Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
082394 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER - 3087'5 RANCHO VISTA ROAD AUGUST 23, 1994- 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. CALL TO ORDER: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 94-25 Resolution: NO. 94-85 Mayor Ron Roberts presiding Reverend Lyle W. A. Peterson, Hope Lutheran Church Councilmember Mu~oz Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberts Proclamation - "Roger Quades Day'" PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBI:.IC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 2, 1994 2 3 Resolution AO~r0vin0 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Selection of Financial Advisor for Bond Issuance RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve staff recommendation to select Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates as Financial Advisor. 2 5 7 8 Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30.1994 and the Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and Chanaes in Fund Balance and the Statement of Revenues, ExPenses and ChanQes in Retained EarninQs for the year ended June 30.1994 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive a~d file the Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Year ended June 30, 1994. 5.2 Appropriate $29,419 to account 00:1-130-999-5246 "Legal Services". 5.3 Transfer $108,885to account 001-170-999-5234"Rent" from account 001-170- 999-5288 "Sworn Staff". 5.4 Transfer $75,000to account 001-199-999-5276"Sales Tax Reimbursements" from account 001-199-999-5610"Equipment". 5.5 Appropriate $39,372 to account 001-199-999-5276"Sales Tax Reimbursements". Lease of Shared Yard Facility for Public Works and Community Services Departments (28763 Front Street, corner of Front and 1st Street) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the renewal of lease agreement between Richard Gabriel and the City of Temecula for use as a combined Public Works and Community Services Department maintenance yard; 6.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. Contract Inspection Services for Bulldine and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve a professional services agreement and a transfer of funds in the amount of $20,000, from account no. 001-162-999-5100,Salaries and Wages, to account no. 001-162-999-5250,Other Outside Services, for Employment Services, inc. (E.S.I.), to provide Contract Building Inspection services to the Building and Safety Department for a five (5) month period. County Cooperative AGreements for State Route 79, North and South, Traffic Sianal Proiects RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Cooperative Agreements for traffic signal projects between Riverside County and the City of Temecula. 9 10 11 12 13 13.2 13.3 Final Tra'ct Map No. 27827-1. "RoriDauclh Cottacles" (Located North of Nicolas Road and East of Winchester Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Final Tract Map No. 27827-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval, Final Tract MaD No. 27827-2, "Roripauclh Cottacles" (Located North of. Nicolas Road and East of Winchester Road) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve Final Tract Map No. 27827-2 subject to the Conditions of Approval. Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-1 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Accept public improvements in Tract No. 23267-1 and authorize reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of streets, sewer and water systems. 11.2 Accept the Subdivision Warranty Bond in the reduced amount. 11.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-maintained Street System (within Tracts 23267- 1 and 23267-4 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS 23267-1 AND 232674) Acceptance of Public improvements in Tract No. 23267-4 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-4 and authorize reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of Streets, Sewer and Water systems. Accept the Subdivision Warranty Bond in the reduced amount. Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. 4 14 Solicitation of Construction Bids and APProval of the Plans and Specifications for the FY 94-95 Slurrv Seal Proiect (Project No. PW 94-12) 15 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Werks to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW 94-12, FY 94-95 Slurry Seal Project. Solicitation of Construction Bids and AoDroval of the Plans and Specifications for the FY 94-95 Concrete Repairs (Project No. PW 94-13) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW 94-13, FY 94-95 Concrete Repairs. 16 17 Solicitation of Construction Bids and AnDroval of the Plans and Specifications for the FY 94-95 Asphalt Repairs (Proiect No. PW 94-14) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW 94-14, FY 94-95 Asphalt (AC) repairs. Settlement AQreement and Release with Kernper Real Estate Development Comoanv, Inc. for Empire Creek and Murrieta Creek Flood Control Work and AcQuisition of Lots 15 and 16 of the Senior Center Parkine Lot (Located South of Sixth Street and North of Mercedes Street) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Approve the Settlement Agreement and Release regarding the Empire Creek Work, The Murrieta Creek Work, and the Senior Center Parking Lot. 17.2 Approve the'Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property (Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, City of Temecula, APN 922-021-006). 18 Out-of-State Travel Plans RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Authorize the expenditure of $2,200 for Mayor Ron Roberrs to attend the National League of Cities 71st Annual Congress of Cities which will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota December 1-4, 1994. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 19 Second Readino of Ordinance No. 94-24- Paloma Del Sol RECOMMENDA1;ION: 19.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 94- 0022, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 4, PALOMA DEL SOL, LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 20 Lease Aareement with Temecula Valley HiStorical Museum Foundation RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION N0.94- A RESOLUTION OF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE LEASE OF PROPERTY WITHIN SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK FOR THE TEMECULA MUSEUM 20.2 Accept the Summary Report Pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Community Redevelopmerit Law on an amended and restated Lease by and between the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. 20.3 Approve the amended and restated Museum Lease Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. 20.4 Appropriate $500,000 to Capital Projects Account No. 210~ 190-808-5804and approve an operating transfer from Development Impact Fund of $500,000to fund the renovation of St. Catherine's Church and the construction of the Temecula Valley Museum at Sam Hicks Monument Park. R:V~gerde~082394 8 21 Chanae of Zone No. 5691 - Chance of Zonine Desienation for Five (5) Parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Aoricultural, 2 112 Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to C-O (Commercial-Office) (Located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the intersection of highway 79 South and Margarita Road.) RECOMMENDATION 21.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5691; 21.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5691, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 '~ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 2~ ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE} TO C~0 (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 950-100-001,950-100- 012, 950-100-013,950-100,014AND 950-100-015 22 ADDeal of Plannine ADDliCation N0. PA94-0043, Klassic Shotz Billiards (Located in retail center at the corner of Solana Way and Ynez Road) RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO. PERMIT THE LOCATION OF A 6,800 SQUARE FOOT BILLIARDS HALL AND VIDEO GAME ARCADE WITH CONCURRENT SALE OF BEER, AND WITH MINORS PERMITTED WITHIN THE ESTABLISHMENT BEFORE 10:00 PM, LOCATED AT 41915 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY, SUITES A, B, C AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-008 COUNCIL BUSINESS 23 Watershed Plannine (Continued from the meeting of July 26, 1994) RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Receive and file. 24 25 Consideration of ReGulations for Newsracks in the Public RiGht-of-way RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-_~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Steohens' KanGaroo Rat in Western Riverside County RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Provide Comments and Direction to Staff. 26 Reouest for Comments Concerning the Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Riverside County Habitat Conservation AGency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land ManaGement, and the California Deeartment of Fish and Game for the Develooment of a Multiole Soecies Habitat Conservation Plan for Western Riverside County RECOMMENDATIONS: 26.1 Provide comments to Staff to forward to Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. 27 An Ordinance ReGulatinG Construction Activity RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFYING SECTION G(1 .) OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457.73 ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN ORDINANCE NO. 90-04. TO CHANGE THE HOURS AND DAYS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS ALLOWED. 27.2 Set a Public Hearing on September 27, 1994, at 7:00 PM, at 30875 Rancho Vista Road, for the purpose of hearing any objections to a recommendation that the city Council approve a modification to Section G(1) of Riverside County Ordinance 457.73 changing the hours and days during which construction activity is allowed. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: September 7, 1994, 7:00 PM, City Council Workshop to receive the Price Waterhouse Report on the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Project, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, Cal!fornia. Next regular meeting: September 13, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00) CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Muf~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR Combinino Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of RevenueS, Expenditures and Chanoes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994. 1.2 Appropriate $7,100 to account 191-180-999-5319 "Street Lighting" (Service Level A Fund). 1.3 Appropriate $4,842 to account 250-190-129-5227 "Trustee Administration Fees" (Capital Projects Fund). 1.4 Appropriate $128,864to account 250-190-129-5802"Design-Community Recreation Center"'(Capital Projects Fund). 2 Contract Chanae Order No. 3. Sports Park Slope Repair, Project No. PW93-06.CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 3 for the Sports Park Slope Repair, Project No. PW93-06.CSD, for labor, material and equipment in the amount of $4,830,.00. 2.2 Transfer $4,830.00 from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriate this amount to the Capital Improvement Fund. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting September 13, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. TEMECULA'REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ::E~::~;: :::::: CALL TO ORDER: Ch~airperson Ronald J. Parks presiding ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Combininc) Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Chanaes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994. 1.2 Transfer $15.377 to account 280-199-999~5246"Legal Services" from account 280-199-999-5264"Economic Development". 1.3 Transfer $67,236to account 380-199-999-5231 "Property Tax Administration Fees" from account 380-199-999-5391 "Interest Expense". 2 Approval of RDA CommerCial Small Business Loan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve an RDA Small Business Loan to Scarcella's Pizza and Pasta and Ladd Penfold. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: September 13, 1994, 8:00 PM, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WIq~REAS, the Temecula Valley gained a new resident and friend as well as a new business in 1988, and; W~EAS, this new arrival quickly became an active member of the community by joining and being elected President of the Kiwanis Club of Temecula Valley in 1989, and; WHEREAS, he was elected to the Board of Directors of the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerc~ in 1993 and has co~haired the Chamber's annual Charity Golf Tournament since 1992, and; WHF~REAS, his business Stadium pi~7~ was voted Small Business of the Year for 1993 by the Temecuia Valley Chamber of Commerce, and WHEREAS, Stadium PizTa and Roger Quaties have been continuous sponsors of Litfie League Baseball, Pop Warner Foothall, soccer and adult softball and baseball teams in the Temecula Valley as well as ongoing supporter of numerous local school events, fundraisers and charities; NOW, TFIERE~RE, I, Ronald H. Roberts, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim August 23rd, 1994 to be, "ROGER QUARLES DAY" and encourage all citizens to join with us as we wish he and his family great success and happiness in their move to Idaho. They will be greatly missed by our community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 23rd day of August, 1994. Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD AUGUST 2, 1994 A special workshop ~}f the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:12 PM at the Main Conference Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Roberrs presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Mu~oz, Roberrs ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone Also present were City Manager Ronald Bradley, and Deputy City Clerk Susan W. Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. EconOmic Develooment Prooram for FY 1994-95 City Manager Ron Bradley presented an overview of the matters to be discussed. Finance Officer Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. Karl Spencer-Hollis, 28761 Calle Cortes, discussed the economic impact of the City's three major special events, which are the Balloon and Wine Festival, Rod Run and the Tractor Race. She asked that the City Council consider the needs of these organizations during the upcoming budget year. Carliene Anderson, 38680Calle de Lobo, representing the Temecula-Murrieta Economic Development Corporation, spoke in favor for funding a full-time Director of the EDC, stating this position will keep the community pro-active in economic development and will compliment the Office of the City Manager. Jeff Minkler, 35790Linda Rosea Road, representing the Temecula-Murrieta EDC, spoke in favor of a full-time Economic Development Director. Jerry Kwasek, 4544 Shirley Ann Place, representing the San Diego Business Journal, stated the journal has highlighted Temecula due to its affordable housing and ample water supply. He stated dynamic leadership is needed to counteract efforts made by other states to attract business. Doug Davies, 27450 Ynez Road, President of the Temecula-Murrieta EDC, stated the EDC has a wonderful base of volunteers, however a full-time director with a proven track record is needed to further the effort of economic development. He stated that efforts by the EDC is being noticed throughout Southern California. Minutes\8\02\94 -:1 - O8/O5/94 City Council Minutes August 2. 1994 Deputy City Clerk Susan Jones read a letter prepared by Mayor Pro Tern Stone outlining his views regarding Economic Development and the future funding involvement of the City. Councilmember Mufioz stated he feels economic development for the City of Temecula should be directed from the City Manager's Office. He said he does not feel a full-time Economic Development Director is warranted at this time. He also voiced his opinion that it would be difficult to separate Temecula from Murrieta in regards to the EDC, stating that new businesses locating in either City benefits both Cities. Councilmember Parks stated he would be in favor of separating the EDC from Murrieta, making it the Temecula EDC, explaining that out of a $71,840.00 budget, Murrieta chose to contribute only $1,300to the EDC. He explained he is in favor of funding a full-time Economic Development Director, stating that the active volunteer base may be lost, if efforts for economic development are only generated through the City Manager's Office. Mayor Robarts agreed that it is time to become the Temecula EDC, and stated he would vote against any funding of the EDC unless the organization is split. He stated he leans toward Option Number One, with the possibility of hiring an employee on a contract basis. Councilmember Birdsall asked Mr. Davies if he foresees any problem with the joint City/EDC becoming the Temecula EDC. Mr. Davies explained that proposal would have to go back to the membership for ratification. Doug Davies, 27450 Ynez Road, cautioned the Council against bringing the entire economic development program under the auspices of the City, explaining that the City must operate under the provisions of the Brown Act, which could jeopardize confidentiality with potential investors. City Manager Bradley stated he would like to have a consensus of the Council regarding the ,level of support the Council would like to provide the EDC. Councilmember Mufioz suggested giving staff direction to bring this item back to the City Council when all members are present. City Manager Bradley suggested that staff be directed to work with the EDC and develop program levels which could be provided by each of the three funding options. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Parks to refer this matter to staff with direction to work toward a resolution of shared responsibility for economic development between the City and the EDC. Further direction was given to change the name to the Temecula EDC. She also requested additional information regarding the needs of the Chamber of commerce for funding. Finance Officer Mary Jane McLarney stated that the Chamber's request for funding for FY 1994-95 is on the agenda for the next meeting as a separate item. City Council Minutes August 2. 1994 Councilmember Parks asked for clarification, whether the motion was to refer a modified Option No. 1 to staff? Councilmember Birdsall stated she feels another council meeting is needed to resolve the level of funding. She also suggested that Councilmembers meet individually with the EDC to work out some of the differences. She also asked if the Council wants to discuss a more balanced sharing of costs with the City of Murrieta or if it is Council's desire to simply reorganize the EDC as a Temecula Economic Development Corporation. Councilmember Mufioz offered a substitute motion, Councilmember Parks seconded, to direct staff to proceed with further development of a program, consistent with Council's discussion, based on Option Number 1. The motion was unanimously carried with Mayor Pro Tern Stone absent. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Birdsall stated she received notification of the National League of Cities Conference on December 1st, and suggested this be placed on the agenda, and either the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tern attend since she will no longer be in office. She also asked if a member of the Council is interested in replacing her on the Human Development Policy Committee, so that when she submits her letter a resignation, she can suggest a replacement from the Ternecula City Council. Adiournment It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to adjourn at 7:54 PM to a meeting on August 9, 1994, 7:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Mayor Pro Tern Stone absent. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Minutes\8%02\94 -3- 08/05194 ITEM 3 ]~F-~OLUTION NO. ~ A I~OLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY O~ ~ ~L~G C~T~ CL~ ~ D~S ~ SET ~R~ ~ ~ff A ~ C~ CO~C~ OF ~ C~ OF ~C~A DO~ ~OL~, D~ ~ 0~ AS FO~OWS: S~on 1. ~t ~ fo~o~g c~ms ~d d~ds ~-~t fo~ ~ ~bit A ~v~ b~n audi~ by ~e Ci~ ~er, ~d ~t ~e ~e ~ h~y ~ow~ ~ ~e mount of $844,659.56 Sinion 2. ~e Ci~ Clerk ~ ~ffi~ ~e Mop~on of ~is re~lu~on. ~O~ ~ ~, ~s 23rd ~y of August, 1~4. ATTEST: Ron Robens, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] Pesos 37 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) · COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of August, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL~-MBERS: None COUNCILMF~MBERS: None COUNCILM~.MBERS: None June S. Greek, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 08/04194 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 08/12/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 185,405.24 08123194 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 482,391 .gO O8/11/94 TOTAL PAYROLL: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/23/94 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: 122,328.26 CHECKS: oo1 GENERAL 1 (3~ GAS TAX 150 AB 27766 FUND 165 RDA-LOWIMOD 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ (CIP) 250 TCSD-CIP 280 RDA-CIP ~ SELF-INSURANCE VEHICLES 3~u INFORMATIONS SYSTEMB 330 COPY CENTER 340 FACILITIES 380 RDA-DEBT SERVICE 390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL 100 GAS TAX 190 TCSD 191 TCS[3 SERVICE LEVELA 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 280 RDA-CIP 300 SELF-INSURANCE 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 COPY CENTER $ 722,331.3C) 122,328.26 TOTAL BY FUND: · HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOIJCHr 08/04/ 16:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 16055 08/0~/94 16055 08/0~/94 16055 08/04/94 16055 08/04/94 16056 08/04/94 16057 08/04/94 16058 08/04/94 16059 08/04/94 16060 08/04/94 16060 08/04/94 16061 08/04/94 16061 08/04/94 16061 08/04/94 1606~q8/04/94 16063 08/04/94 16064 08/04/94 16065 08/04/94 16066 08/04/94 160~ 08/04/94 16067 00/04/94 16068 08/04/94 16068 08/04/94 16068 08/04/94 16069 08/04/94 16070 08/04/94 16071 08/04/94 16072 08/04/94 16073 08/04/94 16074 08/04/94 1607/-~-q8/04/94 160f ~/04/94 VENDOR NUMBER 001086 001086 001086 001086 000558 000408 001222 000935 001323 001323 000122 000122 000122 000623 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER FO~ ALL PERXnnS VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ADCO EQUIPMENT SALES ADCO EQUIPMENT SALES ADCO EQUIPMENT SALES ADCO EQUIPMENT SALES #500~ DRIVE SHAFT B-3 CUTTERS #50140 TYPE A * CAGE N50078 TAX 100-16~-601-5218 100-16~-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 100-16/,-601-5218 ADVANCED MOBILECQMM JULY MONTHLY MOBILE SER 320-199-999-5208 AGR/CREDIT ACCEPTANCE C TCSD TRACTOR PAY-OFF 190-180-999-5239 ALPHA CONMUNICATIORS, I PAGER CLIPS 320-199-999-5250 AMERICAN BANKER BOND BU CAL F~NANCE CORF SEPT 2 001"140"999-5258 ARROWHEAD WATER ARROWHEAD WATER B S N SPORTS B S N SPORTS B S N SPORTS BARBwS BALLOONING AFFAI BENAVIDEZw ARTURO REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS BUSINESS WO4AN'S NET~OR REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT 0005~ C C A P A CONFERENCE 000127 CALIFORNIAN - LEC~L 000127 CALIFORNIAN - LE~L 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. 000157 CHEVRON U S A INC. 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET 000155 DAVL]N 000754 ELL]OTT GROUP, THE 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 001550 FIRST PACIFIC NATIONAL 00018~ 00018~ 000184 BOTTLE WATER SERV.7/6-2 340-199-~-5240 BOTTLE WATER SERV. 7/6- 100-164-601-5240 PRO-DOWN COLD PACK 190-180-999-5301 PENNANT STREAMERS 190-180-999-5301 TAX 190-180-999-5301 CPRS MEMBERSHIP MEETING 190-18]-999-5301 190-183-4986 190-2900 APA CONFERENCE FOR GT 001-161-999-5258 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN 001-120-999-5256 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN 001-161-999-5256 NASKe RICHARD 06/21/93 . 300-199-999-5205 789-819-697-2 JUNE SERV 789-819-697-2 JUNE SERV 789-819-697-2 JUNE SERV RELOCATIOR OF BASE STAT JULY 27 COURCIL MEETING MISC. LANDSCAPE REVIEW EXPRESS MAIL PUBLIC FACILITY REIMBUR G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 694-1993 OVERCHARGE G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 694-1993 CITY#S G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-0128 CITY#S 001-110-999-5263 001-170-999-5262 100-164-999-5263 001-162-999-5238 001-100-999-5250 001-161-999-5248 001-170-999-5210 001-2670 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 ITEM AMOUNT 42. O0 360. O0 250.00 50.53 738. O0 6,610.96 40.00 150.00 156.36 16.50 96.84 72.00 13.08 193.95 20.00 100.00 550.00 51.11 219.15 136.75 18.80 67.46 18.84 155.00 700.00 675.00 6.75 10,000.00 1,433.77- 2,341.81 269.40 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 702.53 738.00 6,610.96 40.00 150.00 172.86 181.92 193.95 20. O0 100.00 550.00 270.26 136.75 ' 105.10 155.00 700. O0 675. O0 6.75 10,000.00 1,177.~4 VOUCHRE2 08/04/94 16:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOB ALL PERIODS ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 16075 08/04/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PROOUCT 16075 08/04/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 16075 08/04/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 16075 08/0~/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PROUUCT 16075 08/04/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT 16075 08/04/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PROOUCT 16075 08/04/94 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PROOUCT MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SU 001-161-999-5220 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5220 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5220 OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 MlSC OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 OFFICE SUPPLIES/BLDG & 001-162-999-5220 CREDIT FOR OFFICE SUPPL 190-182-999-5220 193.63 226.03 59.2~ 7.31 11.~ 294.71 11.44- 778.91 16076 08/04/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 266.07 266.07 16079 08/04/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 16079 08/04/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO NETMARE 3.12 50 USER 320-1980 16079 08/04/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO TAX ]20-1980 16080 08/04/94 000186 HANKS HARDUARE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT 340-199-999-5212 16080 08/04/94 000186 HANKS HARDWARE SPORTS pROGRAMS 190-18]-999-5301 554.91 455.00 ]5.26 39.77 133.88 1,045.17 173.65 16081 08/04/94 001549 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL WISDOM OF TEAMS AUDIO T 001-110-999-5228 15.00 15.00 16082 08/04/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL MISC POOL SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 16083 08/04/94 000501 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE 001-120-999-5226 16084 08/04/94 001529 JOCHUM, LORI PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 190-18]-999-5301 189.64 130.00 336,00 189.6/, 336,00 16085 08/04/94 000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I COLOR SIDED 001-161-999-5250 16085 08/04/94 000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I STATIONERY PAPER 190-180-999-5222 16085 08/04/94 000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I COPY CENTER VARIOUS SUP 330'199'999'5220 16085 08/04/94 000206 KINKOrS OF RIVERSIDE, I COPY CENTER VARIOUS SUP 3]0'199'999'5220 16085 08/04/94 000206 KINKO~S OF RIVERSIDE, I COPY CENTER VARIOUS SUP 530-199-999-5220 29.42 12.12 55.42 34.26 12.93 1/,4.15 16086 08/04/94 001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANNETTE PNT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 190-18~-999-5301 56.00 '56.00 16087 08/04/94 000209 L & M FERTILIZER, INC, PARTS, EQUIP AND REPAIR 190-180-999-5242 16087 08/04/94 000209 L & M FERTILIZER, INC, MISC, MAINTENANCE SUPPL 100-164-601-5218 72.73 91.51 164.24 16088 08/04/94 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT DAYCAMP TRIP ICE SKATIN 190-183-999-5]01 16088 08/04/94 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT OVERPAID FOR RAGING WAT 190-183-999-5340 16088 08/04/94 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT OVERPAID FOR LAKE GREGO 190-183-999-5340 286.77 11.66- 50.00- 225.11 16089 08/04/94 001115 LAWRENCE, P.E., A.C. AUTOCAD DRAFTING SERVIC 210-165'62~4-5804 600.00 600.00 16090 08/04/94 000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 001-100-999-5260 80.00 80.00 '16091 08/04/94 001526 MICNAELS, INC. CRAFT SUPPLIES 190-182o999-5301 6.98 1609Z 08/04/94 000228 MOBIL B 9]0 379 2 JUNE FUEL 001-110-999-526] 16092 08/04/94 000228 MOBIL 883 9]0 379 2 JURE FUEL 100-164-999-526~ 16092 08/04/94 000228 MOBIL 883 930 ]79 2 JUNE FUEL 190-180-999-526~ 16092 08/04/94 000228 MOBIL 88~ 930 379 2 JUNE FUEL 001-161-999-5262 26.22 14.19 12.89 10.97 VOUCHF 08/04~ 16:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUHBER DATE NUNBER NAME CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIORS ITEN DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEN AHOUNT PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 16093 08/04/94 000587 HUNOZ, MARION. 16093 08/04/94 000587 HUNOZ, HARIO N. 16094 08/04/94 001007 N P G CORP. 16095 08/04/94 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOOOS JANITORIAL SERVICES JANITORIAL SERVICES EXPLORATORY DIG t,~3-9 BALL CADDIE 190-181-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 100-164-601-5402 190-183-999-5301 180.00 200.00 936.00 56.58 380.00 936.00 56.58 16096 08/04/94 000667 P A P A PESTICIDE LICENSE CORT 190-180-c~-5261 45.00 45.00 16097 08/04/94 001243 PALMOUIST, MARY PNT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 190-18~-999'5301 175.20 175.Z0 16098 08/04/94 000248 PETROLANE PROPANE FOR JULY 1994 190-180-999-5263 35.47 35.47 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 1609~8/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 160~ 1/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH 16099 08/04/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REINB. PETTY CASH REIHB. PETTY CASH REINB. PETTY CASH REIHB. PETTY CASH REIHB. PETTY CASH REIMB. PETTY CASH REIHB. PETTY CASH REiMB. PETTY CASH REINB. PETTY CASH REINB. 001-110-999-5260 190-181-999-5301 320-199-999-5215 001-140-999-5222 190-183-999-5301 190-183-999-5301 001-162-999-5220 001-100-999-5260 001-162-999-5260 001-150-999-5260 23.00 47.61 11.38 32.33 60.00 49.91 2.34 10.51 51.83 39.93 328.84 16100 08/04/94 001519 POLY-GLIDE 16100 08/04/94 001519 POLY-GLIDE 16100 08/04/94 001519 POLY-GLIDE 16100 08/04/94 001519 POLY-GLiDE 16100 08/04/94 001519 POLY-GLIDE 16101 08/04/94 000253 POSTMASTER 16101 08/04/94 000253 POSTMASTER 16101 08/04/94 000253 POSTMASTER 16101 08/04/94 000253 POSTMASTER 16101 08/04/94 000253 POSTMASTER 16102 08/04/94 16103 08/04/94 PREISENDANZ, ROLF PRESBYTERIAN OF RIVERS] POLYGLIDE WIND RESISTER SPEED SPRAY ACRYLIC COURT SEAL FRE X ORT TAX JUNE EXPRESS MAIL CHARG JUNE EXPRESS MAIL CHARG JUNE EXPRESS MAIL CHARG JUNE EXPRESS MAIL CHARG JUNE EXPRESS MAIL CHARG PERHIT WORKSHOP JULY 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 001-163-999-5230 001-140-999-5250 001-120-999-5220 001-161-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-161-999-5261 REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 74.00 5.00 21.50 9.57 7.79 9.95 19.90 25.90 9.95 14.70 100.00 117.8~ 143.45 14.70 100.00 16104 08/04/94 16105 08/04/94 16106 08/04/94 16107 08/04/94 16107 08/04/94 16107~--q8/04/94 1611 ~/04/94 1610~ d8/04/94 001480 PRESLEY COMPANIES, THE 001416 QUICK CRETE PROOUCTS, I 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 000907 RANCHO CAR MASH 000907 RAHCHO CAR WASH 000907 RANCHO CAR gASH 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH 000907 RAHCHO CAR WASH $Ci REIMBURSABLES REPAIR PATCH CONCRETE SERVICE ENDING 7/6/94 CITY VEHICLES WASHED CITY VEHICLES WASHED CITY VEHICLES WASHED CITY VEHICLES WASHED CITY VEHICLES WASHED 193-180-999-5240 210-190-131-5804 190-180-999-5240 310-164-999-5214 310-110-999-5214 310-180-999-5214 310-162-999-5214 310-164-999-5214 467.75 75.00 67.69 36,84 13.95 18.18 31.06 4.00 467.~5 75.00 67.69 104.03 VOUCHRE2 08/04/94 16:06 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 16108 08/04/94 000/,26 RANCNO INDUSTRIAL StJPPL 16109 08/04/94 001296 RED LION HOTEL 16110 08/04/94 001046 REXON, FREEDMAN, KLEPET 16111 08/04/94 001097 ROAOLINE PROOUCTS, iNC. 16111 08/04/94 001097 ROADLINE PROOUCTS, INC. 16112 08/04/94 00087'5 ROBERTS, RONALD H. 16113 08/04/94 000280 S C SIGNS 16113 08/04/94 000280 S C SIGNS 16113 08/04/94 000280 S C SIGNS 16114 08/04/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 16114 08/04/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 16114 08/04/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 16114 08/04/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 16114 08/04/94 000704 S X S, INC/INLAND OIL 16114 08/04/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 16115 08/04/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16115 08/04/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16116 08/04/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16116 08/04/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16116 08/04/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16116 08/04/94 000557 SOUTHERN CALIF EOISON 16116 08/04/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16116 08/04/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 16117 08/04/94 001212 SOUTHERN CALiF GAS CORP 16118 08/04/94 001372 STAR WAY PRODUCTIONS 16119 08/04/94 16120 08/04/94 000316 16121 08/04/94 00078~ 16121 08/04/94 00078~ 16122 08/04/94 000326 16122 08/04/94 000326 16123 08/04/94 16124 08/04/94 16124 08/04/94 16124 08/04/94 TEMECULA VALLEY SOCCER THORNHILL, GARY TONAR ELECTRONICS, INC. TQMAR ELECTRONICS, INC. UNITOG RENTAL SERV%CE UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE VALLEY OF THE MiST QUIL 000524 VAN TECH ENGINEERING, 000524 VAN TECH ENGINEERING, 000524 VAN TECH ENGINEERING, CITY OF TEMEOULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS iTEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER MISt JANITORIAL SUPPL[E 340-199-999-521Z POLICE CONF,- SAN DIEGO 001-170-999-5261 PROF SERVICES FOR JURE 001-130-999-5247 REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR S 100-164-601-5218 TAX 100-164-601-5218 CAL CITIES CONF 7/27-29 001-100-999-5258 SIGNS PUBLIC NOTICE SIGNS PUBLIC NOTICE SIGNS 001-120-999-5244 001-120-999-5242+ 001-161-999-5256 FUEL FOR JUNE 1994 001-110-999-5263 FUEL FOR JUNE 1994 100-164-999-5263 FUEL FOR JUNE 1994 001-162-999-526;3 FUEL FOR JUNE 1994 100-164-999-526.'3 FUEL FOR JUNE 1994 100-164-999-5263 FUEL FOR JUNE 1994 190-180-999-5263 66-77-795-0002-01 000-5 191-180-999-5319 66-77-795-8082-01 000-1 190-181-999-5240 52-77-796-7050-02 000-9 190-1990 52-T'f-796-7050-02 000-9 190-180-999-5240 00-00-700-9656-01 000-7 193-180-999-5240 00-00-700-9656-01 000-0 191-180-999-5319 00-00-700-9657-01 000-9 340-199-999-5240 00-00-700-9658-01 000-8 190-180-999-5240 17-8274-036-1451-1 190-181-999-5240 CRC CONCERT JULY 31 190-18..~-999-5301 REFUND SECUR/TY DEPOSIT 190-18]-4990 NATIONAL APA CONFERENCE 001-161-999-5261 REPAIR EXPENSE RED HALOGEN LAMP 001-170-999-5242 001-170-999-5214 UNIFORMS - FY94-95 FOR 100-16~-601-5243 UNIFORM MAINTENANCE FOR 190-180-999-5243 REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-183-4990 VESTS & T-SHIRTS FORHA FREIGHT TAX 100-164-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 ITEM AMOUNT 91.56 204.05 320.00 646.97 55.74 60.52 245.00 275.00 65.00 82.40 306.62 70.56 107.52 53.98 147.48 28.00 1,291.59 477.25 1,409.97 501.43 4,044.77 4,057.17 2,042.35 18.52 200.00 100.00 85.65 766.95 93.54 25.16 18.85 100,00 494.01 5.00 30.82 CHECK AMOUNT 91.56 204.05 320.00 702.71 60.52 585.00 1,319.59 12,532.94 18.52 200.00 100.00 85.65 860.49 /~,.01 100.00 529.85 VOUC~ CiTY OF TENECULA 08/04F 16:06 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERICOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER 16125 08/04/94 001474 VORTEX DATA SYSTEMS NETk~ORK TRAINING SEP 5- 320-199-999-5261 16126 08/04/94 000820 WlNCHAK, KR/S 16126 08/04/94 000820 WlNCHAK, KRIS LEGAL MATERIALS RELATIN 193-180-999-5250 k~Z)RKERS CONP PNT 001-1182 161Z7 08/04/94 000~5 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 5100 X~ROX COPIER MONTH 330-199-999-5239 161Z7 08/04/94 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI METER USAGE AT ,0065/C0 330-199-999-5239 16128 08/04/94 000348 Z/GLER, GAIL CPRS REFRESHMENTS FOR 8 190-180-999-5260 ITEM AMOUNT 1,195.00 227~50 9.17' 2,969.95 1,268.17 350.00 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 1,195.00 218.33 4,238.12 350.00 TOTAL CHECKS 54,534.16 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMEEULA 08/12/94 14:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 190 COMMUN/TY SERVICES D]STRZCT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVE~ B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES TOTAL AHOUNT 127o910.42 13,826.45 29,564.17 594.94 205.09 1,465.86 742.50 1,975.62 3,548.53 2,]59.50 1,151.62 2,060.54 185,405.24 14:44 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 16129 08/05/94 001556 HOME DEPOT, THE 16130 08/05/94 000878 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131-08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 161~ 9/08/94 000245 1613 3/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16131 08/08/94 000245 16132 08/10/94 PERS HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH ]NBUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PER$ HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH ]NBUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS (HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE PERS HEALTHINSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH ]NSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR, PRE 001557 SPRECHER & SCHUH, INC. SHELVES 340-199-999-5242 DRAW #24 001-1500 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREM1U 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 190-2090 AUGUST iNSURANCE PREMIU 001-2090 AUGUST iNSURANCE PREMIU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PRENIU 193-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 300-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PRENIU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PRENIU 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 190-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PRENIU 191-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 193-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 280-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 330-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 340-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 190-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 340-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMZU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 190-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PRENIU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREM]U 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 190-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU' 280-2090 AUGUST iNSURANCE PREMIU 00~-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 001-Z090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 001-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 100-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 280-2090 AUGUST INSURANCE PREMIU 300-2090 SHELVING FOR STORAGE 340-199-999-5242 242.34 141493.44 977.38 39.81 313.74 688.17 857.38 176.05 306.20 38.27 4,089.64 978.61 1,774.81 143.53 175.43 163.67 318.96 413.44 810.66 347.42 777.57 49.63 1,055.23 410.10 733.20 521.82 1,837.80 144.80 10.37 3.11 626.92 104.16 1.334.58 759.51 79.97 40.76 300.00 242.~4 14,493.44 21,102.70 300.00 393099 08/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 39309~ 9/11/94 000444 3930~ ~/11/94 000444 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDC FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD FIRSTAX (EDD 000444 SDI 001-2070 000444 SDI 100-2070 000444 SDI 190-2070 000444 SDI 191-2070 000444 SDI 19~-2070 000444 SDI 193-2070 000444 SDI 280-2070 000444 SDI 300-2070 000444 SOl 320-2070 000444 SDI 330-2070 846.43 184.02 383.99 7.82 12.19 28.18 17.90 10.16 26.16 10.54 VOUCHRE2 08/12/94 14:44 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECX AMOUNT 393099 08/11/94 000~44 FIRSTAX (EDD) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX CEDD) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FJRSTAX CEDO) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDO) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDO) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 393099 08/11/94 00042,-~ FIRSTAX (EDO) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FTRSTAX (EDD) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 393099 08/11/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EO0) 000444 SOl 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 0004/,4 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 000444 STATE 340-2070 001-2070 100-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 28.11 3,105.47 623.09 616.13 15.40 1.71 43.41 32.75 30.90 64.13 17.05 16.04 6,121.58 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 394070 16224 16238 16222 16226 16218 16219 16232 16232 16232 16232 16232 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX CIRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) '08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (TRS) 08/11/94 000283 FiRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (]RS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX CIRS) 08/11/94 000283 FIRSTAX CIRS) 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 08/12/94 000294 STATE FUND 08/12/94 000E94 STATE FUND PHIPPS~ JUDIE WEEDON, ERLZNDA 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 000268 RIVERSIDE CO. HABITAT 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 000280 S C SIGNS 000280 S C SIGNS 000294 STATE FUND SAN FRANCI 000294 STATE FUND SAN FRANCI 000294 STATE FUND SAN FRANC! 000294 STATE FUND SAN FRANCI 000294 STATE FUND SAN FRANCI SAN FRANC! SAN FHANCI 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEOICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDZCARE 000283 MEDZCARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE REFUND ON CTTATZON 0001 REFUND MAGIC MTN TICKET 06/13-07/14/94 PAYMENT FOR JULY RECYCLED COPER/LASER PA TAX SIGNS POSTED SIGNS POSTED ~RXRS COMP JULY 1994 WRKRS COHP JULY 1994 WRKR$ COMP JULY 1994 WRKRS COHP JULY 1994 URKRS COHP JULY 1994 URKRS CONP JULY 1994 WRKRS COMP JULY 1994 001-2070 100-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-2070 193-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 100-2070 190-2070 191-2070 192-Z070 193-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-170-4055 190-183-4986 190-181-999-5240 001-2300 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 001-161-999-5256 001-120-999-5256 001-2370 100-2370 190-2370 191-2370 192-2370 193-2370 280-2370 11,624.61 2,422.75 3,474.72 46.88 47.46 207.40 147.81 91.78 27~.83 92.63 133.66 2,773.45 506.96 942.46 17.44 27.18 62.86 37.36 22.66 58.36 23.52 62.69 20.00 20.00 10.27 46,680.00 522.00 40.46 135.00 270.00 4,114.99 1,614.67 2,368.70 104.30 10.06 146.89 75.31 2~,104.47 VOJCH/ CrTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 08/12/~. 14:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT ITEH DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT 16232 08/12/94 000294 STATE FUND - SAN FRANCr WRKRS CONP JULY 1994 300-2]70 16232 08/12/94 000294 STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI WRKRS CONP JULY 1994 320-2~70 16232 08/12/94 000294 STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI WRKRS COHP JULY 7.994 330-2370 16232 08/12/94 000294 STATE FUND - SAN FRANCI WRKRS COffiP JULY 1994 16232 08/12/94 000294 STATE FUNO- SAN FRANCI WRKRS CONP JULY 1994 001-11~2 16233 08/12/94 000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC. RECONFIGURE TWO STATION 001-140-999-5250 16234 08/12/94 000308 TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATI CRIME PREVENTION MEETIN 001-170*999-5292 16235 08/12/94 000322 UNIGLOBE BUTTERFIELD TR CALIF MAYORS/GOV CONF 16235 08/12/94 000322 UNIGLOBE BUTTERFIELD TR ELMO INDIANAPOLI CONF 16243 00/12/94 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW 16243 08/12/94 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 U~ 16243 08/12/94 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 16243 08/12/94 O00325 UNITEO WAY OF THE INLAN 0003Z5 16236 08/12/94 OD0326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORMS - FY94-95 FOR 16229 08/12/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 07/01-08/03/94 16229 08/12/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EOISQN 07/01-08/02/94 ~ 08/IZ/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 07/01-08/02/94 08/IZ/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 07/05-08/30/94 16229 08/lZ/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 07/06-08/03/94 16229 08/12/94 000574 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 07/05-08/03/94 16240' 8/12/94 000389 U S C M/PESSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 16246 .,8/12/94 000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR I6220 08/12/94 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA POOL MAINTENANCE BERVIC 190-180-999-5212 i6223 0E/lz/94 000418 RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK APERTURE CARDS 001-16~-999-5220 16228 08/12/94 000499 S C C C A CITY CLERK ASSC CONF 001-120-999-5258 16215 08/12/94 000815 ROULEY, CATHERINE PAYMENT FOR JAZZ CLASS 190-183-999-5301 16239 08/12/94 000820 WINCHAK, KRIS PLANCHECK JULY 94 001-163-999-5249 16239 08/lZ/94 000820 WINCHAK, KRIS DEDUCT FOR WORKERS COMP 001-1182 16227 08/12/94 001048 ROSA#S CANTINA JULY 4TN VIP BREAKFAST 16241 08/12/94 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CONP 16241 00/12/94 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 16241 08/lZ/94 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 16241 08/12/94 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CC~P 16241 08/12/94 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO CDEF. C 001065 DEF CONP 08712/94 001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CGHP 16230 08/12/94 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 11-827~-901-5751-3 16217 08/12/94 001279 P,~NCHO NEWS 5 X 10 1/2 DISPLAY AD 16225 08/12/94 001365 RIVERSIDE CO. DEPT. OF PLAN CK SAM HICKS PARK 16231 08/12/94 001372 STAR WAY PRODUCTIONS SOUND ENGINEER/CRC AUG 16237 08/lZ/94 001433 VYLANI HAWAIIAN DANCE CLASS 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAHSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 16242 08/12/94 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 161~ J8/12/94 001-100-999-5258 001-162-999-5258 001-2120 100-2120 190-2120 280-2120 100-164-601-5243 190-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 190-182-999-5240 191-180-999-5319 001-Z160 190-2160 190-183-999-5301 001-2080 100-2080 190-Z080 300-2080 320-2080 340-2080 190-182-999-5240 001-140-999-5254 280-1990 190-18.~-999-5301 190-183-999-5301 001-2125 100-2125 190-2125 191-2125 193-2125 280-2125 300-2125 320-2125 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRZ VESTS & T-SHIRTS FOR PW 100-16~-601-5243 9.87 25.57 10.93 315.87 9.17 250.00 48.00 150.00 485.75 65.85 10.05 17.00 .60 27.31 1,716.73 20.36 20.36 28.00 6,311.38 42.10 228.30 1,111.44 904.80 5.00 25.00 545.60 700.00 23.13- 120.00 2,525.26 188.~4 275.09 5.00 312.50 50.00 265.52 170.42 750.00 200.00 576.00 262.70 21.28 37.00 8.32 28.68 7.40 4.62 18.50 75.00 CHECK AMOUNT 74,821.29 75.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA P 4 08/12/94 14:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 16143 08/12/94 000105 A E I SECURITY, INC. PO BOX 3000 340-199-999-5250 105.00 105.00 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 001-2310 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 100-2310 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 190-2310 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 191-2310 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 195-2310 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 280-2510 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP $00-2110 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP 340-2810 16144 08/12/94 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 AVP COBR 001-1180 397.46 91.18 79,$5 4.39 5.36 10.02 2.44 16.70 9.75 616.65 16145 08/12/94 000921 AETNA CASUALTY AND SURE FIRE/INLAND MARINE $00-199-999-5204 3,146.18 3,146.18 16146 08/12/94 001552 ALIVE N ENVOGUE LINOUSI SISTER CITY TRAHSPORTIO 001-110-999-5258 250.00 250.00 16147 08/12/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, I CROSSING CUT OFF WALL 210-2080 16147 08/12/94 001544 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, I CROSSING CUT OFF WALL 210-2035 825.00 82.50- 742.50 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/lZ/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE 16148 08/12/94 000101 APPLE ONE TEMP HELP THRU JULY 8 001-140-999-5118 TEMP LZASON THRU 7/8 280-199-999-5250 TEMP HELP THRU 7/15 001-140-999-5118 TENP LIASON THRU 7/15 280-199-999-5250 TENP HELP THRU JULY 2Z 001-140-999-5118 TEMP LIASON THRU JULY 2 280-199-999-5250 TEMP HELP THRU JULY 29 001-140-999-5118 TEHP LIASON THRU 7/29 280-199-999-5250 288.96 103.20 "~ $61.20 / 103,20 $61.20 105.20 356.69 105.20 1,780.85 16149 08/12/94 000676 AUTOHOTIVE SPECIALTIES BRK REPAIR FOR PW 92-01 100-104-603-5214 75.$2 75.32 16150 08/12/94 001558 8ARKLEY LAW PUBLISHING MOBILHOME PARKS CODE 001-162-999-5228 61.04 61.04 16151 08/12/94 001294 BESWICK, STEVE 16151 08/12/94 001294 BESUICK, STEVE 16151 08/12/94 001294 BESWICK, STEVE JUNE INSPECTION SERVICE 001-168-999-5250 DEDUCT FOR WORKERS COMP 001-1182 ~ORKERS~ COMPENSATION P 001-1182 141.60 4.68- 35.95- 100.97 16152 08/12/94 000679 BOGRAPHICS PRINTING PLU MAG BUS CARDS/FLUOR RUL 001-170-999-5292 757.48 757.48 16153 08/12/94 000638 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS STRONG MOTION FEES 001-2290 16153 08/12/94 000638 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONS STRONG MOTION FEES 001-2280 3,466.$7 734.58 4,200.95 16154 08/12/94 001004 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH 1601/07 STREAMBED APP 001-1280 1,191.00 1,191.00 16155 08/12/94 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SiGN SER SIGNAL AHEAD SYMBOL 16155 08/12/94 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER TAX 100'164-601-5244 100-164'601-5244 88.00 6.82 94.82 16156 08/12/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC SECURITY & FIRE MONITOR 190-182-999-5250 53.00 53.00 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LiFE & ACCIDEN 000140 600 A&S 001-2380 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 600 A&8 190-2330 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 CANCER 001-2550 39,75 39.75 193.66 VOUCHF CITY OF TEMECULA 08/12/9. 14:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPT]OR ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM ANOUNT PAGE CHECK AMOUNT 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 CANCER 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 CANCER 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 CANCER 16157 00/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 CANCER 16157 08/12/94 000140 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDEN 000140 CANCER 100-2330 190-2330 191-2330 193-2330 280-2330 12.94 83.64 14.35 17.53 5,18 406.80 16158 08/12/94 001195 COMP USA, INC, NISC CONPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 257.88 257.88 16159 08/12/94 001562 DEPT OF THE ARMY iNTERSTATE 15 BRIDGE 001-1280 250.00 250.00 16160 08/12/94 001520 DURA-DRESS SHUFFLEBOARD BLACK SCOREBOARD (CHALK 190-181-999-5301 16160 08/12/94 001520 OURA-DRESS SHUFFLEBOARD FREIGHT 190-181-999-5301 16160 08/12/94 001520 DURA-DRESS SHUFFLEBOARD TAX 190-181-999-5301 130.00 7.00 10.08 147,08 16161 08/12/94 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER PROCESS SEWER SVC/HICKS 280-1990 25.00 25.00 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST iNTERSTATE BANK C 1616~'' 9/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 1616. 3/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 16162 08/12/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK ~ 16163 08/12/94 000643 FORTNER HARDUARE 547~666~03910032 MJM JU 001-140-999-5226 5473666~03910040 PB JUL 001-100-999-5226 54736~03910057 SN JUL 190-180-999-5260 547~666~03910057 SN JUL 190-180-999-5226 547'5666/+03910081RR JUL 001-100-999-5258 547'5666403910081 RR JUL 001-100-999-5226 547366~03910099 JS JUL 001-100-999-5226 5473666~03910107 HE JUL 001-110-999-5226 5473666~05910115 JG JUL 001-120-999-5226 5473666403910123 001-161-999-5226 541'5666/,03910131AE JUL 001-162-999-5226 5473666~03910149 TS JUL 100-16~-604-5260 5473666403910149 TS JUL 100-16~-604-5226 5473666~03910164 SM JUL 001-1170 547~666403910164 SM JUL 001-100-999-5226 5473666~03910172 RB JUL 001-110-999-5226 MISC. TOOLS & SUPPLIES 100-164-601-5218 40.00 40.00 62.35 40.00 361.34 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 50.00 40.00 545.64 40.00 40.00 256.71 1,~99.33 256.71 16164 08/12/94 001103 FREEDOM MATERIALS REDIMIX CONCRETE 190-180-999-521Z 81.89 81.89 16165 08/12/94 001355 G T E CALIFORNIA PHONE SERVICES 320-199-999-5208 350.00 350.00 16166 08/12/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 16166 08/12/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 16166 08/12/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA * PAYM 909-694-6400 JULY 909-695-3539 JULY 909-699-2309 JULY 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 583.94 21.49 20.49 625.92 16167 08/12/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 16168 08/12/94 000430 16168 08/12/94 000430 16168 08/12/94 000430 161e"~/12/94 000430 161c ~/12/94 000430 16168 08/12/94 000430 GROUP AMERICA VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA VOLUNTA GROUP AMERICA VOLUHTA GROUP AMERICA VQLUNTA GROUP AMERICA VOLUNTA OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220 000430 VL ADVAN 001-2510 000430 VOL LIFE 001-2510 000430 VOL LiFE 100-2510 000430 VOL LIFE 190-2510 000430 VOL LIFE 340-2510 000450 VL REVER 001-2510 19.60 161.80 134.26 15.79 44.09 .41 161.80- 19.60 VOUCHRE2 08/12/94 14:44 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 16168 08/12/94 16168 08/lZ/94 16168 08/12/94 16168 08/12/94 16169 08/12/94 16170 08/12/94 16171 08/12/94 16171 08/12/94 16171 08/lZ/94 16171 08/lZ/94 16171 08/12/94 16171 08/12/94 16171 08/12/94 16171 08/12/94 16172' 08/12/94 16172 08/12/94 16173 08/12/94 16174 08/12/94 16174 08/12/94 16175 08/12/94 16176 08/12/94 1617/ 08/12/94 16178 08/12/94 16179 08/12/94 16180 08/12/94 16181 08/12/94 16182 08/12/94 16183 08/lZ/94 16184 08/12/94 16185 08/12/94 16185 08/12/94 16185 08/12/94 16185 08/12/94 16185 08/12/94 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA 001069 HYDRO TEK SYSTEMS 000193 I C M A - ANNAPOLIS JUN 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 i C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUB 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRU$ 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS KENNEDY# RICHARD KENNEDY# RICHARD 000548 KIPLINGER WASHINGTON ED 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT 001467 LASKIN, JON 000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS 001142 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES 001440 MATROB, ALORA MERRELL, LINDA 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 001496 NATIONAL BUSINESS INDUB 000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS 001561 PAGENET 001561 PAGENET 001561 PAGENET 001561 PAGENET 001561 PAGENET CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS ITEM DESCRIPTION 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE 000430 VOL LIFE GRAFFITI EQIPT REPAIR 1994 MUNICIPAL YEARBOOK 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF CQMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF CQNP 000194 DEF CONP REDUCED FOOTAGE OF PERM REDUCED FOOTAGE OF PERN KIPLINGER CALIF LETTER DAY CAMP FIELD TRiP TRA DAY CAMP FIELD TRiP TRA BAND FEE FOR 8/31CONCE PARKVIEW PRESENTATION M SLOW PITCH UMPIRES PINA COLADA BYPASS 7/94 YOGA TCBD CLASS REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT VIA LOBO CHANNEL LANOSC FORGING THE iNCUBATOR TEMP SERVICES/VICKY GRA DEBEER TC12 SOFTBALLS PAGERS 07/05-08/31/94 PAGERS 07/05-08/31/94 PAGER$ 07/05-08/31/94 PACERS 07/05-08/31/94 PAGERS 07/05-08/31/94 ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2510 100-2510 190-2510 340-2510 100-164-601-5214 001-140-999-5228 001-2080 100-2080 190-2080 19t-2080 193-2080 280-2080 300-2080 340-2080 001-2290 001-162-4285 001-140-999-5228 190-183-999-5301 190-183-999-5301 190-183-999-5301 190-180-999-5260 190-183-999-5301 100-164-603-5248 190-183-999-5301 190-2900 100-164-601-5401 001-110-999-5228 001-162-999-5118 190-183-999-5301 001-100-999-5250 001-162-999-5238 190-180-999-5238 001-170-999-5242 100-164-601-5238 ITEM AMOUNT 99.27 15.78 44.08 .42 143.52 84.95 1,471.98 248.64 537.95 74.52 91.09 30,44 37.49 29.10 3.17 144.00 68.00 295.72 8.27- 400.00 ?3.50 217.80 724.51 422.40 100.00 975.00 58.50 933.08 638.42 42.48 42.48 113.28 40.75 42.48 CHECK AMOUNT 354.10 143.52 54.95 2,521.21 147.17 ~0 287.45 400.00 ?3.50 217.B0 724.51 412.40 100.00 975.00 58.50 933.08 638.42 ~CNRE2 , CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1/12/9~ VOUCBER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ~UCNER/ 4EGK CREOK VENDOR VENDOR ~MSER DATE NUMBER NAME 16185 08/12/94 001561 PAGENET 16185 08/12/94 001561 PAGENET 16185 08/12/94 001561 PAGENET 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/9& 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 161~ 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 P~"~/94 000246 16186 · ./94 0002~6 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 16186 08/12/94 000246 1622~ o8/12/94 16222 o8/12/94 000262 PERS (EMPLOYEESI RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEESI RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS CEMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PSRS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEESI RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEESI RETIRE PHIPPS, JUOIE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER ITEM DESCRIPT%ON PAGERS 07/05-08/$1/94 PAGERS 07/05-0E/31/94 PAGERS 07/05-08/31/94 000246 PER REDE 000246 PER REOE 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000Z46 PERS RET 000246 PER$ RET 000246 PERS-RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 ~RVIVOR 0002~ SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 0002~6 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 0002~ SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR REFUND OH CITATION 0001 05/12-06/13/94 ACCCUNT NUMBER 001-165-999-5238 001-163-999-5250 320-199-999-57j8 001-2130 100-21]0 001-2390 100-Z390 190-2390 191-2390 192-2~90 193-2~90 280-2390 300-2390 320-2390 330-2390 340-2390 001-2390 100-2390 190-2390 191-2~90 192-2390 193-2390 280-2~90 300-2~90 320-2.390 330o2~90 .'.'.%0-2390 001-2260 ~0-18~:999*5240 ITEM AMOUNT 14.16 28.32 71.51 128.82 85.88 12,8~3.26 2,404.99 2,440.48 87.47 105.56 310.67 172.77 107.94 260.21 114.60 Z89.15 57.11 10.69 12.51 1.44 .56 .46 2.00 5.00 10.60 CHEC~ AMOUNT 395.46 19,487.78 15.60 . TOTAL CHECKS 185,405.24 V_~UCHRE2 08/15/94 16:48 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 100 GAS TAX FUND 150 AB 2766 FUND 165 RDA DEV- LO~/NO0 SET ASIDE 190 CQNNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY ' CIP 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES TOTAL CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS AMOUNT 294,634.97 8,115.31 2,051.63 2,267.36 25,322.27 474.97 120,129.89 19,141.05 8,436.82 1,817.63 482,391.90 VOUCHf CITY OF TEMGCULA PAGE 1 08/15/~ 16:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 16190 08/23/94 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIA 16191 08/23/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/2]/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/23/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/2]/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/23/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/23/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/23/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16191 08/23/94 001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING, 16192 08/2]/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA 16192 08/23/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA 16192 08/23/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANOSCAPE MA 16192 08/23/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA 16192 08/23/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE NA 16193 08/23/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO 16193 08/23/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO 16193 08/23/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO 1619~""~/23/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO 161~ J/2]/94 000178 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO 16194 08/23/94 16194 08/2]/94 000711 GRAPHICS UNLIMITED LITH 000711 GRAPHICS UNLIMITED LITH 16195 08/2]/94 000520 H D L COREN & CONE, INC 16196 08/2]/94 16196 08/23/94 16197 08/2]/94 16198 08/23/94 16198 08/2]/94 16198 08/23/94 000202 J F DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES 000202 J F DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES 001406 KUSTON SIGNALS, INC. 000482 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 000482 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 000482 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 16199 08/23/94 000217 NARGARITA OFFICIALS ASS 16200 08/23/94 001501 MARINA CONTRACTORS, 16200 08/23/94 001501 MARINA CONTRACTORS, INC 16201 08/23/94 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EOUI 16201 08/23/94 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 16201 08/2]/94 O009T] MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 16201 08/23/94 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 16201 08/23/94 000973 NIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 16201 08/23/94 000973 NIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 162~ J/2]/94 00088] NONTELEONE EXCAVATING ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CON 100-164-602-5406 CAP OVER WATER LINE #2 210-20]0 RETENTION 210-2035 SPORTS PARK SLOPE REPAI 210-166-6/,8-5804 RETENTION 210-2025 ITEMS B-2 & B*] CHG TWO 210-2030 RETENTION 210-2035 SLOPE REPAIR/CHG ORDER 210-166-6/+8-5804 RETENTION 210-2035 JUNE MAINT SERVICES LANDSCAPE MAINT AT CRC LANDSCAPE MAINT PARKS LANDSCAPE NAINT SR CTR NEDIANS LANDSCAPE NAINT 190-180-999-5250 190-182-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-181-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 4860X2-66MHZ VESA CONPU ]20-1970 NETWARE 3.11 100 USER T 320-1980 NETWARE 3.10 250 USER T 320-1980 TAX 320-1970 TAX ]20-1980 RECREATION BROCHURE TAX 1,940.00 52,735.00 5,27'~.50- 16,610.00 1,661.00- 25,242.00 2,524.20' 7,079.47 707.95- 1,42].55 1,619.00 12,471.]6 175.00 474.97 6,045.00 6~0.00 1,145.00 468.49 138.33 190-180-999-5222 2,753.00 190-180-999-5222 213.36 50% CONTRACT PAYMENT 001-20]0 DISILTATION LAKE 07/94 210-1990 SKATEBOARD FACILITY/7/9 210-1990 FALCON RH RADAR W/DRIVE 001-1990 PROF SERVICES HAY 1994 PROF SERVICES MARCH 199 AMOUNT EXCEEDS P.O. SLO~PITCH OFFICIALS 4,590.00 5,800.00 1,092.60 1,389.97 210-166'627-5802 2,741.00 210-166-627'5802 1,263.00 210-166'627-5802 1,203.12- 190-183-999-5301 2,167.00 LOMA LINDA PARK PHASE I 210-1990 RETENTION 210-2035 CHECK AMOUNT 1 , 940. O0 91,499.82 16,163.88 8,436.82 2,966.36 4,590.00 6,892.60 1,389.97 2,800.88 2,167.00 12,000.00 1,200.00' 10,800.00 LOKVILLE SPECIAL 210-190-134-5804 6,089.00 SWING SET MOOEL 244 (29 210-190-134-5804 842.00 MQOEL #932; FROG WITH ~e 210-190-1~4-5804 251.00 SCBNOZZ W~Np WITH 'C" 210-190-1~4-5804 251.00 FREIGHT 210-190-134-5804 118.36 TAX 210-190-134-5804 585.23 ~ORK ORDER ~94-95-02 100-164-601-5401 2,000.00 8,136.59 2,000.00 V~CHRE2 F 2 08/15/94 16:48 V:~JCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 16203 16203 16203 16203 16204 16204 16204 16204 16205 16206 16206 16207 16208 16208 16209 16210 16210 16210 16210 16210 16210 16210 16210 16210 16210 16211 16211 16211 16212 16212 16212 16213 16213 16214 16214 16214 16214 16214 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES 000437 HORELAND & ASSOCIATES 001339 MORTON iNTERNATIONAL 001339 MORTON iNTERNATIONAL 001339 MORTON INTERNATIONAL 001339 MORTON INTERNATIONAL 000230 MUNi FINANCIAL SERVICES 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES 001280 PETROLANE 001385 PRICE WATERHOUSE 001385 PRICE WATERHOUSE 000678 RIVERSIDE CO. HEALTH SE 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFPS 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S 000406 RIVERSIDE CO, SHERIFF#S 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFPS 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF#S 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFFS 000406 RIVERSIDE CO, SHERIFF'S 000406 RIVERSIDE CO, SHERIFF'S 000406 RIVERSIDE CO, SHERIFF'S 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 000280 S C SIGNS 000280 S C SIGNS 000280 S C SIGNS 001491 V I P MOTORCYCLES, INC. 001491 V % P MOTORCYCLES, iNC. 001460 WIMBERLY, ALLISON, TONG 001460 WIMBERLY, ALLISON, TONG 001460 WIMBERLY, ALLISON, TONG 001460 WIMBERLY, ALLISON, TONG 001460 WIMBERLY, ALLISON, TONG CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REG]STER FOR ALL PERZOOS ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER TOT AOUIT SERVICES CITY AUDIT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TOT AUDIT SERVICES 5 GALS WHITE 2656A9 PRE 5 GALS YELLOW 2657A9 PR 5 GALS RED 2574A9 TAX 001-140-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 280-199-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 100-164-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 100-16~-601-5218 100-164-601-5218 ASSESSMENT REPRT JUL/AU 190-180-999-5370 SERVICES RENDERED IN JU 280-199-999-5248 SERVICES RENDERED IN JU 165-199-999-5248 GAS TANK CONVERSION 150-199-999-5250 STUDY FOR ENT CTR STUDY FOR ENT CTR 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 001-172-999-5255 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAWENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 LAW ENFORE JUNE 1994 001-170-999-5288 001-170-999-5299 001-170-999-5298 001-170-999-5294 001-170-9999-5290 001-1230 001-170-999-5291 001-170-999-5281 001-170-999-5282 001-170-999-5262 REGULAR COPIER/LASER PA COLORED PAPER/8 BLUE, 5 TAX 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 330-199-999-5ZZ0 SIGN INSTALLATION/NEW SIGN INSTALLATION/NEW SIGN INSTALLATION/NEW 001-161-999-5256 001-120-999-5244 001-120-999-5256 NEW 94 IC~WASAKI MTRCYCL 001-1990 NEW 1994 IC~WASAKI MTCYC 001-1990 ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANN ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANN ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANN ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANN 10% RETENTION 280-1270 280-199-999-5248 280-1270 280-199-999-5248 280-2035 ITEM AMOUNT 494.40 4,065.70 750.00 494.40- 1,275.00 1,100.00 1,500.00 300.31 4,500.00 2,267.36 2,267.36 2,051.63 5,000.00 5,000.00 6,207.17 17~,396.22 19,417.06 9,565.66 12,046.37 5,181.40 3,016.32 3,016.31 20,418.29 2,~9.45 13,289.2~ 1,193.40 493.50 130.73 1,875.00 225.00 795.00 7,235.41 7,235.41 1,621.85 1,621.84 1,600.00 1,600.00 320.00- CHECK AMOUNT 4,815.70 4,175.51 4,500.00 4,534.72 2,051.63 10,000.00 261,016.31 1,817.6~ 2,895.00 14,470.82 TOTAL CHECKS 482,391.90 ITEM 4 FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer August 23, 1994 Selection of Financial Advisor for Bond issuance PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Chief Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve staff recommendation to select Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates as Financial Advisor. DISCUSSION: The City sent out "Request for Qualifications" to four (4) prospective financial advisors and received three (3) responses. Councilmember Birdsall and Finance Management Staff interviewed three (3) financial advisors and determined that Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates was the most qualified to serve as financial advisor. Their staff is well qualified to act as Financial Adviser to the City for future industrial Development Bond and other City bond issues. In addition, they have a proven track record with the City's financing process, community relationships, redevelopment pass-through agreements, capital improvement plans, and the limits of city resources. When necessary, Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates will confer with other members of the financing team for the purpose of making a preliminary survey of the Project and to assist in the formulation of a coordinated plan to fund the Project. FISCAL IMPACT: Fees for services associated to specific bond issues will be paid from the bond proceeds at the closing of each debt issue. Attachment: Agreement pRINCIPALS WILLIAM L, FI[LDMAN LAWRENCE G. ROLAPP THOMAS G.~OHNSEN August 9, 1994 Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO LOCAL G()VERN~A~~ SOI~ITHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE 21041S. E. MAIN STREET SECOND FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92714 Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Director Genie Roberrs, Accountant CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE 510*933*6096 FAX 510*933'6098 CHARTER MEMBER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFIND[PENDENIPUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS RE: Financial Advisory Services Dear Ms. McLarney and Ms. Roberts; Pursuant to your request, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates is pleased to submit this letter agreement (the "Agreement") to the City of Temecula (the "City") for municipal financial advisory services to be performed for the City, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") or other related governmental entity requiring our services (all above noted entities shall be called the "Issuer"). We have extensive experience in handling this type of assignment. We offer to assist the Issuer in a financial advisory capacity by utilizing and making available to you the research, statistical, and consultant staff of our organization to such extent as may be necessary and helpful. Ms. Katrina Heller, as Project Manager and Mr. Larry Rolapp and staff, will be directly responsible for providing financial advisory services to the Issuer. Our firm acts strictly in an advisory capacity. We do not underwrite nor do we broker securities. We are independent financial advisors and charter members of the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors. Our approach is to provide objective advice on a fee for service basis and develop the most cost effective approach for our clients. The following Phase I and Phase II Scope of Services relate primarily to the issuance of debt. Other services such as studies; analyses; review and recommendations pertaining to projects including, but not limited to debt financings and falling outside of the scope of our hereinafier described Phase I and Phase II services will be provided to the Issuer as requested on a fee for service basis as described under Phase III herein. All assignments shall hereinafter be called the "Project". prop ItemcOS10. con SCOPE OF SERVICES We agree to provide the following advisory services in connection with any and all financing requirements as they pertain to the Project: IPHASE I I. Preliminary Survey We will confer with Issuer staff, bond counsel, consultants, and other interested parties for the purpose of making a preliminary survey of the Project and to assist in the formulation of a coordinated plan to fund the Project. II. Attendance at Public Meetings/Conferences We will attend meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary and, in addition, be available to attend meetings and conferences to explain the effects of the proposed financing. III. Consultation/Advice We will be available for consultation and advice. IV. Work Sessions and Seminars We will be available to conduct and/or participate in work sessions and seminars, which may be held to discuss the Project and methods of public financing. Phase It services will commence upon appropriate action of the Issuer directing the sale of the contemplated Debta). Phase I services shall be deemed completed upon commencement of Phase It services. We will perform the following additional services in conjunction with the marketing of the Debt. I. Municioal Securities Market Furnish the Issuer with information concerning current municipal securities market conditions and make recommendations as to the technical details of the financing, including maturity schedules, funds, covenants, redemption features, credit enhancements, derivative products and other details which will, in our opinion, make the proposed financing most acceptable m prospective purchasers and, therefore, marketable at the lowest possible cost. a) For purposes of this Agreement, Debt and/or "Bonds' means Bonds, Certificates of Participation, Short-term Notes, Bond Anticipation Notes, Grant Anticipation Notes, derivative produas or other evidence of indebtedness. -2- IlL RatinE make full disclosure of all pertinent information concerning the economy and finances of the Issuer. We will participate in such due diligence meeting(s) and assist the Issuer in the examination of pertinent financial data. 3. Production of Official Statement. Under the supervision of the Issuer, cause to produce said Official Statement. 4. Distribution of Official Statement. Distribute copies of the Official Statement to municipal securities underwriters. Updating of Official Statement. In the event the authorized financing is sold in more than one sale of Debt, we will update and distribute copies of the revised Official Statement. Consultation/Advice. Attend any meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary and, in addition, be available for consultation and advice until such time as the Debt to finance the Project has been sold and thereafter upon request. 7. Contact of Bond Underwriters. Make direct contact with municipal securities underwriters in an effort to stimulate bidding on the Debt. THE BOND BUYER Ad. Place an advertisement in THE BOND BUYER announcing the offering of the Debt prior to the time sealed competitive bids are received for such issue. Attendance at Bid Opening. Attend meetings of the Issuer at which bids or binding proposals for the Debt are received for the purpose of assisting in the computation and evaluation of such bids or proposals. If deemed desirable, work with recognized rating service(s) in an attempt to obtain an advantageous rating Of the Debt to be issued. IV. Insurance/Credit Facility/Derivative Products If deemed desirable, we will assist the lssuer in obtaining and analyzing the benefit of a letter of credit from a ramd institution, a municipal bond insurance policy or other credit facility providing for guaranteed payment of principal and interest on the Debt; and/or a discreet or imbedded derivative product if such product is appropriate and beneficial. V. Attendance at Closing We will compute closing figures, including accrued interest, and assist bond counsel in coordinating events of the closing. ff a competitive sale is conducted, the Issuer agrees to furnish the successful bidder, at the closing, a certificate, signed by the appropriate officials of the Issuer, acting in their official capacity, to the effect that to the best of their knowledge and belief, and after reasonable investigation, a) neither the Official Statement nor any amendment or supplement thereto contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading; b) since the date of the Official Statement, no event has occurred which should have been set forth in such an amendment or supplement; nor c) has there been any material adverse change in the operation or financing affairs of the Issuer since the date of such Official Statement. lenAS ni I. Investment of Proceeds We will assist the Issuer to arrange the investment of proceeds of the Debt. This includes soliciting proposals from various investment service proriders. II. Additional Work If the Issuer desires additional work beyond the scope of this Agreement including, but not limited to: studies; analyses; recommendations; financing plans or; writing financial policies, procedures and guidelines, it will be performed when authorized on a time and material expense basis in accordance with our then current fee schedule or other basis agreeable to the Issuer and the Financial Advisor. -5- For all services to be rendered under Phase I of this Agreement, the Issuer will pay us on an hourly time and expense basis, in accordance with our then current fee schedule. Phase I services cease upon action of the Issuer's legislative body directing the sale of the Debt. For all services to be rendered under Phase II of this agreement resulting in a negotiated sale of Debt hereunder, the Issuer will pay us a fee based on the following schedule: PAR VALUE OF THE BONDS FEES Over $ -1- to $ 2,999,999 $ 25,000 $ 3,000,000 to $ 11,799,999 $ 33,500 $ 12,000,000 to $ 19,999,999 $ 38,500 $ 20,000,000 to $ 29,999,999 $ 47,000 $ 30,000,000 to $ 39,000,000 $ 51,000 $ 40,000,000 to $ 49,000,000 $ 56,500 $ 50,000,000 to $ 59,000,000 $ 62,000 $ 60,000,000 to $ 69,000,000 $ 67,500 $ 70,000,000 to $ 79,000,000 $ 73,500 $ 80,000,000 to $ 89,000,000 $ 79,000 $ 90,000,000 to $ 99,000,000 $ 84,500 $100,000,000 to $ 90,000 For all services to be rendered under Phase II of this agreement resulting in a competitive or quasi- competitive sale of Debt hereunder or any sale where we write a preliminary and/or final official statement on behalf of the Issuer, the Issuer will pay us a fee based on the following schedule: PAR VALUE OF THE BONDS FEES $ -1- tO $ 2,999~999 $ 33,500 $ 3,000,000 to $ 11,799,999 $ 42,500 $ 12,000,000 tO $ 19,999,999 $ 45,000 $ 20,000,000 to $ 29,999,999 $ 51,000 $ 30,000,000 tO $ 39,000,000 $ 56,500 $ 40,000,000 to $ 49,000,000 $ 62,000 $ 50,000,000 to $ 59,000,000 $ 67,500 $ 60,000,000 to $ 69,000,000 $ 73,500 $ 70,000,000 to $ 79,000,000 $ 79,000 $ 80,000,000 to $ 89,000,000 $ 84,500 $ 90,000,000 to $ 99,000,000 $ 90,1300 Over $100,000,000 to $ 96,000 For all Phase III services, the Issuer will pay us on an hourly time and expense basis in accordance with our then current hourly fee schedule (see attached Schedule "A" of current hourly fee schedule) unless a specific fee agreeable to the Issuer and the Financial Advisor is negotiated in lieu of hourly fees for a specific assignment. However, if we are-requested to execute a closing certificate relative to disclosure adequacy of either the preliminary or final official statement, we will be paid an additional lump sum fee of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) at the closing. The Issuer will reimburse us for usual and customary out-of-pocket expenses, including, but not limited to, the cost of printing and distributing or updating the Official Statement, costs of financial advertising and costs incurred in connection with travel if such travel is necessary in the furtherance of the Project and is authorized by the Issuer. In connection with such travel, it may be that we will be called on to advance the costs of airfare, hotel accommodations, meals, and other related expemes incurred on behalf of the Project. It is understood that such advances will be considered as an advance m the Issuer and not to any Issuer official. Any advances shall be reimbursed to us within thirty (30) days after expenses are incurred. If the financing transaction closes within thirty (30) days after expenses are incurred, then expenses may be paid from the proceeds. Issuer officials may be required to report any advances which are not reimbursed within thirty (30) days of expenditures on their financial disclosure statements. In addition, if it is possible to obtain a rating on the Debt from Standard & Poor's Corporation and/or Moody's Investor Service and/or other rating service and/or if municipal bond insurance and/or any derivative product is available and determined to be beneficial, the Issuer agrees to pay for the costs of such rating and insurance and derivative product unless it is determined that the cost of insurance shall be borne by the underwriter at the bidder's option. PAYMENT Payment for all services rendered under Phase II of this agreement and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid at the closing of each Debt issue. In the event of abandonment of the Project, abandonment fees shall be due and payable immediately after such abandonment. All hourly fees shall be due and payable monthly unless otherwise agreed to by the Issuer and Financial Advisor. In the event the Project is abandoned prior to the completion of financing, the Issuer agrees to pa, us a fee equal to the reasonable value of services rendered from the date services are rendered to date of abandonment Reasonable value for our services shall be determined by using our hourly rates in effect at the time of such abandonment, plus reimbursement for usual and customary out-of- pocket expenses. Attached hereto is Schedule "A" of our hourly rates in effect as of the date of this Agreement. ADDITIONAL TERMS It is expressly understood that this Agreement does not intend to and is not under any circumstances to be construed as requiring the Financial Advisor to perform any services which constitute the practice of law; the Financial Advisor is employed in an expert financial advisory capacity only. It is further understood that the Financial Advisor will not be requested to participate in, render an opinion or make any representation regarding full disclosure of, or decisions as to which matters should or should not be included in the official statement, the adequacy of the source of repayment, investment of proceeds or the financial feasibility 9f the "Project". The Issuer, landowners, developers, consultants and other parties dealing with the Issuer or involved in the Project will be furnishing to us various data, reports, studies, 'computer print-outs and other information and representations as to the facts involved in the Project which the Issuer understands we will be using and relying upon in preparing the reports, studies, computer print-outs and other work products. We shall not be obligated to establish or verify the accuracy of the information furnished by or on behalf of the Issuer, nor shall we be responsible for the impact or effect on its work products of the information furnished by or on behalf of the Issuer, in the event that such information is in error and therefore introduces error into our work products. If the foregoing Agreement is satisfactory to you, please take appropriate action to authorize its acceptance by signing and returning the original copy hereof. Respectfu/l/ly submitted, ,, !~I~N, RO //LAPP · i~at ina Heller, CIPFA ' Vice President KH/tfd ACCEPTANCE Executed on behalf of the City of Temecula this __ day of 1994. By: Title: Date: -8- SCHEDULE "A" SCHEDULE OF FEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1994 Principals of the Firm $175 Per Hour* Vice President $150 Per Hour Assistant Vice President Senior Associate $130 Per Hour $95 Per Hour Associate $85 Per Hour Administrative Assistant $45 Per Hour Secretarial Staff $25 Per Hour *The rate for the Managing Principal will be $225.00 per hour. -9- ITEM 5 FINANCE OFFICER~ CITY EAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer August 23, 1994 Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Year Ended June 30, 1994. PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance, and the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Year Ended June 30, 1994. 2. Appropriate $29,419 to account 001-130-999-5246"Legal Services". 3. Transfer 9108,885to account 001-170-999-5234"Rent" from account 001-170-999- 5288 "Sworn Staff", 4. Transfer $75,000 to account 001-199-999-5276 "Sales Tax Reimbursements" from account 001-199-999-561 0"Equipment". 5. Appropriate ~39,372to account 001-199*999-5276"Sales Tax Reimbursements". DISCUSSION The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the City for the year ended June 30, 1994, Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity. m An additional appropriation of ~29,419 is needed in the City Attorney budget to cover 1993-94 legal costs. A $108,885 transfer is required within the Police budget to cover the facilities charge for the Southwest Station through June 30, 1994. This charge was not included in the original budget. A $75,000 transfer and $39,372 additional appropriation is required in the Non- departmental budget to cover the city's liability at June 30, 1994 under the Ynez Road corridor sales tax reimbursement agreement. Prior budget estimates of this liability were lower than the calculated reimbursement to be paid. FISCAL IMPACT: As is reflected by the attached financial statements, adequate General Fund reserves are available at June 30, 1994for the $68,791 additional appropriations being requested. ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 Combining Balance Sheet (Internal Service Funds) as of June 30, 1994 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~} = ITEM 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 23, 1994 City Council/City Manager LEASE OF SHARED C WORKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Approve the renewal of the attached lease agreement between Richard Gabriel and the City of Temecula, CA, for property located at 28763 Front Street (corner of Front and 1st Street) for use as a combined public works and community services department maintenance yard; and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City has located its corporate yard at this site under direct lease from Mr. Gabriel for the past 12 months. Prior to leasing from Mr. Gabriel, the City was provided use of this site through its contract for maintenance services. The City has made minor improvements to its facilities in the yard, and has enjoyed an agreeable tenancy under Mr. Gabriel. The renewed lease continues to provide for a 30 day termination notice by the City, should the City opt to use an alternate facility. Mr. Gabriel has agreed to maintain the lease amount and all other terms and conditions of the lease for the next 12 month period. FISCAL ANALYSIS: The lease rate for the property is $700.00 per month. The City will continue to maintain landscaped areas and parkways within and adjacent to the parcel. This minor expense has been absorbed into the routine yard maintenance. Appropriate funds are currently budgeted for Fiscal Year 1994-95. LEASE AGREEMENT (28763 Front Street, Temecula) THIS LEASE is made ;~nd entered into as of this I st day of September, 1994, by and between RICHARD GABRIEL, hereinafter known as "LESSOR", and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter known as "LESSEE", is made by LESSOR and accepted by LESSEE on each of the following conditions and terms, to wit: 1, QUIET POSSESSION: LESSOR hereby covenants that, on paying the rent and performing t~e covenants herein contained, LESSEE shall and may peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the demised premises for the agreed term. 2. DEMISED PREMISES: The demised premises are as follows: Unimproved real property located at 28763 Front Street, Temecula, California and described as e Portion of Parcel I of Parcel 7475. The portion of Parcel I which constitutes the demised premises is depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 3. USE: LESSEE may use the demised premises for any lawful purpose. 4. TERM: The term of this Lease shall be for a period of twelve (12) months, commencing September 1, 1994. Notwithstanding the terms described herein, LESSEE may, at any time during the term of the Lease, terminate the Lease upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to LESSOR. 5. RENT: LESSEE agrees to and shall pay to LESSOR at 16229 Sunset Trail, Riverside, California 92506, or such other place as LESSOR may from time to time designate, as rent for the premises a monthly rental of $700.00 per month, payable in advance on the first day of each and every month, commencing September 1, 1994. 6. UTILITIES: LESSEE shall pay before delinquent all charges for gas, heat, electricity, water, sewer, power, telephone service and all other services or utilities used in, upon, or about the demised premises by LESSEE. 7. REPAIRS: MAINTENANCE: LESSEE acknowledges that it has inspected the demised premises and all improvements thereon and accepts the same in their present condition. Upon termination of this Lease, or any extension thereof, LESSEE shall, at its sole cost and expense, remove from the property all trash and debris and shall leave the premises in their original condition or such other conditions as may have been agreed upon by LESSOR in writing. LESSOR hereby authorizes construction by LESSEE of a fence within the demised premises, which fence is to be removed, at LESSOR'S election, upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. The location of the fence and gates to be constructed within the fence will be as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. LESSEE shall not generate, store or dispose of upon, or under the demised premises, any toxic or hazardous substances or materials, as defined by federal, state or local statues or regulations. LESSEE will be solely responsible for the remediation of any contamination of the demised premises by such hazardous or toxic substances which may occur during the term of this lease. LESSOR will be solely responsible for the remediation of any contamination of the demised premises by r:~lease.yard fac. -1- the demised premises by such hazardous or toxic substances which occurred prior to LESSEE's tenancy. LESSEE will maintain all landscaped areas and parkways within the demised premises, and will also maintain parkways adjacent to or included within Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 7.475: provided, however, in the event LESSOR leases parcel 2 or parcel 3, LESSEE will be released from its obligation to maintain landscaped areas within parcel 2 or parcel 3, whichever is leased. 8. REPAIRS: MECHANICS' LIENS: LESSEE may not proceed with any work of construction or repair of the demised premises without first obtaining the written consent of LESSOR. LESSEE shall not permit to be enforced against the demised premises any mechanics' lien or similar lien or claim arising out of construction or repairs on the demised premises. Before the commencement of any work of construction or improvement on the demised premises, or of any substantial repairs, alterations, additions or restoration in or about said premises, LESSEE shall give LESSOR written notice thereof, specifying the nature and location of the intended work and the expected date of commencement. LESSOR reserves the right to any time to post and maintain on said premises such notices as may be necessary to protect LESSOR against liability for all such liens and claims. 9. NON-LIABILITY FOR LESSOR FOR DAMAGES: This Lease is made upon the express condition that LESSOR is to be free from all liability and claim for damages by reason of any injury to any person or persons including LESSEE, or property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever, during the term of this Lease or any extension thereof, or any occupancy hereunder. LESSEE hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify and save harmless LESSOR from all liability, loss, cost or obligation on account of or arising out of any injuries or losses however occurring during the term of this Lease, excepting such thereof as may have been incurred by the negligence or intentional acts of LESSOR or its agents or as otherwise provided in Paragraph 7 above. LESSOR likewise covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LESSEE from all liability, loss, cost or obligation on account of or arising out of any claims, injuries or losses however occurring which are unrelated to LESSEE's use and occupancy of the premises pursuant to this Lease or which may have occurred during any period other than the term of this Lease, excepting such thereof as may have been incurred by the negligence or intentional acts of LESSEE or its agents or as otherwise provided in Paragraph 7 above. 10. LIABILITY INSURANCE: At all times during the term of this Lease, LESSEE shall keep in force at its sole expense, public liability and property damage insurance with respect to the leased property, which shall name the LESSOR among those insured. The amount of coverage of the public liability and property damage insurance shall be no less than $500,000.00for combined single limit. LESSEE shall deliver to LESSOR a Certificate of the insurer showing compliance with this paragraph. The LESSEE shall file a written request with insurance carriers to notify the LESSOR in writing prior to any cancellation of any insurance. LESSEE agrees that if LESSEE does not keep such insurance in full force and effect, then LESSOR may but shall not be required to, obtain the necessary insurance and pay any premiums thereof. Any amounts so paid shall be r:\lease.yard fac. -2- 16. CONDEMNATION: The parties acknowledge that independent of this Lease, LESSEE may elect to widen the cul de sac which is adjacent to the demised premises and to construct a bridge at the end of such cul de sac. Any condemnation award resulting from such street widening and bridge construction or from any other eminent domain proceeding affecting the demised premises will be payable solely to LESSOR and LESSEE will assert no interest in any such condemnation proceeds. The parties further acknowledge that in the event of any such condemnation, the leased premises will be valued without regard for this Lease and the rents payable hereunder, it being understood that such rents are less than the fair rental value of such property. In the event that as a result of this Lease, LESSOR or the demised premises are subjected to land use approval requirements (zoning, plot plans or similar matters), as a result of which the City of Temecula or any Other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the demised premises requires exactions Or dedications as a condition of approval, LESSOR may elect to cancel and terminate this Lease rather than proceeding with such land use approvals, exactions and/or dedications. 17. PARTIAL INVALIDITY: If any term, covenant condition or provision of this Lease is held by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereof. 18. SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST: This Lease and each and every covenant herein contained shall, subject to the provisions as to assignment, apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns all parties hereto; and all of the parties hereto shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder. No amendment, addition, revision, or abrogation of the Lease shall be valid unless it is in writing duly subscribed by the parties hereto. 19. LESSOR'S ENTRY: LESSEE shall permit LESSOR and LESSOR's agent to enter onto said premises at a reasonable time, or by appointment, for the purpose of inspection, or for the purpose of making repairs or alterations. 20. SUBORDINATION/ATTORNMENT: If a lender requires that this Lease be subordinated to any encumbrance against the demised premises, this Lease shall be subordinated to such encumbrance provided the lender first agrees that in the event of foreclosure title shall be taken or conveyed subject to the terms of this Lease. LESSEE shall attorn to any purchasers at foreclosure sale, or to any grantee by deed in lieu of foreclosure. LESSEE agrees to execute any written documents reasonably required by a lender to accomplish the purposes of this paragraph. 21. REMEDIES CUMULATIVE: The rights and remedies of LESSOR shall include those set forth herein and those conferred by law. Such rights and remedies shall be cumulative to the fullest extent permitted by law. 22. HEADINGS, INTERPRETATIONS: The headings of sections herein are for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of the contents hereof. Whenever the context herein so require, the masculine gender includes the feminine and/or neuter gender and the singular number includes the plural. r:%lease.yard fac. -4- 23. NOTICES: Any notice under this Lease must be in writing and may be either served personally upon recipient or to the addresses specified below. Either party may change such address from time to time by written notice to the other. Notices so mailed shall be deemed delivered at the expiration of the second day after date of mailing. 24. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event of litigation between the parties arising out of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Lease contains the entire Agreement of the parties, and there are no Agreements either written or oral, other than as herein stated. This Lease may be amended only by a written Agreement signed by the parties hereto, or their successors in interest. LESSEE: LESSEE: RICHARD GABRIEL THE CITY OF TEMECULA By: By: Ron Roberta, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ADDRESS OF LESSOR: 16229 Sunset Trail Riverside, CA 92506 ADDRESS OF LESSEE: 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 r:~ieese.yard fac. ITEM 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager APPROVA CITY ATI'ORNEY ~/{Z~~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official,"l~ August 23, 1994 Contract Inspection Services for Building and Safety RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a professional services agreement and a transfer of funds in the amount of $20,000, from account no. 001-162-999- 5100, Salaries and Wages, to account no. 001-162-999-5250,Other Outside Services, for Employment Services, Inc. (E.S.I.), to provide Contract Building Inspection services to the Building and Safety Department for a five (5) month period. DISCUSSION: The Building and Safety Department recently promoted one of its current Building Inspector II's to the position of Senior Inspector. This promotion leaves a vacancy in the Building Inspection staff. Inspection workload has been extremely heavy which creates a need to fill the vacated position. The use of contract inspection services on an as needed basis, gives the Building Official the ability to monitor inspection workload to determine whether filling the vacated position is warranted at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are currently available in Account No. 001 - 162-999- 5100, "Salaries and Wages", for transfer due to authorized but untilled positions. No new appropriation of funds is necessary. V:\TONY~AGENDA~CONTRACT.ESI 8/16/94 tale PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 23rd day of August 1994, by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Employment Services. Inc. (E.S.I.) , a Staffing Service Company ("Consultant"). The parties hereW mutually agree as follows: 1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached hemto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described heroin. 3. Piiment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit B attached hereW, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount will not exceed $20.000. for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; pwvided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. 4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfacWry completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension 'or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services W be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. AGR-05 revised 1/22/92 _ 7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may su~ain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultants acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay ~laries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hemunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on August 23, 1994, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 23, 1994. 10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shall not enter into any subcontntets for services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, E.S.I. shall be primaxily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. Consultant shall provide City with fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of E.S.I, from Consultant's employ. Upon such notice, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value of service rendered to the City. 11. Default. In the event that Consultant is hi default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and-the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. ]'he ax~oitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the ludicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et ram. City arid Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. 12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. city: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 bm E.S.I. 11590 West Bernardo Ct., Suite 211 San Diego, CA 92127 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned heroin or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 14. Liability.. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hemunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. Consultant shall secure wo~4~man's compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's worlmaan's compensation policy and the Consultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and the Consultant shall reimburse th~ City for the cost of said insurance premiums. 15. Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses, including but not limited to City Business Licenses. written. The parries hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above CONSULTANT By: By: Title Ron Roberts, Mayor A'ri',uST: June S. Greek, City Clerk ~A~PROVEDZ ~on, Ci~ AttdL~ey AGR-05 r~vised 1/22/92 EXI-r[RIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMtK) 1. Combination buiMing inspections to be l~fforme~i. EXI-ffRIT B PAYIvIENT SCHEDUI.~. Employee(s) included'in this agreement by and between The City of Temecula and Employment Services, Inc., is listed below: Employee - MaR Bumell Hourly Billin~ Rate to City of Temecula $33.00 per hour Total ESI .payroll to Employee #22.00 per hour(without benefits) ITEM 8 APPROVAL ~,~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 County Cooperative Agreements for State Route Highway 79 North & South, Traffic Signal Projects PREPARED BY: Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Cooperative Agreements for traffic signal projects between Riverside County and the City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: The attached agreements are for the ultimate design and construction of traffic signal, highway safety lighting and roadway improvements for the intersections of: 2. 3. 4. 5. Winchester Road (State Route 79 North) and Nicolas Road Winchester Road (State Route 79 North) and Margarita Road State Route 79 (S) and La Paz Street State Route 79 (S) and Pala Road State Route 79 (S) and Butterfield Stage Road The County of Riverside intended on constructing these signals with the Assessment District's widening of the State Highway and funding the design and construction of the signals through their signal mitigation fund. Upon incorporation, all of the signal mitigation funds were transferred to the City and have been retained to fund the specific signals mentioned above. The County is still responsible for 25% of the construction and inspection costs associated with the signal at Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road at SR 79 (S) because the southwest corner of the intersection is in Riverside County. -1 - r:~agdrpt\94~O823\mastagre.ll/skg City expenditures for all projects have been broken down into three general categories as represented in the table below. Project administration includes the bid process and awarding of the construction project. The City will provide a cursory plan review and final project 8cceptance. Winchester Winchester SR 79 (S) at SR 79 (S| at SR 79 (S} at Road at Road at La Pe, Street Pale Road Butterfield Nicolas Road Margarita Stage Road Road Design and 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Admin. None $2,000.00 None None None Construction 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% $130,000.00 $20,000.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.00 $97,500.00 inspection 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% $15,600,00 $2,400.00 $15,600.00 $15,600.00 $11,700.00 TOTAL $145,600.00 $24,400.00 S145,600.00 $145,600.00 $109,200.00 County $13,000.00' None $13,000.00' $13,000.00' $49,400.00** Share This amount represents estimated design and administrative costs Same as above plus 25% of construction and inspection costs Because the County of Riverside has existing design contracts in place and has completed a substantial portion of the design work, they have agreed to complete the design of all signals listed above except for Winchester Road at Margarita Road. We agreed to fund the minor costs associated with completing the final upgrades at Winchester Road and Margarita Road. This signal was not included due to our desire to expedite the design, and construct it with the Margarita Road project south of Winchester Road. To also expedite the ultimate traffic signal at Margarita Road and SR 79(s), federal funding has been obtained which will be outlined in a separate County Agreement. All City funding ($570,400.00)is available from the Traffic Signal Mitigation account. Construction of these Ultimate traffic signals will correspond with roadway improvements planned through AD 161 and AD 159. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated City costs associated with all projects is $570,400. The County is committing to approximately $88,400which represents preliminary engineering costs and their 25% share of constructing Butterfield Stage Road at SR 79 (S) traffic signal. The associated City costs have been programed in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Attachments: Riverside County Cooperative Agreements for: a. Route 79 (N) and Nicolas Road b. Route 79 (N) and Margarita Road c. Route 79 (S) and La Paz Road d. Route 79 (S) and Pala Road -2- r:\agdrpt\94\O823\mestagre.ll/skg COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND ,LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Director of Transportation May-25, 1994 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Ben Dobbins RE: Cooperative Agreement State Route 79 and Butterfield Stage Road Work Order No. A2-0913 HE___CEiVED MAY 3 1 1994 CITYOFTEMECULA ENGINEE~ING OEPARTTMENT Dear Mr. Dobbins: Transmitted for your approval are three original cooperative agreements for the design and construction of traffic signal, highway safety lighting and roadway improvements at the above mentioned location. Please approve the agreements and return all three for execution to the following address: Transportation Department 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Attention: Richard Barrera If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Stan Dery at (909)275-6800. Ve Engineer RB/SD/BB/rep attachments cc: Lawrence Tai/Stan Dery/Bonnie Bradshaw 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor*Riverside, California 92501,(909) 275-6740 P. O. Box 1090,RAverside, California 92502-1090,FAX (909) 275-6721 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2~ 28 1 2 3 4 5 COOPERATIVE AGREEHENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY INPROVRMF. HTS AT 'x'~ INTERSECTION OF ROU'rM 79 AND Bu'rr~-RFIELD STAGE ROAD, IN THE CITY OF T~.MRCULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals ~d highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Butterfield Stage Road, and desire to specify the terms (2) (3) and conditions under which PROJECT is to be constructed, financed, operated and maintained. PROJECT intersection is jointly owned engineered, percent (12.5%) by COUNTY, thirty-seven (37.5%) by CITY, and fifty percent (50%) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal intersection. CITY AGREES: (1) TO pay twelve and one half and one half percent by STATE. warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I engineering and construction costs for PROJECT, in 1 accordance with CITY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately 4 following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction 5 contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 6 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 7 engineering, utility relocation, and construction, as listed in 8 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all 9 anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 10 S109,200, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 11 writing, authorize a greater amount; however, this does not 12 obligate COUNTY in any way to provide additional funds for this 13 project. 14 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 15 procedures, specifications and other standards required for the 16 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 17 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 18 (4) To provide prompt reviews and approval of submittals by COUNTY 19 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 20 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE and COUNTY, for the maintenance and operation of PROJECT improvements. (7) To pay seventy-five percent (75%) of the costs of any work necessitated by the presence of high and low risk underground facilities. 2 1 4 5 COUNTY AGREES: (1) To p~y engineering Section II and construction costs for PROJECT in consultant accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or 6 forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications 7 of STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable 8 laws and regulations. 9 (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT 10 are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer 11 registered and licensed in the State of California, and that 12 the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall 13 bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional 14 Engineer responsible for their preparation. - 15 (4) To submit P&SE to CITY for review and final approval. 16 (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) 17 of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for 18 PROJECT through Assessment District 159. t9 (6) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground' 20 facilities, including above and below ground utilities and 21 construction obstacles, to protect remove, relocate or otherwise 22 provide for such facilities, and to pay twenty-five percent 23 (25%) of the costs thereof. 24 (7) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within 25 CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit 26 procedures. 27 (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work wi· ' n 28 3 5 6! 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for nhe construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain orcause to be retained for audit by CITY or o~her · governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating no PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in 'D" size, 24" x 36" format. (12) To enter into an agreement with STATE and CITY for the maintenance and operation of PROJECT improvements. to be $158,600, in (4) Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost Of PROJECT is estimated accordance with Exhibit (2) The STATE is not required to participate in project funding. (3) Construction by COU~T~ of any portion of PROJECT which lies~ within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not: be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 4 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvemen~ by COUNTY through Assessment District 159. (5) Durihg construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CI~"~'s representaEive may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. (6) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right of way to construct PROJECT. (7) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signedby both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either par~y hereto. (8) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. (9) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed will be Jointly shared between CITY, COUNTY and STATE, in accordance with each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJECT location. (10) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree to 5 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 28 IIII IIII IIII indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, and each of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party,' done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 6 1 4 5 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized represennanives on this date shown above. Notic~e~8: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: 8 9 10 11 lZ 13 By 14 15 Dated 16 !7 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 ES/RB% /GB/rep COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRAMSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Chairman, Board of Supervisors CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD Ron R~berts, May~r Dated Deputy Clerk of the Board ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL City Clerk Deputy County Counsel A~PROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 7 SIGN~r. EaCATION ROUT~- 79 AND BUTlERFIELD STAGE ROAD Construction Cos= E X H I B I T "A" ESTIHATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ 32,500.00 CITY SHARE $ 97,500.00 Preliminary Engineering 10 % $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 11,700.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 49,400.00 49,400.00 $109,200.00 $109,200.00 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRiFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT TME INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, IN 'fPa~ CI~"r OF TEMECULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". (i) (2) (3) RECITALS COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals--nd highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Butterfield Stage Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed,-financed, operated and maintained. PROJECT intersection is jointly owned twelve and one half percent (12.5%) by COUNTY, thirty-seven and one half percent (37.5%) by CITY, and fifty percent (50%) by STATE. It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal intersection. CITY AGREES: (1) To pay warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I engineering and construction costs for PROJECT, in 1 accordance with CITY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction 5 contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 7 engineering, utility relocation, and construction, as listed in Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all 9 anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 10 S109,200, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 11 writing, authorize a greater amount; however, this does not obligate COUNTY in any way to provide additional funds for this 15 project. 14 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 15 procedures, specifications and other standards required for the 16 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 17 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 18 (4) To provide prompt reviews and approval of submittals by COUNTY 19 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE and COUNTY, for the maintenance and operation of PROJECT improvements. (7) To pay seventy-five percent (75%) of the costs of any work necessitated by the presence of high and low risk underground facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 COUNTY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering Section II and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant 6 forces, in accordance with theStandard Plans and Specifications 7 of STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable 8 laws and regulations. 9 (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT 10 are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer 11 registered and licensed in the State of California, and that 12 the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall 13 bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional 14 Engineer responsible for their preparation. 15 (4) To submit P&SE to CITY for review and final approval. 16 (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) 17 Of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for 18 PROJECT through Assessment District 159. 19 (6) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground 20 facilities, including above and below ground utilities and 21 construction obstacles, to protect remove, relocate or otherwise 22 provide for such facilities, and to pay twenty-five percent Z3 (25%) of the costs thereof. 24 (7) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within 25 CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit 26 procedures. 27 (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work w~ 28 3 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 !1 12 !3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the (ll) date of final payment, all PROJECT. Upon completion of PROJECT, "Drawing of Record" plans. records and accounts relating to to furnish CITY a complete set of Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, 24" x 36" format. (12) To enter into an agreement with STATE and CITY for the maintenance and operation of PROJECT improvements. Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $158,600, in accordance with Exhibit (2) The STATE is not required to participate in project funding. (3) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY'S Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (4) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 4 i 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvemel by COUNTY through Assessment District 159. (5) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. (6) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right of way to construct PROJECT. (7) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. (8) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any wor] hat the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. (9) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed will be jointly shared between CITY, COUNTY and STATE, in accordance with each Agency's proportionate ownership share of (xo) each PROJECT location. CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree to 5 ! 2 4 5 6 7 8 //// 9 //// 10 //// 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, and each of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 1 2 4 5 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused ~his Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this.date shown above. Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: 7 8 9 10 11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TR/~NSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecuta, CA 92590 CITY OF TEMECULA 12 13 14 Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 16 17 18 Dated ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF TH~ BOARD Dated ATTEST: 19 20 21 22 23 24 Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL City Clerk A~PROVED AS TO FORM: 25 26 Deputy County Counsel FES/RB / B/rep 7 Scott F. Field, CITY ATTORNEY -- SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND BU:~-rERFIELD STAGE ROAD Construction Cost E X H I B I T "A" ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ 32,500.00 CITY SHARE $ 97,500.00 Preliminary Engineering 10 % $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 11,700.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -o- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 $ 49,400.00 $ 49,400.00 $109,200.00 $109,200.00 8 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, IN .mE CITI OF TENECUIa~ This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals ~d highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Butterfield Stage Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is jointly owned twelve and one half percent (12.5%) by COUNTY, thirty-seven and one half percent (37.5%) by CITY, and fifty percent (50%) by STATE. It has been determined that the State of California promulgated (3) traffic signal intersection. CITY AGREES: (1) To pay warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I engineering and construction costs for PROJECT, in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) Exhibit "A". In anticipated costs S109,200, provided writing, authorize accordance with CITY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". To deposit with COUNTY within twenty five (25) days of receipt of bflling thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction engineering, utility relocation, and construction, as listed in no event will CITY's obligation for all under this Agreement exceed the amount of that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in a greater amount; however, this does not obligate COUNTY in any way to provide additional funds for this project. To provide procedures, (3) COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, specifications and other standards required for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 4) To provide prompt reviews and approval of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. 