 3/3/03 Professional services Professional services Professional services 050-1111-411.30-90 065-0000-201.08-10 096-1111-411.30-90 2,469.66 690.00 4,189,08 20,855.09... 63492 3/20/03 Bestline materials inc. 37600 Supplies 055-4170-450.33-30 2.79 2.79 63493 3/20/03 Bio-tox laboratories 10416 Analysis 010-3100-431.34-05 590.40 590.40 63494 3/20/03 Brigandi, phil FEB 2003 Museum curator 010-6100-425.34-05 640.50 640.50 63495 3/20/03 C r & r incorporated REQUEST 3/10/03 Jan 2003 proceeds trash/ 059-8052-450.34-05 84,024.20 84,024.20 63496 3/20/03 C.m. de crinis & co., inc, 121 Professional fees 010-2500-425.30-90 918.75 918.75 63497 3/20/03 California overnight 3825600 3825600 3825600 Postage Postage Postage 010-1700-417.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 010-1210-412.21-10 68.00 8.00 13.00 89.00 63498 3/20/03 Christie steel fabrication 9193 Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 27.50 27.50 63499 3/20/03 Comserco 01/MA5029805 01/MA5029806 01-37690-000-00 60582151 Maint billing 3/1-3/31/03 Maint 3/1/03 to 3/31/03 Supplies Supplies 050-9000-450.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.21-90 010-3100-431.33-50 86.10 536.45 30.00 5,440.85 6,093.40 63500 3/20/03 Comtronix of hemet 39125 Supplies 010-3100-431.33-50 360.00 360.00 63501 3/20/03 Dale stubblefield REQUEST 2/7/03 Refund balance candidate 065-0000-201.08-79 57.00 57.00 63502 3/20/03 Darmar awards 3215 Supplies 050-9000-450.21-10 10.78 10.78 63503 3/20/03 Deluxe business forms & supplies 11045962 Office supplies 010-1400-414.21-10 54.95 54.95 63504 3/20/03 E.s. babcock & sons, inc. 49648 AB30502-278 49105 49429 AB30891-278 Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 60.00 60.00 48.00 60.00 60.00 288.00 63505 3/20/03 Eastern municipal water district 2/13/03 8137703 2/20/034625001 2/20/03 9406702 Utilities Utilities Utilities 025-7251-410.35-10 025-7250-410.35-10 025-7250-410.35-10 268.52 11,48 5.74 308.70 Page 4 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check ; Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63505... 3/20/03... Eastern municipal water district... 2/20/03 9406802 2/20/03 9574602 2/21/031498601 Utilities Utilities Utilities 025-7250-410.35-10 025-7250-410.35-10 025-7100-410.35-10 5.74 11.48 5.74 308.70... 63506 3/20/03 Emergency medical products, inc. 392795 Supplies 010-3100-431.21-36 553.37 553.37 63507 3/20/03 Excel steam 1886 Maintenance for feb 03 010-3100-431.34-05 625.00 625.00 63508 3/20/03 ' Gfb-friedrich & Assoc., inc. 0302-17 Services rendered 1/2003 026-7509-410.30-92 460.00 460.00 63509 3/20/03 Graves & Hp 1 Attorney fees 020-2200-419.30-90 697.78 697.76 63510 3/20/03 Hdl software, Ilc 8089 Property taxes jan/mar 03 010-2500-425.30-90 2,700.00 2,700.00 63511 3/20/03 ' Hemet industrial supply 20670 Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 10.71 10.71 63512 3/20/03 Heritage home builders REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 Reimb water dep#2578/2581 Reim b water dep#2578/2581 050-0000-229.08-70 050-0000-308.09-10 65.50 19.24 84.74 63513 '3/20/03 - Hi -way safety 28095 28095 Supplies Supplies 054-9000-450.40-01 054-9000-450.40-01 45.82 45.82 91.64 63514 3/20/03 Higgins, harris-sherman & rohr 4532 Attorney fees 020-2200-419.30-90 9,764,77 9,764.77 63515 3/20/03 Horizon water 2/27/03 -POLICE Water 010-3100-431.35-10 41.40 41,40 63516 3/20/03 '` Inland foundation eng. inc. SO26:096 Engineering fees 054-9000-450.40-01 15,412.50 15,412.50 63517 " 3/20/03 Inland water works supply co. 122434 122490 Supplies Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 121.22 92.67 213.89 63518 3/20/03 Johnson machinery 1669776 Supplies 021-4150-410.33-50 814.00 814.00 63519 ` 3/20/03 La chemcial 228912 Uniform supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 1,467.90 1,467.90 63520 3/20/03 Lancaster contract survey company 03-012 03 Services rendered Services rendered 054-9000-450.40-01 054-9000-450,40-01 2,355.00 635.00 2,990.00 63521 3/20/03 Lancaster inspection services 03-05 Services rendered 2/24/03 010-3300-431.10-04 2,812.00 2,812.00 63522 3/20/03 Laving robert a. 3/4/03 3/4/03 3/4/03 3/4/03 Services rendered feb 03 Services rendered feb 03 Services rendered feb 03 Services rendered feb 03 021-4150-410.10-04 025-7100-410.10-04 050-9000-450.10-04 055-4170-450.10-04 1,295.00 1,295.00 1,295.00 1,295.00 5,180.00 63523 3/20/03 Long beach uniform co. 493194 Uniform employee refund 010-3100-431.21-35 23.71 23.71 Page 5 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63524 3/20/03 Malcolm smith motorsports 5020138 Supplies 010-3100-431.33-50 251.56 251.56 63525 3/20/03 Mission uniform services, inc. 17930625 17931778 17931777 17930628 17931780 Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies 050-9000-450.21-35 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 41.34 5.30 41.34 37.79 37.52 163.29 63526 3/20/03 New world systems 100000018716 2/3/03 to 2/5/2003 064-3100-431.40-45 677.19 677.19 63527 3/20/03 Nextel communications STMT FEB 2003 Telephone 010-3100-431.34-05 509.20 509.20 63528 3/20/03 ` O'brien cindy REQUEST 2/7/03 Refund balance candidate 065-0000-201.08-79 63.00 63.00 63529 ` 3/20/03 Overnight industrial 18554 18551 18497 Supplies Supplies Supplies 055-4170-450.21-35 050-9000-450.21-35 055-4170-450.21-35 69.50 16.00 15.09 100.59 63530 3/20/03 Pacific alarm svc., inc. 31268 31268 31268 32034 Alarm service Alarm service Alarm service Alarm equipment 010-2500-425.34-05 025-7100-410.34-05 050-9000-450.34-05 010-3100-431.21-19 87.00 45.34 118.50 26.00 276.84 63531 3/20/03" Parks, takako REQUEST 3/3/03 Reimb water dep #10024068 050-0000-229.08-70 50.00 50.00 63532 3/20/03 Perma 3/5/03 Depositpremium 018-2250-419.37-05 51,173.00 51,173.00 63533 3/20/03 Pitney bowes inc. 835297 Postage meter rental 010-2500-425.21-10 305.74 305.74 63534 '' 3/20/03 Power bound electrical inc. 011703 21903 Services rendered Repair street light 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 450.00 1,595.00 2,045.00 63535 ti 3/20/03 Quality auto parts D574648 D573792 D568729 D560675 D573421 D572975 D573407 D543516 Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 055-4170-450.33-30 021-4150-410.33-50 021-4150-410.33-50 021-4150-410.33-50 021-4150-410.33-50 021-4150-410.33-50 021-4150-410.33-50 5.96 20.34 6.54 26.92 3.22 4.80 6.42 16.15 124.89 Page 6 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63535... 3/20/03... Quality auto parts... D532457 D564015 Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 5.46 29.08 124.89... 63536 ` 3/20/03 " Quast tree service 2/6/2003 2/6/2003 Services rendered Services rendered 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 365.00 650.00 1,015.00 63537 3/20/03 Ramona animal shelter, inc. 2/5/03 Animal intake jan 2003 010-3100-431.34-05 5,157.10 5,157.10 63538 ` 3/20/03 Reliable YD808801 YD808801 YD808801 PWF57300 YFL71900 YGS30100 PX319400 CHK28100 Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies 021-4150-410.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 025-7100-410.21-10 010-1210-412.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 010-1200-412.21-10 010-1110-411.21-10 010-3100-431.21-10 47.22 617.22 47.22 47.22 34.46 47.98 44.06 33.15 315.91 63539 3/20/03 Riverside county fire department REQUEST 3/7/03 Pass thru fees 065-0000-201.20-82 1,473.76 1,473.76 63540 3/20/03 Riverside county sheriffs SH00000334 Booking fees 010-3100-431.30-19 3,201.60 3,201.60 63541 3/20/03 Riverside, county of REQUEST 3/4/03 Parking violations 010-0000-304.03-35 302.50 302.50 63542 3/20/03 Rk engineering group, inc. 2003-08 2003-07 Professional services Professional fees 010-1700-417.30-90 065-0000-201.06-45 280.00 2,817.50 3,097.50 63543 3/20/03 Rod' s automotive performance 130303006 130108007 130218006 130218005 130212005 130224005 130224003 130303008 130224004 Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs Auto repairs 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 35.31 58.00 532.86 34.07 861.35 33.21 36.85 93.15 194.39 1,879.19 63544 3/20/03 Rodriguez, angel & martins REQUEST 3/3/03 Reimb water dep# 20022078 050-0000-229.08-70 5.60 5,60 63545 3/20/03 Roc\ue 9omez marls de ie5u5 REQUEST 3I3103 Reimb water dep #12054 050-0000-229.08-70 30.42 30.42 Page 7 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63546 3/20/03 Rosenow spevacek group inc. 0012445 Professional services 010-1200-412.10-04 17,280.00 17,280.00 63547 3/20/03 San jacinto petty cash, city of REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 REQUEST 3/4/03 Reimbursment-lunchoen Reimbursment-parking fees Reimbursment-parking fees Reimbursment-office suppl Reimbursment-luncheon Reimbursment-supplies Reimbursment-supplies Reimbursment-gasoline Reimbursment-luncheon Reimbursment-luncheon Reimbursment-meeting fee 010-3300-431.31-20 010-3300-431.31-20 010-3300-431.31-20 010-1100-411.21-10 010-1100-411.31-20 050-9000-450.21-80 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.21-70 021-4150-410.31-20 096-1700-417.21-10 010-1700-417.31-20 8.60 2.50 2.00 6.44 17.25 6.45 2.64 4.00 30.00 40.00 12.00 131.88 63548 - 3/20/03 Sharps ace hardware 630243 Supplies 010-3100-431.21-90 31.16 31.16 63549 ` 3/20/03 Shaw, ken REQUEST 2R/03 Refund balance candidate 065-0000-201.08-79 64.00 64.00 63550 3/20/03 Sid spradling automotive 3762 Supplies 010-3100-431.33-50 12.50 12.50 63551 3/20/03 ` Simmons, cart REQUEST 1/31/03 REQUEST 3/6/03 Reimbursment/tuition Reimbursement 010-3100-431.31-20 010-2500-425.31-20 452.00 50.00 502.00 63552 ;' 3/20/03 South kern machinery 551107 Supplies 021-4150-410.33-50 33.59 33.59 63553 3/20/03 State of california dept of justice 421349 417879 418873 Blood analysis Blood analysis Blood analysis 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 980.00 385.00 64.00 1,429,00 63554 3/20/03 Stater bros 1210228 1210225 Groceries ground breaking Groceries 010-1200-412.21-10 010-3100-431.21-11 23.92 26.34 50.26 63555 3/20/03 " Stetson engineers inc. 11290 Professional fees 050-9000-450.40-01 3,495.04 3,495.04 63556 ' 3/20/03 Tri county pump company 7776 Bath well site 050-9000-450.33-30 300.00 300.00 63557 -%` 3/20/03 Tri-lake consultants, inc. 1348 1348 1354 1350 Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services 021-4150-410.30-90 010-4100-410.30-90 039-4155-410.40-01 054-9000-450.40-01 2,292.50 3,621.82 1,740.00 6,127.50 20,288.52 Page 8 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63557..`. 3/20/03... Tri-lake consultants, inc...." 1351 Professional services 054-9000-450.40-01 6,506.70 20,288.52.., 63558 3/20/03 U $ postmaster REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 REQUEST 3/3/03 Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage Postage 010-3300-431.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 096-1700-417.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 010-3100-431.21-10 096-1700-417.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 010-3300-431.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 096-1700-417.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 010-3100-431.21-10 096-1700-417.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 1.48 100.02 180.14 20.26 19.16 0.60 8.51 37.28 272.16 340.42 98.07 156.24 14.81 26.44 1,275.59 63560 3/20/03 United parcel service TT8707073 TT8707073 TT8707073 Postage Postage Postage 021-4150-410.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 025-7100-410.21-10 6.07 6.08 6.08 18.23 63561 3/20/03 V & v manufacturing, inc. 18019 Supplies 010-3100-431.21-35 103.26 103.26 63562 3/20/03 Valley chronicle, the 3/5/03 6 months subcriiption 010-3100-431.21-15 18.75 18.75 63563 "'3/20/03 Verizon california 2/13/036835 Telephone 010-3100-431.34-06 167.06 167.06 63564 3/20/03 ' Vulcan materials company 1095639 1096254 Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 154.64 124.77 279.41 63565 3/20/03 West cal construction REQUEST 3/3/03 Reimb water dep# 2587 050-0000-308.09-10 63.99 63.99 63566 3/20/03 West cal contruction REQUEST 3/3/03 Reimb water dep# 2587 050-0000-229.08-70 364.64 364.64 63567 3/20/03 ' Western farm service 602-49166 Supplies 025-7250-410.33-30 14.01 14.01 63568 3/20/03 Wheatley, william jr., law offices 934 Attroney fees 020-2200-419.30-90 2,639.49 2,639.49 63569 3/20/03 Wolford, margaret JAN 2003 Interview (9) 010-3100-431.34-05 660.00 660.00 Page 9 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:03/20/03 Check Number 63570 Check Date 3/20/03 VendorName Xerox corporation Invoice Number 93989447 93989441 Description Copier lease Copier lease Account Number 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 Transaction Amount 365.48 180.91 Check Total 546.39 63571 3/20/03 Zamarripa, #rancisco REQUEST 3/4/03 Mileage riembursment 010-3100-431.31-20 241.92 241.92 Total Checks 367,149.48 Page 10 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL and SAN JACINTO PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2003, 5:30 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California 1. ORGANIZATION 1.1 CaII to Order.) Vice Mayor _yes called the Special Meeting of the San Jacinto City Council to orde 1.2 Roll CaII at 6:02 p.m. Present: Chris Carlson-Buydos, Jim Conner, Ken Shaw Dale Stubblefield Ken Cope, Vinay Rao, Steve Warneke, John Mansperger, David Whitefield Absent: Jim Ayres 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 3.0 PUBLIC HEARING None 4. CITY DEPARTMENTS 4.1 Work/Study Session concerning growth, development and municipal service delivery in San Jacinto City Manager Steve Harding explained this would be an informal meeting as in an educational process to demonstrate where the City's financial situation is today and what projects are already in staff's pipeline. Staff has put in implications for their particular department. Questions will be taken as the dialogue progresses. City Council Minutes' February 27, 2003 Page 2 of 10 Copies of the PowerPoint presentation were distributed. City Manager reviewed the overall General Fund balance of $2.8 million: • Unreserved, undesignated $786,000 • Contingency Reserve $500,000 • Capital Replacement Reserve $330,000 • Brick & Mortar Reserve $1,200,000f The approximate continuing