6) To enter into an agreement with STATE and COUNTY, for the maintenance and operation of PROJECT improvements. (7) To pay seventy-five percent (75%) of the costs of any work necessitated by the presence of high and low risk underground facilities. 2 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COUNTY AGREES: (1) TO p~y engineering Section II and construction costs for (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8 PROJECT in consultant accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. To submit P&SE to CITY for review and final approval. To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for PROJECT through Assessment District 159. To identify. and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities, and to pay twenty-five percent (25%) of the costs thereof. To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work wi 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain Or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, 24" x 36" format. (12) To enter into an agreement with STATE and CITY for the maintenance and operation of PROJECT improvements. Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $158,600, in accordance with Exhibit "A". (2) The STATE is not required to participate in project funding. (3) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (4) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 4 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvemea by COUNTY through Assessment District 159. (5) Dur£ng construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. (6) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right of way to construct PROJECT. (7) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. (8) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any wor~ the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. (9) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed will be Jointly shared between CITY, COUNTY and STATE, in accordance with each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJECT location. (10) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree to 5 1 2 4 5 6 8 //// 9 //// 10 //// 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, and each of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party,' done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused ~his Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representaL~ves on this date shown above. t~: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECUIA 12 13 14 Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberrs, May_or 15 16 !7 18 Dated ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD Dated ATTEST: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 By Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL Deputy County Counsel ES/RB S/GE/rep Y City Clerk AgPROVED AS TO FORM: . Field, CITY )~TTORNEY - SIGNAL LOCATION · ' ROUTE 79 AND BU'~'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD Construction Cost E X H I B I T "A" ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ 32,500.00 CITY SHARE $ 97,500.00 Preliminary Engineering 10 % $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 11,700.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 $ 49,400.00 $ 49,400.00 $109,200.00 $109,200.00 8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND .LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department D,~d ~. S,~h~, Director of Transportation May 25, 1994 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Ben Dobbins RE: Cooperative Agreements Route 79 (N) and Nicolas Road - AD 161 Work Order No. A2-0917 Dear Mr. Dobbins: Transmitted for your approval are three original cooperative agreements for the design and construction of traffic signal, highway safety lighting and roadway improvements at the above mentioned location. Please approve the agreements and return all three for execution to the following address: Transportation Department · 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 .Attention: Richard Barrera If you information, RB/SD/DSS/rep attachments should have any questions or require additional please contact Stan Dery at (909)275-6800. ~yJ~~gineer cc: Lawrence Tai/Stan Dery/Dennis de Sagun RECEIVED IMAY 2 7 t994 ~ CfrYOFTEMECULA ENGINEERING r3EPARTrME~l'r 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor*Riverside, California 92501.(909) 2754740 P. O. Box 1090.Riverside, California 92502-1090*FAX (909) 2754721 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COOPERATIVE AGRFRM~NT FOR 'r~ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TI~FFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROW-WF-HTS AT 'l'aiz I~TmRSECTION OF ROUTm 79 and NICOLAS ROAD, IN THE' CITY OF T~w~-CULA 1994, is "COUNTY", The State of California Department referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS This Agreement entered into this day of , between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". of Transportation is CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals and highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Nicolas Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal warrants have been met for the PROJECT intersection. (4) Allow interim signal but not required. Section I 1 3 4 5 accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 6 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction ? engineering," utility relocation and construction, as listed in 8 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY'S obligation for all 9 anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 10 8145.600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 11 writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not 12 obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for 13 this PROJECT. 14 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practice, 15 procedures, specifications and other standards required for the 16 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 17 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 18 (4) To provide prompt review and approval of submittals by COUNTY 19 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 20 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the 21 necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the 22 CITY streets right-of-way. 23 (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for maintenance and 24 operation of project improvements. 25 (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and 26 liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail 27 to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. 28 (8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs, if any, of any 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 work necessitated by underground facilities. the presence of high and low risk Section II COUNTY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for PROJECT through Assessment District 161. (6) TO identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect, remove, relocate or (7) otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. 3 1 (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within 2 STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit 3 procedures. 4 (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for 5 the construction of PROJECT. 6 (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other 7 governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the 8 date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to 9 PROJECT. 10 (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of 11 "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on 12 mylar in "D" size; 24" x 36" format. 13 Section III 14 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: - 15 (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be S158,600, in 16 accordance with Exhibit "A". 17 (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies 18 within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not 19 be commenced until: 20 a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed 21 and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public 22 Works, or a delegated agent. 23 b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has 24 been provided to COUNTY by CITY. 25 (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 26 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 27 COUNTY through Assessment District 161. 28 (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to 1 perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish 2 a representative. CITY'S representative may consult with 3 COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be 4 final. 5 (5) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to 6 enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT'. 7 (6) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall 8 be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and 9 no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall 10 be binding on either party hereto. 11 (7) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that 12 the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this 13 Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly 14 made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, 15 confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 16 beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. 17 Additional work shall not be performed without the written 18 consent of both CITY and COUNTY. 19 (8) Upon completion of all workunder this Agreement, ownership and 20 title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed 21 will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance with 22 each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each project 23 intersection. 24 (9) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agrees to 25 indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the other, and each 26 of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and 27 employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, 28 suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any 5 1 2 3 4 //// 5 //// 6 //// 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnif]-~g party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying part~'s duties and obligations hereunder. SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTI~ 79 AND NICOLAS ROAD EXHIBIT ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE Construction Cost $130,000.00 $ -0- CITY SHARE $130,000.00 Preliminary Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering $ 15,600.00 $ -0- 12% $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 USE $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 1 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the par=ies hereto have caused '~is Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date shown above. 4 5 6 Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: 8 9 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA 12 13 14 Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberrs, Mayrut 15 Dated 16 17 ATTEST: 18 Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OFT HE BOARD Dated ATTE ST: 19 20 21 22 23 24 By Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL 25 26 Deputy County Counsel FES/RB :/GS/rep 7 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT ~"rIE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 and NICOLAS ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals and highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Nicolas Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal warrants have been met for the PROJECT intersection. (4) Allow interim signal but not required. Section I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 4 5 6 accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of rec~ Ft of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of S145.600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for this PROJECT. (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practi~s, procedures, specifications and other standards required foz ~ne preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. (4) To provide prompt review and approval of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. 6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for maintenance and operation of project improvements. 7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. (8) TO pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs, if any, of any 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 work necessitated by the presence underground facilities. Section II COUNTY AGREES: (1) of high and low risk To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs as listed in Exhibit."A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for (6) (7) PROJECT through Assessment District 161. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect, remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. 3 1 (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within 2 STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard pe. ~t 3 procedures. 4 (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for 5 the construction of PROJECT. 6 (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other 7 governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the 8 date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to 9 PROJECT. 10 (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of 11 "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on 12 mylar in "D" size; 24" x 36" format. 13 Section III 14 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 15 (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $158,600, An 16 accordance with Exhibit "A". 17 (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies 18 within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not 19 be commenced until: 20 a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed 21 and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public 22 Works, or a delegated agent. 23 b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has 24 been provided to COUNTY by CITY. 25 (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 26 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 27 COUNTY through Assessment District 161. - 28 (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to 1 perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish 2 a representative. CITY's representative may consult with 3 COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be 4 final. 5 (5) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to 6 enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT. 7 (6) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall 8 be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and 9 no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall 10 be binding on either party hereto. 11 (7) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that 12 the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this 13 Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly 14 made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, 15 confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 16 beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. 17 Additional work shall not be performed without the written 18 consent of both CITY and COUNTY. 19 (8) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and 20 titleto all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed 21 will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance with 22 each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each project 23 intersection. 24 (9) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agrees to 25 indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the other, and each 26 of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and 27 employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, 28 suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 IIII 5 IIII IIII manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemni±~ party's duties an~ obligations hereunder. 4 5 6 8 9 10 !1 WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this their duly authorized representatives IN Agreement to be executed by on this ~ate shown above. NOtices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TP~ANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECUIA 12 !3 14 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 16 18 Dated ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OFT HE BOARD Dated ATTEST: 19 20 21 22 24 By Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL 25 26 Deputy County Counsel ESI S UlGSlr p 7 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ORNEY ' SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND NICOLAS ROAD EXHIBIT "A" ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE Construction Cost $130,000.00 $ -0- CITY SHARE $130,000.00 Preliminary Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering $ 15,600.00 $ -0- 12% $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 USE $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2~ 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 and NICOLAS ROAD, IN TME. CITY OF TEMECULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals and highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Nicolas Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal warrants have been met for the PROJECT intersection. (4) Allow interim signal but not required. Section I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in 1 accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". 2 (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of rec~ jt 3 of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately 4 following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction 5 contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 6 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 7 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in 8 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all 9 anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 10 S145.600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 11 writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not 12 obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for 13 this PROJECT. 14 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 15 procedures, specifications and other standards required foz .ae 16 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 17 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 18 (4) To provide prompt review and approval of submittals by COUNTY 19 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 20 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the 21 necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the 22 CITY streets right-of-way. 25 (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for maintenance and 24 operation of project improvements. 25 (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and 26 liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail 27 to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. 28 (8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs, if any, of any 2 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 work necessitated by underground facilities. the presence of high and low risk Section II COUNTY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for PROJECT through Assessment District 161. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect, remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borneby CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. (6) (7) 3 1 4 5 6 ? 8 date of final payment, all 9 PROJECT. 10 (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, 11 "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared 1~ mylar in "D" size; 24" x 36" format. 13 Section III 14 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 15 (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $158,600, in 16 accordance with Exhibit "A". 17 (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies 18 within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not 19 be commenced until: 20 a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed 21 and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public ~2 Works, or a delegated agent. 23 b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has 24 been provided to COUNTY by CITY. 25 (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 26 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 27 COUNTY through Assessment District 161. 28 (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work wit. bin STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard pe~.,it procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three(3) years from the records and accounts relating to to furnish CITY a complete set of 4 1 perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish 2 a representative. CITY's representative may consult with 3 COUNTY'S representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be 4 final. 5 (5) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to 6 enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT. 7 (6) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall 8 be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and 9 no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall 10 be binding on either party hereto. 11 (7) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that 12 the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this 13 Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly 14 made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, 15 confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 16 beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. 17 Additional work shall not be performed without the written 18 consent of both CITY and COUNTY. 19 (8) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and 20 title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed 21 will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance with 22 each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each project 23 intersection. 24 (9) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agrees to 25 indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the other, and each 26 of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and 27 employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, 28 suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIII IIII IIII manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnif}_.lg party.'s duties and obligations hereunder. 6 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 By 14 15 Dated 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 FES/RB / B/rep WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this representatives IN Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized on this ~ate shown above. Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Chairman, Board of Supervisors CITY OF TEMECUI3~ ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD Ron Roberrs, Mayor Dated By Deputy Clerk of the Board ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL City Clerk Deputy County Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM: By/h0RF~i~Ey~d.,~ 7 SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND NICOLAS ROAD EXHIBIT ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE Construction Cost $130,000.00 $ -0- CITY SHARE $130,000.00 Preliminary Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering $ 15,600.00 $ -0- 12% $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 USE $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department ~. ~ City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 June 23, 1994 Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works Attention: Direaor of Tran,~orta~io. ~ ~- T ' ",:'- - ~ JUN 2 8 RE: Cooperative Agreements Route 79 (N) and Margarita Road Dear Mr. Serlet: Transmitted for your approval are three original cooperative agreements for the design and modification of an existing traffic signal at the above mentioned location. In accordance with our previous discussions and the attached correspondence, the City will fund the signal modification costs. Please approve the agreements and return all three for execution to the following address: Transportation Department 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Attention: Richard Barrera If you should have any ~estions or re~ire additional infomation, please contact Stan De~ at (909)275-6800., County Tra RB/SD/DSS/rep attac~ents cc: Lawrence Tai/Stan Defy/Dennis de Sagun 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor*Riverside, CAlifornia 92501 .(909) 275=6740 P. O. Box 1090ogiverside, California 92502-1090*FAX (909) 275-6721 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 COOPERATIVE AGR~-W~NT FOR TH~ DESIGN AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF RO~'E~- 79 (NORTH) HARGARITA ROAD, IN 'r~ CITY OF TRw~CULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to modify existing traffic control signals and highway safety lighting, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 (North) and Margarita Road, concurrently with the widening of Route 79 thro~ugh Assessment District 161, and desire to specify the terms _ad conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. SectiOn I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay (2) 100% of preliminary engineering, construction, construction engineering, and utility costs for PROJECT in accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construc'~on contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed 115% of the estimated CITY share, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not obligate the COUNTY in anTway to provide funds for this PROJECT. (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, procedures, specifications and other standards required for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. (4) To provide prompt review and approval of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. 6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for maintenance and operation of project improvements. (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements. s) To pay one-hundred percent work necessitated by the underground facilities. COUNTY AGREES: (1) (100%) of the costs, if any, of any presence of high and low risk Section II To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 (2) (3) (4) applicable laws and regulations. To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect, remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borneby CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). (5) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work wj Ln CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. (6) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (7) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (8) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the (9) date of final payment, all PROJECT. Upon completion of PROJECT, "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans mylar in "D" size; 24" x 36" format. 3 records and accounts relating to to furnish CITY a complete set of shall be prepare an 1 Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $24,400, in 4 accordance with Exhibit "A". 5 (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies 6 within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilitieS, shall not 7 be commenced until the plans involving such construction have 8 been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY'S Director 9 of Public Works, or a delegated agent and an Encroachment Permit 10 authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by 11 CITY. 12 (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the 13 concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 14 COUNTY through Assessment District 161. 15 (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to 16 perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with 18 COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be 19 final. 20 (5) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall 21 be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and 22 no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall 23 be binding on either party hereto. 24 (6) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that 25 the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this 26 Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly 27 made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, 28 confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (8) beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra W~ Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed shall be the property of CITY. CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agrees to indemnify, de[end, save and hold harmless the other, and each of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. IIII IIII IIII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date shown above. Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA 13 14 15 16 Chairman, Board of Supervisors Dated Ron Roberts, Mayor Dated 17 18 ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD ATTEST: 19 20 By Deputy Clerk of the Board By City Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26 APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL By Deputy County Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM: 27 DB/RB~ /DSS/rep o6/23 j SIGNaT. LOCATION ROUTW- 79 (NORTH) AND MARGARITA ROAD EXHIBIT Construction Preliminary Engineering 10% Construction Engineering 12% Utilities TOTALS USE ESTIMATE OF COST County Total Costs Share 0% $20,000 -0- 2,000 -0- 2,400 -0- -0- -0- $24,400 -0- $24,400 -0- City Share 100% $20,000 2,000 2,400 -0- $24,400 $24,400 DSS/rep 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGRERwRNT FOR Taiz DESIGN AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND HIGItWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE IN'rzRSECTION OF ROUTE 79 (NORTH) HARGARITA ROAD, IN 'E~ CITY OF T~.wF. CULA This Agreement entered into this 1994, is "COUNTY", (i) 2) day of , between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". RECITALS COUNTY and CITY desire to modify existing traffic control signals and highway safety lighting, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 (North) and Margarita Road, concurrently with the widening of Route 79 through Assessment District 161, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. Section I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay (2) 100% of preliminary engineering, construction, construction engineering, and utility costs for PROJECT in accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as liste Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed 115% of the estimated CITY share, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide funds for this PROJECT. (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, procedures, specifications and other standards required for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred tc herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. (4) To provide prompt review and approval of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. (5) To issue free Of charge, upon application by COUNTY, he necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for maintenance and operation of project improvements. (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation,' and liability regarding the project improvements. (8) To pay one-hundred percent work necessitated by underground facilities. the (100%) of the costs, if any, of any presence of high and low risk Section II COUNTY AGREES: (1) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifica~ as of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) (3) (4) applicable laws and regulations. To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the ProfessiOnal Engineer responsible for their preparation. To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect, remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). (5) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. (6) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (7) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (8) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the (9) date of final payment, all PROJECT. Upon completion of PROJECT, "Drawing of Record" plans. records and accounts relating to to furnish CITY a complete set of Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size; 24" x 36" format. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section Ill IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $24,400, in accordance with Exhibit "A". (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until the plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent and an Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by COUNTY through Assessment District 161. (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY'S representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. (5) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. (6) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall m , confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (7) (8) beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed shall be the property of CITY. CITY and COD~TY do each hereby mutually covenant and agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the other, and each of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indenLnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. IIII IIII IIII 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date shown above. Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA 13 14 15 16 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Dated By Ron Roberts, Mayor Dated 17 ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD 18 ATTEST: 19 20 By Deputy Clerk of the Board By City Clerk 21 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 22 23 24 25 26 William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL By Deputy County Counsel By 27 DB/RB /DSS/rep SI~i~ I.~.~ION R0u~ ~ (NOR~I~) i~ MAR~ARI~ ROAD E X H I B I ~ Construction Preliminary Engineering 10% Construction Engineering 12% Utilities TOTALS USE ESTIMATE OF COST County Total Costs Share 0% $20,000 -0- 2,000 -0- 2,400 -0- -0- -0- $24,400 -0- $24,400 -0- City Share 100% $20,000 2,000 2,400 -0- $24,400 $24,400 DSS/rep 7 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGRERN~NT FOR T~E DESIGN AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND HiGHWAy SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE IN'EzRSECTION OF ROuTz 79 (NORTH) MARGARITA ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TRMI~-CULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to modify existing traffic control signals and highway safety lighting, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 (North) and Margarita Road, concurrently with the widening of Route 79 thro~Lgh Assessment District 161, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. Section I CITY AGREES: (1) (2) TO pay 100% of preliminary engineering, construction, construction engineering, and utility costs for PROJECT in accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construc '~n contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed 115% of the estimated CITY share, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide funds for this PROJECT. 3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, procedures, specifications and other standards required for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 4) To provide prompt review and approval of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY streets right-of-way. 6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for maintenance and operation of project improvements. 7) To be wholly responsible' for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements. 8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs, if any, of any work necessitated by the presence of high and low risk underground facilities. Section II COUNTY AGREES: (1) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) (3) (4) applicable laws and regulations. To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are ~repared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and Signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, to protect, remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). (5) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work w] .n CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit procedures. (6) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (7) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (8) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. .(9) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepare. an mylar in "D" size; 24" x 36" format. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 , 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) (2) The 'total cost of PROJECT is accordance with Exhibit "A". Construction by COUNTY of any estimated to be $24,400, in portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until the plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent and an Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by COUNTY through Assessment District 161. (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representative to perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. (5) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed byboth parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. (6) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (7) (8) beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra ~ :. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed shall be the property of CITY. CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the other, and each of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. IIII IIII IIII 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date shown above. Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA 13 14 15 16 By Chairman, Board of Dated Supervisors By Ron Roberrs, Mayor Dated 17 18 ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD ATTEST: 19 20 By Deputy Clerk of the Board City Clerk 21 22 23 APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL APPROVED AS TO FORM: 24 25 By 26 27 DB/RB D/DSS/rep 06/2a Deputy County Counsel SIGNAL LOCATION ROUT~- 79 (NORTH) AND MARGARITA ROAD EXHIBIT Construction Preliminary Engineering 10% Construction Engineering 12% Utilities TOTALS USE ESTIMATE OF COST County Total Costs Share 0% $20,000 -0- 2,000 -0- 2,400 -0- -0- -0- $24,400 -0- $24,400 -0- City Share 100% $20,000 2,000 2,400 -0- $24,400 $24,400 DSS/rep COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND ~LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department D~E. B~h~. Director of Transportation May 25: 1994. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Ben Dobbins RE: Cooperative Agreement State Route 79 and La Paz Road Work Order No. A2-0918 R'EO tVED CrTYOFTEM~CULA ENGINEERING OEPARTTMENT Dear Mr. Dobbins: Transmitted for your approval are three original cooperative agreements for the design and construction of traffic signal, highway safety lighting and roadway improvements at the above mentioned location. Please approve the agreements and return all three for execution to the following address: Transportation Department 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Attention: Richard Barrera If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Stan Dery at (909)275-6800. RB/SD/BB/rep attachments cc: Lawrence Tai/Stan Dery/Bonnie Bradshaw 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor,Riverside, California 9.7.501-(909) 275-6740 P. O. Box 1090,R/verside, California 92502-1090,FAX (909) 275-6721 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR 'r~ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TI~FIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVRW~-HTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROu'rz 79 and LA PAZ ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TR-MR-CULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals ~nd highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvemenus, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and La Paz Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal intersection. warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I CITY AGREE~: (1) To pay engineering accordance with CITY costs and construction costs for PROJEC~ as listed in Exhibit "A". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY~S bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of $145,600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in a greater amount. However, this does not in anyway to provide additional funds for writing, authorize obligate the COUNTY this PROJECT. To provide COUNTY (3) with necessary policies, practices, procedures, specifications and other standards required for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. (4) To provide prompt reviews and approvals of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY street right-of-way. (6). To enter into an agreement with STATE, for the maintenance and operation of project improvements. (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. (8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs of any work 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessitated by the presence of high and low risk undergrounc facilities. COUNTY AGREES: (1) SECTION II To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer, registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engi. ;r responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for (6) (7) PROJECT through Assessment District 159. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, and to protect remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit 3 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 procedures. (8) To apply for any necessaryencroachment permits for work within STAT~ right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating =o PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of full-sized reproducible "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in 'D" size, 24" x 36" format. Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) (2) (3) The total cost of PROJECT is accordance with Exhibit Construction by COUNTY of any estimated to be _S158.600, in portion of PROJECT which lies within.CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. ArtEncroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 4 1L 5 7 (5) 8 9 (6) 10 11 15 (7) 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 (8) 24 26 COUNTY through Assessment District 159. During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representati perfprmthe function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be pr. ptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and CODIITY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and CODIITY. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership ant title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installec will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance wit) each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJEC[ intersection. CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, e"~ eac] 5 6 7 9 10 ll 12 15 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 24 IIII IIII IIII of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actlone and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 1 2 3. 4 5 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties here=o have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized represenna es on =his date shown above. No~ices: Any no~ice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sen= by regular mail, addressed as follows: 7 8 9 10 11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY OF TEMECULA 12 13 14 Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 Dated Dated 16 17 ATTEST: Gerald Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD ATTEST: 18 19 20 21 22 Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 23 24 25 26 FES/ /eB/rep 7 - SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND LA PAZ ROAD Construction Cost E X H I B I T 'A' ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ -0~ CITY SHARE $130,000.00 preliminary Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ -0- $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -o- $ -o- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 and LA PAZ ROAD, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals.and highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvem. ms, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and La Paz Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal intersection. warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit and construction costs for PROJEC~ in 1 (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt 2 of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately 3 following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction 4 contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 5 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 6 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in 7 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all 8 anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 9 $145,600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 10 writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not 11 obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for 12 this PROJECT. 13 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 14 procedures, specifications and other standards required for the 15 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 16 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 17 (4) To provide prompt reviews and approvals of submittals by COUNTY 18 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 19 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the 20 necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the 21 CITY street right-of-way. 22 (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for the maintenance and 23 operation of project improvements. 24 (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and 25 liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail 26 to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. 27 (8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs of any work 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessitated by the presence of high and low facilities. SECTION II risk underground COUNTY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECT are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer, registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional En9 ~er responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for (6) (7) PROJECT through Assessment District 159. To identify and locate all high and low risk undergroun¢ facilities, including above and below ground utilities ant construction obstacles, and to protect remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard p~mit 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 !7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 procedures. (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain Or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of full-sized reproducible "Drawing of Record" shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, 24" Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated accordance with Exhibit "A". (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of plans. Said plans x 36" format. to be. S158,600, in (3) PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY'S Director of Public Works, Or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 4 6 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 (4) 4 (5) (~) (7) (8) (9) COUNTY through Assessment District 159. During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representat~ to perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COI/NTY's decisions shall be final. Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be p ptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, o~rnership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installe¢ will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance wit) each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJECT intersection. CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree t indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, s~d eac] 5 1 2 4 5 6 7 //// 8 //// 9 //// 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 6 1 2 4 5 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized represent. ~es on this date shown above. Notices: be Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: 7 8 9 10 ll COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND Fa~NAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECD'LA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CITY OF TEMECULA 13 14 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 Dated Dated 16 17 ATTEST: Gerald Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD ATTEST: 18 19 20 21 22 By Deputy Clerk of the Board' APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 23 24 25 26 D~p6uty County Counsel 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TR/LFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFE~Y LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 and LA PAZ ROAD, IN TME CI~"E OF ~'RMRCULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals and highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and La Paz Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. It has been determined that the State of California promulgated (3) traffic signal intersection. warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". 1 (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of recklot 2 of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately 3 following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction 4 contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 5 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 6 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in 7 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's .obligation for all 8 anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 9 S145.600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 10 writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not 11 obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for 12 this PROJECT. 13 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 14 procedures, specifications and other standards required for 15 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 16 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 17 (4) To provide prompt reviews and approvals of submittals by COUNTY 18 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 19 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the 20 necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the 21 CITY street right-of-way. 22 (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for the maintenance and 23 operation of project improvements. 24 (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and 25 liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail 26 to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. 27 (8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs of any ~k 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 V (2) 9 lO n (~) 12 13 15 ~6 17 4) is 5) 19 2o 21 6) 22 25 24 25 26 (7) 27 28 necessitated by the presence facilities. COUNTY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering Of high and low risk undergrounc SECTION II and construction costs for PROJECT in consultant construction obstacles, and to protect remove, relocate or otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borneby CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard permit 3 PROJECT through Assessment District 159. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECf are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer, registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear the seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 procedures. (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STATE right-of~way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of full-sized reproducible "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, 24" x 36" format. Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be S158,600, in accordance with Exhibit "A". (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvemel by 4 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COUNTY through Assessment District 159. (4) During construction, COUNTY will furnish perform the function of Resident Engineer, a representative. CITY's representative COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's final. (5) Execution of this Agreement by. CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT. (6) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. (7) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptl} made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet. confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work Additional work shall not be performed without the writte~ consent of both CITY and COUNTY. (8) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership an title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installe will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance wit each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJEC intersection. (9) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree t indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, and eac 5 a representative to and CITY may furnish may consult with decisions shall be 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 IIII IIII 1/11 of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, dem suit_s, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 6 6 8 9 l0 ll IN Agreement to on this date Notices: WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this be executed by their duly authorized representatives shown above. Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECLFLA PUBLIC WORES DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA !3 14 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 Dated Dated 16 17 ATTEST: Gerald Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD ATTEST: 18 19 20 21 22 By Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 23 24 25 26 By D~puty County Counsel FES/RB~D/GB/rep 7 SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND LA PAZ ROAD Construction Cost E X H I B I T "A" ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ -0- CITY SHARE $130,000.00 preliminarY Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ -0- $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND ,LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department v.~ ~. s.rnh= Director of Transportation May 25, !994 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Ben Dobbins RE: Cooperative Agreement State Route 79 and Pala Road Work Order No. A2-0919 R, EECEIVED, CITYOFTEMECULA ENGINEERING OEPARTTMENT Dear Mr. Dobbins: Transmitted for your approval are three original cooperative agreements for the design and construction of traffic signal, highway safety lighting and roadway improvements at the above mentioned location. Please approve the agreements and return all three for execution to the following address: Transportation Department 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Attention: Richard Barrera If you have any questions or require additional information, 275-6800. please contact Stan Dery at (909) ~e V~ul s, er RB/SD/BS/rep attachments cc: Lawrence Tai/Stan Dery/Bonnie Bradshaw 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor*Riverside, California 92501,(909) 2754740 P. O. Box 1090,Riverside, California 92502-1090*FAX (909) 2754721 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOPERATIVE AGRERM~WT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFET~ LIGHTING AND ROADWAY TM~ROV~.M~.HTS AT ~m INTERSECTION OF ROu'rE 79 and PALA ROAD, IN 'r~ CITY OF TRMRCULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals and highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Pala Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated traffic signal warrants have been met for the PROJECT intersection. Section I CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) To deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in Exhibit "A". In no event Will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of S145,600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for this PROJECT. (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, procedures, specifications and other standards required for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. (4) To provide prompt reviews and approvals of submittals by COUNTY and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY street right-of-way. (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for the maintenance and operation of project improvements. (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. (8) To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs of any work 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessitated by the presence of facilities. COUNTY AGREES: high and SECTION II low risk undergro~n~ (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECI are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer, registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear,=he seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engi.~er responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for PROJECT through Assessment District 159. (6) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, and to protect remove, relocate or (7) otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard p~ it 3 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 procedures. (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STAT~ right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of full-sized reproducible "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, 24" x 36" format. Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT accordance with Exhibit "A". is estimated to be $158,600, in (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 4 (4) COUNTY through Assessment District 159. During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representativ .o perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CI~"/'s representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be 6 final. 7 (5) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to 8 enter upon CITY right~of-way to construct PROJECT. 9 (6) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall 10 be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and 11 no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall lZ be binding on either party hereto. 13 (7) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that 14 the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this 15 Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be pro._~ly 16 made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, 17 confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact 18 beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. 19 Additional work shall not be performed without the written 20 consent Of both CITY and COUNTY. 21 (8) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and 22 title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed 23 will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance with 24 each Agency*s proportionate ownership share of each PROJECT 25 intersection. 26 (9) CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree to 27 indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, an~'~ach 28 5 1 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIII IIII IIII of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party., done or performed in connection with such indemnifying party's duties and obligations hereunder. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused '~s 2 3~, 4 5 6 Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date.shown above. Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: 7 8 9 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA 12 13 14 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 Dated 16 ATTEST: 17 Gerald Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD Dated ATTEST: 18 19 20 By Deputy Clerk of the Board City Clerk 21 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 22 23 William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL 24 - 25 D ty County Counsel 26 27 FES/RB/SE/GB/rep 12-29-9~ - ~tFtorney SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND p~x.A ROan Construction Cost E X H I B I T 'A' ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS . COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ -0-. CITY SHARE $130,000.00 Preliminar~ Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% 15,600.00 $ -0- $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS, HIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT TME INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 and PALA ROAD, IN '£n~ CITY OF TEMECULA This Agreement entered into this day of , 1994, is between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "COUNTY", and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". The State of California Department of Transportation is referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals d highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Pala Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT'intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated warrants have been met for the PROJECT traffic signal intersection. CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering Section I and construction costs for PROJEC~ accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". n (2) TO deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt 1 of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 4 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 5 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in 6 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 8 $145,600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 9 writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not 10 obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for 11 this PROJECT. 12 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 15 procedures, specifications and other standards required for the 14 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 15 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 16 (4) To provide prompt reviews and approvals of submittals by COUNTY 17 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 18 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the 19 necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY street right-of-way. (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for the maintenance and operation of project improvements. (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. (8)To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs of any work 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 necessitated by facilities. COUNTY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering the presence of high and low risk undergre-nc SECTION II and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs,.as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJEC~ are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer, registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear ~he seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for PROJECT through Assessment District 159. (6) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, and to protect remove, relocate or (7) otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard pc tt 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 procedures. (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STA~E right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or other goverrunental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. (11) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish CITY a complete set of full-sized reproducible "Drawing of Record" plans. Said plans shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, 24" x 36" format. Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is estimated to be $158,600, in accordance with Exhibit "A". (2) Construction by COUNTY of any portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY'S Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. (3) Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 COUNTY through Assessment District 159. During construction, COUNTY will furnish a representativ~ %o perform the function of Resident Engineer, and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. (5) Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct PROJECT. (6) No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. (7) If either CITY or COUNTY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of ~his Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional' work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. (8) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed will be Jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance with each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJECT (9) intersection. CITY and COUNTY do indemnify, defend, each hereby mutually covenant and agree tc save and hold harmless the others, ar ~ach 5 ! 2 3 4 5 6 ~ //// 8 //// 9 //// 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, suit.s, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying par~y's duties and obligations hereunder. 1 2 3 4 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date_shown above. Notices: Any notice required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall 6 be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: 7 8 9 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECLFLA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 11 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECUIA 12 13 14 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Mayor 15 Dated 16 ATTEST: 17 Gerald Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD Dated ATTEST: 18 19 20 Deputy Clerk of the Board City Clerk 21 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 22 23 24 25 26 William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL By ~,~ ,-~-7~ D.~p~Uty County Counsel 27 FES/RB/SE/GB/rep 12-29-~a 7 SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND PALA ROAD Construction Cost E X H I B I T "A" ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000.00 $ -0- CITY SHARE $130,000.00 Preliminary Engineering 10% 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ -0- 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAjFFIC SIGNALS, NIGHWAY SAFETY LIGHTING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT T~E INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 79 and PALA ROAD, IN TME CITY OF TEMECULA 1994, is "COUNTY", The State of California Department referred to herein as "STATE". RECITALS This Agreement entered into this day of , between the County of Riverside, referred to herein as and the City of Temecula, referred to herein as "CITY". of Transportation is (1) COUNTY and CITY desire to install traffic control signals~d highway safety lighting and perform roadway improvements, referred to herein as "PROJECT", at the intersection of Route 79 and Pala Road, and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) PROJECT intersection is located entirely within the CITY limits of Temecula. (3) It has been determined that the State of California promulgated warrants have been met for the PROJECT Section I traffic signal intersection. CITY AGREES: (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJEC' accordance with CITY costs as listed in Exhibit "A". :n (2) TO deposit with COUNTY within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing thereof (which billing may be forwarded immediately following COUNTY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT) the amount of the CITY's estimated share 4 of the cost of preliminary engineering, construction 5 engineering, utility relocation and construction, as listed in 6 Exhibit "A". In no event will CITY's obligation for all anticipated costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of 8 S145,600, provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in 9 writing, authorize a greater amount. However, this does not 10 obligate the COUNTY in anyway to provide additional funds for 11 this PROJECT. 12 (3) To provide COUNTY with necessary policies, practices, 15 procedures, specifications and other standards required for the ;' 14 preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates, referred to 15 herein as "PS&E", for PROJECT. 16 (4) To provide prompt reviews and approvals of submittals by COUNTY 17 and to cooperate in timely processing of PS&E. 18 (5) To issue free of charge, upon application by COUNTY, the 19 necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within the CITY street right-of-way. 21 (6) To enter into an agreement with STATE, for the maintenance and operation of project improvements. (7) To be wholly responsible for maintenance, operation, and liability regarding the project improvements should CITY fail to enter into an agreement with STATE for any reason. (8)To pay one-hundred percent (100%) of the costs of any work 2 28 1 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessitated by the presence of facilities. COUNTY AGREES: high and low risk undergr~-nd SECTION II (1) To pay engineering and construction costs for PROJECT in accordance with COUNTY costs, as listed in Exhibit "A". (2) To prepare PS&E for PROJECT, employing COUNTY or consultant forces, in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the STATE, the standards and practices of CITY and all applicable laws and regulations. (3) To assure that final design documents and drawings for PROJECI are prepared by or under the direction of a Civil Engineer, registered and licensed in the State of California, and that the specifications, each set of plans and any reports shall bear~he seal, certificate and signature of the Professional Engineer responsible for their preparation. (4) To submit PS&E to CITY for review and final approval. (5) To acquire, furnish in fee and fund one-hundred percent (100%) of the acquisition costs for any necessary right-of-way for PROJECT through Assessment District 159. (6) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities, including above and below ground utilities and construction obstacles, and to protect remove, relocate or (7) otherwise provide for such facilities. Costs shall be borne by CITY in accordance with Section I, Article (8). To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within CITY right-of-way, in accordance with CITY standard pc tt 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 procedures. (8) To apply for any necessary encroachment permits for work within STATE right-of-way, in accordance with STATE standard permit procedures. (9) To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. (10) To retain or cause to be retained for audit by CITY or Qther governmental auditors for a period of three (3) years from the (zz) date of final payment, all PROJECT. Upon completion of PROJECT, records and accounts relating to to furnish CITY a complete set of full-sized reproducible "Drawing of Record" plans. shall be prepared on mylar in "D" size, Section III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) The total cost of PROJECT is accordance with Exhibit "A". (2) Construction by COUNTY of any Said plans 24" x 36" format. portion of PROJECT which lies within CITY right-of-way or affects CITY facilities, shall not be commenced until: a. The plans involving such construction have been reviewed and approved by signature of the CITY's Director of Public Works, or a delegated agent. b. An Encroachment Permit authorizing such construction has been provided to COUNTY by CITY. Construction contract will be performed in conjunction with the concurrent construction of contiguous street improvements by 4 (3) estimated to be S158,600, in 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (4) (5) (v) (8) (9) COUNTY through Assessment District 159. During construction, COUNTY will furnish perform the function of Resident Engineer, a representativ_ to and CITY may furnish a representative. CITY's representative may consult with COUNTY's representative, but the COUNTY's decisions shall be final. Execution of this Agreement by CITY grants COUNTY the right to enter upon CITY right-of-way to construct'PROJECT. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either party hereto. If either CITY or COUbFfY is of the opinion that any work that the other agency has requested is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work, Notice shall be promptly made in writing of that opinion. CITY and COUNTY shall meet, confer and agree as to whether or not such work is in fact beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes Extra Work. Additional work shall not be performed without the written consent of both CITY and COUNTY. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed will be jointly shared between CITY and STATE in accordance with each Agency's proportionate ownership share of each PROJECT intersection. CITY and COUNTY do each hereby mutually covenant and agree tc indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the others, al ~ach 5 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIII IIII IIII of them, and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any and all liabili=ies, claims, demands, suits, actions and causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying party, done or performed in connection with such indemnifying parryes duties and obligations hereunder. 6 ! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused is 2 Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on 3 this date shown above. 4 Notices: 6 7 8 9 10 Any notice required tO be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by regular mail, addressed as follows: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43174 Business Park Drive~ Temecula, CA 92590 ll COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA 13 14 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Ron Roberts, Ma~c 15 Dated 16 ATTEST: Gerald Maloney, CLERK OF THE BOARD Dated ATTE ST: 18 !9 20 By Deputy Clerk of the Board City Clerk 21 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 22 25 24 25 26 William C. Katzenstein, COUNTY COUNSEL By D~ty County Counsel FES/RB/SE/GB/rep 12-29-~ 7 SIGNAL LOCATION ROUTE 79 AND PALA ROAD Construction Cost E X H I B I T "A" ESTIMATE OF COST TOTAL COSTS COUNTY SHARE $130,000~00 $ -0- CITY SHARE $130,000.00 Preliminary Engineering 10% $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ -0- Construction Engineering 12% $ 15,600.00 $ -0- $ 15,600.00 Utilities $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- TOTALS USE $158,600.00 $158,600.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 ITEM 9 FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ., /~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Tract Map No. 27827-1 - "Roripaugh Cottages" (located north of Nicolas Road and east of Winchester Road) PREPARED BY: fv~aymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development j? John Pourkazemi, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Final Tract Map No. 27827-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map No. 27827 was originally submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on July 9, 1993. The Tentative Tract Map was approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994. The phasing application including Tentative Tract Map No. 27827-1 was originally submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on December 23, 1993. The phasing was subsequently approved by the Planning Director on March 28, 1994. The Developer has met all of the applicable Conditions of Approval. Final Tract Map No. 27827-1 contains 30 residential lots and I open space lot within 7.54 gross acres. The tract is located north of Nicolas Road and east of Winchester Road. This tract is part of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (County approved Specific Plan No. 164), Amendment No. 2 as approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994, and County of Riverside Development Agreement No. 37. The Developer is Coscan Davidson Homes. The following fees and deposits have been paid for Tract Map No. 27827-1: Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee 4,500.00 Stephen's K-Rat Fee (paid for entire Tract Map No. 27827) 44,680.00 -1- r:~agdrpt%94\O823\27827-1 .agn jp Fair share deposit toward raised landscaped median on Nicolas Road (along the entire Tract Map No. 27827 frontage on Nicolas Road) 16,544.16 Flood Control T=ee (ADP) (paid for the entire 22.50 acres of Tract Map No. 27827) 26,527.50 The following fees have been deferred for Tract Map No. 27827-1: Public Facilities Fee Due prior to Building Permit Fire Protection Mitigation Fee Due prior tO Building Permit In order to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement (Quimby), the Developer is required to improve and dedicate a 3.0 acre neighborhood park to the City. The Developer is also required to improve the parkway landscaping adjacent to Nicolas Road. The following bonds have been posted for Tract Map No. 27827-1: Faithful Labor & Performance Material Subdivision Warranty Monument Bond Street and Drainage $302,000 $151,000 Water $47,000 $23,500 Sewer $45,000 $22,500 $24,528 3.0 Acre Park $245,278 $122,639 Nicolas Road $3,013 Parkway Landscaping $30,134 $15,067 Survey Monuments $13,608 FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Fee Checklist 2. Fees and Securities Report 3. Vicinity Map 4. Sheet 2 of the Final Map -2- r:%egdrpt%94%0823%27827-1 .agn jp CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST TRACT MAP No. 27827-1 The following fees and deposits were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby Fees) Raised Landscaped Median on Nicolas Road Traffic Signal Mitigation Public Facility Condition of Aooroval Condition No. 10 See Staff Report Condition No. 62 Condition No. 78 Pursuant to Development Agreement Fire Protection Mitigation Flood Control (ADP) See Fire Department Letter Dated 8/3/93 Condition No. 40 -3- r:~agdrpt%94\0823\27827-1 .agn jp CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT TRACT MAP NO. 27827-1 IMPROVEMENTS Street and Drainage $ Water Sewer 3.0 Acre Park Nicolas Road Parkway Landscaping TOTAL $ DATE: August 15, 1994 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY 302,000.00 47,000.00 45,000.00 245,278.00 30,133.50 642,291.50 $ Maintenance Retention Monument Security Landscaping Warranty DEVELOPMENT FEES AND DEPOSITS City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFCD Drainage Fee - Paid Fire Protection Mitigation Fee (Deferred to Building Permit} Signal Mitigation Fee - Paid Fair Share Cost of raised landscaped median on Nicolas Road (along the entire Tract Map No. 27827 frontage on Nicolas Road) - Deposit Paid 439,400.00 413,608.00 427,541.10 MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY 151,000.00 23,500.00 22,500.00 122,638.75 15,066.75 334,705.50 $ N/A $ 26,527.50 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 16,544.16 Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Development Fees SERVICE FEES Planning Fee Comprehensive Transportation Plan Plan Check Fee Inspection Fee Monument Inspection Fee Letter of Map Revision (LOMAR Review) Fees Paid to Date Balance of Fees Due $ N/A To be determined $ 132.00 $ 8.00 $ 1,370.00 $ N/A $ 680.40 $ 1.200.00 $ 3,390.40 $ 0.00 -4- r:lagdrpt~94\0823~27827-1 .agn jp · ,~ Z .'- El: r'~ ITEM 10 FINANCE OFFICE~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ,/~ Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Tract Map No. 27827-2- "Roripaugh Cottages" (located north of Nicolas Road and east of Winchester Road) PREPARED BY: far/Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development J~ John Pourkazemi, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Final Tract Map No. 27827-2 subject to the Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map No. 27827 was originally submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on July 9, 1993. The Tentative Tract Map was approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994. The phasing application including Tentative Tract Map No. 27827-2 was originally submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department on December 23, 1993. The phasing was subsequently approved by the Planning Director on March 28, 1994. The Developer has met all of the applicable Conditions of Approval. Final Tract Map No. 27827-2 contains 41 residential lots within 5.24 gross acres. The tract is located north of Nicolas Road and east of Winchester Road. This tract is part of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (County approved Specific Plan No. 164), Amendment No. 2 as approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994, and County of Riverside Development Agreement No. 37. The Developer is Coscan Davidson Homes. The following fees and deposits have been paid for Tract Map No. 27827-2: Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee 6,150.00 Stephen's K-Rat Fee (paid for entire Tract Map No. 27827) 44,680.00 -1- r:%agdrpt\94~0823~27827-1 .agn jp Fair share deposit toward raised landscaped median on Nicolas Road (paid deposit for the entire Tract Map No. 27827 frontage on Nicolas Road) 16,544.16 Flood Control ~=ee (ADP) (paid for the entire 22.50 acres of Tract Map No. 27827) 26,527.50 The following fees have been deferred for Tract Map No. 27827-2: Public Facilities Fee Due prior to Building Permit Fire Protection Mitigation Fee Due prior to Building Permit In order to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement (Quimby), the Developer is required to improve and dedicate a 3.0 acre neighborhood park to the City, to be offered for dedication as part of recordation of Tract Map No.27827-1. The Developer is also required to improve the parkway landscaping adjacent to Nicolas Road. The following bonds have been posted for Tract Map No. 27827-2: Faithful Labor & PerformBnce Material Subdivision Monument Street and Drainage Water Sewer Survey Monuments $224,000 $108,500 $57,000 933,500 $51,500 925,750 $12,420 FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Fee Checklist 2. Fees and Securities Report 3. Vicinity Map 4. Sheet 2 of the Final Map -2- r:\agdrpt\94%0823%27827-1 .agn jp CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST TRACT MAP No. 27827-2 The following fees and deposits were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby Fees) Raised Landscaped Median on Nicolas Road Traffic Signal Mitigation Public Facility Condition of Aoorovel Condition No. 10 See Staff Report Condition No. 62 Condition No. 78 Pursuant to Development Agreement Fire Protection Mitigation Flood Control (ADP) See Fire Department Letter Dated 8/3/93 Condition No. 40 -3- r:%agcl~pt\94%0823%27827-1 .agn jp (,,) C~ Z · LO r'~ Z n- O n~ ITEM 11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~. CITY ATi'ORNEY ' FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-1 PREPARED BY: ~{~ Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-1, AUTHORIZE reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of streets, and sewer and water systems, ACCEPT the subdivision warranty bond in the reduced amount, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On October 22, 1991, the City Council entered into subdivision agreements with: The Presley Companies 15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 23267-1. Original bonds were posted by The American Motorists Insurance Company. On February 9, 1993, the City Council accepted substitute bonds furnished by the American Insurance Company as follows: Cateaorv Streets Water System Sewer System Substitute Bond No. 111 2710 2791 111 2710 2791 111 2710 2791 Amount 8906,000 102,500 111.000 Total= ~1,119,500 Survey Monuments 111 1925 7167 $19,470 -I* pw01%agdrpt~g4%0823%tr23267.1 0810 The following items have been completed by the developer in accordance with the approved plans: Street, and Water and Sewer Improvements within Tract No. 23267-1 Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. The Eastern Municipal and the Rancho California Water Districts have accepted their items of work subject to the one-year warranty period. The Public Works Department therefore recommends acceptance of the public improvements, reduction in Faithful Performance bond amounts to the ten-percent warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period. Therefore it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance bond amount as follows: Street, Water and Sewer Improvements $1,007,550 The subdivider is submitting a rider to the Faithful Performance Warranty Bond in the following amount: Street, Water and Sewer Improvements Bond No. 111 2710 2791 $119,950 The developer was required to post Labor and Material bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement after the City Council has accepted the public improvements. The Subdivision Monument Bond will be recommended for release following final inspection and approval of the Monuments and related work. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution No. 94-__ at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Bella Donna, Corte Carolina, and a portion of Redhawk Parkway, Via Cordoba, and Corte Zorita. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Location Map Warranty Rider to Faithful Performance Bond (On file) -2- pw01%agdrpt%94\0823%tr23267.1 0810 VJCIAKTY MAP~,~ NOT TO SGI4/~A~ CORTE ZORITA TRA C T AIO. 232 6 7- / T,~/ACT N 0 M.B. (_.o~TE 222/84- ~8 GAEOLI NA Location Map ITEM 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FINANCE OFFICE~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Setlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tracts 23267-1 and 23267-4). PREPARED BY: ~ Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS 23267-1 AND 23267-4). BACKGROUND: - The City Council approved Tracts No. 23267-1 and 23267-4, on October 22, 1991 and December 10, 1991 respectively, and entered into subdivision agreements for the improvement of streets and drainage, and sewer and water systems, with: The Presley Companies The developer has improved, to City standards, the public improvements in accord with the subdivision agreements, and the Public Works Department has recommended acceptance of the subject improvements and initiation of the one-year warranty period. A Faithful Performance warranty bond has been posted. On August 23, 1994 the City Council accepted the improvements, a rider to the public improvement bond, and initiated the one-year warranty period. r:~mgdWt~94%0809~tr2271 S .met Under provisions of the Streets and Highways Code (Section 1806), public streets offered by the subdivider must be accepted by City Council resolution in order to be included in the public-street maintained system. The streets so affected are Via Poquito, Corte Christina, Corte Bella Donna, and a portion of Calle Los Padres, Corte Veranos, Avenida De Missions, Via Cordoba, Red Hawk Parkway, and Corte Zorita. Inasmuch as certain state funds are earmarked for maintenance of these publicly-maintained streets, the process will make these streets eligible for those funds. FISCAL IMPACT: These streets will be integrated into the City's Pavement Management System and will receive periodic surface and/or structural maintenance efforts. The new pavement condition of these streets should necessitate only limited surface or structural treatments for 7 to 10 years. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 94- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive. cc: Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent r:~egdrpt%94%OBO9~tr22715.ace RESOLUTION NO. 94- A I~R~OLUTION OF THE~ CITY COUNCIL OF TBrE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS 23267-1 AND 23267-4) THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Presley Companies offered for dedication to the City of Temecula certain streets within Tracts 23267-1 and 23267-4 for public street and public utility purposes, and said City of Temecula accepted said offers of dedication by City Council action on October 22, 1991 and December 10, 1991, respectively. WHEREAS, The Presley Companies have improved to City standards, public improvements within the several streets offered for dedication within Tracts 23267-1 and 23267- 4, the legal descriptions of which are set forth in Exhibit 'A' and are depicted in Exhibit 'B'. WHEREAS, the City desires to accept into the City-maintained street system the public improvements within all or portions of the public streets offered and accepted by the City of Temecula as depicted in Exhibit "B" ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE~OLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. That the City of Temecula accept into the City-maintained street system those streets or portions of public streets offered and accepted by the City Couch described in Exhibits 'A* and *B* attached hereto. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and accept the streets and portions thereof, offered to and accepted by the City Council, into the City- maintained sleet system as described in Exhibits 'A* and 'B' attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVEI~, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of August, 1994. Ron Roberts, Mayor r:\agdrpfi94%OBO9%tr22715.ecc STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ss I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly end regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a .regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 94- Accepting the public streets offered to and ~ccepted by the City of Temecula as indicated on Tracts 23267-1 and 232674, and accepting subject public streets into the City-maintained street system as described below: A. Those lots described as Lots 'A' through "G" inclusive, as shown on Tract No. 23267-1, filed 6 November 1991, in Book 235 of Maps, Pgs 29-33, further described as follows: (Lot "A') (Lot 'B") (Lot 'C") (Lots "D' & "E") (Lots "F' & 'G") Potdon of Redhawk Parkway Portion of Via Cordobs Portion of Corte Zodta Corte Bsila Donna Corte Carolina B. Those lots described as Lots 'A" through "D", inclusive, as shown on Tract 232674, filed 18 December 1991, in Book 236 of Maps, Pgs 21-24, further described as follows: (Lot "A") (Lot 'B") (Lot 'C") (Lot"D") Portion of Avenida De Missions Via Poquito Portion of Corte Veranos Portion of Calle Los Padres EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 94- SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE - PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: f $r'Rii'T$ OR !~OR'r'~ON$ OF $['Rrr._w13 I"Q B8 ACC'Fj-t z=,u gfrO CITY- lV[A]NTAJNIg) $'rlLh~,r s1~,s24 ITEM 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVALR~~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Augu~ 23,1994 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-4 PREPARED BY: ,~ Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT public improvements in Tract No. 23267-4, AUTHORIZE the reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of streets, and sewer and water systems, ACCEPT the subdivision warranty bond rider in the reduced amount, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 1991, the City Council entered into subdivision agreements with: The Presley Companies 15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 23267-4. Original bonds were posted by the American Motorists Insurance Company. On September 14, 1993, the City Council accepted substitute bonds furnished by The American Insurance Company as follows: Category Streets Water System Sewer System Substit~e Bond No. 111 2720 2809 111 2720 2809 111 2720 2809 Amoum $327,000 130,500 76.500 Total= $534,000 Survey Monuments 111 2716 9941 11,650 1 %agdrpt%94%0823\tr23267-4 0810 The following items have been completed by the developer in accordance with the approved plans: Street, and Water and Sewer improvements within Tract No. 23267-4 Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. The Eastern Municipal and the Rancho California Water Districts have accepted their items of work subject to the one-year warranty period. The Public Works Department therefore recommends acceptance of the public improvements, reduction in Faithful Performance bond amounts to the ten percent warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period. Therefore it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amount as follows: Streets, Water and Sewer Improvements. $480,600 The subdivider is submitting a rider to the Faithful Performance Warranty Bond in the following amount: Streets, Water and Sewer Improvements. Bond No. 111 2720 2809 $53,400 The developer was required to post Labor and Material bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement after the City Council has accepted the public improvements. The Subdivision Monument Bond will be recommended for release following final inspection and approval of the Monuments and related work. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution No. 94-__ at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Via Poquito, and a portion of Avenida De Missions, Corte Veranos, and Calle Los Padres. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Location Map Warranty Rider to Faithful Performance Bond (On file) 2 %agdrpt\94%0823%tr23267-4 0810 Location Map ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY~ FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for the FY94-95 Slurry Seal Project (Project No. PW-94-12) PREPARED BY: ~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW94-12, FY94-95 Slurry Seal Project. BACKGROUND: With the Pavement Management System (PMS) in place, a five (5) year Slurry Seal Program has been formulated. Slurry Seal is used primarily as a preventive maintenance measure where an asphalt concrete surface has become dry or brittle. A slurry seal placed over A.C. pavements in this condition replace the fine materials and oil's. This treatment will prolong the life of the existing asphalt from five (5) to seven (7) years. All streets within the City were physically inspected, evaluated and prioritized during the implementation of the Pavement Management System. Based on these priorities, streets were grouped into areas that would provide for the most cost effective projects while providing maintenance where it would be most beneficial. The following projects represent the five year Slurry Seal Program. FY94-95 See Attachment "A" 20.3 Miles FY95-96 See Attachment "B" 18.9 Miles FY96-97 See Attachment "C" 25.0 Miles FY97-98 See Attachment "D" 22.0 Miles FY98-99 See Attachment "E" 22.0 Miles 108.0 Miles The work to be performed will also include crack sealing, treating of all oil stains and replacement of all striping and street legends. Upon authorization and approval, Project No. PIN94-12, will be advertised for thirty (30) days, with the bid opening on September 29, 1994. This project has an estimated construction time of sixty (60) working days to complete. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the p~oject is ready to be advertised for construction. These Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. All plans used in the construction of this project are City of Temecula Standard Plans approved by the City Council in November, 1991. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $260,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Account 100-164- 601-5402. r:.~agdrptX94XO823Xpw94-12S.bid/ajp Z Slurried Streets ATTACHMENT A f N ATTACHMENT B Slurried Streets ',-.Z ATTACHMENT C Slurried Streets r ',-Z ATTACHMENT D Slurried Street~ ATTACHMENT E ',-Z Slurried Streets ek~Z~ jre~ ITEM 15 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council ,~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of Plans and Specifications for the FY94-95 Concrete Repairs (Project No. PW94-13) PREPARED BY: ~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW94-13, FY94-95 Concrete repairs. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has two procedures for effectuating street maintenance. The first procedure addresses immediate repairs through a weekly sealed bid/work order system for work under $25,000. The second procedure involves compiling a list of concrete repairs that don't require immediate attention over a period of six (6) months. This work includes concrete sidewalk repairs, removal and replacement of curb and gutter, removal and replacement of concrete cross gutters, removal and replacement of catch basin lids, and installation of under sidewalk drains. This list has been "grouped" together to form a cost effective project. Upon authorization and approval, Project No. PW94-13 will be advertised for thirty (30) days, with the bid opening on September 29, 1994. This project has an estimated construction time of forty-five (45) working days to complete. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction. These Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. All plans used in the construction of this project are City of Temecula Standard Plans approved by the City Council in November, 1991. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $130,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Account 100-164- 601-5402. Attachment: Citywide P.C.C. Repair Pro{)ram - Locations and Scope of Work r:,%egdq~t%94%O823'~w94-13PC.bld/ejp CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM Attachment "A" SIDEWALKS LOCATION Pala Road - 100 ft. E/O Clubhouse Drive Enterprise Circle West Jefferson Avenue - 300 ft. N/O Overland (WeSt side) Rancho Vista Road - 250 ft W/O Southern Cross north side of street next to catch basin La Serena - 1 O0 ft. W/O Via Aguila Across from 31071 Camino Verde at underside walk drain Camino Del Este at Camino Verde N. General Kearny - 300 ft. W/O Deer Meadow by under sidewalk drain Via Ladera - 50 ft. E/O Corte Granda 29862 Via Puesta Del Sol Rancho California Road - 200 yards west of Butterfield Stage Road SCOPE OF WORK R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune 2 trees R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk & Root Prune R & R Sidewalk EST. QTY ~ 50 sq.ft. 180 sq.ft. 372 sq.ft. 72 sq.ft 210 sq.ft. 180 sol.ft. 84 scl.ft 42 sq.ft. 96 scl.ft. 224 sol.ft. 100 scl. ft. PROPOSAL P-2 r:',cip~projects~pw94-13~bidpkg CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM CURB AND GUTTER LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK Clubhouse Drive at Tournament Lane - N/W Corner Pala Road - 250 ft. E/O Clubhouse Drive (in front of utility box) Pala Road - 100 ft. E/O Clubhouse Drive Calle Cortez at Bianchi 44077 Northgate from east end of D/A to west end of D/A at 44065 Northgate Single Oak at Business Park Drive (east) Las Haciendas west of Front Street, in front of Eco Farm Vialla Alturas Dr. at Villa Terrace Ct. S/W Corner Pauba Road - 500 ft. E/O Elinda Rd Pauba Road - 50 ft. E/O Villa Alturas, westbound Goleta at La Greco at under sidewalk drain 31252 Enfield Lane D/A 40613 Calle Medusa at under sidewalk drain 30455 Anaconda Ct. (west end of D/A 150 In.ft. east) Front St. in front of CL Pharris by fire hydrant 29836 Villa Alturas Dr. - next to catch basin Villa AIturas Drive at Villa Ter Court R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R'& R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter R & R Curb & Gutter EST. QTY IN LINEAL FEET 48 In.ft. 15 In.ft. 40 In.ft. 40 In.ft. 92 In.ft. 17 In.ft. 115In.ft. 50 In.ft. 50 In.ft. 10 In.ft. 25 sq.ft. 280 sq.ft. I In.ft. 150 In.ft. 25 In.ft. 5 In.ft. 10 In.ft. PROPOSAL P-3 r:~cip\projects~wS4-13\bidpkg LOCATION Ynez Road - 150 ft. S/O Pauba Rd., east side of street where concrete V-Ditch comes off hill Elinda - 250 ft. S/O Pauba Rd., west side of street where concrete V-Ditch comes off hill CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM UNDER SIDEWALK DRAINS SCOPE OF WORK Install underside walk drain Install underside walk drain EST. QTY. I 1 PROPOSAL P-4 r:%cip~projects~pw94-13%bidpkg CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM CROSS GUTTER LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK Moreno Road at Front Street R & R Gross Gutter EST. QTY 533 sq.ft. PROPOSAL P-S . r:%cip~projecte%pw94-13%bidpkg CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE P.C.C. REPAIR PROGRAM CATCH BASIN LIDS ,LOCATION Front Street at 5th - S/E Corner Moreno at Front Street Moreno at Front Street - west side of street I st Street - West end of Cul De Sac Felix Valdez Jefferson Avenue - 300 ft. N/O Overland (west side) Margarita Road at Pio Pico Rancho California Road at Arogon Rancho California Road at Cosmic Dr. SRV Corner SCOPE OF WORK R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin Lid R & R Catch Basin Lid EST. QTY 10 sol.ft. 10 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. 48 sq.ft. 5 sq.ft. I sq.ft. 3 sq.ft 20 sq.ft. 36 sq.ft. PROPOSAL P-6 r:~cip~projecte~pw94-13\bidpkg ITEM 16 FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of Plans and Specifications for the FY94-95 Asphalt Repairs (Project No. PW94-14) PREPARED BY: ~)~/~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW94-14, FY94-95 Asphalt (AC) repairs. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has two (2) procedures for effectuating street maintenance projects. The first procedure addresses immediate repairs through a weekly sealed bid/work order system for work under $25,000. The second procedure involves compiling a list of AC street repairs that donit .require immediate attention for a period of six (6) months. This work includes AC overlays, AC removal and replacement, overside drains/repairs, and installation and repair of AC berms. This list has been "grouped" together to form a more cost effective project. Upon authorization and approval, Project No. PW94-14 will be advertised for thirty (30) days, with the bid opening on September 29, 1994. This project has an estimated construction time of forty-five (45) working days to complete. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction. These Plans and Specifications ere available for review in the City Engineer's office. All plans used in the construction of this project are City of Temecula Standard Plans approved by the City Council in November, 1991. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $150,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Account 100-164- 601-5402. Attachment: AC Street Repairs - Location and Scope of Work r:\ao~fl;t%O4%O823~wO4,-14ac.bldlajp LOCATION Clubhouse Dr. at Bay Hill S/W comer in from of storm drain (10 X 53) Moreno from Front 225 it. - east west bound lan~ Las Haciendas in front of ECO Farms Las Haciendas east of ECO Farms · Calle Cortez at Del Rio (20 X 80) Calle Cortez at Del Rio (8 X Del Rio at Front (at crosswalk) (20 X 40) Jefferson s/o Winchester - south bound lane (96 X 5) 30368 Via Canada in front of house Vallejo E/O La Paz (20 X 100) Santiago E/O Front (at Yield) (45 X 2) 42651 Tetra Robles (28 X 36) Ynez Road n/o Via Halcon (west bound) (15 X 175) ~nida Barca at Del Rey (Intersection) (50 X 10) Avenida Barca at Del Rey (10 X 20) Avenida Barca at Del Rey (75 X 6) 30492 Avenida Estrada (across from) (25 X 4) 30695 Avenida Buena Suerte (1 X 1) & (2 X 6) Avenida Buena Suerte - 50 ft. s/o 30610 Avenida Buena Suerte (110 X 16) Avenida Centenario - south bound 200 ft. hie Avenida Buena Suene (10 X 10) Avenida Centenario at Buena Suerte (20 X 25) 39159 Rising Hill Via Puesta Del Sol at Paseo Rayo Del Sol Via Monterey end of Cul De Sac (45 X 62) Avenida Buena Sune at A/C Down Spouts 50 it. w/o 30661 (50 X 37) ~-~ Cielito end of Cui De Sac (S0 X v ilia Alturas Dr. at Pauba Rd. (50 X 30) btwn. Cross Gutter and Media ATrACI-IME~ A CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS A/C StrEET REPAIRS SCOPE OF WORK R&R R&R R&R Overlay Street R & R Street Overlay Street Overlay Street Overlay Street Overlay Street R&RStreet R&RStreet R & R Street Overlay Street R & R Street Crack Seal Street R&RStreet R&RStreet Overlay Street Overlay Street at Dip Overlay at Intersection R & R in middle of Street Overlay at Concrete Cross Gutter R&RStreet Overlay Street & Root Prune Overlay Street Overlay Street SQUARE FEET 530 sq. it. 6,750 sq. fc 3,105 sq. it. 3,375 sq. it. 1,600 sq. ~. 280 sq. it. 800 sq. it. 480 sq. it. 200 sq. it. 2,000 sq. ~. 90sq. R. 1,008 sq. it. 2,625 sq. it. 500 sq. ft. 200 sq. it. 450 sq. ft. 48 sq. ft. 13 sq. it. 1,760 sq. it. 100 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. 36 sq. it. 290 sq. it. 2,790 sq. it. 1,850 sq. it. 2,500 sq. it. 1,500 sq. it. LOCATION Pauba Rd. at Villa Almras Dr. west bound at ahead legend (20 X 12) Pauba Rd. at Villa AimrE Dr. west bound at Intersection Jedediah Smith s/o Cahrillo Ave. (25 X 3) Milky Way at Astriod Way s/e comer (15 X 10) Milky Way at Astriod Way n/e comer (20 X 6) 43136 Rancho Way (120 X 15 & 24 X 10) A. C. OVERSIDE DRAINS Avertida Barca w/o Birdsall - southside (18 x 12) 40640 Calle Madero C'/x 53 29515 Avenida Del Sol (8 x 10) 40410 Paseo Del Cielo - 50 ~. s/o at A/C Down "Spouts - 3 Down Spouts (4 x 10)(4 x 10)(4 x I0) 40680 Carmillita Circle (10 x 8) Avenida Buena Suene (8 x 53 50 t~. w/o 30661, north down spout A/C FLOW LINES Pauba Rd. e/o La primavera - east bound (75 x 4) Ynez Rd. s/o Rancho California Rd. north bound La Primevera btwn Pauba Rd. and Colina Verde Colina Verde at La Primevera - no. and so. sides (50 x 4)(75 x 4) Pio Pico btwn 31630 and 31346 (610 x 4) A.C. BIKE LANES De Portola btwn 30230 De Portola and Jedediah Smith - west bound land (.02 mile x 4') De Portola at Margarita Rd. - so. side (200 x 6) 3000 Ynez Rd. north bound (300 x 4) De Portola, 50 t~. w/o Margarita Rd. east bound "No Parking Sign" (25 x 4) CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS A/C STR~:Kr REPAIRS SCOPE OF WORK Overlay Stre~ Overlay Street R&R-EP Overlay Sffeet Overlay Street R & R Street Overlay R&R R & R Root Prune Overlay Overlay R&R Overlay/Flow Line R & R Flow Line Overlay Flow Line Overlay Flow Line Overlay Flow Line Overlay Bike Lane R & R Bike Lane Overlay Bike Lane R & R Bike Lane SQUARE FEEt 240 sq. ~. 810 sq. ft. 75 sq. x~. 150 sq. ft. 120 sq. ~. 2,040 sq. t~. 216 sq. l~. 35 sq. fc 80 sq. ft. 120 sq. t~. 80 sq. t~. 300 sq. t~. 300 sq. fc 240 sq. ~. 500 sq. f~. 2,440sq. ~. 4,160 sq. ~. 1,200 sq. tL 1,200 sq. t~. 100 sq. R. 3 LOCATION La Candena Ct. - east side of cul-de-sac Del Rey, 300 fL east of Calle'Pina Colada (east bound) Del Rey, 300 fL east of Calle Pina Colada (west bound) Avenida Buena Suerte, 20 fc north of 30931 Avenida Buena Suerte, 50 ft. north of 30795 Avenida Buena Suene, 10 ft. south of 30860 30695 Avenida Buena Suene Avenida Buena Suerte, 50 ~. south of 30610 Paso Del Cielo at Via Del Mesa - south west corner 30492 Avenida Estrada (across from) Santiago east of Front St. (at Yield) Santiago at end of bridge (east bound) None, east and west of Calle Pina Colada Via None, east and west of Calle Pina Colada 40410 Pase Del Cielo, 50 ft. south (north bound) CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORI~ A/C BERMS 6* SCOPE OF WORK R & R A/C Berm R&RA/CBerm R & R AIC Berm R&RMCBerm R & R MC Berm R&RA/CBerm R&RA/CBerm R & R A/C Berm R&RMCBerm R&RA/CBerm R&RA/CBerm Install A/C Berm Install A/C Berm R & R A/C Berm R & R A/C Berm & Root Prune LINEAL FEET 10 In. ft. 12 In. ft. 30 In. R. 251n. t~. 251n. 15 In. ft. 17 in. ft. 30 In. 12 in. ft. 7In. ft. 90In. 250 In. 120 In. 25 In. 251n. ITEM 17 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Mayor and City Councilmembers Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager August 23, 1994 Settlement Agreement and Release with Kernper Real Estate Development Company, Inc. for Empire Creek and Murrieta Creek Flood Control Work and Acquisition of Lots 15 and 16 of the Senior Center Parking Lot RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Settlement Agreement and Release regarding the Empire Creek Work, The Murrieta Creek Work, and the Senior Center Parking Lot and the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property (Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, City of Temecula, APN 922-021-006). STAFF REPORT: At the closed session of the April 5, 1944 City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to meet with representatives of Kemper Real Estate Development Company, Inc. (KRDC) to negotiate a settlement of two outstanding claims for flood control work done in Empire and Murrieta Creeks during 1992 and 1993. In addition, City Council directed staff to resolve the issue for the value of the property to complete construction of the Senior Center Parking Lot. The results of negotiations between staff and KRDC are set forth in the attached agreements. The City has received payment in the amount of $39,000to resolve these three issues. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE REGARDING THE EMPIRE CREEK WORK, THE MURRIETA CREEK WORK, AND THE SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT This "Settlemere Agreement and Release regarding the Empire Creek Work, the Murrieta Creek Work, and the Senior Center Parking Lot" (the "Agreement") is made effective as of , 1994, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and KRDC, Inc., a California corporation CKemper") (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties"). RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about May 1991, the City through its contractors removed sediment from Empire Creek between the Interstate 15 Freeway and Murrieta Creek, which potion of the Creek is owned by Kernper (the "F. mpire Creek Work"), as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated hereby by this reference; WHEREAS, the City contends that Bedford Properties, Kemper's predecessor-in-interest, authorized the City to perform the Empire Creek Work on Bedford's behalf, and agreed to reimburse the City the cost of the Work. Kernper contends that Bedford never authorized the Work nor agreed to any such reimbursement; WHEREAS, the cost of the Empire Creek Work was $58,643.00. Bedford was invoiced for said amount on May 18, 1992, pursuant to City Invoice No. 102; WHEREAS, shortly after the Murrieta Creek flood on January 16, 1993, the City removed through its contractors sediment from Murrieta Creek between Rancho California Road and a point southe~y of Winchester Road, which potion of the Creek is owned by Kernper (the "Murrieta Creek Work"), as more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated hereby by this reference; WHEREAS, the cost of the Murrieta Creek Work was $47,863.50. Kernper was invoiced for said mount on March 9, 1993, pursuant to City Invoice No. 11309; WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the City contends it had no legal duty to remove sediment from or maintain those portions of Murrieta Creek and F. mpire Creek owned by Kernper. However, it is the contention of the City that Kernper was not removing the sediment from the Creeks quickly enough, and consequently, in the interest of public health and safety, the City took the lead on performing the Empire Creek Work and Murrieta Creek Work. Kemper disputes the contention of the City that it was necessary for the City to take the lead in this Work; Cx~TLMTAGT/2/pdO WHEREAS, Kemper owns Lots 15 and 16 of Block 1 of the Town of Temecula, also known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-021-006 in the City of Temecula (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), as more particularly described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated hereby by this reference; WHEREAS, on or about April 5, 1992, without the knowledge or consent of Kemper, the City of Temocula began constructing on the Property a parking lot to serve the City's Senior Center which is located adjacent to the Property; WHEREAS, the Property consists of 7,000 square feet, subject to an easement in favor of the State of California for highway purposes of approximately 1,750 square feet, leaving the net usable area of the Property to be 5,250 square feet; WHEREAS, Kemper contends that it is entitled to just compensation from the City for taking the Property; WHEREAS, Kemper has obtained an appraisal for the Property indicating its fair market value as of January, 1994 to be $47,250 or approximately $9.00 per square foot of land area; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to resolve the above disputes among themselves without the necessity of litigation. WHEREAS, the Parties agree to resolve these disputes by Kernper paying the City $39,000 and granting the City free and clear fee title to the Property. This amount was calculated as follows: EMPIRE CREEK MURRIETA CREEK ORIGINAL COMPROMISE COMPROMISE AMOUNT PERCENTAGE AMOUNT $58,643.00 66 % $38,693.25 47~ 863.50 50 % 23,931.75 106,506.50 $62,625.00 PROPERTY VALUE NET TO CITY PLUS PROPERTY (47,520.00) 50% ($23.625.00) $58,986.50 $39,000.00 C~STLMTAGT/2/0dO 6961.1034 081794 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual promises set forth herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Settlement of the Empire Creek Work. the Murrieta Creek Work and Purchase of the Property. a. City and Kemper shall execute the attached Exhibit "D," entitled "Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property (LoB 15 and 16 of Block 1, City of Temecula, APN 922-021-006)" (the "Acquisition Agreement") which provides for Kernper granting the City free and clear fee title to the Property. b. Within ten (10) days after title to the Property is recorded in favor of the City, Kernper shall pay over to City Thirty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($39,000.00). c. The Parties agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs associated with the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. d. This Agreement is subject to the condition that Kemper conveys fee title to the Property to the City pursuant to the terms and condition of the Acquisition Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "D," and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Release. a. The Parties, and each of them, hereby release and forever discharge each other hereunder and, where applicable, each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, associates, predecessors, successors, heirs, assigns, agents, partners, employees, insurers, representatives, lawyers, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or any of them, of and from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, in law or in equity, suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements, promises, liabilities, claims, demands, damages, losses, costs or expenses, of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, fixed or contingent (hereinafter called "Claims"), whether raised or reserved which the Parties now have or may hereafter have against each other, or any of them, by reason of any matter, cause or thing arising out of, based upon, or relating to the payment for the (i) Empire Creek Work, (ii) the Murrieta Creek Work; and, (iii) the Property. b. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL AND ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CML CODE SECTION 1542, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE C'xS'rLMTAGT/2/pdo 6961.10'34 0~1794 -3- MATEP, I~TJ-Y AFFECTED HIS SETTI,F-MENT WITH THE DEBTOR." THE PARTIES BEING AWARE OF SAID CODE SECTION, HEI~I~.RY EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS THEY, AND EACH OF THEM, MAY HAVE THEREUNDER, AS WELL AS UNDER ANY OTHER STATUTES OR COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES OF SIMILAR EFFECT, EXCEPT AS TO THOSE RIGHTS EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. c. The Parties hereby specifically exclude from this Release and this Release shall not operate to release or discharge any liabilities, claims, demands, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees arising out of or in any way related to the facts and allegations contained in that certain litigation involving Murrieta and Empire Creek as more specifically set forth in the following Superior Court actions: Indian Child Welfare Consortlure. et al. v. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, et at., RCSC Case No. 242232; William E. Former. et at. v. KPMC. Inc., RCSC Case No. 244900; Albert W. Seeburger. et al. v. Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. et al., RCSC Case No. 244962; Rancon Commerce Center. Phases 2.3 & 4 v. County of Riverside, et at., RCSC Case No. 241514; (collectively, "Indian Child"). It is further agreed that this exclusion shall not constitute an admission of any liability whatsoever by any of the parties to this Agreement. d. Except as provided in Paragraph 2(c), the Parties, and each of them, represent and warrant that there has been no assigment or other transfer of any interest in any Claim which they, or any of them, may have against each other, and the Parties agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless from any liabilities, clam, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred by the Parties as a result of any person asserting any such assigment or transfer. It is the intention of the Parties that this indemnity does not require payment as a condition precedent to recovery by any of the Parties against the others, or any of them, under this indemnity. e. Except as provided in paragraph 2(c), the Parties agree that if they, or any one of them, hereafter commence, join in, or in any manner seek relief through any suit arising out of, based upon, or relating to any of the Claims released hereunder, or in any manner assert against any other Party any of the Claims released hereunder, then the responsible Parties, and each of them, shall pay to the other Parties, in addition to any other damages caused to the other C\$TLMTAGT/2/pdo Parties thereby, all attorneys' fees incurred by the other Parties in defending or otherwise responding to said suit or Claims. f. _This release shall not operate to release any claims the Parties may hereafter have for the enforcement of the obligations created by this Agreement, including the Acquisition Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 3. Warranty. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the Parties warrants and represents that he/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership, or business entity and warrant and represents that he/they has/have the authority to bind the party and their successors-in-interest to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4. Nonadmission of Liability. All Parties understand and agree that neither the payment of any sum of money nor the execution of this Agreement shall constitute or be construed as an admission of any liability whatsoever by any of the Parties. 5. Enforceability. This Agreement shall not be subject to attack on the ground that any or all of the legal theories or factual assumptions used for negotiating purposes are for any reason inaccurate or inappropriate. 6. Enfomement of Aureement. a. This Agreement may be enforced by any legal method available to the Parties, including but not limited to, a motion brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. b. If any Party to the Agreement brings an action to enforce its rights, the Party prevailing shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses, including court costs and attorneys' fees, if any, incurred in connection with such suit. 7. Construction of Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole in accordance with its fair meaning and in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The language of the Agreement shall not be construed for or against any particular Party. The headings used here are for reference only and shall not affect the construction of this Agreement. 8. Sole Agreement. a. This Agreement represents the sole and entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, and discussions between the Parties hereto and/or their respective counsel with respect to the subject matters covered hereby, other than the Acquisition Agreement described in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. b. Any amendment to the Agreement must be in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties hereto and stating the intent of the Parties to amend this Agreement. C~TLMTAGT/2/p41o 6961.1034 081794 -5- c. This Agreemere may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and shall be effective upon the signature and agreement of all of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Settlement Agreement and Release on the dates indicated below, effective as of the Fast date written above. DATED: , 1994 KRDC, INC. Print Name APPROVED AS TO FORM: LORENZ ALHADEFF CANNON & ROSE Title Attorneys for KRDC, INC. DATED: , 1994 CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: By June S. Greek, City Clerk Ron Roberrs, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: EXHIBIT "A" Lot "H" of Tract No.-.3751 in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, as per Map fried in Book 59, Pages 38 through 40, inclusive, of Maps, Official Records of Riverside County. EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE PAUBA LAND AND UATER COMPANY~S SUBDIViSiON OF THE TEHEEULA RANCHO IN TNE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS BHOUN BY MAP ON FILE iN BOOK 11 PAGE SD7 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFpRNIA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE NORTNEASTERLY LiNE OF DiAZ ROAD, SOUTHERLY OF THE RANEHO CALIFORNIA BOUNDARY, SOUTHbJESTERLY AND WESTERLY OF IRE FOLLOUING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWEST LiNE OF THE TOUN OF TEMECULA, AS SHO~N BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE 72& OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, UITH THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL MAP &B3S, AS SHOUN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 12 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNiA~ THENCE NORTHERLY ON IHE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP, FOLLOWING THE COURSES THEREOF~ TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAiD TEMECULA RAN/HO; THENCE NORTHERLY ON SAiD RANCHO LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE MURRIETA PORTION OF SAID RANCHO AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PAUBA LAND AND ~ATER COMPANY SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH ~ DEGREES 5~' 4~' EAST, TO THE MOST UESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 OF THE DEEDTO THE EASTERN MUNiCiPAL WATER DiSTRiCT RECORDED APRIL 23, 1~73 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 512&~ OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY ON THE SOUTHWEST ANb SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND FOLLOWING THE COURSES THEREOF, TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PARCEL ~ OF PARCEL MAP ON FILE 1N BOOK 1 PAGE e7 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA~ -1- . THENCE SOUTH ~3 DEGREES OD~ O0~ EAST ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LAST SAiD PARCEL MAP TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OP PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 2 PAGE 22 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORBS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH ~3 DEGREES O0~ O0~ EAST ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LAST SAIO PARCEL MAP TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN 800K I PAGE ~& OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH ~3 DEGREES O0~ O0~ EAST, 1312.B0 FEET ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LAST SAID PARCEL MAP PROLONGED; THENCE NORTH ~7 DEGREES OD~ O0~ EAST, 3e6.B5 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF DIAZ ROAD; THENCE NORTH 1B DEGREES 26~ 21~ WEST, SS~.8~ FEET ON SAID CENTER LINE TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LAST SAI~ PARCEL MAP; THENCE ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINES OP SAID THREE REFERENCED PARCEL MAPS, FOLLOWING THE COURSES THEREOF TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER PARCEL 6 OF SAID PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1 PAGE e7 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH ~7 DEGREES DD~ DD~ EAST, 7~1.~ FEET TO AN AN~LE POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PAUBA LAND AND WATER COMPANY SUBDIViSiON, SAID ANGLE POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 3~ DEGREES 21~ 50~ EAST TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE GONZALEZ PARCEL, (ANOTHER ANGLE POINT IN SAID NORTHERLY LINE), SAiD CORNER BEING A POINT iN THE NORTHWEST LINE OF TRACT 38~1, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK &l PAGE 75 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH ~2 DEGREES 38~ ~1~ WEST, 38.DD FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID TRACT AND THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF TRACT 3751, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN 800K 5e PAGE 38 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOLLOWING THE COURSES THEREOF TO 'HE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1D PAGE ~ OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON THE NORTHWEST, WEST AND SOUTH LINES OF LAST SAID PARCEL MAP, FOLLOWING THE COURSES THEREOF, TO SAID SOUTHWEST LiNE OF SAID TRACT 3751; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON SAID SOUTHWEST LINE TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT, AND THE TERMINATION OF SAID LiNE DESCRIBED; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYIN~ WITHIN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RANCHO CONSULTANTS REALTY FUND, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 8Y DEED RECORDED MAY 6, le82 AS iNSTRUMENT NO. 7~&06 OF OFFI~ ~_ RECORDS OF RIVERS'IOE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; (THE ABOVE CONVEYANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT~ CASE N0. -2- ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO SIOUX INVESTMENT CO., A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY ?, 1~83 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2~916 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. (THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE PURSUANT TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 1587); ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED JULY 1~, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19~76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. -3- EXHIBIT "C" THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 15 AND 16 OF BLOCK i OF THE TOWNSITE OF TEMECULA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGE 726 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, C2%LIFORNIA, LYING SOU'EHWESTERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE NEW STATE HIGHWAY WHICH SOUTHWESTERLY LINE iS MORE PARTICUIJU~LY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON'fEE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 16 AT A POINT 21.86 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 16 AND RUNNING; THENCE SOu'A'~{EASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST WHOSE RADIUS IS 7,110 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 145 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 15, DISTANT 21.45 FEET NORTHEAST FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY COP, NER OF SAID LOT 15; EXCEPTING THEREFROMTHAT PORTIONTHEREOF CONVEYED TOT HE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 1, 1977 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 99886 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXHfBYr ; Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property (Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, City of Temecula, APN 922-021-066) AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY (LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, CITY OF TEMECULA, APN 922-021-006) THIS AGI~F. FMENT is entered into as of ,1994, by and between the City of Temecnla, a municipal corporation formed under the laws of California ("Buyer") and KRDC, Inc. ("Seller"). IT IS HEI~F, BY MUTUAL AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. AGREEMENT TO SELL AND PURCHASE. For valuable consideration, Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, upon the terms and for the consideration set forth in this Agreement, all that cemin real property, building, fixtures and personal property ("Property") located South of Sixth Street and North of Mercedes Street known as APN No. 922-021-006, which is Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Town of Temecula, and legally described-as set forth on Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and Incorporated herein by thi~ reference. 2. CONSIDERATION. This consideration for the sale of the Property shall be the terms an condition of that "Settlement Agreement and Release Regarding the Empire Creek Work, the Murrieta Creek Work, and the Senior C~nt~r Parking Lot" between the City of Temecula and ICRDC, Inc., dated "' ,1994. 3. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. Seller agrees to convey by grant deed ("Grant Deed") to Buyer marketable fee simple ti~e to the Property free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and taxes, subject only to those exceptions approved In writing by Buyer and any liens or encumbrances which may have been placed upon the Property in connection with Buyer's consauction activity thereon. 4. TITLE INSURANCE POLICY. Buyer shall obtain concurrently with the recording of the Grant Deed to Buyer, a standard form CLTA Owner's Policy of Tifie Insurance in the mount of the $47,520.00, issued by First American Title Company ("First American"), showing the title'to the Property vested in Buyer, City of Temecula. 5. DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY BUYER. Promptly after the execution of this Agreemere, Buyer, at Buyer's Expeme, shall obtain a preliminary title report on the Property issued by First American, together with copies of all exceptions to title set forth in such report ("PTR"). 6. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CONSUMMATION OF SALE. Buyer's obligation to complete the purchase hereunder is conditional upon the followIng: a. Approval of Buyer of the PTR as of April5, 1993; upon receipt of same, Buyer Shall have five (5) days tO approve or disapprove the report; if Buyer shall disapprove or conditionally approve any item in the PTR, Seller Shall, W~thin fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of such disapproval or conditional approval, advise Buyer in writing whether or not C'x~TLMTACQr',,h:r. ya 6961.1034 0809~. Seller shall cause to be eliminated any such disapproved item or items; if Seller elects not to eliminate such item or items, this Agreement shall be canceled upon written notice from Seller to Buyer; provided however, that Buyer agrees not to disapprove and accept any liens or encumbrances upon the Property which may have been placed upon the Property in connection with Buyer's construction activity thereon, or which occurred after April 5, 1993; b. On the Closing Date, First American shall be ready, willing and able to issue to Buyer (or other entity selected by Buyer at least three (3) days prior to the Closing Date) its standard form CLTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance insuring Buyer in the mount of the $47,520.00 that good and marketable title to the Property is vested in Buyer subject only to the exceptions to title set forth in the PTR and approved by Buyer; 7. NOTICES. All notices called for herein shall be in writing and shall be delivered to Seller and Buyer at the addresses set forth in this document. Notices shall be deemed delivered two (2) days after fLrst-class mailing, or one day after facsimile or personal service. 8. OPENING AND CLOSING. Agreement. The Closing Date shall be sixty (60) days or less after the execmion of this b. Seller shall deliver or cause to be delivered to Buyer's attorney: i. The Grant Deed in proper form duly executed and in recordable form conveying to Buyer fee title to the Property subject only tot he exceptions approved by Buyer pursuant to Paragraph 3 hereof. c. Both parties shall execute and deliver to each other any other documents or instruments which are reasonably necessary in order to consummate the purchase and sale of the Property. 9. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER. Seller hereby represents and warrants as follows: a. The Property is free and clear of all liens, clalm~, encumbrances, easements, encroachmerits or rights-of-way of any nature whatsoever other than the matters set forth as exceptions in the PTR, and except for (1) an easement to the State of California for highway purposes, and (2) any liens or encumbrances which may have been placed upon the Property in connection with Buyer's consauction activity thereon. b. The Property is approximately 7,000 square feet of land. 10. Prooertv Purebased "AS-IS". Buyer acknowledges that it has inspected the Property and investigated its physical characteristics and conditions, including the condition of legal title thereto, and hereby waives any and all objections to the physical characteristics and conditions of the Property, including the condition of legal ti~e thereto. The foregoing 'includes, without limitation, Buyer's investigation of topography, climate, air, water rights, utilities, present and future zoning, soil, subsoil, purpose to which the Property is suited, drainage, or access to public roads. Buyer further acknowledges and agrees that the Property is to be purchased, conveyed and accepted by Buyer in its present condition, "AS-IS," and that no patent or latent physical condition of the Property, whether or not known or discovered, shall affect the rights of either party hereto. Buyer has investigated and has knowledge of operative or imposed governmental laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, zoning, hazardous materials, environmental, including specifically the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, and land use laws) to which the Property may be subject, and is acquiring the Property on the basis of its review and determination of the applicability and affect of such laws and regulations. Buyer has entered into this Agreement based upon its own examination of the condition of the Property and is relying solely upon such examination to purchase the Property. NOTICE: BY INITIAI.ING IN THE SPACE BELOW, THE PARTIES ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE "AS-IS" PROVISIONS SET FORTH ABOVE IN THIS SECTION 10. SELLER'S INITIALS:~,-/ BUYER'S INITIALS: 11. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. 12. PROPORTION AND EXPENSES. a. Real Property taxes shall be prorated as of April 5, 1993, based upon the latest tax bill available. Assessments of record shall be paid by Seller. b. Buyer shall pay the usual recording fees and any required documentavJ transfer taxes. 13. POSSESSION. Buyer shall have exclusive possession of the Property retroactive to April 5, 1993. The Buyer shall assume the defense of, protect, indemnify and hold harmless Seller and its respective officers, employees, agents, and consultants, and each and every one of them, from and against all actions, damages, claims, losses, liabilities and expenses of every type and description to which they may be subjected or put, by reason of, or resulting from, Buyer' s possession of the Property. Buyer is purchasing the Property in its "AS-IS* "WHERE- IS" condition relying upon its own inspection and investigation pursnnnt to Paragraph 10. 14, ATTORNEYS' FEES. In the event of any litigation between the Buyer and Seller concerning this tramaction the prevailing party shall be enti~ed to reasonable attorneys' fees. 15. .FIRPTA. Seller shall deliver to Buyer through escrow an affidavit executed by Seller under penalty of perjury stating Seller's United States taxpayer identification number and that Seller is not a foreign person, in accordance with Internal Revenue Code 1145(2). 16. ASSIGNMENT. Buyer may assign its rights under this Agreement or may designate a nominee to acquire title to the Property, provided however, that any such assignment or designation shall not relieve Buyer of any of its obligations under this Agreement. 17. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. a. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts which together counterparts shall constitute the contract of the parties; b. The paragraph headings herein contained are for purposes of identification only, and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. c. The contract resulting from the execution of this Agreement by Buyer and Seller supersedes any and all agreement s between Seller and Buyer regarding the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below effective as of the fast date written above. DATED: , 1994 APPROVED AS TO FORNh LORENZ ALHADEfFF CANNON & ROSE C, INC. Dennis W. Chiniaeff Print Name Vice President Title · Attorn~C, CINC. DATED:nO~,'' , 1994 CFrY OF TEM~ECULA Ron Roberts, Mayor C~STLMTACQ/I/cc~ ~61.1034 080994 ATTEST: By June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney -5- EXHIBIT "A" Lot "H " of Tract No, 3751 in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 59, Pages 38 through 40, inclusive, of Maps, Official Records of Riverside County. C~I'LMTAGT/2/pdO 6961.1034 0~1794 -7- ITEM 18 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Mayor and City Councilmembers Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager ~(~/-'~:~ August 23, 1994 Out-of-State Travel Plans APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER Prepared by: Sue Steffen RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the expenditure of $2200 for Mayor Ron Roberrs to attend the National League of Cities 71st Annual Congress of Cities which will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota December 1-4, 1994. STAFF REPORT: The City of Temecula is a member of the National League of Cities. This year, the National League's Annual Congress of Cities will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota from December 1-4, 1994. The conference provides an opportunity for councilmembers throughout the nation to meet and share information and attend seminars involving the latest issues and innovations in municipal government. Mayor Roberts will attend the conference as the City's representative. It is anticipated that the air fare, conference registration, and expenses for this trip will be $2200. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for travel to this conference have been budgeted in account #001-100-999- 5258 of the current fiscal year's budget. ITEM 19 ORDINANCE NO. 94-~4 AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING 1AND DEV!~-LOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94--0022, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 4, PALOMA DFJ~ SOL, LOCATED ON ~ SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF lVIARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF STATE t!IGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF BU'ITERFWJX} STAGE ROAD. ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLIJ)WS: Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Temecula, enti~ed "Temecula/Rancho California Area" as adopted pursuant to Section 34 of Ordinance No. 913- 12)4, is amended as shown which map is made a part of this ordinance. Section 2. Article XVIh of Ordinance No. 348, as adopted by reference pursuant to Ordinance 90-04, and as subsequen~y mended, is further mended by adding thereto a new Section 17.47 to read as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 23rd day of August, 1994. Ron Roberrs, Mayor ATrF_ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALII~ORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94-24 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of August, 1994, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of August, by the following roll call vote: COUNCILIv~MBERS: NOES: CO~CILMEMBERS: COUNCILlv~-MBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk OtdtX94-24 2 EXHIBIT A Medium Density Residential PlaB. ning Areas 4, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 25, 26, 28 & 33 Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Medium Density R~sid~ntial Zones: SECTION 6.1. USES PERMITtED. The following uses shall be petmilled in the Medium Density Residential Zone: {1) One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fainvays and country clubs. (4) Home occupations. (5) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to -the provisions of Riverside County Ordinanee No. 460 (1991) and the developraent standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses are permitted pmvicled a plot plan has been appwved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops opa-ated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the Subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 ycars in any cvenL {3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION'6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Medium Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of 40 feel Lot area shall be not less than 5,000 sq. fL However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 4,500 sq. fL per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area -1- shall be d~termine~i by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access u3 the portion of a lot used as a building sit~. The minimum avenge. width of that portion of the lot to be used as a building sit~ shall be 45 feet with a fffinirnv.ixll avenge depth of 85 feel However, for two-family dwelling lots, the rnlnlrn~rn average width shall be 40 feet with the same minimum average depth of 85 feel That portion of a lot used for aceess on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of 20 feet. The minimum frontage of a 10t shall be 45' feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-dc-sacs may have a minlmtlI~ frontage of 35 feel Lot frontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minxmum yard ~,quimn~nts an~ as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, m~astu~d from the existing public right-of-way ~t line or from any future public fight-of-way sn-e~t line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is ne~*r the proposal su'ucture. (2) Sich~ yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feel Side yards on corner and r~versed corner lots shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing public fight-of-way su~.~t line or from any futur~ street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard neecl not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. (3) The n~ar yard shall be not less than 15 feel In ndd!fion, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have mot~ than 55% of its net area cover~cl with buildings or slIuctm~s. (4) No su'uctural encroachments shall be pertained in the front, side or r~ar yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). -2- Medium Density Residential Planning Area 31 Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Medium Density P~sicksntial Zones: SECTION 6.1. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone: (1) One fnmily dwellings. (2) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways and counwy clubs. (3) Home occupations. (4) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 dRiverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses ar~ permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants axe employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two squa~ feet in a~a. (2) Temporary real estate uact offices located within a subdivision, w be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2' years in any event (3) Nurgries, horticultural. SECTION 6.2.- DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The foliowing standards of development shall apply in the Medium Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximran height of 40 feet Lot area shall be not less than 7,200 sq. ft The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. -3- The miniw~m average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a bttilding site shall be 60 feet with a mlnil20nm average depth of 100 feel That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a Hlinlmun'l width Of 20 feel The mir~mnm frontage of a lot shall be 60 feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet Lot frontage along curvilinear sur~ets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requirements a~ as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 20 feet, measm~l from the existing public right-of-way stP,,et line or from any future public right-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 10% of the width of the lot, but not less than 3 feet hi width in any event, and n~cl not exceed a width of 5 feel Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shah be not less than l0 feet from the existing street line or from any future sn-eet line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the rrmln building sides, except that whex~ the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed .20% of the width of the lot. (3) The rear yard shah be not less than 10 feet. (4) No su'uctural encroachments shah be permitted in the front, side or rear yani without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. Automobile storage space shah be provided as rexluirexl by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). Medium High Density Residential Planning Areas 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 & 23 Medium High Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Medium High Density Residential Zones: SECTION 6.1. USES PERMITtED. The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium High Density Residential Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways and counu'y clubs. (4) Home occupations. (5) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to-the provisions of Riversid~ County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet (2) Temporary real estate u'aet offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of ' · 2 years in any event. (3) Nurseries, hortieultontl. SECTION 6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Medium High Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a ms3timum height of 40 feet. Lot area shall be not less than 4,000 sq. ft. However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 3,500 sq. fL per dwelling unit. The min~mlllll lot area -5- shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building sit~. The mirdlum avenge width of that portion of the lot to be used as a building sit~ shall be 40 feet with a minimtml avmg~ d~pth of 80 feel However, for two-family dwelling lots, the miniram avmg~ width shall be 40 feet with the sm minimum avenge d~pth of 75 fccL That portion of a lot used for a~cess on "flag" lots shall have a minilxlat8 width of 20 fe~t. The minin)nm frontage of a lot shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on knucldcs or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet. Lot f~ontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard mcluimments ar~ as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing public fight-of-way street line or from any futu~ public fight-of-way su~t line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nea~r the proposed sn'uctur~. (2) Sic~ yaxcis on in~fior and through lots shall be not less that,. 5 feet. Side yards on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not less than 10 feet fn3m the existing strut line or from any futur~ su~et line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed smactur~, upon which the main building sicl~s, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard nell not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. (3) The mar yard shall be not less than 15 feet. In adcl!fion, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have morn than 55% of its net area coverrA with buildings or swucturcs. (4) No su'uctm~ encroachmeuts shall bc permirror ~q the front, side or ~ ya_,d without apFoval of a setback adjustment pursuant to Ci~ Ordinance. Automobile storage space shall be provided as mquimi by Section 18.12 of Rivmide County Ordinanc~ No. 348 (1991). Very High Density Residential Planning Areas 2 and 6 Very High Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Very High Density ReSidential Zones: SECTION 8.1. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall first have been obtaine~l pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Any use permitted in the Medium High Density Residential Zone. Apartment houses. Nursery schools for p~school day care. Institutions for the aged licensed by the Californh State Depad,ent of Social Welfare or the County Depaxttaent of Public W¢ffa~. Congregate car~ residential facilities. Accessory buildings, to a sl~cific permitted use, provided that the accessory building is established as an incident to a principal use and does not change the character of that use. On-site signs, affixed to building wills, stating the nanae of the smactum, use or institution, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the sign is located. The following uses sliall be permitted provided a conditional use permit is obtained pursuant to this ordinance: (1) Evening nursery school, child cam and babysitting facilities, whe~ 13 or more unmlate~l children are kept under supervision by a person licensed by the Department of Social Weftam or Riverside County Depas uuent of Public Weftare during any hours between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. (2) Congregate can: x~sidential facilities, developed pursuant to City Ordinance, County and State Codes and Ordinances. Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No, 348 (1991). -7- SECTION 8.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Vcry High Density Residential Zone, except that pined residential develOpments.shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. The minimum lot area shall be 7,200 square feet with a minimulll avenge width of 60 feet and a minimum avenge depth of 100 feet, unless different minimums are specifmally required in a particular axes, The minimum fwnt and rear yan:ls shall be 10 feet for buildings that do not exceed 35 feet in height. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be set back from the front and rear lot lines no less than 10 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feel The front setback shall be measm'ed from any existing or future public right-of-way sheet line as shown on any specific street plan of the City. The rear setback shall be meastu~ from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; ff the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback x~lui~ment shall be the same as retlu'h-ed for a front setback. The minimum side yard shall be 5 feat for buildings that do not exceed 35 feet in height. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be set back from each side lot line 5 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet; if the side yard adjoins a street, the side setback requirement shall be the sine as required for. a front setback. No structural encroachtnents shall be permitted in the front, side or mar yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. High density multi-family dwelling units shall be setback a minimum of 18 feet from any existing or future public fight-of-way sn'eet line as shown on any specific street plan of the City. Said setback shall be applicable for front, rear and side yards should they adjoin a stl'eeL No lot shall have more than 50 percent of its net area covered with buildings or Slxuctures, f. The maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre. g. All buildings and structo~s shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riversi~ County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). -8-' Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Planning Areas 1, 27 and 36 Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones: SECTION 9.1. USES PERMITTED. The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not morn than 200 square feet of outside storage or display of materials appttrtenant to such use, provided a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). (1) Ambulance services. (2) Antique Shops. (3) Appliance stores, household. (4) An supply shops and studios. (5) Auction houses. (6) Auditoriums and conference rooms. (7) Automobile repair garages, not including body and fender shops or spray painting. (8) Automobile parts and supply stores. (9) Bakery goods distributors. (10) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. (11) Banks and financial institutions. (12) Barber and beauty shops. (13) Bars and cocktail lounges. (14) Billinrd and pool halls. (15) Blueprint and duplicating services. (16) Book stores and binders. (17) Bowling alleys. (18) Catering scrviccs. (19) Cleaning and dycing shops. (20) Clothing sto~s. (21) Confectionery or candy stores. (22) Costume design studios. (23) Dance halls. (24) Delicatessens. (25) Depat~uent stores. (26) Drug stores. (27) Dry goods stores. -9- (28) Employment agencies. (29) Escort bu~aus. (30) Feed and grain sales. ( 31 ) Florists shops. (32) Food markets and frozen food lockers (33) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and winc for off-premises consumption. (34) Gift shops. (35) Hotels, resort hotels and motels. (36) Household goods sales, including but not ilmitt~ to, new and. used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair thereof. (37) Hobby shops. (38) Ice cream shops. (39) Ice sales, not including ice plants. (40) Intoriot decorating shops. (41) Jewelry sto~s, including incidental repairs. (42) Labor temples. (43) Laboratories, film~ dental, medical, research or testing. (~) Laundries and laundromats. (45) L~ather goods stor~s. (46) Liquor stor~s. (47) Locksmith shops. (48) Mail order businesses. (49) Manufacturcr's agent (S0) Market, food, wholesale or jobber. (51) Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar personal service establishments. (52) Meat markets, not including slaughtering. (53) Mimeographrag and a~rtressograph sexvices. (54) Mortuaries. (55) Music stores. (56) News stores. (57) Notions or novelty sto~s. (58) Offices, including business, hw, medical, dental chixopracfic, architectunl, engineering, community planning and real estate. (59) One on-site operator' s residence, which may be locateA in a commercial building. (60) Paint and wallpaper swres, not including paint contnctors. {61) Pawn shops. (62) Pet shops and pet supply shops. (63) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving. (64) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors. (65) Potthl'y markets, not including slaughtering or live sales. (66) Printers or publishers. (67) Produce markets. (68) p~cllo and television broadcasting studios. (69) Recording studios. C/0) Rcfi~shment stands. C/l) Restalarants and other eating establishments. (72) Schools, business and paofessional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, ch-ama, music and SWimming. (73) Shoo stores and repair shops. (74) Shooshine stands. (75) Signs, on-site advertising. (76) Sporting goods stores. (77) Stained glass assembly. (78) Stationer stores. (79) Stations, bus, railroad and taxi. (80) Taxidcrmist. (81) Tailor shops. (82) Telephone exchanges. (83) Theaters, not including drive-ins. (84) Tire shies and service, not including recapping. (85) Tobacco shops. (86) Tourist information centers. (87) Toy shops. (88) Travel agencies. (89) Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental repairs. (90) Watch repair shops. (91) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage. (92) Car washes. (93) Fortune telling, spiritualism, or sirelint activity. (94) Recycling collection facilities, (95) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. (96) Day care centers. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to City Oniinance. (1) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel (2) Gasoline sen, ice stations with the concent sale of beer and wine for off- premises consumption. (3) Liquid petroleum service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed 10,000 gallons. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections it and b. may be considered a permitted or conditionally permired use p,udded that the Planning Director finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listeti in the designated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category in which it falls. -11- SECTION 9.2. PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial Developments am permitted provided a land division is appmved pursuant to the provision of Riverside County Ordin~allce No. 460 (1991). SECTION 9.3. (DELETED.) SECTION 9.4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development a~ rettuired in the Commer~-'ial/Ncighborhood .Commercial Zones: There is no mininlnm lot area requirement, unless specifically requized by zone classification for a particular area. There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing public right-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measuxetl from the specific plan street line. The tear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or casement; if the rear line adjoins a sm~et, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an existing adjacent public right-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. c. All buildings and structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be serened from the ground elevation view to a miniram sight distance.of 1,320 feet. -12- Day Care Center/Information Center Planning Area 34 Day Care Center/Information Center Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Day Care Cent~anfuimation Center Zones: SECTION 8.1. USES PERI~x'i-r~:D. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall first have been obtained pursuant to the pwvisions of Section 18.30 of Riversid~ County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Nm'sery schools for p~school day care. Institutions for the aged licensed by the California State Depsat~ent of Social Welfare or the County Department of Public Welfare. Architectural, engineering and community planning offices; pwvided there is no outdoor storage of materials, equipment or vehicles, other than passenger cars. Coogmgate care residential facilities. Information center. b$ Accessory buildings, to a specific permitted use, provided that the accessory building is established as an incident to a principal use and does not change the character of that use. On-site signs, affixed to building walls, stating the name of the structure, use or institution, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the sign is located. d. The following uses shall be pennined provided a conditional use permit is obtained pursuant to this on:finance: (1) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or more unrelated children are kept under supervision by a person licensed by the Smt~ Deparm~nt of Social Weftare or Riverside County Depa~a~m of Public Welfare during any hours be~w~n 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. (2) Congogate ca~ residential facilities, developed punuant to City Ordinance, County and Sra~ Cod~s and Ordinances. SECTION 8.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Day Care Center/Information Center Zone. There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically requiP, xl by zone classification for a particdar area. There are no yard requirements for buiJdings which do not exceed 35 feet in height cxcept as ~xluired for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feel The front setback shall be measured from the existing public fight-of-way sleet line unless a specific plan has been adopte~l in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rut setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback Each sic~ setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an existing adjiment public fight-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. All buildings and structu~s shall not cxceed 50 feet in height Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feel -14- Elementary School Planning Area 7 School/Medium Density Residential Zone The followihg regulations shall apply in all School/Medium .Density Residential Zones: SECTION 6.1. USES PERMITFED. The following uses shall be permitted in the School/Mecfinm Density Residential Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Public schools. (3) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf comes with standard length fairways and country clubs. (4) Home occupations. The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops opented from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event. (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the School/Medium Density Residential Zone, except that pined residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of 40 feel Lot area shall be not less than 7,200 sq. ft. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. The minimum avenge width of that portion of a lot to be used as a btnlding site shall be 60 feet with a minimum avenge depth of 100 feel That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of 20 feet. -15- The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 60 fc~t, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a mlnlmilrll frontage of 35 feel Lot frontage nlong curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requircmants ate as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 20 feet, measured from the existing public right-of-way street line or from any future public right-of-way sitoct line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichcvcr is nearer thc proposed swacture. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not icss than 10% of the width of the lot, but not Icss than 3 feet in widih in any cvcnt, and need not cxcccd a width of 5 feet. Side yards on corner and rcversed comer lots shall be not lcss than 10 feet from the cxisling public tight-of-way street line or from any future public right-of-way sucet line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the pwposed structure, upon which the mn{n bullcling sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. (3) The rear yard shall be not less than 10 feel (4) No structunl encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yasd without approval of a setback adjus~nent pursuant to City Ordinance. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). Elementary School Planning Area 11 School/Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in all School/Medinm. Density Residential Zones: SECTION 6.1. USES PERMIITED. The following uses shall be permitted in the School/Medium Density Residential Zone: O) (2) (3) (4) (5) One family dwellings. Two*fnmily dwellings. Public schools. Public parks and public playgrounds, golf comes with standard length fah'ways and cotmu3r clubs. Home occupations. The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant m the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unligbted and does not exceed two squag feet (2) Temporary real estate u-act offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exeeecl a period of 2 years in any event (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the School/Medium Density Residential Zone, exoept that planned residential developments shall comply with the d~velopment standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of 40 feet. Lot area shall be not less than 4,000 sq. fL However, the lot area for two*family dwellings shall be not less than 3,500 sq. ft per dwelling uniL The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. -17- f. The minimum avenge width of that portion of the lot to be used as a building site shall be 40 feet with a minimum avenge depth of 80 feel However, for two-family dwelling lots, the mi~imun~. avenge width shall be 40 feet with the same minimum avenge depth of 75 feel That po~on of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a l~inlmllm width of 20 feel The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a mLnlmum frontage of 35 feel Lot frontage along curvilincar streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requirements arc as follows: {1 ) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, mustucd from the existing public fight-of-way street line or ~ any future public fight-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards on cox her and reversed corner lots shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing public right-of-way street line or from any future public right-of-way street line as shown on any Specifm Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed su-ucture, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 fcct wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot, (3) The rear yard shall be not less than 15 feel In -aaltion, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have more than 55% of its net a~a covered with bu'~dings or structures. (4) No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rea~ yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. Automobile storage spac~ shall be provictcd as mquir~ by Seedon 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinanee No. 348 (1991). Elementary School and Junior Hieh School Planning Areas 29, 30 and 32 · School/Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in all School/Medium Density Residential Zones:' SECTION 6.1. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be pertained in the School/Medium Density Residential Zone: (1) 'One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public schools. (4) Public parks and public playgrounds, goff comes with standard length fainrays and country clubs. (5) Home occupations. The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been appwved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subctivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION 6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following. standards of development shall apply in the Schooi/Medim Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of 40 feel Lot area shall be not less than 5,000 sq. fL However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 4,500 sq. fL per dwelling unit The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. -19- The m~nimum average width of that portion of the lot to be used as a buffcling sit~ shall be 45 feet with a m~nimum average ~pth of 85 feel However, for twO-family dwelling lotS, the minim~m~_ average width shall be 40 feet with the same mum average depth of 80 feel That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lotS shall have a minimum width of 20 feel The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 45 feet, except that lots fronting on knucldes or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feel Lot frontage 'along curvilinear su'eetS may be m=asured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requirementS are as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing public right of way sueet line or from any future pubtic right-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed smactur~. (2) Side yards on interior and through lotS shall be not less than 5 feet Side yards on corner and reversed comer lotS shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing public right-of-way street line or from any futu~ public right-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. (3) The rear yard shall be not less than 15 feet. In ~rlrl~fion, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have more than 55% of itS net area covered with buildings or No swactural encroachmeritS shall be pertained in the front, side or mar yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. (4) Automobile storag~ space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. (1991). Neighborhood Park/Recreation Areas Planning Areas 12, 19, 24 and 37 Park Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Park Zones: SECTION 8.100. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall first have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Public parks. (2) Goff courses and appurtenant facilities, including clubhouses. A clubhouse is permitted to have customary retail shop and restaumt facilities. (3) Noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities. (4) Lakes, including noncommercial fishing therefrom. (5) Picnic grounds. (6) Parking lots, only for above-listed permitted uses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.12 of Riverside Cotrely Ordinance No. 348 (1991), except that not less than five percent of the interior of such parking lots shall have distributed landscaping in addition to the landscaping requirements of Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). (7) Water wells an appurtenant facilities. (8) On-site identification signs, ma~xlmum size - 10 square feel The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted: (1) Riding academies and stables. SECTION 8.101. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot Area. This zone is to be applied to those areas within subdivisions and other residential developments that provide open space and recreational area and facilities for the project. Therefore, no minimum lot size is established for the zone. Yards. Whenever a building is to be constructed on a lot in this zone, it shall have a front yard, side yard and rear yard, each of which shall be not less than 25 feel ff more than one building is constructed on one lot, there shall be not less than a 20-foot separation between the buildings. No structural encroachmerits shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval of a setback adjnsnnent pursuant to City Ordinance. -21- Tr~vh Are~. 'All trash collection areas shall be enclosed with a solid fence or wall no less than 6 feet high. Automobile storage space shall be provided a.s required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). All buildings or structures shall not exceed 40 feet in height, -22- Communitv Open Space Planning Area 35 Community Open Space Zone The following regulations shall apply in all COmmtlRity Open Space Zones: SECTION 8.100. USES PERlVIffTED. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall first have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Undeveloped and manufactured open space. (2) Golf courses and appurtenant faciJ.ities, including clubhouses. A clubhouse is permiRed to have customary retail shop and restaurant facilities. (3) Noncommercial C0mmRnity association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities. (4) Lies, including noncommercial fishing therefrom. (5) Picnic grounds. (6) parIcing lots, only for above-listed permitted uses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991), except that not less than five percent of the interior of such parking lots shall have distributed landscaping in addition to the landscaping requirements of Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). (7) Water wells an appurtenant facilities. (8) On-site identification signs, maximum siz~ - 10 square feet The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted: (1) Riding academies and stables. SECTION 8.101. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot Area. This zone is to be applied to those areas v~thin subdivisions and other residential developments that provide open space and recreational area and facilities for the project Therefore, no minimum lot size is established for the zone. Yards. Whenever a bu~ding is to be couswucted on a lot in thi~ zone, it shall have a front yard, side yard and rear yard, each of which shall be not less than 50 feet ff more than one building is constructed on one lot, there sh~ be not less than a 20-foot separation between the buildings. No structural encroachmerits shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard except without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. -23- Trash Areas. All trash collection areas shall be enclosed with a solid fence or wall no less than 6 feet high. Automob~e storage'space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). All buildings or structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height. ITEM 20 APPROVAL C ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services August 23, 1994 Lease Agreement with the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. PREPARED BY'~~' Phyllis L. Ruse, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE LEASE OF PROPERTY WITHIN SAM HICKS MONUMENT PARK FOR THE TEMECULA MUSEUM 2. Accept the Summary Report Pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Community Redevelopment Law on an amended and restated Lease by and between the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. 3. Approve the amended and restated Museum Lease Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. 4. Appropriate $500,000 to Capital Projects Account No. 210-190-808-5804and approve an operating transfer from Development Impact Fund of $500,000to fund the renovation of St. Catherine's Church and the construction of the Tememcula Valley Museum at Sam Hicks Monument Park. BACKGROUND: On October 2, 1990, the City Council approved a lease with the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. (the "Corporation") for forty (40) years for $1.00 per year. The purpose of this lease was to allow the Corporation to construct a museum facility and renovate the old church on Sam Hicks Monument Park. On November 9, 1993, the Council approved an amendment to the lease, allowing the Corporation additional time to complete their construction. However, because the Corporation will be utilizing City funds to construct the museum facility, a new amendment to the existing lease agreement has been prepared for City Council consideration. Redevelopment Law requires that the City Council accept a Summary Report and adopt a Resolution based on that report acknowledging that the property is to be leased for lower than market value. The Report and Resolution further affirm that leasing the property to the Corporation is in the best interest of the City, will benefit the citizens of Temecula, and will assist in the elimination of blight conditions in the City. The lease provides for the Corporation to renovate St. Catherine's Church and construct a museum facility of no more than 22,900 square feet. The museum will be constructed in phases with Phase I including a 6,100 square foot museum building, a 1,800 square foot plaza area, and a 1,200 square foot interpretative area. The lease is for a forty (40) year term with an additional twenty (20) year option at the same lease amount. The recently approved Master Plan for Sam Hicks Monument Park calls for additional improvements to the park which the City will construct. These improvements include a restroom/snack bar, bandstand, picnic facilities, pedestrian circulation, parking, and landscaping. The City will maintain all park amenities and landscaping. Operation end maintenance of the museum and church buildings will be the responsibility of the Corporation. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of improving the church facility and constructing the museum is budgeted at $500,000 in Development Impact Fees. Cost of completing the park improvements at Sam Hicks Monument Park is budgeted at $475,000 in Redevelopment Agency funds. Attachments: Resolution Summary Report Lease Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9~__ A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ~ LEASE OF PROPERTY WITltlN SAM HICKS MONUMI~NT PARK FOR ~ TEMECULA MUSEUM The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby determine, resolve, and order as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. The City acquired title to cemin real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Stab of California, known as Sam tticks Monument Park (the "Park"), on or about April, 1991 from the Sam Hicks Monument Park Foundation. B. Upon acquisition by the City, the Park was subject to a Museum 12ase between the City and the Temecula Valley Museum, Ine (the "Corporation") dated January 1, 1991, which contemplated the construction of a 3,000 square foot Museum and also the relocation of a 1,200 square foot church within the Park. C. On July 15, 1992, the City acquired title to certain real property adjoining the Park, known as the "L-Shaped Parcel." This Parcel was added to the Park. The purchase price for the L-Shaped Parcel was $1,050,000, of which the Temeeula Redevelopment Agency paid $400,800 from tax increment monies. D. The Corporation has revised its plans for the Museum, and now desires to construct a 22,900 square foot building, in phases. The first phase will consist of a 6,100 square foot Museum, an 1,800 square foot p!aTa and a 1,000 square foot outdoor interpretive center, along with renovation of the church. The Museum will be built on the L-Shaped Parcel, but the church will be located on the original park land. E. The Museum is to be open to the public. It will house the Temecula Museum Collection, consisting of art objects, artifacts papers, photographs, architectural elements and other items of aesthetic, cultural or hisWrical significance relating to the Temecula region. The Corporation shall operate the Museum for the preservation, interpretation and exhibition of the Temecnia Museum Collection and for educating the public regarding the Temecula region. F. The Museum is to be located within Sub Area 3 of the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area, adjacent to the Old Town Temecnia portion of the Project Area. Redevelopment of the economic base of Old Town Temecuh requires alh~cting tourists not only from within Riverside County and adjacent Counties, but also from beyond 2. The Redevelopment Plan permitted the Museum footprint, as well as the L-Shaped Parcel to be developed as Scenic-Highway Commercial. Consequently, the highest and best use for the Museum footprint under the Plan is approximately the original purchase price of $1.~75 per square feet, or $360,675 for the 22,900 square foot footprint. However, since the Iniy 15, 1992 purchase of the L-Shaped Parcel, prices have declined. As an example, an appraisal completed for the City on an adjacent companble property on August 13, 1993 reflects a fair market value of oniy $10.36 per square foot. Consequen~y, the current market value of the footprint is estimated to be $237,244. 3. Also, since the purchase of the L-Shaped Parcel, the City adopted its General Plan in November 1993, and the Old Town Specific Plan in February, 1994. These documents restrict the highest and best use of the Museum footprint primarily to cultural and civic uses. This restriction substantially reduces the estimated value of the Museum footprint to be leased to the Foundation. 4. The total rental value of Museum footprint over the 40 year lease and the 20 year option period is $60, which is substantially less than the fair market value of the footprint. K. Leasing the Museum footprint to the Coq~oration at less than the fair market value of the site will assist in the elimination of the above-referenced blighting conditions because the existence of the Museum will further establish Old Town Temecula as the cultural heart of the Temecula Valley. The Museum will assist in a~hacting tourists from beyond the City, thereby stimulating economic activity in the Old Town Temecula area by providing a customer base for restaurant, retail and entertainment uses. Section 2. Based upon the above findings, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the teasing of the Museum footprint to the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc., for the purposes of construction of the Temecula Valley Museum. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 23rd day of August, 1994. ATTEST: Ronald H. Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNL~) CO~Y OF RIVF_.Y, SIDE)ss CITY OF TEIVIEC~) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Counc~ of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNC]L~MBERS: COUNC]LlvlEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS: SLrM'MARY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33433 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW ON AN AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY' OF TEMECULA THE TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM INC. This summary report has been prepared by the Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Health and Safety Code. This report sets forth certain details in the proposed mended and restated lease agreement ("Lease") between the City of Temecula {"City") and the Temecula Valley Museum, Inc. ("Corporation"). The Lease requires the City to lease property located adjacent to Sam Hicks Monument Park to the Corporation for the purpose of conslrucfing a museum. The property to be leased includes a parcel that was purchased in pan from tax increment monies. As required by the Community Redevelopment Law, this report describes and specifies: 1. The cost of the proposed lease to the Agency; The estimated value of the interests proposed to be leased determined at the highest uses permitted under the Redevelopment Plan; The purchase price and sum of the lease payments to be paid by the Corporation for the interests being leased; and The means by which the lease of the property at less than fair market value will assist in the removal of blight. This report and the proposed lease are to be made available for public inspection prior to the approval of the l_~.ase. · SUMMARY OF THE LEASE A. The City acquired title to certain real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, known as Sam Hicks Monument Park (the 'Park*), on or about April, 1991 from the Sam Hicks Monument Park Foundation. B. Upon acquisition by the City, the P~k was subject to a Museum Lease between the City and the Temecula Valley Museum Inc., dated February 12, 1991, which contemplated the construction of a 3,000 square foot Museum and also the relocation of a 1,200 square foot Church within the Park. C. On July 15, 1992, the City acquired title to certain real property adjoining the Park, known as the *L-Shaped Parcel.' This Parcel was added to the Park. The purchase price for the L-Shaped Parcel was $1,050,000, of which the Temecula Re. development Agency paid $400,800 from tax increment monies. D. The Corporation has revised its plans for the Museum, and now desires to construct a 22,900 square foot building, in phases. The first phase will consist of a 6,100 square foot Museum, an 1,800 square foot plaza and a 1,000 square foot outdoor interpretire center, along with renovation 'of the church. The Museum will be built on the L-Shaped Parcel, but the church will be located on the original park land. E. The Museum is to be open to the public. It will house the Temecula Museum Collection, consisting of art objects, artifacts, papers, photographs, architectural elements and other items of aesthetic, cultural or historical significance relating to the Temecuia region. The Corporation shall operate the Museum for the preservation, interpretation and exhibition of the Temecula Museum Collection and for educating the public regarding the Temecula region. F. The Museum is to be located within Sub Area 3 of the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area, adjacent to the Old Town Temecula portion of the Project Area. Redevelopmerit of the economic base of Old Town Temecula requires attracting tourists not only from within Riverside County and adjacent Counties, but also from beyond Southern California. It further requires m~king Old Town Temecula into the cultural heart of the surrounding Temecuia Valley. Locating, constructing and operating the Temecula Museum adjacent to Old Town is critical to achieving these objectives. By creating a cultural center to the Temecula Valley, the Museum will attract tourists, stimulate economic growth, and benefit the Project Area. G. The following blighting conditions are present within Old Town: 1. Old buildings that do not meet current seismic standards; 2. Lack of adequate on-street and off-street parking; Sfibdivided lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness end development that are in multiple ownership; 4. Stagnent end depreciating property values; end Incompatible land uses that serve to prevent economic development in the area. H. The Corporation lacks sufficient resources to construct the Museum entirely with its own funds. Consequently, City end Redevelopment Agency assistance is required. I. Lea.sing hnd purchased with tax increment monies to the Museum at below fair market value, end providing City resources to fund construction of the Museum will stimulate economic growth, end thereby help eliminate the above blighting conditions. J. Pursuent to Health end Safety Code 33433, the City has made available to the public a copy of the Lease with the Corporation for consU'uction end operation of the Museum. The following information describes the Redevelopment Agency's participation in the purchase of the property to be leased: 1. The cost of the *L-Shaped Parcel' to the Agency was $400,800. The appraised value of this Parcel as of July 1991 was $900,000 according to the City's appraisal, end $1,245,000 according to the then-owner's February 1992 appraisal. The actual price was $1,050,000 or ($15.75 per square foo0, of which the Agency funded $400,800. 2. The Redevelopment Plan permitted the Museum footprint, as well as the L-Shaped Parcel to be developed as Scenic-Highway Commercial. Consequently, the highest end best use for the Museum footprint under the Plen is approximately the original purchase price of $15.75 per square foot, or $360,675 for the 22,900 square foot footprint. However, since the July 15, t992 purchase of the L-Shaped Parcel, prices have declined. As an example, en appraisal completed for the City on en adjacent comparable property on August 13, 1993 reflects a fair market value of only $10.36 per square foot. Consequently, the current market value of the footprint is estimated to be $237,244. 3. Also, since the purchase of the L-Shaped Parcel, the City adopted its General Plen in November, 1993, end the Old Town Specific Plan in February, 1994. These documents restrict the highest end best use of the Museum footprint primarily to cultural and civic uses. This restriction substantially reduces the estimated value of the Museum footprint to be leased to the foundation. 4. The total rental value of Museum footprint over the 40 year leas~ and the 20 year option period is $60, which is substantially less than the fair market value of the footprint. K. Leasing the Museum footprint to the Corporation at less than the fair market value of the site will assist in the elimination of the above-referenced blighting conditions because the existence of the Museum will further establish Old Town Temecula as the cultural heart of the Temecula Valley. The Museum will assist in attracting tourists from beyond the City, thereby stimulating economic activity in the Old Town Temecula area by providing a customer base for restaurant, retail and entmainment uses. EXEMPT RECORDING REQUESTED EY City of Temecula PER GOV'T CODE S 6103 AND W~ENRECORDEDMAIL TO City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Clerk SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PaCORDER'S USE AMENDED AND RESTATED MUSEUM LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM INC. August 23, 1994 9. 10. 11. 15. 16. 17. 18. TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS ............................ AGREEMENT ........................... PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ............ A. The CitV ....................... B. 'The Corporation ................. LEASE OF PROPERTY ................... EXHIBITS ............................ PROHIBITION AGAINST CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF CORPORATION .............. TERM ............................... USE OF THE PROPERTY ................ SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT ................ FUNDING ............................. DESIGN OF PHASE 1 MUSEUM ............. SELECTION OF THE PHASE 1 MUSEUM CONTRACTOR .................... CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 1 MUSEUM ....... DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHASE 2 MUSEUM AND THE CHURCH ........ OPERATION OF THE MUSEUM .............. STRUCTURES AND FIXTURES .............. SURRENDER OF PROPERTY ................ REPAIRS .............................. ALTERATIONS .......................... -i- p~qe 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 10 20. 23. 24. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. UTILITIES ........................... MECHANICS' LIENS .................... ALIENABILITy OF .PROPERTY ............ TAXES ............................... WASTE OR NUISANCE ................... INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE ............. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY ................ INSOLVENCY .......................... ABANDONMENT ......................... INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS ..... ENTRY BY CITY ....................... COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS ................ NONDISCRIMINATION ................... DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION ................... LEGAL ACTIONS ........................ RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ARE CUMULATIVE ... INACTION NOT A WAIVER OF DEFAULT ..... DEFAULT, NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BREACH ... DAMAGES .... . .......................... SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ................. UNLAWFUL DETAINER .................... TERMINATION .......................... BINDING ON SUCCESSORS ................. NOTICES AND PAYMENTS ................. 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 -ii- This Amended and Restated Museum Lease Agreement is entered into as of August 23, 1994, between the CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter referred to as "City")', and THE TEMECULAMUSEUM INC., a California non-profit public benefit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CORPORATION"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City acquired title to certain real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, known as Sam Hicks Monument Park, which is described in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto, by deed dated April 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel 1"). WHEREAS, upon acquisition by the City, Parcel 1 was subject to a Museum Lease between the City and the Corporation dated January 1, 1991, which contemplated the construction of a 3,000 square foot Museum and the relocation of a 1,200 square foot Church. WHEREAS, subsequently, the City acquired title to certain adjoining real property located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California which is described in Exhibit A-2 attached hereto, by deed dated July 15, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Parcel 2"). Collectively, Parcels i and 2 will be hereinafter referred to as the "Park". WHEREAS, the City and the Corporation desire to terminate the January 1, 1991 Museum Lease in favor of this Amended and Restated Museum Lease and Disposition and Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"). WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to relocate and construct a larger Museum on Parcel 2 and provide for the funding, operation and maintenance of such a Museum. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan was approved by Ordinance No. 658 of.the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on July 12, 1988 prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 91-11, which became effective May 9, 1991, and City Ordinance No. 91-15, which became effective April 9, 1991, the City approved the Plan. Said Ordinances had the effect of adopting the Plan and transferring jurisdiction over said Plan to the Agency, as of July 1, 1991. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 93-04 and 94- 10712194.2 '1- August 15, Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Basic Concept Drawings of Phase I Museum and Construction Budget Schedule of Performance Scope of Development PROHIBITION AGAINST CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, MANAGE- MENT AND CONTROL OF CORPORATION The qualifications and identity of the Corporation is of particular concern to the City and the Agency. It is · because of its qualifications and identity that the City and Agency have entered into this Agreement with the Corporation. Therefore, no voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of the Corporation shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein. The Corporation shall not assign all or any of its rights or duties under this Agreement nor sublease the Property without the prior written approval of the City, which consent the City shall not unreasonably withhold provided the City determines that the successor is similarly qualified and has specifically agreed in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. All of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Corporation and the permitted successors and assigns of the Corporation. Whenever the term "Corporation,' is used herein, such term shall include any other lawful successors in interest of the Corporation. 5. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be forty (40} years, commencing on November 1, 1990, and ending on october 31, 2030. As part of the consideration for the execution of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Corporation an option to extend and renew the provisions of this Agreement for a twenty-year term, upon the same terms and conditions hereof. The option to renew and extend this Agreement must be exercised, if at all, by notice in writing given to the City not less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration on the previous term. 6. RENT. The Corporation agrees to pay the City as rent for the use and occupancy of the Property the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) per year, payable in advance on the first day of January of each year commencing with January 1, 1991, 107121~4.2 --3 -- June 21, 1~4 and continuing thereafter during the Corporation's use and occupancy of the Property. Rent shall be payable in lawful money of the United States t~ the City at the address stated herein or to such other persons or at such other places as the City may designate in writing. If the'Corporation renews the term of this Agreement as provided in Paragraph five (5), the Agreement shall continue for the same rental rate.I 7. USE OF THE-PROPERTY.. A. The design and location of all structures shall be subject to City approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. All other construction projects, not specifically permitted by this Agreement are prohibited. B. The Corporation shall construct a Museum and remodel the Church on the Property in phases. The first phase shall include the following elements: a) Constructing a museum building of a minimum size of 6,100 square feet; b) Constructing a 1,800 square feet Plaza; o) Constructing an outdoor interpretative area of 1,000 square feet; and d) Renovating the Church. Basic Concept Drawings of these four elements are depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto, and will hereinafter be referred to as the "Phase 1 Museum." By approving this Agreement, the City has approved the design and location of the Phase 1 Museum, as required by subparagraph A, above. construction of the Phase i Museum shall commence no later than January 1, 1995. A final inspection or certificate of occupancy of the Phase i Museum shall be obtained on or before January 1, 1996. The Corporation may increase the size of the Museum to a maximum of 22,900 square feet in future construction phases. 8. SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT A. The Property shall be developed within the general controls established in the Scope of Development, 107121~.2 '4- June 21, 1994 the approvals of the City as described herein, and the further approvals of the City as required by the Temecula Municipal Code, and related laws governing municipal planning, zoning and subdivision. B. The Phase i Museum shall be developed as established in the Basic Concept Drawings and related documents attached as Exhibit C~ except as changes may be mutually agreed upon between the Corporation and City. Any such changes shall be within the general controls of the Scope of Development. C. If the Corporation exercises-its option to increase the size of the Museum, then it first shall obtain City approval of Basic Concept Drawings and related documents for the development of the each subsequent phase of the Museum. During the preparation of Basic Concept Drawings for each subsequent phase of the Museum, the City and the Corporation shall hold regular progress meetings to coordinate the preparation of, submission to, and review of the Drawings. The City and the Corporation and its approved assignees shall communicate and consult informally as frequently as is necessary to insure that the formal submittal of any documents to the City can receive prompt and speedy consideration. D. No construction of any subsequent phase of the Museum may occur without City approval of the Basic Concept Drawings. Any City disapproval of the Basic Concept Drawings shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval. Upon receipt of such a disapproval, the Corporation shall revise the portions of the Drawings which are disapproved and related documents and resubmit then to the City as soon as possible after receipt of the notice of disapproval. E. The Corporation shall prepare and submit construction drawings, specifications and related documents for the Phase i Museum and all subsequent phases to the City for review pursuant to the Temecula Municipal Code, including the Building Code. 9. FUNDING. The City hereby agrees to finance the construction of the Phase i Museum in an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00). The Corporation shall be responsible for obtaining all other necessary funds required to complete the Scope of Development. Upon submission by the Corporation of a payment request form, the City will pay to the Corporation funds sufficient to pay the individuals or entities 107121~.2 --5-- Jur~e 21, 19f& identified in the payment request form the amounts specified for architectural, engineering, and construction costs, not to exceed a total cumulative amount of $500,000. The Corporation is to secure all appropriate labor and material releases prior to submitting the payment request form. 10. DESIGN OF PHASE i MUSEUM. The Corporation shall employ a properly qualified registered architect (the "Architect") and other necessary professionals, including civil engineers to design and prepare detailed bid documents, construction plans and specifications for the Phase i Museum identified in Exhibit C. Exhibit C includes an estimated budget for the design, engineering and construction of the Phase i Museum. This budget has been prepared by consultants retained by the Corporation and it is the responsibility of the Corporation to function within the dollar cost set forth in Exhibit C. 11. SELECTION OF THE PHASE i MUSEUM. CONTRACTOR. The corporation shall solicit bids for the construction of the Phase i Museum. The Phase I Museum shall be constructed by contractor or contractors licensed by the State of California (the "Contractor"). The Contractor shall be required to provide performance and payment bonds, each in a principal amount equal to 100% Of the contract price, and to name the City and Corporation and their employees, officers, directors, agents and consultants thereof as additional insureds under a comprehensive general liability insurance policy with coverage broad enough to include contractual obligations under such construction contract and in an amount not less than one Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. The bid and contract documents shall include the bond and insurance requirements as set forth by mutual agreement of the City and Corporation at the time of advertising for bids and said requirements shall not be less than those stated above. Prior tO the award of any bid for the Phase 1 Museum, the Corporation shall demonstrate to the City that it has funds sufficient to cover the award of the bid. No award of a contract for the Phase i Museum shall be made unless funds, not otherwise committed by prior construction contracts are available to cover the contract award, including a contingency amount equal to 10% of the contract price and all costs for building permit and inspection fees to the City. 12. CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE i MUSEUM. June 21, 1WA A. The Corporation shall have responsibility for administering the construction contracts awarded for the Phase i Museum. B. ~efore commencement of construction or development of the Phase I Museum, the Corporation shall, at its own expense, secure or cause to be secured any and all grading, building and other required permits which may be required by the City and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction as to such construction, development or work. C. The Corporation shall promptly begin and thereafter diligently prosecute to completion the construction of the improvements and the development of the Phase 1 Museum in accordance with the Schedule of Performance. The Schedule of Performance is subject to revision from time-to-time as mutually agreed upon in writing between the Corporation and the City. The Corporation shall submit to the City written reports of the progress of the construction. The reports shall be in the same form and in the same detail as normally prepared for internal reports of the Corporation or for reports from the Corporation's general contractor to the Corporation. D. For the purpose of assuring compliance with this Agreement, representatives of the City shall have the right of access to the Property, without charges or fees, during normal business hours during the period of construction, so long as they comply with all safety rules. Such representatives of the City shall be those who are so identified in writing by the City Manager. E. No change order may be approved by the Corporation for the Phase i Museum in an amount in excess of the construction budget contained in Exhibit C without demonstrating to the City that there are sufficient uncommitted funds available to the Corporation for such purposes. F. The Corporation shall prepare and execute a Notice of Completion for the Phase I Museum, record said Notice with the Office of the Recorder of the County of Riverside, State of California, and cause the Contractor and all subcontractors to provide lien and material releases with respect thereto. The Corporation shall provide copies of each said notice and all releases to the City. 107121~.2 '7- June 21, 1~ 13. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBSEQUENT PHASES. The City and Corporation shall follow the same procedure described in Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 to design and construct any subsequent phases of the Museum. 14. OPERATION OF THE MUSEUM. A. The Corporation shall establish, maintain and operate the Temecula Valley Museum on the Property, beginning upon issuance of a certificateof occupancy for the Phase'l Museum, and throughout the term of this Agreement. Such use may include all activities reasonably related to the Museum operation including exhibition, restoration and storage of the Temecula Museum Collection, archival storage, office administration, operation of a museum shop, educational programs, and public/private events. The "Museum" shall mean a professional quality, non-profit museum located on the Property and operated by the Corporation for the preservation, interpretation and exhibition of the Temecula Museum Collection, and for public education regarding the Temecula region. B. The "Temecula Museum Collection" shall mean all art objects, artifacts, papers, photographs, architectural elements and other items of aesthetic, cultural or historical significance relating to the Temecula region owned by the Corporation or by any third person and loaned or entrusted to the Corporation for preservation, interpretation and exhibition. C. The'Corporation shall, at all times, maintain the status of a tax-exempt entity under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. D. The Temecula Valley Museum shall be operated according to the standards and suggested quidelines of the American Association of Museums (AAM), or of any organization which may, from time to time, be generally recognized as an organization organized and operated to promote standards of.excellence for the museum profession, comparable to the AAM, and which describe standards and guidelines therefore. Such standards and guidelines shall address the following: (1) Restoration, storage and interpretation of the Temecula Museum Collection; and (2) Curatorial responsibility, including the care, conservation, protection, 107121~.2 '8- June 21,199~ exhibition, interpretation, loan and use of the Temecula Museum Collection. E. Recognizing the unique combination of a public museum w~thin a public park, the Corporation shall utilize the Property to exhibit works of art, operate a museum shop, hold receptions, previews, benefits and other educational and fund raising activities, all related to the Temecula Valley Museum, with consideration and respect for other uses of the Park. F. The Corporation shall retain at all times during the term of this Agreement qualified curators and a trained staff sufficient to maintain the Temecula Museum Collection and Museum programs in a manner consistent with the standards of a professional museum, as defined above. G. The Corporation shall provide at its sole cost and expense, a complete and appropriate security system or arrangement for the protection of the interior of the Property and the Temecula Museum Collection therein. The City shall not be responsible for providing any necessary or appropriate security to or for the Property or any of the Temecula Museum Collection located therein. Mechanical and electrical detection/security systems and fire suppression system for the Property shall be actively integrated into the mechanical and electrical detection/security systems and fire suppression system of the Museum. H. The Corporation shall post and maintain regular hours of operation for the Museum. 15. STRUCTURES AND FIXTURES. All structures and fixtures placed on the Property by the Foundation shall become the property of the City at the end of the term of the Agreement. The Corporation shall have no right to remove such structures and fixtures at any time during the~-' term or after the termination of this Agreement. 16. SURRENDER OF PROPERTY. On expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement, or any extensions or renewal of this Lease, the Corporation shall promptly surrender and deliver the Property to the City including, the structures and fixtures thereon and the Museum. 17. REPAIRS. A. At all times during the term of this Agreement, the Corporation shall, at the Corporation's own cost ~nd expense, and at no cost and expense to the City, maintain the Property and all portions of the Property 107~2194.2 --9-- Jurle 21, including the structures and fixtures thereon in good order and repair and make all repairs and replacements that may become necessary to the Property, any buildings or improvements on the Property, or any sidewalks, or driveways that are part o~, or appurtenant to the Property. Any and all repairs and replacements required by this provision, both ordinary and extraordinary and both structural and nonstructural, shall be made promptly by the Corporation as required and sha'll comply with all applicable governmental laws, ordinances, and regulations. The Corporation hereby waives the provisions of sections 1941 and 1942 of the California Civil Code relating to the City's duty for tenantable premises and the Corporation's right to make repairs and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent. B. If the Corpration fails to maintain the Property as described in subparagraph A, the City may give written notice of such deficiency to the Corporation. If the City gives notice to the Corporation of a deficiency, the Corporation shall have thirty (30) business days within which to take reasonable steps to cure the deficiency. If the Corporation has not commenced corrective activity within such thirty (30) days, the City may elect to take the steps necessary to insure that the Property is maintained as described in subparagraph A. At least fifteen (15) days prior to entering the Property to perform any such corrective work, the City shall either personally serve a notice of its intent to enter the Property for this purpose on the Corporation or mail a copy of such notice by certified mail to the Corporation's last known address, or as shown on the tax rolls. The City may enter the Property to perform such corrective work as it reasonably considers necessary and proper to return the Property to its proper condition as described in subparagraph A. The City may act either through its own employees or through an independent contractor to perform'such corrective workj .... If the City incurs costs, including administrative costs and attorney's fees in returning the Property to its proper condition pursuant to the procedure set forth above, the City may make a demand upon the Corporation for payment of such costs as are reasonable under the circumstances. If The Corporation fails to pay such costs within thirty (30) business days after the date demand is made, this Agreement shall terminate. 18. ALTERATIONS. The Coporation may not make any alterations (other than insubstantial ones) to the Property or structures thereon without the City's prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 10712194.2 --lO-- June 21, 19. UTILITIES. The Corporation agrees to pay for all utilities, including telephone, water, gas, electricity, and any and all other services which may be used in or upon the Property during the term of this Agreement without liability of the City. FOr each service, the Corporation shall pay the cost for the use of the service directly to the utility provider prior to the time that the charge becomes delinquent. 20. MECHANICS' LIENS. Pursuant to Section 3094 of the California Civil Code,.the Corporation shall cause a Notice of Non-responsibility to be posted on the Property prior to beginning of construction. The City shall'cause a Notice of Non-responsibility to be recorded concurrently with the execution of the Agreement. The Corporation hereby agrees to keep the Property, including the Museum, free and clear of mechanics' liens and other liens for labor, service, supplies, equipment, or materials. The Corporation also agrees to fully pay and discharge and wholly protect and save harmless the City against any and all demands or claims that may or could ripen into such liens or labor claims. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Corporation may, if the Foundation furnishes the City with a bond or other security against loss or liability by reason thereof in a form acceptable to the City, contest, at the Corporation's sole cost and expense, any such liens or claims and litigate the same to final judgment. 21. ALIENABILITY OF PROPERTY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to restrict the alienability of the Park. The City retains the right to sell or encumber the Park, including the Property, at any time during the term of this Agreement. ~ 22. TAXES. During the term of ~his Agreements}. the Corporation shall pay before delinquency: (1) all taxes, assessments, license fees, and any other charges of any type whatsoever that are levied, assessed, charged, or imposed on or against the Corporation's possessory interest and/or personal property installed or located in or on the Property and that become payable during the term of this Agreement; and, (2) all real property taxes and general and special assessments levied and assessed against the Property. 23. WASTE OR NUISANCE. The Corporation shall not commit or permit the commission by others of any waste on the Property, including graffiti. The Corporation shall not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance as defined in Section 3479 of the California I07121f4.2 -11- Jl.a'le 21, Civil Code on the Property. The Corporation shall not use or permit the use of said Property for any unlawful purpose. 24. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE. The Corporation agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims arising from any act, omission or negligence of the Corporation, or its contractors, licensees, agents, servants, or employees, or arising from any accident, injury or damage whatsoever caused to any person or property occurring in, on, or about the Property, the sidewalks adjoining the Property, and from and against all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred ~n or in connection with any such claim or proceeding brought thereon, including, but not limited to, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The Corporation shall maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of general liability insurance in the minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single-limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The Corporation shall name the City as an additional insured on such policies. The Corporation shall furnish the City with a Certificate of Insurance with respect to such policy or policies prior to entry on the Property. The policies shall further be endorsed with a "broad form" endorsement so as to provide comprehensive general liability insurance for the joint benefit of the City. The amount of insurance coverage shall be sujbect to periodic review by the City not less then every three (3) years commencing from the date of this Agreement. The coverage amounts may be altered as the City may reasonably determine based upon, but not limited to, such factors as inflation, increased liability awards, claims experience, recommendations of professional insurance advisors and other factors customarily used to determine appropriate levesl of coverage of the ihsurance required by this Agreement. Such detemination shall be the at the sole discreation of the City. The Corporation shall maintain in force, at the Corporation's expense, a policy or policies of insurance protecting against the following: (1) Fire, earthquake and other perils normally included in the extended coverage insurance with special form, to the extent of at least one- hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value of the building(s) and.other improvements placed on 1071219~.2 June 21, 1994 --12-- (2) the Property pursuant to the Agreement, exclusive of trade fixtures and equipment and personal property, including the Temecula Museum Collection belonging to the Foundation. Fire a~d extended coverage insurance with respect to the equipment and personal property, including the Temecula Museum Collection located on the Property with vandalism and malicious mischief endorsements to the extent of one-hundred percent (100%) of their insurehie value. During the term of this Agreement, the proceeds of any such policy or policies for fire insurance should be used solely for the repair or replacement of the fixtures and personal property so insured. The Corporation shall furnish the City with a Certificate of Insurance with respect to all policy or policies required pursuant to this Agreement prior to entry on the Property, and occupancy of any buildings constructed or relocated onto the Property. If any such insurance required in this Agreement has a deductible clause, the deductible amount shall not exceed $10,000.00 per occurrence, and the Corporation shall be liable for any such deductible amount. The coverage amounts for all of the above insurance requirements shall increase annually at a rate equal to the Consumer Price Index for Riverside County. 25. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY. No member, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Corporation pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, nor for any default or breach by the City. 26. INSOLVENCY. The insolvency of the Corporation as evidenced by a receiver being appointed to take possession of all or substantially all of the property of the Corporation, or the making of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors by the Corporation, shall terminate the Agreement and entitle the City to re-enter and regain possession of the Property. 27. ABANDONMENT. In the event that the Corporation shall be absent from the Property for a period of 30 days after default in payment of rent or other obligations imposed on the Corporation by this Agreement, such absence shall be deemed to constitute an abandonment of the 1071219~.2 -13 - June 21, 19q~, Corporation's interest in the Property and an abandonment by the Corporation of any personal property left on the Property, and the City may thereupon reenter the Property as hereinbefore provided. 28. INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS. Each party has the right to inspect, at reasonable times, the books and records of the other pertaining to the Property as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. 29. ENTRY BY CITY. A. The City may enter upon the Property and the structures thereon during normal operating hours for the purpose of inspecting the Property. B. The City or its authorized representatives shall be granted entry to the Property in the event of emergency. Key access to Property shall be limited to the City Manager, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and their designated emergency personnel. 30. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. During the term of this Agreement and any renewals hereof, the Corporation shall comply with all ordinances and regulations of the City of Temecula, orders and requirements imposed by the Health and Police Departments,' and all Federal, State and County and the City statutes, ordinances, regulations, laws or other requirements concerning all matters applicable to the use, occupancy or operation of the Property. 31. NONDISCRIMINATION. The Corporation herein covenants by and for itself, its heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through it, and this Agreement=~s made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions:' That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, nor shall the Corporation itself, or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, n~er, use, occupancy of tenants, 10712194.2 --14-- J~e ~1, 1994 lessees, sUblessees, subtenants or vendees in the Property herein leased. 32. DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION. If the Property or the structures thereon is damaged or destroyed in whole or in part by fire or other casualty, the Corporation shall repair or restore the Property or the structures thereon to substantially the same condition as they were in immediately before destruction, provided that the insurance proceeds to the Corporation payable on account of such damage or destruction are sufficient to fund all of the costs of such repair and restoration. The Corporation shall commence and complete all such repair and restoration. If the Corporation does not commence such repair or restoration within thirty (30) days after such damage or destruction occurs or if repair or restoration will require more than one hundred twenty (120) days to complete, the Corporation may, at its option, terminate this Agreement by giving the City written notice of its election to do so at any time prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration and by paying over any insurance proceeds to the City. In that event, this Agreement shall terminate as of the date such notice is delivered by the Corporation. 33. LEGAL ACTIONS. Any legal actions related to or arising out of this Agreement must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, in an appropriate municipal court in that county, or, if federal jurisdiction exists, in the Federal District court in the Central District of California. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. The laws of the State of CalifOrnia shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. 34. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ARE CUMULATIVE. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by any.other party. 35. INACTION NOT A WAIVER OF DEFAULT. Any failures or delays by any party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive 10712194.2 '15- June 21, 1994 either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. 36. DEFAULT, NOTICE OF DEFAULT, BREACH. A default in the performance of any promise of, or of any obligation imposed upon the City or Corporation shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement unless the party in default fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after the written notice of default has been served, except that failure to cure a default in the payment of rent shall constitute a breach of this Agreement if such default is not cured within five (5) days after written notice of default has been served. No party shall be in default of any required performance if delay in performance results from fire, flood, storm, war, act of God or other causes beyond the party's reasonable control. If any party breaches this Agreement, the other party shall be entitled to pursue every legal and equitable remedy available, including (but not limited to) the right to terminate this Agreement. The City, in addition to other remedies it may have, shall have the immediate right to teentry, and may remove all persons and property from the Property. The City may store such property at the cost of the Corporation. 37. DAMAGES. If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in Section 39, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default, and the nondefaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. 38. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. If a default under this Agreement is not fully cured by the defaulting party, the nondefaulting party at its option may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of this Agreement. 39. UNLAWFUL DETAINER. In the event of any breach of this Agreement by the Corporation, the City, in addition to any other rights or remedies it may have, may give the Corporation a three-day notice to cure the breachor quit the premises. If the Corporation fails to do either, the City may bring a statutory proceeding in unlawful detainer to regain possession of the Property. 40. TERMINATION. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if the Corporation is in default of this Agreement, as defined in Paragraph 36 hereof or if any of the following situations exists: 10712194.2 -16- Jme 21, The Museum is destroyed or substantially damaged to the extent that it would be, in the reasonable discretion of the City, economically unfeasible to repair. The Museum is substantially damaged or destroyed by any cause whatsoever, and there are not sufficient insurance proceeds available to repair or rebuild the Museum. The Corporation ceases to operate the Museum on regular basis. Should the Corporation be unable to perform its obligations pursuant to the Agreement, nothing shall prohibit the City from designating another agent to perform those functions. 41. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and legal representatives of the parties hereto. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as a consent by the City to any assignment of this Agreement or any interest therein by the Corporation except as provided in Paragraph 4 of this Agreement. 42. NOTICES AND PAYMENTS. Whenever notices and payments are required to be given pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, they shall be sent to the party, in writing and postage prepaid by registered mail, addressed as follows: To the City at: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Manager To the Foundation at: The Temecula Valley Museum Inc., A California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation P.O. Box 792 Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Any party may change such address by written notice by registered mail to the other parties· IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. 1071219~.2 --17-- J~-,e 21, CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULAVALLEYMUSEUM, INC. a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation By: Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: By By By: JUNE S. GREEK City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: PETER M. THORSON City Attorney 10712194.2 '18- June21, EXEMPT RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Temecula PER GOV'T CODE § 6103 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 COlbY of Document R_=ccrded j on as Uo. has net been cornered with original WILL;A~'~ E. ~O~RLV RIVERSIDE COUN~~ CALIFORNIA SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE CORPORA TION GRANT DEED The undersigned granter declares: FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, SAM HICKS MONUMENTPARKFOUNDA T/ON, a non-profit corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the .State of California, hereby grants to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a body cbrporate and politic, the following described real property in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California: Se~ Exhibit "A" attached hereto.'' This conveyance is made subject to those covenants and restrictions contained in that :. certain Agreement, executed by Nancy Maurj. ce dated october 9 , 19 90, and recorded on OffiCial Records of Riverside County, California and upon condition that said property be used sorely and perpetually for historical, educational, public park and/or public recreational purposes. If said property is not used solely and perpetually for historical, educational, public park and/or public recreational purposes, then GrantOr or its assigns, and successors, Without paying any compensation for any buildings or other improvements or betterments that may then be upon said premises, and without making any compensation or incurring any liability for damages or losses of any kind, shall have the power to terminate all dght, title, and interest in the ' property granted by this deed to Grantee and its successors and assigns, in the manner provided by law for the exercise of this power of termination, and shall thereupon have and enjoy forever all property granted by this deed, as if this -1- conveyance had not been made. Grantee, its assigns or successors, shall thereupon immediately surrender possession of said property, and shall forfeit all rights thereto as required hereunder, Provided, however, that Grantor may not exercise this power to terminate unless, within ninety (90) days after the breach of the use restriction, wri~en notice is given to the Grantee of the breach, and Grantee fails to correct the breach within nin.ety (90) days after receiving notice of the breach of the use restriction ..... _:~--. .. -_ ... XeCU d on April 9 , 19 91, at SAM ICeS NT PARK FOUNDATION Mall tax statements as directed above. Temecula , California. A CKNO WL ED GMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CiTY OF TEMECULA ) On this 9t_h day of ~oril , in the year 19 91 , before me, Susan W. 0'ones , a notary public, personally appeared Nancy Maurice , proved to me on the basis of. satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument as president of the corporation therein named and acknowledged ': to me that the corporation executed -. ' 7 : .... .... : : -' ~ ' .....'--.-~'- State of California My commission expires: November 18 , 19 94 forth above, CONSENT The. City of Temecula hereby consents to the grant of real proper't'y set City of Temecula By: ~"~"~/'~ Ron~td J. Parks Mayor Attest: By: ~.,,,._,~..~,,~.) C) June s, Greek City Clerk Approved As To Form: Scott F Fiel~l City A~orney EXHIBIT ",4" ~ In the City of Temec, ula, County of Riverside, State of California, descif~3ed as follows: That portion of Lot 6, and of the unnamed road in Block 2, as shown by Map of Subdivision of the Pauba Land and Water Company, in the County of Riverside, State of California, as shown by Map on file in Book 11, Page 507 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly corner of Lot 32, Block 1, of the Town of Temecula as shown by Map on file in Book 15, Page 726 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California; thence South 44 degrees 25'05" West, along the Northwesterly boundary of said town of Temecula, a distance of 141,45 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way line of an unnamed road (60 feet wide) as described in dedication and easement deed to the County of Riverside by deed recorded April 22, 1969 as Instrument No. 39504 of Official Records of Riverside County, California; thence Westerly continuing along said Northerly line being the arc of a tangent curve concave Northerly and having a radius of 375.78 feet through a central angle of 19 degrees 01'17", a distance of 12zL75 feet; thence North 17 degrees 08'~,2" East, along the Easterly line of said unnamed road a distance of 290.87 feet; thence South 45 degrees 02'38" East, a distance of 271.16 feet to the point of beginning. / C) PARTNERSHIP GRANT DEED THE UNDcR~IGNED GRANTOR(i) DECLARF,(0 FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDER~TION, rccclp~ o~ which Is hereof T~EC~ H~EL ~Ss California Limited Psrnne[ship CITY OF TEHECUIA, a Municipal Corporation / -'~ county of Ri~RSIDE , lute Of PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL HAP 24038 AS 81i014N BY HAP RECORDED IN BOOK 171, PAGES 71 and 72 OF PARCEL'liArS, RECORDS OF SAID' COUb'TY a California Limited Partnership Dated June 15, 1992 S'rA~OFCAUX'OmA L~ ~ ~ ss EY. ' ~.. ~: ,:7...,;.,::,,.=.~..., ..~, :,.~,,~.~..~,...~7-.s-a-~.,.~~ ,~' tobl 3 ~ nera~ partners ofth~pMtno. ofthe ~ ' ' : ........'m,: -: i ~/.~.~AA, l~,lr N01NTr. NANL"Y .,...t..:;t. ·, : ....,,, ~ .. =... ,,.. , /-&~ Lln . ' II ©@ i i i .x/' ./ ~TI · I EXhibit "D" March 28, 1994 .........................Schematic Design Proceeding April 25, 1994 ..........................Schematic Design Complete May 2, 1994 ............................Authorization for Design Development/Construction Documents December 5, 1994 .....................Construction Documents Complete December 8, 1994 .....................Plan Check Submittal January 20, 1995 .......................Plan Check Complete February 1, 1995 .......................Authorization to Obtain Bids March I, 1995 ..........................Bids Received March 15, 1995 ........................Award of Contract April 3, 1995 ...........................Begin Construction October 6, 1995 ........................Construction Complete D~d: Alllust IS, 19~4 2of2 Exhibit "D" Design ............................................$ 32,000 Church Restoration ............................. $ 84,000 Museum Construction .......................... $384.000 TOTAL ................ $~00.0~ EXHIBIT E SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Proper~y consists of two sites, one for Museum of approximately 22,900 square feet ("Site 1") and the second for the Church of approximately 1,200 square feet ("Site 2"). They are generally located within Sam Hicks Monument Park. The Foundation shall develop at least a 6,100 square foot Museum, an 1,800 square foot plaza and a 1,000 square foot outdoor interpretive center on Site and remodel St. Catherine's Church on Site 2. The Foundation may expand the Museum building to 22,900 square feet. The Foundation shall construct or cause the construction of the Museum building. Said building shall be constructed of masonry, concrete or concrete block, steel, or other such materials. Profabricated metal panels or components shall not be utilized for exterior walls, unless specifically approved by the City. A.. Architecture and Design. The Museum shall be of high architectural quality, and shall be effectively and aesthetically designed. The shape, scale of volume, ext ~or design and exterior finish of each building shall be visually and ph} dally related to and an enhancement of each other. B. Signs. Signs shall be .limited in size, subdued and otherwise designed to contribute positively to the environment. Signs identifying the building use will be permitted, .but their height, size, location, color, lighting and design will be subject to City approval and shall conform to the Temecula Municipal Code. C. Building Setbacks Building setbacks shall be approved by the City and shall conform to the Temecula Municipal Code. D. Building Height Building Height shall not exceed that permitted by the applicable zoning. E. Access vehicular access shall be as shown on approval Basic Concept Drawing. E-1 F. Loading Adequate loading and unloading space shall be provided as required by Temecula Municipal Code. Loading spaces visible from streets shall be landscaped-,or-screened to prevent an unsightly or-barren appearance. G. Screenin~ All outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be enclosed or screened by walls, landscaping or enclosuare' to the extent and in the manner required by the City. H. Utilities All utilities on the Property to serve the Museum and Church shall be underground or enclosed at Foundation's expense whenever physically and economically feasible, or when not feasible, all above- ground utilities shall be placed at the rear of the two Sites. I. Parking On site parking shall be as required by the Temecula Municipal Code. J. Paintin~ All exterior painted walls shall be painted by the Foundation with a color(s) subject to City approval which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld if consistent with manufacturer's requirements. III. EASEMENTS The City shall grant and permit or cause the granting and permission of all necessary and appropriate easements and rights for the development of the Property, including but not limited to temporary construction easements and easements and rights of vehicular access, pedestrian access, parking, structural support, sanitary sewers, storm drains, water, electrical power, telephone, natural gas, as are necessary for and consistent with the development as contemplated herein. E-2 IV CONTROLS AND RESTRICTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS Controls and restrictions consistent with this Agreement' including but not limited to minimum size parking spaces and minimum loading facilities sha/1 be consistent with the Temecula Mtmicipal Code. IMPROVEMENTS, FACILITIES, UTILITIES, DEMOLITION, SITE/ACQUISITION PARCEL CLEARANCE, AND ON AND OFF SITE PARCEL WORK The Foundation shall provide or cause to be provided at its cost and expense, the improvements such as curbs and sidewalks, utilities. The description of such items in this Paragraph V is for the purpose of establishing general guidelines to assist the parties in the preparation of plans and specifications. The plans and specifications, when approvedby the parties as provided in the Agreement, shall embody the work which is the obligation of the Foundation. All improvements to be constructed by the Foundation shall be constructed or installed in accordance with the technical specifications, standards and practices of the City and in accordance with approved plans and specifications. The Foundation's plans for such public improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to advertising for bids. All such activities shall be completed in accordance with high architectural standards at a time and in a manner consistent with the Foundation's design and construction. E-3 ITEM 2 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FINANCE OFFICE~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~2' August 23, 1994 Change of Zone No. 5691 - Change of zoning designation for five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial-Office) located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No 5691; and 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 94- entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5691, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 2 1/2 ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO C- O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSO R'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-100-001,950-100-012, 950-100-013,950-100-014AND 950-100-015 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Change of Zone No. 5691 by a 4-1 vote at their July 18, 1994 meeting. There was no Commission discussion regarding this matter. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the project. Based upon staff's analysis, the Change of Zone request is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Professional Office. An Initial Study was conducted for the Change of Zone request and a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption, R:\STAFFRPT\56c/1CZ,CC 8/15/9z~ Ictb I The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the potential for impacts; however, the request may facilitate impacts when future projects are realized on the site. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 94- - Page 3 2. Planning Commission Staff Report: July 18, 1994 - Page 7 3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes: July 18, 1994 - Page 8' R:\STAFFRPT\5b~ICZ,CC 8/15/94 ktb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT\S691CZ.CC 8/15/9~ ktb 3 A'I'I'A~ NO. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THIr. CITY COUNCIL OF THIr. CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING ~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5691, CHANGING THE. ZONE FROM R-A-11/1 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 11/1 ACRE MINII%IU1VI PARCEL SIZE) TO C-O (COMMIr-RCIAL OFFICE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET WEST OF TIFF. INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-100-001, 950- 100-012, 950-100-013, 950-100-014 AND 950-100-015 TF[F. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The zoning district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5691 and in the above rifle, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Sk'tion 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.CC 8/15/9~ kLb ~ Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this __ day of , 199 RON ROBERTS MAYOR ATfEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CAIJFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF 'r,~L~ECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its fast reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ~ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCMERS COUNCU_brRMBERS COUNTERS AlPROVED AS TO FORM: XUNE S. GI~PgK CITY CLERK Peter Thorson City Attorney R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.CC 8/~5/94 ktb 5 CITY OF TENIFEULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE NO.: 5691 ORDINANCE NO.: ADOFrED: EFFECTIVE: R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ,CC 8/15/9~ ktb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT: JULY 18, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\S691CZ,CC 8/15/94 ktb ? STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1994 Change of Zone No. 5691 Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: RECOMMEND Adoption of the Negative Declaration for adoption for Change of Zone No 5691; and ADOPT Resolution No. 94- recommending the adoption of Ordinance No. 94- amending the official zoning map of the City for Change of Zone Application No. 5691 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. Los Ranchitos Estates c/o Tom Henrich Markham and Associates Change of Zoning designation of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial-Office). The north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 27 acres BACKGROUND North: R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) South: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial), R-3 (General Residential) and R-4 (Planned Residential) East: R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) and C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) West: R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum parcel size) C-O (Commercial Office) Professional Office Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant (southeast), Residential (southwest) Mini-Market/Gas Station Vacant Change of Zone No. 5691 was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on January 11, 1990. The case was not completed by the County of Riverside and was transferred to the City of Temecula in July of 1990. Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held on December 6, 1990 and December 12, 1991. Subsequent to a later DRC meeting in 1992, the applicant requested that the project be put on hold pending the adoption of the City's General Plan. Upon adoption of the General Plan, Staff sent out two letters providing direction to the applicant and establishing time frames for the applicant to contact Staff (reference Attachment No. 3). The applicant was informed in the letters that failure to contact Staff would result in their application being scheduled for a public hearing with a recommendation for denial without prejudice. However, the property changed ownership and the new owner requested that Staff continue processing the application; therefore, the item is now before the Planning Commission for their consideration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a request for the redesignation of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office). There are approximately 27 total acres involved in this project. No applications for development of the property have been filed with the rezoning request. ANALYSIS Environmental Review Staff conducted an Initial Study for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon Staff's analysis, a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the potential for impacts; however, the request may facilitate impacts when future projects are realized on the site. Through preparation of the Initial Study, staff looked at a maximum development scenario for any future development on the site and identified potential impacts and measures to mitigate them (see Section III of Attachment No. 4: Initial Study). Site specific environmental analysis will be necessary upon the submittal of development plans for future projects. Soecific Plan Overlay The project site lies within a Specific Plan Overlay as identified in the City's General Plan. According to the General Plan, the Specific Plan designation is intended for those portions of the community which because of size, location, and special development opportunities require a coordinated, comprehensive planning approach. The Plan further states that in areas with an aggregate area of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan is required prior to the approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. Since the project is under 100 acres, it is not subject to these provisions, and a Specific Plan will not be required for this project. EXISTING ZONING, FUTURE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Change of Zone request is for a redesignation of the site from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office). Commercial Office zone uses are likely to be similar to uses allowed in the Professional Office land use designation. This determination is based upon conducting a review of Commercial Office uses permitted in SectiOn 9.72 of Ordinance No. 348 and those uses contained in both the City's General Plan and Draft Development Code. According to the General Plan, the Professional Office designation includes primarily single or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Typical uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial uses may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Uses listed in the Section 9.72 of Ordinance No. 348 are similar in nature to those listed in the General Ran. If a development project is submitted prior to the adoption of the City's Development Code, the project will be reviewed to determine if it is likely to be consistent with the Development Code. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Draft Ordinance No, 94- - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 14 Exhibits - Blue Page 34 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Change of Zone Exhibit Correspondence - Blue Page 35 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:~STAFFRFr~91CZ.PC 7114/94 Lib 6 ATrACHIvIENT NO. 1 R.F~OLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF I'I~ff_,CULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 94- AMENDING ~ OIc. V'ICIAL Z_,OhTING MAP OF THE Cff'/FOR CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5691, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 (]H~.~IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 2 1/2 ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL STZE) TO C-O (COMlVfERCIAL OFFICE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON 'I'H~ NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 660 F~.!~.T WEST OF TBY. INrERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-100001, 950-100-012, 950-100-013, 950-100-014 AND 950-100-015 WHEREAS, Los P, anchitos Estates fried Change of Zone No. 5691 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHT, RF_AS, Tom Henrich acquired the pwpeny and requested that the application continue to be processed in accordance with the City of Temecuh General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WFIEREAS, Change of Zone No. 5691 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local hw; WH EREAS, the Planning Comrni.~sion considered Change of Zone No. 5691 on July 18, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by hw, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; ~AS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Change of Zone No. 5691; NOW, I'HEREI~'ORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Seaion 2. Findings. A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5691, makes the following findings, to wit: (1) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study for this project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. (2) The zone change from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office) is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designation for the site. It is likely that Commercial Office uses will ultimately be consistent with the Professional Office designation. The uses axe similar in both Ordinance No. 348 and the draft General Plan. (3) The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Seaion 9.75.a. of Ordinance No. 348 (Development Standards for Commercial Office) requires no minimum size for lot area. The parcels total approximately 27 acres. I~ncLscaping, parking and lot coverage requh'ements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal. (4) Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. (5) Change of Zone No. 5691 is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community, Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the pwposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would immediately result to the natural or built environment in the City. Future development of the site may result in impacts to the environment, however, these can be mitigated to a level less than significant at the pwject development review stage. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOI'rI~D this 18th day of July, 1994. STtiVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I HERFRY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of July, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY ATTAc,uMENT NO. 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 94.. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TI~eCUIA, AMENDING I'H ~: 0~'V'ICIAL ZON]INTCv RI_AP OF TI~. CITY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. ~691, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 2 1/2 ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL S~Z~.) TO C~) (COMM~:~CIAL O~'~'~CE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NOR'IH SIDE OF HIGIIIVAY 79 SOUTIi, APPROXIMATELY 660 FRRT WEST OF I'H~: INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUIH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-100-001, 950-100-012, 950-100013, 950-100-014 AND 950-100015 THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE. CITY OF TENIECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The zoning district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended bereaf~er from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 23 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Thig Ordinance shah be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of fitis Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of , RON ROBERTS MAYOR ATfEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CA~ JTORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CrrY OF TP, LM2ECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reaag at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecuh on the day of , by the following roll call vow: COUNCILIVlEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GRs~RK CITY CT.k'P,K APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter Thorson City Attorney MAP NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE NO.: 5691 ORDINANCE NO.: CITY OF TEMECULA Crl'Y COUNCIL ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY City of Temecula Planning Department lniti31 Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND IN'FORMATION 1. Name of Project: Change of Zone No. 5691 2. Case Numbers: Change of Zone No. 56~1 3. Location of Project: The north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road 4. Description of Project: A request for the redesignation of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O. There are approximately 27 total acres involved in this project. 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: 6. Name of Proponent: 7. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: June 28, 1994 Los Ranchitos Estates c/o Tom Henrich 30410 Del Rey Road Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 676-3365 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section ILl) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? c. Change in Wpography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? Yes Maybe No X X X X g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes;, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changas in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and mount of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the mount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not linfited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or ram of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Y~ Maybe No X X X X X _ _ X X X X R:~,STAFFRF'r~691CZ.PC 7/14/9dl klb 16 ' Ye~ Maylpe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ __ X__ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? _ _ X__ c. Introduction of new species of plants. into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? __ __ __X d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? _ _ __X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)? _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? __ X c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ __X d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ X e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X __ b. Exposure of ~3eople to severe noise levels? X _ c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? X __ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X __ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X _ b. Alteration to the f~ture planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? __ _ X Y~ Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X __ b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X _ 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not lhnited to, peeticides, chemicals, oil or radiation)? b. The use, storage, ffauspon or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? __ _ X c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ __X 1 l. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? __ X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? __ __ X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? __ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? __ __ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycl ists or pedestrians? X __ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X _ Yes Maybe N__q b. Police protection? X __ c. Schools? __ X d. Perks or other recreational facilities? __ X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X _ f. Other governmental services: __ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __ __X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? _ _ __X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ _ __X b. Communications systems? _ __ X__ c. Water systems? __ __ __X d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __ __ __X e. Storm water drainage systems? X _ f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __ __X g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __ __ __X 17. Human Health. Will 'the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _ X b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? _ X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __ X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ X R:XSTAFFRFF~691CZ.I~C 711419~ k~ 19 c. Deffimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontoingic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects ~o a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Y~ Maybe No X X X X Ill. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth No. The Change of Zone proposal will not immediately result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. Upon ultimate development of the site, projects which are consistent with the zoning will be required to be reviewed through the Development Review/Use Permit Process. Construction and grading for typical development in this zone will not be at depths which would affect any geologic substructures. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. l.b. Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil, it may ultimately facilitate it. Any future development will result in disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the soil, as all grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the soil. Any impacts will not be considered significant due to the fact that the site has previously been graded, and that the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil can be minimiTed through project design. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in any physical changes to the site, future Commercial4:)ffice development will result in a change to topographic and ground surface relief features. This will be as a result of the creation of driveways, site improvements and building pad sites. Impacts to the topography and/or ground surface relief features can be mitigated through the Development Review process for future development on the site. Slopes will be required to be planted for erosion control. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. l.d. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor development of the site will result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features exist on the site Coasad upon information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report). In addition, no unique physical features were identified on the site. No significant impacts are ,anticipated as a result of this project. I.e. Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in any physical changes to the site, it may facilitate development of the site. Ultimate development of the site will result in increased wind and water erosion of soils on and off-site. Grading will occur for the creation of building pads, site improvements and driveways. The potential for wind and water erosions of soil from the manufactured slopes will be increased. This will be mitigated through planting of slopes for erosion control consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and Ordinance No. 457. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. l.f. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in changes in siltellen, deposition and erosion; however, ultimate development of this site will result in changes in siltellen, deposition and erosion. As mentioned in response 1 .e., due to the creation of manufactured slopes for the driveways, the potential exists for erosion. This in turn would result in an increase of siltation and deposition at the betwin of any slopes. Any potential impact can be mitigated in the manner discussad in response 1 .e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.h. l.i. .Ai__r 2.a,b. Water 3.a. No. The Change of Zone request and subsequent development of the site will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. Although tl~e Change of Zone request will not immediately result the exposure of people and property to earthquake hazards, ultimate development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards. This is because the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts can be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. The project will not expose people or property. to geologic hazards such as landslides, or mud~lides. No known landslides are located on the site, and the potential for exposure of people to landslides is low due to the topography of the site and potential locations of building pad(s). The same is true for mudslides. There is a potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards and grading that is consistent with the provisions contained within Ordinance No. 457. The above information was obtained through the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The Change of Zone request site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in air emissions, in the deterioration of ambient air quality and in the creation of objectionable odors; however, the Change of Zone from low-density Residential to Commercial-Office will create situations whereby air emissions may increase (during peak AM and PM traffic). Air emissions and objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designation for the site. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows no significant impact to air quality at buildout. The analysis was conducted with the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in, nor shall any future development of this site result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in climate either locally or regionally. No. The Change of Zone request will not result in, nor will ultimate development of the site result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either marine or fresh water sources. No significant Impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.b. 3.d. 3.f. 3.g. 3.h. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however future development on the site will result in changes when a project is realized. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surfacd runoff will change, any impacts can be mitigated through site design at the development review stage. Drainage conveyances will be required which will safely and adequately handle any of the runoff which is created by the realization of a project at this site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Maybe. The Change of Zone proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters; however, future development of the site may result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway; however, it is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area. Emergency response systems designed to be implemented in the event of dam failure will be sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The Change of Zone proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. Ultimate development of the site will result in an incremental change in the amount of surface water generated; however, these impacts are not foreseen as being significant. Furthermore, no major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in any discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality. However, future development of the site will result in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any development proposal, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The Change of Zone request will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters, nor will ultimate development of the site. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to.have'an impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Neither the Change of Zone proposal nor any future development on the site will result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direa additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference response 3.f. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in a reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service curren~y exists in proximity of the projea site. Typically, additional water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District CRCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. Yes. The proposal will expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Plant Life No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in a significant change to the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants, nor will any future development of the site. No native species of plants have been identified on the site. In addition, the site has been previously disturbed with existing development to the north, south and east. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. No. Neither the Change of Zone request nor any future development on the site will result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plant. There are no unique or rare plants on the site. In addition, threatened or endangered species will not be significantly affected (Reference response 4.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the introduction of new species to the site. Upon ultimate development on the site, new species of plants may be introduced. No significant native vegetation has been identified on the site, therefore, no significant impacts are expected from the introduction of these species. Any future development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species because the site has been previously disturbed and because of existing development to the north, east and south. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d. No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop, nor will any future development on the site. No prime farmland, farmlend of statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Animal Life 5.a,b, d,e. Maybe. The Change of Zone project site lies within the. Riverside County Stephem Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Preliminary Study Area. The potential for the change in the diversity and number (reduction) of the species, producing a barrier to the migration of Stephens Kangaroo Rat as well as the deterioration of its habitat exists within the project area. During the planning phase of the project, a specific site survey will be conducted to determine if the SKR presently inhabits the site. If the Stephens Kangaroo Rat is identified on the project site, the project could contribute to an incremental reduction of SKR habitat. Any impacts to the SKR would be mitigated by the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fees as required by the City of Temeoula. Since a Habitat Conservation Plan has not been established as of this date, the impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat may be mitigated through the paymere of the Interim Mitigation Fee pursuant to Ordinance No. 663. This fee will be imposed as a Condition of Approval for a project at this site. No other sensitive species have been identified upon the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c. No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the introduction of any new wildlife species into the area, nor will any subsequent development projects. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in increases to existing noise levels; however, it may facilitate increases from the development of the site. Upon ultimate development of the site, there will be resultant increases to existing noise levels. The land is currently vacant and any.development of the land would result in increases'to noise levels during construct.ion phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. These impacts will not be considered significant due to the fact that the potential for noise impacts will be discussed at the development review stage and mitigated through site design (i.e. buffering, setbacks). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels. Ultimate development of the site may expose people to strong noise levels due to the fact that the subject project site is adjacent to a heavily travelled thoroughfare (Highway 79 South). Any potential impacts can be addressed at the development review stage and mitigated through project design (i.e. walls, herins, landscaping and buffering). In addition, development of the site may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase. Grading machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100 + DBA at 100 feat which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady g-hour exposure. The noise will not be considered significant since it will be of short duration. No significant impaas are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes, The Change of Zone will not immediately result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations. The project may expose people to severe vibrations during the development/construction phase {short run). The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. LiRht and Glare Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately produce or result in light or glare. Ultimate development on the site will result in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. No impacts are foreseen from light and glare since any future development on the site will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Land Use Yes. The Change of Zone request will alter the present land use of the area particularly the land use designation for the site. The site is currently vacant. When a development project is realized on the site the use of the land will be altered. The Change of Zone request will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No. The Change of Zone request will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as described in the City's General Plan. The Change of Zone request to Commercial-Office is consistent with the Professional Office Land Use designation contained in the City's General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources 9.a,b. Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource, ultimate development of the site with Commercial-Office uses will 'result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels fur the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because of the scale of any proposed development. Risk of Upset 10.a,b. No. The Change of Zone request will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in the request. Upon ultimate development of the site, the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions shall be relatively low based upon permitted uses within the Commercial-Office zone. Any uses which may pose a greater risk will require a Conditional Use Permit, therefore, any potential impact can be addressed and mitigated at the development review stage. The same explanations apply to the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. lO.c. No. Neither the Change of Zone request nor subsequent development projects on the site will interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. Any future development will ultimately take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Ponulation 11. Maybe. The Ch~,nge of Zone request will not immediately result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of the area, however it may facilitate it. Ultimate development of Commercial-Office uses on the site will generate jobs which in turn may result in incremental alterations to the location, distribution, density and growth of human population in the area. Impacts are not seen as significant because sufficient infrastructure exists in the area and because the amount of growth is a small increment of the total growth expected in the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~TAFFRFr~691C'Z.PC 7114194 Ho~in2 12. Maybe. Reference response 11. An increase in population may result in an increased affect on existing housing and has the potential to create a demand for additional housing. These increases will not pose a s~gnificant impact to the existing or future housing stock within the area because existing housing stock and future housing stock will be sufficient to accommodate any increases in population. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation 13.a. No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the generation of substantial a~lditional vehicular movement. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designation for the site. Traffic analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows no significant impact to circulation at buildout in this area. The analysis was conducted with the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. Upon submittal of a development plan, the applicant will be required to submit a letter from a certified Engineer stating that impacts from this project to adjacent intersections will be less than five percent. A focused traffic analysis will be required for individual projects that have greater than a five (5) percent impact on affected intersections. Any impacts can be mitigated at this time. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately affect existing parking facilities, nor will it immediately result in an increased demand for new parking. Upon ultimate development of the site, there will be an increased demand for new parking which will be required for the project as per City Ordinance. Off-site parking will be required and consistency with City Ordinances regarding the amount of off-street parking required/provided will be reviewed during the development review stage. No significant impacts arc anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation; however, ultimate development of the site, impacts may occur to existing systems, including public transportation. Mitigation measures will be included at the development project stage as required. Any impacts upon public transportation can be mitigated at the design/development review stage of the project by adhering to recommendations from the Riverside Transit Agency (I~TA). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in alterations to present paRems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods; it may facilitate it. The site is currently vacant and ultimate construction of Commercial Office uses on the site will result in alterations to present panems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The alterations will not be seen as significant because the alterations to present panems of circulation/movement of people and/or goods will serve the subject project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.e. No. Neither the Change of Zone request nor any future development proposal(s) on the subject site will result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRFr~691C'Z.FC 7/14194 kib 13.f, Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in an increase in trafftc hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians, ultimate development of the site will result in an increase in tralTic hazards to the above mentioned areas. Any impacts can be mitigated to a level less than si_g_nificant through site design which is consistent with City standards. Potential conflicts can be mitigated at the development stage of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 14.a,b. Yes. A. lthough the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection; ultimate development of the site with Commercial-Office uses will provide impacts to these areas. Fire mitigation fees will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for any development project on the site. These fees will offset any impacts which are created by the new development. There will also be a resultant incremental increase in the need for police protection because increases in conunercial development ultimately generates the need for additional housing stock (reference response No. 12). Any impacts to existing and filmre levels of service for police protection can be mitigated through the revenue generators which fund the City's police force (i.e. sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax, motor vehicle tax, etc.). These impacts are not seen as significant. 14.c. Maybe. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school facilities; ultimate development of the site with Commercial Office uses may generate an incremental need for additional housing stock (reference response No. 12). Any rise in residential development generates the need for additional/expanded school facilities. Any impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant through the payment of school fees which will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for any development on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. Maybe. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon or resu:: in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities; ultimate development of the site with Commercial Office uses may. As mentioned in Response No. 12, commercial development may result in an increase in demand for additional housing stock. Additional residential units may result in a need for new/expanded park and/or recreational facilities. Quimby fees are required to be paid prior to the reeordation of a final map for residential units to finance the creation/expansion of park and recreation facilities. Due to payment of these fees, plus the limited scale of the project, any impacts will be incremental and can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads; future development of the site will result in a need for the maintenance of the above mentioned facilities. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of the ultimate development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.f. Energv 15.a,b. Utilities 16.a 16.b. 16.c. 16.d. 16.e. Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered library services; however, future development on the site may have an impact upon the above mentioned services. As has been previously discussed (reference Response No. 12), additional commercial uses in an area may generate the need for additional housing stock. This in turn will result in an incremental increase in result in an incremental increase in demand for library facilities. These impacts are not seen as significant and can be mitigated to a level less than significant through payment of library fees. These fees are paid on residential units prior to the issuance of building permits. No other governmental series will be affected. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in the use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy, nor will there be any subsequent increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. Increases will occur as a result of ultimate construction of Commercial-Office uses on the site. These increases will be limited because of the scale of the project, and are therefore, not seen as significant. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to communication systems. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. Typically, water service is available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems. According to the City of Temecnia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), implementation of the General Plan (of which this project is considered consistent with) any future project on the site would not significantly impact wastewater services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The Change of Zone request will not result in a need fur new systems or substantial alterations to storm water drainage systems (reference response No. 3.b,c.); however, any subsequent development on the site will result in a need fur new storm water drainage systems. These will be required at the development review stage and the project will not be approved until it is proven that the storm water drainage system is sufficient. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any impacts from solid waste created by future development on the site can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.g. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above. There is existing development to the east and south of the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Human Health 17.a,b. Maybe. As mentioned in response 10.a,b. the Change of Zone request will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in the request. Upon ultimate development of the site, the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions shall be relatively low based upon permitted uses within the Commercial-Office zone. Any uses which may pose a greater risk will require a Conditional Use Permit, therefore, any potential impact can be addressed and mitigated at the development review stage. The same explanations apply to the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 18.a. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent future development on the site will result in the obstruction of a scenic vista or view open to the public. No vistas or views open to the public exist at the site. No significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project. 18.b. Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not result in the creation of aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The site is relatively level and is currently vacant. Upon development of the site with Commercial-Office. type uses, the site will be required to be landscaped to City Standards. Development projects for the site will need to be consistent with City Ordinances and shall be reviewed during the development review process. Any potential negative aesthetic impacts can be mitigated at this time. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.c. Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Upon development of the site with Commercial-Office type uses, the site will be required to be landscaped to City Standards. Development projects for the site will need to be consistent with City Ordinances and shall be reviewed during the development review process. Any potential negative aesthetic impacts can be mkigatod at this time. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 19. Maybe. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities; ultimate development of the site with Commercial Office uses may. As mentioned in Response No. 12, commercial development may result in an increase in demand for additional housing stock. Additional residential units may result in a need for new/expanded park and/or recreational facilities. Quimby fees are required to be paid as part of development of residential units to finance the creation/expansion of park and recreation facilities. Due to payment of these fees, plus the limited scale of. the project, any impacts will be incremental ahd can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 20.a. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in the alteration or desmxction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site. No paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic sites exist on the subject project site. This determination is based upon information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.b. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. None exist or are known to exist on the site (reference response No. 20.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.c. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site (reference response No. 20.a.). No significant impacts arc anticipated as a result of this project. 20.d. No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in restrictions to existing religions or sacred uses within the potential impact area. None exist or are known to exist on the site (reference response No. 20.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNI~'ICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the ~nvironment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self 8ustslnlng levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or snimal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YgS Maybe No Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, 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.) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resourc, es may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). Y¢$ N~o R:X$TAF~691C'Z. PC 7/14/94 lab 32 ENVIRONMENTAL D~-r,'~!INATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IIVIPACT REPORT is required. Matthew Fagan Name and Title June 27, 1994 Date R:~TA~ICZ.I~C 7114194/rib ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5691 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA E~-HBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OlyFICE (P-O) ""~' ' ' // ~ ~ 47'2/ ~ ~' // ~\ ' ~"'/~, "' ' '~2"' ,' "/ !~3 ':'/ '\ ~/--~'- ' , ~., ,--""' c-P-s .----__--'t f ---/" _ N EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - COMMERCIAL OFFICE (C-O) CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5691 EXHIBIT - D CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CORRESPONDENCE 31506 Calle Los Padres Temecula, Ca. 92592 · June 30, 1994 RECEIVED Planning Con~nission City of Temecula ngeof Zone No. 5691 This letter is to convey my objection to the pro- posed change of zoning. The proposed change from residential/agriculture to co~nnercial/office will have a negative impact on the country-like setting of Los Ranchoritos Estates and detract from the serenity of residential life for both "Veranda" and "Country Glen" sub-div;lsions, which are located very near Hyw.79 S. and Margarita Road. The increased traffic and congestion ois unwanted and' will only reduce our property values. Our family did not buy a home in Temecula so that we would live in a commercial area. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 18, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ,CC 8/15/9~ ktb 8 AYES: 6 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None Adopt a Resolution Determininc) that Rancho California Water District'S 94- 95 Caoital Construction Projects are Consistent with the Adopted City General Plan Associate Planner David Hogan presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adopt Resolution No. 94- ... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: O COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. ChanQe of Zone No. 5691 Change of zone request of five (5) parcels from R-A-2~/z (Residential Agricultural 2~ acre minimum lot size) to C-O (Commercial Office). Located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Chairman Ford Opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. Larry Markham, as a representative for Los Ranchito Estates, expressed support for the project and came before the Commission to answer any questions which they might have. Commissioner Fahey inquired as to whether the consistency changes matched the General Plan. m Planning Director Gary Thornhill addressed Commissioner Fahey's concern and stated that the changes were consistent with the General Plan. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5691 and Adopt Resolution No. 94- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5691, based on staff's recommendations. The motion was carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Salyer, Ford NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Vestincl Tentative Tract MaD No. 25063/Chance of Zone No. 5598 Proposal to subdivide a 20 acre parcel into 68 residential units and change the zone classification from R-R2~ (Rural Residential 2~ acre minimum lot size) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling). Located on the south side of Nicholas Road, approximately 2000 feet east of Calle Medusa. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz recommended this item be continued to the September 18, 1994 meeting to allow staff to properly notice the project. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N, Temecula, expressed his support of the project. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Salyer to close the public hearing at 6:22 P.M. and continue this Item to the September 19, 1994 meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahe¥, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: o COMMISSIONERS: None ITEM 22 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning August 23, 1994 APPRO~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER Appeal of Planning Application No. PA94-0043, Klassic Shotz Billiards Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0043,MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE LOCATION OF A 6,800 SQUARE FOOT BILLIARDS HALL AND VIDEO GAME ARCADE WITH CONCURRENT SALE OF BEER, AND WITH MINORS PERMITTED WITHIN THE ESTABLISHMENT BEFORE 10:00 P.M., LOCATED AT 41915 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY, SUITES A,B,C AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-008 BACKGROUND On July 18, 1994, the Plannihg Commission heard the above referenced project. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued the item to their August 1, 1994 meeting to enable staff to provide additional public hearing notices to the neighboring apartment complex. At the conclusion of the August 1 meeting, the Commission voted 2-1 (Commissioners Ford and Fahey opposed, Commissioners Blair and Salyer absent) to deny the project. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he had spoken with surrounding business owners and that they did not oppose the project. Commissioner Hoagland felt that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding businesses in the area. At their August 9, 1994 meeting, the City Council directed staff to place this item on their next available agenda. DISCUSSION At both Commission meetings, members of the public cited various reasons why the proposed use should be denied. Primarily, the public felt that a business selling alcohol in close proximity to residences posed a threat to the health and welfare of the community. A 320 R:\STAFFRPT\~,3PAgZ~.CC 8/15/9~ kLb 1 unit apartment complex is located approximately 500 feet easterly and single family homes are located approximately 2,000 feet easterly of the proposed use. Surrounding business_ owners had different opinions of the proposed use. Businesses located within the commercial center that the billiards hall proposes to locate expressed no objections to the use. However, the Commission did receive two letters of opposition from the auto dealers (see Attachment No. 4). In a letter dated July 28, 1994, the Temecula Automobile Dealers Association stated their objection to the proposed use. The basis of the objection was use would have potential to damage their auto inventory. In a letter date July 18, 1994, the owner of th9 Toyota dealership also expressed similar Opposition. Ultimately, the Commission found that proposed use would be in close proximity to residential structures and is incompatible with such uses, thereby posing a threat to the safety and welfare of the general public, especially minors. The Commission also found that the location of the proposed use would be in close proximity to several automobile dealerships which have a high value inventory which would be exposed to potential vandalism or other harm which may be associated with the proposed use. Therefore, the Commission determined the use to be detrimental to the general welfare of the public, including the business community in the City. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5, Resolution No. 94- - Page 3 July 18, 1994 & August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Staff Reports - Page 7 July 18, 1994 Draft Planning Commission Minutes - Page 8 Letters of Opposition - Page 9 Letters of Support - Page 10 R:\STAFFRPT\43PA9~.CC 8/15/94 kLb 2 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT\~3PA9~.CC 8/15/9~ kLb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLIfTION OF TRF. Cn'Y COUNCIL OF TRI;. CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE LOCATION OF A 6,800 SQUARE FOOT BILLIARDS HALL AND VIDEO GAME ARCADE WITH CONCURRENT SALE OF BEER~ AND WITH MINORS PERMI'ITFA) INfI'HIN ~ ESTABI.ISH1VIENT BEFORE 10:00 P.M., LOCATED AT 41915 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY, SUITES A,B,C AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-008 WHEREAS, Maria Smedly fried PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Pennit in accordance with City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WRF. REAS, said Minor Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; W H EREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit on July 18, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the July 18, 1994 meeting, Planning Application No. PA94-0043 was continued to the August 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Pennit on August 1, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said Minor Conditional Use Pennit application; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application No. PA94-0043 on August 23, 1994, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition of Planning Application No. PA94-0043 and WHF..REAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceeding and Staff Reports regarding Planning Application No. PA94-0043; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.LOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. R:\STAFFRPT\~SPA94.CC 8/15/9~ ktb 4 Section 2. Findings. The City Council, in denying the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. .Pursuant to Section 18.28(e), no Conditional Use Permit may be approval unless the applicant demonstrates the proposal use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and weftare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approval shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general weftare of the community. 2. The location of the proposed use would be in close proximity to residential structures and is incompatible with such uses thereby posing a threat to the safety and welfare of the general public, especially minors. 3. The location of the proposal use would be in close proximity to several automobile dealerships which have a high value inventory exposed to potential vandalism or other harm which may be associated with the proposed use and is therefore detrimental to the general weftare of the public, including the business community in the city. Section 3. The City of Temecuh City Council hereby denies Planning Application No. PA94-0043 Minor Conditional Use Permit for the location of a 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video game arcade with the concurrent sale of beer, and with minors permitted within the establishment before 10:00 p.m., located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A,B,C, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-680-008 based on the above findings. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Section 5. PASSED, AlPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 1994. RON ROBERTS MAYOR A'ITP~ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TP_,MECULA R:\STAFFRPT\43PA~.CC 8/15/~ kib 5 I WERRRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, hem on the 23rd day of August, 1994 by the following vote of the City Council: COUNCILIVlEMBERS NOES: COUNCILIVIEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. CITY CLRRK R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.CC 8/15/94 ktb 6 ATTACHMENT N0.2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS JULY 18, 1994AND AUGUST 1, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\4~PA9~.CC 8/15/9~ ktb 7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 18, 1994 Case No.: PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit Prepared By.' Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- al~proving PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Maria Smedly, Klassic Shotz Billiards Ken Wade PROPOSAL: A request to locate a 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video arcade in an existing building in the (C-I/C-P) General Commercial zone. LOCATION: 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A, B & C EXISTING ZONING: General Commercial (C-I\C-P) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: General Commercial (C-I\C-P) General Commercial (C-1 \C-P) General Commercial (C-I\C-P) General Commercial (C-I\C-P) GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Community Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Retail\Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Automobile Dealer Retail/Commercial Vacant Automobile Dealer R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94,PC 7/14/94 klb 1 BACKGROUND This project was submitted to the Planning Department on May 24, 1994. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 93-05~, all billlard halls and video game arcades require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Subsequent to the application submittal, the Planning Director scheduled this item before the Planning Commission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located a{ 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A, B & C. The project is a proposal to locate a 6,804 square foot billiards hall and video arcade in an existing building in the General Commercial (C-I\C~P) Zone. ANALYSIS Area Compatibility The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to insure that the proposed use does not pose a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Further, it is staff's responsibility to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in a commercial shopping center and is surrounded by commercial and vacant land uses. The closest residential development to the project is an apartment complex located approximately 1000 feet southeast of the site (see Exhibit D). In an effort to notice people within the area of the proposed project, staff mailed public hearing notices to the nearest 30 property owners and surrounding businesses. It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and does not pose a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Conditions have been placed upon this project which will insure that the proposed use will not pose such a threat. In the event that the applicant violates any of the conditions of approval, the Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of Ordinance No. 348. Parking The proposed project requires 34 parking spaces. The parcel upon which the project site is located contains 64 par.king spaces while the total number of the parking spaces required for all the businesses 'located at this site is 71 spaces. The adjacent parcel to the south of the proposed project contains a parking surplus of 18 parking spaces, Because the site has a recorded reciprocal access and parking agreement with the parcel to the south, the proposed use has an adequate number of parking spaces. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project site is zoned C-1 \C-P (General Commercial) and the adjacent parcels are also zoned C-I\C-P. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Community Commercial. The proposed commercial project is consistent with all requirements of the C-1 \C-P zone, Ordinance 348 and the City's General Plan. R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94,PC 7/14/94 klt~ 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has determined the project to be a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality. Act. As such, no further environmental review was required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS In staff's opinion, the proposed billiards hall and video arcade has been conditioned to be compatible with the surrounding uses. The project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 and is consistent with the current zoning designation of General Commercial and the General Plan designation of Community Commercial. The use is exempt from the California Environmental Impact Report and conditions of approval will ensure that the project will have no adverse impact on the built environment. FINDINGS PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the proposed commercial project is consistent with the requirements of the General Commercial zone and the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No, 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinance No, 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No, 348, Section 18.28, Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will ensure adecluate circulation, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed use, The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding development is predominantly commercial uses and vacant land, The proposed use has been conditioned to ensure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, Attachments: Resolution - Blue Page 4 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 13 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Floor Plan R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94,PC 7/14/94 klb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-__ R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 4 ATrACI-IMENT N0. 1 PC RESOLUTON NO. A RESOLUTION OF 'IRE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TBY~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT LOCATION AND OPERATION OF A 6,800 SQUARE FOOT · BII.LIARDS HALL AND VIDEO GAME ARCADE LOCATED AT 41915 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY, SUITES A,B,C AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921- 680-0008 V~fI~.REAS, Maria Smedly fried PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit in accordance with City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; Wlt'gREAS, said Minor Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time an.d manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit on July 18, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0043; NOW, Tt~F~REFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TWE. CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Section 18.28(e), no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. B. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit, makes the following findings, to wit: R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94,PC 7/14/94 klb 5 1. PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the proposed commercial project is consistent with the requirements of the General Commercial zone and the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community.. The project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure adequate circulation, access and paxking which will facilitate the proposed use. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the a.ma. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding development is predominantly commercial uses and vacant land. The proposed use has been conditioned to insure it wffi not impact the surrounding area businesses. 5. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment sin~e the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Minor Conditional Use Permit proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed use has been determined to be a Class I Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit for the location and operation of 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video game arcade located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A,B,C, and known as Aisessor's Parcel No. 921-680-0008, subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. R:~STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7134194. klb 6 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th clay of July, 1994. STEVEN I. FORD CHAIRMAN I ltlv. REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18 day of July, 1994, by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIOn: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT%43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.pC 7/1~./94 klb 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No.: PA9~,-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit Project Description: A request for approval for the location and operation 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video game arcade located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A,B,C. Applicant: Maria Smedly, Klassic Shotz Billiards Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-680-008 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The use hereby permitted by this Minor Conditional Use Permit is a request for approval for the location and operation 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video game arcade located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A,B,C. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PA No. 94-0043. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on the site plan for PA94-0043 Minor Conditional Use Permit marked Exhibit "D" - Site Plan and Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan, or as amended by these conditions. A minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7114/94 Idb 9 A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. 7, Four (4) Class Jl bicycle racks shall be provided. The Minor Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of Ordinance 348. At such time the use is increased in size or the site is significantly altered, the applicant shall re-file with the Planning Department. 10. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period ;of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. 11. On or before September 28, 1994, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 94-16, the special license requirement for billiards halls. 12. Hours of operation shall be as follows: Sunday through Thursday - 11 a.m. to 12 a.m. Friday and Saturday - 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. 13~ A maximum of 13 pool tables shall be allowed. Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 14. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be voided by reason of failure of condition. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 16. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: R:%STAFFR~F%43PA94.PC 7114/94 klb 10 "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclairr~d at ~ or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 17. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Prior to Issuance of Occupancy 18. The Applicant shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Applicant requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Applicant shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Applicant. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2,00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Applicant understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Applicant will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Applicants is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. The above fees shall not be applicable if, at a later date, it is determined by the Director of Public Works that the project is exempt from said fees. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY 19. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 20. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 21. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. R:%STAFFRPT~43PA94.pC 7114/94 kt 11 22. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 23. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 24. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule. plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. OTHER AGENCIES 25. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Department transrnittal dated June 6, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 26. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Fire Department transmittal dated June 27, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 27. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated June 17, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 28. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula Police .' Department transmittal dated June 1, 1994, a copy of which is attached. I~:~STAFFI~T~43PA94.PC 7114/94 klb 12 JUM 01 '94 ~:~IPM SW SM~?~FF STATIQ~ City of Temecula I Temecula Pc ice Department To: Craig Ruiz Dste: June I , 1994 Fr: Dep. Sanchat FIe: Approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit for Billlard Parlor and Video Arcade st 41915 Motor Car Parkway The following are recommendations for conditjons of approval for the above referenced application: 1} Maximum amount of lighting altowahl8 par MS. Palomar restrictions in parking ares of establishment. 2) Low density landscaping {shrubbery) In perking area and around the building, specifically window areo's. 3} Maintain adequate number of "high visibility" in house security trained in recogniaing, averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours. 4) Provide constant security personnel in paring lot 8r~a during peak business hours, (after sunset). 5) Post 'No Loitering" signs in conspicuous sres's of parking lot and make effort to discourage loitering outside of establishment, g) Have only one entrance end one exit evaliable to general public. These doors must be secured by personnel during all hours of operation. Further recommend any other access doors be alarmed when opened. 71 No one under eighteen years of age In establishment after 10:00 P.M. Would prefer no one under twenty-one yearl after q0:00 P.M. 8) Allow no-one under twenty-one Into the establishment if they have been ddnWng alcoholic beverages. Personnel should be ~relned to recognize objective symptoms of intoxication. 9) If multiple and/or constant problems arise at the establishment which adversely Impact the Police Depsrtment, the Police Department can at the dlscretlon of the Police Chief, assign officers to work at the establishment. The number of ,TLr4 01 '94 offi-erz aresigned and the hourz and days worked is also a~ the discretion of the P~mlice Chief. Any offlcerm so assigned will be at The currant extra duty rate of pay and will be Daid for by the owner of the establishment. NOTE: if ~e applicant later decides to mall beer at thle ee~bllshment, further eondltlbne will apply. The above recommendations by the Police Depzrtment to help minimize potential criminal 'problems. RIchard W. Sanchez Police Officer Temeouls Police Department {E09) 696-3000 TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FI~LTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. ATI'N: Craig Ruiz ~RE/~qGOR DELLENBACH, Em4tom,~al Health Speei~ligt IV CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA94-01M3. RECEIVED dUN 09 1N CiTY OF T~F, CIJLA DATE: June 6, 1994 Depar~nent of Envi~om~a~al Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA94-0043 and has no objections. PRIOR TO BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL the following are requital: 1. "FFd!-Serve" letters ~'om the approprial= waln' and sewefing districts. 2. fithere ar~ to be any food establishments, three c~amplete sets of plans for each food establishment will be subntil~ inclurllnZ a fixture schednle, a ~nigh schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure complianc~ with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilkies Law.2. OD:dr (909) 275-S980 thor 3une 17, 1994 RECEIV -D !UN 20 cnYenl ellLA Ke~eth C. Dealy Mr. Craig Rulz City of Temecula planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 Water Availab~ty APN 921-680-008, PA94-0043 Minor Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Ruiz: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, ff any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT '~r'teve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:SO:ebSZ/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician LM.I-IARR~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERP, I$, CALIFORNIA 92570 * (909) 657-3183 June 27, 1994 T0: PLANNING DEPARTMENT A'rr~,/: CRAIG RUIZ lIE: PA93-0043 Witli respect to the conditions of appwval for the above xeferenced plot plan, the FLre DepaAment recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire pwtection standards: The existing water mal.~ and fi~ hydrants wffi provide sufficient fire pwtectlon foF~the proposed land dixision. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the CRy of Temecula. TltE FOr rOWING CONDITIONS IvlUST BE 1VI~T PRIOR.TO OCCUPANCY. The fu~ sprinkler system within the bu~ding or tenant space is designed according W existing walh, ff you axe proposing w add any pations or other obstructions Within 18" Of the Ceiling that would cause unequal spacing of the sprinkler heads, the system will have to be modified. Any sprinkler work whall be done by a licensed sprinkler company with plans submilled to the Fire Depa~i. ment for approval prior to installation. Install panic hardwax~ and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall aho be provided, where exit signs a~ required by section 3314(a). Provide exit illumination per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building code. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. PA94-0043 PAGE 2 Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall pro'pare and submit to the Fire 'Dtt~tm~ut for approval, a site plan designating required ~x~ lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Sl:l~t address shnll be posted, in a vim~le location, minimum 6 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show thex~ exists conditions set ford1 by the FiI~ DepartmcnL Please contac~ the Fire Depa~haent for a fin~l inspection prior to occupancy. Fimxl conditions will be add~ssed when building phn~ ar~ reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions r~garcling tIE m~-i-g of these conditions shall be ref~ to th~ Fire ~cnt Pl~nning and engineering section. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Dcpaxtm~nt Laura Cabtal Fire Saf~t~ Specinli~t ATFACHMENTNO. 3 EXHIBITS R:',STAFFRP'T~43PA94,PC 7/14./94 klb 13 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- JULY 18, 1994 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb CITY OF TEMECULA SITE EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1/C-P) CASE NO. - PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994 R:',STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 1, 1994 Case No.: PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department S~aff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: Maria Smedly, Klassic Shotz Billiards Ken Wade A request to locate a 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video arcade' in an existing building in the (C-I/C-P) General Commercial zone. LOCATION: 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A, B & C EXISTING ZONING: General Commercial (C-I\C-P) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: General Commercial (C-I\C-P) General Commercial (C-1 \C-P) General Commercial (C-1 \C-P) General Commercial (C-1 \C-P} GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Community Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Retail\Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Automobile Dealer Retail/Commercial Vacant Automobile Dealer R:\STAFFRPT~43PAg~,.PC2 7/26194 Idb BACKGROUND This item was previously heard by the Planning Commission at their July 18, 1994 meeting. The Commission directed staff to continue the project to the August 1, 1994 meeting to enable staff to provide additional public hearing notice to the Acacia Park Apartments relative to this project. On July 19, 1994, staff provided said notice to the apartment complex Assistant Manager. The Assistant Manager agreed to post the notices in conspicuous places. Since the July 18 heari'ng, staff has received one letter of opposition to the project which has been attached for your review. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS In staff's opinion, the proposed billiards hall and video arcade has been conditioned to be compatible with the surrounding uses. The project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 and is consistent with the current zoning designation of General Commercial and the General Plan designation of Community Commercial. The use is exempt from the California Environmental Impact Report and conditions of approval will ensure that the project will have no adverse impact on the built environment. Attachments: 1. ~ Resolution - Blue Page 3 2. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7 R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94,PC2 7/26/94 klb 2 TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT JU12 9 199 To: Gary Thornhill 07-26-94 Fm: Rick Sayre Re: Temecula Billiard Parlors The following reflects the number of calls for service that have been received at the two strip malls where existing billiard parlors are located in Temecula. It is important to bear in mind that calls are tracked to the strip mall, and some of the activity may have been related to other businesses. Q-Club, 27911 Front Street, # 104: Six calls; Two alarms, Two Malicious mischief, One drunk in public, One non criminal. High Society Billiards, 27309 Jefferson, #101: Twenty one calls; Six alarms, Two traffic citations, one grand theft, one'disturbing the peace, two burglaries, one miscellaneous felony, one city code violation, seven miscellaneous. These calls occurred between January 1993 and June of 1994. P.O. Box 892050, Temecula, CA 92589 · (909) 696-3000 · FAX (909) 696-3010 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\~]PA94.CC 8/15/9~ ktb 8 Commissioner~-~ r,~i,^"'b='d'Ch~f'~Re meeting would be held on ~ _Sent-mlc~,' [:~, 1994 and not be continued to 3 (,?tar rnp~.tinq date. ~ Planning ADolication No. 94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit Proposal to locate a billlard parlor and video arcade in an existing building in a commercial shopping center. Located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz, noting that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, requested that the Commission approve the project subject to Ordinance No. 94-25. Chairman Ford suggested that the Police Department requirements, which were identical to their requirements for other projects in the area, as well as the Fire Departments requirements need to be more definitive. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he would be reluctant to apply different Police and Fire Department conditions to this project. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:32 P.M. Ken Wade, representative, 29605 Solana Way, No. 6, stated that he agrees with all the conditions presented in the staff report, but opposed Item 18 of Page 11 relative to Public Facilities Impact Fees. Dirk Wegner, 31126 Del Rey Road, expressed opposition to the project and stated that the proposed location of the business was in a family oriented area and too close to the proposed Chaparral High School. He also stated that the business would be a breeding ground for gangs and violence. Mr. Wegner compared the proposed project to the Yellow Brick Road arcade located in the Target Center. He asked the Commission to postpone voting on the project for ~wo weeks so that a petition could be started. Mr. Wegner also proposed that if alcohol was going to be sold on the premises, the business should not go in at that location. Ken Wade presented the Commission with a letter in support of the Pool Hall. Mr. Wade also stated that the existing High Society Billiards is located closer to the high school than the proposed billlard hall. Mr. Wade also stated that Klassic Shotz Billlard could not be compared to the Yellow Brick Road and requested that the Commission not grant a two week extension based on Mr. Wegner's request. Mr. Ford closed the public hearing at 6:48 P.M. Planner Ruiz. said the proposed project is located in an existing commercial center and contains similar commercial uses and there have been no complaints from the surrounding businesses. The Police Department has no concerns other than those stated in the Conditions of Approval, Mr. Ruiz stated that the Conditional Use Permit was revokable if the Conditions of Approval were not met. Chairpersons Fahey, Salyer, and Blair questioned the noticing process and whether Planning Department staff complied with the intent of the noticing requirements. Director Thornhill stated the Planning Department has gone beyond the noticing requirements. Planner Ruiz stated that the noticing procedure met the legal requirements and that the noticing was for 21 days rather than the required 10 days and that all surrounding business owners were also noticed. Commissioners Blair and Fahey recommended more noticing be sent to surrounding residents. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland to approve staffs recommendation, but after further discussion withdrew his motion, but urged Commission to view like facilities before voting. Chairman Ford stated he had visited similar establishments and suggested the Commission do the same before voting on the proposed project. Commissioner Salyer expressed concern about surrounding commercial businesses not knowing the nature of the proposed project. He stated that he was not against billlard halls, but was concerned about the noticing. Chairman Ford stated that the notices should be delivered to the nearby apartment manager and the owner of the nearby apartment complex. Commissioner Fahey moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. and continue the proposed project to the August 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to notice the apartment residents, seconded by Commissioner Blair. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: o COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:17 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:29 P.M. SpeCific Plan No. 263 and ChanGe of Zone No. 5589 Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial 000 uare feet of Office/institutional and Mixed Use Residential 298,000 re feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zon~ uest changing the from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heav ricultural 20 acre ~t size) to SP (Specific Plan). Road between and Margarita Roads. Senior Planner proposed project Commission meetin Ubnoske presented the been continued from report stating the 6, 1994 Planning Commissioner Fahey about Item Approval?~?~?~??~??: ???? 58 of the Conditions of Planner Ubnoske stated the Village Center Concept which meeting. for the Regional Center is the ~rried over from the May Chairman Ford opened the hearing 7:30 P.M. Dennis Chiniaeff, repres 1 ~r Kemper C munity Development Company, inquired as tl~ conditions which a w some community development to occu ....... ~ the interest.of both e City and Kemper. Mr. Chiniaeff also said e con~ ions should be balance 'n terms of property improvements a area improvements. He also questi ed whether Item No, ~ee for co~ercial, office and residential; his understandin was that these rated ..... City Attorney, Greg Diaz added legal comments. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Lbl I ,:RS OF OPPOSITION R:\STAFFRPT\~3PA94.CC 8/15/94 ktb 9 July 18, Gary Thornhill City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Gary: Please be informed that I strongly oppose your recommendation of approval for a proposed Billlard Parlor and Video Arcade on Motor Car Parkway. I am'concerned with my investment as it relates to potential crime and vandelism. As we all know from the Target Center situation, it is very likely this will become a "hot spot". I feel that I have too much to lose, as my insurance and security costs are already very high. I have been told by City officials that the car center area is going to be designated auto related businesses. This is the worst possible type of business (other than a Bar) that could be recommended for this area. Please consider the investments of all of the auto dealers. I can assure you that we all feel the same way about this issue. For the record, I along with many of the auto dealers urge you to re- consider your recommendation of approval. Dan Atwood, President TOYOTA OF TEMECULA VALLEY cc: City Council Members DA/sp 26631 ynez Road, Ternecula' CA 92591 °0575 (909) 69~~ Meyer Ron Roberts, JULY 24, 1994. I am writing you to inform you of my dealing with the planning commission on July 18, 1994. I am going to summarize it in one page~ dueto'your busy schedule and my feeling this will have a better chance of being read and acted on. Ho.~ever, if your schedule perntits, I will be happy to sit down with you and discuss in length at1 the intricacies of this issue. My'attendance at the'meeting was in regards to allowing a poe1 'hall/arcade at 41915 Motorcar Pkwy. This "business" [SERVING AND ALLOWING MINORS ACCESS] is too close and accessible to our childr%n, schools, and homes. , I have never addressed an isshe in a public forum ,;~l.-befOr&. However,'when .I r~l~zed what was going on, I decided ~,'?noUgh,is enough.]'I attended_the planning comm/ssion meeting 'on July 18th. I informe~ t'hem that I 'am'a Fire Captain Paramedic and have been in the fire service for 14 years. I,have worked in most o~ the cr~meridden areas of L.A. COunty. The point being is that I work in the street and see everyday the problems these proposals create. I explained to ,.them how this is basically a bar that allows our children · [UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] in it. The hours they will allow our children t~.co-mingle With drinking adults are until 10:00 ..:,!~=M..:i~d r~m~in.ope~ ,U/{til midnight weekdays and 2:00 A.M. ~a~d'n~'al~0h01? then"t~y to lure our children into these "].=~>6d'~e~ile delinquent b~eeding grounds unsupervised. All you fT-h~'~'to do""is~go'=t~ Edw~rds Cinema and look at the Yellow ~! '~t'~t 'alc0h~l!:At'~e".~m'e~ting one of the commissioners s.uggested that the other members go see the pool halls o~ the :.~west side oE the 15 freeway. Since he felt they are not so v.~~bad.'He doesn't get it!' Thosep0ol halls are in_primarily i~i~;~on~ercial and industrial areas, away from our Schools, our ~O~es,=~and'~Wa9 from ~em~'tingldur children. After I spoke, 'another commissioner stated," Don't listen to these scare tactics, we don't live in Long Beach and these problems don't exist." This type ofattitude really scares me the most, because with attitudes like this wowill be just another Long Beach in the not so distant future. We moved here to get away from the very problems that these proposals create. In conclusion, our elected officials need to make it clear to the people [and vice versa] what. their vision is for our beautiful community. They need to make sure their .~Ubordinates understand, implement, and follow through on ..this vision. There is not a quick fix. We need to logically think through all these proposals, that added up will make or break this city. I appreciate your time and would like feedback on your feelings in regards to these issues. co: Council Planning Commission R. Bradley G. Thornhill DIRK A. WEGNER TEMECULA CONSTITUENT //¢3 August 28, 1994 Gary Thornhill Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 9~590 R -CEIVE:D CiTY OF TEMECULA Subject: Case PA940043 Dear Gary: The Temecula Valley Automobile Dealers Association voted during our general meeting this morning to formally oppose the location of a pool hall/arcade serving alcoholic beverages in the =inS--mall at the corner of Ynez and Solaria. The reasons for this opposition are as follows: · The high incidence of crime and "gang--appearing" types of activity at the currently existing arcade in the Target csn~er will likely carry over to an area where the dealerships have many millions of oollars invested in exposed inventories. The type of element thab a pool-hail/arcade/bar tends to attract is not the type that should be welcome in this area. · Alcohol and Automobiles do not mix...after a few beers at the pool hall, some individuals may visit dealerships to look at vehicles and take a test drive. Drinking and driving is enough of a problem without inviting people to drink in the midst of seven automobile dealerships. · Children ride*their bikes to the mini mart less than 100 feet away from the proposed location, joggers leave ACS jog up Motor Car Parkway and up Solana passing next to the proposed location, Families walk continuously from the apartments and tracts east of the location passing it on the way to Palm Plaza or to the mini-- mart. Alcoholic beverages should not be consumed in this vicinity. Our reason for opposing this use is to protect our facility and inventory investments, to preserve the community perception that they can shop for automobiles and services without being concerned for their families safety, and to promise business quality along the beautiful Ynez cmrridor. TZr~ Gilmore Vice-President Te~ecula Valley Automobile Dealers Association ATTACHMENT NO. 5 L~: I I ERS OF SUPPORT R:\STAFFRPT\4]PA94.CC 8/15/94 ktb 10 June 15, 1994 To whom it may concern: I would like to take a small amount of your time to introduce you to Maria Smedely. Maria is a Eucharist Minister, appointed by the priests and padsl~ioners of Saint Frances of Rome Church. (see attached) Mada and Eve Bergman, also a Eucharist Minister, visit the sick at Inland Valley Hospital on Wednesdays and they visit Sharp's Convalescent Home in Temecula on Mondays. On Fridays Maria volunteers at the soup kitichen at Saint Frances of Rome, cooking, serving, and admini~l~dng to the poor. She has the support of Father George Gonzales. (909) 674-6881 As friends of Mada's, and supporters of KLASSIC SHOTZ FAMILY BILLIARDS, we know there may be some concern about the opening of another 'pool hall" in Ternecula. Therefore, the people of our community should be made aware that KLASSIC SHOTZ FAMILY BILLIARDS will be an upscale, family oriented billiards, 'one of the hot 19 businesses for the '90's ', like ones described in Entrepreneur Magazine. (quoted from Pool and Billiard Magazine.6/94, p.36.) A bdef summation of what's going on with the two other billiards in Temecula will let you rest assured, should you have any doubts about the results of a family oriented business and its impact on our community. The O. Club has been operating trouble flee for over two years. Although the owners of The O. Club, Ed and Tess Downer, lodged a frivolous complaint against the opening of High Society Billiards in March 1993, there has been a year of trouble free operation there too. Now that you have met Mada Smedely and understand she will operate an upscale, family oriented billiards in a drug free envirnment for the youth and adults of Temecula, please join us in welcoming Mada Smedely and KLASSIC SHOTZ FAMILY BILLIARDS to Temecula. Thank you for your understanding and support. Friends of Maria Smedely Supporters of Klassic Shotz Billiards t Linda Spoon 39930 Whitewood Road Muftieta, Ca. 92563 (909) 677-0772 DearSin This letter is in regards to the article printed this week about opposition to the proposed opentog of Klassic Shotz Family Billiards. As an area resident, high school teacher and parent, I would like to take this opportunity to respond. First of all,.l have met Klassic Sh0tz owner, Maria Smedly. Maria spends much of her time doing volunteer work in the surrounding communities, including visiting convalecent homes. She is very active at her church~f0r instance working at its soup kitchen. Obviously, Maria is a person of integrity and is bard working and conscientious. Therefore, the business she intends to open will not be the stereotypical "pool hall" perpetuatod in old movie butmtheranupdatedbilliards and games center>offering a variety of recreation for families an~community members of all ages. It will be well supervised at all times by Maria, family members and associates, all responsible adults. As a teacher, I often hear my students complain about a lack ofentemainment choices in our area. With its adult supervision, Klassic Shots will be a much safer alternative for amusement then ridding around in their cars or frequenting the "mad parfes" I often overhear them talking about. As a parent, 1 will appreciate having somewhere to go with my 14yr. old son where there will be activities provided which we can both enjoy in a clean, friendly atmospherejand a place where I can drop him of~knowing he will be safe while I shop or mn errands. Th a Certainlyathere are similar business in our communities which attract problems. is is more problem of poor management and irresponsible employees then because of the type of business. I use for example a local arcade where no beer is sen'e~but where I will not allow my son to go unless I am along. In contrast, Bollweevil's Restaurant and High Society Billiards, both in operation for over a year, both serving beer, and both offering pool tables and arcade games, do not experience any serious problems. I have seen young people at both establishments, and have never witnessed,nor heard of any "stabbings or shoorings" as mentioned in your article. Klassic Shotz will uphold the traditional values that attracted us all to this valley, and rother then"bringing our community down", will be an asset to this area. In closing, I would like to remind other parents that it is up to us to "teach our children well"; in doing so it will not be necessary to expect our communities, our schools or our governments to do our job by regulating our businesses and our lives. - Sincerely, Linda Spoon English 11, MVHS JULY 27, 199~ I UNDERSTAND KLASSIC SHOTZ BILLIARDS WILL BE OPENING AT 41915 MOTOR CAR PARKWAY,SERVING BEER AND HAVING A VIDEO ARCADE IN A FAMILY ATMOSPHERE. AS A BUSINESS OWNER IN THE IMMEDIATE VACINITY I WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO KNOW I AM: FOR AGAINST THiS PROJECT. GIANT GRINDER PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE LOCK STOCK & BARREL AUTO PARK STEREO WINCHESTER MINI MARKET SUPER HAIR FERRARI BISTRO' VIDEO DOLLAR DAY IERRAION P. O. Box 2159, Escondido, California 92033-2159 Telephone: (619) 489-O123 Fax: (619) 489-5845 270 West Second Avenue, Suite B, Esc~"OElit~iE?!}25 A iG 2199at July 27, 1994 The Planning Commission City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: CASE NO: PA94-0043, HZNOR CONDZTZONAL USE PERHIT Gentlemen: This letter is to support the application of Klassic Shotz Billiards for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a billlard parlor and video arcade at 41915 Motor Car Parkway. Tetraton Corporation represents the owner of other properties in the area, and we feel the necessary controls are in place so that the billlard parlor can be an excellent family recreational facility for the region. We urge you to approve the application so that we can get additional much needed businesses and revenues into our City. Thank you very much. Vet truly yours, ohn C. Raymond cc: City Council G. Thornhill TOMOND PROPERTIES , LTD . Telephone: (619) 489-0123 Fax: (619) 489-5845 P.O.BOX 2159, Escortdido, CA 92033-2159 - 270 West Second Avenue, Suite B, Escondldo, CA 92025 August 9, 1994 Mayor Ronald H. Roberrs City of Temecu]a 43174 Business Park Drive Temecu]a, CA 92590 RE: KLASSIC SHOTZ BILLIARDS Dear Mayor Roberrs: Tomond Properties owns the Temecula Plaza shopping center, and several surrounding commercial sites at the intersection of Ynez Road and So]ana Way. Klassic Shotz Billiards has made a proposal to occupy a portion of Temecula Plaza. We strongly support their application for a Conditional Use Permit. You need to know that we have specifically included a clause in the lease proposal which gives us the right to terminate thelease for cause should a series of complaints develop relative to Klassic Shotz Billiards. The last thing which Tomond Properties wants is a problem at the center, since it would obviously be detrimental to our interests and our other tenants. We also want to insure that our other property values are protected. We are confident that the family oriented business plan of Klassic Shotz Billiards is appropriate, will be well controlled, and will be an asset to the area. We have tried for many many months to lease vacant space within the center. The construction on Ynez Road and the elimination of the left turn into the center has caused substantial problems. We need the support of the City Council, City government, and the general business community to promote good quality economic development. Please help us build the economic base within the Temecula community. Please act immediately to approve the C.U.P. application of Klassic Shotz Billiards. Thank you very much for your consideration and support. Very truly yours, JCR/alc ITEM 23 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVA CITY A'I'rORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning?2'y'~ August 23, 1994 Watershed Planning Prepared By: John Meyer, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND This item was heard by the City Council at its July 26, 1994 meeting. At that meeting the Council designated the Mayor as the City's representative on the Santa Margarita River Watershed Planning Program Policy Committee. In addition, the Council forwarded a recommendation to the Policy Committee requesting that two voting seats be established on the Policy Committee for non-local elected officials. The Council also asked that a Policy Committee representative be invited to this meeting to discuss the Policy Committee's current position on making the non-local elected officials ex-officio or non-voting members of the Policy Committee. DISCUSSION As directed by the Council at the July 26th meeting, staff forwarded a letter signed by the Mayor to the Policy Committee with the above recommendations. Paul Romero, Director of the Riverside County Parks and Open Space District will attend tonight's meeting to answer any questions on behalf of the Policy Committee. At an August 9, 1994 meeting of watershed planning staff group, it was indicated by Paul Romero that Senator Presley was seeking an opinion from the Attorney General's Office regarding the ability of non-local elected officials to sit on the Policy Committee. An opinion is not expected until sometime in September. R:\Sf4R~II4P\S~R~R4P.CC 8/15/9z~ tjs 1 ITEM 24 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVALit~ crx'Y ATTORNEY . FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER City Council/City Manager Anthony Rlmo, Chief Building Officialr'~ August 23, 1994 Consideration of Regulations for Newsracks in the Public Right-of-Way RECOMMENDATION: entitled: That the City Council introduce and read by ti~e only an Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY DISCUSSION: It is the purpose and intent of this pwposed ordinance to provide for a reasonable and uniform reguh~on of newsracks in the City of Temecula. The uncontrolled placement and maintenance of newsracks on public rights-of-way unreasonably interferes with and obstructs the public's use of such fights-of-way. In addition, the placement of newsracks on public fights-of-way; which disphy words and pictorial material depicting explicit sexual conduct and nudity, exposes children, minors and unwilling adults to such material. This um'easonably interferes with the public's use of such fight-of-ways and constitutes unwarranted invasions of individual privacy. It is not the intent of the reguhtions contained in this ordinance to deny the use of righis-of-way for the sale and distribution of publications but rather to establish regulations which protect and preserve the public health, safety and weftare in terms of the phc'mg of and disphy of materials within newsracks on the public fights-of-way. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF 'IRE CITY COUNCIL OF T1TE CITY OF TEIVIECULA ADDING CHAPfP,;R 10.36 TO TFIE TgtVIECULA MIYNICIPAL CODE FOR TIt,E REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES liFAd~Y ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. as follows: Chapter 10.36 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Cede to read CHAFI'/~;R 10.36 REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY 10.36.010 10.36.020. 10.36.030. 10.36.040. 10.36.050. 10.36.060. 10.36.070. 10.36.080. 10.36.090. 10.36.100. 10.36.110. 10.36.120. PURPOSES AND INTENT. DEFINITIONS. REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO NEWSRACKS. NEWSRACK PERMITS. PROIIIRITION OF NEWSRACKS ON ROADWAYS. DANGEROUS CONDITIONS OR OBSTRUCTIONS. STANDARDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION. STANDARDS OF MATERIALS SOLD. INFORMATION REQUI~Rn. NEWSRACKS IN VIOLATION OY THI~; REGULATIONS OF APPEALS. RESTRICTION OF DISPLAYED HARMYUL MA'ITER TO MINORS. 10.36.010 PURPOSES AND INT,'~NT. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby fred, determine and declare that: A. It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to provide for a reasonable and uniform regulation of newsracks in the City of Temecula. The uncontrolled placement and maintenance of newsracks on the public fight-of-way unreasonably interferes with and obstructs the public's use of such fights-of-way and such obstruction of the free use of R:\ORDS~Newsrack -1- property interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property by the entire community. B. The prolifemtion of newsrocks on public rights-of-way to display words and pictorial material describing and depicting explicit sexual conduct and nudity, exposes children, minOrS and unwilling adults to such material, unreasonably interferes with the public's use of such right-of-ways, and constitutes unwarranted invasions of individual privacy. C. The Temecula General Plan policies and programs emphasize the importance of maintaining the aesthetic quality of the City and preventing the uncontrolled proliferation of signs and structures throughout the City. The regulations set forth in this Chapter are appropriate and reasonable regulations to protect the aesthetic values of the City and the health and safety of persons in the City of Temecula. The placement of newsracks which do not comply with the regulations set forth in this Chapter is detrimental to the aesthetic values of the City and the health and safety of the perSons within the City. D. It is recognized that the use of rights-of-way is historically associated with the sale and distribution of newspaperS and publications and that access to these areas for such purposes should not be absolutely denied. E. The protection and preservation of public health, safety and weftare requires that certain distance and height restrictions be placed on newsracks to insure the safety of pedestrians using the sidewalks and the safe flow of traffic on streets. F. Government agencies and utilities receive numerous claims from perSons alleging injury due to the improper placement and maintenance of objects in the public right of way, such as power poles, light standards, signals, signal control boxes, newsracks, trees and similar objects. It is therefore necessary for the City to obtain some protection for such claims from private parties who will place objects in the public right of way. G. It is the purpose and intent of the special regulations for materials harmful to minorS and sexual explicit material to protect and preserve the public health, safety and weftare of citizenry, especially minorS, and that special regniation of the time, place and manner of the display of harmful matter and sexually explicit materials in newsracks is necessary. In adopting the regniations under this chapter, it is recognized that the display of harmful matter or sexually explicit materials in newsracks will cause the exposure of minorS to adult material which, because of their immaturity, may adversely affect them. In addition, it is recognized that many perSons are offended by the public display of certain sexual material. Special regulation of these uses is necessary to address these concerns. H. It is not the intent of the City Council of Temecula under this Ordinance nor any provision thereof to condone nor legitirnize the distribution of obscene, harmful to minors or sexually explicit materials, and the Council recognizes that state law prohihits the distribution of obscene and harmful to minors materials and exIx~ts and encourages hw enforcement officials to enforce State Obscenity Statutes against such illegal activities in Temecuh. I. It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but to enact a content neutral ordinance and to balance protected activities with the need to protect the substantial governmental interests described above. 10.36.020. DF. FINITIONS. The following words, teas and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended. A. "Newsrack" shall mean any serf-service or coin-operated box, container, storage unit, or other dispenser installed, used, or maintained for the disphy or sale of any written or printed material, including, but not limited to, newspapers, news periodicals, magazines, books, pictures, photographs, and records. B. "Street" shall mean all that area dedicated to public use for public street puq~oses and shall include, but not be limited to, roadways, parkways, alleys, and sidewalks. C. "Parkway" shall mean that area between the sidewalk and the curb of any street and, where there is no sidewalk, that area between the edge of the roadway and the property line adjacent thereto. "Parkway" also shall include any area within a roadway which area is not a sidewalk and is not open to vehicular traffic. D. "Custodian" shall mean a person who has the responsibility of phcing, servicing, or maintaining a newsrock by depositing in and/or removing material from such newsrack and/or by collecting money from such newsrack. E. "I-Iarmful Matter" shall mean matter taken as a whole, the predominant appeal of which to the avenge person, applying contemporary statewide standards, is a prurient interest, meaning a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and is patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and lacks significant literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value for minors as described in California Penal Code Section 313, or its successor sections. (1) When it appears from the nature of the matter or the circumstances of its dissemination, distribution or exhibition that it is designed for clearly defined deviant sexual groups, the predominant appeal of the matter shall be judged with reference to its intended recipient group. (2) In prosecutions under this division, where circumstances of production, presentation, sale, dissemination, distribution, or publicity indicate that matters being commercially exploited by the defendant for the sake of its prurient appeal, that evidence is probative with respect to the nature of the matter and can justify the conclusion that the matter lacks significant literary, artistic, pulilical, educational, or scientific value for minors. F. "Matter" shall mean any book, magazine, newspaper, or any other printed or written material or any picture, drawing, photograph, motion pietore, or any other pictorial representation or any statue of other figure, or any recording, transcription, or mechanical, chemical, or electrical reproduction of any other articles, equipment, newsracks, or materials. G. "Person" shall mean any individual, pannership, firm, association, corporation or other legal entity. H. "Knowingly" shall mean being aware of the character of the matter. I. "Disphy" shall mean to show. J. "Minor" shall mean any natoral person under 18 years of age. K. "Blinder Rack" shall mean any opaque material placed within the newsrack in front of the harmful matter which prevents exposure of the harmful matter to public view. 10.36.030. REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO NEWSRACKS. The regnhtions, restrictions, and procedures set forth in this Chapter shall rehte to the installation and maintenance of newsracks in the City. 10.36.040. NEWSRACK PERMITS. Applications for inStalling and maintaining newsracks shall be fried with the licensing officer of the City within one business day of placement within the City. An application fee may be established by resolution of the City Council based on the actual costs of processing the application. The Director of Public Works shall issue the permit for the newsrack to the applicant therefor when the applicant has submitted the following information to the City: A. No newsrack shall exceed five (5') feet in height as measured from the sidewalk to the highest point on the newsrack, thirty (30") inches in width, or two (2') feet in depth. B Newsracks shall only be placed near a curb or adjacent to a wall or building. Such newsracks placed near the curb shall be parallel thereto and shall be no less than twenty-four (24") inches from the face of the curb. Newsracks placed adjacent to the wall of a building shall be placed parallel to such wall and shall be not more than six (6") inches from the wall. No such newsrack shall be placed or maintained on the sidewalk or parkway opposite another newsrack or group 'of newsracks nor in such a manner that prevents pedestrians from passing freely and without obstruction along any sidewalk or through any marked or unmarked crosswalk. C. No publication vending shall be chained, bolted, or otherwise attached to property not owned by the owner of such newsrack or to any permanently fixed object unless the custOdian of such newsrack shall have obtained the written permission of the owner of the property or object to which the newsrack is affixed. D. Newsracks may be placed next to each other; provided, however, no group of such newsracks shall extend more than eight (8) lineal feet along a curb or wall, and a space of no less than three (3') feet shall separate each such group of newsracks, provided the newsracks are otherwise in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. E. Such newsracks may be chained or otherwise attached to one another; provided, however, no more than three (3) such newsracks may be joined together in this manner, and a space of no less than three (3') feet of clear space shall separate each group of three (3) or less such newsracks so attached, provided the newsracks axe otherwise in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. F. No such newsrack or group of such newsracks permitted by the provisions of Subsection E. of this section shall weigh, in the aggregate, in excess of 125 pounds when empty. G. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, no newsrack shall be placed, installed, used, or mailsrained: 1. Within five (5') feet of any marked crosswalk; Within fifteen (15') feet of the curb return of any unmarked crosswalk; 3. Within five (5') feet of any fire hydrant, fire call box, police call box, or any other emergency facility or structure; 4. Within five (5') feet of any driveway; 5. Within five (5 ') feet ahead of or twenty-five (25 ') feet to the rear of any sign m~g a designated bus stop; 6. Within Six (6') feet Of any bus bench; 7. In any location if the pheement of the newsrock reduces the cross space or the passageway of pedestrians to 'less than six (6') feet; 8. Within three (3 ') feet of any area impwved with hwn, flowers, shrubs, or trees, or within three (3 ') feet of any display window or any building abutting the sidewalk or parkway, or in such a manner as to impede or interfere with the reasonable use of such window for display purposes; or H. No such newsrock shall be used for advertising signs or publicity purposes except relating to the disphy, sale, or purchase of the publications sold therein. I. F. ach such newsrock shall be maintained in a clean and neat condition and in good rapair at all times. J. Notwithstanding the pwvisions of this section, if the Chief Building Official finds that the location of a newsrack, in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section, will create or allow a condition pwhibited by any other section of this Chapter or will otherwise endanger the public health or safety, the Chief Building Official may prohibit such location of the newsrack or may allow the location of the newsrack in a manner deviating from, or at variance with, the standards provided in this Section, subject to such tens, conditions, and regulations as the Chief Building Official may deem necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety, and welfare and to carry out the purposes and intent of this Chapter. Such finding may be made by the Chief Building Official at any time. 2. If such finding is made prior to the issuance of a permit, the finding shall be made by the DirecWr of Public Works shall be made a part of the permit at the time of its issuance. 3. ff the finding is made subsequent to the issuance of a permit, a written notice of the fmding of the Chief Building Official shall be given to the owner or custodian of such newsrack with the direction that there shall be compliance with the findings of the Chief Building Official within ten (10) business days after the date of mailing such notice. R:;ORDS~rews~aek -7- 10.36.080. STANDARDS OF MATI~L[ALS SOLD. No publication offered for sale from any newsrack plac~l or installed in, maintained on, or relocated to any public sidewalk or parkway, shall be displayed or exhibit in any manner which exposes to public view from the street any of the following: A. Any statements or words describing explicit sexual acts, sexual organs or excrement, where such statement or words have as their purpose or effect, sexual arousal, gratification or affront. B. Any picture or illu~ha~on of genitals, pubic hair, perineums, anuses, or anal regions of any person; or any picture or ~ustration which has as its purpose or effect, sexual arousal, gratification or affront. C. Any picture or illu~halion depicting explicit sexual acts, where such picture or ~ustration has as its purpose or effect, sexual arousal, gratification or affront. Explicit sexual acts means depictions of sexual intercourse, oral copulation, bestiallty, sadism, masochism or excretory functions in conjunction with sexual activity, masturbation or lewd exhibition of the genitals, where any of the above conduct is depicted or described as being performed alone or between members of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals or other acts of sexual arousal involving any physical contact with a porson's genital, pubic region, pubic hair, perineum, anus or anal region. D. For purposes of this section, no pubh'cation shall be considered displayed or exhibited if the newsrack in which it is phced is covered on all sides, except for a one (1 ") inch wide vertical opening for the purpose of indicating the number of remaining publications, by opaque material preventing exposure to public view from the street. 10.36.090. INI~RMATION REQUIRED. Every person or custodian who places or maintains a newsrack on a public sidewalk or parkway within the City shall have his or her or its name, address, and telephone number affuced thereto in a place where such information may be easily seen and shall comply fully with the provisions of Section 17570 of the Business and Professions Code of the State as it exists on the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Chapter, or as it may be hereafter amended. 10.36.100. NEWSRACKS IN VIOLATION OF ~ REGULATIONS OF Tff[8 CHAPTER. Upon a determination by the Chief Bullcling Official that a newsrack has been installed, used, or maintained in violation of the provisions of this Chapter, an order to correct the condition will be issued to the owner and custodinn of such newsrack. Such order shall be attached to said newsrack and conf'Lrmed by mailing a copy of such order to the owner and custodian by certified mail, return receipt requested to the address stated in the permit application. The order shall be effective upon receipt of the order by the owner or custodian, or three (3) business days following deposit of the order in the U.S. Mail, whichever occurs first. The order shall specifically describe the offending condition and describe the actions necessary to correct it. Both the owner and the custodian shall be responsible for compliance with the order. ff the newsrack is in such a condition or is placed so as to constitute an immediate danger to pedestrians, motorists or other persons, the Chief Building Official may move the newsrack or take such other action, inehiding removal, so as to alleviate the dangerous condition. Unless the determination of the Chief Building Official is appealed, failure to properly correct the offending condition within ten (10) business days after the date of mailing of the order shall result in the offending newstack being removed and processed as unclaimed property under the applicable provisions of law relating thereto. ff the offending newsrack is not properly identified as to the owner pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, such newsrack may be removed immediately and processed as unclaimed property under the applicable provisions of law. The Chief Building Inspector shall cause an inspection to be made of the corrected condition or of the newsrack reinstailed after removal pursuant to the provisions of this section. The owner or custodian of such newsrack shall be charged an inspection fee for each such newsrack so inspected, which charge shall be in addition to all the other fees and charges required by law. The amount of the inspection fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council. 10.36.110. APPEALS. Any person or entity aggrieved by any finding, notice, or action taken pursuant to the provisions of thin Chapter may appeal, and shall be apprised of his right to appeal, to the City Manager. The City Manager's decision on the appeal shall be f'mal. An appeal shall be perfected within three (3) business days after the receipt of the notice of any protested decision or aedon by fding with the office of the Chief Building Inspector a letter of appeal briefly stating the basis for such appeal. The hearing shall be held on a date no more than ten (10) days after the receipt of the letter of appeal. The appellant shall be given at least five (5) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing. The City Manager shall give the appellant, and any other interested party, a reasonable opportunity to be heard in order to show cause why the determination of the Chief Building Official should not be upheld. In all such cases, the burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence to support the action proposed to be taken by the Chief Building Official. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Manager shall make a final and conclusive determination in writing and the owner or CustOdian shall have ten (10) business days after the date of the determination of the appeal to comply with the order of the City Manager. 10.36.120. RESTRICTION OF DISPLAYED HARMFUL MA'rEER TO MINORS. Any person who knowingly displays, or causes to be displayed, harmful matter as defined in this Chapter in any newsrack which is located on a public sidewalk, or any other public place from which minors are not exchided, is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such person places What iS commonly known as blinder racks in front of the material, so that the lower two-thirds of the material is not exposed to view and so that no harmful matter is exposed to public view. Section 2. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Sinion 3. The City Clerk Shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,1994. A'rrBST: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk STATE OF CAIJ~OR_NIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CrrY OF T~:~EECULA ) I, JUNE S. GIH~-I~, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __. day of , 1994. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1994, by the following vote, to wit: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILIVl]~MBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 25 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning August 23, 1994 Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the StephenS' Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide Comments and Direction to Staff BACKGROUND In 1990, the City of Temecula became a member of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) Joint Powers Authority. The RCHCA is the agency responsible for implementing the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) in western Riverside County. The Short-Term HCP is the interim plan that allows for "incidental take" (to trap, capture, harm, harass, etc. a State or Federally threatened or endangered species) of SKR until such time as a Long-Term HCP can be implemented. The RCHCA has recently completed the Draft Long-Term HCP. Both the Short and Long-Term plans provide the members of the RCHCA with the ability meet the requirements of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts (FESA/CESA) relative to the SKR. The RCHCA will hold public hearings on the Draft HCP in August and September and anticipates adopting the Long- Term Plan at their October 20, 1994 meeting. DISCUSSION The Long-Term HCP document has three main functions. First, as a legal document, the primary purpose of this HCP is to provide the information required for issuance of a federal permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFVVS) for "incidental take" of SKR and equivalent authorization from the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) through an endangered species permit. Second, in relationship to the Short-Term HCP, the purpose of this document is to replace the RCHCA's existing interim State and Federal authorizations. Third, as a conservation program, this HCP intends to provide for the establishment, expansion, and ongoing management of permanent reserves to ensure the continued existence of SKR in the HCP area, R:\STAFFRPT\DRAFTHCP.CC 8/15/94 ktb 1 The Long-Term HCP seeks to receive a new permit and agreement which would be valid for 30 years. The salient terms and conditions for this HCP include: Five core reserves will be established for conservation of SKR and the ecosystem upon which it depends. The core reserves will encompass 38,185 acres, including 11,225 acres of occupied habitat. To ensure persistence of SKR in the HCP area, the RCHCA will seek to expand the core reserves by acquiring an additional 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system. RCHCA member cities will maintain the (~1,950 per acre SKR mitigation fee until the core reserves have been completed and expanded. Upon completion, the fee will be maintained in an amount sufficient to ensure ongoing management of the core reserves. Prior to the completion and expansion of the core reserves, incidental take will be subject to specific authorization by RCHCA member agencies in much the same manner under the Short-Term plan. Once the core reserves have been completed, incidental take would no longer be required, Once the Long-Term plan is approved by the RCHCA Board of Directors, the plan and the corresponding Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) will be submitted to the USRNS and the CDFG. Final action by those two agencies will not occur until the conclusion of public comment periods on the HCP and the EIR/EIS as required by the FESA. This approval is anticipated to take between 4-6 months after plan submission. Should this or an amended version of the HCP not be adopted, project proponents with SKR impacts would have few alternatives if they wished to develop a project, Failure to enact an HCP would result in the burden being placed on individual project proponents, both public and private, to obtain approval from both the USFWS and the CDFG prior to any SKR take activities. If the Council has any questions, comments or concerns regarding the HCP, staff will forward those comments to the RCHCA. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: 1. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (under separate cover) - Page 3 R:\STAFFRPT\DRAFTHCP.CC 8/15/9~ klb 2 .t . . . :: :-... ,....:,-;..... .. ....,::.....„-..,.i.......,. . . : , RIVERuE COUNTY I-.1- BITAT __ CONSERVATION AGENCY Volume DRAFT • • July 19.94 Habitat,'Hai • Conservation •Plan `f•or tie tep ens Kangaroo Rat in Western . Riverside County 1....i.orni Caa _ -1;f11 I wr li litkVilb JP'i' ' 1;4Ir - itii:::• ii-::iiigtiiCsi^': ;.. : ti: : f � inY:l? : : : ji:?iii » x : : >> iS ? Y: yiGy: of f :: i : i : ;: ii -- :; }v �:?G i+iiii::iT:•:. • 7.1.,,\ . :•I.::�f ....;;\.::....;::?? 'i::+iii`{:? \ :ii:?>?i?i:-i:>Y.:j^}i:??:i?•??4-%`::: .:. ?:. iii'}:iv::....:..:-.........-...,v...::v::.v:::::::::•. :??ti-.?y:::.}-::.??:;•i}i-' ?S\^.:i.?:C:..y::.}-::iiiii:�i:.�iiiii?'ri::�?i:-iRyii: p ::w-.::::::..:•i•%::�::b iii:�ii?7?•:i::i::.::i.::-i:;::vi.`4:ii::n;,:ii:�'%`'::•. " i � b .�+'�.��'•::`i�?iiiiiiii'>::i::}.,iiYii:::ii�i:<?i??:•?i:4:?\w::::.;.;v:\:........::.v P y,'-:i`'i:j;:i:�i:�ii:iiiiiiiii iii:':•t.:;i::i�i ..-..:-C•?:ii:-i:-i:-?::•?:i.??:i.::-is-:;-? 'f4 .. i•\•?:•J%-iii?t.�ity.n. it\`??iiitv?iii iii::itv.`ii:.n. .. :.. ...:............... ..:.:...:w:::::::::::: .-......vv\•?:ii�iiii::w:::::--.v::::w::k':•:i??::::.........::::vw::.w::::v...........v?:tii:Ji�iii:::•.::::: i•. .......:...... :.:.: :fv•;r::v:.::::::w.....:.:«.....':iii{.%i6??:-?:3?iiiiiiiiiiiiii:-:i4:•:� ..:::i•?Y�ii:i??:i::::nii::-i'4}ii:Li:6::•i??i?:^:. ...�..o.. •??:i•?::?. r F fFin.N.! v./.J .F.vF......... . ................:::.w:vv:::.::•-w„•:::n...::.:.v....... ......... r...-. . .. ... .t/..........f.:4::! .. .l.f n........... :..... .............v 4 ::.w::::'::w:v?????i}iii- :ii; ........fv.: .- :.. .. .........................•... ... .... ... ... ..... !«:::«::v..�::: v�:r ...... -.............vw::::v.....:::::::::....tw;:.:.... .•...:::•:tiS::::•:vvni.. ..... ........n......; ...n.v:::.....f.... .ry ...« ... :.F. ..........-... ..........vw::::.v? .. ..:...w:::^...... '..::::.i:4:::::::::::is i:: Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County, California Volume Habitat Conservation Plan Draft July 1994 Prepared by Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 275-1100 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents _ Contents Summary s-1 A. Reasons for Seeking the Permit and Agreement S-1 B. General Terms and Conditions Proposed by the RCHCA S-2 C. Conservation, Mitigation, and Monitoring Measures S-8 1. Establishment, Completion, and Expansion, and Management of the Core Reserve S-8 2. SKR Mitigation Fees S-10 3. Monitoring of Compliance and Plan Effectiveness S-11 D. Plan Implementation S-11 1. Roles and Responsibilities S-11 2. HCP Financing S-12 F. Next Steps S-13 1 . Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context 1 A. Purpose 1 B. Scope 2 C. Planning Process 3 1. RCHCA Board of Directors 3 2. Advisory Committee and Working Groups 4 3. Consultant Team 4 4. Resource Agency Cooperation 4 5. Public Scoping Process 5 6. Public Review Process for the November 4, 1993 Draft HCP 9 D. Regulatory and Planning Context 11 1. Federal ESA 11 2. NEPA 13 3. California Fish and Game Code 13 4. CEQA 13 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents E. Other Plans and Programs 14 1. Short-Term SKR HCP 14 a. Original Plan Area and Reserve Study Areas 15 b. Reserve Design and Boundary Modification Process 15 c. Terms and Conditions in the Short-Term HCP Regarding Incidental Take of SKR 19 d. Status Report 20 2. Local General Plans 21 3. Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan 22 a. Plan Area Components 24 b. Goals and Objectives 24 4. Draft Lake Mathews Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan . 25 a. Plan Area Components 25 b. Goals and Objectives 26 5. Draft Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Strategy for Riverside County 27 6. BLM South Coast Resource Management Plan 27 7. Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program 28 2. Plan Area Profile 29 A. Plan Area Setting and Boundaries 29 1. State and Regional Context 29 2. Plan Area Size and Jurisdictional Boundaries 29 B. Population Trends 33 1. RCHCA Member Cities 33 2. Other Western Riverside Cities 33 3. Unincorporated Lands 37 4. Riverside County 37 5. Western Riverside Growth Forecast 38 C. Land Use Trends 40 1. Existing Uses and Development Potential 41 a. Northern Subarea 41 ii 1 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation.Plan Contents _ b. Central Subarea 42 c. Southern Subarea 43 2. Development Trends 43 D. Biological Resources 49 1. Vegetation Types 49 2. Species of Concern 50 E. Existing Reserves and Other Protected Lands 53 1. Existing Reserves • 54 2. Other Protected Lands 55 3. Summary Profile of the SKR 57 A. Information Sources 57 B. SKR Biology and Life History 57 1. Physical Characteristics. 