General Fund net revenue from: • Taxes — $1,700,000 • Fees - $1,500,000 • O/H Recapture $750,000 • Franchise Fees $1,000,000 • VLF $1,300,000 • Other $560,000 6.9 million comes Finance Director Simon explained that about $860,000 is sales tax, $600,000 is property tax and the remaining are miscellaneous taxes. The Brick & Mortar is reserve for capital replacement for buildings: The money initially came from the sale of property to the school district and the Council, initially and since then, has continued to keep the reserve for capital replacement for buildings. Fees are one time revenues, i.e. construction permits, development permits, public works permits, mobile home permits, etc. The approximate continuing General Fund net expenditures are $7.6 million. The largest of which is the Police Department at $4.0 million. Fire services are $1.0 million; Community Services and Engineering are $925,000; Landscaping/Public Works/Recreation/Cultural $920,000; and Allocated administrative O/H $750,000. City Manager Harding noted that it is obvious the Police Department consumes the largest part of the General Fund. The potential loss from the State budget crisis is going to be a loss of $600,000 to $1,200,000 if they take the VLF backfill. According to the information he received at several different conferences, the information remains consistent that there is most likely to be no resolve reached until November. City Manager Harding reviewed the entitlement activity as seen on the overview of San Jacinto. There are 130 multifamily units included in the 6,800 lots in the works today. Community Development Director Tim Hults explained that the City in the past has absorbed 680 homes per year 60 during the off time. He believes al0% absorption per year is a City Council Minutes February 27, 2003 Page 3 of 10 reasonable assumption. This equates to 2.74 persons times 680 units or 1.863 additional people annually. City Manager Harding noted there are 81 FTEs (Full Time Equivalents) for providing services to 25,000 people: He reviewed the reactive versus the preventative service levels that exist currently. He further explained the degree staff is stretched - the current problems with staffing versus the level of service and why all departments work from a reactive course and can't move into a more consistent preventative service delivery. Acting Police Chief Carl Simmons' explained the statistics' of the police department: It compares the types of calls from 1999 through 2002. The total service calls 2002 totaled 27,189. There has been a pretty significant increase over the past five years. The statistics are for actual burglary calls and do not include alarms. Adding in the false alarms would increase the number(274)14-15%. Chief Simmons continued, noting the FBI does a projection of how many officers are needed to serve a specific population. The FBI's recommendation is 35. Currently, the police officers number 27. Two officers have been added over the past five years. Chief Simmons believes the increase in the worse crimes are based on the growth and demographics changing; and an individual economic status — the better the economy the less crime there is; and partly the increase in reporting. Police Officer patrol was discussed. Council Member Conner explained that San Jacinto had two officers per 1,000 people during 1988-1990 and he believes the ideal is one officer per 1,300 people. He voiced concern regarding some of the crimes that are up 30% where San Jacinto used to be in the top three cities in Riverside County with the lowest crime rate. Chief Simmons commented that community policing is desirable but that they have not had the manpower to implement it. Community Development Director Hults noted the population increase in the15-25 year olds is ballooning, whereas other age groups are not increasing at the same rate. A discussion followed as to what other agencies are doing in a similar situation. The school resource officer responds to school related calls. That has helped the patrol officers. A grant to the school funds one officer and the "DARE" officer is funded by the City. City Manager Harding noted the State's budget crisis is also impacting school funding. Chief Simmons noted some of the unique problems with the 15-25 year old demographics: 1) there don't appear to be any programs developed City Council Minutes February 27, 2003 Page 4 of 10 that could be adopted to deal with the problem; 2) there are no club houses or specific hangouts; and this group is very mobile - rapidly moving in and out of jurisdictions. Chief Simmons reported that existing equipment is sufficient. The department is going on a new CAD system which will help identify repeat offenders quicker. The cost was prohibitive to put the CAD system into the vehicles. It will be on line in July 2003. With the recent purchases of new vehicles, the department is not in any immediate need of vehicles. Jim Barron, Fire Battalion Chief, review the response time for existing conditions. He gave an overview of Station 25 — their 5 minute and 7 minute response times with assistance from two of Hemet's stations. The two most northern stations in Hemet assisted based on a written agreement. Battalion Chief Barron explained why he would like to have five minutes response all over the City and why it will be 8-10 minutes at best for some of the proposed areas. He further explained the fire department is the first responder with the ambulance response time based on 10 minutes. Battalion Chief Barron reviewed the 1s1 alarm assignment, reviewing the make up of the city and the striving to meet the suppression numbers. However, some of the National Fire Protection recommendations are not feasible for cities like San Jacinto. There are three staff members for each engine. There are OSHA problems with manning with less, primarily safety issues. He explained the risks if the suppression is not under ten minutes. Sprinklers were discussed. The ISO is not affected as much by whether buildings have sprinklers as by number of staff and the ability of equipment the department has; hydrants and the amount of flow; and number of engines. San Jacinto's current ISO rating is 4: The range is 4 based on 1-10, with 10 the worst. Battalion Chief Barron explained the current conditions for medical and fire responses. The general rule is 2.5 to 5 minutes. The statistics show 131 calls per 1000 residents — 85% are medical and within the desired five minutes. He then explained how that would change with development coming on line further out on the Ramona Expressway. The need for an additional fire station in that area becomes critical to keep the response time down. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos questioned the number of fire calls versus medical calls versus accidents. Medical calls make up 71 % of all calls. Station 26 is the 3rd busiest in the region, the 2nd busiest in the county. Perris is number one: They are preparing to have a joint station with City Council Minutes February 27, 2003 Page 5 of 10 Moreno Valley. If the growth happens, as projected, it is anticipated the San Jacinto will surpass Perris. Battalion Chief Barron explained how stations are staffed. Council Member Conner commented that at time San Jacinto had two fire engines. Battalion Chief Barron notes that there is one new one and it actually is the one that replaced the wrecked one. The second engine is behind the front line engine. San Jacinto does have two engines. Battalion Chief Barron noted the 600 homes planned in the Park Hill region are within the five minutes response area. Currently, most of the City's population is near where the fire station is located. Fire and Police are able to have input to Planning Staff every two weeks in the review process. According to Community Development Director fire review for planning and prevention come from Riverside County. Chief Simmons noted that individually most of the developments do not look like they make an impact to his department. However, when looked at collectively, it makes a significant impact to his department. City Manager Harding commented on the staffing issues. Fire is different because the need for stations and staff are based on thresholds. Police, on the other hand, tend to be a gradual, rolling along increase. The cost to man one fire station is $1,000,000. That is an annual reoccurring cost and does include the cost of the fire station facility. Battalion Chief Barron noted that San Jacinto is now at that threshold. The Council will have to decide what responsibility they want to assume. City Manager Harding touched briefly on the street issues. There is no pavement management plan in place. The life span of a street pavement is 10 years. Because of the lack of funding available many of the existing streets need to be completely redone: They are passed the resurfacing phase. These needs are great with existing growth and not reflective of any new or more growth. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos recessed the meeting at 7:17 p.m. for dinner. The meeting was reconvened by Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos at 7:50 p.m. City Manager Harding noted the issues at hand are: ■ Matching service levels to increased population • Find new financial revenues to maintain service level demands • Find new revenues to fund desire service levels standards • Find new revenues to fund public facility expansion to house expanded services. City Council Minutes February 27: 2003 Page 6 of 10 Absorbing 680 units per year causes an increase city wide of $490,920 or $211,470 in general administration and $279,450 for police protection to match current level of service with similar population. Those numbers do not reflect any increase in services. City Manager Harding then reviewed the projected revenues (680 units/year) with VLF and without it. The deficit with VLF continuing is $177,000 and without VLF is $200,120 per year. In addition, finding new revenues to fund desired service levels standards for new fire station staff is approaching $1,000,000 annually; the cost to the police department is $83,835/year; and $440,000/year for a pavement management program ($2,000 per lane mile). City Engineer Habib Motlagh noted that money that usually goes to a pavement management program has been used for other projects, specifically grant matches. Finance Director Simon at an earlier meeting had informed Council it would take $22,000,000 to bring the current streets to a fair standard. Other issues that become more pressing that need to be dealt with are the construction of a second fire station, new or expanded administrative center, new or expanded police department, and new or expanded corporation yard. The exact location of a new fire station has not been determined: It will be what development comes on first and where. Battalion Chief Barron reviewed the response times with a second station. He also, noted that what Hemet is currently planning to build (fire stations) does not help San Jacinto. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos noted that whatever happens to the realignment of Highway 79 could be a response barrier. Council Member Conner questioned that if the old Station 26 could be relocated to a more convenient location, what it might be. Battalion Chief Barron responded that probably still in the downtown area but more towards Hewitt and 7th Streets or farther east on Main Street. He continued that a third station is not that far off depending on what happens across the river and what the Council wants for a response time. There will always be areas that can't be serviced within reasonable response time no matter what. The fire response to the Soboba Indians was discussed. Battalion Chief Barron is instructing them to develop their own fire suppression on the reservation. Station 26 is responding on the reservation by CityCouncil Minutes February 27, 2003 Page 7 of 10 default now but it is a problem because the building codes are different on the reservation. City Manager Harding noted that including fire with the police department the deficit becomes more like an annual $1.2 million. Then as part of the consideration has to be what happens with VLF and the potential of an ERAF shift. The worst case scenario is a'$2.4 million shortfall. It will be a combination of how fast the development happens and the current economic conditions, mostly what happens with the State's budget. City Manager Harding reviewed the options: • Deficit spending until reserves are exhausted ® Reduce existing services ■ Find new permanent recurring revenues - Proposition 13 makes it very difficult ® Reevaluate the General Plan Land Use Designation — attack the growth equation • Go after sales tax — the approach is not the same as a developer sees it. A retailer depends on the depth of the market. The difficult place to arrive is to balance the necessary roof tops to generate retail: While the generation of rooftops or discretionary income increases so does the impact to the City awaiting the retailer's quota to be met. • CFD - Community Facility Districts also known as Mello - Roos could be formed • CSD — Community Service Districts could be formed • Public Safety Tax - takes a 2/3 (population) vote to pass ■ Lease City Assets • Utility Tax — takes a simple majority vote (population) to pass - Larry Rolapp of Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, Financial Advisors, spoke on Community Facility Districts (CFDs).. The Mella-Roos laws of 1982 allow police and fire to be financed. He reviewed some of the fundamentals. A public agency can form the CFD. The property doesn't have to be contiguous. The structure of the special tax has to be reasonable. Capital and services can be funded. He more typically sees capital projects funded by CFD than services. He gave an example of how one City used it as a new revenue stream. He also, cautioned that it has to be for new services and not existing. The act is structure so that fire stations could be financed based on specific rules; and police and fire services are eligible services to be funded. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos noted the Council's past experience with CFDs. Mr. Rolapp reiterated the importance of costs having to be over City Council Minutes February 27, 2003 Page 8 of 10 and above the existing costs; the importance of 'reasonable' was expounded upon and the political ramifications. City Attorney Kim Byrens commented that CFDs can be added based on a City Council decision.It needs to be City Council policy. Services can be removed by a vote but it is not dear if the people in the district are the only voters or if it is city wide or ifit takes a 2/3 vote or a simple majority (50%). It has not been tested in court for more clear rules to be known. Mr. Rolapp noted that they are more common in undeveloped areas where there is usually only one or a very few landowners. In developed districts it is harder to pass. Much of the information prepared tonight would be part of the proof to substantiate the formation of a CFD. City Manager Harding noted that with a CSD the laws are very specific: recreation can not be included. Annual cost to the homeowner is dependent on what all is included. City Attorney Byrens explained how services get carved out of existing taxes. The needs have to be determined: maintenance and operations determine what each parcel will. She further explained the intricacies of Community Service Districts (CSDs). A CSD is more specific than a CFD. Lot by lot the special benefit that each receives has to be determines. Boundaries can be set on specific needs such that when new development occurs the property can be annexed in. City Manager Harding suggested a Nexus study be completed to know exactly what the cost for fire and police is per capita. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos noted that CSD or CFD has to be used for what it is designated for whereas the utility tax goes into the General Fund. The distrust from public is more likely with a utility tax and therefore, less likely to pass. Council Member Conner noted that enterprises were not discussed as an option. "The Cove" development will pay EMWD $6,600 for each sewer connection. The franchise with EMWD is up. The City could take sewer back and charge four times what is being charged or equivalent to what EMWD charges. He also questioned that with additional fees (CFD, CSD, or other tax) and then adding the TUMF cost if development will stop. Finance Director Simon noted that the water fund is in the hole. Council Member Conner noted that traditionally the water and sewer funds support the operations and maintenance of the City. City Council Minutes February 27, 2003 Page 9 of 10 City Manager Harding asked for direction from the Council as to how staff should bring this back. It is especially difficult not knowing the State's budget crisis' impact to the City. As much as the City needs retail, without development retail doesn't follow. He gave examples of how other cities maximized the best retail sights at the best affordable price. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos noted that the dialogue has been started. She acknowledged appreciation to staff for the information presented. She suggested two Council Members and two Planning Commissioners meet with staff and forge a recommendation as a subcommittee or set more joint meetings. She commented that she would like meet with Planning Commission more often. Council Member Stubblefield noted that it is a time sensitive issue with so many proposals in the pipeline. He questioned if forming an ad hoc committee was beneficial and what the time frame would be. City Manager Harding noted that the landowners are keys: There needs to be mutual cooperation. He suggested staff contact the developers. City Attorney Byrens and Mr. Rolapp can give the specific information about the technical process. Planning Commissioner Cope commented that while these things continue to come in, getting the General Plan revisions done is behind schedule. The land use element needs to be nailed down as soon as possible. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR None 6. MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS None 7. CLOSED SESSION None 8. ADJOURNMENT Gity Council Minutes February 27,2003 Page 10 of 10 Following the motion, second and vote, Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. City of San Jacinto by Chris Carlson-Buydos, Vice Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 6, 2003, 7:00 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California ORGANIZATION 1.1 Call to Order Mayor Ayres called the Regular Meeting of Council to order at 7:05 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call he San Jacinto City Present: Jim Ayres, Jim Conner, Chris Carlson-Buydos, Ken Shaw Absent: Dale Stubblefield 1.3 Invocation — Chaplain Pastor Randy Leeper, Faith Tabernacle, San Jacinto Police Chaplain Leeper gave the invocation. 1.4 Pledge of Allegiance City Treasurer Jim Potts led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1.5 Special Presentations 1.5.1 San Jacinto PAL Youth Council Directors / Introduction of Directors followed by presentation of what PAL Youth Council does / Myra Wood, Executive Director of San Jacinto PAL Myra Wood introduced the Regional Director of PAL. Ms Wood then gave the requirements of students in the 8th -12`h grades that want to participate. Following introductions, each PAL Youth Council Director spoke about activities and what they learn from being a member. Ms Wood advised the Council San Jacinto is beginning a pilot project to develop the PAL program for younger students. She and the students thanked the Mayor and Council for their City Council Minutes March 6 2003 Page 2 of 7 continued support and presented them with a shirt for Mayor Ayres and pocket calendars. Mayor Ayres commented that many people are working on finda a new facility for PAL, including Supervisor Venable. 1.5.2 Presentation to former Estudillo Mansion Committee Members / Redevelopment Operation Manager Redevelopment Operations Manager Mary Lanier thanked Jack Warnacke and Sharon Terracciano for their service and commitment to the restoration of the Estudillo Mansion. Mayor Ayres then presented them with plaques.' Non-agendized Item - Proclamation - National California Problem Gambling Awareness Week City Clerk Dorothy Chouinard explained a request had been received after the Agenda was posted for San Jacinto to participate in the National California Problem Gambling Awareness Week March 10-14, 2003. Since there is an urgency because there will not be another meeting until after March 14th. City Attorney John Brown further explained that by promoting the awareness week it provides individuals in the problem gambling community an opportunity to educate the public about the resources available for problem gambling. M/S/C (Ayres / Conner) moved to add said proclamation to the Agenda. Motion carried 5/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Ayres Nays: None Absent: Stubblefield Abstain: None M/S/C (Carlson-Buydos / Conner) moved to approve the Proclamation proclaiming March 10th-14th, 2003 National California Problem Gambling Awareness Week. Motion carried 5/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Ayres Nays: None Absent: Stubblefield Abstain: None City Council Minutes March 6, 2003 Page 3 of 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS Carl Reul, 1020 Soboba Road, San Jacinto, Manager of the Soboba Springs Golf Course, introduces himself and his addressing the Council was threefold: 1) Mr. Reul invited the Council to use the golf course facility as any need might arise. If the City were considering expanding their parks and recreation program, he would be interested in discussing it. Besides the golf course they have tennis courts and a pool. 2) The condition of the road at 1020 Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive is becoming dangerous. There are many potholes that people are starting to drive in the wrong lane to avoid. 3) Due to the recent rains the City's easement caused flooding of their administration office. He noted he is willing to work with the City Engineer to resolve the problem. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos commented that this evening was an evening of recognizing people for their service. She noted Mayor Ayres retired from the Air Force after twenty one years of service. She then read some of the highlights of his military career. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos presented a plaque to Mayor Ayres inscribed with "In recognition of Master Sergeant Retire Jim Ayres, U.S.A.F. 1982=2003, Thank you for your dedication in serving out country, San Jacinto City Council March 6, 2003." The presentation was followed by a standing ovation. 3.0 PUBLIC HEARING 3.1 Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto — Annexation No. 3 (Tract 30688 commonly referred to as Los Rosas, Shaver & Evans A. Resolution No. 2314 / A Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 3") Approve / City Attorney B. Resolution No. 2315 / A Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report for the Annexation of Property to landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 3") / Approve / City Attorney City Council Minutes March 6, 2003 Page 4 of 7 C. Resolution No.2315 / A Resolution Declaring Intention to Annex Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 3") / Adopt / City Attorney John Friedrich of GFB Friedrich and Associates, Inc. explained the annexation before them. It consists of 37 residential lots and one retention lot. The annexation into the LLPD No 2 is designated a Zone 4 and pays for street lights, graffiti removal , landscaping. The lots are located between Los Rosas, Evans and Shaver. M/S/C (Conner / Carlson-Buydos) moved to approve Resolutions A, B, and C (Annexation No. 3): A. Resolution No. 23141 A Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 3") B. Resolution No. 2315// A Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report for the Annexation of Property to landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 C. Resolution No. 2315/ A Resolution Declaring Intention to Annex Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Ayres Nays: None Absent: Stubblefield Abstain: None D. PUBLIC HEARING / At the conclusion of the public hearing if the City Council determines that a majority protest does not exist, Adopt Resolution No. 2316 / A Resolution Ordering Annexation of Territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and Levying Assessments (Annexation No. 3 into LLPD #2) / City Attorney Mayor Ayres opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. There was no one present to support or oppose the annexation. Clerk Chouinard noted there were no written or negative comments received. The ballot of the landowner was in support of said annexation. Mayor Ayres closed the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m. City Council Minutes March 6 2003 Page 5 of 7 M/S/C (Carlson-Buydos / Conner) moved to Adopt Resolution No. 2316 / A Resolution Ordering Annexation of Territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and Levying Assessments (Annexation No. 3 into LLPD #2) Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Ayres Nays: None Absent: Stubblefield Abstain: None 4. CITY DEPARTMENTS None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5.1 Warrant Register for Warrants, Prepaid Checks, and Payroll Checks Period Ending 03/06/03 / Approve / Finance Director 5.2 February 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes / Approve / City Clerk 5.3 Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 2003 / Approve / Finance Director M/SIC (Conner 1 Carlson-Buydos) moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried 5/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Ayres Nays: None Absent: Stubblefield Abstain: None Mayor Ayres recessed the Regular Meeting at 7:32 p.m. to consider the Redevelopment Agency Agenda. Mayor Ayres reconvened the Regular Meeting following the Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 7:33 p.m. City Council Minutes March 6, 2003 Page 6 of 7 MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS Council Member Shaw reported that he attended the Public Safety Officers; banquet and participated in the North Mountain Career Day. At the Hemet - San Jacinto Congress of Republicans, Senator Brulte spoke. Council Member Conner noted that he attended the WRCOG.' The PowerPoint presentation from SCAG indicates the quality of life is down He will make the presentation handout available to the other Council members. Council Member Conner noted six cities have approved the TUMF. He informed Council that he met with the president of Empire Homes and is going to meet with a developer on the west side of the City. Council Member Conner and Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos will meet with two members of Hemet's City Council to discuss VEDC. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos commented that she attended the VEDC (Valley Economic Development Council) retreat. A survey was done prior to the retreat and the results were consistent in the direction VEDC should be going. She anticipates there will be some restructuring in the next year. She toured the Colorado River aqueduct tour. Two other items that need attention are : Mayor Ayres reported on: 1) The Public Safety Officer's Dinner. San Jacinto's Police Officer Harrington was nominated and received Officer of the Year. 2) Farmer's Boys has broken sales record. 3) The time capsule is going to be buried at Hoffman Park on Wednesday April 9, 2003, the 115th Anniversary of San Jacinto's incorporation. The time capsule will be opened in 35 years when the City is 150 years old. 4) The San Jacinto Levee Tour is scheduled for April 19, 2003 5) The Vietnam Moving Wall Memorial plans are progressing. A volunteer meeting and City clean up are planned. 