62 2. Genetics 64 3. Burrows and Dust Bathing 64 4. Food Sources and Habits 65 5. Home Range and Dispersal Distance 65 6. Reproduction and Survivorship 66 7. Population Dynamics and Viability 66 C. Habitat Characteristics 68 1. Vegetation and Soils 68 2. Topography and Elevation 69 . D. Rangewide.and Local Distribution 69 1. Rangewide Occurrence 69 2. Occurrence in the Plan Area 72 - E. Decline Factors 76 1. Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 76 2. Predation 76 3. Other Factors 76 4. Alternatives Considered 77 A. Formulation of Alternatives 77 iii' Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents 1. Conditions Imposed on the Short-Term HCP Permit and Agreement 78 2. Evaluation of Reserve Study Areas 81 3. Emergency Response and Ongoing Public Facility Operation and Maintenance Activities 82 4. Resolution of Conflicts Between HCP Incidental Take Restrictions and the Performance of Fire Prevention Activities Required under State and Local Laws 83 5. Agricultural Operations in the HCP Area 85 6. Funding Limitations 86 7. Public Comments 87 B. Evaluation of Alternatives to Incidental Take 89 C. Reserve Design Process 91 1. Starting Point and Basic Units 91 2. General Conservation Principles 92 3. Land Use Planning Policies 96 4. Cost/Benefit Considerations 97 5. Short-Term HCP Third Round Boundary Modification Requests 97 D. Study Areas Not Selected as Core Reserves 102 1. Santa Rosa Plateau 102 2. Kabian Park 102 - 3. Steele Peak - 103 4. Potrero • 104 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 107 A. Summary of SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 107 B. Scope of the Permit and Agreement 108 C. Terms and Conditions 108 1. Establishment and Completion of the Core Reserves 108 a. Establishment of the Core Reserve System 109 b. Lake Skinner- Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve 112 c. San Jacinto - Lake Perris Core Reserve 116 iv • Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents d. Lake Mathews Core Reserve 120 e. Sycamore Canyon March Air Force Base Core Reserve 124 f. Motte Rimrock Core Reserve 127 g. Completion of the Core Reserve System 128 h. Expansion of the Core Reserves 131 i. Ongoing Management of Conserved SKR Habitat in the Core Reserve 131 j. Habitat Replacement Commitment Prior to Completion of the Core Reserve System 132 k. SKR Mitigation Fees 132 I. SKR Incidental Take Records • 133 m. SKR Biological Surveys 133 n. Issuance of Incidental Take Authorizations 134 o. Emergency Response Activities 134 p. Fire Prevention Activities 135 q: Public Facility Operations and Maintenance Activities . . 136 r. Agricultural Operations 136 s. HCP Participation by Land Owners Outside of Plan Area 137 t. Credit for Conservation of Biological Resource Values on Lands Acquired Under the Short-Term and Long-Term HCP 137 2. Conservation Value of the SKR Reserve System 138 a. Conformance with General Conservation Principles 138 b. Connectivity to Other Natural Open Space 139 c. Potential for Edge Effects 140 d. Minimum Viable Population Assessments 141 3. Permit Period and Plan Area 145 a. Estimated Level of Incidental Take 146 D. Potential Impacts of Incidental Take 151 v • Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents E. Conservation, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Impact Avoidance Measures 152 1. Establishment and Management of the Core Reserves 153 a. Habitat Management Goals and Objectives 153 b. Individual Core Reserve Management Program 154 c. Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee 160 d. Annual Core Reserve Work Programs 161 e. Reserve Management Activities 162 2. Habitat Acquisition and Reserve Expansion 164 3. Project Review and Mitigation Procedures 165 a. Reporting of Incidental Take and Replacement Habitat Acquisitions 165 b. Core Reserve Advance Notice and Review 166 4. Monitoring of Plan Compliance and Effectiveness 166 a. Annual Reports 167 5. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures 167 E. Plan Implementation 168 1. Roles and Responsibilities 168 a. RCHCA 168 b. RCHCA Member Agencies 169 c. RMCC Members 170 d. USFWS and CDFG 171 2. Institutional Arrangements 171 3. HCP Financing 176 a. Financial Arrangements for Completion and Expansion of the Core Reserves 174 • b. Financial Arrangements for Ongoing Core Reserve Management Activities 178 c. Additional Funding Sources and Strategies for HCP Implementation 180 d. Projected Budget for HCP Implementation 183 vi Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents 4. Changed or Unforeseen Circumstances 183 5. HCP Amendment Process 184 , a. Administrative Amendments to the HCP 184 b. Changes to HCP Terms and Conditions 184 c. Changes to HCP Boundaries 184 • • d. Changes to Authorizations Provided Under the Permit and Agreement • 185 6. Procedures for Addition of New RCHCA Member Agencies 185 References 186 Glossary 189 RCHCA Board of Directors 196 RCHCA Advisory Committee and HCP Ad Hoc Working Groups • 197 Appendices A Overview of Federal and State Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws A-1 B HCP-Related Policies in the General Plans of the RCHCA Member Agencies B-1 C The Habitat Transaction Method: A Market-Based Alternative for HCP Implementation C-1 D Biogeographic, Lane Use, and Land Ownership • Profile of the SKR Core Reserve . . . . D-1 E Road Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Burrow Sites E-1 Tables S-1 RCHCA Member Agency Plan Area Acreage and SKR Occupied Habitat S-5 S-2 Summary Characteristics of Acreage in the SKR Core Reserves S-7 vii • Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents 1 Public Meetings Providing Opportunities for Scoping Comments 6 2 HCP Information Requirements and Approval Criteria 12 3 Summary List of HCP-Related Goals, Policies, and Programs in General Plans of the RCHCA Members 23 4 Acres per RCHCA Member in the Plan Area 32 5 Population in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Areas of Riverside County, 1980-1993 34 6 Growth Forecast for Western Riverside County 35 7 1990 Land Use Inventory for the Plan Area 41 8 Building Permits Issued in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions, 1980-1990 . 44 9 Value of New Construction in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions, 1980-1990 46 10 Vegetation Types in Western Riverside County and the Plan Area 51 11 Summary of HCP-Related Studies and Research Conducted in the Plan Area 58 12 1994 Estimated Acreage of Occupied SKR Habitat in Riverside and San Diego Counties 71 13 Acres of SKR Occupied Habitat Per RCHCA Member Jurisdiction in the Plan Area 75 14 Acreage and SKR Occupied Habitat in Short-Term HCP Study Areas 93 15 SKR Short-Term HCP Study Area Land Ownership As of March 1, 1994 95 16 RCHCA Short-Term HCP Land Acquisitions by Study Area 98 17 Short-Term HCP Third Round Boundary Modification Requests . 101 18 . Summary Characteristics of Acreage in SKR Core Reserves . . . 112 viii Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents Figures S-1 Area Covered by the 30-Year Permit and Agreement and the SKR Core Reserves S-3 1 Primary Purposes of the HC 1 2 Original HCP Fee Area and Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Study Areas 16 3 Current Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Fee Area and Study Areas . . . . 18 4 State and Regional Context of Riverside County 30 5 Jurisdictional Boundaries of RCHCA Member Cities and County Unincorporated Land Within The HCP Fee Area 31 6 Acres per RCHCA Member in the Plan Area 32 7 Total Population of RCHCA Member Cities and Unincorporated Area 35 8 Comparison of 1993 Population in RCHCA Member Cities, Other Western Riverside Cities, and Unincorporated Area 36 9 Population Growth Trends in Other Western Riverside Cities 37 10 Population, Housing and Employment Within Western Riverside County 38 11 Regional Statistical Areas 39 12 1990 Land Uses in Plan Area 40 13 Annual Building Permits Issued by RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions 45 • 14 Value of New Construction in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions 45 15 Cover Types in the HCP Fee Area 47 16 Vegetation Types in the.Plan Area by Percentage of Total Vegetated Lands 50 17 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat 63 18 Range of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat 70 ix Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Contents 19 Percentage Distribution of SKR Occupied Habitat in Riverside and San Diego Counties 72 20 Fee Area - Core Reserve 73 21 Current Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Fee Area and Study Areas 94 22 Acres of SKR Occupied Habitat Within the Core Reserves . . . . 113 23 Acres of Primary Vegetation Types within the Core Reserves . . 113 24 Lake Skinner Core Reserve 115 25 San Jacinto Core Reserve 119 26 Lake Mathews Core Reserve • 123 27 Sycamore Canyon Core Reserve 127 28 Motte Core Reserve 131 29 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat in the HCP Fee Area 149 • • X • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary Summary On behalf of its members', the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) is seeking a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) which would authorize incidental take of the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR), a species protected under both the California and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA). Toward this objective, the RCHCA has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which describes the conservation, mitigation, and monitoring measures which will be implemented if the permit and agreement are approved by the USFWS and CDFG. This summary briefly describes the: • Reasons for which the RCHCA is seeking the permit and agreement; • General terms and conditions proposed in the HCP regarding incidental take of SKR; • Specific measures proposed in the HCP to minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of incidental take on SKR, and; • Institutional and funding arrangements for implementation of the plan. A. Reasons for Seeking the Permit and Agreement The RCHCA is seeking the permit and agreement in order to establish a regional mechanism through which otherwise lawful activities resulting in incidental take of SKR may meet ESA requirements without having to secure individual permits and agreements with USFWS and CDFG. Additionally, this HCP will help achieve specific conservation goals in RCHCA jurisdictions by preserving the biological diversity and natural open space that distinguish western Riverside County from other parts of southern California. The incidental take authorizations provided by the USFWS permit and CDFG agreement are necessary for activities which affect SKR since the California and federal ESA prohibit actions which directly or indirectly harm a species listed as threatened or endangered. • RCHCA member agencies include the County of Riverside and the Cities of Corona, Hemet,Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside, and Temecula. S-1 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary _ This HCP is intended to replace a SKR Short-Term HCP which the RCHCA and its member agencies have been implementing since 1990. Under that plan the USFWS and CDFG authorized a limited amount of incidental take subject to conservation and mitigation actions designed to: 1. Provide for interim protection of Study Areas in order to allow for their evaluation as potential SKR reserves; 2. Ensure full mitigation for all SKR occupied habitat incidentally taken through acquisition of replacement habitat in Study Area locations approved by the ( i USFWS; 3. Allow time for the RCHCA to conduct biological research necessary to document the species' characteristics and identify factors essential to its continued existence in the HCP area; 4. Design a regional reserve system adequate to ensure long-term SKR persistence • in the plan area, and; 5. Establish reliable funding sources sufficient to implement all provisions of the HCP. The biological research and planning process for establishing the SKR reserves is now complete, and the RCHCA is seeking to: 1. Replace its existing authorizations for incidental take of SKR with a 30-year permit and agreement; 2. Replace the conservation, mitigation, and monitoring measures established under the Short-Term plan with those described in this HCP, and; 3. Implement a conservation program for the SKR which provides the basis for an ecosystem based plan covering all sensitive habitat types and species in - RCHCA jurisdictions. B. General Terms and Conditions Proposed by the RCHCA • The new permit and agreement will be valid for 30 years and will authorize incidental take of SKR on RCHCA member agency lands within the plan area mapped in the HCP (Figure S-1). The HCP area covers 517,857 acres within RCHCA member jurisdictions, including approximately 30,000 acres of occupied SKR habitat (Table S-1). Salient terms and conditions proposed for this HCP by the RCHCA include the following: S-2 • , • • mi v LNNUt.. UUUI\1 I Y HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY FEE AREA — CORE RESERVES . a . . SAN 13ERNARDINO COUNTY tv• 1/4 \ - , W&N.• :71: \_..`. .X. I' It I Ns; •ST....,.',: N.":,"••••.•. Ved•AidriV fillieppe,.•— `1•11•&z.:L.' Nte Mg: 'Te% • ..,...v . - N 4 „,....„:4 •\ ,.•0•.‘ V• ,',NI :-: )11.1,.... r \7 ..... SCALE N MLES L ' , :.•:,:.,..i:i .. •,.- ,•::.:,,ii,:..':,,,,,-,:.:.„•;!,:...:.:f N •S.t. '..!iii,,i:::: ::...,..,. .:,.:;..,... • , .. 0 5 10 N57-i''4. 1. -411kXN . .':•;. . . • 'N‘k N .7:17/.,.. . I • \ . .1:1:..i.:::iiiiii.::::•.!!... ;:'::::.;•.t.- 1 Nt.,,:.!,.. .,:::.:,„:,,,,::,• •:•:•... LEGEND ',..::i•„...,.ti.' ,.,, .. s. \ . . ,. . :.•,,m, :.... ,.. ..... [NI HIGHWAYS ....„ .... . . . . Is i.,-NN. ' • • '.\..k Nit,. fli.` -, . .4 L':''ri , vv., FEE AREA BOLMARY ORANGE . . -N ., — - • -•umillPIN.71 .,_ /i./ CITY BOUWARY "'.... r) • ,\\, • ON M LAKES \. •.‘'A•14,\N4.; LAKE \ . - - \."1,_\ -Nki• , . • ! ''''''''''- ' '- . • im CORE RE-SERVES .e.'''''''.FN',%,. •-. . ..........,..,..,„.... ... M CITES , :-.:i.. ... ./ •.:. ..01 .. ,. ..... :•ii,: iF.,:'.'i,ii'i.. , .0 . .. ::r.. :"'.n. :•:. .• .• . . MERSEE OXMY HABITAT COMERVADM AGD1CY(MICA) ' .1V\ PUP It4:. ...:., •wr.::;:•:, City al Ceram•City of Hemet•City of Wu lr Elehrs Oty of Ikriro%Way•Cayeof Puri•City of Merit& ')' "\44 Oty of Drunk• .ftwAy .,„,. . ... „.... L.. , q- The fabaiv Oda cre MT rnerbna cl ROCA BICUMMt . 1y011 501 JOCIRO Apri 25. aThoirt=r1 v.j..)..waltt.h.....,•t • • . "...• . • M1 6. •A.%.‘V • "''. • .,... /4 , . . itt 149 errrenTbilje iledbby re'dies.tnierthe TrouperAt="ld ir• .!:::T;1Ve-cs Sidi bt nerd bindery trial:odd= irl licniftrellne=rkheid=111=a StieP4hkrrerigT 1 7. 4111 brgrjurrir=vhfr2s..4.. ....L ,,, Trawartation drained Ihe Cosily el ,.. e ammo en mcmity cr :•' • . . .. L. ,..=dergid.1 kt.andricctildin crd _____— i....)./ i SAN DIEGO COUNTY •••Cue ••• Figure S-1 . Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary Table S-1 RCHCA Member Agency Plan Area Acreage and SKR Occupied Habitat • Total Acres of RCHCA Member Acres Occupied SKR Habitat* County Unincorporated 370,907 23,650 Area Cities Corona . 1,771 225 Hemet 13,266 <25 Lake Elsinore 14,319 700 Moreno Valley 31,267 600 Perris 20,285 700 Riverside 49,914 3,400 Temecula 16,128 700 Subtotal 146,950 6,350 Total Plan Area 517,857 30,000 Inside Core Reserves 38,185** 11,225 Sources: RECON, USFWS and RCHCA member agencies. * Estimates rounded to nearest 10, except for Hemet and Corona, which have the smallest amounts of SKR habitat among the RCHCA members. ** Does not include lakes or future Domenigoni Reservoir. S-5 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary _ 1. The RCHCA will establish a regional system of five core reserves for conservation of SKR and the ecosystem upon which it depends. The core reserves encompass 38,185 acres, including 11,225 acres of SKR occupied habitat. The vast majority of land included in these reserves is presently in public ownership; some privately held properties remain in the Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, and San Jacinto reserves; 2. The RCHCA will complete the 38,185 acre reserve system through: a) execution of agreements with two private landholders in the Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner reserves; b) acquisition of fee simple interest or conservation easements on remaining privately held lands •within core reserves, or; c) acceptance of land dedications from property owners in such areas; 3. In order to provide additional assurances of SKR persistence in the HCP area, the RCHCA will expand the core reserves by acquiring an additional 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system. All additions to the core reserves will be subject to approval by USFWS with the concurrence of CDFG; 4. The RCHCA will ensure ongoing and appropriate management of conserved SKR habitat in the core reserves through: a) Execution of agreements with responsible land management entities, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), State of California, University of California at Riverside, Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, and others; b) Establishment of a Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee to provide a forum through which the RCHCA, individual reserve managers, USFWS, and CDFG may monitor regional changes in SKR population and habitat, confer regarding SKR habitat management techniques, and recommend appropriate management and core reserve acquisition programs to the RCHCA Board of Directors, and; c) . Provision of funds to the reserve managers for SKR monitoring, habitat • management, and necessary biological research; 5. RCHCA member agencies will maintain the $1,950 per acre SKR mitigation fee until the core reserves have been completed and expanded through the addition of 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system. Upon completion of that commitment the mitigation fee will be maintained in an amount sufficient to ensure ongoing management of SKR habitat in the core reserves; 6. During the period prior to completion and expansion of the core reserves, • incidental take of SKR occupied habitat will be subject to specific authorization by the RCHCA or its member agencies. Upon completion of that commitment, specific authorization will not be required for incidental take occurring outside of core reserves; S-6 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary _ • Table S-2 Summary Characteristics of 'Acreage in the SKR Core Reserves Characteristic LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR TOTAL SKR Habitat 1,937 3,780 3,817 1,358 333 11,225 On Public Lands 1,588 3,778 2,965 • 1,264 • 333 9,928 On Private Lands 349 2 852 94 0 1,297 Total Area 12,780 11,919 10,360 2,508 618 38,185 Public Lands 10,719 11,616 7,641 2,408 618 33,002 Private Lands** 2,061 303 2,719 100 0 5,183 Codes Notes MRR Motte Rimrock Reserve • Excludes lakes, reservoirs, and MWD LS-DV Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley operations areas. LM-EM Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain •• Includes acquisitions currently in escrow SJ-LP San Jacinto-Lake Perris or conservation easement/ SC-MAFB Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base dedication pending final approval. Also includes acquisitions/ • dedications/agreements currently in negotiation or to be proposed • by RCHCA, MWD, or the City of Riverside Sources: Riverside County GIS data base and the RECON March 1994 GIS overlay of SKR occupied habitat, MWD. 7. Within core reserves, incidental take of SKR will be subject to approval by USFWS and CDFG. However, such approval will not be required for incidental take occurring as a.result of emergency response activities, clearance of flammable vegetation for fire prevention purposes, and activities necessary to operate and maintain public facilities; 8. Bona fide agricultural activities will not be required to perform SKR biological surveys. With the exception of construction of agricultural structures, agricultural activities will not be subject to the payment of SKR mitigation fees; 9. Actions taken by public agencies to respond to emergency conditions or operate and maintain public facilities will not be subject to the submission of • SKR biological surveys, payment of SKR mitigation fees, or approval by USFWS and CDFG. Consistent with the provisions of this HCP, clearance of flammable vegetation by private property owners for fire prevention purposes also will be S-7 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary _ exempted from SKR biological surveys, mitigation fees, and federal and state approvals; 10. Individual land owners outside the HCP area may receive incidental take authorizations from the RCHCA if such owners acquire and dedicate to the RCHCA replacement SKR occupied habitat in an amount at least equal to that to be incidentally taken. All such replacement habitat will be subject to specific approval by the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG; • 11. Recognizing the serious limitations of single species HCP's, following approval of the SKR plan the RCHCA intends to amend it into a ecosystem based HCP designed to provide for conservation of all sensitive habitat types and species in RCHCA member jurisdictions. In support of that goal the RCHCA will seek appropriate conservation credit from USFWS.and CDFG for all natural resource values present on lands acquired pursuant to this plan and its predecessor Short-Term HCP. Credit will be sought in the context of a conservation bank to be applied toward a future ecosystem based HCP. Subject to the above terms and conditions, incidental take of SKR will be permitted anywhere in the HCP area. C. Conservation, Mitigation, and Monitoring Measures • I To meet the requirements specified in the California and federal ESA's for the incidental take authorizations it seeks, the RCHCA.has prepared this HCP which identifies how the impacts of SKR incidental take will be minimized, mitigated, and monitored, and the degree to which the species' persistence in the plan area will be ensured. 1 . Establishment, Completion, and Expansion, and Management of the Core Reserves The establishment, completion, expansion, and management of the core reserves defined in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures will be the primary means of mitigating the impacts of incidental take to SKR in the plan area. These conservation and management activities also will be the primary means of assuring that SKR will persist within the plan area. Through its implementation of the Short-Term SKR plan the RCHCA has ensured the conservation of the vast majority of land contained within the core reserves defined in this HCP. In order of decreasing size, the five core reserves established by this HCP are: 1. Lake Skinner - Domenigoni Valley (12,780 acres); 2. San Jacinto - Lake Perris (11,919 acres); . • S-8 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary 3. Lake Mathews (10,360 acres); 4. Sycamore Canyon - March Air Force Base (2,508 acres); 5. Motte Rimrock (618 acres) In the aggregate these core reserves.encompass 38,185 acres, including 11,225 acres of SKR occupied habitat. Lands within the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve will be managed and administered pursuant to the terms of the Southwestern Riverside County Multi- Species HCP prepared by the MWD and RCHCA, and approved by USFWS and CDFG. Lands within the Lake Mathews core reserve will be managed pursuant to the Lake Mathews Multi-Species HCP recently completed by MWD and RCHCA. To date, the RCHCA has expended more than $14 million to acquire land for the SKR core reserves. That investment has been combined with interagency agreements to ensure the establishment of a regional reserve system for the SKR. In order to complete the reserves designated herein, the RCHCA will acquire or otherwise ensure the conservation of private "inholdings" at a projected cost of approximately $10.2 million. Additionally, agreements will be executed with specific large property owners for the conservation of lands included in the core reserves. The RCHCA will expand the core reserves through the acquisition of an additional 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system. Land`acquisition necessary to complete this core reserve expansion commitment is projected to cost approximately $10.3 million. This HCP establishes new agreements and coordinates existing arrangements among the agencies responsible for management of public lands in the proposed core reserves. The plan provides a framework and funding for: 1. Coordinating the management of SKR habitat; 2. Increasing the amount and quality of SKR habitat in the reserve system through habitat enhancement, restoration, and additional land acquisitions, and; 3. Monitoring the status of the SKR populations in the plan area. Habitat management for the benefit of SKR will be implemented on core reserve lands in public ownership upon approval of this HCP by USFWS and CDFG. Ongoing management programs for SKR will be extended to encompass all lands acquired or otherwise conserved by the RCHCA within the context of this HCP. Management programs are expected to include habitat enhancement and restoration, access controls, fire management activities, grazing where. appropriate, and managed recreational activities. S-9 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary Over the 30-year term of the permit and agreement, RCHCA expenditures for habitat management, monitoring, and biological research in the core reserves are projected at approximately $10.6 million. In order to coordinate habitat management and biological monitoring activities among the individual core reserves,the RCHCA will establish a Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee (RMCC). Members of the RMCC will include one representative each from those agencies responsible for land management in the core reserves, as well as representatives. of the RCHCA, CDFG, USFWS, and the University of California Cooperative Extension. Managers of public lands within the core reserves include: CDFG (San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Lake Mathews Ecological Reserve); California Department of Parks and Recreation (Lake Perris State Recreation Area); Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) (lands at Lake Skinner, Domenigoni Valley, and Lake Mathews); The Nature Conservancy (March Air Force Base SKR Management Area); City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department (Sycamore Canyon Park); University of California at Riverside (Motte Rimrock Reserve); Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District (County lands within the Lake Skinner reserve), and; U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (manager of federal lands in the Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, and Motte Rimrock reserves) Additionally,the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection will be asked to participate as a technical advisor on fire management issues. The RCHCA will work with each of the core reserve managers to develop and implement SKR management plans. These plans will provide guidelines and set priorities for habitat management and biological monitoring activities. They will supplement, and not supplant, existing conservation plans and programs in core reserves with the intent of optimizing benefits to SKR within the funding constraints of the RCHCA's program. Mitigation fees collected by RCHCA members will be earmarked for core reserve management and,where possible,supplemented by federal, state, and private funding sources. Funding allocations for implementation of SKR management plans will be subject to approval by the RCHCA Board of Directors. 2. SKR Mitigation Fees Until the RCHCA has completed the core reserves and expanded those areas by 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system, RCHCA member agencies will maintain the $1,950 per acre SKR mitigation assessed for permitted activities involving land S-10 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary _ disturbance. Activities subject to the mitigation fee must show proof of payment prior to receipt of authorizations to incidentally take SKR. At such time as the RCHCA has completed and expanded the core reserve system pursuant to the terms of this HCP, it is anticipated that the SKR mitigation fee will be reduced to an amount necessary to ensure adequate funding for ongoing habitat management expenses. It should be noted that the SKR mitigation fee is.the largest of its type in the United • States devoted to habitat conservation. During the period of the Short-Term HCP, the SKR mitigation fee generated approximately $30 million. Mitigation fees collected during this HCP and its predecessor Short-Term HCP are expected to provide the majority of revenue necessary to implement this plan. 3. Monitoring of Compliance and Plan Effectiveness The RCHCA will maintain responsibility for monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and agreement. Additionally, with the assistance of the RMCC, the RCHCA will evaluate the effectiveness of HCP conservation and mitigation measures, and submit annual reports concerning same to USFWS and CDFG. Annual reports will be reviewed by USFWS and CDFG to assess the effectiveness of the HCP in ensuring SKR persistence in the plan area. If necessary, modifications to the HCP will be made to address problems identified in the annual reports. • D. Plan Implementation All of the institutional arrangements necessary for plan implementation are presently in place or will be established through interagency and cooperative agreements. The RCHCA Joint Powers Agreement already vests sufficient authority in the agency to perform all tasks necessary to implement this plan. Implementation of this HCP will be governed by legal agreements executed among the RCHCA, its member agencies, USFWS, CDFG, and other agencies as appropriate, e.g., BLM and MWD. The purpose of such agreements is to specify the terms and conditions under which the HCP will be implemented, and define the roles and responsibilities of all parties. The RCHCA will execute an Implementation Agreement with USFWS and a California Endangered Species Permit agreement with CDFG. 1 . Roles and Responsibilities The RCHCA and its member agencies will be responsible for implementation of the HCP, with recipients of incidental take authorizations sharing responsibility for compliance with HCP terms and conditions. The core reserve managers will be responsible for habitat and species management within core reserves, and their role in plan implementation will be an extension of this S-11 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary _ function. In their regulatory capacity USFWS and CDFG will maintain responsibility for approval of RCHCA core reserve land acquisitions, approval of incidental take within core reserves, approval of RCHCA requests for amendments to this HCP, and provision of technical assistance in the development and evaluation of SKR management, monitoring, and biological research activities. • 2. HCP Financing Through the combination of revenue sources including SKR mitigation fees, interest income, federal and state grants, and other sources, the RCHCA will ensure that sufficient funding exists to implement all aspects of this HCP. As of June 1, 1994 the RCHCA had an available fund balance of approximately $16.7 million; the majority of those assets will be applied toward expenses necessary to implement this HCP. The projected budget for implementation of this HCP is shown below: EXPENSES Land Acquisition Completion of core reserves $10,254,000 , Expansion of core reserves 10,350,000 Subtotal Land Acquisition $20,604,000 Core Reserve Management 10,600,000 • HCP Administrative Expenses 5,000,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $36,204,000 • REVENUES RCHCA Fund Balance at Beginning of HCP $16,000,000 RCHCA SKR Mitigation Fees 13,204,000 Interest Income 3,000,000 Federal and State Assistance 2,000,000 SKR Sections 7 & 10(a) Mitigation Payments 1,000,000 UCR Motte Reserve Self-Mitigation Fund 1,000,000 TOTAL REVENUES $36,204,000 S-12 A Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Summary The RCHCA already has expended approximately $20.2 million to implement the SKR Short-Term HCP and develop this plan. Thus, the combined expenditures for SKR habitat conservation under both HCP's is projected to exceed $56 million. Of that total, less than $5 million is estimated to be derived from federal and state sources. This means that more than $50 million of local funds will be provided to conserve the SKR in RCHCA member jurisdictions. The RCHCA is not aware of any single species conservation program in the United States which equals this commitment of local financial resources. F. Next Steps Prior to formally submitting its application for the federal permit and the state agreement, the RCHCA is soliciting public comments on this draft of the HCP. This step is not a requirement of federal or state law. Rather, it is an extension of the RCHCA's commitment to public involvement in the HCP planning process. Final action by RCHCA Board of Directors regarding whether or not to submit incidental take permit applications based on the HCP as proposed currently is scheduled for September 1994. Following approval of the HCP by the RCHCA Board of Directors, the plan and accompanying permit applications will be submitted to USFWS and CDFG for concurrent review. Final action by those two agencies will not occur until the conclusion of public comment periods on the HCP (as required by the federal ESA) and the environmental documentation for actions to be taken by the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG. • Comments concerning this draft HCP should be addressed to: Riverside County Habitat Conservation.Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 275-1100 • S-13 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context • This chapter identifies the purpose and scope of this Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the process by which the plan has been prepared, the federal and state laws on which it is based, and.its relationship to other conservation plans and programs. A. Purpose The primary purposes of this HCP can be defined in terms of its legal functions as a document, its relationship to the Short-Term Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) HCP currently being implemented by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), and its goals as a conservation program for SKR (Figure 1). ;•f Figure 1 • Primary Purposes of the HCP PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE PLAN • PROVIDE INFORMATION REPLACE EXITING SKR ESTABLISH PERMANENT SKR REQUIRED FOR FEDERAL PERMIT PLAN,PERMIT, RESERVES WITH OPPORTUNITIES AND STATE AGREEMENT. AND AGREEMENT. TO BENEFIT OTHER SPECIES. • As a document, the primary purpose of this HCP is to provide the information required for issuance of a federal permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for "incidental take" of SKR and equivalent authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) through an endangered species permit. The definition of "take" and the information requirements for 1 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context the federal permit and state agreement are presented under"D. Regulatory and Planning Context below and in Appendix A. • In relation to the Short-Term HCP, the purpose of this document is to replace the RCHCA's existing SKR conservation program and its federal and state incidental take authorizations with the program and authorizations described herein. The Short-Term HCP is described under"E. Other Plans and Programs" below. • As a conservation program, this HCP intends to provide for the establishment, expansion, and ongoing management of permanent reserves in a manner which will ensure the continued existence of SKR in the HCP area of western Riverside County while also providing opportunities to benefit other species of concern. The permanent reserves and the management, mitigation, and monitoring measures to be implemented by the RCHCA are described in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. • B. Scope The scope of this HCP can be defined in terms of the area, species, activities, and authorizations covered by the plan. • The area covered by the plan includes approximately 517,857 acres within the jurisdictions of RCHCA member agencies in western Riverside County. Boundaries and characteristics of the plan area are described in Chapter 2. Plan Area Profile. Only lands within the jurisdiction of the RCHCA members as mapped in this HCP are covered by the plan and incidental take permits sought by the RCHCA. - • The SKR is not the only federally or state listed species in the plan area, but it is the only species for which the RCHCA is presently seeking authorization for incidental take from USFWS and CDFG. Therefore, this plan is focused on the habitat and other biological requirements of the SKR. Those requirements are described in Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR,together with information about the ecosystem on which the SKR depends. Additional scientific information on the biological requirements of SKR is included in Volume II of this plan. • • The activities covered by the plan fall into three categories: 1. Actions by private land owners, local and regional public agencies, public and private utilities, and farmers that are otherwise lawful but constitute 2 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context incidental take of SKR as defined by the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESA); 2. Establishment and management of permanent SKR reserves by the RCHCA in cooperation.with other public agencies and individual landowners, and; ' 3. Implementation by the RCHCA and its member agencies of the conservation, mitigation, and monitoring measures specified in this plan. The type and level of incidental take expected in the plan area, establishment and management of the reserves, and implementation of the plan are discussed in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. • The authorizations sought by the RCHCA are a 30-year permit from USFWS for incidental take of SKR pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA, and a 30-year California Endangered Species Permit with CDFG regarding take of the same species, pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Only authorization for incidental take of SKR is being sought at this time. However, the plan is structured to allow for future amendments that could broaden the conservation program to include other species and habitat types. The authorizations being sought and the provisions for amending the plan over time are discussed in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. C. Planning Process This HCP was prepared under the direction of the RCHCA Board of Directors, in consultation with USFWS and CDFG, and with the assistance of the RCHCA Advisory Committee and a team of biologists, planners, and legal counsel retained by the RCHCA. The planning process began in 1990 with biological studies conducted as part of the implementation of the Short-Term HCP and culminated with a 12-month public scoping and hearing process that concluded in February 1994. 1 . RCHCA Board of Directors The RCHCA is a Joint Exercise of Powers agency established pursuant to Section 6500 et seq of the Government Code of the State of California. The RCHCA was formed in June 1990 by the County of Riverside and the Cities of Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris, and Riverside; subsequently, the Cities of Corona and Temecula joined the agency. As stated in its Joint Powers Agreement, the purpose of the RCHCA is to: 3 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context ... plan for, acquire, administer, operate, and maintain land and facilities for ecosystem conservation and habitat reserves to implement a habitat conservation plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and other listed or candidate threatened and endangered species. The agency is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of one representative designated by the governing body of each member agency. The Board holds regular meetings which are called, noticed, located, and conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Government Code. The RCHCA is staffed by an Executive Director and a Senior Administrative Analyst, who are responsible for overseeing implementation of the Short-Term SKR HCP, development and ultimate implementation of this HCP, and management of all administrative and financial affairs of the agency. • 2. Advisory Committee and Working Groups The RCHCA Advisory Committee was appointed by the RCHCA Board of Directors in 1990 and includes representatives of the Metropolitan .Water District, Southern California Edison, Riverside County Farm Bureau, Building Industry Association, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Riverside County Property Owners Association, Endangered Habitats League, and individual farmers, biologists, property owners, land development companies, and others. The RCHCA Advisory Committee holds regular meetings open to the public and is responsible for making recommendations to the RCHCA Board of Directors concerning policy and financial matters, development and implementation of the SKR HCP, and other issues of concern to the agency. 3. Consultant Team The consultant team includes field and research biologists, parties with expertise in HCP's, federal and state incidental take permits, and public policy issues, and legal counsel specializing in real estate and the ESA. Biological studies commissioned by the RCHCA are summarized in Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR, with detailed reports included in their entirety in Volume II. Other studies conducted as part of the planning process are summarized in Chapter 4. Alternatives Considered. 4. Resource Agency Cooperation In connection with the implementation of the Short-Term HCP, and consistent with their policies regarding interagency cooperation, representatives of USFWS have participated in the planning process for this HCP since its inception. Specifically, USFWS has provided technical expertise regarding the.biological requirements of SKR 4 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context and reserve design, attended RCHCA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee meetings, and participated in the discussions of the ad hoc biological working group. Both USFWS and CDFG have been supportive of the RCHCA's joint efforts with federal • and state agencies to acquire and conserve lands for their habitat values. In addition, USFWS has made its Geographic Information Systems (GIS) computer capabilities and data base available for conservation planning purposes. 5. Public Scoping Process. The implementation of the Short-Term HCP raised a series of significant issues which prompted the RCHCA Board of Directors to consider a wide range of alternatives regarding the plan intended to replace it. In general, those issues focused on the political and economic realities facing the Board regarding the regulation of land use on, and potential acquisition of, privately held properties for purposes of implementing the federal and state ESA's. Public concern over these issues, together with the legal requirements regarding the HCP and its environmental documentation, led to the development of the options discussed in Chapter 4. Alternatives Considered. As part of the overall scoping process and in anticipation of the NEPA documentation for USFWS' action on the HCP, as of June 1994 five public workshops and 26 public meetings and hearings of the RCHCA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee were held (see Table 1); over 300 issues were raised in written comments submitted to the RCHCA. This process culminated in the RCHCA Board of Directors' decision to direct staff and consultants to prepare a draft SKR HCP intended to accomplish the following: • 1. Finite boundaries for core reserves would be set based on: a) SKR biological studies performed by the RCHCA, and; b) compliance with the federal and state ESA standards. Such boundaries would include public lands as well as those private properties which can be acquired with available RCHCA funds and are deemed biologically necessary for reserves. These core reserves would form the nucleus of future multi-species habitat conservation efforts; 2. The SKR Study Areas established under the Short-Term HCP would be eliminated; 3. In anticipation of future multi-species efforts to be undertaken by the RCHCA, • the SKR HCP would include a provision through which 1:1 conservation credit would be received from USFWS and CDFG for all other habitats and species present on lands acquired as part of the SKR program; 4. Performance standards for reserve land acquisitions would be established, and the HCP would illustrate how additional land could be added to reserves should the RCHCA choose to do so for multi-species purposes. General guidelines would be established .regarding the suitability of land the RCHCA would consider purchasing for reserves; 5 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context _ Table 1 Public Meetings Providing Opportunities for Scoping Comments and Public Hearings on the November 4, 1993 Draft SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Date/Time Purpose Location March 8, 1993 Workshop: Public Agency/General University of California . 9:00 am Public Riverside, CA March 8, 1993 Public Scoping Meeting Callaway Winery 7:00 pm Temecula, CA March 10, 1993 Public Scoping Meeting Riverside City Council 7:00 pm Chambers Riverside, CA March 11, 1993 Public Scoping Meeting Perris High School 7:00 pm Perris, CA March 18, 1993* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA March 25, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA April 8, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA April 15, 1993* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA April.29, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA May 20, 1993* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 8:30 am Riverside, CA May 27, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA June 17, 1993* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center • 9:30 am Riverside, CA July 1, 1993 RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA • 6 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context _ i Table 1 - Public Meetings Providing Opportunities for Scoping Comments and. Public Hearings on the November 4, 1993 Draft SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Date/Time Purpose . Location • July 15, 1993 RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 pm Riverside, CA July 28, 1993 Public Workshop Riverside Office of Education 7:00 pm Riverside, CA 1 August 16, 1993` RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA August 19, 1993 RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA September 16, 1993 RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA September 30, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA October 21, 1993` RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA October 28, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside,CA November 9, 1993• RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 9:00 am Meeting Riverside, CA November 18, 1993* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA December 9, 1993* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA December 16, 1993* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA January 6, 1994* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA 7 . • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Table 1 Public Meetings Providing Opportunities for Scoping Comments and Public Hearings .on the November °4, 1993 Draft SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Date/Time Purpose Location January 20, 1994* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA January 31, 1994* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA February 10, 1994* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Riverside, CA February 17, 1994* RCHCA Board Meeting County Administrative Center 9:30 am Riverside, CA February 24, 1994* RCHCA Advisory Committee County Administrative Center 1:00 pm Meeting Riverside, CA * RCHCA Board and Advisory Committee meeting at which this HCP was a published agenda item. All other Board and Committee meetings provide opportunities for general public comment on the activities of the RCHCA. 5. A management committee would be created which would adopt procedures for - monitoring and evaluating biological viabilityof the permanent reserve areas. This committee would be responsible for recommending appropriate adjustments or alterations to the HCP to ensure the long-term viability of the species; 6. The HCP would include a financing plan sufficient to ensure implementation of the SKR conservation program and future multi-species efforts. All local interest groups should be coalesced into a political action committee to jointly and aggressively pursue federal and state funding to supplement SKR mitigation fees and other funding sources. 8 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context 6. Public Review Process for the November 4, 1993 Draft HCP Following the August 19, 1993 RCHCA Board•of Directors meeting the RCHCA circulated a Draft HCP dated November 4, 1993. That document was the subject of a series of meetings to receive comment from the public concerning its contents. Table 1 presents a list of those meetings. The RCHCA received a total of 81 letters commenting on the November 4, 1993 draft of the SKR HCP. In addition, many hours of public testimony were received by the RCHCA Board of Directors. After reviewing all public comment letters and oral testimony the RCHCA Board of Directors instructed staff to make the following modifications to the November 4, 1993 draft of the SKR HCP: - 1. All references in the draft HCP to the 1/2 mile buffer area proposed around SKR core reserves would be eliminated. This would include the deletion of provisions concerning review of proposed General Plan amendments and zoning changes, as well as the proposed requirement for conduct of biological assessments for all projects in the buffer area; 2. The HCP would include a commitment by the RCHCA to expand the SKR core reserves by an additional 2,500 acres of value to the SKR core reserve system. When that standard has been reached RCHCA land acquisition activities for the SKR would terminate, and the SKR mitigation fee would be reduced to that amount required to finance core reserve management activities over the balance of the 30-year permit period; 3. RCHCA legal counsel would draft model CEQA findings concerning projects outside of core reserves which will result in impacts to SKR. Such model • findings would be available for use as appropriate by RCHCA member agencies; 4. The HCP would reference a procedure for addition of new jurisdictions to the RCHCA. In recognition of the fact that the City of Murrieta has collected SKR mitigation fees since its incorporation,the City could, ifit so chooses, become a member of the RCHCA by transferring all mitigation fees collected to the RCHCA and agreeing to implement the SKR HCP. For land within other non- member jurisdictions, coverage under the RCHCA's HCP should be accomplished through participation of the particular city in the RCHCA. If such cities decline to join the RCHCA, the HCP would allow individual land owners to receive incidental take from the RCHCA if they acquire replacement SKR 9 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context occupied habitat on a 1:1 basis for all SKR occupied acres incidentally taken. Replacement habitat must be acceptable to the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG; 5. SKR mitigation fees would be applied in uniform fashion by all RCHCA member agencies, and would be assessed over the entirety of parcels for which development permits are approved. The HCP would specify that land disturbance for agricultural purposes is exempted from the SKR mitigation fee; agricultural structures would be assessed fees based upon the footprint of disturbance created for the structure; 6. Until the RCHCA has expanded the core reserves by 2,500 acres of value to the core reserve system, SKR biological surveys would be required in the same fashion as that employed for the Short-Term HCP, with the exception of the following activities for which no surveys will be necessary unless required by the NEPA or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): a) agricultural activities other than erection of structures; b) permitted activities which result in no land disturbance, e.g., lot splits; c) activities necessary to respond to emergency conditions, and; d) activities necessary to operate and maintain public facilities and improvements. Until the RCHCA has reached the 2,500 acre goal, SKR surveys required for the construction of one single-family home would be eligible for 50% cost reimbursement by the RCHCA. When the RCHCA has reached the 2,500 acre goal SKR biological surveys would not be required under the HCP. However, this provision would not supersede CEQA or NEPA requirements for conduct of biological surveys; 7. The County of Riverside, California Department of Forestry, and the University of California Riverside (UCR) Cooperative Extension would be added to the - Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee; 8. The HCP would include financial projections of the costs and revenues associated with implementation of the plan. This would include projected RCHCA revenues, land acquisition costs to complete the core reserves and achieve the 2,500 acre core reserve expansion standard, and projected habitat management expenses; 9. The HCP would encourage RCHCA member agencies to adopt and implement density compensation and transfer programs for privately owned land in SKR core reserves; 10. References in the draft HCP to CPI indexing of SKR mitigation fees would be eliminated; 10 1 e Volume I: Habitat.Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context 11. The HCP would provide that within core reserves activities necessary to respond to emergencies threatening public health and safety would require no pre-approval from the USFWS or CDFG even if they are likely to result in incidental take of SKR. Any necessary mitigation would be determined in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG after emergency conditions have ended; 12. The HCP would permit RCHCA member agencies to conduct necessary maintenance activities on roads, flood control channels, landfills, and other public facilities within core reserves. Regional SKR conservation actions to be undertaken by the RCHCA would provide mitigation for incidental take resulting from these activities; 13. Existing and planned public agency operational, recreational, and project areas around the Domenigoni, Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, and Lake Skinner reservoirs would be excluded from designated SKR core reserves. The HCP would specify that provisions of existing Metropolitan Water District agreements with the USFWS and CDFG concerning the Domenigoni Reservoir, Mills Filtration Plant, Inland Feeder Pipeline, San Diego Pipeline, and other projects would determine procedures for SKR incidental take and mitigation on affected lands; and This draft HCP incorporates the changes directed by the RCHCA Board on February 17, 1994. D. Regulatory and Planning Context The regulatory and planning context of the HCP consists primarily of the federal and state laws governing authorizations for SKR incidental take that the RCHCA is seeking. These laws include the federal ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Fish and Game Code (including the State ESA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Salient provisions of those laws are discussed below and summarized in Table 2. Additional information concerning federal and state wildlife regulations is presented in Appendix A. 1 . Federal ESA Three sections of the federal ESA are relevant to the RCHCA's preparation of this plan and USFWS' action on the permit application: • Section 9, which prohibits the taking of federally-listed species; 11 Volume I: Habitat Conserver_ Plan 1. Purpose, Sc _ and Planning Context Table 2 HCP Information Requirements and Approval Criteria Federal ESA California ESA Information Requirements HCP requirements, as stated in Section 10(a) 2081 agreement requirements, as stated in and 50 CFR 13 and 17: CDFG draft guidelines: 1: Common and scientific names(s) of 1. Description of the affected species'and species; their habitat(s); 2. Names of responsible parties; 2. Description of the project that will affect 3. Impacts likely to result from the taking; the listed species; including maps showing 4. Measures to monitor, minimize, and the overall project area and impact area; mitigate impacts; 3. Analysis of potential impacts, including 5. Funding available to undertake the cumulative effects on listed species in and proposed measures; adjacent to the project area; 6. Procedures to deal with unforeseen 4. Analysis of alternatives designed to reduce circumstances; or eliminate impacts to the listed species; 7. Alternatives that would not result in take 5. Description of on and off site mitigation and the reasons why the alternatives were measures; not adopted; 6. Financial assurances regarding the 8. Additional measures (if any) required by • implementation of mitigation measures. USFWS as necessary or appropriate. . Approval Criteria Approval criteria for an incidental take permit, No approval criteria stated in ESA; questions as stated in Section 10(a)(1)(B) and 50 CFR 13 used by CDFG in consultations under Section and 17: 2090 used to identify impacts that the plan should avoid or adequately mitigate: 1. The taking will be incidental to an 1. Would a viable or recoverable population otherwise lawful activity; be eliminated or a significant proportion of 2. The applicant will, to the maximum extent a population be adversely affected? practicable, minimize and mitigate the 2. Would the range of the species be ' impacts of the taking; significantly diminished? - 3. The applicant will ensure that adequate 3. Would the quantity or quality of the • funding for the plan and procedures to deal species' habitat be reduced by immediate with unforeseen circumstances will be or future effects? provided; 4. Would the species' access to its habitat be 4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the reduced or rendered more hazardous? likelihood of the survival and recovery of 5. Would current or future efforts to protect the species in the wild; species be adversely affected? 5. The applicant will ensure that the other 6. Would plans for the recovery or eventual measures, if any, required by USFWS will desisting of the species be adversely be met; and affected? 6. USFWS is assured that the conservation 7. Would the project interfere with plan will be implemented. reproductive or other behavior of the species? 8. Would the project cause, or increase the risk of, the species' extinction? 12 Volume I: Habitat Cons'. :ion Plan 1. Purpose ope, and Planning Context • Section 10(a), which authorizes the issuance of incidental take permits and establishes standards for the content of HCP's, and; • Section 7, which requires USFWS review of federal actions (including its own) that would affect a species listed as endangered or threatened, or would adversely modify critical habitat designated under the ESA for such species. Detailed discussions of these and other relevant sections of the ESA are presented in Appendix A. Also presented in that Appendix are summaries of relevant sections of the California ESA and other State statutes. - 2. NEPA In addition to conducting an internal Section 7 consultation and making the HCP available for public review, USFWS must prepare appropriate environmental documentation prior to acting on the permit. This step is triggered by NEPA, which requires that the potential effects of actions taken by federal agencies be identified and analyzed in a written document. The document must be made available for public review and so noticed in the Federal Register. The practice of USFWS has been to publish a joint notice regarding the receipt of the permit application and the availability of the environmental documentation, thereby providing for a concurrent review of the HCP submitted by the applicant and the environmental documentation for USFWS' proposed action on-it. Volume III of this plan contains the NEPA documentation for USFWS' action. The documentation has been prepared jointly by USFWS and the RCHCA in the form of a combined Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS is the lead agency for the NEPA component of the joint documentation. 3. California Fish and Game Code The California Fish and Game Code includes the State ESA. Key provisions pertaining to this plan and CDFG's action include: • Section 2080, which prohibits the taking. of state listed species; • Section 2081, which authorizes CDFG to enter into agreements regarding take of candidate and listed species occurring for scientific, educational, or management purposes, and; • Sections 2090-2097, which cover the state process for reviewing projects with potential impacts to state listed species and for species like the SKR that also are federally listed. Specific information concerning the above CEQA sections is presented in Appendix A. 4. CEQA • Similar to NEPA, CEQA requires lead agencies empowered to make discretionary decisions to evaluate the environmental effects of a proposed project before rendering a decision. The evaluation begins with an Initial Study to determine if the potential impacts of the proposed project would be potentially adverse and significant. If*one 13 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context or more significant impacts are identified, an EIR or mitigated negative declaration must be prepared. If no significant impacts are determined a negative declaration is prepared. If a project affects a listed species, CEQA mandates that a negative declaration or draft EIR be prepared and that the lead agency for the project must submit the negative declaration or EIR to the State Clearinghouse for review by CDFG. Volume III of this HCP includes the CEQA documentation for the RCHCA's action on the plan, which is to implement the conservation program upon approval of the plan by USFWS and CDFG. The documentation also will be used by. CDFG in their evaluation of the HCP. As previously noted, the documentation has been prepared cooperatively by the RCHCA and USFWS in the form of a joint EIR/EIS (see Volume III). The RCHCA is the lead agency for the CEQA component of the joint document; CDFG's role is that of a "responsible agency" as defined in CEQA. E. Other Plans and Programs Other plans and programs relevant to this HCP include: 1. The existing Short-Term SKR HCP being implemented by the RCHCA; 2. The adopted General Plans of RCHCA member agencies; 3. The Southwestern Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), prepared by the RCHCA and MWD and approved by USFWS and CDFG in October 1992; 4. The draft Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Lake Mathews MSHCP), prepared by the RCHCA and MWD concurrent with this HCP; 5. - The draft Multiple Species -Habitat Conservation Strategy (MSHCS) for Riverside County; 6. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP), and; 7. The State of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. Each of these plans and programs is described below. 1. Short-Term SKR HCP The Short-Term SKR HCP currently being implemented by the RCHCA was part of a Section 10(a) permit application and 2081 agreement submitted to USFWS and CDFG in 1989 and finally approved by both agencies in October 1990. In general, the Short- 14 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Term HCP: a) identified the boundaries of the area covered by the permit and agreement; b) established ten Study Areas to be evaluated as potential SKR reserves; c) specified a process by which reserves would be identified and the boundaries of Study Areas could be modified, and; d) defined limitations on the amount, location, and duration of SKR incidental take. a. Original Plan Area and Reserve Study Areas The plan area for the Short-Term HCP was configured to encompass the estimated historic range of SKR habitat in western Riverside County, covering approximately 565,000 acres. As originally defined,the ten Study Areas encompassed approximately • 85,000 acres or 15% of the total plan area, with individual Study Areas ranging in size from under 2,000 to over 20,000 acres (see Figure 2). Basedonthe best information available at that time, it was estimated that: 1) approximately 22,000 acres, or 4.2% of the plan area, were occupied by SKR, and; 2) over 16,000 acres or 73% of SKR occupied habitat occurred inside of Study Areas. These estimates were based primarily on maps prepared for CDFG in late 1988 and early 1989 by Dr. Michael O'Farrell and Curt Uptain. b. Reserve Design and Boundary Modification Process Since the approval of the Short-Term HCP, lands within the Study Areas have been evaluated by the RCHCA for their potential as permanent SKR reserves. This evaluation has occurred primarily through two mechanisms: 1) biological research, studies, and SKR surveys funded by the RCHCA, and; 2) HCP boundary modifications requested by individual land owners. Research and studies conducted to date have focused on SKR distribution and the biological suitability of the habitat within each Study Area, existing and proposed land uses within and adjacent to each area, the economic feasibility of land acquisition, and identification of potential constraints on the area's long-term viability as a SKR reserve (see Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR and Volume II for information on studies and research). The HCP boundary modification process has been governed by the terms and conditions established in the 1990 agreements with USFWS and CDFG. Those agreements provide that changes to the boundaries of Study Areas and overall plan area may be proposed by individual applicants, who must submit their requests in writing to the RCHCA together with a SKR biological survey, assessor's parcel map of the property, and relevant land use and economic data. The RCHCA then reviews the proposed changes in terms of the biological suitability of the land as part of a potential reserve (including its biological value as a buffer or movement corridor), the relative compatibility of land uses in the area, the financial feasibility of its acquisition, and potential effects of the boundary change on the feasibility of establishing a final set of SKR reserves. Following this review, the RCHCA Board of Directors determines which modifications to submit to USFWS and CDFG for approval. The 1990 agreements further stipulate that the modifications must be submitted as a set and may be submitted no more 15 "' SAN BERNARDNO COUNTY ./ ..--\illailk. 1C:410! WHIG . Aer Wel) VALLEY `I11.— Vo tidal 'ily I 2--"- , SYCAMORE CJJJYaI •,, Ff1GHTS S71DY AREA I, 0 I-Ii '1 LAIC IAA7FEWS 14 L- STIDY AREA LANEl� •• 1 S Y AESERVE\ 0 S7UDWY AREA -1k -§ P07RER0 I 2 Sc3cc:.. * " ST1DY•AREA ' - •--• SAN JACNTO � 1 • \ STIDY AREA• +„l. �....�;tf ►- I4 ` �- e. LI I Z► PERM . rNr :: STEGE - 4 MY 74 CAMEL L . `t_`�STIDY AREA / 1 ailISE1 �I_ • STUDYP ____r--, . • CJMffdl / ilifl E SiQtER• AI„ _, -.14 . , DY AREA , _ , „i.,,,,A1,4.....,,:: , -, , ....,,.. ....„,, •.,,.. ,:l"".:,11: -'":-., I 1 -� _ I 1 1 1 SRDY AREA PLATEAU ♦ i V460, _ / I SAN DEGO COUNTY • SCALE N MLESCAD1 0 3 6 12 /{a, ORIGNAL HCP FTE AREA BOIIDARY • . ORIGNAL STEPI•ONS' KANGAROO RAT STLDY AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOIIFARY IIGHWAYS LAKES/RESERVOIRFigure S/OPEN WATER Figure NOT FICUMED N HCP FEE ATEA ORIGNAL HCP FEE AREA APC • STEPFENS' KANGAROO RAT STUDY AREA`. Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context • frequently than once every six months. THE USFWS and CDFG may choose to approve or deny any or all of the modifications forwarded by the RCHCA. Since October 1990, two sets of HCP boundary modifications were approved through this process: • The first set involved both additions of land to and deletions from Study Areas, as well as proposed additions to the HCP area. The USFWS approved 16 modifications of the 21 requested by the RCHCA, resulting in the addition of approximately 1,600 total acres and 475 SKR occupied acres to the HCP area. Approved changes also resulted in the elimination of the Alessandro Heights . Study Area pursuant to an agreement cited in the Short-Term HCP, addition of approximately 1,500 acres (including 1,000 acres of SKR habitat) to the Lake Skinner Study Area, and removal of approximately 2,000 acres (including 250 acres of SKR habitat) from twelve locations. • In the second set of boundary modifications USFWS and CDFG approved 23 modifications which reduced the total size of Study Areas by 3,865 acres, including 337 acres of.SKR occupied habitat. Seven of the nine Study Areas were modified, with the greatest number of changes occurring in Kabian Park and Steele Peak, the two Study Areas containing the highest proportion of privately owned properties. No additions to the HCP area were proposed. Subsequent to the second set, all Study Area and HCP area modification requests submitted or reactivated by property owners have been addressed by the RCHCA through the preparation of this HCP and are incorporated by reference in the recommended conservation program(see Chapter 4.Alternatives Considered). Current boundaries of the Short-Term HCP area and Study Areas are shown in Figure 3. The HCP boundary modification process played a prominent role in the shaping of SKR reserves in western Riverside County. By providing a forum for the evaluation of biological, economic, and land use factors, the process served as a valuable laboratory where the complexities of habitat conservation decision making in a rapidly urbanizing environment could be worked out. However,from the perspective of the local citizenry it also proved to be one of the most controversial aspects of the Short-Term HCP. The Short-Term HCP prohibition against take of SKR inside of Study Areas led many property owners with even minor development plans to petition for removal of land • from Study Areas. The protracted time required to receive final decisions (no less than 18 months), along with attendant expense and uncertainty, proved extremely difficult for property owners to accept. As a result, the RCHCA and USFWS received a tremendous amount of criticism from local land owners who became disaffected with the entire SKR conservation program. This feeling of dissatisfaction also was shared by environmental groups who opposed removal of land from Study Areas during the Short-Term HCP on the basis that such decisions should not be made until permanent SKR reserves are defined. Environmental groups ultimately filed three lawsuits against the RCHCA based upon the boundary modification process; this proved costly not only to the RCHCA's finances but also to its relations with conservation interests whose support is important to successful HCP implementation. 17 . . . . • . . , • • . . . . . . . „ . . . . • . • 1 . 4f L SAN BERNARDNO COUNTY • _ , • . , • ..,0 .1— • 1.1 --,. - - • -•• b . 1— - • • -. • II' \r7Tili 1— \ 1. ' I 1 .111 RIVERSCE t . As: koResoNNY eo — ---- • , • .HI BANsIsC kio Oil 11 NO SYCAMORE CANYCN VALLEY -1 I I, ' hi 1 il . • - STUDY AREA ‘ 1 — _ I I LAKE MATFEWS 1 STUDY AREA .0: LAC•PON1 S .eiMW —.) rxit morrE RESERVE .....„,,,' II.0'• L . eoi., 4011 STLDY AREA -,1*„ POTRERO I • 44$4leils "i$000.% - I. • -"4.0.. 3 .-" STUDY AREA •1 la :11111 \ SAN ..1,1ACNTO pi i I„„ II IIIIIIrrits,:-;, , . . • PERMS Ali 00111101 IM , ' a 4°1/ , • ) all 1111111111 1111111 fiii°0 a. III ipt:L4 ,. 1 \ • • 11W I -,•• STEELE - . 1I WY 74 — 1-L—i.N_STLOY AREA / 'IMF w 1."74 .• • ...I 1.1., IpirKABL • . , i STUDY --• • r IR1111.1iit-,CANYON • .iti...,4,' "44; •-• :111iIiiiir Lele 1 I -- N4iiiiiP4. Agt.""4. • 1 /-- ‘ P'00'..; I •••:.--. .—.1 . • ' N . 1 • 1 —1 • ii6/ • LNE MO ..- STUDY AREA I.... / 4•4•4;•''..- -I /// I'. ,111111111111111 1111111111i . I 1/ III I il ) / I 1111111)), 1 llitECU.A 1 . . i ._...../..%1,;its4.% .‘,....;.‘ ' SAWA ROSA PLATEAU %i% P- . ) • I I a • SAN DEGO COUNTY . . SCALE IN MILES 6,—...,----- • o 3 6 2 [iv CURRENT STEPI-EfS KANGAROO RAT STUDY AREA BOLMARES • • / ,,, C1FRE4T HCP FEE AREA BOUNDARY 771 RNERSDE COLNTY BOUNDARY 17vi liGHWAYS LAKES/RESE . RVORS • Figure 3 , NOT NCLUDED lki FrP FEE AREA CURRENT STEPHENS KANGAROO RAT FEE AREA AND STUDY AREAS i - Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context As a final note to reserve design and boundary modification issues, the effective boundaries of the HCP experienced two significantchanges as a result of processes occurring completely outside of the RCHCA. During the implementation of the Short- Term HCP the Cities of Murrieta and Canyon Lake 'incorporated, resulting in the removal of 20,158 acres (3.6%) from the plan area. Since those new cities did not encompass any Study Area lands, the net result was to shrink the area within which SKR incidental take could occur. c. Terms and Conditions in the Short-Term HCP Regarding Incidental Take of SKR The original terms and conditions imposed on incidental take of SKR under the RCHCA's existing 10(a) permit and 2081 agreement are described below: 1. Within the HCP area incidental take can occur only on land located outside of the boundaries of Study Areas. Incidental take within Study Areas was authorized only for essential public utility projects, and only with the specific approval of USFWS and CDFG; - 2. Incidental take could not exceed 4,400 acres or 20% (whichever is less) of the total amount of occupied SKR habitat in the HCP area; 3. For every one acre of incidental take occurring outside of Study Areas, one acre of SKR occupied habitat located within the Study Areas must be acquired by the RCHCA, placed in public ownership, and permanently conserved for the benefit of the species. All RCHCA replacement land acquisitions must be approved by USFWS and CDFG; 4. RCHCA replacement acquisition acreage must be within 10% of actual incidental take acreage, as measured every six months; 5. When reviewing projects proposed within a Study Area, RCHCA members must: • a. Require that a SKR biological report on the project be prepared by a biologist permitted by USFWS to trap the species; b. Consider the effects of the project on reserve design and require preparation of an EIR if the potential effects are significant; c. Provide USFWS and CDFG with an early opportunity to comment, and; d. For the project to be approved, make a finding of "no significant environmental effect" on the establishment of a SKR reserve in the Study Area. 6. RCHCA members were required to collect a SKR mitigation fee as a condition precedent to issuance of grading and development permits in the HCP area. Mitigation fee revenues were expended by the RCHCA for implementation of the Short-Term HCP, including habitat acquisition, biological research, and • 19 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context preserve system planning. A minimum of 10% of SKR mitigation fees must be expended for habitat management; 7. Boundaries of the HCP area and Study Areas could be modified only with the approval of USFWS and CDFG. The RCHCA could petition for such changes once every six months, with all proposed changes accompanied by SKR biological surveys and appropriate CEQA and NEPA - environmental documentation, and; • 8. The authorization for incidental take of SKR was valid for an initial period of two years. In response to formal requests from the RCHCA, USFWS and CDFG approved the following amendments to the permit and agreement in 1992 and 1993: 1. The habitat replacement requirement was modified to allow for mitigation credit to be given by USFWS and CDFG on a case-by-case basis for the acquisition of non-SKR occupied habitat deemed important to preserves as buffers or corridors; 2. The term of the existing permit and agreement was extended until December 31, 1993; 3. A provision was added to allow authorized incidental take to occur any time within 15 years of the expiration of the permit and agreement, provided that the applicable SKR mitigation fees have been paid, replacement habitat has been acquired, and all other terms and conditions of the permit and agreement have been met; 4. Projects involving essential public utilities within Study Areas were more specifically defined as those for "water, electricity, gas, and the like, in which no reasonable alternative location or route is available, taking into account comparable environmental consequences and costs of installation, and subject to approval of appropriate mitigation" by USFWS and CDFG. Due to the lengthy public hearing process conducted during the development of this HCP, the RCHCA petitioned USFWS and CDFG to extend the term of its permit and agreement until September 30, 1994. This extension request was granted by USFWS and CDFG. • d. Status Report As of June 30, 1994, almost four years after the Short-Term HCP was approved by USFWS and CDFG: A total of 1,935 acres, or 44% of the 4,400-acre USFWS and CDFG authorization, have been incidentally taken under auspices of the HCP; 20 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context • Over 5,000 acres, including 3,172 acres of approved SKR replacement habitat, have been acquired by the RCHCA, with additional acreage presently in escrow; • Approximately 700 acres have been dedicated to the RCHCA via Section 7 consultations; • Approximately $29.7 million in SKR mitigation fee revenue has been collected by RCHCA member agencies, and $7.2 million has been secured by the RCHCA from other sources; • Approximately $14.2 million has been expended by the RCHCA to acquire habitat under the HCP, with an additional $2.5 million spent by other parties, e.g., state Wildlife Conservation Board; • A 9,000 acre multiple species reserve in the Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley area encompassing almost 1,200 acres of SKR occupied habitat has been established through cooperative action by the RCHCA and MWD, and; • A multiple species reserve in the Lake Mathews .area encompassing approximately 9,000 acres of public lands, including 3,341 acres of SKR habitat, has been proposed through a second cooperative effort with MWD. 2. Local General Plans Section 65350 et seq of the California Government Code requires each city and county in California to prepare and adopt "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city or county." The plan must contain seven elements (land use, circulation, housing,conservation, open space, noise, and public safety) and may contain other elements important to the physical development of the community (e.g., parks and recreation, public services and facilities, scenic highways, and historic preservation). Habitat conservation is cited in the Government Code in connection with three of the mandatory general plan elements: • As part of the conservation element, which provides for "the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soil, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources"; • As part of the open space element, which provides for "the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas required for ecological and other scientific study purposes; rivers, streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lake shore, banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands" and; • Indirectly, as part of the land use element, which must designate"the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for 21 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land." The General Plans of RCHCA members are consistent with the provisions of the Government Code; they address habitat conservation primarily under one or more of the mandatory elements or in a combination of elements. In the aggregate the elements address a broad spectrum of HCP-related policies: • sensitive species protection;. • habitat inventory/mapping; • habitat acquisition; • development review/control; • site specific biological assessment; • wildlife buffers/corridors; • mitigation/monitoring, and; • multi-species planning. All eight General Plans of RCHCA member agencies address the issue of sensitive species protection through the planning process, which provides the basic framework for habitat conservation. As a means of ensuring wildlife protection, five plans also specify the creation of buffer zones around sensitive habitats and the preservation of wildlife movement corridors. Since planning is intended to produce orderly and appropriate development, the majority of the plans also focus on policies related to the development process. Seven of the eight General Plans specifically require further site specific biological assessments when warranted by proposed development impacts or an inadequate habitat data base, and the plan that does not specify such provisions (i.e., City of Corona) applies to less than one percent of the HCP area. Six of the plans also include specific policies regarding mitigation and monitoring measures. Habitat acquisition is addressed in four plans, and habitat inventory/mapping and multi-species planning in three. This HCP is consistent with General Plan policies and programs of RCHCA member agencies. The general scope of existing conservation-related policies in the General • Plans of the RCHCA members is summarized in Table 3; the specific policies are included in Appendix B. 3. Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was prepared and submitted cooperatively by the RCHCA and MWD and approved by . USFWS and CDFG in October 1992; this document and its accompanying agreements are incorporated by reference into this HCP. The MSHCP covers a 20,000-acre area includes approximately 9,000 acres of conserved habitat, 8,600 acres dedicated to two reservoirs and water-related facilities, and 2,400 acres dedicated to recreation facilities at the planned Domenigoni and existing Lake Skinner reservoirs. The MSHCP anticipates the future listing of individual species, mitigates the impacts of the 22 Volume I: Habitat Conse_.^ ,Dn Plan 1. Purpose,, pe, and Planning Context Table 3 Summary List of HCP-Related Goals, Policies, and . Programs in General Plans of the RCHCA Members Type of HCP-Related Goals, Policies, and Programs RCHCA Member/ Sasifiae Habitat Hahitat Develop- Site Specific Widrde Mitigation Muhl- Plan Element V Spees Inventory erM gsolegicr OIn Buffers/ MoIitg speciesProtection Mapping fiaviaW/ Aaaaaamant conidore Planing Control Riverside ("minty - • Lannd Use X X X X Reninnal X Ena7nIlv f�Pcnmenrr etalc X X X X X X Cmmna Cnnservatinn X • 1 Hemet Rsource X X X X X management 1 Lake Flcinnre Qnnpeservn Spatinapen/ X X X X X Mnrenn Valley Cnnservatinn X X X X • Perris • l and Use X consetvati naron/ X X X X X nen e Riverside lritvl Cnncervatinn X X X X X X X Temerula l and Use X X gpen Space/ X X X X X X X X nncervatinn 23 Volume I: Habitat Consery Plan 1. Purpose, S f-, and Planning Context Domenigoni Reservoir, and provides for the ongoing management of the reserve through a Cooperative Agreement with USFWS and CDFG. j a. Plan Area Components The area covered by the MSHCP includes three primary components: • Land around Lake Skinner under MWD ownership; • The Roy E. Shipley Reserve, which was established by MWD, RCHCA,. and County of Riverside in 1991, and; • The project area for the new reservoir in Domenigoni Valley. The first two of these components also are encompassed by the Lake Skinner Study Area identified in the Short-Term SKR HCP. These components also are part of the - core reserves identified in this plan. b. Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the MSHCP is to contribute to the continued survival and recovery of sensitive species known to occur in the'plan area, including but not limited to: • The federally and state listed SKR; L_ • The federally listed California gnatcatcher; • Seven sensitive plant species (Smooth tarplant, Payson's jewelflower, Parry's spineflower, San Jacinto Valley saltbush, Munz's onion, Engelmann oak, and Palmer's grapplinghook); • Five sensitive reptile species (Orange-throated whiptail, San Diego horned lizard, Northern red-diamond rattlesnake, Coastal western whiptail, and Southwestern pond turtle); • Eleven sensitive bird species (Bell's sage sparrow, Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow, Great blue heron, Black-shouldered kite, Bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, Ferruginous hawk,Golden eagle,Loggerhead shrike, Burrowing owl, and California horned lark), and; • Six sensitive mammal species (Mountain lion, American badger, Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse). To this end, the plan provides for: • Dedication and preservation of conserved habitat in the plan area components; • Mitigation of the habitat impacts of the new reservoir, with approximately three acres of sensitive habitats conserved for every one acre taken; • Cooperative management of the conserved habitat by MWD, RCHCA, Riverside County Park and Open Space District, USFWS, and CDFG; 24 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context • Initial funding ($13,886,000) by MWD for a research program and management of the reserve, plus $1.2 million in SKR management funds from MWD and RCHCA, and; • • Long-term funding for reserve management through revenues from recreation facilities at the new reservoir. The plan also provides for authorization of incidental take in the plan area, including "pre-listing" assurances to MWD regarding species that currently are not but could become federally or state listed prior to completion of the new reservoir. The • assurances largely reflect the fact that the plan treats the species as if they were already listed and provides for their needs through an adaptive management strategy. The MSHCP acknowledges that major impacts of the reservoir project will occur long before the possible listing of any of its covered species other than SKR and California gnatcatcher. Additional information concerning the- Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP, including the planned incorporation and management of RCHCA lands, is presented in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. 4. Draft Lake Mathews Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Concurrent with the completion of the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP, MWD and RCHCA initiated a similar planning effort for MWD and RCHCA properties in the Lake Mathews and Estelle Mountain areas. Preparation of the Lake Mathews plan began in March 1992 with extensive surveys of MWD Lake Mathews property to document habitat and species values. Following completion of the surveys in mid. 1993, preparation of the plan itself began in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. A draft has now been completed, and it is anticipated that the document will be submitted to USFWS and CDFG for review concurrent with this HCP. a. Plan Area Components - The MSHCP proposes to establish a 9,790 acre multiple species reserve in northwestern Riverside County consisting of four components: • An existing State Ecological Reserve consisting of 2,565 acres around and below Lake Mathews; • Approximately 2,545 acres owned by MWD which will be added to the Ecological Reserve and used as a mitigation bank by MWD and RCHCA; • • Approximately 1,830 acres currently owned by the RCHCA; and • Approximately 2,850 acres the RCHCA proposes to include in the Lake Mathews SKR core reserve. 25 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context All four components are within the Lake Mathews core reserve designated in this HCP. b. Goals and Objectives Similar to the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP, the Lake Mathews MSHCP is intended to contribute to the continued survival and recovery of sensitive species known to occur in the plan area. In this case, 46 sensitive species have been identified, including: • The federally and state listed SKR; • The federally listed California gnatcatcher; • Seven sensitive plant species (Clay bindweed, Great valley phacelia, Knotweed spineflower,Large-leaf filaree,Palmer's grapplinghook, Parry's spineflower, and Small flowered microseris); • Seven sensitive amphibian and reptile species (Coastal rosy boa, Coastal western whiptail, Northern red diamond rattlesnake, Orange-throated whiptail, • San Bernardino ringneck snake, San Diego horned lizard, and Western spadefoot toad); • Twenty-three sensitive bird species (California horned lark, Caspian tern, Cooper's hawk, Downy woodpecker, Golden eagle, Grasshopper sparrow, Great blue heron, Loggerhead shrike, Northern harrier, Red-shouldered hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Tricolored blackbird, Western grebe, Yellow-breasted chat, and Yellow warbler), and; • Seven sensitive mammal species (American badger, Big or pocketed free-tail • bat, Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Pallid bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego desert woodrat, and Western mastiff bat). To provide for these species in a way that fulfills the requirements and intent of the federal and state ESA's, the plan provides for: • Expansion of the existing Ecological Reserve to include an additional 2,546 acres; • Ongoing management of the expanded Ecological Reserve and the SKR core reserve established under this HCP through interagency agreements and establishment of a trust fund for reserve management. • Establishment of a mitigation bank for use by MWD and the RCHCA based on the conservation value of lands being added to the Ecological Reserve, and; • Authorization for incidental take of species in the plan area, including "pre- listing" assurances regarding species covered by the plan. Additional information concerning the Lake Mathews MSHCP is presented in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. • 26 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context 5. Draft Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Strategy for Riverside County Concurrent with the implementation of the Short-Term SKR HCP and two years prior to the California NCCP Act, Riverside County initiated preparation of a strategic plan for county-wide habitat conservation now identified as the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Strategy (MSHCS). The MSHCS was intended to serve as a conceptual plan for protecting sensitive biological resources and integrating that protection into • appropriate elements of the County General Plan. The MSHCS was completed in January 1991. The MSHCS presents existing data concerning wildlife and habitats throughout the county, includes a gap analysis to identify sensitive resource areas appropriate for conservation, recommends measures to ensure the conservation of specific species and ecosystems, and proposes a 10-year acquisition and implementation program. Species that are listed or are likely to be listed by USFWS or CDFG are afforded special attention, and priority is given to multi-agency partnerships for acquisition of habitats threatened by imminent development. The strategy has not been considered or adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and does not include the level ofdetail required to secure a federal Section 10(a) Permit or 2081 agreement. However, it provides the framework for regional habitat conservation planning efforts by the County and potentially, other local agencies. 6. BLM South Coast Resource Management Plan The BLM South Coast RMP issued in November 1992 covers 296,500 acres, including 129,000 acres of public lands managed by BLM and an additional 167,500 acres of federal mineral estate with private surface ownership. These lands are located in five counties, with the majority in the western portions of San Diego County (139,000 acres)and Riverside County(65,000 acres). BLM holdings in western Riverside County consist of scattered parcels ranging in size from under 10 to over 900 acres, with most parcels under 200 acres. In its RMP the BLM proposes to designate two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Potrero and the Santa Ana River Wash. Portions of the Santa Margarita River are proposed for designation as an ACEC/Research Natural Area; other segments of the Santa Margarita River are identified as eligible for possible inclusion in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems. In addition, sensitive species habitat would be managed on lands at Oak Mountain, Valle Vista, and in the Badlands area. The RMP proposes the acquisition of 14,192 acres within these areas for habitat conservation purposes. The RMP is of particular importance to this HCP due to the BLM's commitment to establish a Potrero ACEC specifically for the protection of SKR. The RMP contains the following provisions concerning the Potrero ACEC: 1. The ACEC designation initially would cover 1,030 acres currently in BLM ownership; 27 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context • 2. BLM would acquire 11,952 acres of private property to expand the ACEC to a total of 12,982 acres. This would encompass all of the approximately 2,000 acres of SKR occupied habitat in the Potrero Valley; 3. BLM would make available for exchange 4,957 acres under its ownership for the sole purpose of acquiring land within the Potrero reserve; 4. The ACEC would be unavailable for mineral material sales, and grazing would be permitted only if it is found to be compatible with habitat management. Accomplishment of the proposed land exchange would result in significant benefits to SKR conservation in western Riverside County. Accordingly, for the past three years the RCHCA has been working cooperatively with BLM and the Lockheed Corporation (principal land owner in the Potrero area) to explore potential land exchange options. The conservation program in this HCP advocates and seeks to facilitate the use of BLM and other federal lands in support of habitat conservation in western Riverside County. In that regard, this HCP assumes BLM's intent to implement the RMP as adopted. 7. Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program • The NCCP program was initiated in 1991 following approval of legislation that adding Sections 2800-2840 to the California Fish and Game Code. In general, these sections authorize the preparation and approval of conservation plans for communities of plants and wildlife. Currently, the NCCP program is focused on the coastal sage scrub community in southern California, which includes a broad range of sensitive plant and wildlife species, including the SKR. The primary purpose of the program is to preserve local and regional biological diversity, reconcile urban development and wildlife needs, and meet the objectives of the state and federal ESA's by conserving habitat before species are on the brink of extinction. Additional information about the program and its conservation planning guidelines is included in Appendix A. This HCP, which was initiated one year prior to the NCCP legislation and nearly three years prior to the SRP's recommended strategy, is generally with NCCP goals but has not been prepared as part of the NCCP program. 28 Volume I. Habitat Conservati, -Ian 2. Plan Area Profile 2. Plan Area Profile This chapter describes the setting and boundaries of the overall plan area, population and land use trends within it, and its biological resources and existing wildlife preserves. Information • concerning SKR as a species and SKR habitat is presented in Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR. A. Plan Area Setting and Boundaries One of the most challenging aspects of preparing this HCP has been to design a strategy that conserves a resource scattered in many relatively small patches across an urbanizing area covering almost 900 square miles. This section provides a context for understanding how the location, size,and characteristics of the HCP area affect the conservation planning process and available conservation options. 1 . State and Regional Context Riverside County is located in southern California, east of the Los Angeles metropolitan area and, at its most westerly point, approximately fifty miles from the Pacific Ocean. It is bordered on the north by San Bernardino County, on the east by the Colorado River and the Arizona state line, on the south by San Diego and Imperial Counties, and on the west by Orange County (Figure 4). Riverside County covers over 4.7 million acres (7,310 square miles), making it California's fourth largest county and roughly equal in size to the State of• Connecticut. The HCP plan area is located in western Riverside County, generally defined as territory west of the San Jacinto Mountains. It extends south from the San Bernardino County line to the border with San Diego County (Figure 5). The Cleveland National Forest flanks much of the plan area's western boundary, and the San Bernardino National Forest roughly defines most of the eastern boundary of the HCP area. 2. Plan Area Size and Jurisdictional Boundaries The boundaries of this HCP area encompass more than 517,857 acres, which is 11% of Riverside County's land mass and larger than the entirety of Orange County. The HCP boundaries generally correspond to the historic range of SKR in western Riverside County but currently include only those lands within the jurisdictions of RCHCA members (Figure 5). Lands within the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Canyon Lake, Norco, Murrieta, and San Jacinto are not included within the plan area and are not covered by the permit and agreement the RCHCA is seeking. Approximately 72% of the plan area is within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside (Table 4 and Figure 6). Incorporated lands account for the remainder, with acreage per city ranging from nearly 50,000 in the City of Riverside to under 2,000 in Corona. 29 Altai% itv„or,, is,IPA d )„,Nitosokirit . SAN BERNARDINO LOS ANGELES svasmc IVERSIDE s ORANGE SAN DIE 30 IMPERIAL • SCALE IN MILES Figure 4 State and Regional Context of Riverside County Z. i SAN ANO coUNTY .mg CAUYESA , .4/ `' ./,,, � >" /„,,, ../....... \ ., < ,, ,, ,< -,. .11 'J���5�!E '„: , p Mss I�, II I .y4, < ,\•:,% >�v`;<> �-.< ` . / ��' �\'-- I p All '`• " .. a ,,'.A > .Sv%♦ : ,. .. ,<p.{"� `fir;``<n •. .r` 'v\ ) :.V ;;;' '\' 1 I Irn `-� I , ` [ > ; ` 4 NE IN I n LME w71EWS ♦ ^'A` ♦ 1111 I 11.11, M.m CORONA d < i.,< It'd 1 I III �1> lny, 11 II•I� ;I . .1111II• 'Iii`� � l IMail1l11 i‘, . I 4 lastird < ' 11pANYON • ,....s , _ ♦ /♦ _ • ELSNORE i S I 4./ 1 - •!i ,01111111111111.1‘11 Il - co?��I�411iII:I I.,�illl' ' Ir I I.� 1I11I Luz sem I ti*I. 14S111111111111110: < , . to...0 r 1 ell aw A:‘,<1.;‹,,,„, 1 `. -\40,,4 • It /I r , 1 MI MONM 1 SAN DEGO COUNTY — SCALE N MILES CAD 0 3 6 12 •'r'•, JCREDETIONAL BaJwARES OF RCHCA IAIE R CITES J L HIGHWAYS 1,‘,- H P FEE AREA BOUNDARY * Figure 5 :0: LAIES/RESFRVORS 1111111111 NOT NCLIAED.N HCP FEE AREA * TFE RE]dANDER of TFE LANA N TFE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF RCHCA MEMBER CITIES FEE AREA IS OOLNTY «'°'' TED AND COUNTY UNINCORPORATED LAND LAND. WITHIN THE HCP FEE AREA Volume I. Habitat Conserv; Plan 2. Plan Area Profile Table 4 Acres per RCHCA Member in the Plan Area of RCHCA Member Acres Total Riverside County 370907 71.6 Cities Corona 1,771 0.3 Hemet 13.266 2.6 Lake Elsinore 14,319 2.8 Moreno Valley 31.267 6.0 Perris 20.285 3.9 Riverside 49.914 9.7 Temecula 16.128' 3.1 Subtotal 146.950 28.4 Plan Area 517,857 100.0 Source: Riverside County GIS data base. Figure 6 Acres per RCHCA Member in the Plan Area Temecula r��lllllllll��� Riverside IF;41j1111Perris 641.11 � FI Moreno valley LAM__ . Lake Elsinore I/01.11 Hemet Corona �r County 11111 , O 100.000 200,000 300.000 400.000 32 Volume I. Habitat Conservation 2. Plan Area Profile B. Population Trends January 1993 estimates from the California Department of Finance place Riverside County's total population at 1,328,320. Of this total, approximately 75% (nearly 1 million)reside in western Riverside County. A precise estimate of the population within the plan area is not available but, based on the proportion of city and county lands encompassed by plan area boundaries and the amount of residential development, it is approximated at 700,000 persons. The following discussion of past and forecasted population trends is based on data for the RCHCA member cities, other cities in western Riverside County, and unincorporated territories. Emphasis is placed on the cities of western Riverside County due to the fact that population in the plan area is and will continue to be concentrated within incorporated areas. In addition, annexation of lands into existing cities the incorporation of new communities is likely to occur over the period of the permit and agreement sought by the RCHCA. Such changes already have occurred in the HCP area subsequent to the approval of the Short-Term HCP, as evidenced by the incorporation of Canyon Lake and Murrieta. _ 1 . RCHCA Member Cities o The seven member cities of the RCHCA had a total population of 606,248 as of January 1993 (Table 5). Current population in the cities reflects individual increases of 24% to 323% since 1980 or dates of incorporation; average annual growth rates over those periods ranged from 3% to 25%. The Cities of Perris and Lake Elsinore showed the highest overall percentage increase and average annual rate of change. The City of Riverside grew at the slowest rate annually and over the period, but added more people (178,083) than currently reside in any other city in Riverside County. By 1985, the combined population of the RCHCA member cities exceeded that in the entire unincorporated area, and as of 1993, their combined population exceeds the unincorporated area by more than 200,000 people (Figure 7). Forecasted population growth for RCHCA member cities is included in the projections for incorporated and unincorporated lands in western Riverside County. 2. Other Western Riverside Cities In 1993 the six non-RCHCA member cities in western Riverside County (i.e., Beaumont, Banning, Canyon Lake, Murrieta, Norco, and San Jacinto) had a combined population of 116,471 (Table 5), approximately 80% less than that found in the RCHCA cities (Figure 8). 33 Volume I. Habitat Conserv4 Plan 2. Plan Area Profile • Table 5 Population in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Areas of Riverside County, 1980-1993 % Average Change Annual Jurisdiction 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 over % Period Change RCHCA Cities Corona 37,791 44,141 69,980 81,330 88,260 92,584 145 11 Hemet 22,454 28,590 35,669 38,007 48,946 52,120 132 10 Lake Elsinore 5,982 9,494 15,971 19,223 22,120 22,747 280 22 Moreno Valley - 58,010 114,903 126,337 131,851 133,706 130 16 Perris 6,827 9,093 18,884 23,964 27,275 28,892 323 25 Riverside 170,591 186,786 218,499 230,016 238,061 242,249 42 3 Temecula - - - 27,382 31,603 33,950 24 12 Subtotal 229,991 336,114 473,906 546,259 588,116 606,248 - - Other Western Riverside Cities Banning 14,020 16,540 20,973 22,069 22,995 23,476 67 5 Beaumont 6,818 7,764 9,968 9,998 10,363 10,440 53 4 Canyon Lake - - - - 10,301 10,501 2 2 Murrieta - - - - - 25,518 - - Norco 19,732 22,546 25,342 23,442 23,871 24,281 23 2 San Jacinto 7,098 10,089 15,310 17,576 20,892 22,255 214 16 I . Subtotal 47,668 56,939 71,593 73,085 88,442 116,471 - - East County Cities 108,975 136,088 178,907 198,408 220,608 228,323 - -- County Unincorporated 276,565 271,808 385,615 407,266 392,546 377,278 36 3 ' TOTAL COUNTY 663,199 800,949 1,110,021 1,225,018 1,289,712 1,328,320 100 8 Source: California Department of Finance and Demographic Research. 34 ' Volume I. Habitat Conservation 2. Plan Area Profile Figure 7 Total Population of RCHCA Member Cities and Unincorporated Area 1980-1993 • —11.— Total Population in Unincorporated Area --1 --- Total Population in RCHCA Member Cities , 700000 i i 600000 i ! 1 i . . 500000 .11.01.1PYt I 400000Milliill1.11111.11111111011.... 300000 ��� 200000 � . 100000 i 0 I I % 1980 1985 1990 1993 it Table 6 Growth Forecast for Western Riverside County RSA POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT - 1990 2010 %CHANGE 1990 2010 %CHANGE 1990 2010 %CHANGE ' , 45 71,544 79,364 10.83% 21,941 23,748 8.24% 15,874 28,388 78.83% 46 486,606 884,961 81.86% 162,353 271,516 78.22% 152,303 291,089 91.12% 47 104,950 303,463 189.14% 37,121 98,377 165.02% 20,069 85.470 325.88% 48 95,576 245,588 156.93% 40,716 100,230 146.17% 28,299 64,649 92.76% 49 105,516 371,428 252.01% 36,040 125,313 247.71% 30,186 93,525 209.61% 50 47.487 103,355 117.85% 17,585 38,247 117.76% 13,968 29,390 110.56% TOTALS 911,679 1,988,129 118.07% 305,736 667,431 115.03% 260,691 682,411 123.41% Source: Southern California Association of Governments 1993 Draft Regional Comprehensive Plan. 35 Volume I. Habitat Conserve., ,,Dian 2. Plan Area Profile • Figure 8 Comparison of 1993 Population in RCHCA Member Cities, Other Western Riverside Cities, and Unincorporated Area Other Western Rh,. Cnty. Cities Unincorporated Area i RCHCA Cities ( ( 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 The six non-member cities generallyfall into two categories: those with under g 11,000 residents and those with more than 20,000. Between 1980 and 1993 population in the four cities incorporated prior to that period increased by 23% to 214%; annual growth rates were in the range of 4% to 16% (see Table 5). The City of San Jacinto recorded the highest total, percentage, and annual growth rates • over the period. Excluding the newly incorporated Cities of Canyon Lake and Murrieta, the other four cities combined added only 33,000 people over the period of 1980-1993. In 1990 the total population of the six non-RCHCA member cities was less than 75,000; by 1993, it nearly doubled, due largely to the incorporation of the Cities of • Canyon Lake and Murrieta. In 1993 population in the six non-member cities was approximately one-third as great as that in unincorporated areas (Figure 9). Forecasted population growth for non-RCHCA member cities is included in the projections for incorporated and unincorporated lands under "5. Western Riverside Growth Forecast." 36 Volume I. Habitat Conservation i 2. Plan Area Profile Figure 9 Population Growth Trends in Other Western Riverside Cities 1980-1993 • ---- Total Population in Unincorporated Area --+�— Total Population in Other Western Riverside Cities 400000 ( 1 350000 1 i • 300000 • fes- r } 250000 200000 150000 900000 •. 1 60000 -IF-- O 1980 1985 1990 1993 • 3. Unincorporated Lands The total population of County unincorporated lands in 1993 was 377,278. Despite the incorporation of four new cities since 1980, population in unincorporated areas increased by 36% over that thirteen-year period. Forecasted population growth for County territories is included in the projections for incorporated and unincorporated lands in "5. Western Riverside Growth Forecast." 4. Riverside County Since 1980 Riverside County has doubled its population, with two-thirds of the growth occurring in western Riverside County cities. The average annual rate of change over the period of 1980-1990 was 8%; this is an exceptional rate of regional growth reflecting Riverside's status as the fastest growing large County in the state, and among the fastest in the nation. Since 1990 however, worsening local economic conditions have caused annual growth rates to decline significantly. Based on 1993 population estimates RCHCA member cities contain 46% of the county population, other western Riverside cities account for 9%, east county cities comprise 17%, and unincorporated lands account for 28%. 37 • Volume I. Habitat Conserva Plan 2. Plan Area Profile . 5. Western Riverside Growth Forecast Based on subregional forecasts prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), total population in western Riverside County is expected to approach 2 million by 2010 (Table 6 and Figure 10). This forecast has a base year of 1990 and covers six Regional Statistical Areas (RSA's 45-50) in western Riverside County. (Figure 11). The SCAG forecast also predicts that households in the same RSA's will exceed 657,000 by 2010, a 115% increase over 1990 totals. Employment is projected to increase by more than 123% over that 20-year period. Figure 10 Population, Housing and Employment within Western Riverside County, 1990 and 2010 2010 • 1990 • Employment ;'':" Housing M w .,................ Population • 0 500000 - 1000000 1500000 2000000 This SCAG forecast is of special interest to this HCP in its projection of significant subregional differences in population, housing, and employment trends within and adjacent to the HCP area. On a regional scale it also is notable for its anticipation of tremendous population increases and significantly expanded economic opportunities • over the next 16 years. However, SCAG forecasts were prepared prior to the occurrence of job losses throughout the region due to military base closures and "downsizings," drastic reduction in construction activity, and other factors. Additionally,the forecasts do not acknowledge constraints on development due to the presence of threatened and endangered species in western Riverside County. Although the existing economic conditions in the HCP area may be temporary, the magnitude of changes in employment and housing may require SCAG to revisit the assumptions on which its forecast is based. Changes in southern California's primary 38 • • • • ��....., rrl. .��.. . I I . , I 1.:..; •!.•r .1 /0Y, `•�/ .far.O.roY[ r I I • 1 -I 1 1 I ! I Ir.l•r 101.01 .l � I . - 4✓Ira.' ' . I 'S�.. p. . ii11 I e , ! salol i I : I I ! I iu�or I r r .r .. • loos .ei ��YnIII r, �\ PA' I �r �. r—r 1 K ..e�w I.ni+ r' .0/or MI se' Vr.fl o. . 1a4os. �I /- OOAla°Mr111LL1r --��i - I. I - 1"+"! r I ■ 1 r I - 1 I �.. CIGNA tars. . ik_ 6. _ _ ia_ L_a •. �. .+., - . I I + _ .:.�IA ; d _ -ri .. . . Li, • C• �' ..we!- ■—Im.ter. " Ir11o1: l ,- - i .. '+L,_.+�. rdieei ,• • , , __ a . � 1• MUD •„��I �', + i """�” :1 ' ri` -r- ''I ' ---1--- ,.•• II • I._. —. , I..1 .-�-• (1:` ir.:11Wi!A► r• \ CC} ` _ ■ , NIII� _ `, - �� r _ I-+ I ..r.0. ' IQJr lil alF�t6110�/g7� �..1~�' _ Y•I ��I � .. all\V1 r 1 1 1 1L'i1 !, • !�I t^ 'TIrr- , t.e ..7 �`' I 1' Itur 463 �f - . .• r...,1!111 ! rW 1 � I - " . -+: +: ,. .. , 111 .• - -1 dig-. iL+ �.� ;• a..1rcrii.o .;_ _ • g /t: • , ., ��1 ' f I _I�C� �11L I`''It I • I`.. - ;0.110. _ i Q�1�q c!�li IBI R • .n....dim� .• •... 1 •' 54e" - :. .: L._ _ rzia_.:, .t:74‘ 1.,,,„.,,(41% : • _ J. )1 -1 '— ■ I _.__....: .I iliefl I�`�■ i !_ ,� _I• _..iw/r' _. .� 1--T -}._� ��`. ..: •,.. c . . . . i . ... : . .. 1 . . • 1 ....:.::, I .„ , 7 1 0.101 • I' , 7 -4.- -1--. .YI t 1 l rt.1 ! •+ ; r• G .. .I 1 + i I �.r 1 1.1 .SI I i'717-.;L:..- w.r�i.�i \ I 1 ._�11k ■..�,..... i -. .. 1. - - } . 1 __ ; l1 • t • . I ."5". rIJ1M I4•\• ` N 49...sire, r�"..'. 1111.- ..FM*.. _. : r �.. IIMI[ 19.i. Ir�1J[ - 1!101 `` 1 4� .. .-.._ 1111 1 \ I. I ��,` , /—�_ 1 ' .� 1 .I . I I ��I I I -I i I.I h-r4.' 1• i 1 i ! A, I .a,.. ' t1 •'1 1 . 1 ' I I , j. • H , l \•:.• .,.111211.114 .t-4---r�•, _•-_ I• I 1 I Ili 1 11111 I 1, ': Source: Riverside County Planning Dept. 1990 i t LEGEND - FIGURE 11 n INCORPORATED CmES F-1 CENSUS TRACTS • Regional Statistical Areas Volume I. Habitat Conserve Plan 2. Plan Area Profile • employment centers (Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties) will affect the influx of households drawn to western Riverside County due to its comparatively lower price of housing. However, regardless of changes in the influx of home buyers, western Riverside County's population would still be expected to grow due to natural increases. C. Land Use Trends • Data derived from SCAG's 1990 land use inventory for western Riverside County indicate that vacant lands cover nearly 300,000 acres of the HCP area, and agricultural andurban uses together account for another 250,000 acres (Table 7). Overall, the plan area is comprised of the following uses (Figure 12): -- • 56% is undisturbed•vacant land, open water, or recreation areas; • 22% is in agricultural use, and; • 22% is urban development and related uses. Figure 12 1990 Land Uses in Plan Area Agriculture 22% • .OW401' Urban/Related Uses 22% • ..:.:t.:•.i:ilii. • Vacant/Open Space 56% 40' Volume I. Habitat Conservation 2. Plan Area Profile Table 7 1990 Land Use Inventory for the Plan Area* Land Use Category Acres Residential 82,400 15. Commercial/Office/Institutions 12,700 2 Industrial 4,400 <1 Mineral/Oil/Gas Extraction 2,000 <1 Airfield/Airports 1,700 <1 Transportation/Utilities/Public Facilities 9,900 2 Under Construction 10,000 2 Parks/Recreation/Other Open Space - 7,400 -1 Agriculture 126,800 22 Water/Inundation Area 7,900 1 Vacant/Urban Lands 13,800 2 Vacant/Undifferentiated 286,000 51 TOTAL* 565,000 100 Source: Southern California Association of Governments (1992). •Includes area of non-RCHCA members encompassed by outer plan area boundaries. 1 . Existing. Uses and Development Potential For purposes of describing land use patterns the HCP area can be divided into northern, central, and southern subareas. Descriptions of major existing uses and the development potential of each subarea follow. In general, urban land uses predominate the northern subarea, whereas a combination of rural,agricultural, and urbanizing areas characterize the central and southern subareas. a. Northern Subarea The northern subarea consists primarily of lands within the Cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley, adjacent unincorporated communities, and March Air Force Base. This subarea includes the most urbanized portions of the county and is expected to continue. to develop due to its existing employment base and proximity to those in Los Angeles, 41 Volume I. Habitat Conserva', ,;Plan 2. Plan Area Profile Orange, and San Bernardino Counties. The northern subarea has good rail and freeway access for commercial and industrial development and available industrial land along the Interstate 215 corridor. Its existing infrastructure and housing inventory also increase its development potential, together with relatively low land, labor, and infrastructure costs. Land use constraints include seismic faults that traverse the northeastern portion of the area, airport noise levels around March Air Force Base, peak-period freeway traffic congestion, and air quality regulations. b. Central Subarea The central subarea includes lands around and below Lake Mathews and Lake Perris, and territory within the Cities of Hemet and Perris. With the exception of the developed portions of Hemet and Perris, this area is primarily rural in character and includes the largest public land holdings in western Riverside County. • Lands immediately around Lake Mathews are owned by MWD and managed for water resource protection and conservation of wildlife habitat values. As discussed in Chapter 1. Purpose,Scope,and Planning Context, these same lands also are the focus of a multi-species HCP being prepared by MWD and the RCHCA. Within the past decade lands to the south of MWD's ownership exhibited a transition from agriculture and mining to residential and commercial uses. The development potential of adjacent lands reflects their proximity to existing urban areas of the Cities of Corona, Norco, and Riverside, and freeway access to Interstate 15. Significant amounts of additional residential development are anticipated in the County's Lake Mathews Community Plan.and City of Corona General Plan. However, the potential of this area to accommodate planned development is limited by a lack of available infrastructure, steep slopes and rocky terrain, and the relatively extensive distribution of protected species (e.g., SKR and California gnatcatcher) and sensitive habitat types (e.g., sage scrub). The area immediately surrounding Lake Perris is State owned and consists of the 8,200-acre Lake Perris State Recreation Area and the 4,669-acre San Jacinto Wildlife Area. The area below the lake is primarily unincorporated land characterized by larger lot residential development, agriculture, and open space uses. The City of Perris is the only municipality in the area, and its land uses are in transition from agriculture and . open space to urban development. The area has made a substantial commitment to agricultural uses, as evidenced 9 by large dairies along Gilman Hot Springs Road, Ramona Expressway, and Highway 79. The development potential of the central subarea area is enhanced by the upgrading of industrial zoned land along Interstate 215. Land use constraints in this subarea include limitations on the availability and extension of sewers, circulation network deficiencies, and development constraints in the San Jacinto River floodplain. The area below the San Jacinto River includes a combination of urban and rural uses. The urban portion of the area is characterized by single-family homes, some multi- family units, numerous mobile home parks, and expanding commercial development along Highway 74. The land use potential of this subarea favors continued urbanization due to the availability of developable land, lower land and housing costs, . and proximity to recreation areas. 42 Volume I. Habitat Conservation 2. Plan Area Profile c. Southern Subarea The southern subarea area includes urbanized lands along Interstate 15, rapidly urbanizing areas in Menifee, Murrieta, and Temecula, and predominantly rural lands surrounding Lake Skinner. Urban and urbanizing areas include the municipalities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula, together with unincorporated land in the Menifee and French Valleys. Each of those areas has experienced significant growth since 1980. Lands immediately around Lake Skinner are owned by MWD and,together with lands in the.Roy E. Shipley Wildlife Reserve and conserved habitat around the planned Domenigoni Reservoir, comprise the multiple species reserve established by MWD and the RCHCA in 1992. Lands outside the existing reserve include RCHCA holdings,agricultural operations, and rural residential development. In 1989 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) covering 210,700 acres in the southwestern portion of the HCP area. The SWAP includes a growth management concept which defines urban, rural, and resource protection areas. Urban areas include the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, lands along the I-15 and 1-215 freeways and State Route 79; SWAP concentrates future development in these locations. Resource protection areas are defined on the Santa Rosa Plateau and lands surrounding Vail Lake; these locations are identified as having significant biological value, and development standards are established to conserve sensitive resources and protect sensitive species. All other land not defined as urban or resource protection is classified as rural or outlying areas; in such locations SWAP prohibits approval of development requiring an urban level of services. Rural residential development involving minimum lot sizes of 0.5 to 5 acres is anticipated in these areas. The land use potential of this area is influenced primarily by recent improvements to Interstates 15 and 215, improvements to the community water system in the Temecula area, proximity to employment bases in San Diego County,and relatively lower housing costs and lower priced industrial land. Development constraints include SWAP resource protection policies, slopes in excess of 25%, lack of potable water, seismic and flooding hazards, limited fire protection services, and the presence of sensitive resources and protected species. Despite. the existence of these constraints, significant future growth in the area is expected.due to the approval of several large Specific Plan developments. 2. Development Trends Two important indicators of future development trends in the HCP area are the pattern of building permits issued and added value of new construction over the period of 1980 - 1990. Over that ten-year period these indicators reflected the dynamic changes experienced in the western Riverside County economy. Building activity throughout the HCP area increased dramatically between 1983 and 1989. However, in 1990 this trend reversed itself as activity declined precipitously; that economic slowdown continues today. • 43 Volume I. Habitat Conservat -Ian 2. Plan Area Profile - , Between 1980 and 1990, the combined number of building permits issued by RCHCA member cities ranged from a low of 694 in 1982 to a high of 11,505 in 1989 (Table 8 and Figure 13). Over the same period, the number of building permits for all unincorporated areas ranged from a low of 2,635 in 1982 to a high of 19,021 in 1988. The total value of new construction (in 1990 dollars) exhibited a similar pattern of a relatively low level of activity during the recession of the early 1980's, a dramatic increase in activity beginning in 1983 and peaking in 1988-89, and a sharp drop in activity in 1990 (Table 9 and Figure 14). The total value of new construction in the RCHCA cities ranged from a low of $149.9 million in 1982 to a high of $1.5 billion in 1989. Table 8 • Building Permits Issued in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions, 1980-1990 (number of permits) Jurisdiction 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 RCHCA Cities Corona 379 285 97 471 817 1,133 1,884 2,450 3,595 3,180 1,219 • Hemet 148 112 187 625 551 644 1,620 378 605 743 1,608 Lake 355 298 140 312 560 345 398 469 383 245 272 Elsinore Moreno - - - - - 3,521 4,098 2,292 4,030 3,862 922 Valley Perris 164 28 82 ' 168 404 . 