6) The next Mayor's meeting will be at American Village next Saturday. He invited one Council Member to join him and Treasurer Potts. Mayor Ayres recessed the regular meeting to move into the RDA Closed Session at 7:43 p.m. City Council Minutes March 6, 2003 Page 7 of 7 CLOSED SESSION Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager No reportable action 8. ADJOURNMENT Following the motion, second and vote, Mayor Ayres adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Stephen G. Harding, City Mana"er SUBJECT: City's Implementation Plan II RECOMMENDATION: By motion, receive and file Implementation Plan II BACKGROUND: On November 15, 2001, the City Council adopted a set of goals and objectives entitled Implementation Plan II. As a regular feature of the City Council agenda, each month, staff will include on the consent calendar an updated version of the Implementation Plan. By placing the Implementation Plan on the consent calendar, it would allow any Council member to pull any of the projects/tasks in this report, and discuss it in more detail. As a way of highlighting any update, staff will italicize changes from the prior month and will mark them 'complete' (in bold and caps), those projects that have been fully completed. JUSTIFICATION: This mechanism allows the Council as a whole to review the Implementation Plan II. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. I.P. II — dated March 17, 2003 Page 1 of 2 Assignment 1.CFD No. 2002-1 TIER I A. Implementation of M.O.U. B. City Council action of 3/7/02 allowed the scheduled foreclosure sales of CFD No. 2 to occur on March 21st and March 28th C. On Monday, June 3, 2002, staff met with development team to discuss land use entitlement process and discuss LLPD # 2 impact D. Eight Tentative Tract Maps applications received 5/3/02 for Rancho San Jacinto Development — Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for 8/21/2002 E. Preliminary hydrology review comments completed 07/29/2002 F. Formation election for CFD # 2002-1 held successfully 9/10/2002 G. Long Term Extension of Time for Development Agreement 1-89 being discussed with developer (11/21/2002 C.C. action) H. Extension of Development Agreement 1-89 scheduled for Planning Commission 01/16/2003; P.H. before City Council scheduled for 02/06/2003 — Ordinance approving Development Agreement introduced on 02/06/2003; second reading scheduled for 02/20/2003 2. Soboba Coordinate Phase I and Phase II or Ibarra Professional Services Agreement — City Manager Wager meeting with Mickey Ibarra on January 21, 2002 Amendment No. 1 — Extending the PSA with Mickey Ibarra & Associates for an additional 11-month. Copy of application of land into trust received on April 10, 2002. Staff to commence review for completeness. Comments submitted on 6/12/2002 to BIA Re: Environmental Assessment 8/13/2002 — Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians withdrew BIA application — Soboba to resubmit application with territory additions and changes to the scope of work Professional Service Agreement with Mickey Ibana & Associates extended by City Council 1/09/2003 Meeting between the City and BIA/Soboba Band of Luisefio Indians being coordinated by Mickey Ibarra- Tentative Dates April 3, 2003 and April 10, 2003 Revised 03/17/03 Responsible Party/ Estimated Due Date Wager/Simon 04/2002 Wager 10/14/2001 COMPLETE 02/21/2002 COMPLETE 3. EDA Grant/Sewer Lift Station & Waterline A. Secure all funds necessary (Pending USFWS Clearance) B. Complete all procedural issues with EMWD relating to EDA/County funds (USFWS Clearance received 4/25/02) C. Obtain Council approval of modified EMWD Agreement EMWD reviewing engineer's estimate for lift station - City will take the lead on the bid advertisement, contract award, and project administration; EMWD to inspect the lift station; City will be the lead for design waterline project, advertisement, award of contract and inspection. D. Meeting scheduled for 5/14/02between City and EMWD to discuss final funding of water/sewer project E. Revised agreement approved by EMWD Board F. Notice to Bid Authorization approved by City Council on 6/20/02; G. Plans and Specifications available — Bid Opening 8/30/2002 H. Bid Award scheduled for 9/5/2002 I. Construction work scheduled to start October 7, 2002 and to be completed by July 3, 2003 J. Project under construction 4. Connectivity Project Complete connectivity project arrangement with Riverside County: A. Council Approval B. Complete Installation — County MIS staff on site at San Jacinto installing wiring C. Final physical improvements to accommodate equipment D. PC's being installed week of 9/16/2002 E. Connectivity Employee Training taking place F. Connectivity and e-mail complete Hults In Progress COMPLETE 6/20/02 06/05/02 06/20/02 COMPLETE COMPLETE Wager/Simon 9/20/2001 12/06/2001 6/2002 COMPLETE TIER I - COMPLETION Assignment 1. Tony's Sea Landing Close escrow with Valley Bank. 2. SGT Negotiations Complete remaining M.O.U. 3.Competition Park Responsible Party/ Estimated Due Date Wager/Lanier 12/21 /2001 COMPLETE Wager/Bohn/Matthew/Floyd 01/11/2002 COMPLETE Hulls Monitor all CUP issues associated with this use — Operations ceased COMPLETE 6/07/2002 TIER II Assignment 1. Resolution of pending personnel issues 2. Warwick Erosion Problem A. Complete Eminent Domain — Pre judgment possession deposit in the amount of $7,452 placed with the State of California Deposits Fund on December 2001. B. Drainage improvements- complete. C. City working with developer to complete punch list items for Tract 24738. D. Court Hearing for purchase of property pending 3. Noble Trucking A. Follow up on summary judgment hearing action November 12, 2001 B. Seek federal lawsuit dismissal C. Superior court judge dismissed motion for summary judgment. D. Additional hearing set for mid -September 2002 E. 02/19/2003 - Extension of time requested to file appellate brief 4. Road Projects A. Ramona Boulevard Sidewalks — Bid Advertisement started 10/24/2002 — Bid opening scheduled for November 25, 2002 B. Contract Awarded to EPS, Inc. 01/09/2003 — Start of Construction 02/18/2003, estimated completion 05/18/2003 C. Project under construction 5. Five Point Traffic Signal A. Authorization to Proceed with Bid Advertisement pending Caltrans approval to proceed with construction and obligation of CMLG funds. B. Authorization to Advertise and Award Project received 08/28/2002 — Bid advertisement started August 30, 2002 C. Bid opening scheduled for 10/03/2002; contract award by City Council 10/17/2002; anticipated start of construction 12/2002; and anticipated project completion 04/10/2003 Responsible Party/ Estimated Due Date Wager/Durden On -going BB&K 12/06/2001 4/22/02- COMPLETE BB&K Must follow Superior Court action (Fall 2002) Motlagh 07/18/2002 10/03/2002 6. Downtown Improvements A. Final plans to Council B. Bid solicitation Bid Opening January 24, 2002 C. Bid Award with changes to scope of work in order to reduce construction cost- City Council on 2-21-2002, rejected all bidsreceived 1/24/2002 and directed staff to meet with landscape architect to work on changes to the project, reducing the scope of work. D. Landscape architect revising the Down Hall 5/8/2002 E. Re -advertisement of bids — March 2003 to\ 7. Ground Water Management Plan n Plans — plans delivered to City Continue efforts to establish Groundwater Management Plan — Final issue needing resolution is Lake Hemet Municipal Water District's stream diversion 8. Grant Applications On going effort to identify grant opportunities for all phases of municipal operations A. Rehabilitation and Improvement of Existing Rancho Area Non - Motorized Trail Submitted October 2002 (2" Attempt) — Denied B. City Makeover Program - $75,000 Grant Application with MWD C. Landscape Conservation Demonstration Program Grant Application with EMWD - $25,000 (Estudillo Mansion) — Grant Approved 02/19/2003 9. Skvview Park Wall A. Bid Award scheduled before City Council - Council rejected all bids pending comprehensive review of Park Development Funds 10. On -going maintenance and enhancement of web page 11. Sallee Park Renovation A. Presentation to Council by Sam Goepp B. City, Valley Wide and School District staff to develop Master Plan and timeline for submittal to all legislative bodies C. Construction plans for Sallee Park submitted to the City for review 08/02/2002 and subsequently approved. D. Bids received — construction project awarded to Adame Landscaping Co. Anticipated project completion 02/01/2003 E. Work under construction Motlagh/Hults 10/4/2001 01/24/2002 02/21/2002 12/2002 Wager 3/1/2002 9/23/2002 On -going 09/05/2002 On -going Wager/Hults 12/06/2001 COMPLETE 07/09/2002 02/01/2003 12. Comprehensive Sign Ordinance - Review and Modification The review must specifically address billboards — Marco Martinez of BB&K providing recommendation to City to conduct a survey of all signs in the City prior to starting any type of signage abatement program 13. Comprehensive Truck Use — Review and Modifications Review to encompass weight limits, truck routes, hours of operat and truck parking on; permittin kilts 05/01/2002 Hults/Motlagh/Heller 07/01/2002 TIER II COMPLETION Assignment 1. Year End Report Publish Year End Report, mail out to all residents, and business Publish 2"d year end report prior to State of the City speech —Available for distribution 10/09/2002 and mailed to City residents and business November 2002 2.Implementation Plan II A. Submit draft to City Council for review and comment B. Adopt Implementation Plan II 3. Water Development Fces Resolution Review policy issues with Water Committee and issue report to City Council 4. Road Projects Secure authorization to obtain bids and commence construction. A. Miscellaneous Pavement Rehabilitation (Lyon, Pepperwood/Lori Ann, Lake Park Drive, Tract 24054 and Virginia Lee Parking Lot) — Bid Awarded and project under construction — Project Complete 4/4/2002 B. Sanderson Avenue Rehabilitation (Esplanade to Cottonwood) — Bid Opening 2/24/2002 — Bids opened 2/24/02; contract awarded 3/7/02. Construction under way — Estimated opening of road 6/14/2002 Idyllwild Drive Improvements — Deleted from FY 2002-2003 budget due to Measure "A" fund shortfall 5. Deputy City Clerk Hire A. Review application submitted B. Set interviews and make offer C. Start date Responsible Party/ Estimated Due Date Wager/Alvarez 11/30/2001 COMPLETE Lanier/Williams 11/2002 COMPLETE Wager 9/21/2001 11/15/2001 COMPLETE Motlagh/Lavin COMPLETE Motlagh 04/09/2002 COMPLETE 07/14/2002 COMPLETE Wager/Bohn 9/10/2001 9/21/2001 10/15/2001 COMPLETE 6. LLMD Committee Activation Activate committee for LLMD savings plan and present to City Council - LLMD assessment report due January 30, 2002 — Report received and distributed to LLMD Ad -Hoc Committee on 02/08/2002 LLMD Presentation of Report by Consultant occurred on 04/04/2002. Site tour to review implementation steps set for April 11, 2002. 7. Estudillo Porch & Balcony A. Secure Council authorization to go out to bid — contract awarded to Mackone Development on November 15, 2001 B. Construction Complete 5/28/2002 8. GIS Hire A. Interview candidates B. Candidate to be in place — Carlo Umali started his employment with the City of San Jacinto December 17, 2001 Simon/Hults/Lavin 10/18/2001 04/04/2002 COMPLETE Hults/Lanier 9/20/2001 05/28/2002 COMPLETE Hults/Bohn Week of 9/3/2001 11/15/2001 COMPLETE 9. Council Team Building Session Wager/Council Date has been set (January 12, 2002), and a facilitator has been selected. 10. Grant Applications On going effort to identify grant opportunities for all phases of municipal operations A. LLEBG — Acceptance of Grant B. Non -Motorized Trails —Application did not rank high enough for funding C. The California Heritage Fund Grant Program — grant application submitted by Mary .Lanier for $50,000 grant towards Estudillo Mansion improvements —Notification of Grant Approval received 5/8/2002 10/18/2001 COMPLETE On -going COMPLETE COMPLETE 05/2002 Assignment 1. Line E Continue to work with flood control for alternate Line "E" project. Present options to Council — RCFC & EMWD resumed talks on Line E Meeting scheduled @ Riverside County Flood Control on 3-4-2002 RCFC and EMWD working together and trying to obtain R-O-W for project — Estimated Notice to Bid — December 2002 Agreement with RCFC&WCS for Construction of Line "E" Scheduled for January 23, 2003 - Agreement ratified by Board of Supervisors 02/11/2003 Bid advertisement scheduled. for April 2003; construction estimated to begin in early June 2003 2. Adelphia Franchise Agreement Pending approval of franchise agreement with City of Hemet and completion of bankruptcy proceedings 3. Levee Project A. Finish environmental assessment; identify Phase II in association with flood control — review of draft environmental assessment complete. Final Biological Assessment Report Complete by CH2MHILL. B. City to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with RCFC for the preliminary engineering and enviromnental permits associated with the construction of this project C. Phase II Development — Albert A. Webb & Associates selected as RCFC&WCD and City's consultant for completion of environmental permits and preliminary engineering D. PSA with Albert A. Webb & Associates and Cooperative Agreements between City and RCFC&WCD approved on 12/05/2002 4. General Plan Complete all elements of General Plan — Notice or Preparation of CEQA document comment period expired 12/28/2001. Several entities commented. Preparation of Draft GP and EIR underway. Responsible Party/ Estimated Due Date Wager/Motlagh Pending submission by RCFC Wager Motlagh 02/2002 09/05/2002 Hults 06/2003 Commission consulting firm to update flood control master plan -City Upon completion o Engineer recommends that RCFC take charge of the City's Flood Plan Update Control Plaster Plan Staff requested RCFC&WCD assistance in the update of the City's Master Drainage Plan upon completion of the City's General Plan 6. Street Sign Replacement Complete street sign replacement program for FY 2001-2002: A. 1st Phase — main thoroughfares B. 2"d Phase — on -going maintenance/replacement 7. Budget Manuals/2001-2002Budget Process Prepare how-to budget manual in advance of FY 2003-2004 budget preparation start-up 8. Well Projects A. Work with Water Committee to identify water well sites — 2/28/2002 — Joint Meeting of the City Councils of Hemet and San Jacinto directed both cities Ad -Hoc Committee Members to meet and discuss further the construction of a new well B. Water Ad -Hoc Committee scheduled for 5/29/02 @ 7:30 a.m. — Technical Committee from both cities to meet in June 2002 to identify water reservoir locations and future well sites C. Technical Committee recommendation for reservoir and well sites submitted to Council Ad -Hoc Committees for consideration on 07/29/2002- EMWD has indicated preferred site is not available D. Staff to prepare additional information in preparation of grant application. 