152 349 433 1,433 1,243 805 Riverside 208 595 188 1,160 3,250 3,292 3,107 1,525 1,587 2,232 1,253 Temecula -- - - - - - - - - 72 Subtotal 1,254 1,318 694 2,736 6,582 9,087 11,456 7,547 11,633 11,505 6,151 All Other ' 2,327 1,776 1,447 3,318 5,439 4,346 5,864 3,124 4,842 5,518 4,270 Cities • Unincorpo- 4,290 3,158 2,635 6,179 7,971 3,738 _6,623 . 7,276 19,021 8,679 5,210 rated TOTAL 7,871 6,252 4,776 12,233 18,992 17,171 23,943 17,947 35,496 25,702 15,631 Source: Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy(1991). 44 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 2. Plan Area Profile Figure 13 Annual Building Permits Issued by RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions, 1980-1990 . (number of permits) --IIIII— Unincorporated Area —4,— RCHCA Cities 20000 1 .18000 I I 1 16000 ; . 14000 12000 I 10000 1 8000 6000 • 4000 ■—y, j ; 2000 • 0 • 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Figure 14 Value of New Construction in RCHCA Member. Cities and Other Riverside.County Jurisdictions, 1980-1990 (millions in:.1990 dollars) -i- Unincorporated Area -4- RCHCA Cities 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 45 Volume I. Habitat Conserve ' Plan 2. Plan Area Profile i Table 9 Value of New Construction in RCHCA Member Cities and Other Riverside County Jurisdictions, 1980-1990 (millions in 1990 dollars) Jurisdiction 1980 1981 19821983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 _ _ II RCHCA Cities Corona 49.4 43.5 19.3 68.4 109.1 100.6 164.5 286.2 423.7 432.8 165.5 II Hemet 30.8 29.1 30.1 39.9 41.3 40.7 75.6 37.1 65.8 106.5 176.1 , Lake 23.1 17.2 10.8 29.0 • .34.0 29.5 57.8 51.7 56.2 39.3 39.3 II Elsinore Moreno -- -- -- -- - 270.1 336.7 241.1 414.7 475.0 167.2 Valley II Perris 7.2 2.2 5.2 6.9 20.4 14.1 28.1 34.3 105.9 91.2 77.1 Riverside 99.9 143.1 84.5 143.5 291.8 • 305.0 339.4 283.0 296.1 393.0 245.6 II Temecula - - - -- - - - - -- -- 28.4 Subtotal 210.4 235.1 149.9 287.7 496.6 760.0 1002.1 933.4 1364.2 1537.8 899.2 II All Other 248.4 275.8 215.8 • 424.3 600.2 565.3 609.7 515.7 652.9 774.7605.9 1 Cities II Unincorpo- 322.4 418.5 403.1 . 645.0 880.7 554.8 764.7 869.7 2012.8 1205.5 857.3 II rated TOTAL 781.2 929.4 768.8 1357.0 1977.5 1880.1 2379.5 2318.8 4029.9 3518.0 2362.4 II Source: Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy(1991). 46 • • 1 • _ . a=✓may ,� .�.. _._.�_ y - •• . .7--.., SAN BERNARDNO COUNTY - i d • i ‘—‘4,7;,--....,,( -r•. ,mss � z (-`• ' ' •�. ice• t * ',.4 -e• ,. Qr;,j..,��- ---,..= �•}'�?�` :�;�, �. •✓`c 4' Li It %'�•(�.`� ` / � -,\I\ '4 • ' •�� �'e 1VV.'J'• � \,i--:jM a• „a mt ' • , , . w' ' �.� '� , .1•.,:%-,f,r . •i,. : M ! _ • A` t•• -13,1...... .'.7, fes. \�� \` AAA,. %�'i:..«. .S� -�- - "�aT ti'c�h �-/''�f>-mac -. � �� 1' 101.17,0,v1?:::‘ ) i• .r;-•..z. _3.�\�'�'�. �., -'4W44\-ti .r•'•, Alk ,i ; ,..r,. 'ms � rte �. v T .7�.1.'. {a+S .��� ' I ,�. 0•is �.� _ //•• r%�^A 'A,�_ �-`^ t: , 7 'ret WOO.;•.;• . cam . ... fit .-_,•7=---- ---,.... _ = ��,t�{•4 �.�N J1.'.'::t:'i.!�Iy x,.;• ..:Y:.gib-;,'„1"`, -,-;s..-.,--.V..L _.,..: fir• r.1; r .==. ,,. , 4 ` if ^kr :,r — --Mv 2••=-4 rte�..-Ti. 0k ,71`11'1_x -.rit9F71 °;. -'t /^A it41 f ,,..fir' o a -. r --=-,',..-;--1-43-.1, : . T•°If•• a7 �� fes" . -. • .w 7 "t �r iMf : sLYi ; { . � � Lr 101,1: = .1111 .. } • - — , t ._ �- i_ ', � '-'� •.- tr�'/,._:—� —. _ _ F> ;r_ , P it „ ,t,_,1,. --i � �k ',`� . \ Y1 O. r•Z+ w r 3-'.�yN ��,4.J. 4.'r �S- �. . - ' Ifr�s ,�Aa s': SAN DEGO COUNTY • CkSCALE N MLES• 0 25 5 10 LAND CLEARED OF NATIVE VEGETATION NCL M WOODLAND AGRCLLTUt.WATERAREAS RESOONTUL / EXOTIC PLANTS AND D6TllREED ) ® NOT NCLLE D N ThE HCP FEE AREA ('771 GRASSLAND NCP FEE AREA BOUNDARY .-- SAGE SCRS HIGHWAYS EZ AiSCELLAWOUS SCRUB t 1 CHAPARRAL - `PA`LA"' Figure 15 ;.; ALKALI PLAYA ME MARSH COVER TYPES N THE HCP FEE AREA Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 2. Plan Area Profile _ Since 1990 the number of permits issued and the value of new construction in western Riverside County has continued to decline. For example, the Riverside County Building and Safety Department reports that in 1991, the number of building permits issued for unincorporated lands decreased by 42% and the value of new construction dropped by 68% from the previous year. The Department further reports that in 1992, the number of issued permits dropped another 30%; the value of new construction also declined but not as radically, dropping by 4% from the previous year. Despite the current downturn, it is safe to assume that at some time in the near future the cycle will repeat itself and building activity will resume. D . Biological Resources Based on vegetation mapping prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS), in 1994 western Riverside County contains approximately 910,670 acres of lands in their natural condition (Table 10 and Figure 15). Of this total, approximately 260,685 acres (29%) occur within the plan area, including mostof the habitats most likely to support listed and sensitive species of concern. 1 . Vegetation Types The vegetation mapping prepared by PSBS identifies covers approximately 1.3 million acres in western Riverside County. Thirty-three vegetation cover types were mapped and categorized using 1993 aerial photography and spot satellite image processing. The data were entered into a geographic information system (GIS) data base. Additionally, detailed vegetation mapping of MWD lands at Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner/Shipley Reserve has been completed and will be integrated into the SKR HCP data base upon its receipt from MWD. It should be noted that the PSBS calculations and configurations do not reflect the temporary modification of vegetation types which occurred as a result of the October 1993 California Fire which burned significant portions of the Domenigoni Valley and the Lake Skinner Study Area. Based on GIS calculations using the PSBS data,three major vegetation categories cover over 788,613 acres or 87% of the 910,670 acres of natural lands in western Riverside County: chaparral, sage scrub, and grassland (see Table 10). Within the HCP area the same three categories account for more than 244,953 acres or 94% of the vegetated lands. Sage scrub covers the largest area, followed by grassland and chaparral (Figure 16). • 49 Volume I. Habitat Conserve Plan 2. Plan Area Profile Figure 16 Vegetation Types in the Plan Area by Percentage of Total Vegetated Lands All Other Types 3% Grassland 30% Chaparral 26% ...•::::•. Alkali Playa 3% Sage Scrub 38% • 2. Species of Concern SKR is known to occur in European annual grassland, mixed European annual grassland/coastal sage scrub habitats, and sparse coastal sage scrub. The species also is found in areas where such habitats have been disturbed but not completely removed, and in areas where suitable habitat conditions have been created by agricultural activities. Currently the SKR is known to occupy about 34,450 acres in Riverside County, including. approximately 31,550 acres in the HCP area (see Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR). In addition to the SKR, 122 other species of concern are associated with the habitats in the plan area, primarily coastal sage scrub, chamise chaparral, European grassland, • and mixed European grassland/coastal sage scrub (Attachment D-1). These 51 plants, 3 invertebrates, 20 amphibians and reptiles, 34 birds, and 14 mammals include: • 1. Species already listed as threatened or endangered under the state and federal ESA's; 50 Volume I. Habitat Conservation 2. Plan Area Profile Table 10 Vegetation Types in Western Riverside County and the Plan Area (acres) Western HCP Vegetation/Cover Type Riverside Plan County Area Sage Scrub Coastal Scrub 7,159 44 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 15,805 738 Riversidean Sage Scrub 136,268 96,055 Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 7,162 2,215 Miscellaneous Scrub Semi-desert Succulent Scrub 2,428 0 Big Sagebrush Scrub 11,948 0 Chaparral Chaparral 381,016 66,300 Chamise Chaparral 361 352 Red Shank Chaparral 84,285 227 Semi-Desert Chaparral 19 0 Grassland Valley and Foothill Grassland 2,734 0 Non-native Grassland 153,804 79,022 Vernal Pool Vernal Pool 19 18 Southern Interior Basalt Vernal Pool 71 23 Meadow Meadow (Montane) 196 0 Wet Montane Meadow 501 0 Dry Montane Meadow 7 0 Alkali Playa 7,840 7,529 Marsh 51 Volume I. Habitat Conserv, Plan 2. Plan Area Profile Table 10 Vegetation Types in Western Riverside County and the Plan Area (acres) Western HCP Vegetation/Cover Type Riverside Plan County Area Marsh 87 87 Cismontane Alkali Marsh 1,265 16 Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 391 121 Riparian Riparian Forest 1,163 506 Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian 6,328 942 Montane Riparian Forest 294 0 Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland 190 47 Riparian Scrub 3,400 1,523 Mule Fat Scrub 651 340 Southern Willow Scrub 1,712 1,345 Montane Riparian Scrub 7 7 Tamarisk Scrub 272 265 Arundo/Riparian Forest 492 71 Woodland - Oak Woodland . 26,498 808 Coast Live Oak Woodland 6,732 873 Dense Engelmann Oak Woodland 4,108 266 Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub 1,106 945 Forest Broadleaved Upland Forest 2,762 0 Black Oak Forest 9 0 Lower Montane Coniferous Forest 9,097 0 Jeffrey Pine 15,424 0 S. Cal. White Fir 6,899 0 52 Volume I. Habitat Conservation ,A 2. Plan Area Profile Table 10 Vegetation Types in Western Riverside County and the Plan Area (acres) Western HCP Vegetation/Cover Type Riverside Plan • County Area Lodgepole Pine . 1,654 0 Subalpine Coniferous 541 0 Mixed Evergreen Forest 7,965 0 Subtotal 910,670 260,685 Land Cleared of Native Vegetation (incl..agriculture, water 401,653 257,172 areas, and residential/urban/exotics, and disturbed alluvial) TOTAL 1,312,323 517,857 Source: Pacific Southwest Biological Services May 1994 Vegetation Survey of Western Riverside County, Riverside County GIS. 2. Candidates for federal or state listing, including species among those that USFWS either is currently proposing to list or evaluating for potential listing; 3. "Species of special concern" in California as identified by CDFG; 4. Species on the lists maintained by the California Native Plant Society and NCCP program; and 5. Species of local concern due to their rare occurrence or special biological value within the plan area. Attachment D-1 identifies the listing status of each of these species, together with their habitat association and ranges. E. Existing Reserves and Other Protected Lands As of 1993 seven wildlife reserves had been established in the HCP area which together encompass over 37,000 acres. All of these reserves are part of the SKR Study Areas established under the Short-Term SKR HCP, and with one exception, are part of the SKR core reserve system recommended in this HCP. In addition to the 53 Volume I. Habitat Conserva _ Plan 2. Plan Area Profile • existing wildlife reserves, approximately 16,000 acres in the plan area are in public ownership and have varying levels of habitat protection in place. These lands include County parklands, state parks, BLM's holdings, and properties acquired by the RCHCA and California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) over the past three years. As with the existing reserves, these lands were encompassed by the original SKR Study Areas; most but not all of the lands also are included in the core reserves recommended in this HCP. 1 . Existing Reserves In decreasing order of size,the seven existing wildlife reserves in the HCP area include: • The Southwestern Riverside County Multiple Species Reserve This reserve, established in 1992 by MWD and the. RCHCA, encompasses 19,500 acres of public lands and approximately 9,000 acres of sensitive habitats on properties owned by MWD, RCHCA, and the County of Riverside in the Lake Skinner and Domenigoni Valley area. SKR habitat in the reserve is specifically managed for conservation through endowments provided by the RCHCA and MWD. Management of SKR is directed by Dr. Michael O'Farrell and conducted in accordance with management plans developed by the existing Multi-Species Management Committee. • The Santa Rosa Plateau This reserve began as a smaller area owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy. In 1991 the reserve was expanded to 7,000 acres through joint acquisition efforts by Riverside County, MWD, and CDFG. The Plateau is managed for multi-species valuesincluding vernal pools, Engelmann oak and other woodlands, and native grasslands. An existing interagency committee oversees habitat management in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy. • The San Jacinto Wildlife Area • This wildlife reserve containing approximately 5,000 acres is managed by CDFG. The area is managed for multiple values including SKR, wetland habitat, and some game species. The San Jacinto Wildlife Area is located adjacent to the 8,000-acre Lake Perris State Recreation Area. • The State Ecological Reserve at Lake Mathews This wildlife reserve covers approximately 2,565 acres on MWD properties around Lake Mathews. As previously .noted, MWD and the RCHCA have proposed to expand this Reserve to 8,700 acres via the implementation of the Lake Mathews MSHCP. • Sycamore Canyon Park Sycamore Canyon Park covers approximately 1,500 acres owned and managed by the City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department. The City has executed a formal agreement through which it commits to operate and 54 Volume I. Habitat Conservation I 2. Plan Area Profile maintain the Park in a fashion which "shall enhance the likelihood of the continued existence of the SKR in the wild." • March Air Force SKR Management Area Pursuant to a 1991 Section 7 Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS, a 1,000 acre SKR management area has been established on March Air Force Base. This area is currently being managed by The Nature Conservancy; a detailed SKR management plan is currently under preparation. • Motte Rimrock Reserve This reserve of approximately 500 acres is owned and managed by the' University of California at Riverside. Management practices seek to conserve multiple habitat values found on site, but SKR biological research has played a particularly important role in the expanding the RCHCA's understanding of SKR characteristics. An updated SKR management plan for the Matte Reserve is now being prepared by the University. 2. Other Protected Lands - The other public landswith some level of habitat protection in place include: • Lake Perris State Recreation Area This 8,200 acre Recreation Area is managed and operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Although the area is managed to facilitate water based recreation, it also encompasses significant blocks of SKR occupied habitat. Since SKR is a state listed threatened species, Section 2055 of the California Fish and Game Code requires the Department of Parks and Recreation to utilize its authority to seek SKR conservation. Thus, SKR habitat conservation is among the elements of the Recreation Area management plan. • RCHCA Properties As previously noted, the RCHCA currently owns fee title or conservation easements over almost 6,000 acres of land in the HCP area. All of this acreage is specifically dedicated to the conservation of SKR and other species and habitats of concern. Management of RCHCA properties will be guided by provisions of this HCP and the SKR management plans developed for each of the core reserves. • BLM Lands Section 2(c) of the ESA directs all federal agencies to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species, and to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. Accordingly, BLM policies contained in their adopted South Coast Resource Management Plan support the exchange of BLM lands in western Riverside County to expand a SKR Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in the Potrero Valley. Pending those exchanges, BLM land occupied by SKR will be managed in a fashion which conserves this endangered species. • 55 Volume I. Habitat Conserv! :Plan 2. Plan Area Profile • County Parks Approximately 900 acres of County park land in western Riverside County are owned and managed by the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District in accordance with the natural resource objectives of the County's Regional Park and Open Space Plan. These lands include significant amounts of SKR occupied habitat in Harford Springs and Lake Skinner County Parks. County properties northeast of Lake Skinner have been subjected to SKR conservation easements as part of the establishment of the Roy E. Shipley Reserve. • Wildlife Conservation Board At the request of the RCHCA the state Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) has acquired approximately 200 acres in the vicinity of Estelle Mountain. The WCB purchased this land for the purpose of expanding the SKR reserve established by the RCHCA. It is anticipated that WCB land will be managed by CDFG under procedures established by the Lake Mathews MSHCP. • • 56 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR _ 3. Summary Profile of the SKR This chapter summarizes information regarding the SKR's biology, life history, habitat requirements, and distribution based on a literature review and research reports included in Volume II. It is intended to provide a brief, non-technical overview of key information concerning the species and studies conducted in support of this plan. • Readers seeking detailed technical information concerning characteristics of the SKR and its habitat should refer to the reports in Volume II. A. Information Sources As discussed in Chapter 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context, presentation of biological data concerning the status and distribution of SKR is a required component of the RCHCA's application for a federal incidental take permit and a California Endangered Species Permit. The format and level of detail for biological data are not specified in federal or state law but the intended use is clear; these data are the basis for weighing the value of the resources to be conserved by a HCP against the resources to be lost. Data collection and analysis conducted for this HCP are focused primarily on issues specifically related to the design and management of permanent reserves for the SKR in western Riverside County. This focus is significant since planning reserves in the context of ongoing urban development obviously differs from planning for the management of resources in wilderness areas. However, regardless of the setting, conservation planning begins with identifying the characteristics of the species in question. The biological data on which this HCP is based are derived from SKR field studies, research, and site-specific surveys conducted in the plan area, supplemented by existing literature concerning the SKR. Studies commissioned by the RCHCA during the Short-Term HCP implementation process, and related studies sponsored by MWD are summarized in Table 11. Detailed reports concerning SKR biological research projects sponsored by the RCHCA are presented in Volume II. B. SKR Biology and Life History As noted, Volume II presents detailed biological information concerning SKR characteristics. Following are discussions concerning specific aspects of SKR, including: 1. Physical characteristics; 2. Genetics; 57 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR _ 3. Burrows and dust bathing; 4. Food sources and habits; 5. Home range and dispersal distances; 6. Reproduction and survivorship, and; 7. Population dynamics and viability. • Table 11 Summary of HCP-Related Studies and Research Conducted in the Plan Area Projects Sponsored by the RCHCA Project/Researcher(s) Description and Status SKR Literature Review* Existing literature on the biological characteristics, known distribution, and current status of the SKR was reviewed and summarized. RECON Summary prepared in 1992 and updated in 1993. GIS Data Base of HCP Fee Area GIS data base created and maintained for fee area and study area and SKR Reserve Study Areas boundaries, distribution of SKR habitat, parcels and ownership within study areas, land uses and zoning designations within and immediately RECON adjacent to study areas; land ownership within and immediately adjacent to study areas; and vegetation types in fee area based on UC County of Riverside Riverside mapping (see below). Data base conveyed to County for RCHCA member use; updated data base will be conveyed upon approval of the plan. GIS Vegetation Database Cover types on approx. 1.3 million acres in western Riverside County were mapped and categorized using 1993 aerial photography and spot Pacific Southwest Biological satellite image processing. Mapping and data were subsequently Services entered into geographic information system to allow overlay with jurisdictional, study area, and SKR occupied habitat boundaries. Mapping completed in 1991. Distinguishing the Endangered SKR Study conducted of skull, hair, and live specimen characters to develop from the Pacific Kangaroo Rat a protocol for distinguishing SKR from PKR. Discriminant analysis (PKR)• indicated that the two species can be distinguished more successfully on basis of weight, ear length, and head shape than solely on basis on Price, Kelly and Goldingay hair characters. Identification protocol established using ear-length and University of California, Riverside postorbital head width. Final report submitted January 15, 1992. 58' • Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR _ Table 11 Summary of HCP-Related Studies and Research Conducted in the Plan Area Projects Sponsored by the RCHCA Project/Researcher(s) Description and Status Demography of Two SKR Studies conducted at Matte Reserve and San Jacinto Wildlife Area in Populations in Riverside County, 1990-1991. Data collected and analyzed include rainfall patterns, California* individual growth, survivorship, reproductive phenology, and changes in population density. Final report submitted to RCHCA on January 15, Price and Kelly 1992. University of California, Riverside Home Range Use of Stephens' Study conducted at Matte Rimrock Reserve and San Jacinto Wildlife Kangaroo Rats: Implications for Area. Home range and space-use patterns of SKR were studied in 1991 Density Estimation• using live-trapping and radiotelemetry. Data collected and analyzed include home range shape and overlap, and boundary strip estimation Price and Kelly and sex ratio. Final report submitted January 15, 1992. University of California, Riverside Monthly and Lifetime Movement Study conducted at Matte Rimrock Reserve and San Jacinto Wildlife Distances of SKR* Area in 1990-1991. Dispersal rings and trap stations established at 30 meter intervals along two live-trapping grids, out to a distance of 150 Price and Kelly meters. Data collected and analyzed included distance from first to last University of California, Riverside capture, maximum distance between captures, distances between first and last home range centers, and maximum monthly movement distances within monthly censuses for animal caught more than once. Final report submitted January 15, 1992. Effects of PKR on Home Range and Study conducted in August-December 1991 at site in Motte Rimrock Habitat Use by SKR* Reserve where SKR and PKR occur in close proximity. Home ranges of • • several SKR and PKR determined using radiotelemetry and live-trapping. Price and Ascanio Preliminary results reported in January 15, 1992. University of California, Riverside Temporal Stability of Space Use by Study conducted at three sites with different mixtures of sage scrub SKR and PKR in a Habitat Mosaic* and grassland habitats within Matte Rimrock Reserve in 1990-1991. Live-trapping conducted at sites over two-week period in the spring and Price and Goldingay fall. Data collected and analyzed included microhabitat measurements, University of California, Riverside rodent species composition, temporal population trends, spatial distribution of kangaroo rats, segregation of species within grids, and microhabitat associations of SKR and PKR. Final report submitted January 15, 1992. 59 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. SummaryProfile of the SKR Table 11 Summary of HCP-Related Studies and Research Conducted in the Plan Area Projects Sponsored by the RCHCA Project/Researcher(s) Description and Status I i Managing Habitat for SKR: Effects Study conducted on 10 plots (five pairs) in boundary between sage of Shrub Removal' scrub and grassland in San Jacinto Wildlife Area in 1990-1991. One plot in each pair assigned at random to receive shrub removal, with Price and Goldingay trapping done on both plot before and after removal. Final report University of California, Riverside submitted January 15, 1992. An Analysis of Genetic Variability Study conducted at Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, San Jacinto, within and among SKR Populations Sycamore Canyon, Steele Peak, and Motte SKR reserve study areas. in Riverside County* Blood samples form 236 SKR were analyzed for genetic similarity and variability. Final report submitted March 21, 1991. McClenaghan and Truesdale San Diego State University An Analysis of Temporal and Study conducted at Lake Mathews, Motte, and San Jacinto SKR reserve spatial Demography Patterns of study areas in 1989-1991. Over the period, 308 SKR were captured, SKR Populations in Riverside marked, released, and monitored. Final report submitted June 24, County• 1991. McClenaghan and Taylor San Diego State University A Viability Model for SKR in Computer model developed to estimate SKR population persistence in Western Riverside County` existing habitat within SKR reserve study areas and to provide a • comparable measure of SKR population size in each area at the end of• Gilpin 200 years. Persistence time measured as number of years the local University of California, San Diego SKR population can survive without dropping to extinction levels. Preliminary report submitted May 1991; model data base and parameters modified for this HCP in summer of 1993, with revised - report submitted in September 1993. .SKR Population Monitoring Program Study conducted at sites in Lake Mathews, Domenigoni Valley, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Lake Perris, Lake Sinner, Vail Lake, Potrero Creek, O'Farrell Biological Consulting and Crown Valley in 1989-1991. Twenty-nine plots studied in 1989- 1990 to develop a linear regression model that allows estimation of SKR densities from active burrow counts. Seven plots at Lake Mathews studied in 1991 using mesh live traps rather than Sherman traps. Report submitted August 20, 1992. 60 I � Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR _ Table 11 Summary of HCP-Related Studies and Research Conducted in the Plan Area • Projects Sponsored by the RCHCA Project/Researcher(s) Description and Status SKR Translocation Studies at the Study conducted at 40 plots established at Lake Mathews from October Lake Mathews Ecological Reserve 1990 into October 1992. Forty study plots established to determine efficacy of translocating SKR, with ancillary studies of SKR distribution O'Farrell Biological Consulting and abundance mosaic and testing of habitat manipulation techniques. Existing habitat features and SKR densities were examined in 1991 prior to treatment and then reassessed in 1992 for change. Final report submitted March 1993. SKR Habitat Enhancement and d Five-year study (1991-1995) is being conducted at 20 plots established Management Studies on the in the Shipley Reserve and around Lake Skinner, with study designated Shipley/Skinner Reserve to interface with Lake Mathews project and to build on data collected in 1989-1990. Study has four components: manipulation of replicate O'Farrell Biological Consulting plots to determine efficacy of habitat treatments, documentation of changes induced by specific treatments and annual weather patterns, monitoring of changes in SKR population levels in relation to habitat treatments, and monitoring of annual trends in SKR population and habitat structure in order to formulate management protocol. Progress reports submitted in 1992 and 1993. Monitoring of rare plant species on Seven-year study (1992-1998) is being conducted at Shipley Reserve of Shipley Reserve Payson's jewelflower and Parry's spineflower. Primary purpose of study is to determine whether the jewelflower on site is another sub-species. Rotenberry University of California, Riverside . Habitat and Life History of the Three-year study is being conducted of smooth tarplant in an effort to Smooth Tarplant identify variables that affect its success, in advance of transplanting the species from the Domenigoni Valley reservoir site to another location in Ogden Environmental the multi-species reserve. Dispersal of California Gnatcatchers Six-year study (1993-1998) is being conducted above the impact area for the new reservoir to monitor gnatcatcher movements into other habitat in the multi-species reserve. Study also will identify any birds in Wagner Biological Consulting habitat at elevations above 2,000 feet. 61 • Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR - • Table 11 Summary of HCP-Related Studies and Research Conducted in the Plan Area Projects Sponsored by the RCHCA • Project/Researcher(s) Description and Status Effects of Fire on the Ecology of Study is being conducted at Lake Mathews in area of previously burned the California Gnatcatcher Riversidean sage scrub. Sites will be surveyed for gnatcatcher density and reproductive activity, and vegetation at sites will be quantified. Wirtz Pomona College California Gnatcatcher Life History Four-year study is being conducted at sites in the Southwestern and Habitat Preference Study Riverside County Multi-species Reserve, Lake Mathews, and Motte Rimrock Reserve. Study is focused on gnatcatcher nesting and habitat USFWS use, together with post-nesting season dispersal of fledgings. San Bernardino County Museum • Report found in Volume II. • 1. Physical Characteristics The SKR is a small nocturnal mammal related to the squirrel family of rodents; it is one of several species of burrowing, grain-eating kangaroo rats found in arid regions of North America. The SKR has a large head, external cheek pouches, elongated rear legs, relatively small front legs, and a crested tail with a lateral white band (Figure 17). Its overfur is a dusky cinnamon-buff color, with pure white underneath. The average adult weighs 2.3 ounces and, including a tail approximately 1.5 times longer than its body, is about 12 inches in length. The species' common name of "kangaroo" rat reflects the fact that it moves about by hopping on its elongated rear.legs. In size and appearance, the SKR is nearly identical to the Pacific kangaroo rat (PKR) which lives in the same general area, competes with the SKR for food, but is not a • federally or state listed species. The habitat requirements of the two species are different albeit overlapping, and the two are genetically different and therefore do not • interbreed. In areas suitable for both species it is difficult to specifically differentiate 62 Pd !� .. a • \.a\\a`iS- art,. i ‘..,W5.....,, \} � `� .., '�`x\�\` �\\ ix`\, sex'^�yz •1-ix� •042131„,.; a'�'E',y' . 4Zai ,,,t Vin :�V V � �� aa -' x i � • o '."'''t'.•-•-'4".":\t,, a\ X3 \ .4" 4$ Y • • �r •a V �,\ mo s _ ..,...-' , .,,,,,,,: • ,44.o,-; -,,gc, --' ',. VAtteNA..-.,;1,k,•‘:;;•*,&,:R;., • " a ,eat� i" . ,� ,, •, . ; yT • \` m 'S' , ''':..,;•...,),A \ 3`' ,. • • o • �- q . s�°'i-. 4 _ ui"t -•Yu a \..'af C F SYR" ^'� � \¢ l .. ,.;. I ° \ � e...'''.1..., a 'RF._ ,x`1511!\ ay \ x s ave" • ^t �,. ,• a .11 a �y ` ,y a .? S a.. • s ,. ��\3`q .. i - i : tom,. j .1. .....e.,....v ...,.,,,r.,,.. ,,,..' i^ C w i 6 lk ' : ` r ", o w • Figure 17 Stephens' Kangao Photo by B. "Moose" PetersonroRat • Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR habitat occupied by SKR and PKR and determine relative densities of each species. Additionally,their similarity in appearance makes specific identification of these species problematical for all but experienced field and research biologists. These problems prompted the RCHCA to commission Drs. Price, Kelly, and Goldingay of the University of California at Riverside to develop an easily-followed protocol for distinguishing the two species (see Report No. 7 in Volume II). 2. Genetics In terms of genetic characteristics, SKR in western Riverside County show a high degree of similarity and low degree of variability. This finding comes from the genetic variability study conducted by McClenaghan and Truesdale of San Diego State University, in which blood samples taken from SKR at nine locations within seven SKR Study Areas were analyzed (see Report No. 10 in Volume II). Results of the analysis have several implications for reserve design and management. To a large extent, the high degree of genetic similarity obviates the need to design a preserve network which ensures the protection of unique gene pools. This also suggests that SKR could move or be moved to a new location without posing genetic risks to the resident SKR population in that area. The low degree of variability however, also suggests that SKR populations within a reserve system may be equally susceptible to catastrophic diseases. This means that the occurrence of a disease which would decimate the SKR population in one area likely would have the same effects on SKR throughout the reserve system. It also means that if the populations in the reserves are all that remain of SKR, the species would face a greater danger of going extinct in the plan area. 3. Burrows and Dust Bathing Typical of this family of species, SKR construct burrows which may contain a number . of underground chambers and food caches. In areas with loose sandy soil a SKR will excavate its burrow entirely on its own, creating a space 9 to 17 inches deep and well over 6 feet long. In areas with firm soils, SKR are known to convert pocket gopher and ground squirrel burrows into their own. In either locations, food caches often are established around as well as within the burrow. In part these burrowing needs and habits dictate where the species will be found. As documented by several studies, SKR typically inhabit well drained gravelly soils and avoid areas high in clay content and difficult to excavate (see Reports No. 1 and 3 in Volume II). The burrows also reflect the species' nocturnal and essentially solitary nature, serving as sleeping quarters and nesting sites where SKR spend most of their time. Burrowing, however, is not the only use or need that SKR have for specific types of soils. This species also requires patches of fine-grained soil for dust bathing. Such bathing is necessary to keep its fur clean, and also leaves characteristic tracks and markings around its habitat (see Report No. 1 in Volume II). 64 • Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR 4. Food Sources and Habits SKR forage for a few hours at night, collecting primarily seeds and sometimes fresh vegetation or insects, which they stuff in their cheek pouches and bring back to their burrows. They collect their food primarily by using their forelimbs to sift through soil intermixed with seeds and are extremely adept at detecting and harvesting such areas. As with most species of kangaroo rats, they are able to metabolize water from seeds and so do not require a water source. Most foraging occurs in open areas within a given radius of the burrow (see "5. Home Range and Dispersal Distances" below). The seasonal nature of the SKR's food source and its foraging technique reveal several key points about this species' needs. For example, since seed availability varies with the season, SKR either must be able to find food in different areas within a limited radius of their burrows or relocate to a new area when vegetation cycles shift. In addition,the SKR's ability to forage depends in part on the combined occurrence of the plants that produce seeds, enough space for the seeds to collect in the soil and for SKR to have access to them, and soils suitable for SKR burrows. The fact that their food • sources and habits associate SKR with habitat having large patches of bare ground and few shrubs also makes SKR relatively easy prey for other species. 5. Home Range and Dispersal Distance Consistent withits food sources and habitats, SKR home ranges (i.e., the area used by a SKR within the radius.of its burrow) vary by season; as with many mammals, the ranges also vary by sex. Studies conducted in the HCP area by Drs. Kelly and Price for example, indicate that male SKR maintain an average home range of approximately 1,830 square yards;average female SKR home ranges were about 1,200 square yards or smaller, depending on whether the SKR was nursing a litter (see Report No. 4 in Volume II). Drs. Price and Kelly also studied average SKR dispersal distances (i.e., the distances moved by individuals over a lifetime) and found adult SKR to be highly sedentary, maintaining •an average home range center within approximately 33 yards of the location where they were first observed (see Report No. 5 in Volume II). Even the dispersal of juveniles from nest sites appeared to be relatively restricted, with the majority shifting less than 55 yards away from their natal burrow. Maximum dispersal distances for individuals ranged from 186 to 383 yards, with most dispersals under 200 yards. Of course significant exceptions were observed, with some SKR dispersing over 435 yards and one moving over 1,100 yards. Although infrequent, such long- { distance movements are significant for conservation since they facilitate flow among subpopulations and allow re-establishment of extinct subpopulations. The average dispersal distances also are significant in their suggestion that habitat patches separated by approximately 100 yards are likely to be connected on a regular basis by 65 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR dispersing SKR, and patches separated by 500 yards or more are likely to remain isolated. 6. Reproduction and Survivorship Among species like SKR, the ability of a population to reproduce and sustain itself is largely a function of food availability (see Reports No. 1, 3, and 11 in Volume II). In the case of this species, reproductive success appears to be highly correlated with the timing and abundance of winter rainfall. Breeding typically occurs from January to September and may extend into November if environmental conditions are particularly good. Conversely, under poor conditions SKR may forego reproduction altogether. In general however, reproduction begins in late spring and peaks in April and May. The age of sexual maturity for SKR is not known, but in some years female SKR born early in the season may mature quickly enough to produce their first litter by the end of the summer. Female SKR can remain capable of reproducing as long as food sources are adequate, and can produce multiple litters (potentially as many as five) under especially good conditions. • Average life expectancy for SKR ranges between 4.5 and 6.6 months, with some individuals persisting for as long as 19 months. Survivorship tends to be high once animals have reached adulthood and established residency. These aspects of the species are significant to conservation planning since they indicate the degree to which the size and management of reserves must anticipate and accommodate fluctuations in the size, extent, and densities of the resident SKR population. . 7. Population Dynamics and Viability In order to better understand SKR population dynamics (i.e., changes in density, reproduction, recruitment, and survival) in the HCP area and to employ that knowledge in reserve design, three research projects were sponsored by the RCHCA. These include two studies in the field and one involving the development of a state-of-the-art computer model. • For the purpose of collecting SKR population dynamics data and determining whether those dynamics vary geographically, McClenaghan and Taylor monitored SKR populations at three locations in the Short-Term HCP Study Areas: Lake Mathews, ' Motte Rimrock Reserve, and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Live-trapping began in the fall of 1989 and was conducted monthly through February 1991. Over that 18 month period 308 SKR were captured, marked, and released; these included 125 at Lake Mathews, 96 at Motte, and 87 at San Jacinto (see Report No. 11 in Volume II). - 66 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR Two majorfindings emerged from the study. The first is that SKR display a suite of traits similar to other species in the same family. These include flexible reproductive seasons, high adult survival, small litter size, and slow growth and development of the young. These characteristics make the SKR well-suited to its arid and semi-arid envi- ronment, where fluctuations in physical factors and food resources are typically unpre- dictable. The second point is that differences in population dynamics observed in the three different geographic locations were very small. The primary difference was that the population observed.at Lake Mathews displayed the greatest density. Otherwise, the three SKR Study Area populations showed similar patterns in population density,• initiation and cessation of breeding, recruitment of new individuals into the population, and seasonal survival rates. These results were confirmed and extended by a second study conducted by Drs. Price and Kelly, who collected basic SKR demographic information over the period of March 1990 to August 1991. Live-trapping was conducted at two permanent study plots in Move Rimrock Reserve and San Jacinto Wildlife Area (see Report No. 3 in Volume II). Data collected during the study revealed that a critical source of variation in SKR population dynamics is the timing of rainfall, which appears to determine the length of the breeding season. Temporal variations in habitat carrying capacities were thought to parallel changes in rainfall patterns. Both the McClenaghan/Taylor and Price/Kelly reports emphasize the preliminary nature of their findings, stating that two years of information is not adequate to demonstrate how changes in environmental conditions, SKR population densities, and SKR vital statistics are linked. Long-term research of the type contemplated by Drs. Price and Kelly is deemed important by the RCHCA and will be sponsored within the core reserves as part of the implementation of this HCP. The third SKR population dynamics project was undertaken by Dr. Michael Gilpin of the University of California at San Diego, who developed a computer model employing SKR research data to project whether SKR populations in a given area would persist over time. In order to create this model RECON provided Dr. Gilpin with the GIS data base for SKR habitat distribution in the Study Areas identified in the Short-Term HCP. Areas of SKR occupied habitat were identified within each Study Area, and those were divided into 300 x 300 meter cells. Only lands with occupied SKR habitat were translated into cells; no assumptions were made about the occurrence or availability of suitable but unoccupied habitat. Each cell was assigned a SKR carrying capacity based on current information concerning SKR population densities in that area. Dr. Gilpin then designed the model to simulate two types of fluctuations: 1) changes in SKR populations based on population change rates for other kangaroo rat and small rodent species, and;2)changes in environmental conditions based on a formula derived from yearly rainfall patterns in western Riverside County over the past 60 years (see Report No. 12 in Volume H). Variables and the habitat data base used in the model were adjusted following initial runs based upon comments received from the SKR Ad Hoc HCP Biological Working Group. Subsequent to the completion of these adjustments the USFWS made its computer capabilities available to run the revised model (see Report No. 13 in Volume II and relevant material in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures). 67 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR The Gilpin model predicts the long-term viability of SKR populations in user defined areas by simulating conditions over a 200-year period, applying the variables to each cell and calculating annual changes in SKR densities in each cell. If the carrying capacity of habitat in a cell is exceeded in a year, a portion of the SKR population is dispersed to adjoining cells. (Habitat separated by more than one empty cell is assumed to be beyond dispersal distances unless a bridging corridor can be established) Conversely, if the population drops too low, SKR in the cell are extirpated. At the end of the 200-year run, or at any point in the run, the model estimates the amount and density of SKR occupied habitat in the defined areas, together with a population index which facilitates comparison of population persistence in different areas. Numerous runs of the model are completed, and mean persistence times and population indices are then calculated. Results of the initial model runs as applied to the Short-Term HCP Study Areas predicted wide variations in SKR population persistence over time even if all occupied habitat in the Study Areas is preserved. Subsequent runs of the adjusted Gilpin model exhibited generally consistent results, suggesting that SKR conservation maydepend as much on the implementation of an adaptive habitat management strategy as upon the size and configuration of permanent reserves (see Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures). C. Habitat Characteristics Perhaps the most obvious components of reserve design are the characteristics and distribution of the habitat used by SKR. Key considerations include vegetation, soils, topography, and elevation (see Reports No. 1, 2, 6, and 8 in Volume II). These factors are reviewed below. 1 . Vegetation and Soils The vegetation most commonly associated with SKR includes two native shrubs (coastal sagebrush and California buckwheat) and the non-native herb filaree. The two shrubs usually are indicator species of coastal sage scrub habitat, such as that used by the PKR and California gnatcatcher; they also are characteristic of areas where transitions from one plant type to another are occurring. Within the HCP area SKR are typically found in such transition areas, including grasslands that border coastal sage scrub, transition areas where sage scrub and grasslands are intermixed, areas of sparse sage scrub, and areas where native habitat has been removed or disturbed by agriculture and other uses. What each of these areas has in common is sparse, perennial vegetation covering less than 50% of the ground. Another common feature is the suitability of soils for SKR burrows and food sources. SKR have been found on 36 types of well-drained soils, and over 125 soils are thought to be potentially suitable for the species. Potentially suitable soils include those types 68 Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR capable of supporting annual grasses mixed with forbs and shrub species. Additionally, soils must exhibit compaction characteristics suitable for the establishment of burrows. Soils not considered suitable for SKR include: heavily alkaline or clay soils, generally in floodplains; highly rocky soils; shallow soils less than 50 centimeters deep; soils in areas exceeding 25% slope, and; soils above approximately 3,000 feet in elevation. 2. Topography and Elevation . As the list of unsuitable soil types suggests, SKR inhabit land forms that are relatively level or gently sloping. This species has been observed on slopes of 0 to 50% but seem to prefer areas of 7 to 10% slope. On steeper slopes and in shrublands, SKR typically is replaced by PKR. In terms of elevation, most SKR are found below 600 meters. However, some have been observed in areas as high as 1,100 meters. D. Rangewide and Local Distribution The geographic range of SKR includes the Anza, Perris, and San Jacinto Valleys and other areas of western Riverside, and northwestern San Diego Counties. The current estimated range of the SKR is depicted in Figure 18. This geographic range is estimated to encompass approximately 287,000 hectares (708,641 acres), which is unusually small for rodents in general and kangaroo rats in particular. For example, Merriam's kangaroo rat, which is the smallest kangaroo rat in the United States, has a range covering portions of six states. The vast majority of the SKR's range occurs in western Riverside County, with the only other significant populations found at Camp Pendleton, the adjacent Falibrook Naval Weapons Station, and sites around Lake Henshaw in northern San Diego County. Newly discovered SKR populations in the Anza Valley and the Corona/Norco area demonstrate that the precise distribution of this species is not presently known. Since . those territories lie outside of this HCP area, comprehensive surveys for SKR have not been conducted. Outside of the HCP area the only SKR distribution data available at present are derived from site-specific surveys of individual properties generally conducted in conjunction with proposed development projects. 1 . Rangewide Occurrence Concurrent with the 1988 federal listing of SKR as an endangered species, O'Farrell and Uptain conducted a study to provide an overview of SKR distribution throughout. its estimated range in western Riverside County. At the time of the study 79 populations of SKR had been identified, and the amount of habitat occupied by these populations was estimated at less than 40,000 acres. 69 • 1 INYO CO. 1 ` KERN CO. I SAN BERNARDINO CO. I \, • ---- -- — 1 I 1 I LOS ANGELES I 1 CO. w...., - - - - - --- - r ` •; .. ...: / ''i• ORANGE :}Na 4'*klit r :� >< • � "'' k O. :11:p4 RIVERSIDE CO. sta SAN DIEGO I IMPERIAL. CO. CO. . I R;R :'`^":,>.s } STEPHENS KANGAROO RAT RANGE• SCALE IN MILES • 6110=immmil.614-1 • . Figure 18 Range of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat • Volume I. Habitat Conservation Plan 3. Summary Profile of the SKR Based on estimates prepared for this HCP, and in consultation with USFWS and CDFG, the current amount of occupied SKR habitat in the species' range is estimated at 48,550 acres. This includes approximately 34,450 acres in Riverside County and 14,100 in San Diego County (Table 12 and Figure 19). In San Bernardino County the species is now assumed to be extirpated. With respect to these SKR distribution estimates it must be emphasized that implementation of the Short-Term HCP has greatly increased the level of detail and total information available concerning SKR occupied habitat in western Riverside County. Although the entire plan area has not been ye-mapped specifically for SKR since the O'Farrell and Uptain effort, RCHCA funded studies and site specific surveys have provided updated information on all major areas of SKR occupied habitat in the HCP region. In San Diego County and elsewhere in Riverside County, site specific studies have been completed but studies and mapping comparable to the RCHCA's regional effort has not occurred. Table 12 1994 Estimated Acreage of Occupied SKR Habitat in Riverside and San Diego Counties % of Location • Acres* Total Riverside County Short-Term HCP Area 31,550 65.0 Anza Valley 1,000 2.0 Balance of County 1,900 3.9 Subtotal34,450 70.9 • • San Diego County Fallbrook Naval Weapons Annex 2,700 5.6 Lake Henshaw/Warner Ranch 11,400 23.5 Subtotal 14,100 29.1 San Bernardino County 0 0 RANGEWIDE TOTAL 48,550 100.0 * Estimates have been rounded upwards to tRa nearest 100. Sources: RECON and the USFWS. Volume I. Habitat Con:.. tion Plan iummary Profile of the SKR Figure 19 Percentage Distribution of SKR Occupied Habitat in Riverside and San Diego Counties r-, Rest of Riverside County 8% iSan Diego County 29% ;i. • Plan Area 85% • . i 2. Occurrence in the Plan Area Within the plan area known patches of SKR occupied habitat generally are concentrated in the Study Areas established under the Short-Term HCP. The largest • blocks of habitat occur south of Lake Mathews, within Sycamore Canyon Park, in the • Lake Perris State Recreation Area, and in the Shipley Reserve portion of the Lake Skinner Study Area. Within the plan area approximately 25,200 acres or 80% of existing SKR occupied habitat occurs on unincorporated lands within the plan area of the Long-Term HCP (Table 13). The City of Riverside contains the next largest amount, with approximately 3,400 acres; the other six RCHCA cities combined contain about 2,950 acres. With the exception of the Santa Rosa Plateau, all existing wildlife preserves in the HCP area contain areas of SKR occupied habitat. These wildlife preserves and other protected public land combined encompass approximately 12,500 acres or 40% of the SKR occupied habitat in the HCP area. Distribution of SKR habitat within the Study Areas identified in the Short-Term HCP is discussed in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures, together with an analysis of the long-term viability of SKR habitat in the plan area. 72 . . i ii %LA i r% i L.,v1‘1t-.1".0 VA I IUNI AGENCY . . • FEE AREA - CORE RESERVES ..:1 wing...1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 1--17---„,, 4..41• I b\\NN• ', N , , N "1111111 ..2.•,%, .",:, • I ,..,. 1. 1 NV- XI V.,-,..i:..‘..i.;`,•,.•••••,,;'•-vh.xxwb,w•No..ria ,,....— -,roti-rr-Mitt.-.- ''‘,"1 La 1 4' "i. .' A . • ....... 0., ,:s. .. ,_.!,....,. .w.N _ , —I, . - • 6-‘414*i . NN. .‘N• .' I SCALE N MLES . 1 N\\ '•?.....•'X . NI:: ' & .... ' :•••‘ .,.:. 4ii.Ct.ff' . .. Ir . . 5 13 •ri.•i'-re iv,iiii.,, ,.._.,__. •.,.: 1 ...,..........,...._ ..... . ., .. .... ... , \-,--:::,,::•,,...,:„ • n,r-Nolliiiihli LEGEND . . I ni!ig:' ,•:-..... ..,;?. i.•.- a f\• I lit91 FEE AREA ECUCARY q11'P R:• '..til • ORANGE ‘ . N I % • MEM ' .\ 0 i: --1-11 — _ -g-'1\ -- '.4 - -— '-• 8 • . COUNTY IIV. r. . 'N i ,w• . ' ,Z2'.•N --- 1/v1 CITY BOUN)ARY ;\ •. :\ ..‘.1 m LAKEs . M CORE RESERVES . ';4 `.•!‘ N*....-. • % . iiiiiiiili.i.1::i:;:'.iii::;:-. • . ' • AS PER ROCA iffl CITES . • 1 ''''' ''''-'0 4 ,1 k ) - ISW . . ' litok. • . ... _ . .- ....,. ..... ...\0. / •.,iii5ii;". .. RIVERSOE Willy RANTAT OCNSERVAOON AGENCY MICA) , . City a/Corona•City at Hemet•CRy at Lde Claws aty al Ikturo Mr/•City of Parris•aty of*mat* irmiei) 4 „... aty at Tomah•Coady at Mali& "'" The falositgra, ere WIT arrtira at ROCA: • We lisrlita Item Sal Jacinto Illihh. •I&\\ ...6 9\ . • 111 ‘-'i s\N 1 77Trellin 11.1 .. • \ \ ha Ilconntlen antaind hovii I bard don data podded N _ -"'-- N.dithrigniM , .. , Apri 25. 1994 Mr ms,gm mods Ey as Omni*,Canty Gavot&tatatim!tam • - ,;,f.;r,.:-..-.,,,• lho mid rimob aro paled by to tooroor ad to Tramperrame ad a.,.,),. i„.j ._,._ um bt,,,,d b.,,,,,,rnaftti.... Lad kmairnint Apr.7 did,le Gormand cf it.Athirillegin AAA" r,/,' V..N.,,i41 /wpm!.y.,-k.,-- -W pp2 Fir cni Name.Proana•otriran ad-to Bail a kedYr rld•a9 ad 1 - by In U.S.FL,ad-nth Soda dentbncrta lie Carty of Rondo ammo ro warmly or 7 ‘111.11 ,Tr"Cgrratillty far I%itlirrorgaplincoActjet Ler:Am Irdzii.Ld , "itifti:::>,7, 31CIL 2nd road brig3 nadtcodaw •• it.=yrorTrnindtcnroarn Sman ord oda Basco dud to gado fer •4„, •..... .. 1 brirdusTath o'd yrtif.t.sion I SAN DIEGO COUNTY . Figure 20 - • • Volume I. Habitat Conserva, Plan 3. nary Profile of the SKR Table 13 Acres of SKR Occupied Habitat per RCHCA Member Jurisdiction in the Plan Area % of RCHCA Member Acres* Total County Unincorporated 25,200 79.9 Area" Cities Corona 225 0.7 Hemet <25 0.1 Lake Elsinore 700 2.2 Moreno Valley 600 1.9 Perris 700 2.2 Riverside 3,400 10.8 Temecula" 700 2.2 Subtotal 6,350 20.1 HCP Plan Area 31,550 100.0 Sources: RECON, USFWS, and RCHCA member agencies. * Estimates have been rounded upwards to the nearest 100, except for Hemet and Corona which have the fewest acres of occupied SKR habitat. " Estimate for the County and Temecula includes approximate acres; data not yet in GIS or on Figure 19. 75 Volume I. Habitat Co, 'ration Plan Summary Profile of the SKR E. Decline Factors The major remaining SKR populations within the species' current range are patchily distributed and largely isolated from one another. This circumstance is one of the primary factors cited by USFWS in its listing of the species as endangered in 1988, and also was apparent in 1971 when SKR was listed as threatened under the state ESA. 1 . Habitat Loss and Fragmentation . Although SKR occupied habitat is patchily distributed by nature, the current isolation of populations is largely the result of urban development which has produced irreversible changes to the pattern of natural habitat within the species' range. Recreation and agricultural land uses also have contributed to the habitat loss and fragmentation but generally do not produce the same types of permanent impacts as those caused by urban development. 2. Predation • Predators of SKR are similar to those of other rodents; they include owls, snakes, fox, coyotes, and cats, both feral and domestic. Barn owls and long-eared owls, for example, are both known to include SKR in their diets. Studies of desert rodents further suggest that predator avoidance may be an important component in SKR selection of foraging habitat and the size of its home range. Here too, however, urban development magnifies the potential effects of predation on SKR populations in a way that changes it from part of the natural ecosystem to a factor contributing to the species' decline. This results from the fact that urban development simultaneously increases: 1) the presence of known SKR predators, especially domestic cats; 2) ambient noise levels which may impair the SKR's ability to avoid predators, and; 3) nighttime illumination that potentially makes SKR an even easier prey. 3. Other Factors Other factors that reduce habitat suitability or increase SKR vulnerability include grazing practices that either compact the soil or replace native vegetation with grasses not suitable for SKR, off-road vehicle activities that destroy foraging habitat, crush burrows, and compact soil, and rodent control programs that poison SKR. • 76 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered 4. Alternatives Considered This chapter describes the process by which the RCHCA developed and considered alternate conservation strategies for this HCP through its implementation of the SKR Short-Term HCP. The identification process for permanent SKR reserves also is described, as are alternatives to taking of SKR which were considered by the RCHCA during the HCP development process. The establishment, expansion,and management of the reserve system is addressed in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. Environmental documentation presented in Volume Ill contains additional information concerning the formulation of conservation alternatives and an assessment of the reserve system as mitigation for the impacts of SKR incidental take. A. Formulation of Alternatives The formulation of alternative SKR conservation strategies for this plan was shaped by the experiences gained by the RCHCA through three years of Short-Term HCP implementation. Seven factors influenced the development and consideration of alternative conservation approaches for this HCP: • 1. Difficulties encountered in administering USFWS and CDFG permit conditions which prohibited incidental take in Study Areas and imposed additional requirements on land use approvals in those locations; 2. Evaluation of SKR. Study Areas for their potential suitability as permanent reserves based upon biological, land use, and economic factors; 3. Conflicts between incidental take restrictions and the need for public agencies to conduct emergency response and ongoing public facility operation and maintenance activities; 4. Conflicts between incidental take restrictions and the performance of fire prevention activities required under state and local law; 5. Accommodation of the special needs of agricultural operations in the SKR habitat conservation process; 6. Limitations of available funding sources, and; 7. Comments received from the public through regular meetings of the RCHCA Board of Directors, scoping sessions,and numerous public hearings conducted during the development of this HCP. 77 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered 1 . Conditions Imposed on the Short-Term HCP Permit and Agreement The RCHCA's existing permit and agreement were approved by USFWS and CDFG on the condition that specific constraints be placed on the location and amount of SKR occupied habitat subject to incidental take. These constraints took the form of the following conditions placed upon the RCHCA's permit and agreement: 1: Incidental take was prohibited within the Study Areas except for the "installation and maintenance of essential public utility pipelines and transmission lines, and ancillary improvements" subject to the concurrence of USFWS; 2. For all development projects (e.g., land divisions and permits for building, grading, conditional uses, mobile home installation, and surface mining) proposed with Study Areas RCHCA member jurisdictions must: a) Require the submission of a SKR biological survey prepared by an individual having a USFWS permit to trap the species; b) Make an initial determination whether the project may lead to significant impacts to potential habitat necessary for species recovery, or buffer/corridor lands, or would increase the difficulty of reserve management. If significant impacts may occur, an EIR must be prepared, and; c) As a prerequisite of project approval, make a finding by the local governing body of "no significant environmental effect" on the establishment of a SKR reserve in a Study Area. If such a finding cannot be made the project must be denied. 3. The maximum amount of incidental take authorized was limited to 4,400 acres or 20% of the SKR occupied habitat within the HCP area, whichever is less. An additional condition placed on the permit and agreement concerned the modification of Study Area and HCP area boundaries. All proposed changes to these areas were subject to a processing procedure involving the following steps: 1. Requests for boundary modifications must be submitted in writing to the RCHCA and must be accompanied by a SKRbiological survey of the property in question; 2. The RCHCA must prepare appropriate . NEPA and CEQA environmental documentation for the boundary modification requests. Such documentation must include a detailed evaluation of pertinent biological, land use, and economic factors associated with the proposed modifications, and; 78 Volume I: -Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered 3. The RCHCA Board of Directors must consider boundary modification requests, and those receiving support are recommended to USFWS and CDFG for their approval. The above conditions were imposed on the RCHCA's permit and agreement for the purpose of minimizing impacts to SKR and to ensure that lands essential to the species' survival would not be eliminated or fragmented before permanent reserves could be established. In retrospect it is fair to state that while these conditions did indeed provide interim conservation benefits to SKR, at.times they also posed problems for • property owners, most specifically those desiring to develop land within Study Areas. In regard to the cap on incidental take, the intended benefit to SKR conservation was a strong assurance that sufficient numbers of the species would continue to exist even if RCHCA member agencies fully exhausted their take allocations. In actuality this assurance was rendered somewhat moot due to the dramatic slowdown of the western Riverside County economy during the Short-Term HCP period. As discussed in Chapter 2. Plan Area Profile, the striking reversal of the previously inflated HCP area real estate market and related decline in construction activity served to greatly suppress the demand for incidental take: In fact, over the three year Short-Term HCP period only 1,935 acres of SKR occupied habitat were incidentally taken, less than 44% of the total amount authorized by the permit and agreement. That situation certainly would not have occurred if the permit and agreement had been received in 1988, when Riverside was among the fastest growing counties in the nation. Of far greater benefit to SKR conservation during the Short-Term HCP was the incidental take prohibition imposed on properties within the Study Areas. The principal benefit to SKR was the fact that the largest and most viable blocks of occupied habitat were not destroyed by urbanization. Although some acreage was removed from Study Areas through the boundary modification process, no occupied habitat or buffer/corridor areas deemed essential for permanent reserves were lost. Thus, the Study Areas did achieve their primary biological purpose of ensuring that the best candidates for permanent reserves would not be compromised by incidental take authorized under the RCHCA's permit and agreement. However, while these Short-Term HCP constraints benefitted SKR they also proved highly problematical to the RCHCA conservation planning effort due to their unpopularity with local property owners. Opinions expressed by this group are very important to the RCHCA, since over 47% of all land within the Study Areas is privately owned. Over the past three years the RCHCA has heard continual expressions of dissatisfaction from property owners in Study Areas. The most commonly stated objections are summarized below: 1. Virtually all people offering comment felt the designation of Study Areas unfairly placed thousands of privately owned properties under a cloud of uncertainty. Since the HCP required land within the Study Areas to be evaluated for potential inclusion in permanent SKR reserves, affected owners were placed in the anxious position of not knowing when or if their land would be acquired or its use restricted; 79 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered 2. Some land owners testified that properties in Study Areas could not be sold at prevailing market prices since buyers (other than the RCHCA) were very reluctant to purchase property subject to special land use restrictions and potential RCHCA acquisition. As a result, these land owners felt their property value was depressed by the existence of the Study Areas. The RCHCA also was viewed by many as the sole potential buyer for Study Area property, thus placing owners in an inferior negotiating position; 3. The prohibition against incidental take, combined with SKR survey requirements and additional environmental review, were perceived by Study Area land owners as unfair and unduly restrictive. In fact, the RCHCA received public testimony on a regular basis from those who claimed to have been inversely condemned by regulations.placed on Study Area properties; 4. Despite its intention to provide a mechanism for those seeking removal from Study Areas, the boundary modification process was the subject of heated criticism from property owners. This resulted from the protracted time period (an average of 18 months) required to complete the mandated process. ' Although the RCHCA received ample criticism over this situation, USFWS and CDFG were the targets of the most vehement objections due to their failure to meet decision deadlines specified in their agreements with the RCHCA. As delays with both the first and second set of boundary modificationsmounted, the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG experienced an erosion of public confidence which undermined support for both the SKR HCP and the ESA. In the context of weighing alternatives for this HCP, both the positive and negative aspects of the Study Areas and cap on incidental take prompted consideration of other ways to minimize impacts and the risk of foreclosing conservation options. Alternatives considered by the RCHCA included: 1. Increasing or eliminating the cap on incidental take or conversely, if conservation and mitigation measures are not working, decreasing or suspending it; 2. Replacing the cap with a quantified habitat conservation goal, either in the form of a habitat replacement ratio and/or standards for conserved habitat in a permanent reserve system, and; 3. Eliminating the Study Area boundary modification process,either by eliminating the Study Areas altogether, defining final boundaries for permanent reserves, and/or changing temporary restrictions into permanent ones. Public reaction to Short-Term HCP Study Area restrictions significantly influenced the development of a conservation strategy for this HCP. It is quite evident that public opposition precludes the pursuit of any strategy based upon a continuation of Study Areas or similar interim habitat protection controls. Additionally, the RCHCA must be mindful of its exposure to inverse condemnation claims. Continuation of Study Areas as part of this HCP surely would increase that exposure, placing the RCHCA in a precarious position likely to compromise its ability to implement this HCP. 80 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered In light of the preceding discussion, this HCP proposes a conservation strategy based upon the designation and expansion of permanent SKR reserves. Specifically, the plan: 1. Identifies the boundaries of permanent SKR core reserves and provides for their conservation, management and expansion; 2. Replaces a numeric cap on incidental take with a 1:1 habitat replacement requirement until 2,500 acres of value to the SKR core reserve system have been added; • 3. Provides for a SKR monitoring program tied to an adaptive management strategy to gauge the efficacy of the conservation program, and; 4. Includes provisions to suspend authorizations of incidental take if the habitat replacement requirement is not met. 2. Evaluation of Reserve Study Areas The creation of permanent reserves for the SKR was a stated goal of the Short-Term HCP approved in 1990. Since neither adequate biological knowledge nor sufficient funding was available at that time to establish permanent reserves, the Short-Term HCP defined ten Study Areas as candidate reserve sites. The Study Areas included the largest known concentrations of viable SKR occupied habitat in the HCP area and excluded lesser and isolated patches considered to be too small or fragmented to have significant conservation value. The original Study Area boundaries were based upon: 1) existing data concerning the species and its distribution in the HCP area; 2) personal knowledge of biologists serving on a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) established to advise the HCP development process, and;3) results of the O'Farrell and Uptain study performed for CDFG. Based on the best information available at the time, it was estimated that the ten Study Areas contained approximately 80% of the SKR occupied habitat remaining in the plan area. Due to the incidental take prohibition and land use restrictionsdiscussed above, the Study Areas were deemed adequate to minimize risk to SKR while the final reserve system was designed. The Short-Term HCP explicitly recognized that the final configuration of permanent reserves would be a subset of the Study Areas due to the fact that conservation of all SKR habitat in the Study Areas would be economically infeasible. The Short-Term HCP was intended to produce a systematic evaluation of the permanent reserve potential of each Study Area based on biological, land use, and economic considerations. The RCHCA conducted this evaluation using the following sources of information: 1)data produced by SKR biological research projects sponsored by the RCHCA(detailed in Volume II),combined with site-specific SKR surveys; 2) data concerning existing and planned land uses obtained from RCHCA member agencies, and; 3) financial data including available RCHCA funding and projected costs of land acquisition in each of the Study Areas. The Study Area evaluation process was expected to conclude in.1992, two years after the final approval of RCHCA's existing permit and agreement and more than three years after the planning process for the 81 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered Short-Term HCP was initiated. However, a combination of circumstances prolonged the process of defining SKR reserves (See "B. Reserve Design Process" and Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures for results of the review process). The Study Area evaluation process was generally successful as a vehicle for identifying a permanent SKR reserve system. The most notable problem was the HCP boundary modification process, which forced the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG to decide upon individual requests to remove property from Study Areas outside of the context of overall reserve planning. This was especially problematical in the first round of boundary modifications, when large tracts were proposed for removal from Study Areas before the RCHCA had an opportunity to assimilate the results of biological research projects. This put the RCHCA in a position of selecting between two undesirable options: 1) deny requests to remove property from Study.Areas and potentially face inverse condemnation law suits, or; 2) recommend that USFWS and CDFG approve such requests without the benefit of all information possibly needed to make these decisions. As previously discussed, property owner patience with the Study Area evaluation process steadily declined over the course of the Short-Term HCP. Although the process was useful in defining appropriate permanent reserves, it was clear that the public wished to see it concluded as soon as possible. During the development of this HCP, the RCHCA was repeatedly urged to designate permanent reserves immediately in order to eliminate the cloud of uncertainty affecting Study Area property owners. The difficulties posed by a prolonged Study Area evaluation process led the RCHCA to the conclusion that this HCP must define a permanent reserve system for the SKR. Accordingly, this HCP proposes to establish, manage, and provide for the expansion of permanent SKR reserves. More specifically, this HCP: 1. Designates five core SKR reserves encompassing 11,225 acres of SKR occupied habitat within a total area of approximately 38,185 acres; 2. Includes provisions for the expansion of those core reserves by 2,500 acres, and; 3. Coordinates the management and expansion of SKR habitat in the reserve system through cooperative efforts with other public agencies having land management responsibilities. 3. Emergency Response and Ongoing Public Facility Operation and Maintenance Activities During the course of the Short-Term HCP restrictions imposed within Study Areas created problems for public agencies responsible for responding to emergency situations. Over this three year period western Riverside County experienced several emergencies due to fires, flooding, and earthquakes. When such conditions occurred, police and fire departments,flood control districts,and other public agencies responded quickly and were obligated to take whatever actions were deemed necessary to protect -- lives and property. However, when emergencies affected lands within Study Areas 82 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered public agencies found themselves in a position of potentially violating the RCHCA's incidental take permits. To the extent that land disturbance was necessary to respond to emergencies in Study Areas (e.g., clearance of fire breaks), public agencies were potentially liable for violating the prohibition against incidental take of SKR. A similar situation occurred in connection with activities necessary to operate and maintain public facilities located within Study Areas. Of particular concern was road maintenance, which necessarily involves regular grading of road shoulders and resurfacing, paving, and occasional reconstruction of streets and highways. In the performance of such necessary activities within Study Areas, local road departments were occasionally impeded by the incidental take prohibition. This was especially true in rural areas where dirt roadways are known to be used by SKR as movement corridors. Landfill and flood control facility maintenance activities shared this problem due to the large amount of grading and earth movement necessary to ensure proper maintenance. Public utilities faced similar challenges in conducting necessary activities within Study Areas. Since the three largest Study Areas were established around reservoirs, the incidental take prohibition became a significant concern to MWD, whose activities required access to operational and project sites in locations suitable for SKR. Southern California Edison, The Gas Company, and the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts encountered similar problems in working with their facilities. It is now clear to the RCHCA that the Short-Term HCP should have been more explicit in providing for the performance of these necessary emergency and public facility maintenance activities. In considering alternative conservation strategies for this HCP the RCHCA was urged to ensure that any limitations on the location of incidental take would not apply to actions taken for emergency response or public facility operation and maintenance purposes. Accordingly this HCP provides that actions taken inside of core reserves by public agencies for the purposes of: 1) responding to emergency conditions, or; 2) operating and maintaining existing public facilities, will be permitted and will not be subject to prior approval by USFWS and CDFG. 4. Resolution of Conflicts Between HCP Incidental Take Restrictions and the Performance of Fire Prevention Activities Required under State and Local Laws The regulation of incidental take outside of Study Areas and prohibition of incidental take within them imposed under the Short-Term HCP resulted in another significant problem which influenced the conservation program proposed in this HCP. This concerns a serious conflict between the incidental take prohibition and the performance of fire prevention activities required under state and local laws. Due to its relatively arid climate, frequency of Santa Ana winds, and extensive distribution of flammable vegetation, most non-urbanized portions of the HCP area are extremely susceptible to fire. 83 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered Section 4291 of the California Public Resources Code establishes standards for firebreaks, vegetation clearance, and structures. Section 4291(a) requires all owners of property in brush and grass covered lands (encompassing most of the HCP area) to maintain a firebreak of not less than 30 feet around buildings and structures; this is to be achieved through the removal and clearing away of "all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth." Section 4291(b) requires that a firebreak be maintained by removing all brush, flammable vegetation, or combustible growth which is located from 30 feet to 100 feet of buildings and structures if the local fire department determines that a firebreak of 30 feet is not adequate due to hazardous conditions. Prior to the implementation of the Short-Term HCP, property owners in the HCP area generally complied with these requirements of state law by discing land to clear flammable vegetation. This is generally deemed the most effective method of vegetation clearance by fire experts since it completely removes flammable materials down to bare mineral soil. However, as it also disturbs land in a manner which can destroy SKR burrows, if conducted in SKR occupied habitat it normally results in the taking of the species. Since the RCHCA's permit and agreement for the Short-Term HCP prohibited take of SKR in Study Areas and regulated it in SKR occupied habitat, property owners in those locations found themselves unable to disc their land for fire protection purposes. In an effort to avoid violations of the RCHCA's permit, the Riverside County Fire Department developed an agreement with USFWS to notify Study Area residents and those in areas of known SKR occupied habitat that weed abatement and removal of flammable vegetation should be accomplished by mowing or.scraping. Weed abatement notices issued to Study Area property owners within RCHCA member jurisdictions indicated that those portions of the property requiring abatement should be mowed during daylight hours and that cut weeds should be removed. Many local property owners objected to the use of mowing for fire protection purposes, feeling that to be ineffective and, for large or rocky properties, completely infeasible. They preferred to employ discing for firebreak maintenance. However, such activity was not deemed acceptable in Study Areas due to the incidental take which sometimes resulted. - This situation became a focus of attention on October 26, 1993, when a fire broke out in the Lake Skinner Study Area. Stoked by 70 mph Santa Ana winds, the fire destroyed 29 homes and 77 accessory buildings. Total property losses were estimated at more than $2.6 million. Subsequent investigations by the Riverside County Fire Department revealed that of the 30 homes lost, 23 had no surrounding firebreaks. Lake Skinner Study Area residents reacted to the fire with anger, stating that property losses were exacerbated by their inability to adequately clear brush due to regulations which afforded more protection to SKR than human beings. This story received widespread national television and newspaper coverage as a particularly egregious example of the ESA running amok. The resulting criticism was damaging to the ESA, USFWS, and the SKR conservation effort. In order to prevent another occurrence of this situation, the RCHCA met with fire department personnel, Lake Skinner Study Area residents, and representatives of the USFWS Carlsbad Field Office in December of 1993. The purpose of the meeting was 84 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered to determine how necessary fire protection measures could be taken by property owners without violating the ESA. Fire experts in attendance all agreed that while the standards established in state law are adequate, firebreaks of 100 feet would provide a greater margin of safety. They also agreed that vegetation should be cleared down to bare mineral soil, and the most effective method of accomplishing that is discing. The USFWS representatives indicated that SKR generally are not found in close proximity to buildings; therefore, the creation and maintenance of firebreaks around buildings and structures is unlikely to result in significant amounts of incidental take or destruction of habitat. The USFWS agreed to support a change in policy to permit 100 foot firebreaks down to bare soil around buildings and structures. It was further agreed that SKR biological surveys would not be required for land clearance conducted for fire protection purposes. In accordance with those agreements, this HCP includes provisions which will enable property owners to clear land down to bare mineral soil within 100 feet of structures and property lines for fire prevention purposes. Please see Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures for specific information. 5. Agricultural Operations in the HCP Area• Significant portions of the HCP area are still under active agricultural use. Much of this agricultural land is dedicated to dryland farming and other activities requiring ongoing land disturbance. The Short-Term HCP was geared toward those land uses requiring local land use permits. Since most agricultural operations in the plan area do not require such permits, the Short-Term HCP was not oriented to the issue of ongoing agricultural land cultivation. This situation resulted in problems for a few specific agricultural operations located both inside and outside of Study Areas. Within the HCP Area most farming activities were unaffected by the incidental take issue due to the fact that they were subject to no grading, building, or other permits which require the submission of SKR biological surveys. No knowledge of SKR occupied habitat existed on the majority of these lands and thus, SKR incidental take was not perceived as an issue of concern. However, during the course of the Short-Term HCP it became a more urgent issue when a SKR biological survey performed on a specific farming operation revealed the presence of some SKR occupied habitat. Under the provisions of the HCP incidental take resulting from agricultural land disturbance could not be authorized without a take allocation from a RCHCA member agency. The situation was ultimately resolved through the issuance of such a take allocation, but it resulted in undesirable delay to the farmer. It also raised concern among RCHCA members that the agency's incidental take authorization potentially could be consumed by having to make allocations throughout the HCP area every time a fallow field is disced prior to planting. An even greater problem for local agriculture potentially existed in the Study Areas due to the incidental take prohibition. During the course of the Short-Term HCP at least one large agricultural operation was partially suspended due to the presence of SKR on 85 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered • fallow fields scheduled for recultivation. This resulted in significant income losses for the affected individuals and generalcriticism for the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG. These experiences, combined with concerns raised by the Riverside County Farm Bureau, have led the RCHCA to ensure that the needs. of bona fide agricultural operations are accommodated within the provisions of this HCP. Agriculture is an important component of the western Riverside County economy and its continued existence is supported by the RCHCA. It is clear that the imposition of SKR mitigation fee assessments and SKR biological survey requirements on agricultural land disturbance would adversely affect theeconomic viability of this industry in the plan area. Therefore, this HCP provides that bona fide agricultural activities will not be subject to SKR mitigation fees or SKR biological surveys. 6. Funding Limitations Implementation of the Short-Term HCP has been a very expensive proposition for affected portions of western Riverside County. The RCHCA expended over$20 million to implement the Short-Term HCP, and projected costs to implement this HCP exceed $36 million (Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures). Almost all of the • funds required to finance these expenses have been and probably will continue to be raised from local sources. In establishing the SKR mitigation fee RCHCA member agencies have created the largest local habitat conservation funding program of its type in the nation. This is a local funding effort of unprecedented magnitude. However, although more than $32 million has been raised to date through the SKR • mitigation fee and its interest earnings, the costs of providing an optimal habitat conservation program for this species are beyond its purchasing power. Despite aggressive pursuit of available funding sources and Congressional lobbying,the RCHCA has been unable to secure any financial assistance from the federal government for implementation of the SKR conservation effort. Greater success has been achieved with the State of California, which has contributed approximately $2.7 million in grants and land purchases. However, it is painfully evident that those levels of government whose laws create the need for this.HCP generally are leaving the RCHCA to its own devices to find the money to pay for it. This situation is not well received by local citizens playing the role of financier. Since federal and state funding cannot be realistically expected, the RCHCA's funding limitations are very influential in determining the conservation strategies of this HCP. From the RCHCA's necessarily pragmatic perspective, the level of conservation provided under this HCP reflects the best that can be achieved in western Riverside County for a single species using strictly local funds. While the RCHCA is committed to ensuring long-term survival of SKR through this HCP, it is the clear desire of its • member agencies to redirect its habitat conservation funding toward multi-species purposes. In the context of this HCP, that means defining an appropriate end point to the practice of acquiring land for the benefit of one species, in order to allocate scarce local conservation funds more effectively through a multi-species HCP. 86 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered 7. Public Comments As described in Chapter 2. Plan Area Profile, this HCP is the product of an extensive public review process. Including formal scoping meetings, public workshops, hearings, and meetings of the RCHCA Board of Directors, this HCP was subject to comment at more than 30 public meetings. The volume and intensity of public opinion was considerable, and it undeniably shaped the content of this plan. Several of the most important issues raised by the public, and their effect on this HCP, already have been discussed, e.g, opposition to Study Areas. Two additional public concerns were highly significant to the development of conservation strategies.for this HCP. These include: 1) comments urging an end to SKR habitat acquisition and mitigation fees at the. conclusion of the Short-Term HCP, and; 2) opposition to expansion of this HCP to encompass multi-species habitat conservation activities. As a vehicle for soliciting comment at public scoping sessions for this HCP, the RCHCA distributed a proposed series of conservation alternatives for public review. During a six-month scoping period in 1993, six preliminary HCP conservation alternatives were presented in concept to the public. Comments received during the scoping process produced six additional alternatives and variations for consideration by the RCHCA Board of Directors. In addition, over 300 issues were raised in written comments, primarily expressing concerns regarding biological and socioeconomic matters (see Volume III). The scoping process prompted a consideration of alternate methods of implementing the SKR conservation program. Options considered included: 1. Terminating the existing Short-Term HCP, permit, and agreement and/or terminating the mitigation fee and the RCHCA's habitat acquisition program at the end of 1993; 2. Establishing a market-based system for establishing reserves and fulfilling project-specific habitat impact mitigation requirements (Appendix C), and; 3. . Incorporating the SKR conservation program into a multiple species approach and/or a federal permit application for incidental take of the California gnatcatcher in the plan area. In terms of the total volume of public comments addressed to the RCHCA, the first HCP conservation alternative listed above received far more support than any other identified. At virtually every public meeting the RCHCA heard public comments from a group of Study Area property owners reflecting their belief that more than enough land had been set aside for the SKR already, and additional efforts were unnecessary and burdensome. Over the course of the RCHCA's numerous public meetings concerning this HCP the cumulative significance of this sentiment was substantial; it became clear that many property owners shared a strong desire for this HCP to include no commitments for additional SKR habitat acquisition. This sentiment manifested most clearly in public comments received on the first draft of this HCP dated November 4, 1993. That document called for the RCHCA to 87 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered • continue SKR habitat acquisition until 2,500 acres of SKR occupied habitat had been added to the core reserve system. At that point, the USFWS, RCHCA, and CDFG would reevaluate the 1:1 habitat replacement requirement; the draft HCP did not specify future actions to result from the evaluation. Following its issuance of the draft HCP the RCHCA received a large volume of public comments recommending that the HCP be modified to specifically define a conclusion to the SKR habitat acquisition process. The conservation strategy presented in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation - - Measures acknowledges the desire of the public for a defined conclusion to land acquisition solely for the purpose of conserving SKR. In consultation with USFWS the RCHCA has endeavored to define an appropriate size and configuration for the final SKR reserve system. Upon reaching those standards the RCHCA no longer will be acquiring habitat exclusively for implementation of a SKR HCP. Another commonly expressed sentiment having significant influence on the conservation approach taken by the RCHCA was the opposition to expanding this HCP to encompass multi-species issues. During the scoping and hearing process RCHCA staff had proposed an approach whereby the RCHCA would seek to use the SKR HCP as a platform for a multi-species conservation plan. More specifically, the HCP would have provided for conservation of not only SKR, but of coastal sage scrub habitat and the threatened California gnatcatcher as well. Incidental take authorization for the gnatcatcher would have been sought from USFWS and CDFG based upon a 1:1 replacement of coastal sage scrub habitat taken (whether occupied or not) in the HCP area. The vast majority of those offering public testimony concerning this conservation alternative expressed opposition. The primary reason was a belief that incorporation of coastal sage scrub habitatconservation would have delayed the completion of the SKR program. It was felt that by committing to replace sage scrub losses, the RCHCA would be complicating the SKR HCP and causing it to continue indefinitely. Although none of the public comments offered any substantiation for this sentiment, it was expressed with sufficient fervor to ensure that this HCP will cover only SKR. Details regarding the conservation program for this HCP are discussed in Chapter 5. _ SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. In addition, a market-based habitat transaction system designed by Olson Policy Consulting is presented in Appendix C. • 88 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered B. Evaluation of Alternatives to Incidental Take As required by Section 10(a) approval criteria, alternatives to the incidental take proposed by this HCP.have been considered by the RCHCA. These include: 1. Not seeking the permit and agreement and therefore not receiving authorization for the level of take proposed; 2. Implementing a "no incidental take" conservation strategy that would completely avoid take of SKR and therefore not require the permit or agreement; 3. Imposing a "no net loss of habitat" mitigation standard; 4. Requiring the relocation of SKR from all or some sites prior to removal or modification of occupied habitat; 5. Requiring that a portion of existing occupied habitat be conserved on-site for all or some projects in the plan area; 6. Designating areas where incidental take would be absolutely prohibited, and/or; • 7. Setting a numeric cap on the total amount of incidental take that may occur under the permit and agreement. The "no permit" option was eliminated from further consideration by the RCHCA Board of Directors due to its failure to address problems resulting from FESA and CESA prohibitions against take of SKR. The RCHCA acts on behalf of the citizens in western Riverside County, whose health and welfare require that a permit and agreement be secured in order to allow certain public and private projects to proceed. However, the "no permit" option remains a possible choice since the decision to seek the permit and agreement is a voluntary action by the RCHCA. The. "no incidental take" option was eliminated as infeasible due to the distributional characteristics of the species and the lack of definitive understanding of how impacts of human activity may be completely avoided. Even if direct take of occupied habitat could be completely avoided, incidental take of SKR still would be likely to occur due to the effects of development surrounding occupied habitat. Consequently, this option would not truly avoid incidental take. The "nonet habitat loss" option would require that one acre of new SKR habitat be created for every acre incidentally taken under the permit and agreement. The feasibility of this option is limited by the relative paucity of information concerning actions necessary to establish viable SKR habitat under varying conditions. Additionally, the RCHCA has determined it more effective both biologically and 89 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered financially to acquire existing SKR habitat than to attempt create it through land manipulation. From a biological perspective, actions taken to create SKR habitat are likely to result in the destruction of habitat suitable for other species. Financially, it is less costly to purchase land already occupied by SKR than to modify habitat, relocate SKR to the site, and conduct active ongoing management programs. As a final note, neither the RCHCA's existing permit and agreement nor SKR mitigation requirements imposed by USFWS and CDFG for other projects have ever mandated this type of mitigation standard. Consequently, although habitat enhancement and restoration is an important part of the RCHCA's habitat management goals, this alternative to • inbidental take was eliminated, The "SKR relocation" option would require the live trapping, removal, and relocation of SKR from one site to another as a method of avoiding the destruction of individual animals. Technically, such activities also constitute take under the federal and state ESA, but the impacts of such actions presumably would do less harm to the species allowing animals to be destroyed. As noted in Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR, several studies are being conducted in the plan area regarding SKR relocation, and the results of these studies will be incorporated into the RCHCA's ongoing conservation program. However, it must be recognized that relocation is a tool, not a conservation strategy. Moreover, depending on the size of the project, it can be prohibitively expensive. Relocation therefore is not proposed as a practical alternative to incidental take in this HCP. The "on-site conservation" option potentially could result in more SKR habitat being permanently conserved in the plan area and therefore, fewer acres of habitat removed and presumably fewer SKR directly taken. However, given the movement patterns and habitat needs of the species, habitat conserved in small patches within individual development sites would not sustain SKR over the long-term and consequently would delay but not avoid take. Such a strategy also would be disruptive to sound land use planning by hindering efficient and cost-effective site development. As previously noted, on-site conservation on agricultural and public lands outside of core reserves could contribute to the survival of the species and the viability of the reserves. For these reasons, on-site conservation measures are included in this plan but are not proposed as a primary conservation strategy or as a restriction on the location of incidental take. The "no take zone" option would involve defining and enforcing areas within which constraints would be imposed on specific properties in order to conserve SKR habitat by not allowing it to be taken. That type of approach was followed in the Short-Term HCP for the explicit purpose of not precluding conservation options while the reserve system was being designed. As discussed in earlier in this chapter however, the resultant regulation of private property was vigorously opposed by plan area citizens and alsoexposed the RCHCA to significant risk of inverse condemnation claims. Additionally, as an alternative to the proposed taking this option has many of the same drawbacks as the "no take" and "on-site conservation" strategies in that the conservation it provides is only temporary. For these reasons the RCHCA elected not to pursue a strategy of continuing"no take zones". Instead,this HCP provides controls • on incidental take through habitat replacement standards and a requirement for USFWS and CDFG approval of incidental take occurring within core reserves for purposes other than emergency response and fire prevention. 90' — Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered The "cap on take" option is based on the assumption that incidental take below a certain number of acres will have significantly less of an-adverse effect on SKR than take above that number. Within the context of the Short-Term HCP that strategy, combined with additional constraints on the location of incidental take, was justified for the purposes of ensuring that: a) the persistence of the species would be assured pending completion of minimum viable population analyses, and; b) viable permanent preserves could be identified and established. However, as an alternative to incidental taking that would occur over the 30-year period of this HCP, a numeric cap on take would have to be tied to a meaningful biological threshold in order to have conservation value for SKR. This plan proposes a mitigation and acquisition standard that focuses on the conservation value of core reserves rather than a cumulative total of allowable take. A complete description of the SKR core reserves and other features of the RCHCA's SKR conservation program is presented in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures. C. Reserve Design Process The evolution of the SKR Study Areas into the reserves defined in this HCP was the result of a balancing of biological, land use, and economic factors. The RCHCA seeks to design individual reserves and a regional reserve system that: • Will ensure to a reasonable degree of probability the continued existence of SKR in the HCP area: • Are in a manageable configuration and land use framework; • Are feasible to acquire or otherwise conserve within the constraints of available funding; • Utilize existing publicly owned lands and conservation areas to the fullest extent possible, and; • • Will, within the context of a single species HCP, serve to conserve the broadest range of sensitive species and habitats possible. These goals necessitated the formulation of a strategy combining general conservation principles, results of specific SKR biological research, land use planning policies, and cost/benefit analyses. Since SKR reserve design has occurred concurrent with implementation of the Short-Term HCP, it also has required consideration of a third round of HCP boundary modification requests submitted by individual property owners. 1 . Starting Point and Basic Units The Study Areas established under the Short-Term HCP, as modified by two sets of approved boundary modifications and by the expansion and establishment of multi- 91 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan - 4. Alternatives Considered species reserves, were used as the starting point for SKR reserve design. The nine Study Areas defined by the Short-Term HCP cover 79,177 acres including approximately 19,403 acres of SKR occupied habitat. (Table 14 and Figure 21) In its baseline comparison of Study Areas, acres of SKR occupied habitat (irrespective of densities) was chosen by the RCHCA as the basic biological design unit. This was selected in recognition of the significant year-to-year variability of SKR distribution in the HCP area. Assessor parcels were used as the basic land use unit in order to accurately delineate property boundaries and identify land ownerships.;they also reflect the level at which regulatory and acquisition programs are implemented. See Table 15 for a summary of parcel and land ownership characteristics in the defined Study Areas as of March 1, 1994. 2. General Conservation Principles Of primary importance to the RCHCA in its development of the SKR reserve system was that boundary delineations be consistent with current biological conservation theory and practice (Thomas et al. 1990, Noss 1991., and Brussard, et al. 1993). The following general conservation principles were used to guide.SKR reserve design for this HCP: 1. Reserves that are well distributed across a species' native range will be more successful in preventing extinction than reserves confined to small portions of . a species' range; 2. Large blocks of habitat, containing large populations of the target species, are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations; • 3. Blocks of habitat located in close proximity to each other are superior to blocks far apart; 4. Habitat occurring in contiguous blocks is preferable to habitat which is - fragmented; - 5. Habitat patches that minimize edge-to-area ratios are superior to those that do not; 6. Interconnected blocks of habitat are superior to isolated blocks, and corridors or linkages function better when the habitat within them includes protected, preferred habitat for the target species, and; 7. Blocks of habitat without roads or other means of human access are superior to those traversed by roads or otherwise accessible. 92 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered Table 14 Acreage and SKR Occupied Habitat in Short-Term HCP Study Areas* Total SKR Location Area** Occupied • Habitat Study Areas Kabian Park 4,622 1,153 Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain 17,703 5,602 Lake Skinner 15,864 2,961 Motte 2,576 1,045 Potrero 3,054 1,332 San Jacinto-Lake Perris 18,676 3,979 Santa Rosa Plateau 3,092 0 Steele Peak 10,983 2,146 Sycamore Canyon-March A.F. Base 2,607 1,185 Subtotal 79,177 19,403 Remainder of Short-Term HCP 368,421 12,147 Total Short-Term HCP 447,598 31,550 Sources: RECON March 1994 GIS overlay of SKR occupied habitat and Riverside County GIS data base. • 1994 Acreage calculations based on approved adjustments to the study areas during the first and second boundary modification rounds. ** Based on current delineation of the SKR Fee Area as defined by the Short-Term HCP. 93 • • Mry ao SAN BERNARDNO COMITY • —t_ .CALIMA I L-1, is I1 I I f�VE3i5(E ►wr CC �- �;-�?'.:. RAMC • d IApifAp t———I L ,, rc I N;.;,, _ � VALLEY I l� 'I �;" (1IN"I� SYCAMORE CANYON l' I, I� STUN. AREA I—' 1 I LAKE MATT EWS t1 ,..;! u��s L-� . I STUDY AREA .::.'i��!i! `-.r C� MOTTE RESERVE\ 70:M4 �► ..1 Vi!i!ib MAY AREA .;.. ,_ POTRERO i. !$..01.!1.x!08..--- SAN JACMO STIAY AREA ti 4 \ STIAY AREA PERRIS IiiIIIIIIIIII.All:IIjll... , , I 1!I .-II 1 i.'.i. 1.1 ` I \ �� - I FIM1 74 _ `t_ STUN AREA a� MET � • lin I LI_ KAEIfaN P. - r ,��, STIAY �__r-- i��l;dll.oi-,CANYON \ —J—— �... . . giinnr LASE I r 'M* I I fl 1 • STUDY AREA • I 'I��Iug111111111I11Ii�l1 callitil' 11111I • STUN PROSA LATEAU ATEA "" "\.400)-4t 1".../, .-— , -, r 1 Il I I I I l ——I SAN DEGO COUNTY SCALE N M[LESCk 0 3 6 2 1191 CURRENT STEPHENS KANGAROO RAT STUDY AREA BOUNDARES - �'ti CURRENT HCP FEE AREA BOUNDARY • RNERSDE COUNTY BOUNDARY Vgl HGFNVAYS ;ARLAES/RESERVORS Figure 21 IIIIIIIIII NOT NCI.IAEDN HCP FEE AREA CURRENT STEPHENS KANGAROO RAT - FEF AREA AND STUDY AREAS Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered TABLE 15 SKR Short-Term HCP Study Area Land Ownership As of March 1 , 1994 % % TOTAL PRIVATE PRIVATE PUBLIC PUBLIC TOTAL PRIVATE PUBLIC STUDY ACRES ACRES OWNERSHIP ACRES OWNERSHIP PARCELS PARCELS PARCELS AREA San 18,676 4,869 26.07% 13,807 73.93% 256 106 150 Jacinto Lake 17,703 7,189 40.61% 10,514 59.39% 658 521 137 Mathews Lake 15,864 5.371 33.86% 10,493 66.14% 305 196 109 Skinner Steele 10,983 8,694 79.16% 2,289 20.84% 1,114 1,078 36 -1 Peak Kabian 4,622 2,888 62.48% 1,734 37.52% 360 339 21 Park Santa 3,092 3,092 100.00% 0 0.00% 5 5 0 Rosa Plateau Potrero 3,054 2,698 88.34% 356 11.66% 30 20 • 10 Sycamore 2,607 467 17.63% 2.150 82.47% 106 52 54 Canyon Motto 2,576 1,983 76.20% 613 23.80% 406 373 33 _ Reserve TOTALS 79,177 37,221 47.01% 41,956 52.99% 3,240 2,690 650 General conservation.principles also guided the following additional goals for the SKR reserve system: 1. Inclusion of the best remaining examples of SKR habitat; 2. Protection of the ecosystem on which SKR and other species depend; 3. Inclusion of heterogeneous terrain and vegetation, and; 4. Inclusion of some geographically isolated populations to reduce the potential for catastrophic losses of SKR due to localized diseases, natural disasters, or other effects. 95 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered Research studies of SKR presented in Volume II provided field level data essential to the design of SKR reserves. Specific conservation principles developed through that research include the following: 1. Due to the high level of genetic similarity among and low level of variability within SKR populations, the reserve system need not focus on conservation of unique gene pools, and; 2. Limited dispersal distances of this species will make the conservation of corridors connecting habitat patches very important to reserve viability. All of the above conservation principles were employed by the RCHCA to guide the biological component of the reserve design process. That process employed the following evaluation criteria to assess the biological suitability of each Study Area for permanent reserves: • Use by SKR Occupied Habitat SKR population density Landscape unit acreage Connectivity between habitat patches Buffer characteristics Potential Habitat Vegetation (type and coverage) Soil characteristics ; _. Slope Relative Importance in Landscape Scale of Design Contribution to reserve assembly (e.g., acreage, patch connections) Effect on edge ratio • Projected contribution to SKR population persistence Contribution to ecological diversity of reserve system 3. Land Use Planning Policies Land use planning policies employed in the reserve design process reflect the broad distribution of SKR occupied habitat on public and private lands in the HCP area. In general, these embody the General Plan policies of RCHCA jurisdictions concerning open space, conservation, and environmental impact assessment. Land use planning policies employed in this HCP are summarized below: 1. Conservation of SKR occupied habitat is properly considered an "open space" land use which, pursuant to General Plan requirements, must be planned in the context of all other uses of land; 96 Volume l: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered 2. To the degree that conservation of SKR occupied habitat provides a public service to the region as a whole and to individual jurisdictions, it is comparable to other public works important to the environmental and economic quality of life in the HCP area; 3. Agriculture is an essential component of the regional open space system, contributes to the economic and environmental quality of life in the region, and is capable of creating and maintaining conditions which sustain SKR. Where compatible with SKR habitat conservation goals,the continuation.of agricultural land uses in the plan area should be encouraged by this HCP, and; 4. Changes to land use categories, zoning, or existing land uses in areas within or adjacent to SKR reserves can have regional consequences. Within the context of the CEQA process these changes should be planned to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to SKR to the greatest extent practicable. 4. Cost/Benefit Considerations A fundamental component of reserve design is the projection of costs for the acquisition of land necessary to accomplish the biological objectives of this HCP. This includes an analysis of land ownership patterns and development of cost estimates for specific groups of target parcels. Cost estimates for such parcels are then compared to the benefits resulting from their conservation, i.e., their estimated effect on SKR viability and persistence. These cost/benefit characteristics were examined in each of the Study Areas by assessing: 1. The amount and quality of SKR occupied habitat on public lands; 2. The amount and quality of SKR occupied habitat on private lands required for inclusion in the reserves, and; 3. The projected acquisition cost for private lands (See Table 16) based upon land prices actually.paid by the RCHCA during the implementation of the Short-Term HCP, and analysis of real estate market conditions. 5. Short-Term HCP Third Round Boundary Modification Requests Due to the receipt of numerous applications, a third round of boundary modification requests from individual property owners was reviewed by the RCHCA during the reserve design process.These included requests from the first two rounds which were withdrawn from consideration at the property owner's request. Proposed boundary modifications submitted to but not acted upon by USFWS or CDFG in the previous rounds also were reviewed. • In total, the third round modifications (including reactivated requests) would add approximately 180 acres to the HCP fee area and remove approximately 5,500 acres 97'- Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered Table 16 RCHCA Short-Term HCP Land Acquisitions by Study Area Acres of Purchase Month/Year Purchaser/Location Total SKR Price of Acres Habitat $/acre Acquisition RCHCA Acquisitions in Lake 160.0 123.7 $5,000 10/90 Mathews-Estelle Mountain 80.0 32.8 $2,675 8/91 Study Area 20.7 7.7 $4,990 9/91 20.3 12.1 $4,998 4/92 20.0 5.3 $3,000 3/92 20.2 13.1 $5,005 - .4/92 89.2 29.1 $3,363 6/92 , 184.7 40.8 $8,121 9/92 20.0 10.0 $6,000 11/92 20.0 13.0 $6,000 11/92 _ 42.9 21.5 $3,500 7/93 ` 435.8 218.3 $3,429 7/93 18.0 12.0 $4,994 6/93 40.0 20.0 $5,000 7/93 20.0 14.2 $5,340 7/93 20.0 15.0 $3,500 10/93 20.0 13.3 $5,000 10/93 20.0 15.0 $3,500 10/93 40.1 5.5 $3,806 10/93 20.2 10.1 $3,804 10/93 20.0 10.0 $6,050 10/93 38.0. 17.2 $3,947 12/93 20.1 201 $3,942 2/94 9.8 4.5 $7,653 2/94 -; Subtotals 1,400.0 684.3 $4,692 10/90-2/94 RCHCA and WCB 140.0 22.5 $5,464 4/91 & Acquisitions in 80.2 15.6 $5,517 7/91 Lake Mathews-Estelle 3/91 & Mountain Study Area 220.2 38.1 $5,491 7/91 - Subtotals 3/91 - 7/91 98 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered Table 16 RCHCA Short-Term HCP Land Acquisitions by Study Area Acres of Purchase Month/Year Purchaser/Location Total SKR Price of • Acres Habitat S/acre Acquisition RCHCA Acquisitions in the 80.0 43.5 $6,000 5/91 Lake Skinner Area 17.7 17.7 $7,062 9/91 60.0 30.0 $5,250 1/92 38.8 30.3 $5,995 11/91 19.4 12.6 $6,000 2/92 20.0 14.0 $6,000 2/92 39.8 12.3 $3,266 8/92 40.5 31.1 $5,926 9/92 40.0 19.9 $5,000 9/92 26.6 18.5 $6,090 10/92 36.6 18.3 $3,279 12/92 ' ` 80.0 40.0 $3,000 11/92 80.3 40.2 $3,786 11/92 40.0 40.0 $6,000 4/93 36.6 18.3 $3,802 5/93 82.4 41.2 $3,838 6/93 59.1 29.5 $3,494 7/93 17.6 11.5 $5,666 8/93 20.2 19.1 $6,012 8/93 20.0 17.4 $6,000 8/93 37.5 18.8 $3,800 8/93 40.0 20.0 $3,800 11/93 10.0 5.0 $9,250 4/94 700.1 220• $997 6/94 • Subtotals 1,643.2 769.2 $4,971 5/91 - 6/94 (avg.) RCHCA Acquisitions in the 89.5 74.7 $11,173 4/93 Motte Study Area 10.3 9.2 $7,864 4/93 10.2 10.2 $6,863 9/93 10.2 10.2 $6,863 10/93 Subtotals 120.2 104.3 $8,191 4/93-10/93 (avg.) 99 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered • Table 16 RCHCA Short-Term HCP Land Acquisitions by Study Area Acres of Purchase Month/Year Purchaser/Location Total SKR Price of Acres Habitat $/acre Acquisition RCHCA Acquisitions in 137.9 132.4 $5,028 8/90 Steele 70.8 66.2 $6,000 3/92 Peak Study Area 10.0 10.0 $7,500 12/92 218.7 208.6 , $6,176 8/90-12/92 Subtotals MWD, RCHCA, County 1,326.2 1,326.2 -- 10/91 Acquisitions in Lake Skinner Study Area (Shipley Reserve) RCHCA Acquisitions 90.4 42.0 $9,847 4/94 in San Jacinto Total 5,018.9 3,172.7 $5,246 10/90-6/94 (avg.) from Study Areas (Table 17). The proposed additions to the fee area include approximately 145 acres of SKR occupied habitat;the Study Area modifications would reduce the total amount of occupied habitat within those areas by approximately 1,790 acres. Of the earlier proposals that were reviewed, the one most pertinent to reserve design concerns the Potrero Study Area. As part of the first round of boundary modifications, that Study Area had been proposed for temporary removal from the plan area to allow time to resolve issues regarding the potential inclusion of a larger area of occupied SKR habitat on property owned by the Lockheed Corporation. The RCHCA's request was not approved by USFWS, and subsequently both development and conservation plans have been proposed for the area. Lockheed has prepared a Specific Plan covering property both within and outside of the Study Area. The project proponent is seeking to have the area annexed into the City of Beaumont, which is not a member of the RCHCA. - As previously discussed, the Potrero area also has been identified by BLM as a preferred site for establishment and expansion of a SKR ACEC.With active support and participation by the RCHCA, BLM and Lockheed have worked cooperatively to explore 100 Volume I: Habitat Corlserva 'Ian Iternatives Considered Table 17 "Short-Term HCP Third Round" Boundary Modification Requests PROPOSED ADDmONS (NET ACRES) Proposed Removals (net acres) LOCATION Total Area SKR Habitat Total Area SKR HABITAT Fee Area West of Lake Mathews 3M Corporation 852.6 99.5 0 0 , Fee Area East of Lake Skinner D2 Enterprises41.3 19.6 - 0 0 Heffner 20.0 5.2 0 • 0 Kingsley 20.4 20.4 0 0 , Subtotal 81.7 45.2 0 0 Kabian Park Study Area Kennedy 0 0 2.3 0.1 ' Lake Mathews Study Area Western Waste Industries 0 0 • 552.2 196.8 Morger- 1 0 0 247.9 78.0 Morger 2 0 0 949.7 221.0 Subtotal 1,749.8 495.8 Lake Skinner Study Area Domenigoni-Barton 0 0 1,603.4 375.0 Finisterra Farms 0 0 353.6 266.9 Wanczuk 0 0 40.0 1.7 Pourroy 0 0 55.1 0 Subtotal 0 • 0 2,052.1 643.6 Steele Peak Study Area Idaleona 0 0 327 132 Schori 0 0 40.0 3.5 Hall 0 0 9.3 3.5 Halsted 0 0 180.0 104.0 TMC 0 0 1,500.0 445.3 Subtotal 0 0 2,056.3 688.3 Sycamore Canyon Study Area Levinson/Jaffe 0 0 78.0 77.0 Davidson Assoc. 0 0 176.0 17.8 Subtotal 0 0 254.0 94.8 TOTAL 934.3 144.7 6,114.5 1.923 101 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered • the possibility of a land exchange for that purpose. Those discussions are still active, as is Lockheed's Specific Plan development and annexation request. All of the boundary modification requests have been incorporated into the conservation and mitigation plan proposed in this HCP. Requests for removal of land from Study Areas are accommodated through the elimination of those Study Areas in this HCP. Requests for addition of land to the HCP area are reflected in the boundaries established for this plan. D. Study Areas Not Selected as Core Reserves The reserve design process resulted in the elimination of the Kabian Park, Santa Rosa Plateau, and Steele Peak Study Areas from further consideration as core reserves. Additionally,the Potrero Study Area has been eliminated with the recommendation that The RCHCA continues to facilitate discussions between BLM and Lockheed to establishing an ACEC in the area. It must be emphasized that elimination of these four Study Areas from reserve consideration does not mean they have no biological value for SKR, or that the areas have no potential role in the SKR reserve system. This means only that the RCHCA does not consider their inclusion either feasible or prudent within the legal, financial, and institutional context of this HCP. The primary reasons for eliminating these four Study Areas from reserve consideration are summarized below and reviewed in greater detail in Volume Ill. 1 . Santa Rosa Plateau The Santa Rosa Plateau was not selected as a SKR core reserve for the simple biological reason that SKR do not occur there. The area has tremendous biological value for other sensitive species and habitats found on site, e.g., vernal pools, native grasslands, and Engelmann oak forest. Those values have prompted its acquisition and management as a 7,000 acre wildlife reserve. Designation of this area as a SKR reserve is felt to be inappropriate due to the potentially deleterious impacts management for SKR may have on the resident sensitive species and habitats intended for conservation. Additionally, designation of this area as a SKR reserve would result in a misallocation of scarce SKR management funds away from reserves of far greater importance to the species. The elimination of the Santa Rosa Plateau Study Area as a SKR core reserve candidate will have no effect on the status of this area as a.wildlife reserve. 2. Kabian Park The Kabian Park Study Area was eliminated from further consideration as a SKR core reserve due to a combination of biological, land use, and economic factors. 