9. Hwy 79 Final Realignment A. Final Realignment - Continue to work with General Plan Committee, consultants, and other agencies to identify the final route. 10. EMWD/City Sewer Boundary Resolve in agreement form with EMWD sewer collection/transmission issue — Agreement between City of Hemet and EWMD for sewer collection/transmission distributed to Water Ad Hoc Committee for review and comments City Attorney drafting new agreement between the City of San Jacinto and EMWD Lavin 2/14/02 on -going Simon 02/28/2003 Motlagh/Lavin 02/28/2002 I-Iults 12/31/2003 Wager/Motlagh 12/28/2001 1. VEDC Workplan Present to Council a VEDC workplan for balance of FY 2001-2002 Response letter sent to VEDC on 12/20/2001 requesting VEDC's workplan. 2002-03 Workplan submitted 3/27/02 — Letter requesting more specific workplan mailed to VEDC 4/5/02 — Contract with Scope of Services pending approval by VEDC Meeting with City of Hemet VEDC Subcommittee scheduled for 03/12/2003 at S: 30 p.m. 2. So. Ca. Edison A. SCE New Franchise Agreement approved 4-4-2002 3. Infill Housing & Neighborhood Strategy Present to Council a comprehensive infill housing and neighborhood strategy plan. A. Study Session before the City Council B. Submit to City Council (Regular Meeting) 4. Acquisition of Sweeper/Striper Place into service new City street sweeper. Publish street sweeping schedule for the general public 5. Hwv 79 Interim Realignment A. Interim Realignment — Develop cooperative agreement with Caltrans and County of Riverside for the interim realignment of SR 79 from Gilman Springs Rd. to Ramona Expressway B. Official relinquishment effective 07/30/2002 6. Park Manor Demolition 7. Estudillo Mansion Grounds Master Plan Prepare draft outline of phases for grounds development Pending submission fro: VEDC 04/26/02 COMPLETE Wager 04/04/2002- COMPLETE Hults/Lanier 10/25/01 11/15/01 COMPLETE Lavin 12/26/01 03/22//02 COMPLETE Hults 06/06/2002 COMPLETE Hults/Lanier 03/08/2002 COMPLETE Hults/Lanier October 18, 2001 8. Urban Water Plan Work with Water Committee to select urban wate Complete development of an urban water plan. Draft Urban Water Management Plan to be distributed to Water Ad - Hoc Conunittee on 02/15/2002 Presentation by Stetson Engineering occurred on 4/4/2002 9. Lake Park Drive Block Wall plan consultant COMPLETE Lavin 10/15/2001 3/2002 4/4/2002 COMPLETE Motlagh Design, bid, and construct block wall on Lake Park Drive by Soboba COMPLETE Springs Mobile Estates. FROM: SUBJECT: 5 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Habib Motlagh, City Engin Final Tract Map 30688 — Osborne Development Corporation West of Las Rosas Drive between Shaver and Evans Street RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve Final Tract Map 30688, and authorize the Mayor to execute the subdivision agreement and Final Map. BACKGROUND: Final Tract Map 30688 is a 37-lot single-family subdivision, and an onsite retention basin on 10.19 acres. The project is located west of Las Rosas Drive between Shaver Street and Evans Street. The Subdivision Agreement securing the improvements in the amount of $466,612.00 has been submitted and is available for your review at the City Clerk's office. The subdivision agreement follows the City Attorney's template provided for City's use. JUSTIFICATION: Final Tract Map 30688 has complied with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of San Jacinto Subdivision Ordinance, and street improvement plans have been approved in compliance with the Engineering Conditions of Approval. Page 1 of 2 BUDGETARY IMPACT: This project is concurrently being annexed to the LLPD # 2 for maintenance of lighting, drainage, and landscaping improvements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Final Parcel Map 30688 (Page 2 of 3) Page 2 of 2 SURVEYOR'S NOTES TiC PASS'. OE DEARINGS FOB 1HI5 NAP I5 THE CENTERLINE DE SHAVER STREET TAKEN AS N 6R'S2'33' W PER 43 232/1J-20. [FACT YAP NO. 306B8 HAS 3B LOTS "LI,IS LOTS 'A' THROUGH '[, INCLtl51VE_ (RAPT MAP N0. 30688 CONTAINS 9.51 CR. ACRES WITHIN THE DISTINCT/YE ROEMER. Alt 'UBL!C-U'ILTIES AND PU8Li:' SERVICES IN5TAI-LED WITI'IN THIS TRACT SHALL RE P,710ED UN0ERGRDUNO. 5- 5" I.C. IRON PINE W/ PEASTIC PLUG STAMPED 'LS 7843" SE- . LUSH AT ALL REAR I-0' CORNERS AND BOUNDARY ANGLE POINTS, 1I4LFS5 0THERW.Sr NO4E0. 6- C0= CORNERS ADJACENT TO STREETS REFERENCED BY LEAD d TAG S 7843" IN CURE ON EXTENSION OF LOT LINES. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INDICATES 3PE 'R' MDNUUFN", STAMPED "L, 7843', SET %LUSH. PER RIV. CO. STD. N0. 903, UNLESS NOTED O'HLRWISE. 0 1NO/CATES FOUND MONUMENT, SIZE AND DESCRIPTION AS NOTED. 9 0 INDICA`ES SET I" -.0. IRON PIPE W/ PUS'IC PLUG S'Au0EO "1-S 76N", FLUSH UNLESS OTERWISE NOTED. n. (0) INDICATES ➢O0NO 3/4" I.P. TAGGED "RCE 264D6', FLUSH, PER 43 232/17-20- ALL EXISII NG EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE LDCATFO RY REST AVARABIE RECORD AND NDT BY ANY PI Fir/ SURVEY ID DATE. RI INDCATES RECORD CA -A PER MB 232/17-20. R2 - INOa1A)ES RECOHO OA TA PER P4 45/59. lA. RS 091E5 RECORD DATA PER 4B 8/51. ''5. R4 i,401CA(E5 R_CORO DATA PER 4E 216/96-IOD. 15. R5 - IRO', PATES ;....CORD DATA PER 4B 211/48-55. '3 SITE SIDR4 FLOW FRD4 EASt:FLY SIDE DF PROJECT SHALL BE ACCEPTED I LOTS Ix, WITH 2234 0185 10 14, INCLUSIVE, 0AND90 CONY.. YEO IIrU UGH BLOCK WALL 00 11 MISSING BLOCKS At WATER EVES i0 iP.LS COURT AND OA NIEL COURT. EASEMENT NOTES I. A RIGHT or WAY AND EASEMENT IN FAVOR OE THE SAN JACINTO LAND ASSOCIATION, !TS SUCCESSORS DR ASSIGNS, FOR ROADS, AND FOR THE CDN TRUCTIGN AND 421NTENANCE OF All. NECESSARY WATER PIPES AND 0ITCDES, FLUMES AND CONDUITS GOP ALL PURPOSES OE IRRIGATION ANO 'JO6ESUC USE. THE EXACT LOCATION CANNO' BE LOCA4EO FROM RECORD. A RIGHT OF WAY FOR ONE 01'CH, FLUME, 0R OTHER AOLEDUCT ACROSS THE LANDS 0' ANY OTHER OWNER, 'PING BETWEEN HIM AND THE SAN JAC'NTO RIVER, AS RESERVED TC EACH AND EVERY OWNER OF LANDS IN E11F RANC110 SAN JACINTO VIEJ0, HIS HEIRS AND ASSIGNS. BY DECREE OF ,sARi4TifN OF SAID RANCHO, RECORDED IN DOCK 43, PAGE 161 DE DEEDS, R000R05 OF SAN 0;E00 COUNTY. CAL IFORNIA, THE EXAC= LUCA/10N CANNOT 8C LOCAIEC FROM RECORDINL CENTERLINE OF AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OE SHE SOUTHERN SIERRAS PCWER COMPANY "CR 'UBIJC UTILITY PU.RPDSES, RECORDED MARCH 16, 492L, IN BOOK S42, PAGE 351 DF DEEDS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFONNIA. 'D. I I!2" BRASS 0,5C S A9PEC. "'_S 5D332, -LUSH, N0 REF, ACCEPTED AS 'HE CS INT, FP . I ''./2' GRASS DISC 5TA4PE0 1s 64 3", EI:25H NO 4i1i D,1'. NOR/Si OF INS C_iN'. IN THE (':ITV OF SAN JACINTO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAI FORNIA TRACT NO. 30688 BEING A DIVISION OF 1.0TS 8, I'. 12 ANT; 41/6LL9 AVENUE (VACA'EO) OF RAILER RANCH TRACT ADDITION, AS SIIC'NN 01 HAP ON EILE IN 6UDK 8, PACE 51 0E YAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA, OF THE RANCHO SAN JACINTO vi0JO. EAINE A. Y/O4ER CIVIL ENGINEERING- SEPTF6BER 2(102 ED. NAIL d TAG, "!.S 6055", DN. 1" IN AC PAVEMENT, N0 REF. ACCEPTED A5 THE 4W CDR, "OT 11 OF 4B R/5', PER °Y 45/59 AND MB 232/'l-20. IN CO4C_ CORE, ACLSPIsD AS A P015T ON ESE W'LY .414E 0' LOT I1 OE 40 0E SSAVER GT. P F44 d F56 Sc, [AC F3. 3/4' I.P. W/ SAG, UNREADABLE, FLUSH, ACCEPTED AS AN ANGLE POINT ON THE BORE. UNE OF - LOT 11 PER \m MR 8/S1. USA/BUSH /INT€RSEft SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS NORTH 0 ESPLANADE AVF. VICINITY MAC FTI. 1 1/2' BRASS DISC W/ PUNCH MARN, FLUSH, ESTABLISHED BY NO RET., ACCEPTED AS C/1 SHAVER STRL ', 'N?ERSECTI04 . B.C. PER MB 232/17-20. N RTS2'13" W 13SE)93' C1350.9N' R'} 486 54' ;486.6S` R d R2) (487 75R3j i L01 '0' JUDE COURT / it US COURT SEE Q9l'I 9 17 16 L SEE SHEET'3 10,0 9/' {I610 N 69'45'J5" W 1882.0 Il D6216' 04) PO A INS STREET ,'rruSECrOu1 S{,', F0. 2" I.P. TAGGED "RCE 26406", Ft NSH, PER MB 212/17-2D. SEE SHEET 3 FOR 4EASUR4ENi'S BETWEEN FOUND 4GNUUENT5 ALONG TIIE WEST LINE OF AMENDED IR. 26020-1. FLUSH; DID NOT ACCEPT AS SW COT. LOT 10 OF A3FNDFD 'R 26020-1. PER 4D 232/17-2C. \ "u SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. 494,95' (494.09 R1) :/2 DBA i DISE SD RCE. 1432', PER 38 214/91-92. "71 : G 1.81' RA) CO U C7" TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk - SUBJECT: Committee and/or Agency Agendas RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: JUSTIFICATION: BUDGETARY IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: Library RCTC RTA VEDC WROG Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 1 SAN JACINTO'LIBRARY Monthly Report MARCH 2003 SUMMARY February brought an average attendance of 13,927 visitors to the library, with the doors open 248 hours. 1,768 reference questions were answered and 76 meetings held in the conference room. 7 Class visits were made in the library by 190 students this month. Four internet were continually in use in February. Five volunteers worked an average of 63 hours for the month, with fifty new materials added to the San Jacinto Library Collection. Culnulative circulation increased from 24,987 in ,Tuly-Dec. 2001/2002 to 26,850 in the same period for 2002/2003, an increase of 7%0. SERVICES A full set of federal and state tax forms were made available to Internet Station procedures are being written to begin in March. OUTREACH Outreach efforts include calling thirty local churches to inform them of the availability of tax forms. Pre -School Storyhour Programs were held this month with 33 in attendance. Library flyers were delivered to five community centers. The Librarian represented the library at Leadership 2003 through the Mt. San Jacinto College and spoke to 250 seventh and eighth graders at the North Mountain Middle School Career Fair. e public. Express Respectfully submitted, Diane Smith Acting Branch Manager San Jacinto Library 3 March 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.mtc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, March 12, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at /east 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-020, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE REALTY IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE WIDENING, REALIGNMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT OF STATE ROUTE 74, BETWEEN DEXTER AVE., IN LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, TO 7TH STREET, IN PERR/S, CALIFORNIA (PROJECT SEGMENTS 1 & 21 " Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Riverside County Transporta March 12, 2003 Page 2 1) Conduct a public hearing to consider the approval of the proposed Resolution of Necessity, including providing all interested parties of the affected property, their attorneys, or their representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: i. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. ii. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. iii. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. iv. The portions of the real property to be acquired, as identified below, are "remnants" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, thereby giving the Commission separate statutory authority to acquire those portions by eminent domain. v. The offers of just compensation have been made to the property owners; and, 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-020, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests and Improvements Pertaining to the Realty in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS: 349-060- O 15, 349-342-011, 349-342-005, 349-342-004, 349-341-001, 345- 220-065, 345-220-032, 345-220-034, 345 200-005, 345-160-048, 345-150-006, 345-150-007, 345-150-004, 345-150-012, 345-150- 001, 345-070-010, 345-070-020, 345-070-011, 345-060-040, 345- 060-041, 345-060-049, 345-060-046, 345-060-045, 345-100-001, 345-050-016, 345-090-007, 345-090-010, 345-090-011, 345-080- 047, 342-210-036, 342-210-021, 342-210-033, 342-210-031, 342- 210-039, 342-210-024, 342-120-013, 342-210-028, 342-120-041, 342-200-035, 342-200-034, 342-130-002, 342-150-010, 342-140- 008, 342-100-047, 342-100-024, 342-100-023, 342-100-044, 342- 052-002 & 342-092-027 & 342-052-023, 342-052-006, 342-052- 007, 342-052-008, 342-052-010, 342-052-017, 342-051-009 thru 012, 342-051-017, 342-064-008, 342-064-007, 342-064-008 & 009, 342-061-006, 342-062-003, 342-071-003, 342-072-003, 342- 071-005, 342-071-006, 342-072-010, 342-040-030, 342-072-022 & 023, 326-250-026, 326-240-024, 326-240-031, 326-240- 023, 326-240-021, 342-071-007, 326-234-002, 342-072-011, 342- 072-024 (Project Parcel Nos. 13573-1, 13625-1, 13631-1, 13632-1, 13637-1 ,13639-1, 13644-1, -2, 13648-1, 13662-1, 13665-1, Riverside County Transports March 12, 2003 Page 3 13667-1, 13668-1, 13670-7, 13676-1, 13677-1, ' 13682-1, 13690- 1, -2, 13692-1, 13696-1, 13697-1, -2, 13700-1, 13704-1, 13705 1, 13706-1, 13709-1, 13713-1, 13716-1, -2, 13721-1, -2, 13726-1, 13751-1, -2, 13754-1, -2, 13756-1, -2, 13757-1, -2, -3, 13759-1, 2, 13761-1, 13770-1, -2, 13771-1, -2, -3, 13773-1, -2, 13776-7, 2, 13777-1, -2, -3, 13778-1, -2, 13795-1, 13797-1 13809 1, -2, 138101, -2, 13811-1, -2, 13812-1, -2, -3, 13816-1, 13820 1, 13821-1, 13822-1, 13824-1, 13833-1, -2, ,13834-1, 13839-1, 13845-1, 13846-1, 13849-1, 13855-1, 13863-1, 13866-1, -2, 13867-1, 13868-1, -2, 13876-1, -2, 13878-1, 13879-1, -2, 13889- 1, 13896-1, 13897-1, 13898-1, 13901-1, 13906-1, -2, 18971-1, 19752-1, -2, and 19753-1, -2), by Eminent Domain Is Necessary for the Widening, Realignment, and Improvement of State Route 74, Between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, California, to 7th Street, in Perris, California (Project Segments 1 & 2)." 