102 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered _I Excluding the Santa Rosa Plateau and Motte Reserve, Kabian Park contains the least amount.of SKR occupied habitat (1,153 acres) among the Study Areas. The extent of development in this area has resulted in significant habitat fragmentation, and also precludes the establishment of habitat patch connections deemed necessary to achieve an acceptable degree of viability in an area of such relatively small size. For these reasons projections of long-term SKR persistence produced by the Gilpin model show Kabian Park to have by far the lowest conservation value and probability of 100-year survival of the Study Areas, even if all remaining occupied habitat is conserved. Additional details concerning the Gilpin model output are presented in Volume II. . The land use characteristics of the Kabian Park area also make it a poor candidate for . a SKR reserve. Existing residential development occurs throughout the area, and with recent municipal annexations and planned improvements.to Highway 74, prospects for future growth are quite favorable. Additionally, Kabian Park is located in an area subject to the combined effects of development in the Cities of Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, and Perris. Although future development in Perris and Lake Elsinore will be consistent with the provisions of this HCP, the same cannot be guaranteed within Canyon Lake due to the fact that it is not a member of the RCHCA. However, development occurring within its borders could have an adverse impact on a SKR reserve if one were to be established in Kabian Park. From the economic perspective the projected cost of assembling land for a SKR reserve in Kabian Park is prohibitive. Most of the SKR occupied habitat in the existing Study Area occurs on small, privately owned parcels; many of these are developed with single residences. A total of 339 privately owned parcels exist in the Kabian Park Study Area, encompassing 2,888 acres. Due to the small size of this area, the long-term viability of SKR would depend upon the acquisition of almost all of those parcels. At an estimated average cost of $7,000 per acre, the total purchase price for all private parcels would exceed 520.2 million. Such acquisition probably would necessitate condemnation actions, since many parcels are home to full-time residents unlikely to sell voluntarily. In summary, the establishment of a SKR reserve in Kabian Park would: a) cost more than the total amount of RCHCA funds currently available for land acquisition; b) result in severe political problems due to the probable need to acquire land through eminent domain, and; c) produce a reserve having a very poor probability of sustaining the species into the future. In light of these factors the RCHCA has eliminated Kabian Park from consideration as a permanent SKR reserve. 3. Steele Peak The Steele Peak Study Area was not selected as a core reserve due to the: 1) relatively high cost of land acquisition; 2) difficulty of assembling the requisite number of parcels within a reasonable time period, and; 3) uncertain probability of SKR persistence even if all occupied habitat is conserved. Steele Peak includes almost twice as many parcels in private ownership as any other Study Area (1,078); almost 80% of all land is privately held. Although a significant amount of SKR occupied habitat in the Study Area is located on BLM property, the 103 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered majority is in private ownership. Of the occupied habitat occurring on such lands, the largest and perhaps most viable blocks are located on the site of an approved Specific Plan development. These facts make the establishment of a SKR reserve in Steele Peak highly problematical. Conservation of the most valuable habitat would require the RCHCA to purchase a considerable amount of land having existing development approvals; obviously, acquisition of such properties would be a very expensive endeavor. Despite the currently depressed real estate market conditions it is not unreasonable to expect average acquisition costs in many portions of Steele Peak to exceed $8,000 per acre. __! Even using an average purchase price of $5,000 per acre, acquisition of all privately held property in the Steele Peak Study Area would cost over $44.8 million. That sum is almost three times greater than the total available RCHCA fund balance. Beyond the sheer expense however, lies the very daunting task of negotiating the purchase of so many privately held parcels. If even as few as half of the private parcels rcels in Steele Peak were to be acquired for a core reserve, the RCHCA would be facing the prospect of conducting more than 500 property negotiations before a • reserve is finally assembled. That process would require years to complete, and in the absence of Study Area protections there would be no guarantee that essential SKR occupied habitat would not be developed before RCHCA could acquire it. Finally, the potential biological value of a Steele Peak reserve to SKR is uncertain. Due to the general patchiness of SKR distribution and distance between those patches, predicted SKR long-term persistence in Steele Peak may depend upon significant changes to existing land uses. Specifically, long-term persistence of SKR may depend upon removal of citrus orchards in key areas and conversion of those lands into grassland habitat. Active management programs would be required, as well as possible translocation of SKR. In light of the uncertain biological viability of Steele Peak and tremendous cost and difficulty of land acquisition in the area, the RCHCA has eliminated this Study Area as a permanent reserve candidate. It is evident that much greater conservation value could be added to the system as a whole by spending the same amount of money to acquire land in the Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, and San Jacinto Study Areas. 4. Potrero As previously noted, the exclusion of Potrero as a reserve candidate is accompanied by a RCHCA commitment to work cooperatively with BLM and the Lockheed Corporation to effectuate a land trade for the purpose of expanding a proposed ACEC in the area. This desire results from the high biological value of SKR habitat on the • Lockheed property. Given the amount and density of SKR populations on site, absence of surrounding development, and proximity to large blocks of conserved public land, from a biological perspective Potrero may be considered among the very best potential candidates for a permanent SKR reserve. In fact, the Potrero Creek Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) notes that the area includes some of the largest blocks of contiguous SKR occupied habitat remaining, and also features the greatest densities of the species known to exist. 104 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan I 4. Alternatives Considered Unfortunately, several factors limit the RCHCA's ability to facilitate the formation of a Potrero reserve. These include: 1. Land values for the Lockheed property, estimated by various sources to range between $40 million and $100 million. Purchase prices within this range would preclude any reasonable possibility of timely acquisition by the RCHCA; 2. The proposed annexation of the Lockheed Potrero Creek Specific Plan site into the City of Beaumont, a non-RCHCA member agency, and; • 3. The right of Lockheed to seek its own SKR incidental take authorization from USFWS and CDFG for lands within the Specific Plan boundaries. The Potrero Creek Specific Plan EIR states that mitigation for SKR impacts will be accomplished by the project applicant either through Sections 7 or 10(a) of the ESA. No intention to use the RCHCA's SKR incidental take permits is expressed. In considering the manner in which this HCP should address the Potrero issue the RCHCA also examined the possibility of including this territory in the plan area without a permanent reserve designation. Under that approach all SKR occupied habitat in the Potrero Study Area would be subject to incidental take upon payment of the applicable SKR mitigation fee. The RCHCA reviewed this possibility in the context of findings which must be made by the Secretary of Interior prior to approving a HCP. Findings applicable to the Potrero consideration, as set forth in Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, are as follows: 1. The applicant (RCHCA) will,to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of incidental taking; 2. The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided, and; 3. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. In the opinion of the RCHCA, inclusion of the Potrero site within an area subject to incidental take would seriously imperil the ability of this HCP area to pass the first "findings test" listed above. The Potrero Creek EIR indicates that 1,709 acres or 88% of SKR occupied habitat would be directly taken by the proposed development; a maximum of 229 occupied acres would remain. However, as stated in the Potrero Creek Specific Plan EIR Appendix E (Biological Assessments), "...even the largest remaining habitat areas (48 acres) would very likely be lost after a long period of time, again due to both stochastic factorsintrinsic to small populations and expected deleterious habitat changes." Thus, the EIR contemplates the eventual extirpation of all SKR occupied habitat on site. Of specific relevance to the RCHCA in meeting the incidental take impact minimization criterion for HCP approval are the conclusions of the EIR concerning impacts resulting from take of the Potrero Creek SKR population: 105 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 4. Alternatives Considered • "The expected large-scale loss of occupied SKR habitat would constitute a significant adverse impact...The Potrero Creek Specific Plan would effectively remove from consideration an SKR preserve study area exhibiting some of the largest and most contiguous tracts of higher-end abundance of the species long-term survival. The positive value of the Potrero SKR Study Area is augmented even further by the fact that it is the only preserve study area not fragmented by internal development or surrounded by development. The site is one of the only preserve study areas exhibiting a relatively contained ecosystem that is and for many years has been largely free of major human impacts other than farming and grazing. Most of the site remains in a relatively undisturbed and natural state, and is surrounded by large tracts of federal lands with native habitats that are managed for their natural resources...A take of SKR of this magnitude as proposed by Lockheed would be the largest in the region since the SKR was classified as endangered by the Federal government in 1989 (sic)."' If this HCP designates the Potrero Creek site as an area subject to incidental take of SKR, the resulting impacts to the species would be the same as those described by the EIR statements quoted above. The HCP would be in effect facilitating the incidental taking of the largest contiguous populations of SKR known in the plan area. Given that situation, the RCHCA does not believe a HCP authorizing incidental take of the Potrero Creek SKR population would meet the ESA requirement for minimizing species impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The RCHCA also is mindful of the ESA standard for mitigating the impacts of incidental take to the maximum extent practicable. The conservation program described in this chapter and Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures is felt by the RCHCA to constitute a satisfactory level of mitigation for the impacts of incidental take occurring within a HCP area which does not include the Potrero Creek site. However, if the HCP was modified to encompass Potrero and provide for incidental take of all SKR present upon payment of the applicable mitigation fee, impacts of the aggregate ---- level of take could not be considered mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. In the opinion of the RCHCA, in order to meet that standard the amount of SKR conservation provided by this HCP would have to be substantially greater than that proposed. Neither_the public nor the RCHCA is prepared to accept a significantly higher cost burden for providing that increased level of conservation. Even if public acceptance was not an issue, it is highly doubtful that the RCHCA would be able to meet the HCP approval requirement of ensuring adequate funding for plan implementation. Funding required to acquire substantial amounts of additional SKR habitat cannot be realistically proposed within the context of this HCP. For the reasons described above the RCHCA has determined that inclusion of Potrero within the HCP area is not appropriate. 106 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures This chapter describes the specific features of the SKR HCP being proposed by the RCHCA, including: 1. The level of incidental take of SKR for which the RCHCA is seeking authorization from USFWS and CDFG; 2. Proposed terms and conditions governing that incidental take; 3. Potential impacts of and alternatives to the proposed taking; 4. Habitat conservation and impact mitigation measures which will be implemented by the RCHCA as a condition of incidental take authorization, and; 5. Institutional and funding arrangements established by the RCHCA to assure HCP implementation. A. Summary of SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Through the implementation of this plan and its predecessor Short-Term HCP the RCHCA will expend more than $56 million to establish and manage a 40,000 acre system of regional preserves designed to ensure the persistence of SKR in the plan area. This effort is anticipated to result in the conservation of almost 60% of the SKR occupied habitat remaining in the HCP area. Through funding provided by the RCHCA, SKR habitat in the regional reserve system will be managed to ensure its continuing ability to support the'species. Additionally, the RCHCA will finance monitoring and biological research activities necessary to identify changes in SKR distribution over time, and develop management strategies capable of adapting successfully to changing conditions. Mitigation for incidental take occurring under this HCP will be provided through the acquisition of additional land for thepurpose of expanding the core reserve system. RCHCA member agencies will continue to assess the SKR mitigation fee in their jurisdictions to ensure adequate financing for plan implementation. In the six years of its existence the mitigation fee has raised over $29 million, making it the largest program of its type in the nation. A detailed description of the SKR conservation and mitigation measures to.be provided by the RCHCA under this HCP is presented in this Chapter. 107 . • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures B. Scope of the Permit and Agreement The RCHCA and its member agencies are seeking to replace their existing permit and agreement for incidental take of SKR with a permit and agreement based on the conservation and mitigation measures,proposed in this HCP. While the conservation program provided by this HCP certainly will benefit a number ofsensitive species and habitat types, incidental take authorization is sought only for SKR. No other federally or state listed species would be covered by the permit and agreement. Thus, activities resulting in take of other listed species (e.g., California gnatcatcher, 'Riverside fairy shrimp or Least Bell's vireo) must secure separate authorization for incidental take of those species from USFWS and CDFG as appropriate before proceeding. The fact that this HCP covers no listed species other than SKR will be quite important to many property owners in the plan area. Since SKR are known to occur in close proximity to other listed species (most commonly California gnatcatcher), many individual land parcels in the HCP area are occupied by both SKR and other protected species. Owners of such parcels may find themselves in a position of being unable to use RCHCA member agency SKR take authorizations if such use would result in the taking of another listed species. Thus, some projects in former Study Area locations that have been delayed during the Short-Term HCP by the presence of SKR still may not be able to go forward under this HCP due to California gnatcatcher occupation. In those cases separate authorization would have to be secured by project proponents from USFWS for incidental take of gnatcatchers. . This situation demonstrates the limitations of single species approaches, and provides ample evidence of the need to approach conservation on an ecosystem basis. If this HCP is approved by USFWS and CDFG, the RCHCA intends to amend it,into a comprehensive multi-species conservation plan designed to address all sensitive habitat and species issues in RCHCA member jurisdictions. • C. Terms and Conditions The permit and agreement sought by the RCHCA would allow incidental take of SKR in connection with otherwise lawful activities anywhere in the plan area, subject to the terms and conditions described in this section. 1 . Establishment and Completion of the Core Reserves This HCP provides for the establishment of the following five permanent SKR core reserves (Figure 211: 1. Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain (Lake Mathews); 2. Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley (Lake Skinner); 3. Motte Rimrock Reserve (Motte Reserve); . 108 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 4. San Jacinto-Lake Perris (San Jacinto); and 5. Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base (Sycamore Canyon). a. Establishment of the Core Reserve System In total, the five core reserves encompass 38,185 acres including 11,225 acres of SKR occupied habitat (Table 18). Within the reserves approximately 88% of SKR occupied habitat (9,928 acres) occurs on lands currently in public ownership;the remaining 12% of occupied habitat(1,297 acres) is located on private properties that will be conserved by the RCHCA either through direct acquisition of fee interests or through conservation agreements negotiated with the land owners subject to the concurrence of USFWS and CDFG. The individual core reserves range in size from over 12,780 acres in Lake Skinner to approximately 618 acres in the Motte Reserve. Total SKR occupied habitat varies from over 3,817 acres in Lake Mathews to 333 acres in Motte (Figure 22). Collectively, the San Jacinto and Lake Mathews reserves contain more than 6,700 acres of SKR habitat already in public ownership. Lake Mathews has the largest amount of SKR habitat on private lands (852 acres); this comprises less 22% of the SKR occupied habitat in the core reserve. European grassland, sage scrub, and chaparral are the primary vegetation types in reserves, accounting for nearly 32,411 acres (Table.18 and Figure 23). Lake Skinner has the largest amount of these three vegetation types (11,788 acres), followed by Lake Mathews (9,683 acres) and San Jacinto (7,860 acres). As of March 1994 approximately 85% of the-land in core reserves was in public ownership; that percentage is being regularly increased by the RCHCA's ongoing land acquisition program. Of all lands in public ownership, MWD is the largest property owner(see Table 19). It should be noted that the estimate of MWD's ownership in the i Lake Skinner reserve includes land acquisitions in the Domenigoni Valley which have not yet occurred, but are planned pursuant to the approved Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP (see note on Table 19). With the exception of those planned MWD acquisitions, private lands included within the boundaries of the proposed core reserves are identified separately on the ownership maps in Appendix D. Within the core reserves Lake Mathews includes the largest amount of privately owned land with 2,719 acres; the Motte Reserve is entirely in public ownership. A brief biogeographical and land use profile of each SKR core reserve is presented on the following page. An analysis of the conservation value and long-term viability of the reserve system follows the summary profiles. More detailed information concerning the core reserves, including maps of habitat types and public ownership is included as Appendix D. 109 • Volume I: Habitat•Con-- ation Plan 5. SKR Consc on and Mitigation Measures Table 18 Summary Characteristics of Acreage • in SKR Core Reserves CATEGORY LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR TOTAL SKR Habitat On Public Lands 1,588 3,778 2,965 1,264 333 9,928 On Private Lands 349 2 852 94 0 1,297 Total SKR Habitat 1,937 3,780 3,817 1,358 333 - 11,225- - Total Area` 12,780 11,919 10,360 2,508 618 38,185 Vegetation Non-native Grassland 2,343 3,923 3,407 1,727 130 11,530 Sage Scrub 4,453 3,885 5,995 741 482 15,556 Chaparral 4,992 52 281 0 0 5,325 Riparian 297 45 122 4 0 468 Woodland 174 3 170 0 0 347 Marsh 0 0 2 0 . 0 2 Alkali Playa 0 2,791 0 0 0 2,791 Open Water 0 32 0 0 0 32 Agriculture 488 436 357 0 0 1,281 •Residential/Urban/Exot 33 752 26 36 6 853 Ownership • RCHCA 1,629 90 1,984 0 141 3,844 MWD•• 8,003 87 5,113 6 0 13,209 County 662 35 0 0 0 697 City of Riverside 0 0 0 1,230 0 1,230 State 0 11,404 •224 132 397 12,157 BLM 425 0 320 0 80 825 MAFB 0 0 0 1,040 0 1,040 Total Public 10,719 11,616 7,641 2,408 618 33,002 Total Private 2,061 303 2,719 100 0 5,183 Codes • MRR Motte Rimrock Reserve LS-DV • Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley LM-EM Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain SJ-LP San Jacinto-Lake Perris SC-MAFB Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base . • Notes • Excludes lakes, reservoirs,and MWD operations areas. •• MWD has not yet completed its proposed acquisitions in Domenigoni Valley in the plan area for the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCF ownership estimate includes proposed acquisitions. ••• Includes RCHCA acquisitions currently in escrow and dedications to RCHCA pending final approval. Also includes acquisitions,dedications, and conservation agreements currently in negotiation or to be proposed by RCHCA, MWD, or the City of Riverside. Sources: RECON SKR March 1994 GIS SKR occupied habitat overlay, Pacific Southwest Biological Consultants May 1994 vegetation survey o'. Western Riverside County, MWD, and Riverside County GIS data base. 110 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Figure 22 Acres of SKR Occupied Habitat Within the Core Reserves A i MAR I � j SC-MAFB LM-EM I I I SJ-Lp ,.. I t l i-J LS-DEV i 0 1,000 Z000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Figure 23 Acres of Primary Vegetation Types Within the Core Reserves Sine Scrub Grassland Chapayral 0 2,000 4,000 8.000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 I 111. Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures b. Lake Skinner - Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve Lake Skinner - Domenigoni Valley ILS-DV) is the largest of the core reserves, encompassing approximately 12,780 acres including 1,937 acres of SKR occupied habitat (Figure 24). Most of core reserve is covered by the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP approved by USFWS and CDFG in October 1992; as noted on Table 19 this includes lands which MWD is still in the process of acquiring in Domenigoni Valley. LS-DV core reserve lands not presently covered by the MSHCP include property in RCHCA fee ownership and approximately 281 acres in privately held parcels for which acquisition is currently being negotiated by the RCHCA. Upon approval of this HCP, all land owned by the RCHCA will be formally added to the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP and managed pursuant to its Cooperative Management Agreement. Within the LS-DV core reserve, MWD is the single largest property owner. This agency operates the existing reservoir at Lake Skinner and is constructing a new reservoir in the Domenigoni Valley which will be the largest in Southern California. Most of the land within this reserve,is undeveloped, but crossed by a number of dirt roads which generally facilitate SKR dispersal. Some portions of the area have been previously used for agricultural activities, particularly grazing. The LS-DV core reserve does not include recreational and operational facilities within the County Regional Park managed by the RCRPOSD. Current uses include 24-hour camping and recreational vehicle hook-ups,swimming,fishing,boating, multi-use trails, and picnicking. Also excluded from the core reserve are planned recreational facilities at the future Domenigoni reservoir site. The RCHCA is now working cooperatively with USFWS, CDFG, County of Riverside, and representatives of Finisterra Farms, owner of approximately 350 acres adjacent to the Shipley Reserve within the LS-DV core reserve. These parties are now negotiating agreements under which Finisterra Farms would develop an extremely low density equestrian community on the site consisting of nine lots, roads, equestrian trails and facilities, and a caretakers residence. Finisterra Farms would convey conservation easements to the RCHCA over approximately 205 acres of SKR occupied habitat areas within its ownership. The agreements would formally add the conservation easement area to the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP for habitat management purposes. • Land uses within the immediate vicinity of the LS-DV core reserve are primarily open space, agriculture, and some very low density rural residential development. At this time the reserve is not encroached upon by surrounding incompatible development, and present zoning serves to maintain this condition. LS-DV was selected as a SKR core reserve due to the fact that most of this area, including 3,162 acres under RCHCA ownership or conservation easement, is currently in public ownership and permanently managed for conservation of SKR and other -- sensitive species. Although the existing LS-DV reserve SKR distribution is rather patchily distributed, its overall size provides a good measure of protection to the resident animals. Through the establishment of the Shipley Reserve and Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP, most of the SKR occupied habitat in the reserve already is under active SKR management. Additionally, an ongoing program of SKR biological -- 112 I %I v L1 ..JILJL_ uLVI V I I HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY LAKE SKINNER CORE RESERVE 1111111111.1111 APNS PARTIALLY W111-14 :011 coRE RESERVE APNS CORE RESERVE I iiiiitaim. L �:• ' 45403008 .46721006 454250014 96060013 -J _. :---- M� ' LL 454030057 4466721007772E013. 44542500 454140330 464140327 YI �moi! 454030058 46723023 4540.70051 465230001 ■■1� = ■ �1J t: .::,:• r454030059 ,672ioo254 454213009 4642 466as080°0009 �-—�■' ■ mom _ . 454050002 46723026 ' 454030050 466060032 OLNE AVE _+___-,�'• ; '•••J::;:::::: ` 45405030343 467210035 454140037 466070026 ` __ •••••••••••I•• I •I 454t700D 467238 454140009 . 469270004 '.-..-%-:,..-:-:-:-:- •�` �:••�.:;. 467210037 454140073 469070011 i -- 454130011 46723038 454140014 46617006 • �, :- __ ;1:,.:.:.::A.V. 45413002 467290005 454170014 466200003 4540005 46960005 454140032 4661/0006 N - -- a•I•I: Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures research is being conducted by Dr. Michael O'Farrell under the guidance of a management committee comprised of the USFWS, CDFG, RCHCA, MWD, and the RCRPOSD. These research activities are and will continue to be important to the development of adaptive SKR management strategies to be conducted under this HCP. Although most of the LS-DV reserve contains appropriate soils and topography for SKR, the dominant vegetation of Riversidean sage scrub and chamise chaparral is not suitable for this species. In fact, much of the SKR occupied habitat in the reserve occurs on lands cleared of sage scrub and chamise chaparral by agriculture; SKR.also - are found in areas where native vegetation has been replaced by mixed European annual grassland/coastal sage scrub due to grazing and fires.. This set of . circumstances influenced the proposed configuration of the LS-DV reserve in two ways: 1. Since underlying natural conditions are not as favorable to SKR as those in other areas, reserve design gave priority to strengthening connections between SKR populations within the existing reserve over the addition of significantly more conserved habitat to the reserve periphery. Specifically, attention was focused on connecting major populations of SKR in the southern•portion of the reserve around Lake Skinner to those to the north in the Shipley area. This was accomplished through RCHCA acquisition of property in locations deemed important for the establishment of corridor connections; 2. If they remain in their current and historical uses and do not involve activities that would extirpate SKR from the properties, agricultural lands around the reserve boundary can provide more potential benefit than risk to the reserve SKR populations. The RCHCA felt that taking such lands out of their current agricultural use through acquisitions would not be necessary to achieve the goals of the HCP. In regard to the suitability of vegetation for SKR, it is important to note that the recent California Fire burned much of the land in the existing Lake Skinner/Shipley/Domenigoni Valley wildlife reserves. Preliminary investigations by Dr. O'Farrell indicate that SKR generally survived the fire quite well. In fact, burning of vegetation actually created a significant amount of new habitat suitable for SKR occupation. Dr. O'Farrell will be conducting monitoring studies to document changes in SKR distribution resulting from the fire. A likely finding will be the creation of improved SKR dispersal corridors which will serve to better connect patches of occupied habitat. As previously noted, much of the LS-DV core reserve is covered by the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP. That approved document designated operational and recreational areas around the Lake Skinner and Domenigoni reservoirs which are specifically excluded from the wildlife reserve. Figure 24 depicts these operational and recreational areas, which encompass a total of approximately 5,400 acres. Within these areas MWD and the County of Riverside are authorized to conduct activities necessary to: 1. Meet water service obligations and responsibilities, including metering of water inflow into reservoirs, maintenance of water quality, and assurance of necessary public safety and security; 115 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 2. Operate and maintain recreational facilities in the existing Lake Skinner County Park, including fishing and boating activities, camping, and trail maintenance; 3. Operate and maintain recreational facilities at the Domenigoni reservoir; 4. Maintain, repair, replace, and use existing roads, water facilities, and ancillary improvements, and subject to approval by USFWS and CDFG, to designate, construct, and use rights of way for roads, trails, flood control structures, utility corridors, sewers, water facilities, and utility lines across the reserve for operational.and water supply purposes; i 5. Construct unpaved service roads around the perimeter of the Domenigoni reservoir to ensure access for water quality measurements and treatments; 6. Construct and operate a visitor center north of the dam embankment for the reservoir; 7. Maintain an operations buffer around the two reservoirs, and; 8. Construct and operate three permanent dam-keeper residences. This HCP is intended to be completely consistent with the provisions of the approved Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP concerning operational and recreational areas in the LS-DV reserve. Such areas will be not be part of the designated SKR core reserve,and the public agency operation and maintenance --- activities permitted under the MSHCP also will be authorized under this HCP. c. San Jacinto - Lake Perris Core Reserve The San Jacinto (SJ-LP) core reserve is located southeast of Moreno Valley and north of the Ramona Expressway. It is the second largest of the core reserves, both in terms of total area (11,919 acres) and SKR occupied habitat (3,780 acres). Figure 25 illustrates the core reserve. All but 515 acres in the core reserve are part of either the Lake Perris State Recreation Area or San Jacinto Wildlife Area owned by the State of California. Approximately 212 acres are owned by the RCHCA, MWD or the County of Riverside. Within the SJ-LP core reserve, the 303 acres remaining in private ownership is under exclusive option to the RCHCA. The first phase of that option, involving purchase of approximately 90 acres, was recently completed by the RCHCA. This and all other property subject to the option agreement will be conveyed to CDFG by the RCHCA for purposes of expanding the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. That conveyance will be subject to appropriate conservation easements to ensure the continuation of land uses compatible with SKR. • • As noted, the State of California is the primary property owner in the SJ-LP core reserve and also has responsibility for managing the majority of land through the State Department of Parks and Recreation and CDFG. The State Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates the existing reservoir at Lake Perris. MWD has limited land ownership in the SJ-LP core reserve for their Lake Perris water extraction facilities. These facilities include the Lake Perris Bypass Pipeline, Perris Power Plant, 116 1-<IVLI-<1UL CUUN I Y HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY . SAN JACINTO CORE RESERVE ' • CORE RESSiVE APNS 30280013 423030031 30213005 423030032 302190007 4231Vfl13 402200008 423030034 302211014 423030035 302230003 423030038 302240003 423030037 Al g 302250003 4230.700.78 302270001 423030039 , • 302270002 423030040 • 302270003 423030041 I r III �• ?. • BLV 302270004 423040002 1� /:<%: :>::> 302270005 423040003 �� � 302270008 423040004 NCITY OF -�^ ■■■` ,l4 �,••. GATO EEL SOL 1, N. 302270008 42304N•G SCALE N FEET MORET40 VALLEY • �� 423040008 `_ T !.,04-':' 1 - # 3)4020002 47304000111iiiiii .11 6,i.:. 3040200024230600640 6000 12000 •` II1L.1II!{q 304020003 423060005 RIS AVE !,+: VIII �I�,. h�, •304020004 423060006 . V =` '''Tai <3': :: �rLEGEND ;464 < <>:::::< :< I ` >>:::>. .<:::: 42313 306030009 423060014 la C. 30833000 CENTUH€S LR 30 030011 4 30803003 2306005 2307 n p � .�::... 4 0004 i 308030014 4 I 230 7 70005 i 4oeo3oozo 1/91 HKiiWAYS 4 23070006 - 3060.30021 — 423070007 Si::� Nit 306050001 42307 • 0008 • �j� COf2E RESERVE BOUNDARY. r 306080002 423070009 II V I = 308050063 423060001. AS FER ROCq _ 308050034 423060002• • 01 CRY BOUPDARY / 408050005 4 _ 23080003• __ 306050006 LAKES 309 423080005• 423060006.• �■i........... i S; -,.„;,:..i_•.- 308060001 423080011• 308060002 423080012• IIIIIIIIIIII F PIk SE IOFI A(tEFlrrU'1r ma - .>:: : 30e 4233 ;I ri;;:; • -......•• 308060005 308060005 423250017 KNOWN OCCUPED STEM-ENS 50019 KANGAROO RAT HABITAT 'RECON d)td' �• ;. ��� 306060001 423270011 • oTMr u°�"k•°°e ae4•'as•��e°O1 e. • ILIfft. — r:„:;. 308093CO2 4232S0302 PERM•I ' •�� O03 423iratlai d•e•pid Slclr/Irate®M 1 /..- . F... ..111111.1111H.... � 308100025 423320301 . 290005 • 993493E COURT NFHTAT OON9ITNA1DI AOINCI'(HOCA) �1 l• a.�,-��y �• s�"�uni'y .308110627 425020001 City d t>,roro'•da.yy d linnet•tlty d tab Mao l■Y�ailEMA ,'• S I, �i 306tID001 425020002 25033001 City Cfty d Islarwo T irneaa•L•amy dd11Parte 1r Cid••`"' d�-'"• ■ ��..� �I y��:i�� 4 . 1 '10 :. . ■■ i �W \ • 3013130007 425030003 n 333650009 66140601 ; ' BTMn 25030005 Cmatiyc CR*UM lAniieta 1a.POT�6rm S ol.4e 308140002 4250.30006 30860001 425030007 30850002 425030008 e,-,7,-."N30890014 425040001 April • 1994 423030003 425040003 11Y rr®o mri b•+Rrrrdb 0.? O.opyb►tm�m man , : • 423030009 42504000 hr rbb�i•.•watud y a■A�mt Tom+a.t •-- Cr• ..:y- SKR. 1t roN ba.d, la+l Yet A9•ap d••A A+kll.� 1�,"1rK, `, by is m F 49.2 423030011 4250200 1 me Ctanramar we.ra a .i .=07 01 ..,":".."",,r �".." wr►y1.d ` M•,.ad►K *UM s..e. 1 423030012 4 ha�ato8n dpis�s 11.O, d rant r•••raq ar 26020003 Wr rear"14--i Mi my miWrd m eli a� dt.mt SKR 2d rard rmMkdlu� Hmrctin rT m limy abject b,ped•ld rmdl6dl o ,.J1 ... ly Ih. . I t cn Figure 25, 423630016 426020004 Or Ooadec� Se r.+me o•ir inns IrW b Ar id for _�/- y by b us Mt ad Ml/f•5..10• 423030 426020011 ma[ w 4m .' 423030326230 •AREAS UKER OPTION ACRE/kW FOR PURCHASE Volume l: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Perris Control Facility, Lakeview Pipeline, Colorado Aqueduct system, and Bernasconi Tunnels No. 1 and No. 2. The core reserve area generally consists of undeveloped lands surrounding Lake Perris and previously farmed lands to the east. The area features some rocky and steep slope terrain including Mt. Russell to the north and the Bernasconi Hills to the south. The State Recreation Area has several paved access roads and developed campgrounds covering approximately 500 acres near the lake, with water tanks located in the surrounding hills. A small area west of the dam is basically undeveloped, except for small support and maintenance facilities and areas that are farmed or used as fairgrounds. The San Jacinto Wildlife Area has been.previously grazed and currently.. features a small office facility, levees, and ponds. Land within the vicinity of the reserve is primarily in agriculture to the east, northeast, and south, with the Recreation Area to the west and residential development to the northwest. Much of the land surrounding the SJ-LP core reserve is potentially subject to future development. This situation is illustrated by the approval of the Moreno Highlands Specific Plan, a proposed 3,038 acre development including over 7,700 residential units, commercial land uses,and a golf course. Although Moreno Highlands recently announced its abandonment of the project, it is evident that substantial development interest in the property will emerge in the near future when local economic conditions improve. The total size of the SJ-LP core reserve is slightly smaller than the current Study Area. Its configuration reflects the elimination of private lands with little or no SKR habitat and addition of the 352-acre Anderson acquisition adjacent to the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. It is possible that the core reserve will be expanded in the future to connect the to SKR populations in the Badlands east of Gilman Springs Road. The RCHCA is actively seeking grant assistance for that purpose. SJ-LP is the only core reserve not presently subject to a formally adopted or proposed SKR management plan. The RCHCA is now in discussions with both CDFG and State Parks and Recreation to develop habitat management procedures which will serve to conserve SKR in a manner compatible with the activities of Lake Perris State Recreation Area and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Major issues to be addressed include: 1) management of SKR within a multi-species context, e.g., sage scrub and wetlands habitats; 2) development of procedures to ensure the ability of public agencies to conduct recreational, operational, maintenance, and water quality activities, and; 3) planning to anticipate and minimize potential habitat impacts resulting from future development in the vicinity of the reserve. Another potentially significant management issue is the future of Davis Road, which runs in a north-south direction through the entire reserve. This facility, presently dirt for most of its length, is planned for paving and widening under the County of Riverside's General Plan. CDFG has expressed concern over potential project impacts and has met with the County to,seek abandonment of improvement plans. In light of wildlife concerns the County has informally expressed its willingness to comply with CDFG's request if a suitable alternate transportation corridor can be established. This will require appropriate transportation studies for which no funding has been identified to date. 119 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures SJ-LP was selected as a core reserve due to its significant amount of SKR occupied habitat and extensive public land ownership. The area also extends east of Gilman Springs Road to the Badlands, which offers excellent potential for establishment of a regionally significant wildlife corridor for SKR and other species. Additionally, SJ-LP provides an opportunity to work cooperatively with CDFG and the State Parks and Recreation Department to manage public lands for the benefit of a species listed as threatened under the California ESA. The anticipated long-term conservation value of the SJ-LP core reserve is high. Some of the largest contiguous blocks of SKR occupied habitat exist here, and these are well protected by natural features. With the establishment of an active habitat management program and a corridor connection to SKR populations in the Badlands, prospects for long-term SKR persistence in the SJ-LP core reserve are quite good. As a final note, the core reserve designated in this HCP does not include lands containing facilities operated by State agencies and MWD for necessary water, recreation, or other public purposes. These include the Lake Perris reservoir and • appurtenant facilities, land dedicated to recreational,operational, and maintenance uses within the Lake Perris State Recreation Area, and the operations areas related to existing MWD water facilities identified above. The core reserve also excludes the planned MWD Inland Feeder Pipeline and-Southern California Gas Company Project No. 6900 pipeline. The Inland Feeder Pipeline is covered by a Memorandum of Understanding approved by USFWS, RCHCA, and MWD; this specifies mitigation for impacts to SKR and rare plants resulting from the project. A similar agreement is anticipated in connection with The Gas Company's pipeline project. d. Lake Mathews Core Reserve The Lake Mathews (LM) core reserve is the western most of the five and includes the greatest amount of SKR occupied habitat (3,817 acres). In terms of total area LM is the third largest core reserve, encompassing 10,360 acres (Figure 26). The reserve is bisected in an east-west direction by Dawson Canyon, which serves to divide the area into the northern Lake Mathews and southern Estelle Mountain components. MWD is the largest landowner in the LM core reserve, controlling approximately 5,113 acres. The •RCHCA currently owns almost 2,000 acres in the reserve and, in the context of a multiple species HCP prepared cooperatively with MWD for their properties at Lake Mathews, will be acquiring conservation easements over an additional 1,269 acres of SKR occupied habitat. In addition, the RCHCA is currently negotiating with several landowners regarding dedications and acquisitions in this area. Consequently, upon its completion LM will contain more RCHCA-owned lands than any of the other core reserves. However, it also currently encompasses the largest amount of private property proposed for inclusion in the reserve system. In the northern portion of the reserve, existing land uses include the Lake Mathews -- reservoir facilities, MWD operations areas, a limited amount of agriculture, large tracts of undeveloped open space, and internal access roads and County roadways. Within MWD's holdings an existing 2,565 acre State Ecological Reserve has been established 120 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY C6 RESERVE APNS 2 ,455ORE E ERV 2891600.7 LAKE MATHEWS CORE RESERVE 10050005 285160057 28910001 2 0130007 2860203 289110009 27320007 28602000.7 2891000 2732.666E 266020007 28910011 273270001 2860z0ooe 28916012 27680006 286030013 2881000 27880007 266070014 2891001 27820001 28603008 28911008 .276213002 266070002 28911008 27820008 286070003 2891008 27620007 266070004 28980026 v 27620009 28607000.5 20980027 2- I I I in 27022021 286060003 2782000 2/6070315 28980029 8980328 • `� '. 1 27626028 286060004 289160070 `.'i ... .t - 7Elo.5053 256oeoo°0°do 39naoo 2 It .•.•: EL saenANTE Fm ^ _ 2830'°0223 2 56090022 3390200/7 �•-•-•�:��;_;��� - ''��i'' 783060001 ri i 90300E � — -::v.-.- .x1060006 11% o 00530E0313 239030X2 0 o ,. SCALE N FEET ' , +- 4 3926503 ' :< �� �`�1 : 2a�0°io9oo°DD02 269 3!t 602 '.•. ,__;_ ,_� a 4f Y II . 2$30263090003 269030009 = ,i. ....----=iiiii — --t—-7• . 4•At i‘ all V 203090005 ren 0 6000 121300 = -- �:-j'! 2Z3DSCOM 26990°x80003°3 39' Aw UL-'•'1— — _ -_ \ `::11\•'w:— 263000006 269060007 391280006 �.' ..•••.,-=, __ -- 263090009 269090001 39280009 LEGEND ._. a � i • mi. 46� 269°93°02 3925020 # ► 239090:03 39128001 25309000 4 ONES 89093005 39200013 . I ...41 26309001.269090006 39128001 Ngi • yy 28308006.289090057 69126008 .y ` � 7834008. 26.9090006 39490001 HIGHWAYS IIII _ • 28300011' 269090509 99290002 286020006 28909000 39490003 1041:11 t III...................... 28503000 2690'9006 39490004 285030014 25909002 39290X6 a 2650X015 28939000 39290= \i, f7�j1 CORE RESERVE BOI�DARY I I1iA I —'_ . ��K AS 0160 RQG I I IIIIIII, IIt Ii;1 J— I l III L61 "�235050005 28909002 3949002 21,5040:03255040307 259090352e9390314 393 292r60093g29:007 CITY EIOIRDARY II �IIII, ,•nuW I� 58116148 /►� I.II I IIIII I —i 255050003 26920031 39290011 / / II''''•'':.I I'. 26556/514 26925002 3949004 I 266060039 26920003 3949000 EM MWD OPERATIONS APD PRCIECT AREAS1.07) I!I .... III 2e5570ow 26900056 31149551 ExCLI�ED FROM CORE RESERVE .II,.:;. . LMC= TEENS 0R 265070006 26960009 3949oms O 41 LAND L tER NEGOTIATION FOR 0 II •:::r: 265222 2390032 392900E IIIIIIIIIIII CONSERVATION EASE).€NTS f rg . I. ::�. � 'o , gnu 4 2 2591:0011 , M LANES , q f •MEAS uwat PEGOTIATION FOR PRQECf �3 it LITIGATION CONSERVATION EASEL ENTS OCCUPED STEPFFNS' KANGAROO 1, °>:: - I M. RAT HABITAT 'RECON datd' 4 :<:<> ) APNs PARTIALLY NSTFi1 lb Hamann m Mob b tsar We ar .rV•03T•.1 • • piktat 1x716 RESERVE IQ'OI 1.Iwn960 ti Wel 194 ts.gr int M1d \.. .m -1 _ 275213014 _ M�er Vol1 `.., 2782201 28540021 r•ar•• f�pY 9r�hrl Iaq..e Ild 1 15 "\ ® ::.w; ''. .. • Q 27622026 28540029 R4QLSOE CQ1RY FMBITAT 001�7t,IATIDN AGENCY(RCICA) :.. ..V..c am 27822028 28517006 • IN 27826027 2135160037 Cby a Cacao•Cllr a Wait•aty a 111.Dem t1'I �`• . `:•.. :;`::<.•: 285060002 26sn0006 Clly a 411..V .a1y a Pardo.dty a RAi..H. ® .,.. •"• z:.` .:;:.;:;.: 785565003 2ffin0007 CRy a Tmar•Lamy a Ward& \ "� %.''. ,< ••� 28506002 285170006 y :> -a 858.5006005 m8580800D1032 DTMiartr.ld agm Id YNDr7iida Nam Sm JaiA. _ `\ Oe ;i 60 ® <%?';..;;'. 05025004 215 28505038 ?�M09 APri 25. 1994 157 �� zesmoo4 M.q es nm y M M..d&Oat*y 9.0415 1/1219°6 Alan ..4y _ r _11.romp dmar wA polo!ylb*lb m�I.Awe ed rr Tra�.ldl.e ad ..—. 7. _ — wad�6•mmi w Mi..ad i.d~I Amine kbribbrain Mae" �' sxR w load m.day n./llootl \\ ®a y�_ Tempvalw*pain... T.Oma.1 1MiJ.warm e•son*a 17=-j✓`•I�`::.T6 Awlw.1 m Lot r�" -. mol 1�.•E61y to�H mp I. j e w,,M.l00 0/ `ti.1 y to as IIA 609.%Mo. . Aand M iomre a ad db.'.w"d.tl M 4b 5JA 2rd r5N rw/6.8a. NOW:,„•.o a p.Pa.1 y 1,.l alder em lae l�..l 14T �I�dl° 1 Figure 26 Ar Ki ManWae MwM Ud,r fro asffin \ �' •► by w us M ad MdN.5•.10• Kr P�dw a,1y x oe...aae w9.ay. \ti, uw +� Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures through agreements between CDFG and MWD; as discussed below, this is proposed for expansion via the multi-species plan prepared by MWD and the RCHCA. Except for those lands adjacent to Interstate 15, the Estelle Mountain portion of the reserve is an undeveloped area characterized by steep terrain and limited access via a few narrow dirt roads. The existing El Sobrante landfill site lies adjacent to the western boundary. A large-scale expansion of the landfill is planned, and this project has been the subject of lengthy discussions among Western Waste Industries (the project proponent), USFWS, RCHCA, and the County of Riverside. Since the proposed landfill expansion would result in significant impacts to SKR, California gnatcatcher, and several sensitive animal and plant species, a mitigation plan is nearing completion within the context of the project EIR. Principal components of the mitigation plan are discussed later in this chapter. • Within the immediate vicinity of the LM-EM reserve, land at the northern edge and northeastern edge is used primarily for agriculture and low density residential development purposes. Land to the south is generally in open space, as is much of the territory to the east of the reserve. To the west, land use is primarily open space with the exception of the landfill and rural residential development located in Dawson Canyon. The Dawson Canyon area is not included within the reserve in order to preserve the rural lifestyle of local residents. MWD and the RCHCA are currently finalizing a multi-species HCP covering approximately 8,700 acres owned by the two agencies. This conservation plan, intended to fulfill the requirements of Section 10(a) of the ESA and the NCCP, will: 1. Create a 5,110 acre multi-species reserve by adding 2,545 acres to the existing State Ecological Reserve around Lake Mathews; 2. Establish a mitigation bank for use by MWD and RCHCA based upon the . conservation value of the 2,545 acres to be added to the existing reserve, and; 3. Provide for the ongoing management of MWD reserve lands and properties owned by the RCHCA. The Lake Mathews MSHCP identifies 40 target species for conservation and mitigation planning purposes. Upon approval of the MSHCP, MWD and the RCHCA will convey conservation easements to CDFG. Reserve management will be guided by a Management Committee comprised of CDFG, USFWS, MWD, and RCHCA; CDFG will have lead responsibility for management in the field. Funding for management activities will be provided by the RCHCA; the draft plan proposes the establishment of • a $5 million endowment to be paid in two installments. This is intended to provide for perpetual management of all land acquired by or otherwise under the control of the RCHCA in the LM-EM core reserve. • MWD intends to use 1,675 acres of the mitigation bank for habitat impacts occurring • within operations and project areas. The RCHCA will receive credit from USFWS and CDFG for the 1,269 acres of SKR occupied habitat as replacement habitat for take allocated under the Short-Term HCP and this HCP. In addition, the RCHCA's portion of the mitigation bank will be credited toward the conservation goals or mitigation requirements established under any multi-species HCP the RCHCA may adopt in the future. The Lake Mathews MSHCP establishes a 729 acre Operations Area for the MWD reservoir; these properties are excluded from the conserved habitat acreage. Within the Operations Area MWD will perform activities necessary to ensure water quality and the proper operation and maintenance of Lake Mathews as a water supply facility. Such activities include: control of water quality, water levels,.and vegetation; water 123 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures quality monitoring; operation of water storage and conveyance facilities; security measures to protect water supply integrity, and; maintenance of physical structures associated with the reservoir. Also established under the MSHCP is a 155 acre area reserved for planned capital __ projects. The following four projects are anticipated: 1. Construction, operation, and maintenance by MWD of a sediment basin, detention dam and basin, and saddle dam in Cajalco Creek; 2. Construction, operation, and maintenance by MWD of a water outlet structure, tunnel, and access road as part of the Central Pool Augmentation Project; 3. Construction, operation, and maintenance by the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) of two water storage tanks and a pipeline extension, and; 4. Subject to further planning, construction of a tunnel and portals for a bypass system to convey water from the Colorado River Aqueduct to MWD distribution facilities. • This HCP is intended to be completely consistent with the provisions of the Lake Mathews MSHCP. Accordingly, the MWD Operations Area and MWD/WMWD Project Area are excluded from the LM core reserve. All activities authorized under the MSHCP also will be authorized under this HCP. LM was selected as a core reserve primarily due to the large amount of SKR occupied habitat in public ownership covered by existing or anticipated conservation arrangements. The area also has tremendous biological value for multi-species purposes; conserved public lands encompass habitat for the bald eagle, California gnatcatcher, Least Bell's vireo, and a large number of sensitive species and habitat types. As with the San Jacinto reserve, LM offers valuable opportunities for the RCHCA to conduct cooperative habitat conservation and management activities with other public agencies. The most important SKR management issue within the Lake Mathews reserve is the need to strengthen corridor connections across Dawson Canyon. The core reserve includes land necessary for such a corridor, but its effectiveness will require regular monitoring. It is anticipated that additional land acquisitions may be needed in this area to provide a wider corridor less vulnerable to edge effects. Through the Lake Mathews management committee, the RCHCA also will evaluate potential land acquisitions for the purpose of establishing a corridor to the Cleveland National Forest. e. Sycamore Canyon -March Air Force Base Core Reserve The Sycamore Canyon March Air Force Base (SC-MAFB) core reserve encompasses existing SKR reserves owned by the City of Riverside and March Air Force Base. It is the northernmost of the five core reserves and is located in the closest proximity to urban land uses. The SC-MAFB reserve covers approximately 2,508 acres, with the land almost equally divided between Sycamore Canyon Park in the City of Riverside and the SKR Management Area on March Air Force Base. The amount of SKR occupied habitat in the core reserve also is fairly evenly distributed among the two components, with over 600 acres in Sycamore Canyon Park and over 700 on March Air Force Base (Figure 27). The entire SC-MAFB reserve is currently in public ownership. The Department of Defense owns the 1,000 acre MAFB SKR Management Area, while the City of Riverside owns and manages the balance of the reserve. 124 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY SYCAMORE CANYON CORE RESERVE I-- I ::. .. tg. -1-q4 • ,J '-11 ...'"ri iN, . AViliteillku . mix 4.1 Cirili _el . 4 , ... , ..,...... Wiiril .....„ ....„..,_,.. __. _:. ,.......r_ .. :...: it rill pn SCALE N FEET 5el. ■ nL_ ,;, a I V nnu 111 CI : 11 3 I. 0 4000 800D V1,11,.. 1'.. E: ` :,;Niii�1iPy OF MORETIO V• ����',� CORE RESERVE APNS . '.� m' 252230003 272030001 l n 252210008 272030002 253260071 2 LEGENDIC 72030003 t �r� 253270008 272030004 >�`'>:;. 253270007 j�* ::».;::::»<>:>�' % 2720/0001 ��I'i%:ii:. \ V ���r 253270008 27204000 f :1 w ::;•; ;_i/'E 253270009 2720/0011 CENiE%NES 1 �a � i • � 253270041 2722300111 FIGI WAYS limp* 11,,, A 253270043 272210042 A294020001; 1— 294020002 — 26302C013 294040002 ® �CORREE BOUNDARY M:.. .;; �NOT A �i ♦ - 263024020• 294040003 RCHCA ;1 PART ;•I' 261050005 294060002 263050005 294050003 ® CITY BOUNDARY loF4r F,E i� r", .; T\v 1 2740500044 l';......"', 283060067 294050006- i ♦ AS STEPFENS' KANGAROO RAT MANAGEbENT �' i R. I 294050006 263060012 294 130003 II b AREA PER SECTION 7 PRov610N5 �� ��✓/ `' :;> \ IVI Ie1F.6. - 263060014 2294120004 11101111111 11.11 KNOWN ,NEED u1TIATION FOR � �stJr �1 , \\ 3263060021* 3 M. KANGAROO RAT HAB�TT ci mum. '` i// `'•;`�`:>:.,.,, 2263C60023 297000005 6 by .at Ilona 13 SU�Kapry netmint to arra 111111r� _-� :7.; %. VAN R1 1!i X263050029 297 0913003 r 1m ® :iE6:: `i; ':: 263060031 297090004 263080033 297090005 RIVFR�E COUiTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AOTRCY(RCCA) �e • "''.`.` fS. \ 263.1000.11 297090007 , Clty of Cavo•ay d Firm•Oty d td.Mae �� �1 2633+0 311 297090006 City d Nr.n Vde •City d Penis•aly d wr.•N, \• 26330001 29709000® CIRy d Uremia•Uouiy d f9w+W, ?' 263320002 297090009 111111111rell ?'•! ,;.;;;; 263320003 297100001 • 265040021 297E0002 26505000 29710032 lbs id Oka a•NOT avatars d RQi7l• ?`''.• Bamna Ldu lbrdeb•lade Sal Jacinto __'S; ?; ® \ 272020004 2971D003 ::: •WO 11d7ER IEGOTIATION FOR ��■� :,•::1'' i%%i'0` \--- CONgRVATION EASEMENTS Apri.25. 1994 1 err.P ,tli ruptioal byy ti r� ed �.aaaoaa J',. ,........::i sKA ►t retro m,mr ,... ... x, :>/'>:,:• ® NA i AVE \, .d..-7,la.Rr-ra•sato.aJ t.44!" •Ot Er..d by Vs a llV a ti➢2 MM E-- " 11 •, Trr,palAkn air Thrby tri,LLS ill.od rnx.s..b. 0,y d wore,a-,rr arq a '� 7 Yod nr<-.bacrhr Vr Manoda maJ.1.i No mega DAN ad "?),7J SKR bd rsvd mrd.me rediva H.=„r.rr•d__ yard N,req re b..a ra prrd , vit .1pa.el aW.Aqe47 �- \ 1Figure 27 erfr�o{a�biM olknas e�..a.s.reu r ea.rra iv _� by�.us nn oe waH.sale. I i I 4e Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Land within the reserve is essentially undeveloped, but is crossed by underground water and gas lines, overhead electric lines, and a number of dirt roads and trails. Sycamore Canyon Park is designated by the City of Riverside as a wilderness area to be protected and preserved. The City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with RCHCA member agencies under which it agrees to operate and maintain Sycamore Canyon Park "in a fashion which shall not jeopardize SKR populations within its boundaries and shall enhance the likelihood of the continued existence of SKR in the wild." The RCHCA is now working with the City to develop a SKR management element for inclusion in the Sycamore Canyon Park Development Plan. The southern portion of the SC-MAFB core reserve on March Air Force Base was established as a SKR Management Area by means of a December 4, 1991 Section 7 Biological Opinion (1-6-91-F-33). It is currently managed by The Nature Conservancy using funds supplied under the Section 7 consultation. Details of the Biological Opinion are presented in later in this chapter. A major habitat management issue for the SC-MAFB reserve stems from its bisection by Alessandro Boulevard, a major arterial. Under another Section 7 Consultation performed for an Interstate 215 improvement project, CALTRANS was required to construct culverts under Alessandro Boulevard in order to maintain a biological connection between the northern and southern portions of the reserve. Preliminary design plans for the culverts were completed, but the USFWS is no longer requiring their construction due to the cost involved. Although a reasonable decision in economic terms, the abandonment of this project is certainly problematical to the RCHCA due to the elimination of a direct connection between the Sycamore Canyon and March Air Force Base SKR populations. The other principal management issue is the extent of development surrounding the reserve. The Sycamore Canyon Park portion is presently surrounded to the north, and willbe surrounded to the east, by industrial development. Immediately to the west lies the MWD Mills Treatment Plant and new housing tracts. The March Air Force Base reserve area is bordered to the west and south by residential development; land to the east is largely vacant but eventually may be developed if surplus properties are released for sale or transfer by the Air Force. The close proximity of this development will • necessitate active monitoring of the reserve to minimize predation by domestic animals and destruction of habitat by visitors. Such activities are anticipated by the City, and are intended for inclusion in the SKR component of the Sycamore Canyon Park plan. In conclusion, SC-MAFB was selected as a core reserve in recognition of its: 1) significant amount of SKR occupied habitat; 2) existing SKR management arrangements, and; 3) public land ownership. No future acquisition costs are anticipated in this reserve, but opportunities for reserve enhancement exist in both the Sycamore Canyon and March Air Force Base components. f. Motte Rimrock Core Reserve The Motte (MRR) core reserve is located two miles northwest of Perris roughly midway between the northeastern tip of Lake Mathews and the southwestern edge of San 127 - I � Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Jacinto. It is by far the smallest of the five reserves, encompassing approximately 618 acres including 333 acres of SKR occupied SKR habitat (Figure 28). MRR also is the most isolated of the SKR core reserves in that it is not part of a large contiguous block of conserved habitat and is largely surrounded by urbanizing land use patterns. The entirety of the MRR reserve is presently in public ownership, with 397 acres owned and managed by the University of California at Riverside (UCR); this is the existing Motte Rimrock Reserve, an area dedicated to conservation and biological research. Approximately 80 acres of land are under BLM ownership, and 141 acres have been acquired by the RCHCA. Upon approval of this HCP all RCHCA lands within the MRR reserve will be conveyed to the UCR Natural Reserve System. Lands within the reserve are essentially undeveloped, with natural vegetation covering approximately 96% of the total area. Within the immediate vicinity of the reserve land uses include residential development, open space, and a small amount of agriculture. MRR was selected as a core reserve primarily for its biological values and existing pattern of public land ownership. It has also played a very important role in SKR biological research; in fact, several of the reports presented in Volume II are based upon SKR field research conducted on the UCR Motte Rimrock Reserve. Motte is anticipated to continue its leadership role in furthering SKR research due to its ability to function as a laboratory for UCR field biologists and students. Although its small size greatly reduces its individual viability as a SKR reserve, it still has significant value in the context of the overall reserve design. Inclusion of the MRR reserve reflects a RCHCA design objective of including small SKR populations as well as large ones in the reserve system. However, due to its small size and presence of adjacent development it is anticipated that MRR will require.more active and extensive management than the other SKR core reserves. This is acknowledged by UCR and will be reflected in a revision to the Motte management plan currently being prepared. g. Completion of the Core Reserve System As noted,the vast majority of lands contained within the core reserve system identified • in the previous chapter are already in public ownership and dedicated to habitat conservation. The RCHCA will ensure the completion of the core reserve system through the following actions: 1. Execution of an agreement with Western Waste Industries, the County of • Riverside, USFWS, and CDFG concerning land dedication and other SKR mitigation measures for the proposed expansion of the El Sobrante Landfill • adjacent to the Lake Mathews core reserve; 2. Execution of an agreement with Finisterra Farms, County of Riverside, USFWS, CDFG, and other agencies concerning dedication of conservation easements over approximately 200 acres of SKR occupied habitat on Finisterra Farms property within the Lake Skinner core reserve; and 128 L ' • - - - AAAA---- ... -------�------------- - ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY . . • HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY MOTTE CORE RESERVE ............................. , 4 , . =::::::::::..:::::::::::::::: WA57 . ............................. 1ER (s, ., .:. :— 's>>:y < carp t�slmE Armes 322110005 G3''r :iy%; 32220009 322210013 SCALE N'FEET ORANGE AVE 7 — 322210001 - ---- -- `>I`: 322240005 IOOQ4 3222 0 1500 3000 i': .. 327210025 32224007B • 327210078 322210030 • . 327750008 AVE LEYOf1 . LEGEND 37725006 322250021 i 322250033 «: << :»:: •322250058 • CITRUS AVE CEICERLPES 322250058 n 322250060 .. 322263049 Ael AYS HGFIW 322210011 •ar 322220018 f • 37227009 GORE RESERVE E)OUrDARY 322270037 32227 N • 0065 AS PFR ROCw ARV 3222130216 MI 2602002 CITY BOLD AVE :: I 3'26fl2002Y 326020024 WN OOCLPED STEPH3li IQJO 326020025 376020027 KANGAROO T HAEIRAT RECON tiatd RA .Tt.Fr.rd6n aardad hall b bard dpar dda p•Jtd t7IE01 m IbN E IDI ad payrd r6afYa pond • lade d meld laprafv IM hNlo< RVERSIX aim WHTAT COffitVATOI AGEtCY QOCJQ .. __•— d Coon d Flint d w DiasDias - O�ty d Nara Va�y•Oty d Pools•Qly d Write Oty d Tomb•Minty of!VW ';;:;'::;:t:::: ...::.::...:.::i: . Thr fambaFq Otic w EAT mrrEas d FOCA r,`:. .. &pua Canyon Ida'lArrrto lkrao Sot Ambito J •( - 8 Ap1i 25. 1994 n w ar . , 1 Tri asp ar mob by V.Nord&Cody Oag k Hamer ar ,,Fitr ., �� • • . Thr r�demob w•pelod Ey N Mame ad la Tmtparl�ad d,y ��L sxa in rand •moRhdkra Lad Iba mrod Ai rci dict.r mew d to AdrkrkdiA A•dis% o Arwood ai( 9l ad Merida.Oo.ar deliy ad iiir etla.safely.Thais ad by h•us Rh ad' sada. Figure 28 Trargato0m drabs.. Ta Nab al i�a_�re vMy r g lad r.sa�ltr Mr M Harm Coldad m @i leaa��yp� • . MMaraMclaar_ ganwwr4d_ nae a 0 or=rod add!•Raba b wide era aedrecan 4 �a�en�th a r kw enol rand Y .t M h•LLS Ih ad MN•Sulks, Lao '0 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 3. For all other privately owned properties in the core reserves, the RCHCA will either purchase fee simple or conservation easement interests, or'enter into agreements with land owners to ensure ongoing maintenance of SKR habitat. Cost projections for the completion of the core reserve system are presented in D. Plan Implementation. h. Expansion of the Core Reserves To provide additional assurances that the configuration of individual reserves and the . reserve system as a whole are adequate to conserve resident SKR populations, the RCHCA will acquire or otherwise ensure the conservation of an additional 2,500 acres of value to the core reserve system. This 2,500 acre conservation commitment will be supplemental to the conservation of all land included in the core reserves. The aggregate amount of habitat conservation afforded by this expanded reserve system is deemed sufficient by the RCHCA to meet federal and state HCP approval criteria given the level of incidental take contemplated in the plan. It is the opinion of the RCHCA that with the establishment, expansion and ongoing management of the SKR core reserves as provided herein, incidental take of SKR populations outside of those reserves will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival within the plan area. This HCP provides USFWS and CDFG with a cornerstone for federal and state efforts to recover SKR in western Riverside County; such efforts, although not undertaken to date by either agency, would be consistent with their mandated responsibilities. The core reserve system established under this HCP provides an immediate and appropriate focus for federal and state habitat management and acquisition activities on behalf of SKR. The manner in which the RCHCA will expand the core reserve system by an additional 2,500 acres is described in C. Conservation, Mitigation, and Monitoring Measures. Projected costs for core reserve expansion are presented in D. Plan Implementation. i. Ongoing Management of Conserved SKR Habitat in the Core Reserve System The RCHCA will ensure ongoing management of SKR habitat in the core reserve system by: 1) coordinating existing and proposed institutional arrangements for land management in the reserves, and; 2) allocating funds collected during the permit period for SKR habitat management, species monitoring, and biological research activities within the core reserves. The RCHCA will ensure that adequate funding for these activities will be provided through the SKR mitigation fee and other sources. The proposed habitat management program is described later in this Chapter in C. Conservation, Mitigation, and Monitoring Measures. Cost projections for management of conserved SKR habitat in the core reserve system are presented in D. Plan Implementation. • 131 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures j Habitat Replacement Commitment Prior to Completion of the Core Reserve System Until the core reserve system defined in this HCP has been completed and expanded by an additional 2,500 acres of value to those reserves, the RCHCA will adhere to the 1:1 SKR habitat replacement requirement established under the Short-Term HCP. Until the RCHCA has: a) acquired or otherwise assured the conservation of all privately owned land remaining in the core reserves, and; b) expanded those reserves through the acquisition or dedication of an additional 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system, for every acre of SKR occupied habitat incidentally taken under authority of this HCP, the RCHCA will acquire and conserve an acre of suitable habitat in a core reserve location approved by USFWS. Consistent with the provisions of the RCHCA's existing permit and agreement, "suitable habitat" is defined as follows: "...lands which are occupied by SKR, as well as lands that are not occupied by SKR but which would benefit SKR if included in a reserve operated and maintained to preserve SKR and its.habitat, including, but not limited to potential SKR habitat, wildlife corridors,areas connecting patches of occupied SKR habitat, and areas buffering SKR occupied habitat from adjacent land uses." The 1:1 requirement will be met through the RCHCA's conservation of land both within and outside of core reserves. Conservation of land within the boundaries of core reserves identified in this HCP will receive 100% credit toward the 1:1 standard. Outside of those boundaries (i.e., core reserve expansions) credit toward the 2,500 acre expansion standard will be determined on a case-by-case basis by USFWS with the concurrence of CDFG. During the period prior to completion of the core reserve acquisitions, the RCHCA will ensure that the amount of SKR occupied habitat incidentally taken under authority of the HCP at no time exceeds the amount of suitable habitat acquired. For purposes of this calculation all incidental take occurring and all acreage approved for credit by USFWS and CDFG under both the Short-Term and Long-Term HCP will be included. After the RCHCA has expanded the core reserve system by an additional 2,500 acres of value to that system, the 1:1 replacement commitment will terminate. k. SKR Mitigation Fees RCHCA member agencies will continue to collect the $1,950 SKR mitigation fee until the RCHCA has: 1) completed the acquisition, or otherwise assured the conservation, of all land within the boundaries of the five core reserves, and; 2) expanded those core reserves by 2,500 acres through land acquisitions or conservation agreements acceptable to the USFWS and CDFG. Upon completion of those commitments it is intended that RCHCA member agencies will modify the SKR fee mitigation fee as necessary to ensure sufficient revenues for management of conserved SKR habitat within the core reserves. Modifications to RCHCA member SKR mitigation fee ordinances will be subject to approval by the USFWS. 132 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures SKR mitigation fees will be assessed by RCHCA member agencies pursuant to the provisions of applicable ordinances adopted by their local governing bodies. Under the provisions of this HCP, land disturbance conducted for bona fide agricultural purposes will not be subject to payment of SKR mitigation fees. With the exception of construction of agricultural structures, SKR mitigation fees will not be assessed on such land until it receives necessary approvals and permits to convert to non- agricultural uses. Once converted to a non-agricultural use such land will be subject to payment of SKR mitigation fees under applicable RCHCA member agency ordinances. SKR mitigation fees also will not be assessed for land disturbance conducted in association with emergency response activities, fire prevention, and the operation and maintenance of public facilities. Such activities are described in subsequent sections of this HCP. /. SKR Incidental Take Records During the period prior to the completion and expansion of the core reserves the RCHCA and its member agencies will maintain records concerning all incidental take of SKR occurring under authority of this HCP. Those records will be forwarded to the RCHCA by its member agencies on a monthly basis and will be forwarded to USFWS and CDFG annually by the RCHCA. After core reserve expansion has been completed, incidental take will be recorded and reported only for lands within the core reserves. m. SKR Biological Surveys In order to document incidental take of SKR occupied habitat in core reserves, the RCHCA and its member agencies will, with the exceptions noted below, require SKR biological surveys prior to issuing permits for activities involving land disturbance in core reserves. Additionally, until the RCHCA has completed its core reserve expansion commitment, land disturbance activities occurring in the HCP area but outside of core reserves will be subject to SKR surveys if the most current SKR distribution mapping shows the project location to be within or adjacent to known SKR occupied habitat. Under the provisions of this HCP SKR biological surveys will not be required for the following activities: 1. • Actions taken by public agencies in response to emergency conditions will be allowed to proceed without the prior completion of SKR biological surveys, regardless of their location in the HCP area. In cases where emergency response activities result in documented incidental take. of SKR in core reserves, the affected RCHCA member agencies will meet with USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate mitigation after emergency conditions have ended; 2. Permitted activities which are not subject to CEQA and NEPA and do not authorize land disturbance; 133 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures • 3. Land disturbance for agricultural purposes, other than the construction of agricultural structures; 4. As detailed in p. Fire Prevention Activities, clearance of flammable vegetation for fire prevention purposes, and; . 5. Actions taken by public agencies to operate and/or maintain existing public facilities including, but not limited to,public roads and their rights-of-way, flood control facilities, public buildings, landfills, water storage, treatment,• and - transmission facilities, public parks, and utilitypipelines and transmission lines. After the RCHCA has completed and expanded_the core reserves as provided herein, SKR biological surveys will not be required under this HCP for activities occurring on lands outside of core reserves. Within the core reserves SKR surveys will be required by RCHCA member agencies for all permitted land disturbance activities other than those undertaken for fire-prevention and public facility operation and maintenance purposes. The above exemptions for SKR biological surveys shall not override or in any way alter the requirements of NEPA and CEQA for performance of biological surveys. n. Issuance of Incidental Take Authorizations During the period prior to the completion and expansion of the core reserve system, incidental take will be subject to specific authorization by the RCHCA or its member agencies. Incidental take authorizations will be issued pursuant to the same procedures currently employed under the Short-Term HCP. This involves the submission of a SKR biological survey and application to RCHCA member agencies by parties 'seeking incidental take authorizations. If the SKR biological survey is acceptable and the requested incidental take is allowable under the terms of the RCHCA's federal and state permits,the take authorization will be issued by the member agency. Applicants normally are given take authorizations in conjunction with land disturbance permits, e.g., those involving grading, building, surface mining, and mobile home installation. In cases where a RCHCA member agency or an.entity exempt from RCHCA member - agency permits requests an incidental take authorization under this HCP, the RCHCA will issue such authorizations directly to the requesting entity. This would most commonly arise when RCHCA member agencies,school districts,or independent water districts propose activities resulting in incidental take of SKR. In such cases the RCHCA will have the ability to issue incidental take authorizations directly to the requesting agency. SKR mitigation fees will be collected by the RCHCA as required under the ordinance of the jurisdiction within which the proposed incidental take will occur. o. Emergency Response Activities During the three-year period of the Short-Term HCP RCHCA members experienced severe earthquakes, wildfires,and flooding which resulted in extensive property losses. Since such emergencies likely will continue to occur during the next thirty years, 134 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures protection of public health, safety, and welfare requires that activities necessary to respond to these conditions must proceed without delay. Accordingly, any documented take of SKR which may occur incidental to these emergency response activities will be permitted under the terms of this HCP. Within core reserves, appropriate mitigation actions for incidental take of SKR will be determined following consultation among the RCHCA, affected member agencies, responsible parties, USFWS, and CDFG. p. Fire Prevention Activities As another measure essential to the protection of lives and property, this HCP intends to provide authorization for property owners to take actions necessary to clear flammable vegetation in order to reduce the risk of fire. All owners of property within the HCP area, including those within core reserves, will be permitted to perform the following flammable vegetation clearance activities deemed essential for protection of lives and property against the threat of fire: Improved Property Property owners or their lessees and RCHCA member agencies will be permitted to clear all flammable vegetation up to 100 feet around all improvements using methods, including discing, which expose bare mineral soil. Where the distance from the improvement to the property line of the parcel on which the improvement is located is less than the distance required to be cleared, the adjacent owner, lessee, or RCHCA member agency will be permitted to clear an area on his/her property sufficient to establish the required fire break. • Vacant Unimproved Property For vacant unimproved property, owners or their lessees and RCHCA member agencies will be permitted to clear all flammable vegetation down to bare mineral soil using methods, including discing, to establish a fire break at the property line of up to 100 feet. Property owners or their lessees and RCHCA member agencies will be permitted to exceed this 100-foot width if such a fire break is deemed necessary by the local fire department to protect public safety and welfare. • Property owners or their lessees and the member agencies will not be required to perform SKR surveys or pay SKR mitigation fees as a condition precedent to performance of these fire protection activities. It is understood that the conservation provisions of this HCP will provide mitigation for incidental take of SKR resulting from these fire prevention activities. In order to minimize potential impacts to SKR any weed abatement notice or hazard reduction notice issued for property within an area known or believed to be occupied by SKR will recommend use of shallow discing (i.e., depths of five inches or less) when possible. The above fire prevention activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable State laws and ordinances adopted by RCHCA member agencies. 135 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures • q. ' Public Facility Operations and Maintenance Activities As a final category of public safety and welfare measures, this HCP is intended to allow RCHCA member agencies, water and flood control districts, utilities, and other public entities to conduct those activities necessary to operate and maintain public facilities located throughout the plan area. Such facilities include, but are not limited to: publicly maintained roads and their rights-of-way; flood control facilities; landfills and related operations; public buildings; schools; water storage, treatment, and transmission facilities; public parks, and; utility pipelines and transmission lines. This provision includes only public facilities located within the HCP area, and is intended to cover those activities necessary for their operation and maintenance. Such activities include, but are not limited to,grading and paving of publicroadway surfaces and road shoulders, regular covering of landfills and appurtenant earth movement, clearance of flood control channels and related facilities, regular upkeep of buildings and grounds, and monitoring and repair of water, sewer, gas, and electric distribution lines and operations buildings. Within core reserves RCHCA member agencies and other independent public agencies will work with the RCHCA to ensure that public facility operation and maintenance is conducted in a fashion which seeks to avoid SKR occupied habitat. Where avoidance is not possible, such activities will minimize impacts to occupied habitat areas. Operation and maintenance of MWD facilities in the Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner core reserves are addressed in detail in the MWD/RCHCA Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP and Lake Mathews MSHCP. Within MWD lands contained in the core reserves, the terms and conditions of those MSHCP's will not be superseded by this HCP. More detailed information concerning public facility operations and maintenance activities authorized under this HCP is presented in Appendix E. r. Agricultural Operations In general, dryland farming occurring in the HCP area has been shown not to be incompatible with SKR. The species is known to coexist with ongoing agricultural operations in several portions of the HCP area. Given that situation and the tremendous importance of agriculture to the economy of western Riverside County, this HCP intends to facilitate the continuation of farming in the plan area. Bona fide agricultural operations located in the HCP area will not be required to perform SKR biological surveys or (with the exception of agricultural structures) pay SKR mitigation fees until affected lands convert to a non-agricultural use. Upon conversion such land would be subject to applicable mitigation fees, SKR biological surveys, and.incidental . take procedures. SKR mitigation fees will be assessed only for the construction of agricultural structures. For those activities, SKR mitigation fees will be assessed pursuant to applicable ordinances of the RCHCA jurisdictions issuing construction permits. 136 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures For the purposes of this HCP determinations of bona fide agricultural operations will be made by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. s. HCP Participation by Land Owners Outside of Plan Area During the process of developing this HCP the RCHCA was requested to develop a procedure under which individuals in Riverside County who own land outside its boundaries could participate in this HCP. More specifically, it was requested that the HCP include provisions for such individuals to gain access to SKR incidental take permits. The terms and conditions of this HCP are intended to meet all FESA and CESA criteria by assuring SKR persistence in the plan area and minimizing and mitigating incidental take. The level of conservation provided is considered adequate to meet these criteria within the plan area; it is not designed to assure SKR survival outside the HCP boundaries, or mitigate any incidental take occurring in those areas. Thus, when contemplating a mechanism for facilitating outside participation in the HCP the RCHCA determined that any requests from outside the plan area for incidental take authorizations under this plan must provide full mitigation. It is the intent of this HCP to allow individual land owners outside the plan area to receive incidental take authorizations from the RCHCA if, and only if, such owners acquire replacement SKR habitat on a 1:1 basis for all SKR occupied acres incidentally taken. In such cases the land owner would submit a current SKR biological survey to the RCHCA as the basis for determining the amount of incidental take to be allocated. In order to receive an incidental take allocation the land owner would have to acquire and convey to the RCHCA, at the land owner's expense, replacement SKR occupied habitat in at least the same amount as that to be incidentally taken. All replacement habitat would be subject to specific approval by the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG. Upon receipt of approval from those agencies and execution of a suitable land conveyance agreement, the RCHCA would issue the appropriate incidental take authorization. t. Credit for Conservation of Biological Resource Values on Lands Acquired Under the Short-Term and Long-Term HCP As previously noted, following USFWS and CDFG approval of this HCP it is the intention of the RCHCA to expand this document into a habitat and ecosystem based plan that will provide for conservation of many other species. The core reserves designated in this HCP are intended to provide the basis for a regional multiple species reserve system. Accordingly, the RCHCA will seek appropriate conservation credit from the USFWS and CDFG for all natural resource values present on lands acquired pursuant to this HCP and its predecessor Short-Term HCP. Requests for full biological resource credits will be supported by the submission of biological resource inventories on the affected properties. Following submission of such requests, USFWS and CDFG will review biological resource inventories and determine appropriate levels of credit. For this purpose biological resource credits will be issued in the context of a RCHCA conservation bank; this conservation bank would be intended for application to any multi-species HCP subsequently adopted by the RCHCA and its member agencies., 137 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures It is anticipated that details of the credit and conservation bank programs will be developed jointly by the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG following approval of this HCP. 2. Conservation Value of the SKR Reserve System Presented in this section is an evaluation of the conservation value of the core reserve system described above. This evaluation includes an assessment of the conformance of reserves to general conservation principles and SKR population viability assessments performed to date. a. Conformance with General Conservation Principles As an initial step in the review, the general principles discussed under "B. Reserve Design" were phrased as questions and applied to individual reserves and reserve system. The questions and initial responses are as follows: Q: Are the reserves well distributed across the species'native range? 0 The proposed core reserve system includes SKR populations from all portions of its remaining range within the HCP area; this includes five individual reserve units. Q: Do the reserves include large blocks of habitat with large populations of the target species? Two of the proposed core reserves (San Jacinto and Lake Mathews) each contain more than 3,700 acres of SKR occupied habitat. Other reserves also contain substantial blocks of habitat. 0: Are the blocks of habitat close together? Within each of the reserves blocks of SKR occupied habitat generally occur within the known dispersal limits of this species; thus, they may be considered functionally interconnected. As previously mentioned, concerns exist over connections in the Sycamore Canyon and Lake Mathews reserves. Q: Does the conserved habitat occur in contiguous blocks rather than fragments? The characteristics of SKR distribution in the HCP area generally reflect some degree of fragmentation; this is not considered an unnatural condition or indicative of habitat inadequacies. Within these constraints,the proposed core reserve system incorporates the largest remaining interconnected blocks of habitat for the SKR known to occur in the plan area. Q: Do the habitat patches in the reserve have minimal edge-to-area ratios? Within the constraints of existing land uses and distribution characteristics of SKR occupied habitat, the proposed core reserves are intended to minimize edge-to-area ratios. However, this goal is quite difficult to achieve in certain areas due to the cost of acquiring enough privately held land to absolutely ensure edge ratio minimization. 138 Volume l: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures In areas where edge effects may be problematical the RCHCA will fund SKR core reserve management activities focused on critical edge areas. 0: Are there interconnected blocks of habitat, and do the corridors or linkages between such blocks include protected, preferred habitat for the target species? SKR occupied habitat within each of the reserves is found within a matrix of native habitats which provides for migration and mixing of animals. A number of desirable habitat connections between SKR core reserves have been identified by the RCHCA and will be pursued within the context of a multi-species HCP (see "2.b. Connectivity to Other Natural Open Space"). 0: Are the blocks of conserved habitat essentially roadless or otherwise inaccessible to humans? Due to the urbanized nature of western Riverside County, no completely roadless areas exist in areas suitable for SKR. For the most part, lands included within the core reserve system encompass areas with the least amount of potential human access in this part of the county. b. Connectivity to Other Natural Open Space Empirical data collected during the research studies presented in Volume II indicate that SKR generally are relatively sedentary and genetically homogeneous. No data presently available provide compelling evidence that connections between core reserves are essential to long-term SKR persistence in the HCP area. Accordingly, the reserve design proposed in this HCP places highest priority on establishing individual reserves of sufficient number and size. Given the RCHCA's financial resource limitations, this HCP cannot also guarantee the establishment of specific connections between individual reserves or from reserves to other public lands. However, the core reserves established for this HCP certainly create a foundation for a multiple species reserve system such as that described in the draft MSHCS (see Chapter 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context). With the exception of Motte Rimrock, each of the SKR core reserves designated in this HCP offers potential connections to other public lands. The Lake Skinner reserve is part of a largely contiguous block of potential SKR habitat which extends east to the San Bernardino National Forest, and southeast through the Vail Lake area to the Cleveland National Forest. Habitats found in these areas are predominantly chamise chaparral but also include European annual grassland, coast live oak forest, riparian forest, and desert chaparral. All land within these potential corridors is presently unincorporated, and is under much less development pressure than areas to the north (Hemet), west (State Highway 79/French Valley), and south (Temecula). If adequate funding is available, significant connections between the Lake Skinner reserve and nearby blocks of relatively undisturbed habitat could be acquired at a comparatively modest cost. I 139 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures The northeast portion of the San Jacinto reserve near Mystic Lake extends just east of Gilman Springs Road and abuts the Badlands. The Badlands include numerous patches of SKR occupied habitat, generally in areas of lesser slope. This area also contains relatively large blocks of Riversidean sage scrub, mixed European annual grassland/sage scrub, and chamise chaparral habitats which extend into the San Bernardino National Forest. As previously mentioned, the RCHCA has initiated acquisition of property intended to be the first link between the San Jacinto core reserve and the Badlands. The RCHCA will continue to seek state and federal grant funding for additional land acquisition in the corridor area. Additionally, the agency currently is working with USFWS, CDFG,Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Transportation Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, and others to identify joint habitat acquisition projects in the potential corridor area. The Lake Mathews core reserve is part of a contiguous area of mixed European annual grassland/Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, chamise chaparral, and European annual grassland habitats which extend along the east side of Interstate 15 between State Highway 91 and Interstate 215. Much of this area features relatively steep slopes not subject to development. Accordingly, opportunities exist to acquire land connecting the Lake Mathews reserve with natural open space areas to the southeast and east. The southern portion of the Lake Mathews reserve also can be linked to the Cleveland National Forest through the Temescal Wash. The wash extends to the southwest, crosses under Temescal Canyon Road, an abandoned railroad line, and Interstate 15, and continues into the Cleveland National Forest. Finally, an existing wash adjacent to Indian Truck Trail which flows into Temescal Wash offers another potential connection to the Lake Mathews core reserve. The Sycamore Canyon reserve is part of a contiguous stretch of disturbed mixed European annual grassland habitat extending to the northeast across State Highway 60 into the Box Springs Mountains. A potential corridor connection exists between the f! core reserve and Box Springs Mountain Park. However, actual establishment of the corridor would be difficult due to high land acquisition costs and the close proximity of urban development. As previously noted, Motte Rimrock is the most isolated of the five core reserves. Its habitat is not part of a large contiguous block, and is largely surrounded by urbanization. Due to the existing development pattern, extensive parcelization, and relatively high land values, the establishment of a corridor connection between Motte and blocks of open space in the Steele Peak area is deemed infeasible. c. Potential for Edge Effects The extensive urbanization of the HCP area makes the establishment of large, isolated SKR reserves virtually impossible. Thus, the outer boundaries of reserve areas are subject to impacts resulting from activities occurring on land located just outside of reserves. This phenomenon, generally referred to as edge effects, is an important consideration in reserve design. To the extent practical within the HCP area, the RCHCA has designed SKR core reserves in a fashion which attempts to minimize the potential for adverse impacts resulting from edge effects. . - 140 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures As previously noted, SKR occupied habitat in the Lake Skinner reserve is distributed in patchy fashion with relatively few large contiguous blocks. This tends to increase the potential for edge effects, since larger proportions of each total patch area are exposed to impacts from adjacent lands. The area of the Lake Skinner reserve deemed most vulnerable to edge effects is located along the southern border of the reserve south and southeast of the lake. Additionally, the western most portion of the reserve is subject to some degree of edge effects from rural residential development; however, given the very low density character of development this is not considered a significant threat. Most of the SKR occupied habitat in San Jacinto occurs west of Davis Road and . northeast of the Lake Perris reservoir in the State Recreation Area. The steep and rugged hills along the northwest boundary of the reserve act as a buffer to protect the occupied habitat from development in Moreno Valley. Additional buffering is provided by the Bernasconi Hills to the south, which separates patches of SKR occupied habitat from the Ramona Expressway. Overall, patches of SKR occupied habitat in the San Jacinto reserve are fairly well protected by topographic features or large expanses of land. However, small patches of SKR occupied habitat located along Davis Road are potentially vulnerable to the effects of the roadway and adjacent land uses, e.g., horse farms. SKR occupied habitat in the southern portion of Lake Mathews reserve is not highly vulnerable to edge effects from adjacent land uses due to paucity of development and steep terrain found in that portion of the reserve. Greater potential exposure exists in the northern portion of the reserve where some areas lie adjacent to low density residential development. The areas most susceptible to edge effects are: 1) the • northeastern portion of the reserve where MWD land abuts residential development; 2) land within the immediate vicinity of Dawson Canyon rural residences, and; 3) occupied habitat patches within the vicinity of Cajalco Road, a principal thoroughfare in the area. • Patches of SKR occupied habitat in the Sycamore Canyon reserve are among the most vulnerable to edge effects in the core reserves. This is due to the absence of natural (i.e., topographic) protective features and the nearby presence of residential and • industrial development. While habitat patches in the central portion.of Sycamore Canyon Park are relatively sheltered, those located near the boundaries of the reserve are vulnerable to impacts from surrounding development. Of all the SKR core reserves Motte is probably the most vulnerable to edge effects due to its small size, relatively flat topography, and proximity of development. As noted previously,this situation necessitates a more active management approach to minimize adverse impacts on resident SKR populations. d. Minimum Viable Population Assessments The last major issue to be addressed in the reserve design process involves a determination of the minimum number of individual animals that must be included in the reserve system in order toensurespecies survival. This requires an identification 141 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures of the size of minimum viable populations or set of populations (metapopulation) of the species within the planning area. The prediction of population persistence for any species outside of controlled laboratory conditions is a difficult undertaking. Since the early stages of the Short-Term HCP planning process several assessments of the minimum viable population necessary to ensure conservation of the SKR have been developed, including the PVA model developed by Dr. Michael Gilpin for the RCHCA. These assessments have been developed with increasing levels of data and sophistication of methodologies. • • TAC Assessment At the outset of the Short-Term HCP planning process,the TAC made some preliminary estimates of the conservation needs of SKR in western Riverside County. Based on the limited scientific data available at the time, the TAC contemplated the need for a system consisting of six reserves each encompassing approximately five square miles (3,200 acres). It was assumed that 25% of the total acreage within the reserves would be occupied by SKR. Overall, this reserve system would encompass 19,200 acres, of which 4,800 acres would be occupied by SKR. The TAC assessment of minimum viable SKR population, based more on field experience and intuition than on scientific data, was intended only as an initial point of departure for more scientifically rigorous approaches. Although the core reserve system proposed in this HCP consists of five reserves and not the six specified in the original TAC assessment, it far exceeds the initial criteria in terms of total acreage and the aggregate amount of SKR occupied habitat. In both categories, the proposed reserve system includes more than twice as many acres as called for in the TAC assessment. In fact, two of the reserves (Lake Mathews and San Jacinto) each includes almost as many acres of SKR occupied habitat (4,800 acres) as were thought to be needed in the entire reserve system. Price and Endo Assessment In a paper focused on the management implications of the distribution and abundance data available for the SKR, Price and Endo (1989) made several suggestions relevant to ultimate reserve configurations. These scientists approached the question from the perspective of minimum population densities necessary to maintain viable populations. Assuming the need to maintain populations of 100 or more individuals, and that minimum densities should not be lower than three SKR per hectare, they concluded that the minimum conserved area would have to encompass at least 33 hectares of occupied habitat. Taking into account errors inherent in measurement and estimation of climate fluctuation, Price and Endo determined that this area should be increased by a factor of 2 or 3 in order to ensure a conservative approach. That would result in a minimum reserve size of approximately 1 km' or 330 acres. They further suggested that several large reserves distributed throughout the range rather than many small reserves would be more effective in conserving of the species. 142 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures The proposed SKR core system also far exceeds these criteria proposed by Price and Endo (1989), both in total size and SKR occupied habitat. Burke et al. Assessment A more formal assessment of minimum viable population for the SKR was published by Burke et al. (19911 as the result of a class project under the direction of Dr. Michael Soule. This assessment employed a non-spatially explicit metapopulation model. The modeling incorporated currently available mathematical tools and included consideration of environmental, but not demographic, stochasticity. Using an assumption of uniform distribution of SKR at densities of 10 individuals per hectare (based on O'Farrell and Uptain 1989), Burke et al. proposed that a minimum reserve size of approximately 3,300 acres would be necessary to meet a goal of 95% probability of persistence for 100 years. They furthermore suggested that at least three populations meeting this standard should be established, with one or more located at relatively high elevations. The Burke assessment also suggested that one of these populations should be located • in San Diego County in the vicinity of Lake Henshaw. The core reserve system proposed in this HCP meets the standards identified by Burke et al. for the western Riverside County portion of the SKR range. Specifically, three of the reserves are larger than 3,300 acres and two more substantial units are established as well. The Burke criterion for inclusion of higher elevation populations is met in the Estelle Mountain portion of the Lake Mathews Reserve. Within the total known range of the species the only other location where a minimum of 3,300 acres could be feasibly assembled and managed for SKR would be in the Lake Henshaw area in San Diego County, outside of this HCP area. • It should be noted that the actual distribution of SKR in the HCP area is far from uniform as assumed in the Burke et al assessment. This situation would seem to imply a need for larger reserves which include corridor connections between patches of SKR occupied habitat. However, any estimation of the specific changes produced in the Burke MVP assessment by assumptions of non-uniform SKR distribution would be speculative. Gilpin Assessment For the purposes of applying the best available tools to the task of optimizing the SKR reserve design process, Dr. Michael Gilpin developed a spatially explicit metapopulation model to be used interactively with other biological and non-biological data (see Report No. 12 in Volume II). As compared with other models available for MVP assessment the Gilpin approach is more refined in that it: 1. Incorporates environmental and demographic stochasticity; 2. Assumes densities of SKR actually observed in the field; 3. Results in persistence probabilities dependent upon both area and configuration of occupied habitat, and; 143 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 4. Allows relative comparisons between alternate habitat configurations. Salient assumptions incorporated into the Gilpin PVA model include the following: (see Report 12 in Volume II for details) 1. Habitat distribution will remain the same into the future; 2. Edge effects are minimal; 3. Other input parameters have inconsequential effects on order, and; 4. Predicted persistence times are not subject to validation. The fundamental value of the Gilpin model in the reserve design process is that it appears to be biologically intuitive and robust when used in comparative analyses. The model converts basic biological assumptions into a simple set of logical relationships in order to permit their simultaneous consideration throughout the modeled area, As a result, it provides a vehicle for meaningful cost/benefit analysis by assigning biological values to parcels which can be compared to projected acquisition costs and relevant land use considerations. Notwithstanding the power and value of the Gilpin model, there are several missing biological features which must be recognized when interpreting its results. Specifically, the Gilpin model does not incorporate the following three factors: 1. The potential effects of epidemic diseases on SKR distribution; 2. Successional characteristics of vegetation, and; 3. Natural catastrophic events, e.g., floods. As a result of these omissions the model assumes relative immunity of SKR from the type of catastrophic events which may occasionally occur in the HCP area. It also assumes static vegetation characteristics and therefore does not account for changes in SKR distribution due to modifications in plant cover which could be expected to occur over time. In general, these limitations result in an assumption that habitat distribution or carrying capacity for SKR will remain the same into the future. This was a simplifying assumption employed in the modeling process to allow for computational ease. What this implies, however, is that monitoring and management activities conducted under this HCP will need to focus on maintaining at least the initial acreage and configurations of SKR occupied habitat within core reserves. As with other MVP assessments, persistence predictions are not easily subject to validation; each is sensitive to initial assumptions and conditions. The general conclusion reached by repeated runs of the Gilpin model using a lambda value of 1.15 (i.e., assuming an average annual population increase of 15%) is that the core reserve • system proposed in this HCP has an 80% probability of persistence for 100 years. When run with a less conservative lambda value of 1.2, SKR in two of the core 144' Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures reserves (Lake Mathews and San Jacinto) and in the reserve system as a whole are predicted to persist for 100 years more than 95% of the time. Minimum Viable Populations Assessment Conclusion The prediction of minimum viable population for SKR is fairly characterized as an inexact science. Empirical data concerning this species has not been collected over an area sufficiently broad, or a time periodof sufficient length, to lend a large measure of confidence to SKR persistence predictions. However, since reserve design decisions cannot await the collection and analysis of such data, the RCHCA must employ the best scientific techniques available at this time. This has been done,'and the reserve• system SKR persistence probabilities discussed herein must be interpreted as nothing more than the best educated guesses we can make at this time. In reality, the only real test of SKR persistence is time. The RCHCA has endeavored to develop a proposed core reserve system using the most current conservation theory and predictive tools. Although the proposed system does not necessarily achieve the most conservative criteria for success frequently cited, i.e., 95% probability of persistence for 100 years, it meets general reserve design objectives and specific MVP objectives. In reviewing this issue it is essential to remember that this HCP will expand the total area of SKR habitat within the reserve system, and will also provide for active management within each reserve. Thus, it will improve the probability of SKR persistence in the plan area. For the following reasons, this HCP provides additional assurances that this incidental take authorized pursuant to this HCP will not diminish the likelihood of persistence of SKR within the plan area: . 1. Not all remaining SKR habitat outside of the core reserves is likely to be incidentally taken; 2. The probability of persistence will increase due to the RCHCA's commitment to expand suitable SKR habitat within the reserve system by an additional of 2,500 acres;. 3. Monitoring'of SKR populations in the reserves will facilitate early identification of problems, and appropriate management tools will be implemented to assure the survival of the SKR in the reserves, and; 4. The core reserve system encompasses large areas of natural landscape in addition to the SKR occupied habitat, thus providing for conservation of the ecosystem upon which the SKR depends. 3. Permit Period and Plan Area The permit and agreement sought by the RCHCA would be valid for thirty years and would authorize incidental take of SKR on lands within the HCP area. The HCP area encompasses 517,857 acres within the jurisdictions of the County of Riverside and 145 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures • Cities of Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside, and Temecula. The HCP area encompasses approximately 31,550 acres of SKR occupied habitat (Figure 29 and Table 20). Other lands within the jurisdiction of the RCHCA members and lands within the Cities of Banning, Beaumont,"Canyon Lake, Norco, Murrieta, and San Jacinto will not be covered by the permit and agreement. However, this HCP provides for potential modifications to the plan area, and also the addition of new RCHCA members, through amendments to the plan (see D. Plan Implementation). The plan area defined in this HCP differs from that covered by the Short-Term HCP due -to the inclusion of properties whose owners have requested coverage under the HCP through the existing Short-Term HCP boundary modification.process. This HCP area also excludes properties owned by the Lockheed Corporation in and adjacent to the Potrero Study Area pursuant to the recommendations discussed under Chapter 4. Alternatives Considered. The HCP area also differs significantly from that of the Short-Term HCP in that it defines no Study Areas or other territories where the authorization for incidental take of SKR would not apply. However, as previously noted incidental take in core reserves will be restricted to ensure conservation of SKR occupied habitat. a. Estimated Level of Incidental Take The total amount of SKR occupied habitat that will be incidentally taken under the permit and agreement will depend on three interrelated factors: 1. Natural changes in the distribution, density, and amount of SKR occupied habitat in the plan area; 2. The level of economic activity in the plan area, including new construction, the amount of land in agricultural use, and the specific uses to which agricultural land is devoted; and 3. The type and amount of habitat incidentally conserved in the plan area for reasons other than those related to this SKR HCP. • Natural changes can increase or decrease the annual and cumulative amount of SKR occupied habitat potentially subject to incidental take due to rainfall patterns, the effects of existing habitat fragmentation, and random natural events such fires or floods. As noted in Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR, the best information available to the RCHCA indicates that species distribution in the plan area has changed significantly since its listing. Even if no incidental take of SKR had occurred in the HCP area, the amount and distribution of SKR occupied habitat would have experienced notable changes due to significant variations in local rainfall patterns. As described in the reports in Volume II, such variations play a very influential role in determining SKR distribution due to their impact on food source availability. Rainfall patterns will continue to vary significantly over the course of this HCP, and therefore SKR populations may be expected to expand, contract, and relocate in response to natural conditions. 146 V3NV 33J d31••I 341 M IVJJBVH 1V21 002NMNV)I .SN34d11S 6E aan6Ld ...7.12.1=ma ,rmrTi e+v. . awv Na33N:1V11BVH MI OO iY VN.9a.kais ammo ..1.w tGLVM N 10/SIpA?J30ilO V1 SAVMNJGI ArearcB 3AI13;3d 3870 &MIOB Y3N Md dON IAA V3N33dera 311NQ3Q113NION ME a s TZ o S37141 N 3 W3S ,\-% 1---, 4'1 AL 1 • / // 0 1 �W ICY / / - • — j : ,, ' ,v / .1.7 ' I q?V �I �' Lem°'•. .. 1 LSI �' i ..w:' L, t-, 1 \-1-i-.1,!, • l i ' ".`f, :b, li b ;. ® « ' ,1 ._ 15 •--.6-:... ... 3:` .1 %MO= • he ___ ': S .1_, v ® _ ® --�r1 L— At i vi Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan. 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Natural disasters known to occur in the plan area, most specifically wildfires and floods, have and will continue to produce changes in SKR distribution and thus the potential-for incidental take. To the extent that fire is either prevented or quickly suppressed when it occurs, SKR habitat in some areas will tend to develop.a density • of vegetative cover which does not favor the species. Of course this would tend to depress SKR population levels and thus reduce the potential for incidental take of the species. Conversely, if the region experiences an above average incidence of wildfires in rural areas, SKR distribution is likely to increase, and with it the potential for greater amounts of incidental take. • The level of development activity in the plan area will affect the cumulative amount of SKR habitat conserved as well as the amount incidentally taken. When economic development activity increases in the plan area, the likelihood of SKR habitat removal will grow, as will the indirect adverse effects of urban land uses on patches of SKR occupied habitat. At the same time however, SKR mitigation fees generated by urban development will increase the amount of SKR habitat that can be conserved and managed as part of the core reserve system. Agricultural uses may affect SKR incidental take due to the rotation of crops, tilling of fallow fields, or changes in grazing patterns. Based upon experience gained during implementation of the Short-Term HCP, such patterns ofagricultural use generally result only in temporary changes to SKR distribution. However, when agricultural lands change into urban development, temporary impacts to SKR become permanent. The temporal nature of SKR incidental take also would be expected to change if lands devoted to dryland farming are converted to crops requiring irrigation. Conservation of SKR occurring for reasons unrelated to this HCP also is likely to limit cumulative incidental take of SKR habitat. Habitat conserved for other listed species and candidate species (e.g., California gnatcatcher) is likely to include, and thus protect, SKR occupied habitat (see discussion in Chapter 3. Summary Profile of the SKR). Establishment or expansion of regional parks and new dedications of permanent open space also may increase the amount of SKR habitat not at risk of being permanently taken. SKR occupied habitat located in areas constrained from development due to steep slopes, e.g., populations in Estelle Mountain and the Badlands, likely will be conserved even if they are not acquired for a core reserve. In such areas development is extremely unlikely due to land use regulations and the poor profit potential for such investments. It is anticipated that a significant portion of the SKR population in the Badlands will benefit from this type ofancillary conservation. Such conservation of course does not guarantee protection of SKR habitat in the same way as inclusion in managed reserves, but it does provide benefits to the species in the plan area. Unfortunately, none of the above factors influencing incidental take of SKR in the HCP area can be readily predicted within the 30 year scope of this plan. Thus, in estimating the amount of incidental take likely to occur it is necessary to rely upon broad assumptions of future conditions. The RCHCA believes it is reasonable to assume that the amount of SKR incidental take which will occur under the permit and agreement will be less than the amount of SKR habitat to be permanently conserved as part of the core reserve system. 149 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures For purposes of estimating the amount of incidental take resulting from this HCP, the RCHCA has assumed that approximately 58% (18,425 acres) of the SKR occupied habitat currently remaining in the plan area vyill be either conserved by inclusion in the core reserve system, or not incidentally taken for one or more of the reasons discussed above. Conversely, the RCHCA estimates that up to 42% (13,125 acres) of the SKR occupied habitat in the HCP area may be incidentally taken. The derivation of this estimate is shown below (all figures are in acres): TOTAL SKR OCCUPIED HABITAT IN THE PLAN AREA 31,550 CONSERVATION OF SKR OCCUPIED HABITAT Habitat included in core reserves 11,225 Habitat located on public lands, areas with other listed species, • and lands not developed - during the permit period 2,000 Habitat located on agricultural lands 500 Habitat conserved via Section 7 Consultations and RCHCA - interagency cooperative efforts 2,200 Habitat conserved through combination of RCHCA core reserve expansion acquisitions and mitigation for incidental take authorized by RCHCA in locations outside of HCP area 2,500 SUBTOTAL SKR CONSERVED HABITAT 18,425 SKR OCCUPIED HABITAT SUBJECT TO INCIDENTAL TAKE 13,125 The above estimates are based upon the following series of assumptions: 1. Approximately 2,000 acres of SKR occupied habitat will not be incidentally taken due to its location on public lands outside of core reserves (e.g., BLM properties), on undevelopable lands (e.g., those with slopes exceeding 25%), or in areas occupied by other listed species; 2. Approximately 500 acres of SKR occupied habitat on lands used for dryland farming will remain in the plan area; 3. Mitigation measures required by USFWS and CDFG under this HCP for incidental take occurring inside of core reserves will employ a 1:1 standard for replacement of SKR occupied habitat in-order to ensure no net loss of - - conserved SKR habitat; 150 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 4. Approximately 2,500 acres of SKR occupied habitat will be conserved through a combination of RCHCA core reserve expansion acquisitions and replacement habitat conserved as mitigation for incidental take occurring on lands not previously included in the plan area, and; 5. Over the 30-year period, cooperative efforts by the RCHCA with other public agencies, ongoing acquisitions by the RCHCA in the context of a future multi- species HCP, and/or mitigation required as a result of Section 7 Consultations will conserve at least an additional 2,200 acres of occupied SKR habitat..This - - • figure is equivalent to the acreage conserved due to completed and pending cooperative efforts and Section 7 Consultations during the period of the Short- . Term HCP. Outside of the core reserves defined in this HCP, SKR habitat conserved by means of RCHCA land acquisitions, Section 7 Consultations, and mitigation directed by USFWS is expected to have the greatest value to the species inthe plan area. Pursuant to the terms of this HCP, core reserve expansion acreage to be acquired by the RCHCA will become part of permanent reserves specifically designed to ensure SKR persistence. The habitat projected to be conserved as a result of Section 7 Consultations and • cooperative interagency efforts almost certainly will be located in areas selected by the USFWS and/or the RCHCA for their long-term value to the species. In the case of Section 7 Consultations, it is anticipated that the USFWS will focus SKR conservation efforts on habitat which would become part of permanent preserves. As a final note, although the precise amount and location cannot be predicted at this time, additional SKR occupied habitat will be conserved as a result of the multi-species HCP expected to be adopted by the RCHCA as an amendment to this plan. It is certain that conservation of coastal sage scrub habitat will be a primary focus of that effort; since SKR are found within patches of sage scrub in so many locations throughout western Riverside County, it is extremely likely that sage scrub habitat acquisitions will also serve to conserve SKR occupied habitat as well. Although the RCHCA has estimated that up to 13,125 acres of SKR occupied habitat may be subject to incidental take under this HCP, due to the unpredictable nature of natural forces and uncertainty of future development activity that figure may not prove accurate over the 30-year duration of the permit. It is the intention of this HCP to establish core reserves of sufficient size and character to ensure, within a reasonable degree of probability, the long-term persistence of SKR in the plan area. Accordingly, the RCHCA is seeking a permit and agreement which would allow incidental take of SKR to occur in unlimited amounts outside of core reserves; within core reserves, such take would be limited by the terms and conditions presented in this HCP. D. Potential Impacts of Incidental Take In addition to identifying the area, duration, and level of take, ESA approval criteria for the permit and agreement require that the impacts of the proposed taking be examined. 