5B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-021, "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FEE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE REALTY IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 8Y EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF GREENWALD AVENUE AT THE MEADOWBROOK AVENUE INTERSECTION WITH STATE ROUTE 74" Page 238 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing to consider the approval of the proposed Resolution of Necessity, including providing all interested parties of the affected property, their attorneys, or their representatives an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. ii. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. The property to be acquired is necessary for the project. iv. The portions of the real property to be acquired, as identified below, are "remnants" as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.410, thereby giving the Commission separate statutory authority to acquire those portions by eminent domain. Riverside County Transportation Comm March 12, 2003 Page 4 3) The offers of just compensation have property owners; and, Adopt Resolution No. 03-021, "Resolution of Necessity of the Riverside County Transportation ;Commission Declaring That The Acquisition of Fee and Easement Interests and Improvements Pertaining to the Realty in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as APNS: 349-124 004, 349-124-003, 349-124-021, 349-124-001, 349-124-005, 349- 342-013, 349-342-011, (Project Parcel Nos. 90002-1, 90003-1, 90004-1,-2, 90005-1, 90001-1, 90006-1, 90008-1, -2), by Eminent Domain Is Necessary for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue at the Meadowbrook Avenue intersection with State Route 74." 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 277 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending January 31, 2003. 7B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2002. Page 281 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 Page 5 7C. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Page 294 Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the City of Canyon Lake an advance of Measure "A" - Local Streets and Roads Funds. 7D. FEDERAL FUNDING OBLIGATION BALANCES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 317 1) Approve moving unexpended CMAQ Funds to the State Route 60 HOV Project from the East Interstate 215 Junction to Redlands Boulevard; and, 2) Receive and file a report on the status of federal funding obligation balances. 7E. CITY OF PERRIS CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY SUBSTITUTION REQUEST Page 319 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the City of Perris request to substitute the State Route 74 and Redlands Signal Project with a "Round About" Project at the same location and transfer the unobligated CMAQ Funds from the signal project to the round about project. 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Page 320 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate the FY 2002-03 Local Transportation Funds for Local Streets and Roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley Apportionment Area. Riverside County Transpo March 12, 2003 Page ion Commission Agenda 7G. AMENDMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CORONA, LAKE ELSINORE, AND PALM DESERT Page 322 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendments to the FY 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Corona, Lake Elsinore, and Palm Desert, as submitted. 7H. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-055 FOR ADDITIONAL ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Page 335 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-055 (Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. RO-9832) with Ninyo & Moore to provide additional on -call material testing services in support of Measure "A" projects scheduled for construction for the remainder of this fiscal year, for an additional base amount of $86,000.00; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 71. MEASURE "A" FUNDED SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAMS Page 342 O vervie w This item is for the Commission to authorize RCTC staff to seek and/or develop additional Measure "A" Funded Specialized Transit Programs. 7J. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-038 FOR RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PHASE II PARKING LOT EXPANSION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 346 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda Parch 12, 2003 Page 7 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-038 for the construction of the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase II Parking Lot Expansion Project to Riverside Construction Co. for the amount of $1,199,850 plus a contingency amount of $150,150 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $1,350,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 352 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7L. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. Page 370 8. RESULTS OF THE MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIALISTS, INC. Page 372 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Management Audit of Transportation Specialists, Inc. (TSI); and, 2) Recommend that no Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding be allocated to TSI in FY 2004. 9. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission's Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget. Page 385 Riverside County Tran March 12, 2003 Page 8 10. portation Commission Agenda SB 821 EXTENSION STREAMLINING Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the policy regarding projec the Commission's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. Page 392 extensions for 11. INITIATION OF THE CEQA PROCESS ON THE MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR Page 395 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Endorse the release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the preservation of right-of-way for potential new north -south transportation facilities linking Riverside/Moreno Valley with the East Valley of San Bernardino County; and, 2) Reduce the identified budget for work on this corridor from $2,010,450 to $1,187,000. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEM - Adjourn to RCTC Conference Room "A" Overview A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: "No on A -No LA", San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. RCTC, County of Riverside, and County Board of Supervisors, Eric Haley Case Number: RCV384012 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 Page 9 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b) Significant Exposure to Litigation to Subdivision(b) Number of Potential Cases: 1 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 9, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Riverside Transit Agency Riverside Transit Agency Board of Directors Meeting Meeting No. 2003-02A February 27, 2003 2:00 p.m. 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507 PLEASE NOTE: The Chairman of the Board kindly requests that phones be turned off during the meeting ITEM CALL TO ORDER SELF-INTRODUCTIONS FLAG SALUTE PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDA ITEMS Members of the public may address the Board regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board; however, no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to matters not listed on the agenda. Members of the public may comment on any matter listed on the agenda at the time that the Board considers that matter. Each person's presentation is limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes APPROVAL OIF MINUTES — JANIJAR‘If , 2003, BOARD MEETING P. 4 RECOGNITION OF DIRECTOR BOB BUSTER FOR HIS TEN YEARS OF SERVICE AS A BOARD MEMBER (P. 11) RECOMMENDATION RECEIVE COMMENTS APPROVE MAKE PRESENTATION Any Person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting should contact the RTA Clerk of the Board, telephone number (909) 565-5044, no less than two business days prior to this meeting to enable RTA to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. RIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING PAGE FEBRUARY 27, 2003 ITEM RECOMMENDATION PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO DIRECTOR FRANK KESSLER IN RECOGNITION OF FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE (P. 12) MAKE PRESENTATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT RECEIVE REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar will be approved by one motion and there will be no discussion on individual items unless a Board member or member of the public requests a specific item be pulled from the calendar for separate discussion A. RTA Financial Profile January 2003 (P. 13) RECEIVE AND FILE B. Ridership Report - January 2003 (P. 25) RECEIVE AND FILE C. Personnel Report - January 2003 (P. 30) RECEIVE AND FILE 0. Transportation Center Report — January 2003 (P. 35) RECEIVE AND FILE E. Board Administrative Committee Minutes — 11/13/02 Meeting (P. 41) RECEIVE AND FILE F. Board Budget and Finance Committee Minutes — 1/15/03 Meeting (P. 43) RECEIVE AND FILE Board Operations Committee Minutes — 12/4/02 Meeting (P. 45) RECEIVE AND FILE H. On-Time Performance Report — January 2003 (P. 47) RECEIVE AND FILE I. Agency Credit Card Statement for January (P. 53) RECEIVE AND FILE J. Farebox Recovery Ratio for Period Ending December 31, 2002 (P. 54) RECEIVE AND FILE K. Quarterly Performance Standards for Period Ending December 31, 2002 (P. 64) RECEIVE AND FILE L. Potential Conflict of Interest: Campaign Contributions (P. 66) RECEIVE AND FILE M. Authorization to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Riverside for the Coordination of ADA Transportation Services (P.76 ) APPROVE N. Authorization for Travel to Attend the 41st RIMS Annual Conference and Exhibition — April 6-10, 2003, Chicago, IL (P. 81) APPROVE R TA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FIEBRUARY 27, 2003 ITEM 0. Authorization for Travel of an Additional Staff Member to Attend the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) Legislative Conference (P. 82) P. Authorization to Travel to Boulder, Colorado to Review the Go Boulder Transit System (P. 83) Q. Continued Funding of the RTA Share of Route 100 Service and Development of Non-Financial Memorandum of Understanding with Omnitrans for Route 100 and the New RTA Riverside Montclair Express (P. 89) 12. TRANSPORTATION NOW BYLAWS (P. 94) BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS AND REMARKS 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS 15. NEXT MEETING Regular Meeting of the RTA Board of Directors Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:00 p.m. RTA Conference Room 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507-3484 ADJOURNMENT PAGE RECOMMENDATION APPROVE APPROVE APPROVE APPROVE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 14, 2003 CALL TO ORDER CHAIRMAN AGENDA CHAIRMAN APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN CORRESPONDENCE SECRETARY TREASURES REPORT TREASURER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT PAT MELVIN ACTION 1. PLANNING SESSION REPORT - Discussion and formal adoption of Board recommendations. 2. COMMITTEE - Discussion and appointment of committee members. 3. BANK SIGNATURE CARD- Appointments 4. WEB-SITE UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. SAN JACINTO CONTRACT NEW BUSINESS 1. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CONTRACT 2. STATUS OF SANDRA PRIMROSE ADJOURNMENT ;OX, VALDEZ & SILBERMANN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 805 E. FLORIDA AVENUE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3870 HEMET, CALIFORNIA 92546 (909) 929-2377 / FAX 658-3128 JGER MIL COX (RETIRED) [ARLEN A VALDEZ-WATERS, C.P.A. DIANA L. Srt,BY-SILBERMANN, C.P.A. MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS February 20, 2003 Valley Economic Development Corporation 800 E Florida Ave Suite A Hemet, CA 92543 We have compiled the accompanying statement of assets, liabilities, and net assets - modified cash basis of Valley Economic Development Corp as of January 31, 3003, and the related statement of revenues and expenses - modified cash basis for the one month then ended, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The financial statements have been prepared on the modified cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them. Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures ordinarily included in financial statements prepared on the modified cash basis of accounting. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the Company's assets, liabilities, equity, revenues, and expense. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. Statement balances are subject to change pending year end adjustments. C'a/ raA 7L. COX, VALDEZ & SILBERMANN, CPAs A Professional Corporation ote WRCOG WRCOG TECHNICAL ADVISORY Co) MII4L — TEE AGENDA Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:30a.m. — 12:00 p.m. County of Riverside Administrative Center 3 rd Floor, Conference Room A CALL •n•'‘, i7.DER moolesa.seserrearmammootavoosalsor .................. ........ aseams.man o a m s . v o Steve Mandoki INTRODUCTIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time members of the public may address the Technical Advisory Committee regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Technical Advisory Committee which are not separately listed on this agenda. Members of the public will have an opportunity to speak o n agendized items at the time the item is called for discussion. NO action may be taken on items not listed on the agenda unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to three minutes per person and an overall time limit of twenty minutes for the Public Comments portion of the agenda. Any person wishing to address the Technical Advisory Committee on any matter, whether or not it appears on this agenda, is requested to complete a "Request to Speak" form available at the door. The completed form is to be submitted to the Secretary prior to an individual being heard. Whenever possible, lengthy testimony should be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee in writing and only pertinent points presented orally. I I LA7 U ES I.A Minutes from the January 16, 2003 Technical Advisory Committee M-1 meeting available for consideration. Requested Action: Approve Minutes. CC!!!T AGENDA II.A 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Alexa Washburn Page 1 Background: As the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six Southern California counties, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for the development of a coordinated and cohesive long range transportation plan that addresses the needs of the Southern California metropolitan area. The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the required three-year update to the 2001RTP, adopted by the Regional Council in April 2001. Requested Action: Receive and file. 11.a Status of Growth Projections for 2004 RTP Kevin Viera Page 3 Background: SCAG is currently updating Regional Transportation Plan growth projections in preparation for the 2004 RTP. Requested Action: Receive and file. II.0 SCAG Goods Movement Advisory Dale West Page 5 Committee (GMAC) Activities Update Background: The SCAG Goods Movement Advisory Committee (GMAC) is considering goods movement projects from each of the subregions to be incorporated into the list of projects for the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Requested Action: Receive and file. II.D Jobs/Housing Balance — Economic Alexa Washburn Page 11 Strategies to Promote Job Growth Background: The Jobs/Housing Balance project is an effort to develop economic strategies that promote job growth in "housing-rich" western Riverside County. WRCOG will develop research methodology, gather data, identify and map major job centers in the subregion. Requested Action: Receive and file. II.E Selection of Firm to Conduct Used Oil Survey Miguel Vazquez Page 13 Background: The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) approved WRCOG's request to conduct a localized survey of the used oil disposal practices of "Do it Yourselfers" (DlYers) in the western Riverside County region. WRCOG posted a Request for Proposal with a January 31, 2003 submittal date. Requested Action: Approve the submitted RFP from the Inland Empire Research Consortium and direct the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with the 1ERC to conduct a study of DlYers in the western Riverside County region. The agreement shall not exceed $25,000. II.F. Formation of a Solid Waste Barbara Spoonhour Page 73 Regional Agency Background: Requested Action: Under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939), jurisdictions are required to meet a 25% diversion rate by 1995 and a 50% diversion rate by 2000. Public Resources Code (PRC) 40970, authorizes cities and counties to form "regional agencies" for purposes of measuring diversion jointly among participating jurisdictions. Direct staff to forward informational proposal to Executive Committee, continue working with the Solid Waste Technical Committee and return to WRCOG TAC with formal proposal in March 2003. REPORT III.A Report from League of California Cities Dave Willmon Page 149 Regional Representative Background: Dave Willmon, the League of California Cities Regional Representative for Riverside County, will provide an update on the State budget and activities being undertaken by the League of California Cities. Requested Action: Receive report. III.B Solid Waste Program Presentation Barbara Spoonhour Page 151 Background: WRCOG is involved in a number of programs related to solid waste management and recycling. Barbara Spoonhour, Interim Waste Management Program Manager, will provide an overview of 2002 WRCOG activities. Requested Action: Receive report. 111.0 Southern California Association of Rick Bishop Page 161 Governments (SCAG) State of the Region Report Background: SCAG recently released a State of the Region report, a number of indicators related to the region's quality of life. Requested Action: Receive report. 111.D TUMF Program Update Ruthanne Taylor Berger Page 163 Jurisdictions continue the process of considering the TUMF Ordinance for adoption. An update on these activities and the draft Administrative Plan will be provided. Receive report and provide recommendations if necessary regarding interim Program implementation to the Executive Committee. Rick Bishop Page 179 A schedule for completing the RCIP, and major remaining issues will be presented. Background: Requested Action: III.E RCIP Update Background: Requested Action: Receive report. IV. Items for Future Agendas Members Members are invited to suggest additional items to be brought forward for discussion at future Technical Advisory Committee meetings. V. General Announcements Members Members are invited to announce items/activities which may b e of general interest to the Technical Advisory Committee. VI.- Set Next Meeting: March 20, 2003 — Riverside County Administrative Center, 3rd Floor, Conference Room A, at 9:30 a.m. VII. ADJOURNMENT WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee Minutes January 16, 2003 CA.LL TO ORDER The meeting of the WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chairman Steve Ma ndoki at the Riverside County Administrative Center Annex. Self Introductions followed: Members: Gene Rogers, City of Moreno Valley Ed Hatzenbuhler, City of Norco Bot) Wales, City of Riverside Shawn Nelson, City of Temecula Steve Mandoki, City of Munieta Ala ii Kapanicas, City of Beaumont Steve Harding, City of San Jacinto Dick Watenpaugh, City of Lake Elsinore Steve Temple, City of Hemet George Guayante, City of Corona Olivia Gutierrez, City of Perris Tony Carstens, County of Riverside George Guayante, City of Corona Staff: Rick Bishop, Executive Director Rut hanne Taylor Berger, Deputy Executive Director Chris Brickel, Secretary Dale West, Staff Analyst Guests: Jim Henderson, Consultant Trent Pulliam, City of Moreno Valley Mike McCoy, RTA PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman, Steve Mandold called for any Public Comments. With no comments, Mr. Mandoki moved to the next item. MINUTES M/S/C (Nelson/VVatenpaugh) approve the minutes dated October 17, 2002 as presented. DISCUSSION ITEMS II.A Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for 2003 Mr. Rick Bishop presented the 2003 meeting schedule and called for any comments, changes or suggestions to the proposed meeting schedule. Discussion followed with recommendations for a later starting time. M/S/C (Rogers/Nelson) Approve 2003 Schedule with meeting time re-set to begin at 9:30 a.m, and end at 12:00 noon. H:Meetings\TACWinutes\111603 M1 REPORTS II ILA League of Cities Regional Representative Report Mr. Dave Willmon presented comments on the state budget focusing on the proposed VLF Rollback, Backfill and Redevelopment. He stressed the importance of city councils to mobilize and take action to support the VLF Rollback and decline the elimination of the backfill. Mr. Willmon also discussed the importance of appropriate use of redevelopment funds. He stated that the plan to alleviate the current budget deficit differs from the past with Governor Davis proposing to increase Personal Income Tax, Sales Tax and transfer funds from the RDA. III.B RCIP Update Mr. Rick Bishop called attention to the RCIP Schedule outlined in the agenda packets and introduced Mr. Jim Henderson, consultant on the RCIP to provide updates on some of the issues. Mr. Henderson confirmed their plan to work with the cities on the MSHCP Implementation and establishing an equitable fee. He also touched on the General Plan recommendations and schedule, CETAP issues and upcoming meetings on the proposed preferred alternatives. He advised they are still looking at July, 2003 to complete the CETAP portion of the project. Questions and comments were presented on various issues; Alternate 7A and 7B, 215/15 Corridor, proposed alternative alignments as well as recommendations and suggestions. Mr. Eric Haley advised of the upcoming hearing process, review of documentation and Advisory Committee actions with the current plan being to adhere to the staff recommendations. He also advised that the County has set a date of July 01, 2003 and will not go beyond that with the exception of a possible 60 to 90 day extension in the best case scenario. Mr. Henderson finalized his report by reminding everyone of the importance to stick to the process and follow through with the recommendations to avoid any legal challenges. III.0 TUMF Program Update Mr. Rick Bishop provided an update of current activities in the TUMF Program. The latest cities adopting the TUMF are Canyon Lake and Norco making a total of four jurisdictions that have already adopted the ordinance. He continued by advising of upcoming workshops. Discussion followed on various issues; Return to Source, Major Regional Challenges, Local DIF Programs, additional corridors. Mr. Bishop added comments relative to upcoming schedules and levels of review. Additional discussion focused on the various challenges and restrictions to the TUMF should some jurisdictions fail to adopt the ordinance and legal ramifications of existing development agreements both residential and commercial. A follow-up meeting on January 23, 2003 at 8:00 a.m. in Room C was decided upon to further review and discuss these issues. OTHER MATTERS IV. Items for Future Agendas It was recommended that consideration be given to bring March JPA on as an ex-officio member of the WRCOG Executive committee. V. General Announcements There were no general announcements VI. Set Next Meeting It was noted that the next scheduled meeting will be February 20, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. in Conference Room D with an interim meeting set for Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room C. VII. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. by Mr. Steve Mandoki, Chairman. 1-1°Meetinas\TAMMinutes1111603 M2 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established ond operated. No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated ond specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 18. Wind Erosion and Blowsand from project either on or off site Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off site? Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project 19. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? * c) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? • d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? n e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? • 14 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 20. Airports a) Result in an inconsistency with an Airport Master Plan? • b) Require review by the Airport Land Use Commission? • d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or heliport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 21. Hazardous Fire Area Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? • Li 15 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation I ncorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated. No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. itidation: None onitoring: 11 T1...Orklil—VIL7 T AM) MAI GM la/UALI 1 T Would the project 22. Water Quality Impacts a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? b) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? • e) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? • g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? • 16 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 23. Floodplains NA U R a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? b) Changes in absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff? • c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Dam Inundation Area)? • d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project 24. Land Use a) Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 0 b) Affect land use within a city sphere of influence and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries? • Ii 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact - Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated within the Light Manufacturing Zoning District. No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. rvlitioation: None !Monitoring: 25. Planning a) Be consistent with the site's existing or proposed zoning? b) Be compatible with existing surrounding zoning? e c) Be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses? 0 d) Be consistent with the land use designations and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan (including those of any applicable Specific Plan)? • e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? 0 Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated. No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project 26. Mineral Resources a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in an area classified or designated by the State that would be of value to the region or the residents of the 49 State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 49 c) Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine? 8 El 18 r Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Ad) Expose people or property to hazards from proposed, existing or abandoned quarries or mines? Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None !Monitoring: NOISE Would the project result in ' Definitions for Noise Acceptability Ratings VVhere indicated below, the appropriate Noise Acceptability Rating(s) has been underlined. NA - Not Applicable A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 27. Airport Noise a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA VA BC D • b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA f/A BC D • Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 28. Railroad Noise • NAVABCD 19 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Source . SJGP Findings of Fact: IMitigation: None Monitoring: 29. Highway Noise • /VAVABCD Source: SJGP (MEA-I1-2) Findings of Fact: Mitigation: None Monitoring: 30. Other Noise • NAABCD Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: 31. Noise Effects on or by the Project a) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? . b) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 4+ d) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 0 20 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4*m Source: Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. fVlitiqation: None Monitoring: POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project 32. Housing a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • b) Create a demand for additional housing, particularly housing affordable to households earning 80% or less of the County's median income? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • d) Affect a City Redevelopment Project Area? • e) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? 0 f) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase population or its distribution Mitigation: None Monitoring: PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 33. Fire Services II 21 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for Fire services. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 34. Police Services I Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for Police Services. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 35. Schools Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for schools. Mitigation: fvlonitoring: 36. Libraries I I I • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for libraries. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 37. Health Services 1 _I • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for health services. Mitigation: Monitoring: RECREATION 38. Parks and Recreation a) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? • b) Would the project include the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? • il 22 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Is the project located within a C.S.A. or recreation and park district with a Community Parks and Recreation Plan (Quimby fees)? Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 39. Recreational Trails. Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for recreational trails Mitigation: None Monitoring: TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project 40. Circulation a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 0 b Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways? n d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? e) Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic? 6 f) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g. , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 0 g) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or altered maintenance of roads? 0 h) Cause an effect upon circulation during the project's construction? 0 23 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1) Result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? j) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? • Source: SJGP Findings of Fact: No environmental impacts are envisioned as a result of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the project involves only the standards under which a pet/small animal crematorium could be established and operated . No project is currently proposed the environmental effect of each such project will be evaluated and specific mitigation measures, if needed will be required. 'Mitigation: None Monitoring: Building & Safety 41. Bike Trails or, Source: Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for bike trails. Mitigation: None Monitoring: UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project 42. Water a) Require or result in the construction of new water • treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and • resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Source: Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for water services. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 43. Sewer a) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including • septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? II 24 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Source: Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for sewer services. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 44. Solid Waste a) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • b) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP (County Integrated Waste Management Plan)? • Source: Findings of Fact: The effect of this proposal is not expected to increase the demand for solid waste services. Mitigation: None Monitoring: 45. Utilities Would the project impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? a) Electricity? • b) Natural gas? • c) Communications systems? • d) Storm water drainage? • e) Street lighting? • f) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? * g) Other governmental services? * h) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 il 25 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Source: Findings of Fact: The appropriate agencies have been contacted with regard to this project. Mitigation: None Monitoring: OTHER 46. Other: Source: Findings of Fact: Nitigation: Monitoring: 47. Other: Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: 48. Other • Source: Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 49. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, • threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, or endangered plant or animal to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Source: Findings of Fact: This review indicates that no substantial impact on the environment or habitat of fish or wildlife would occur II 26 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Nowillomwolay 50. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental 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.) Source: Findings of Fact: No short-term or long term impacts on the environment are expected. 51. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15130)? Source: Findings of Fact: No impacts are expected 52. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Source: This review Findings of Fact: Nor direct or indirect impacts on human beings are expected VI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Earlier Analyses Used, if any: Location Where Earlier Analyses, if used, are available for review: il 27 EXHIBIT A: (16) Pet/small animal crematory Place, structure, facility or building provided by a person for a fee, whether or not for profit, to veterinarians or members of the general public for cremation of pets. A pet crematorium shall not provide for permanent internment or inumment of pet remains. The crematory shall not engage in the incineration of medical waste. 1. Development Standards - The use shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building on any M-1 zoned property located not less than 150 feet from any R-zoned property. Setbacks: (a) In the case of freestanding standing building entirely surrounded by M zoned properties: Front yard -15 feet Side yard - 10 feet Rear yard - 35 feet (b) residential district or uses: Front Yard - 30 feet Rear Yard - 70 (c) Fencing shall be in accordance Section 19.03 (D) of Ordinance 340. (d) Parking shall be in accordance with Section 15.02 and Section 15.03 (19) (Manufacturing and Industrial Uses) of Ordinance 340. 2. The facility operator shall obtain and maintain proper licenses and permits. The facility operator shall be trained and certified by the manufacturer on the equipment being used. The cremation system shall not discharge smoke, odors and have minimal particulate emissions. The system shall be maintained to the manufacturers specifications and consistently meet or exceed SCAQMD emission standards. 2. Operation of the pet crematorium and acceptance of pet remains is restricted to daylight hours. 3. Size of the deceased pet accepted for cremation is limited to 100 pounds. 4. Clean, refrigerated holding facilities shall be available for safe storage of deceased pets. (a) deceased pets shall not be held in excess of 72 hours. (b) In the event of a power failure, a automatic back-up generator shall be provided for the refrigeration 5. A pet disposal disclosure document, shall set forth the alternative methods of disposal, either by individual or mass cremation, and the cost of each such method of disposal. 6. Upon completion of cremation, bone fragments shall be gathered and placed in a suitable container to hold all cremains. Any foreign objects shall be removed. 7. Claimed cremains shall be placed in a plastic bag prior to placing them into a suitable container. (a) Unclaimed cremains placed in a biodegradable bag and removed to landfill facilities. 8. All cremation services shall be certified to in writing. Within ten (10) days after disposal, written confirmation shall be sent to the pet owner or veterinarian. Copies of all forms shall be maintained for a period of two years. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ORDINANCE NO: 03-04 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 13.04 (16), PET/SMALL ANIMAL CREMATORY, TO THE SAN JACINTO ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE No. 340 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On January 16, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of an ordinance amendment to adding Section 13.04 (16), Pet/small animal crematory, to the San Jacinto zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 340. Section 2. General Plan Consistency Findings. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto hereby finds and determines: A. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the Text Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Jacinto because it provides guidelines for development of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in the City. Thus, the Text Amendment helps to promote and achieve the following General Plan policies: Land Use Policy 6A(14): Buffering to prevent land use incompatibilities between industrial and commercial areas and other land uses shall be given special consideration. The proposed ordinance specifically considers other land uses and avoids potential incompatibilities between land uses. B. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds this Text Amendment is reasonably related to the public welfare of the citizens of the City of San Jacinto and the surrounding region because it establishes standards for the approval of pet/small animal crematory in the City and establishes standards for compatibility. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, adoption of a Negative Declaration is recommended. City Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination within 5 days of this Ordinance. Section 4. Article 13.04, Conditional Uses is hereby amended by adding Section 13.04 (16), Pet/small animal crematory, to read as follows: (16) Pet/small animal crematory Place, structure, facility or building provided by a person for a fee, whether or not for profit, to veterinarians or members of the general public for cremation of pets. A pet crematorium shall not provide for permanent internment or inurnment of pet remains. The crematory shall not engage in the incineration of medical waste. 1 Development Standards - The use shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building on any M-1 zoned property located not less than 150 feet from any R-zoned property. Setbacks: (a) In the case of freestanding standing building entirely surrounded by M zoned properties: Front yard -15 feet Side yard - 10 feet Rear yard - 35 feet (b) Fencing shall be in accordance Section 19.03 (D) of Ordinance 340. (c) Parking shall be in accordance with Section 15.02 and Section 15.03 (19) (Manufacturing and Industrial Uses) of Ordinance 340. 2. The facility operator shall obtain and maintain proper licenses and permits. The facility operator shall be trained and certified by the manufacturer on the equipment being used. The cremation system shall not discharge smoke, odors and have minimal particulate emissions. The system shall be maintained to the manufacturers specifications and consistently meet or exceed SCAQMD emission standards. 3. Operation of the pet crematorium and acceptance of pet remains is restricted to daylight hours. 4. Size of the deceased pet accepted for cremation is limited to 100 pounds. 5. Clean, refrigerated holding facilities shall be available for safe storage of deceased pets. (a) deceased pets shall not be held in excess of 72 hours. (b) In the event of a power failure, a automatic back-up generator shall be 2 provided for the refrigeration 6. A pet disposal disclosure document, shall set forth the alternative methods of disposal, either by individual or mass cremation, and the cost of each such method of disposal. 7. Upon completion of cremation, bone fragments shall be gathered and placed in a suitable container to hold all cremains. Any foreign objects shall be removed. 8. Claimed cremains shall be placed in a plastic bag prior to placing them into a suitable container. (a) Unclaimed cremains placed in a biodegradable bag and removed to landfill facilities. 9. All cremation services shall be certified to in writing. Within ten (10) days after disposal, written confirmation shall be sent to the pet owner or veterinarian. Copies of all forms shall be maintained for a period of two years. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Riverside, State of California. Introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 6 th day of June, 2002. MOVED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 20 th Day of June, 2002 by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk 3