151 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures The primary impacts of concern regarding the proposed incidental taking of SKR include: 1. The likelihood of instances of direct harm to SKR; 2. The effects of direct and indirect harm and habitat removal on the long-term viability of the SKR populations in the plan area and elsewhere in the range of this species; and 3. The effects of habitat removal and further fragmentation on the ecosystem upon which the SKR depends. Outside of the core reserves as expanded, this HCP anticipates that incidental take of SKR may occur throughout the plan area. Accordingly, the following types of impacts are considered most likely to result from such incidental take: 1. Potential loss of some existing blocks of SKR occupied habitat of significant size. Of particular note is the potential loss of SKR-populations located on privately owned lands in the Steele Peak and Kabian Park Study Areas designated under the Short-Term HCP. Within the Steele Peak area privately held lands encompass approximately 1,390 acres of SKR occupied habitat; of that total, 454 acres are under a single ownership and would be subject to incidental take at one time if the property is mass graded in preparation for development pursuant to its approved Specific Plan. Within Kabian Park, approximately 590 acres of SKR occupied habitat are located on private lands; in this location however, the habitat is spread across a large number of parcels owned by a multitude of entities. Thus, potential development of Kabian Park lands would be expected to occur over a longer period of time, providing greater possibilities for dispersal of resident SKR populations, and; 2. Some existing SKR dispersal corridors connecting habitat patches may be lost as a result of incidental take occurring outside of core reserves. Empirical evidence defining such corridors in the plan area is extremely limited however, and therefore both the nature and potential importance of-such impacts are largely conjectural. The conservation and mitigation measures proposed in this HCP seek to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor these potential impacts to SKR. In accordance with NEPA and CEQA guidelines, impacts which may potentially result from incidental take and implementation of this HCP are analyzed in detail in the EIS/EIR presented as Volume III of this HCP. E. Conservation, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Impact Avoidance Measures To avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of incidental take of SKR, the RCHCA will implement a conservation program having four primary components: 152 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 1. Establishment and management ofthe core reserve system; 2. Expansion of the reserves through conservation of additional habitat; 3. Measures to avoid and minimize incidental take, and; • 4. Monitoring of mitigation compliance and plan effectiveness. 1.. Establishment and Management of the Core Reserves The establishment and management of the core reserve system described in Chapter 4. Alternatives Considered is the primary mitigation provided by the HCP for the impacts of incidental take on SKR. This is also the primary means for assuring that the species will persist within the plan area during the period covered by the permit and agreement. This HCP builds upon existing agreements and arrangements among the agencies responsible for managing public lands in the core reserves, and provides the framework and funding for: 1. Coordinating the management of SKR habitat among individual core reserves; 2. Increasing the amount and quality of SKR habitat in the reserve system through land acquisitions and habitat enhancement and restoration; 3. Monitoring the status of the SKR populations in the plan area; 4. Sponsoring appropriate biological research to guide future SKR habitat management activities; and 5. Helping to sustain the viability of SKR in the reserve system by preserving and enhancing habitat linkages within the reserves,and pursuing the establishment of wildlife corridors connecting the reserves to other natural open space areas. Upon final approval of this HCP, habitat management for the benefit of SKR would begin on public lands within the core reserve system. Such management will be extended to cover lands added to the reserve system over time via the RCHCA's habitat acquisition program. a. Habitat Management Goals and Objectives • The primary goals of core reserve management will be to: 1. Maintain viable populations of SKR within the reserve system and each of the core reserves sufficient to ensure the long-term persistence of the species in the HCP area; 2. Promote the maintenance and enhancement of the ecosystem upon which the SKR depends; 153 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 3. Develop management practices which identify and adapt to changing conditions both within the reserves and on lands adjacent to them; 4. Establish a core wildlife reserve system that is managed to enhance the conservation of biological diversity in western Riverside County; 5. Assist in determining future priorities to add lands that have definable conservation and/or management value to the reserve system, and; 6. Consistent with the primary goal of ensuring SKR persistence, establish procedures which permit human access for wildlife observation, hiking, recreation, and other compatible pursuits. Policies and procedures guiding management of the reserve system will be based on the conservation principles discussed in Chapter 4. Alternatives Considered. In order of relative priority, these include: 1. Maintaining existing habitat values for SKR; • 2. Enhancing habitat values for SKR where not in conflict.with other important resources; 3. Maintaining or enhancing values for other species where not in conflict with SKR management goals; 4. Minimizing the need for active management by allowing natural processes to occur where not in conflict with other management goals; 5. Managing the reserve system adaptively by integrating existing knowledge with the results of ongoing experimental management, and; b. Individual Core Reserve Management Programs Responsibility for and control over SKR habitat management and species monitoring will be assumed by different entities for each core reserve, as described below: Lake Mathews. As noted previously, the RCHCA and MWD have jointly developed a multi-species HCP encompassing lands owned by both agencies within the Lake Mathews core reserve. Pursuant to the provisions of that plan, overall responsibility for management of conserved habitat in Lake Mathews will be vested in a Management Committee comprised of MWD, RCHCA, CDFG, and USFWS. Responsibility for day-to-day management and operation of the reserve will be shared by CDFG and MWD. Fire prevention and suppression activities will be provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention pursuant to the provisions of the Lake Mathews Fire Management Plan.. 154 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and-Mitigation Measures Under the Lake Mathews MSHCP, habitat management activities will be funded through a $5 million endowment provided by the RCHCA. That sum is intended to finance the management of conserved habitat on all existing properties in the reserve, as well as those lands added to the reserve by the RCHCA, MWD, and other entities through future land acquisitions. Specific SKR management and monitoring activities in the core reserve will be conducted pursuant to annual work plans adopted by the Management Committee. In developing work plans the Committee will be guided by the following goals: 1) protect suitable habitat for the MSHCP target species, including SKR; 2) enhance or restore suitable habitat for target species through improvement of degraded resources, and; 3) ensure that the operation and maintenance of Lake Mathews as a water supply facility and as a significant ecological area are not impaired. The four member agencies of the Management Committee will assume the following responsibilities in the ongoing management of the reserve: CDFG - Chair the Management Committee Maintain lead responsibility for day-to-day management of biological resources Two years after MSHCP approval assume responsibility for security patrols and maintenance activities MWD - Participate in reserve management Undertake some habitat enhancement and restoration activities Coordinate management of MWD properties with the Management Committee Maintain access roads, fencing, and fire breaks in designated areas RCHCA - Establish a $5 million endowment to provide ongoing funding for reserve management Expand the reserve through land acquisitions and dedications ! - Coordinate implementation of the Lake Mathews MSHCP with the SKR HCP and all multi-species HCP's adopted by the • agency USFWS - Provide scientific and technical assistance to reserve management activities, with special emphasis on SKR and other federally listed and candidate species Lake Skinner - Domenigoni Valley Upon approval of this HCP the RCHCA will add all land under its ownership in the Lake Skinner area to the multi-species reserve established by the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP. Through this action, conserved habitat on RCHCA lands willbe managed by the existing Reserve Management Committee (RMC) consisting of representatives of MWD, USFWS, CDFG, RCHCA, and the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District(RCRPOSD). The RMC establishes policies, procedures, and regulations governing the management of-conserved habitat within the reserve. 155 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Responsibility for day-to-day operation of the reserve is shared by RCRPOSD and MWD. Management of SKR habitat in the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley reserve will be guided by the RMC pursuant to the provisions of the MSHCP. On lands dedicated to SKR in the Shipley Reserve, and on suitable habitat contained within RCHCA properties added to the existing multi-species reserve, management will be directed toward maintenance and expansion of SKR populations. In all other areas, land will be managed for biodiversity using the following principles: Natural phenomena which have historically contributed to• the growth, development, maturation, decline, and conversion of natural communities generally will be monitored but not actively managed in order to maintain a dynamic natural ecosystem - Intervention in natural processes will occur only when they pose a threat to the maintenance of the matrix of historic communities on the reserve The RMC has assumed responsibility for an ongoing habitat and wildlife monitoring program within the reserve. Monitoring activities for SKR are conducted under the direction of Dr. Michael O'Farrell, using funding provided by RCHCA and MWD. The multi-species reserve also is the focus of an active and ongoing scientific research program designed and managed by the RMC. To date, research projects have focused on species such as SKR and California gnatcatcher, and habitats such as sage scrub. As a result of the recent burning of approximately 70% of the reserve in the California Fire, a great dealof research is now being conducted concerning fire ecology and re-vegetation of sage scrub habitat. As part of the MSHCP MWD established a management and research budget of $13.8 million for the period of 1992-1999. The RCHCA previously added $500,000 for management of SKR habitat on the Shipley Reserve, and will provide additional funding on an annual basis based upon SKR management plans adopted by the RMC and approved.by the RCHCA Board of Directors. Motte Rimrock Management of conserved SKR habitat in the Motte Rimrock core reserve will be provided by the UCR campus Natural Reserve System (NRS). Management of biological resources on the reserve is guided by the following goals: Protect and defend contained ecosystems and the associated natural processes that drive those ecosystems and promote their natural biodiversity, and; - Develop and enhance research and educational opportunities by developing comprehensive inventories of biological resources, and by monitoring environmental and ecological processes 156 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan .5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures The existing Motte Rimrock Reserve management plan acknowledges the role of this area in the SKR HCP and therefore emphasizes protection of suitable habitat to maintain viable populations of SKR. Regular monitoring of SKR populations also is deemed an important activity in reserve management. Representatives of UCR have expressed their intent to prepare a revised SKR management plan for the reserve. Although the specific elements of that plan are still under development at this time, it is anticipated that the following activities will be included: 1. In order to prevent habitat destruction caused by chronic trespassing, fencing will be erected in the southern portion of the reserve, and surveillance and patrolling activities will be increased; 2. Regular monitoring of SKR populations will be conducted; 3. Management programs will be enhanced to ensure the continued availability of sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of SKR in the reserve, and; 4. Appropriate biological research will be performed to develop empirical data useful to the design of future management activities. At the time of this writing the RCHCA, UCR, and City of Moreno Valley have reached conceptual agreement on a process through which SKR mitigation fees generated from development of the 760 acre UCR Moreno Valley Field Station property will be dedicated to management and land acquisition in the Motte Rimrock Reserve. These • fees, expected to exceed $1 million at site build out, will be expended pursuant to SKR management plans adopted by UCR and approved by the RCHCA Board of Directors. It is expected that fee revenues will be sufficient to establish an endowment for SKR habitat management and monitoring activities throughout the life of the permit and agreement. Fee revenues in excess of the amount needed for management will be used to acquire land for the purpose of expanding the reserve. San Jacinto - Lake Perris • As previously noted, the vast majority of all land within this reserve is owned by the State of California. Responsibility for land management in the Lake Perris State Recreation Area is vested in the Department of Parks and Recreation, while CDFG manages properties within the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Existing wildlife and land management plans in these areas currently focus on multi-species habitat protection. The RCHCA will work with both CDFG and the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop management programs designed specifically to maintain SKR populations within the State Recreation Area and Wildlife Area. In order to assist these agencies in preparing and implementing SKR management plans the RCHCA will make funding available from thatportion of the mitigation fees set aside for habitat management. Such funding will be provided based upon SKR management plans adopted by the Department of Parks and Recreation and CDFG, and approved by the RCHCA Board of Directors. Additionally, all land acquired by the RCHCA for inclusion in this SKR core reserve will be conveyed at no cost to CDFG. 157 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures • Sycamore Canyon - March Air Force Base Land within Sycamore Canyon Park is managed by the City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department. Through an agreement executed during the Short-Term HCP the City operates and maintains the Park pursuant to a goal of enhancing the continued existence of SKR. As part of the 1988 Sycamore Canyon Park Development Plan a SKR habitat suitability model was developed to identify the potential limits of suitable habitat within the Park. The Plan recommends appropriate management of those areas to ensure the viability of habitat for this species. Additionally, the Plan calls for - - regular monitoring of SKR populations. The RCHCA and Parks and Recreation Department are working cooperatively to prepare an updated SKR management plan for Sycamore Canyon Park. It is anticipated that the management plan will provide for the retention of consulting SKR biologists to conduct SKR monitoring and habitat management programs. Recommendations for habitat modification activities will be made as appropriate to ensure the continued availability of sufficient habitat to support resident SKR populations. The RCHCA has allocated funding from its FY 1995 budget for the Sycamore Canyon Park SKR management plan, and it is anticipated that additional monies will be provided on an annual basis pursuant to plans adopted by the City and approved by the RCHCA. Management of SKR habitat on March Air Force Base (MAFB) is subject to the terms and conditions of two Biological Opinions issued by the USFWS, as well as a Cooperative Agreement executed among MAFB, USFWS,and The Nature Conservancy. Salient features of these three items are summarized below: USFWS - Federal Highway Administration Biological Opinion Biological Opinion 1-6-90-F-29 dated June 4, 1990 was issued by the USFWS in . conjunction with the improvement of Interstate Highway 215, a portion of which passes through MAFB. As mitigation for the incidental take of SKR occupiedhabitat the following actions were implemented: 1. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided a $1.5 million endowment to establish a perpetual•fund for the management of SKR on MAFB; 2. As the designated management entity, The Nature Conservancy was responsible for enhancing SKR occupied habitat on MAFB; 3. In support of the Short-Term HCP, Caltrans provided $507,000 to the RCHCA for land acquisition in the corridor connecting MAFB with Sycamore Canyon Park, and; ' 4. Caltrans was to "provide for a crossing for SKR under Alessandro Boulevard to connect the Sycamore Canyon Study Area to habitat on MAFB." • Subsequent to the issuance of the 1990 Biological Opinion Caltrans performed preliminary engineering studies for the proposed Alessandro Boulevard SKR undercrossing, and the results of those studies were reviewed with USFWS. In a 158 — Volume I: Habitat Conservation.Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures January 1994 letter the USFWS concluded that due to the presence of underground utility pipelines the "construction of the necessary linkage under Alessandro Boulevard would be extremely expensive and of uncertain biological value." Accordingly, USFWS recommended that in place of the undercrossing, Caltrans perform the following tasks: 1. Two privately held parcels of land south of Alessandro would be acquired and conserved as SKR habitat. An amount equal to ten percent of the purchase price would be set aside to finance a "periodic, managed translocation of SKR between suitable SKR habitat areas in Sycamore Canyon Park and March Air Force Base and monitoring of such translocation efforts."; and 2. Funding would be provided for a two-year monitoring study of SKR movement between MAFB and Sycamore Canyon Park. As of June 1994 Caltrans was preparing to appraise the two subject parcels. It is anticipated that the RCHCA will contribute $507,000 toward the purchase of these properties. That sum represents the amount received from Caltrans under the 1990 Biological Opinion. Cooperative Agreement In November of 1990 the USFWS, MAFB, and The Nature Conservancy executed a Cooperative Agreement providing for the management and restoration of SKR habitat on MAFB. This was intended to implement the terms and conditions of the 1990 Biological Opinion described above. _ Under the Cooperative Agreement The Nature Conservancy received $1.5 million from Caltrans and established a "non-wasting endowment" for the management and enhancement of habitat for SKR. Interest earnings from the endowment are used to finance the activities specified in the Biological Opinion, including: 1) enhancement of a minimum of 108 acres of SKR occupied habitat on MAFB; 2) determining the suitability of all undeveloped lands on MAFB for habitat management and enhancement for SKR, and; 3) developing and implementing a research program designed to determine the ecological requirements of SKR. The Cooperative. Agreement is scheduled to be reviewed by the signatories in November of 1995. At that time its terms and conditions and the performance of all parties will be evaluated. It should be noted that at any time The Nature Conservancy may, at its sole discretion, withdraw from the agreement. Should that occur, the $1.5 million endowment will be transferred to a party approved by the USFWS and MAFB. USFWS - MAFB Biological Opinion On December 4, 1991 the USFWS issued Biological Opinion 1-6-91-F-33 concerning potential impacts to SKR resulting from activities proposed on MAFB. Such activities. included mission realignment projects, construction of base housing, an expansion of Air Force Village West, a golf course addition, and a proposal to convey land to a private developer in exchange for construction of, or addition to, buildings located east of 1-215. Those projects were expected to impact approximately 1,200 acres "of potential and sparsely occupied SKR habitat" on MAFB. 159 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures The Biological Opinion sets forth the following measures to offset incidental take of SKR: 1. The Air Force shall establish a 1,000 acre SKR Management Area on West March, i.e., west of 1-215; 2. In coordination with the USFWS and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), MAFB shall develop a long range management plan to protect, manage, and enhance SKR habitat within the Management Area•as well as ensure compatible land • • development within "Open Space" lands (see #4 below); 3. MAFB shall preclude development and surface disturbance activities incompatible with SKR and its habitat within the 1,000 acre Management Area; 4. Approximately 1,200 acres of "Open Space" lands on MAFB shall be "protected and managed actively for high wildlife values with a special emphasis on SKR and with ongoing participation by the USFWS through informal consultation." Open Space lands include several blocks of land both east and west of 1-215; 5. MAFB shall provide coordination efforts to ensure that a viable habitat connection is available to the base boundary to support a wildlife corridor between the base and the Sycamore Canyon Study Area. This HCP includes only the 1,000 acre SKR Management Area within the Sycamore Canyon-MAFB core reserve. Habitat within that site will continue to be managed pursuant to the terms of the Biological Opinions. Unless changes are made in 1995 when the Cooperative Agreement is evaluated, TNC will have primary responsibility for managing the SKR area on MAFB. The role of the RCHCA will be to coordinate with TNC, MAFB, and USFWS to ensure that SKR management supports the objectives of this plan. c. Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee To coordinate SKR habitat management and biological monitoring activities among the •individual core reserves, the RCHCA will establish a Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee (RMCC). The primary missions .of the RMCC will be to promote coordination of SKR management throughout the core reserve system, and address regional management issues of importance to species persistence in the plan area. The RMCC will be concerned only with inter-reserve coordination and issues of regional • importance to this HCP; as an entity it will not be directly involved in the management of conserved habitat within individual core reserves. Membership of the RMCC will consist of one representative from each of the entities having responsibility for management of lands within the SKR core reserves, as well as the RCHCA, County of Riverside, USFWS, and the University of California Cooperative Extension. The existing core reserve land managers currently include: 1. CDFG (San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Lake Mathews Multi-Species Reserve); 160 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 2. State of .California Department of Parks and Recreation (Lake Perris State Recreation Area); 3. MWD (lands within the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP and Lake Mathews MSHCP); 4. . The Nature Conservancy (March AirForceBase SKR Management Area); 5. City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department (Sycamore Canyon Park); 6. Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District (Lake Skinner core reserve); 7. University of California at Riverside (Motte Rimrock Reserve); and 8. BLM (lands in the Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, and Motte Rimrock core reserves). The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Riverside County and City Fire Departments also will be asked to participate as technical advisors concerning fire management issues. The County of Riverside also will sit as a member of the RMCC in its capacity the jurisdiction having authority over land use in the vast P tY as 1 majority of core reserve properties. As a group, the RMCC's primary responsibilities will be to: _ - 1. Coordinate SKR habitat management programs by the individual reserve managers to ensure the achievement of overall HCP management objectives; 2. Develop recommended regional SKR management goals and programs to the RCHCA Board of Directors; 3. Within the context of overall HCP implementation, evaluate SKR habitat management and biological monitoring plans conducted within the core reserve system; and • 4. Make recommendations to the RCHCA concerning potential land acquisitions for expanding the core reserve system. The RMCC will be chaired on a rotating basis by the reserve managers and staffed by the RCHCA. Its recommendations will be based on the consensus of its members. d. Annual Core Reserve Work Programs Within each of the core reserves the responsible management entities will develop annual SKR reserve work programs consistent with the overall management goals of this HCP and the specific management plans adopted for each of the reserves. In general, the work programs will provide guidelines and set priorities for habitat management and biological monitoring activities undertaken to implement this HCP. 1.61 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures SKR work activities are intended to supplement, and not supplant, existing conservation plans and programs in the core reserves;the intent is to optimize benefits to SKR and other sensitive species within the funding constraints of the RCHCA's program. Based upon funding allocations approved by the RCHCA Board of Directors, up to 1 0% of the SKR mitigation fees collected in the plan area will be earmarked for management of SKR habitat in core reserves and, where possible, supplemented through other sources such as federal and state grants and appropriations. To the extent that RCHCA monies are involved,annual budgets for implementation of the core reserve SKR work programs will be subject.to the approval of the RCHCA Board of Directors. e. Reserve Management Activities The types of reserve management activities to be conducted in the SKR core reserves include the following: • Biological monitoring Biological monitoring programs will be carried out in each reserve to evaluate the status and trends of resident SKR populations. The RCHCA will work with reserve managers to arrange for annual monitoring of SKR populations using permanent monitoring plots. The amount, distribution, and characteristics of suitable habitat will be evaluated on a regular basis using appropriately scaled color aerial photography and field data. In addition, the reserves will be ground surveyed on a regular basis by SKR biologists to assess the general status of habitats and to identify areas where vegetation changes are occurring. The monitoring program also will include more intensive examination of potential internal barriers within the reserves such as existing roadways. The results of SKR monitoring in the core reserves will be reviewed by the RMCC in order to evaluate the overall status of the species and conserved habitat in the HCP area. This group will recommend adaptive management strategies as appropriate for application in individual reserves. Habitat enhancement and restoration Enhancement and restoration activities will be conducted by qualified biologists as needed to expand SKR habitat within the core reserves and address management issues identified by the reserve managers. Each reserve manager will be asked to maintain a list of potential enhancement and restoration sites within their core reserves. These lists will be reviewed on an annual basis by the RMCC, which will then present • recommendations to the RCHCA regarding priority sites for habitat restoration or enhancement. Enhancement and restoration for SKR will be balanced with and integrated into management activities for other biological resources. As previously noted, habitat enhancement and restoration also will be employed as a mechanism for mitigating the impacts of direct harm to SKR. 162 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Access controls Fencing, barriers, gates, signage, and security patrols will be used as necessary to control the access of people, vehicles, livestock, and domestic pets to areas of conserved habitat. Fencing and patrols will be especially critical in areas where SKR populations are immediately adjacent to land uses with potentially adverse, effects on the managed resources, e.g., the Matte Rimrock Reserve. The RCHCA will enter into cooperative agreements with the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District, City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department, BLM, and other reserve managers as appropriate to provide ranger patrols in the core reserves. Fire management Responsible reserve management agencies have adopted fire management plans for each of the core reserves. Responsibility for fire prevention and suppression activities is vested in the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), March Air Force Base, and the fire departments of the City of Riverside, City of Perris, and County of Riverside. These adopted fire management plans include recommendations for fuel break management, fire controls, and fire suppression logistics. The fire management plans for Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley, and March'Air Force Base also provide for the use of controlled burns as a habitat management tool. The RCHCA will work with CDF and the Management Committees of the Lake Mathews and Lake Domenigoni Valley reserves to expand existing fire management plans to specifically incorporate RCHCA properties to be added to those reserves. Additionally, RCHCA will work with municipal fire departments to develop and refine management plans for SKR habitat in the Sycamore Canyon Park and Motte Rimrock reserves. Grazing Grazing activities generally are not considered compatible with conservation management. However, in the case of SKR prescribed grazing has potential for use as an appropriate and effective management tool. Experimental use of grazing for management of SKR habitat will be encouraged if conducted pursuant to a scientifically • valid methodology. Within the watersheds of reservoirs in core reserves, grazing will be allowed only if MWD determines such activities to be consistent with water quality standards and objectives. ' Recreation Although the SKR core reserves are established for the purpose of conserving the species and its habitat, these lands also represent open spaces of regional importance. Since these areas were acquired with public funds, the RCHCA is committed to providing citizens with an opportunity to access them for recreational and educational purposes. Accordingly, within core reserves recreation activities will be allowed in areas of conserved SKR habitat if they are compatible with the maintenance of biological resource values. Passive recreational activities such as hiking and wildlife observation will be encouraged as managed activities. The adopted management plans of core reserves will define appropriate recreation activities within core reserves and provide guidelines for ensuring the compatibility of uses. For example, the 163 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures management plan for the reserve established at Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley under the MSHCP for Southwestern Riverside County includes monitoring of the effects of existing recreation activities at Lake Skinner on SKR. Results of this monitoring effort will guide the development of recreational policies and programs at other reserves. 2. Habitat Acquisition and Reserve Expansion In connection with the habitat replacement requirement and the 2,500-acre performance standard, the RCHCA will continue the habitat acquisition program it began in 1990. The RCHCA will continue to acquire land through purchases, dedications, conservation agreements, and other means. Where possible, the RCHCA also will enter into cooperative agreements with other agencies and private landowners to conserve SKR and other habitats through mutually beneficial arrangements. Such arrangements will include, but are not limited to, multiple species conservation plans that provide authorization for incidental take of other species and mitigation banking agreements. To facilitate the acquisition of replacement habitat and the expansion of individual reserves, the RCHCA will: 1. Use the following criteria to identify and evaluate acquisitions based on general biological guidelines and conservation principles: a. Large blocks of habitat, containing large populations of the target species, are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations; b. Blocks of habitat that are close together are superior to blocks far apart; c. Habitat that occurs in less fragmented, contiguous blocks is preferable to habitat that is fragmented; d. Habitat patches that minimize edge-to-area ratios are superior to those that do not; - e. Interconnected blocks of habitat are preferable to isolated blocks, and corridors or linkages function better when the habitat within them is represented by protected, preferred habitat for the target species; f. Blocks of habitat not penetrated by roads, and those having access control mechanisms, are better than blocks of habitat having extensive road networks or unlimited access; 2. Seek the RMCC's assistance in refining land acquisition criteria to allow more systematic decisions by USFWS and CDFG regarding the conservation value of and mitigation credit for specific acquisitions; 3. Seek USFWS and CDFG concurrence in using the RMCC's criteria and guidelines as the basis for determining the mitigation credit for acquisitions or 164 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures dedications and for banking the multiple species values of the acquired habitat, and; 4. Promote and participate as a partner in conservation efforts initiated by RCHCA members and other public or private agencies in the plan area. The RCHCA will encourage its members to amend their General Plans as necessary to establish density compensation programs for land owners seeking to develop their property. Through such programs lands featuring sensitive biological resources may • be dedicated to the RCHCA at no cost, with property owners being given the right to develop the remaining portion of their land at a sufficiently higher density to compensate for the loss of density created by the dedication. In situations where this would result in the conservation of habitat deemed capable of sustaining long-term biological viability of core reserves, the RCHCA will actively support the granting of density compensation. The RCHCA will work with the planning departments of its member agencies to evaluate opportunities for such density compensation. In addition, the RCHCA will consult with member agencies to establish incentives for private land owners to maintain existing levels of use in areas adjacent to conserved SKR habitat, and within habitat linkages and wildlife corridors connected to the core reserves. Such measures could include mitigation banking agreements, and, where consistent with the management goals for the reserve system, assistance in securing authorizations from USFWS and/or CDFG for incidental take of listed species other than SKR. Regarding the conservation of linkages and corridors, the RCHCA will consult with USFWS and CDFG when opportunities for habitat acquisitions arise in such areas and pursue acquisitions if appropriate mitigation credit is given. In addition,the RCHCA will promote and participate as a partner in voluntary conservation efforts that build on existing public ownerships and wildlife preserves, including but not limited to the five core reserves, Santa Rosa Plateau, and other public lands with known habitat values. 3. Project Review and Mitigation Procedures The RCHCA's permit and agreement will cover incidental take of SKR resulting from • actions taken by property owners and public agencies within the plan area. In general, authorization for incidental take for an individual project will be given when applicable SKR biological reports have been submitted, payment of or exemption from the SKR mitigation fee has been demonstrated, and the project is issued a building, grading, surface mining, or mobile home installation permit. Unlike the existing permit and agreement, the RCHCA will not apportion incidental take acreage among its member agencies. Instead, the following reporting, review, and documentation procedures will apply to all projects covered by the permit and agreement. a. Reporting of Incidental Take and Replacement Habitat Acquisitions When the new permit and agreement go into effect, the RCHCA will notify each member agency of the amount of habitat acquired by the RCHCA to date in excess of. the incidental take authorized under the Short-Term HCP. Until the RCHCA has 165 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures completed its 2,500 acre core reserve expansion commitment, every six months the agency will calculate and report the cumulative totals of incidental take and acquisitions to the member agencies, USFWS, and CDFG. If a six-month report indicates that acres of incidental take exceed acres of replacement habitat, the RCHCA will issue a notice to all member agencies requiring an immediate suspension of any further authorization of incidental take. Local authorization for incidental take of SKR will be withheld until the receipt of written notice from the RCHCA that the replacement habitat acquisitions once again exceeds the amount of incidental take acreage. As of June 1, 1994, under the Short-Term HCP the RCHCA had acquired approximately 1,200 acres of replacement habitat in excess of authorized incidental take; if the new permit and agreement took effect on that day, those 1,200 acres would be credited toward the RCHCA's future habitat replacement obligations. The actual amount to be credited toward the long-term permit and agreement will depend on the totals at the time this HCP is approved. As described in Section A(1)(c) of this Chapter, the reporting of incidental take and replacement habitat acquisitions will remain in effect until the RCHCA has fulfilled its commitment to expand core reserves by an additional 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system. b. Core Reserve Advance Notice and Review Other than emergency response, fire prevention, and public facility maintenance and operations activities, RCHCA member agencies will provide advance notice to the RCHCA, CDFG, and USFWS of any proposed land disturbance activity within a core reserve which may result in incidental take of SKR. For all such activities a SKR biological survey of the project area will be prepared and submitted along with the notice. The project proponent and affected RCHCA member agency will meet with representatives of the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG to determine appropriate methods of avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to SKR. Where possible, such determinations will be made as part of the CEQA and NEPA processes. Incidental take of SKR will be permitted only upon issuance of written approval from USFWS and CDFG and satisfaction of reasonable mitigation conditions established by those agencies. 4. Monitoring of Plan Compliance and Effectiveness In addition to the biological monitoring programs conducted within each of the core reserves, the RCHCA will maintain responsibility for monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and agreement and evaluating the effectiveness of the conservation and mitigation measures prescribed in this HCP. 166 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures a. Annual Reports The RCHCA will prepare annual reports concerning reserve management and overall plan implementation, and will submit these to USFWS and CDFG. Annual reports will include the following information: 1. During the period prior to the RCHCA's completion of the 2,500 acre core reserve expansion program, annual reports will contain an accounting of the amount of SKR occupied habitat incidentally taken by RCHCA members, the mitigation measures implemented, and the progress made towards the 2,500- acre standard over the period; • 2. An overview of core reserve management activities for the previous year, including estimates of SKR occupied habitat within each reserve; 3. Evaluation of any problems encountered in plan implementation over the previous year and corrective measures taken and planned to address those problems; 4. Expenditures for acquisition and reserve management over the previous year and applicable budgets for the ensuing year. 5. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Pursuant to the requirements of the ESA, the RCHCA is committed to implement this HCP in a manner which seeks to avoid and minimize impacts to SKR to the maximum extent practicable. The primary means through which this will be accomplished are: a) land management activities conducted within the core reserves, and; b)the land use regulatory processes administered by RCHCA member agencies. Within the core reserves responsible management entities will seek to avoid or minimize impacts to SKR whenever possible. Through coordination with the RCHCA and, as appropriate, USFWS and CDFG, land managers will ensure that land disturbance activities avoid areas of SKR occupied habitat whenever possible. When avoidance is not practical for emergency response, public facility operation and maintenance, and fire prevention activities, SKR biologists will be consulted to recommend methods of minimizing impacts to the species. Within the plan area but outside of the core reserves, RCHCA member agencies will seek to avoid and minimize impacts to SKR through the following actions: 1. Applications for building, grading, surface mining, and mobile home installation permits will be reviewed by RCHCA member agency staff to. identify opportunities for minimizing disruption of habitat, and permit recipients will be advised of appropriate impact minimization practices, and; 2. In the design of public projects RCHCA member agencies will seek to minimize habitat disturbance where practicable. 167 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures • E. Plan Implementation Implementation of this HCP will be governed by legal agreements executed among the RCHCA, its member agencies, USFWS, CDFG, and other agencies as appropriate, e.g., BLM. The purpose of such agreements is to specify the terms and conditions under which the HCP will be implemented, and define the respective roles of all parties. The agreements will take the form of contracts which legally bind the RCHCA and other parties to the provisions contained therein. The RCHCA will execute an Implementation Agreement with USFWS and a California Endangered Species Agreement with CDFG. These documents will: 1. Identify the roles and responsibilities of the RCHCA, USFWS, CDFG, and other parties as appropriate in HCP implementation; 2. Describe the institutional arrangements necessary to coordinate core reserve management; 3. Specify assurances regarding the availability of funding for plan implementation; 4. Identify procedures for enforcing the terms and conditions of applicable permits and agreements; 5. Prescribe procedures for addressing and responding to unforeseen circumstances, and; 6. Define procedures for amending the HCP. 1 . Roles and Responsibilities The RCHCA and its members will be responsible for implementation of the HCP, with those parties covered by the permit and agreement sharing responsibility for compliance with the terms and conditions. The core reserve land managers will be responsible for actual management of resources in the reserves, and their role in plan implementation will be an extension of this function. The role of USFWS and CDFG willbe to oversee compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and agreement. They will also be requested to lend their technical expertise to planning the management and expansion of the core reserves. A summary of the roles and • responsibilities of these parties follows: a_ RCHCA The RCHCA's primary roles and responsibilities for plan implementation will include: 1. Acquisition and ownership of conserved habitat; 168 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 2. Within the parameters of the permit and agreement, adoption of policies guiding implementation of the HCP; 3. Provision of adequate funding for habitat acquisition, habitat management plans and work programs, biological research projects, and administration of • other HCP activities; 4. Development and implementation of financing strategies to maximize funding from federal, state, and other external sources; 5. Management of RCHCA financial resources to ensure their sufficiency for HCP implementation activities; 6. Ensuring the conduct of annual financial audits; 7. Participation in cooperative conservation planning efforts with other public agencies and private property owners; 8. Formation of and participation in the RMCC; 9. Preparation of reports for submission to RCHCA member agencies concerning incidental take and acquisitions of replacement habitat; 10. Preparation of reports for submission to USFWS and CDFG concerning the status of SKR populations in core reserves and management activities conducted therein; 11. Monitoring of mitigation implementation, as required by CEQA and by the permit and agreement; 12. For entities exempt from RCHCA member agency permit requirements, review of SKR biological surveys, collection of mitigation fees, and issuance of incidental take authorizations; 13. Submission of requests to USFWS and CDFG for SKR and multi-species credit for biological resources present on lands acquired under this HCP; 14. As appropriate, submission of requests for amendments to the HCP, permit, and agreement to USFWS and CDFG, and; 15. Record keeping, public noticing, and annual report preparation on behalf of the RCHCA members. b. RCHCA Member Agencies Primary roles and responsibilities of the RCHCA member agencies will include: 1. Maintenance and administration of applicable mitigation fee ordinances; 169 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 2. Collection and transfer of mitigation fees to the RCHCA; 3. Implementation of applicable project review and SKR biological survey procedures; 4. Development of SKR impact minimization and avoidance recommendations where appropriate for proposed land disturbance activities; 5. Prior to the completion of the RCHCA's 2,500 acre core reserve expansion commitment, reporting and record keeping for incidental take within their jurisdictions; 6. Consistent with the terms of this HCP, provision of advance notice to the RCHCA, USFWS, and CDFG for projects proposing incidental take of SKR within core reserves; 7. Subject to availability of RCHCA member agency staff, participation in cooperative conservation planning efforts with the RCHCA, other public • agencies and private property owners; 8. Where deemed appropriate by local governing bodies; amendment of General Plans or use of individual Development Agreements to permit density compensation arrangements which provide opportunities for conservation of sensitive habitat in a manner which results in no economic loss to property owners and obviates the need for public land acquisition, and; 9. Where city or County owned lands are included in core reserves, development and adoption of management plans and participation in actual reserve management. C. RMCC Members As noted, the primary role and responsibilities of the reserve and land managers on the RMCC will be an extension of their current functions as resource managers. Specific roles and responsibilities will include: 1. Adoption of reserve management plans and annual work programs, and submission of applicable portions of same to the RCHCA for consideration of funding requests for SKR management; 2. Performance of management activities for SKR habitat within the reserves; 3. Development and implementation of biological monitoring activities to measure SKR populations and evaluate their viability from year to year and over the term of the permit and agreement; 4. Development of land acquisition priorities and site selection criteria for recommendation to the RCHCA; 170 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 5. Identification and recommendation of habitat restoration and enhancement priorities and opportunities within core reserves, and; 6. Provision of technical assistance to RCHCA staff in the preparation of Requests for Proposals for competitive procurement of biological consulting services and SKR research activities funded by the RCHCA. d. USFWS and CDFG • Separate from but consistent with their responsibilities to.oversee compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and agreement, USFWS and CDFG will provide • technical assistance in planning and providing for the management of SKR habitat. CDFG also is a manager of the Lake Mathews and San Jacinto reserves, and will participate as such on the RMCC. In their regulatory capacity, USFWS and CDFG will be responsible for: 1. Review and approval of land .acquisitions proposed by the RCHCA as replacement habitat; 2. Review of projects with impacts to SKR occupied habitat within core reserves, and approval of mitigation measures for same; 3. Review of SKR management activities included in reserve management plans and annual work programs; 4. Review of RCHCA annual reports concerning SKR core reserve status; 5. Provision of technical assistance in the development and evaluation of SKR monitoring and research activities, and; 6. Review of and timely action on amendments proposed by the RCHCA to the HCP or the legal agreements governing its implementation. 2. Institutional Arrangements All of the institutional arrangements necessary for plan implementation are either already in place or can be established through interagency and cooperative agreements. The Joint Powers Agreement which established the RCHCA empowers the agency to: "plan for, acquire, administer, operate, and maintain land and facilities for ecosystem conservation and habitat reserves to implement a habitat conservation plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and other listed or candidate threatened and endangered species." Thus, the RCHCA Joint Powers Agreement already vests sufficient authority in the RCHCA to perform all functions and assume all responsibilities necessary to implement this HCP. 171 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures The RCHCA has either executed or is in the process of developing several agreements with other agencies which have relevance to this HCP. These are described on the following pages. Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP Cooperative Management Agreement In 1992 the RCHCA executed a Cooperative Management Agreement with USFWS, CDFG, MWD, RCRPOSD, County of Riverside, and the Riverside County Park Facilities Corporation. This document: a) defines the terms and conditions governing the management of lands included within the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP; b) establishes a Management Committee to oversee habitat and species management in conserved MSHCP lands, defines its responsibilities, and sets forth procedures for administering Committee activities; c) provides for addition of lands by the RCHCA and others; d) establishes procedures for development and adoption of annual operating budgets and work plans; e) provides for the granting of conservation easements over conserved habitat, and;f) establishes funding for habitat management and monitoring, biological research, and land acquisition activities to be overseen by the Management Committee. As noted previously, upon the approval of this HCP by USFWS and CDFG, the Cooperative Management Agreement will be amended to formally add all RCHCA lands in the Lake Skinner core reserve to the MSHCP. With that action RCHCA properties • will be managed by the Management Committee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Cooperative Management Agreement. Lake Mathews MSHCP Cooperative Management Agreement In conjunction with the submission of the Lake Mathews MSHCP a Cooperative Management Agreement has been developed between USFWS, CDFG, MWD, and the RCHCA. The purpose of that document is to provide for the permanent management of conserved habitat presently owned by MWD and RCHCA in the Lake Mathews core reserve, as well as those lands to be added in the future by these agencies and other parties. The Cooperative Management Agreement: a) establishes a Management Committee comprised of CDFG, USFWS, MWD, and RCHCA; b) designates CDFG as the Reserve Director; c) establishes procedures for development and adoption of annual operating budgets and work plans; d) defines roles and responsibilities for Management Committee members; e) provides for the granting of conservation easements to CDFG over conserved habitat, and; f) establishes a $5 million endowment to be provided by • the RCHCA to.finance the perpetual management of conserved habitat in the reserve, as well as biological monitoring, research, patrolling, and necessary administrative activities. Memorandum of Understanding among RCHCA Member Agencies In anticipation of the formation of the RCHCA, in 1989 the County of Riverside and Cities of Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris, and Riverside executed a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the conservation of SKR. As part of this agreement the City of Riverside established commitments to provide for the ongoing 172 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan. 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures management of SKR habitat in Sycamore Canyon Park. The City agreed to adopt a regional fee to be applied to all new development within its jurisdiction; that fee was to be sufficient to finance the acquisition of properties designated for inclusion in the Park. Additionally, the City documented its commitment to operate and maintain Sycamore Canyon Park"in.a fashion which shall not jeopardize SKR populations within its boundaries and which shall enhance the likelihood of the continued existence of SKR in the wild." Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Anderson Property In February of 1994 a Memorandum of Understanding was executed among the RCHCA, USFWS, CDFG, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the. County of Riverside. That document established a partnership for the joint acquisition and conservation of 385 acres located adjacent to the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. The agreement provides for the conveyance of that property to CDFG for permanent management as SKR and wetland habitat. By means of the MOU the USFWS and CDFG agreed to cooperate with the RCHCA in the establishment of a mitigation bankbased initially upon wetlands habitat acquired by the RCHCA as part of the Anderson property purchase. It is the intent of the parties to expand that mitigation bank to encompass other habitat types for eventual application to the multi-species HCP to be adopted by the RCHCA as an amendment to this HCP. The RCHCA is now exploring the potential to add other public agencies as participants in the mitigation bank. Discussions are now being held with the Eastern Municipal Water District for this purpose, and the RCHCA will approach Caltrans and other regional public agencies to determine their interest in a multi-species mitigation. bank for western Riverside County. In addition to the above agreements now in existence the RCHCA is currently in the process of developing the following agreements with other agencies concerning implementation of this HCP. Memorandum of Understanding Between the RCHCA and U.S. Bureau of Land Management The RCHCA and BLM are jointly developing a MOIJ concerning cooperative activities in support of the implementation of this HCP and a multi-species HCP for western Riverside County. This agreement includes the following provisions: 1. The BLM and RCHCA will pursue opportunities for BLM managed lands to be incorporated into or managed as part of reserves identified in this SKR HCP and a successor multi-species HCP to be adopted by the RCHCA; 2. The BLM and RCHCA will work together to identify opportunities for surplus BLM lands identified in their South Coast Resource Management Plan to be used to acquire lands to be conserved and managed as wildlife habitat pursuant to this SKR HCP and a future multi-species HCP adopted by the RCHCA. The exchange of such surplus lands will be pursued by BLM as feasible to further the conservation objectives of the SKR HCP and multi-species HCP; 173 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures 3. The RCHCA will provide assistance to the BLM in its efforts to support the conservation objectives of RCHCA HCP's through the above activities, and; • 4. The BLM and RCHCA will cooperate in biological monitoring and research programs designed to support the provisions of this SKR HCP and a future multi-species HCP. Agreement between RCHCA, City of Moreno Valley and UCR Concerning Moreno Valley Field Station Property Self-Mitigation Fund As previously discussed, the RCHCA intends to enter•into an agreement with the City of Moreno Valley and UCR for the establishment of a SKR self-mitigation fund in conjunction with the planned development of the UCR Moreno Valley Field Station Property. That agreement will provide for allocation of SKR mitigation fees generated from future development to finance the perpetual management of SKR habitat in the Motte Rimrock core reserve. Finally, prior to the final approval of this HCP the RCHCA will seek to establish formal agreements with CDFG and the California Department of Parks and Recreation concerning management of SKR habitat within the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Lake Perris State Recreation Area, respectively. 3. HCP Financing As required by federal and state approval criteria for HCP's,the RCHCA will assure that adequate funding is available to fully implement this plan. This assurance will be provided primarily by maintaining the existing SKR mitigation fee of $1,950 per acre until the RCHCA has: a) acquired or otherwise ensured the permanent conservation of all property located within the core reserves designated in this HCP, and; b) expanded those reserves through the acquisition of an additional 2,500 acres of value to the core reserve system as determined by the USFWS and CDFG. At such time as all land acquisition necessary to complete and expand the core reserves has been accomplished, the RCHCA will ensure that the SKR mitigation fee continues in an amount sufficient to finance the management of conserved SKR habitat in the core reserves. In addition, the RCHCA will optimize the use of available funds by continuing and expanding its cooperative habitat conservation efforts with other agencies, actively soliciting federal, state, and private sector funding, applying for grant assistance as available, and, where appropriate, using mechanisms other than fee title acquisition to • conserve habitat for SKR and other species. a. Financial Arrangements for Completion and Expansion of the Core Reserves Between the adoption of the first SKR mitigation fee ordinance by the County of Riverside in December of 1988 and the end of the 1993/94 fiscal year, approximately $36.9 million was raised for implementation of the SKR HCP. Of that amount, 174 1 , I Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures approximately 80% was generated from SKR mitigation fees, with the balance primarily - derived from interest earnings, governmental and private sector grants, and payments I made to the RCHCA for SKR mitigation under separate Section 7 and Section 10(a) Permit agreements. Following is a breakdown of RCHCA revenues collected as of the end of FY 1993/94: RCHCA Revenues As of June 1994 SKR Mitigation Fees $29,719,748.05 80.5% Interest Income 3,075,901.48 8.3% Auditor Adjustments 1,369,893.60 3.7% Federal, State & Private Grants 1,197,000.00 3.2% SKR Mitigation Payments [Including Section 7 & 10(a)] 767,782.21 2.1% RCTC Joint Land Acquisition Payment 373,410.00 1.0% Contract Income 238,000.00 0.6% . Escrow Refunds 132,900.47 0.4% HCP Boundary Modification Fees 39,869.60 0.1% Other Revenues 7,814.73 0.02% TOTAL REVENUES , $36,922,320.14 i As of the end of June 1994 the RCHCA expended approximately $20.2 million to implement the Short-Term HCP and develop this HCP. Presented below is a categorical breakdown of RCHCA expenses as of June 1994: RCHCA Expenses As of June 1994 Land Acquisition $14,173,627.36 70.1% SKR Mitigation Fee Refunds 1,516,504.14 7.5% Management Services Contract 1,159,235.20 5.7% Biological & HCP Consulting Services 1,062,632.26 5.3% Legal Services 643,839.66 3.2% SKR Habitat Management 500,000.00 2.5% Reimbursable Contract Expenses 241,777.17 1,2% Biological Research Contracts 203,999.49 1.0% Washington D.C. Representation 189,967.78 0.9% Auditor Adjustments 177,555.11 0.9% Multi-Species Contract 150,000.00 0.7% ' Litigation Expenses 124,666.35 0.6% Office Expenses 30,761.83 0.2% Travel and Training 21,587.25 0.1% Financial Audits 11,333.30 0.06% _ Public Information 8,634.90 0.04% Staff Expense Reimbursements 4,317.45 0.02% TOTAL EXPENSES $20,220,439.25 175 1 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures As indicated by the preceding revenue and expense summaries, as of June 1994 the RCHCA had an available cash fund balance of approximately $16.7 million. Of the five core reserves designated in this HCP, three are entirely in public ownership and require no further land acquisition by the RCHCA. However, both the Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner reserves include a significant amount of privately owned acreage which must be acquired or otherwise conserved to ensure their completion as configured in this plan. The Lake Mathews core reserve contains 1,577.5 acres in private ownership whose acquisition is planned by the RCHCA. The total projected cost ofpurchasing that property is approximately $8.9 million; the RCHCA will use a portion of its existing $16.7 million fund balance to finance this acquisition. Please note that the balance of private property in the Lake Mathews core reserve is owned by Western Waste Industries (WWI). As previously noted, the RCHCA is now in negotiations with WWI to secure conservation easements over that portion of their property located outside of their planned expansion of the El Sobrante Landfill. If the project is approved, it is anticipated that these easements will be conveyed to the •RCHCA at no cost as mitigation for SKR impacts resulting from the landfill expansion. The Lake Skinner core reserve contains 275 acres of private property planned for acquisition as part of this HCP. The projected cost of purchasing this land is approximately $1.3 million. This expense will be financed with a portion of the RCHCA's $16.7 million fund balance. In addition to the 275 acres planned for acquisition, Finisterra Farms also owns approximately 353 acres within the core reserve. The property owner has been meeting with the USFWS, RCHCA, and CDFG for two years to develop a plan under which ten residences could be constructed on site along with equestrian facilities. A conservation easement would be conveyed at no charge to the RCHCA over 205 acres of the property. At this time draft agreements are now being reviewed by the parties and it is anticipated that arranglements may be finalized prior to the implementation of this HCP. The RCHCA estimates that approximately $10.25 million will be required to purchase all properties necessary to complete the five core reserves defined in this HCP. The RCHCA has adequate funds on hand to finance all of these land acquisitions. As previously noted, this HCP also calls for the RCHCA to expand the five core reserves by acquiring or otherwise conserving an additional 2,500 acres of value to the reserve system. As of the end of June 1994 the RCHCA already had received 230 acres of land acquisition credit from USFWS to be applied toward the 2,500 acre goal; thus, an additional 2,270 acres will need to be purchased under this HCP. At this time the location of properties to be acquired is not known; however, based upon land purchases made by the RCHCA under the Short-Term HCP, the most likely areas of • interest will be the Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner core reserves. The RCHCA's land acquisition experience during the Short-Term HCP provides a useful guide since it reflects a variety of real estate market conditions. During that period • average land costs for properties purchased by the RCHCA and Wildlife Conservation Board within the Lake Mathews and Lake Skinner reserves were $4,668 per acre and $3,113 per acre, respectively. For the purpose of estimating future land acquisition 176 I Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures costs, it is assumed that of the 2,270 acres to be acquired by the RCHCA, 1,270 acres will be in the area of the Lake Mathews reserve and 1,000 acres will be located adjacent to the Lake Skinner reserve. It is further assumed that the average cost of land will be $5,000 per acre in Lake Mathews and $4,000 per acre in Lake Skinner. Based upon those assumed values the RCHCA would expend an additional $6.35 million to expand the Lake Mathews reserve and $4 million for expansion of the Lake Skinner reserve. The total projected cost for completion of all remaining land acquisition contemplated • under this HCP is $20.6 million, as shown below: Completion of Lake Mathews reserve (1,577 acres) $ 8,915,000 Expansion of Lake Mathews reserve (1,270 acres) 6,350,000 Completion of Lake Skinner reserve (275 acres) 1,339,000 Expansion of Lake Skinner reserve (1,000 acres) 4,000,000 TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION COST $20,604,000 Approximately $12 million of the RCHCA's existing $16.7 million fund balance will be used to pay for these planned land acquisitions; the $8.6 million balance will be financed through future SKR mitigation fee collections, grant sources, SKR mitigation payments received by the RCHCA under separate Section 7 Consultations and Section 10(a) Permits approved by USFWS, and other revenues. Of these sources it is expected that the SKR mitigation fee will provide the majority of necessary funding. However, since these fees are directly related to the amount and pace of development in the plan area, their revenue generation potential is subject to rather significant changes over time. This situation is clearly illustrated by the pattern of SKR mitigation fee revenues collected during the Short-Term HCP, as detailed below: SKR Mitigation Fee Collections FY 1988/89 - FY 1993/94 FY 1988/89 $ 5,796,085.29 FY 1989/90 $ 7,910,896.95 FY 1990/91 $ 12,059,811.63 FY 1991/92 $ 1,074,652.79 FY 1992/93 $ 2,392,488.16 FY 1993/94 $ 485,813.23 TOTAL $29,719,748.05 . As noted above, the RCHCA will use approximately $12 million of its available funds to acquire land for the core reserves. The amount of time required to finance the projected $8.6 million balance of land purchase costs will depend in large part on the rate of SKR mitigation fee collections and the agency's success in attracting governmental grants and other sources of external financing. If development accelerates in the plan area, it is reasonable to expect that SKR mitigation fees alone will facilitate the completion of all land acquisitions within five years. For example, if SKR mitigation fee collections were to match the level recorded in FY 91, the RCHCA could finish the SKR land acquisition program within a year. However, if fee revenues 177 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures continue the sluggish pace recorded in FY 94, this process could take a decade or longer to complete. The maintenance of SKR mitigation fee ordinances by RCHCA member agencies assures that adequate financing will be available to acquire all of the land required under this HCP; the only uncertainty will be the amount of time needed to complete that task. • b. Financial Arrangements for Ongoing Core Reserve Management Activities As previously noted, actual management of the individual core reserves will be performed by agencies other than the RCHCA. The primary role of the RCHCA in this process will be to: 1) participate in interagency management committees or otherwise consult with responsible entities to ensure that SKR management complies with the terms of this HCP, and; 2) provide ongoing financial support for appropriate SKR habitat management, species monitoring, and biological research. In the Lake Mathews core reserve the RCHCA will ensure adequate funding for perpetual SKR management through the provisions of the Lake Mathews Multi-Species HCP. Under that plan the RCHCA will be solely responsible for financing a $5 million management endowment. Paid in two $2.5 million installments, the endowment will be administered by CDFG to provide appropriate habitat management, necessary patrols, and ongoing species monitoring programs for all conserved habitat lands owned by the RCHCA and MWD within the Lake Mathews core reserve. All lands added to the core reserve in the future by the RCHCA and MWD also will be managed using the $5 million endowment. The RCHCA will make the first $2.5 million installment in FY 94/95 upon approval of the Lake Mathews Multi-Species HCP by the USFWS and CDFG. That sum will be taken from funds currently on hand as part of the RCHCA's $16:7 million cash reserves. The balance of the endowment will be providedwithin five years of HCP approval. It is anticipated that the balance will be derived primarily from the RCHCA's SKR mitigation fee revenues. Funding arrangements for SKR management in the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve were initiated by the RCHCA during the Short-Term HCP through a $500,000 allocation to the Management Committee. Upon the approval of this HCP the RCHCA will seek to amend the Cooperative Management Agreement to formally place all.existing and future RCHCA lands within the purview of the Management Committee. With that action the RCHCA will assume responsibility for providing funding necessary to ensure ongoing management of SKR habitat, and necessary species monitoring. At this time the precise amount of funding required is unknown, but it is anticipated that the RCHCA will make periodic funding allocations to the Management Committee based upon approved annual management work programs. For cost estimation purposes it is assumed that SKR management and monitoring in the Lake Skinner reserve will average approximately $50,000 per year over the life of the permit and agreement. The relatively modest level of this expenditure is attributable to the substantial management funding already available to the Management Committee. RCHCA funding for ongoing SKR management and monitoring in the Lake 178 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve will be provided primarily from SKR mitigation fee revenues. As noted earlier, SKR habitat management in the Motte Rimrock core reserve will be supported by the fund to be established with SKR mitigation fees generated from development of the University of California's Moreno Valley Field Station property ("SKR Fund"). Mitigation fee revenues to be produced by this development are projected to exceed $1 million at build out. The SKR Fund.will be managed by the RCHCA, and allocations will be subject to.approval by the RCHCA Board of Directors. Allocations from the SKR Fund will be based upon SKR management plans developed by the UCR Natural Reserve System and approved by the RCHCA. Since the Moreno Valley Field Station SKR mitigation fees will be deposited directly into the management fund, ongoing expenses for SKR management in the Motte Rimrock core reserve will require no cash outlay from future RCHCA operating budgets. It is anticipated that the UCR Department of Biology will provide in-kind support for SKR biological monitoring, and also will play an important role in the design and conduct of biological research projects.' Since the establishment of the SKR management fund will not occur immediately, the RCHCA has approved an allocation of $100,000 in FY 94/95 to UCR for SKR management in the Motte Rimrock core reserve. These funds, intended to function as "seed money" for the establishment of an ongoing SKR management program, will be derived from the RCHCA's existing cash reserves. A similar"seed money" allocation of $100,000 will be made by the RCHCA in FY 1995 to the City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department for the development and initial implementation of a SKR management plan for the Sycamore Canyon Park portion of the Sycamore-March Air Force Base core reserve. Future funding allocations will be made by the RCHCA based upon annual SKR habitat management plans; although the exact sums are not known at this time, over the life of the permit funding is estimated to average approximately $50,000 per year. The March Air Force Base portion of the core reserve already has an established SKR management fund resulting from the previously described 1990 Section 7 Consultation performed in conjunction with the 1-215 improvement project. Caltrans has provided $1.5 million to create a "non-wasting" endowment designed to provide for perpetual management of SKR habitat on the base. Accordingly,the RCHCA does not anticipate the future expenditure of any monies for SKR management and monitoring on March Air Force Base. Funding needs for SKR habitat management on the San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve are not defined at this time. As indicated previously, the RCHCA will be working with State officials to develop SKR management plans for the Lake Perris Recreation Area and.the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Since wildlife habitat in both of these areas is generally managed.for multiple species values, it is anticipated that funding will be derived from a combination of the RCHCA's SKR mitigation fees and State resources. For purposes of estimating future expenses, it is projected that by 179 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures combining resources with the State, average annual SKR habitat management costs in the San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve will not exceed $50,000. The total projected cost to the RCHCA for managing conserved SKR habitat over the 30-year period of the permit and agreement is approximately $10.6 million as detailed. i Projected Habitat Management ! and Species Monitoring Expenses 1995 - 2025 Lake Mathews . Perpetual endowment $ 5,000,000 Lake Skinner 1,500,000 Motte Rimrock Reserve FY 1995 Allocation $ 100,000 SKR Fund 1,000,000 Subtotal 1,100,000 San Jacinto-Lake Perris 1,500,000 Sycamore Canyon-March AFB SC: 1,500,000 MAFB: No cost to RCHCA ! 0 Subtotal. 1,500,000 TOTAL PROJECTED MANAGEMENT EXPENSES $10,600,000 In light of the RCHCA's intent to amend this plan into an ecosystem based multi- species HCP, it should be noted that in all likelihood SKR habitat in each reserve will be managed as a component of an overall multi-species plan. Accordingly, the projected management expenses shown above almost certainly will change depending upon the terms of the multi-species successor to this HCP. It is expected that by shifting to a multi-species approach the RCHCA will realize a much greater level of cost-effectiveness in its habitat management expenses. c. Additional Funding Sources and Strategies for HCP Implementation Interaciencv Cooperative Efforts Since 1990, the RCHCA's cooperative efforts with MWD, WCB, RCTC, Riverside County have facilitated the acquisition and conservation of over 1,660 acres in the plan area. In addition, cooperative efforts by the RCHCA, MWD, and/or the County of Riverside have resulted in the conservation of 9,000 acres of sensitive habitats at Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley, a 4,000-acre expansion of the Santa Rosa Plateau reserve, and a proposed 2,500-acre expansion of the State Ecological Reserve at Lake Mathews. 180 Volume I: Habitat Conservation.Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Likely opportunities for future cooperative efforts will focus on use of federal lands to support conservation objectives of this SKR HCP and a successor multi-species HCP. Through the aforementioned MOU with BLM, appropriate lands managed by BLM will be included in the RCHCA's HCP and managed in a fashion consistent with its terms. Additionally,the BLM and RCHCA will work cooperatively to identify and complete land • exchanges which result in the conservation of habitat valuable to the conservation of SKR and other species. The RCHCA will seek to include the U.S. Forest Service as a party to the MOU,,and will work cooperatively in the development of a multi-species plan covering National Forest lands which supports HCP's adopted by the RCHCA. El Sobrante Landfill Expansion SKR Mitigation Funding In 1991 the County of Riverside executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Western Waste Industries (WWI) concerning a planned expansion of the El Sobrante Landfill. In that document the County and WWI agreed to dedicate to SKR conservation revenues generated from a charge imposed on a portion of waste deposited in the landfill. The draft Environmental Impact Report for the landfill expansion project cites this as a primary mitigation measure for anticipated impacts to SKR. Although the EIR includes no specific projection of the revenues to be produced from the charge, previous discussions with WWI indicated a maximum yield of $2 million per year. The draft EIR also includes in its SKR mitigation measures an "advance payment" to the RCHCA of funds for SKR conservation purposes. WWI has expressed its intention of effectively advancing a portion of the waste deposit revenues cited above to the RCHCA in order to permit the agency to accelerate its pace of habitat acquisition in the Lake Mathews core reserve. At this time the draft EIR does not specify the amount or timing of the advance payment, but the RCHCA anticipates those details will be defined in the final EIR. ' Since the establishment of the landfill deposit revenue source depends upon approval of the landfill expansion project by many regulatory agencies, the RCHCA places no reliance upon it for meeting implementation costs of this HCP. However, if it materializes this funding source will enable the RCHCA to complete necessary habitat acquisitions more quickly, and also has the potential to provide most of the funding necessary for ongoing habitat management and species monitoring activities. State and Federal Funding To date, the RCHCA has received no funding from the federal government for implementation of the Short-Term HCP or the development of this document. Despite annual requests from the RCHCA for assistance in the form of appropriations from the Department of Interior budget, Congress has approved no funding to the RCHCA for conservation of the federally endangered SKR. The only federal assistance actually received by the RCHCA to date is a $200,000 appropriation in federal FY 93 for development of a multi-species plan for sage scrub habitat. Another $500,000 was approved by Congress in FY 94 for this purpose, and the RCHCA has requested an additional $500,000 in FY 95. Unfortunately, none of these monies may be expended 181 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures for implementation of this HCP unless it is amended to become a multi-species plan providing for conservation of sage scrub habitat. At such time that this HCP is amended into a multi-species plan the RCHCA will use aforementioned federal appropriations for biological surveys and other data collection tasks necessary for its implementation. The RCHCA has a pending application for $1 million in grant assistance from the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). If approved, these grant monies will be used to acquire land in support of the RCHCA's commitment to expand the SKR core reserves by 2,500 acres. The RCHCA has had some success to date in attracting financial support from the State of California. The State has assisted the implementation of the SKR HCP through a $500,000 grant from the Environmental License Plate Fund, $520,000 from the California Transportation Commission's Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation grant program and most importantly, expenditures of almost $1.7 million by the Wildlife Conservation Board to acquire land for SKR conservation purposes within the Lake Mathews core reserve. All monies expended by the State for SKR conservation • have been directed toward land acquisition in the core reserves. Federal and State funding sources which will be pursued by the RCHCA to assist in the implementation of this HCP include grant programs administered by the following agencies: 1. California Department of Parks and Recreation, under the California Wildlife Protection, Act (Proposition 117) and the State Grant-in-Aid Program of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund; 2. California Resources Agency and California Transportation Commission, as part . of the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation grant program; 3. Riverside County Transportation Commission and California Transportation Commission, under the ISTEA grant program; 4. USFWS, under the North American Wetland Conservation Act; and 5. CDFG, through the Environmental License Plate Fund. The RCHCA also will seek an appropriation from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, either in connection with a BLM or USFWS project or by requesting a Congressional representative to seek a special appropriation. • Other Mechanisms for Habitat Conservation In addition to cooperative efforts and grants, the RCHCA also will seek to optimize the use of its available funds by protecting habitat through mechanisms other than fee title acquisition. Such mechanisms include conservation easements, life estates, charitable donations,and implementation of density compensation and transfer programs through the General Plans of RCHCA member agencies. 182 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures d. Projected Budget for HCP Implementation . Based upon the projections and assumptions presented in this section, following is a projected summary budget for implementation of this HCP: EXPENSES Completion of core reserves $10,254,000 Expansion of core reserves $10,350,000 Subtotal Land Acquisition $20,604,000 Habitat management $10,600,000 HCP administration $ 5,000,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $36,204,000 REVENUES RCHCA fund balance at beginning of HCP $16,000,000 UCR Self-Mitigation Fund $ 1,000,000 Federal/State assistance $ 2,000,000 SKR Section 7/101a)mitigation payments $ 1,000,000 RCHCA SKR mitigation fee revenues $13,204,000 Interest income $ 3,000,000 TOTAL REVENUES $36,204,000 4. Changed or Unforeseen Circumstances To ensure that corrective actions can be taken in response to changed or unforeseen circumstances, the RCHCA will include in its annual plan implementation reports an assessment of the following factors: a. Any significant adverse change in SKR populations within core reserves or the amount and distribution of SKR occupied habitat within the reserve system; b. Any significant adverse change in the assumptions regarding the availability of funding for plan implementation, and; 183' Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures c. Any significant new information relevant to the HCP that was unforeseen at the time the plan was approved. In the event that significant adverse changes have occurred or significant new information is available, appropriate amendments to the HCP will be proposed by the RCHCA in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. 5. HCP Amendment Process • The following types of amendments to this HCP are anticipated by the RCHCA: a. Administrative changes to the text of the plan, permit, and agreement; b. Changes to the terms and conditions of the permit and agreement; c. Changes to the boundaries of the plan area and reserves, and; d. Changes to the authorizations provided by the permit and agreement. a. Administrative Amendments to the HCP RCHCA requests for administrative amendments to the text of the plan, permit, or agreement will be submitted in writing to USFWS and CDFG and will take effect upon receipt of written approval from those agencies. Administrative amendments generally will include those minor changes not requiring formal NEPA or CEQA processing. b. Changes to HCP Terms and ConditionsI _ Over the course of the 30-year HCP implementation period, it is anticipated that the terms of the permit and agreement may be modified to allow needed refinements and respond to changed conditions. Any amendments to the terms and conditions of the permit and agreement proposed by the RCHCA will be submitted in writing to USFWS and CDFG,and will be accompanied by environmental documentation as required under NEPA and CEQA. c. Changes to HCP Boundaries Since this HCP includes a commitment by the RCHCA to expand the core reserves designated in this document, the boundaries of those areas certainly will be modified over time. Such changes will not require formal amendments to this HCP; instead, they will be documented through written notice to USFWS, CDFG, and other interested • parties. The RCHCA's GIS maps and data base also will be updated as land is added to the core reserve system. Over time it is likely that the area covered by this HCP will be modified. This could occur through: 1) the addition of new unincorporated lands; 2) expansion of the RCHCA to include additional cities, or; 3) participation by individual land owners in areas not previously covered by this HCP. It is also possible that lands will be removed 184 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures from the plan area due to annexations by non-member cities and/or incorporation of new cities do not join the RCHCA. With the exception of changes to core reserve boundaries resulting from land acquisitions or dedications approved by USFWS and CDFG,all proposed changes to the • plan area will be submitted in writing and subject to USFWS and CDFG concurrence. Such requested changes will be supported by environmental documentationas required under NEPA and CEQA. d. Changes to Authorizations Provided Under the Permit and Agreement As previously noted, the RCHCA intends to amend this HCP into a ecosystem based conservation plan covering all sensitive habitats and species in RCHCA member jurisdictions. As part of that process the RCHCA may choose to seek authorization for incidental take of other federally or state listed species occurring in the plan area, and may also seek pre-listing agreements covering non-listed species. All changes sought by the RCHCA to the authorizations provided under the permit and agreement will be processed as an amendment to the HCP and its implementing agreements, and will be accompanied by environmental documentation as required under CEQA and NEPA. 6. Procedures for Addition of New RCHCA Member Agencies As noted above, the addition of new cities to the RCHCA is anticipated during the term of this HCP. The following procedures will be employed in the addition of new member agencies to the RCHCA: a. The governing body of the affected jurisdiction will send a written request for agency membership to the RCHCA Board of Directors; b. The RCHCA Board of Directors t staff and will consider legal counsel to and draft decides proposed pursue the matter, will d amendments to the RCHCA Joint Powers Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, HCP implementation agreements with USFWS and CDFG, and other pertinent agreements; nts c. Upon approval by the A member agencies, USFWS, CDFG, and otherwill partesfor to RCHCA approval; d. Upon execution by all parties and satisfaction of all initial membership obligations which may be specified in the agreements, the affected jurisdiction will become a member of the RCHCA. Upon execution by USFWS and CDFG of permit amendments and HCP implementation agreements, the new agency will be covered by incidental take permits. 185 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures Although it is not presently a member of the RCHCA, the City of Murrieta adopted the County of Riverside's SKR mitigation fee ordinance and has been collecting such fees since its incorporation. Accordingly,the City of Murrieta may, if it so chooses, become a RCHCA member and gain coverage under this HCP by following the procedures above and transferring all SKR mitigation fees collected to the RCHCA. --' For other cities, RCHCA membership will also involve an agreement which specifies mutually acceptable arrangements for ensuring that the new member city contributes a fair share toward implementation costs of the SKR HCP. Such agreements will be subject to approval by the new member city and the governing bodies of all existing RCHCA jurisdictions. • • 186 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan References References A. Citations Burke, R. L., J. Tasse, C. Badgley, S. R. Jones, N. Fishbein, S. Phillips, and • M. E. Soule 1991 Conservation of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi); Planning for Persistence. Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 90(1), 1991, pp. 1040. Center of Continuing Study of the California Economy 1991 1991 Cities Database Knecht, A. A. 1971 Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Agriculture. O'Farrell, M. J. and C. Uptain • 1989 Assessment of Population and Habitat Status of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report, July 1989. State of California. Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Onaka, Jun 1993 Report for the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan, presented at September Advisory Group Meeting. Price, M. V. and P. R. Endo 1989 Estimating the Distribution and Abundance of a Cryptic Species, Dipodomys stephensi (Rodentia: Heteromyidae), and Implications for Management. Conservation Biology 3:293-301. Southern California Association of Governments 1991 Regional Growth Forecast. 1992 1990 Regional Land Use Inventory. Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, & J. Verner 1990 A conservation strategy for the northern spotted.owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Portland, Oregon. 427pp. 187 -"1 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan References U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1993 Draft Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise (Mojave population). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 170 pages plus appendices. RCHCA Studies References Gilpin, Michael 1993 A Viability Model for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County Kelly, P. A., and Price, M. A. - 1992 Home Range Use of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats: Implications for Density Estimation McClenaghan, Jr., R. L., and E. Taylor 1991 Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Demography in Populations of Dipodomys stephensi from Riverside County, California McClenaghan, Jr., R. L., and.H. D. Truesdale 1991 Genetic Variability within and among Populations of Dipodomys • stephensi in Riverside County Minnich, R. A. and Y. Chou n.d. A Geographic Information System Database for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Olson, Todd 1993 The Habitat Transaction Method: A Market-based alternative for HCP Implementation Price, M. V., and R. M. Ascanio 1992 Effect of D. agilis on Home Range and Habitat Use by Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi): A Preliminary Report of Progress-to-Date Price, M. V., and R. L. Goldingay 1992 Temporal Stability of Space Use by Dipodomys stephensi and D. agilis in a Habitat Mosaic. Managing Habitat for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat: Effects of Shrub • Removal . Price, M. V., and P. A. Kelly 1992 Demography of Two Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Populations in Riverside County, California 188 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan References Monthly and Lifetime Movement Distances of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi Merriam) Price, M. V., P. A. Kelly, and R. L. Goldingay 1992 Distinguishing the Endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) from the Pacific Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys agilis) RECON 1991 Stephens' Kangaroo.Rat.Literature Review • 1993 A Population Viability 'Analysis of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Core Reserves in Riverside County, California 1993 Methodology of Surveying for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat and Evaluating Suitability of Lands as SKR Permanent Reserves • 189 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary ; Glossary • Abbreviations and Acronyms ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern AG Agriculture BIA Building Industry Association Cl Category 1 Candidate (for federal listing) C2 Category 2 Candidate (for federal listing) C3c Category 3c Candidate (for federal listing) CA California CALTRANS California (Department of) Transportation CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFP California Fully Protected CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHP Chaparral CNPS California Native Plant Society CPI Consumer Price Index CR California Rare (species status) CRMP Core Reserve Management Plan CSC California Species of Special Concern CSS Coastal Sage Scrub DIS Disturbed (habitat) DU Dwelling Unit EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FE Federal Endangered (species) FPE Federal Proposed (for listing), Endangered FT Federal Threatened (species) FWM Fresh Water Marsh G Grassland G/CSS (Mixed) Grassland and Coastal Sage Scrub GIS Geographic Information System HCP Habitat Conservation Plan JPA Joint Powers Agency JW Juniper Woodland LC (Species of) Local Concern LM-EM Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain LS-DV Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU Memorandum of Agreement MRR Motte Rimrock Reserve MSHCS Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Strategy (Riverside Co.) 190 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary MVP Minimum Viable Population MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan(ning) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OF (Live) Oak Forest OW Open Water (shoreline) PKR • Pacific Kangaroo Rat PVA Population Viability Assessment RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency RF Riparian Forest RMCC Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee RMP Resource Management Plan RSA Regional Statistical Area SC-MAFB Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base SJ-LP San Jacinto-Lake Perris SKR Stephens' Kangaroo Rat SM Salt Marsh SRP Scientific Review Panel TAC Technical Advisory Committee USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior) VP Vernal Pool WCB (California) Wildlife Conservation Board Definitions Agricultural Preserves: Designated areas of existing, viable, and productive agricultural land within which contracts can be enforced under the provisions of the Williamson Act to stay in agricultural use for a designated period of law. Under this contract, land is granted certain property tax advantages for continuation of agricultural use. (State of California Government Code Section 51200) Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): An area within federal lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic value, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Biodiversity: A general term for species, habitats, and genetic diversity;the distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within an area. Category I Land Use: Defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan as "heavy urban" characterized by high densities and intensive land uses. Examples of heavy urban land uses are large commercial centers, heavy industry, and residential land uses with a density range of 8 to 20 or more housing units per acre. These land uses require the full level of public services, such as community water systems, sewer service, complete road improvements, fire and police protection, and garbage collection. Heavy urban land uses are generally located at the center of a community and within access of a major transportation corridor. 191 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary Category H Land Use: Defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan as "urban," characterized by a broad mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses, with residential density ranging from two to eight housing units per acre. These land uses require high levels of public services such as community water systems, full road improvements, sewer service in most cases, fire and police protection, and garbage collection. Urban land uses generally are located in communities or city spheres of influence. Category Ill Land Use: Defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan as "rural," characterized by low densities and fewer public facilities and improvements. - Rural communities may have a variety of different land uses, including agricultural uses, small-scale commercial uses, residential uses with lot sizes of one-half acre to five acres, and industrial uses such as railroads. Water and sewer service may be provided by community systems, or may be dependent on wells and septic systems. Road systems are generally not well developed or improved. Category IV Land Use: Defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan as "outlying area," where development is the least dense with parcels of five acres and greater in size. Outlying areas may be located close to large tracts or publicly owned land. Outlying area land uses are often tied to agriculture, mining, industry, or residential uses. Public facilities are required where they are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, but further improvements are generally not required for outlying area developments. Category V Land Use: Defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General plan as a unique category for planned communities. Planned community developments are large-scale projects which offer a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. These projects are designed to "stand alone" as self-supporting communities, and must provide the highest level of public services consistent with an urban type of development. The large scale of these projects is necessary in order for them to have the ability to finance both on-site and off-site public facilities and services which are needed to support the community. , Conservation: Methods and procedures necessary to recover an endangered or threatened species, including research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition, habitat protection, habitat maintenance, species propagation, and live trapping and transportation. Corridor: A defined tract of land, usually linear, through which a species must travel to reach habitat suitable for reproduction and other life-sustaining needs. -Critical Habitat: Defined in the federal Endangered Species Act (1973) to include the area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, specific areas in the vicinity of the occupied habitat, and specific areas away from the occupied habitat considered essential for the conservation of the species. - Cumulative Impact: The incremental environmental impact of an action together with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (regardless of the source of the other actions). 192 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary Discretionary Project: 'A project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency of body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations (CEQA Guidelines 1986). Dispersal: The movement, usually one way, and on any time scale, of plants or animals from their point of origin to another location where they subsequently produce offspring. Ecosystem: A complex ecological community and environment forming a functioning whole in nature; a complex interaction among plant and animal species and their physical environment. Edge Effects: Differences in microclimate, flora,fauna, stand structure, habitat values, stand integrity (including resistance to being blown down by high winds) that occur in or as a result of a transition zone where two plant communities or successional stages are joined. - Endangered Species: Any plant or animal species in danger of extinction in all or a significant part of its range. Endangered Species Act: Federal act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. Sections 1531 • - 1543; and California Act of 1984, as amended, California Fish and Game Code, Sections 2050-2098. • Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document prepared in compliance with NEPA, which briefly discusses the need for an action and alternatives to such action and provides sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Document prepared in accordance with federal law to describe, analyze, and consider mitigation of the significant environmental effects of a project, plan, or action. Extinct: Disappeared as a species due to failure to reproduce sufficient numbers to maintain succeeding generations. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with NEPA, usually supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly states why a federal action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared. • Floodplain: The land adjacent to a river which is subject to inundation during high water flows when the river's water level rises above its established banks. The 100- year floodplain refers to that area of land which will be inundated during a flood of a severity that may only take place once every 100 years. Forb: Any nongrass-like plant having little or no woody material on it. 193 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary Habitat: The combination of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a species or a population of such species. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): An implementable program for the long-term protection and benefit of a species in a defined area; required as part of a Section 10(a) permit application under the federal Endangered Species Act. Historic Habitat: Areas that have supported a species in the past and may or may not continue to do so. Historic Range: The known general distribution of a species or subspecies as reported in current scientific literature. Home Range: The area to which the activities of an animal are confined during a defined period of time. • Incidental Take: The taking of a federally listed wildlife species, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out otherwise lawful activities. Land Use Planning Areas: Geographic subdivisions of Riverside County utilized in the General Plan Land Use Element. The boundaries of the Land Use Planning Areas correspond to the boundaries of the Regional Statistical Areas (RSAs) within the County. Lead Agency: The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Ministerial Decision: A governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project (CEQA Guidelines 1986). Mitigation: Measures undertaken to diminish or compensate for the negative impacts of a project or activity on the environment, including: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts • by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or(e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Monitoring: The process of collecting information to document implementation of mitigation measures and to evaluate whether or not the objectives of the habitat conservation plan are being realized. Open Space: Land on which no structural improvements are permitted. Population: A collection of individuals that share a common gene pool. Population Density: Number of individuals of a species per unit area. 194 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary Population Viability Analysis (PVA): A general term to describe a planning process wherein all threats to a population, natural and human-caused, are identified and a determination is made whether these threats endanger the continued existence of the population. Virtually all aspects of the biology of a species affect the viability of a real population. Raptor: A bird of prey (e.g., eagle, owl, hawk, or falcon). Rare Species: A species of plan or animal which has limited numbersand/or distribution. • Recovery Plan: A plan to ensure the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. Recovery plans give priority, to the extent feasible, to those endangered or threatened species that are or may be in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity. Section 7: A section of the federal Endangered Species Act that provides for consultation between federal agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded; or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. Section 9: A section of the federal Endangered Species Act that prohibits the "taking" of any endangered species. Section 10(a): An amendment to the federal Endangered Species Act that allows for incidental takings of an. endangered species if the permit for the proposed activity is accompanied with a habitat conservation plan that will demonstrably benefit the species. Sensitive Species or Species of Concern: Species which are rare, which have preternaturally small or declining populations, or whose probability for long-term survival is in question. Seral Stage: A step in the practically continuous replacement of one plant community - by another (succession) as an ecological site passes from a pioneer stage through intermediate to the climax stage of a vegetation type. Recognizable stages, or seres, occur in the development of a climax vegetation as it arises, grows, matures, and dies. These stages of progression from colonization of bare land to formation of a stabilized habitat are called early seral, mid-seral, late seral, and potential natural community (climax). Species: Any distinct population of wildlife that interbreeds when mature. Species of Special Concern: Species designated by the California Department of Fish and Game as being rare, having preternaturally small or declining populations, or whose probability for long-term survival is questioned. 195 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Glossary Stephens' Kangaroo Rat: Small, nocturnal mammal related to squirrel family of rodents, native to flat grasslands and coastal sage habitat of western Riverside County and northern San Diego County. Study Area: Locations within western Riverside County that were identified in a Short- term HCP as potential sites for permanent SKR reserves in western Riverside County. Take: As defined in the federal ESA, take means "t o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a species [listed as threatened of endangered], or attempt to do so." "Harass" and "harm" are further defined in federal regulations and case law as follows: "Harass" means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Harm" means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. As defined in the California ESA, take means "to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill or attempt the same;" the terms "harm" or "harass" are not used. Territory: The area that an animal defends, usually during breeding season, against intruders of its own species. Threatened Species: Any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Viability: The ability of a population to persist. The converse of a vulnerability or the propensity of a population to go extinct. • Zoning: A legal device used by local jurisdictions to control use of land and development density and to ensure that land uses are properly situated in relation to one another. 196 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan RCHCA Board of Directors RCHCA Board of Directors Board Members Mark Goldberg Director of Community Chair Development City of Hemet Cynthia Crothers Councilwoman Vice Chair City of Moreno Valley Lenwood Long Councilman City of Perris Al Lopez Councilman City of Corona Ron Parks Councilman City of Temecula Laura Pearson Councilwoman City of Riverside Gary Washburn Mayor City of Lake Elsinore A. Norton Younglove Supervisor, Fifth District County of Riverside 197 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan RCHCA Advisory Committee and Ad Hoc Working Groups RCHCA Advisory Committee and Ad Hoc Working Groups Advisory Committee Chair Cindy Domenigoni Property Owner Vice Chair Gary Wanczuk Property Owner Agricultural Interests Bob Perkins Riverside County Farm Bureau Jules Wesselink Dennis Hollingsworth (Alternate) Riverside County Farm Bureau Biological Interests Richard D. Friesen, Ph.D. Bob McKernan San Bernardino County Museum Development Interests Rod Hanway Building Industry Association Randy Hall (past chair) Concordia Homes • Environmental Interests Scott White Audubon Society Anne Dennis (past chair) Sierra Club Jane Block 198 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan RCHCA Advisory Committee and Ad Hoc Working Groups Dan Silver, M.D. Endangered Habitats League Property Owners Bill Sullivan Lockheed Corporation J. Jerry Murphy Riverside County Property •• _ Owners • Public Utilities N. Gregory Taylor Metropolitan Water District Jack Wyatt Southern California Edison University of California John Rotenberry, Ph.D. Natural Reserve System • Other Members Lindell Marsh Siemon, Larsen & Marsh Bob Nelson Riverside County Waste • Management Department Shelton Douhit Riverside Land Conservancy Federal and State Agencies John Bradley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fred Worthley California Department of Fish and Game TLMA Carolyn Syms-Luna Riverside County 199 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan RCHCA Advisory Committee and Ad Hoc Working Groups Biology Working Group , Julie A/pert Metropolitan Water District Ronald Baxter Baxter Consulting Phillip Behrends Dudek and Associates John Bradley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Art Davenport U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Larry Eng California Department of Fish and Game Richard Friesen Biodiversity Consulting Paul Framer RECON John Gustafson California Department of Fish and Game Patrick Kelly U.C. Riverside (formerly) Karen Kirtland LSA Associates Earl Lauppe California Department of Fish and Game Leroy McClenaghan San Diego State University Tony Metcalf San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society Steve Montgomery SJM Biological Consultants Michael O'Farrell O'Farrell Consulting Mary Price U.C. Riverside John Rotenberry U.C. Riverside Gina Shultz RECON Peter Stine U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • 200 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A Appendix A Overview of Federal and State Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws • A. Wildlife and Habitat 2 • 1. Federal Endangered Species Act 2 a. Section 4 3 b. Section 9 3 c. Section 10(a) 4 d. Section 7 5 e. Section 6 5 f. Proposed Special Rule for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher 6 2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act 7 3. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 7 4. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 8 B. California Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws 10 1. California Endangered Species Act 10 a. Sections 2070-2079 10 b. Section 2080 10 c. Sections 2081 and 2053 11 d. Sections 2090-2097 11 • 2. Native Plant Protection Act 13 3. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act 13 a. Purpose and Focus 13 b. Subregional NCCPs and Ongoing Multi-Species Plans 14 c. Draft Conservation Guidelines and Interim Strategy 16 4. Streambed Alteration Laws 18 C. Federal and State Environmental Documentation Requirements 18 1. National Environmental Policy Act 18 2. California Environmental Quality Act 19 A-1 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A • Appendix A An Overview of Federal and State Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws This appendix presents an overview of the full range of federal and state laws.that , pertain to wildfire and habitat conservation in Riverside County and elsewhere. The laws are organized under three headings: • Federal wildlife and habitat conservation laws, • California wildlife and habitat conservation laws, and • Federal and state environmental documentation requirements. A. Wildlife and Habitat . Conservation Laws Federal wildlife and habitat conservation laws include the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 1 . Federal Endangered Species Act Five sections of the federal ESA are relevant to the preparation, approval, and implementation of plans to conserve wildlife habitat and protect individual species. These are: • Section 4, which covers the listing process, designation of critical habitat, issuance of special rules for the protection of threatened species, and preparation of recovery plans; • Section 9, which prohibits the import, export, take, possession, transport, receipt, or sale of listed species; • Section 10(a), which authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to issue permits for incidental take of listed species and to approve HCPs for listed and/or unlisted species; • Section 7, which includes provisions for the authorization of incidental take resulting from federal actions; and • Section 6, which authorizes cooperative agreements between USFWS and states and includes provisions for the conservation of federally listed plants. A-2 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A a. Section 4 Section 4 of the federal ESA stipulates that a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any one of five factors: 1. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2. Over utilization for commercial,recreational,scientific, or educational purposes; 3. Disease or predation; 4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4 further stipulates the steps by which species may be proposed for listing and the time-frame in which decisions must be made. It also requires that critical habitat for the species be designated concurrently with the decision to list the species and that a plan for the conservation and survival of the species (recovery plan) beprepared and implemented. Section 4 also provides for the issuance of special regulations for the protection of federally-listed threatened species in any State that has entered into a cooperative agreement with USFWS pursuant to Section 6 of the ESA. b. Section 9 Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits the taking of species listed by USFWS as threatened or endangered. As defined in the ESA, "taking" means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or to attempt to engage in such conduct." "Harass" and "harm" are further defined in federal regulations and case law as follows: "Harass" means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood • of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). "Harm" means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). With respect to endangered plants, the ESA makes it unlawful to: 1. Remove and reduce to possession any such species from areas under federal jurisdiction; 2. Maliciously damage or destroy any such species on such areas; or A-3 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A 3. Remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation in any state or in the course of. any violation of a state criminal trespass law. ESA protection for threatened plants is substantially the same as that given to endangered plants, except that the seeds of threatened plants may be cultivated. c. Section 10(a) In recognition that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) of the ESA includes provisions for takings that are incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Similar provisions also are found in Section 7 for actions by federal agencies. Under Section 10(a)(1)(B), USFWS (via powers delegated by the Secretary of the Interior) is authorized to approve "incidental take" permits provided that the applicant has met certain conditions. As described in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and draft conservation planning guidelines prepared by USFWS, the application for such permits must be submitted on a specific form and must be accompanied by an HCP that contains the following information: 1. The impact that will likely result from the proposed taking of the species; 2. Steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts; 3. The level and source of funding available to implement such steps; 4. Procedures that will be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances; 5. The names of the responsible party or parties; 6. Alternatives to the taking and the reasons why they were not pursued; and 7. Other measures that may be required by USFWS as necessary or appropriate. The application is submitted to the Regional Director of USFWS who, after a public comment period, must issue the permit if it is found that: 1. The taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2. The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking; 3. The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the conservation plan and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will be provided; 4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; A-4 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A 5. The applicant will ensure that other measures (if any) that USFWS may require as being necessary or appropriate will be met; and 6. USFWS is assured that the conservation plan will be implemented (USFWS's practice has been to require an "implementing agreement" signed by the permittee and USFWS in which the actions identified in the HCP are presented in the form of a legal contract.) Prior to making the decision, USFWS .must conduct an internal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. USFWS also must comply with the environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires that the potential effects of a major action be analyzed in a written statement. Although phrased in terms of criteria for issuance of incidental take permits, Section 10(a)(1)(B) also was intended by Congress to authorize USFWS's approval of HCPs for unlisted as well as listed species. Moreover, if the HCP treats unlisted species as if it were already listed, additional mitigation would not be required within the area covered by the HCP upon the listing of that species. As stated by the House Conference Committee when Section 10(a)(1)(B) was added to the ESA in 1982: The committee intends that the Secretary [of the Interior] may utilize this provision to approve conservation plans which provide long-term commitments regarding the conservation of listed as well as unlisted species and long-term assurances to the proponent of the conservation plan that the terms of the plan will be adhered to and that further mitigation requirements will only be imposed in accordance with the terms of the plan. In the event that an unlisted species addressed in an approved conservation plan is subsequently listed pursuant to the Act, no further mitigation requirements should be imposed if the conservation plan addressed the conservation of the species and its habitat as if the species were listed pursuant to the Act. (House of Representatives Conference Report No.97-835, 97th Congress, 2d Session, p.30). d. Section 7 Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to consult with USFWS on actions involving listed species and requires USFWS to conduct internal consultations regarding the effects of its own actions on such species. It also requires USFWS to use its program to further the objectives of the ESA. A Section 7 consultation begins with a biological assessment that examines the potential effects of the action on the species in question and concludes with a written statement by USFWS stating whether the action would jeopardize a listed or proposed species or adversely affect critical habitat. If USFWS finds that the species would not be jeopardized, the written statement includes authorization for incidental take. a Section 6 Section 6 of the ESA authorizes USFWS to enter into cooperative agreement with States, and Section 6(c)(2)deals explicitly with conservation programs for listed plants. As stated in.the ESA: A-5 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A In order for a State program to be deemed an adequate and active program . . . the Secretary must find, and annually thereafter reconfirm such finding, that under the State program --- (A) Authority resides in the State agency to conserve resident species of plants determined by the State agency or the Secretary to be endangered or threatened; (B) the State agency has established acceptable conservation programs,consistent with the purposes and policies of this [ESA], for all resident species of plants in the State which are deemed by the Secretary to .be endangered or threatened, and has furnished a copy of such plan and program, together with all pertinent details, information, and date requested to the Secretary; (C) the State agency is authorized to conduct investigations to determine the status and requirements for survival of resident species of plants; and (D) provision is made for public participation in designating resident species of , plants as endangered or threatened . . . Such a program has been authorized in California based on the state ESA, the Native Plant Protection Act, and California Native Desert Plants Act. f. Proposed Special Rule for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher The proposed special rule for the gnatcatcher was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1993, and reads in its entirety as follows: (1) Except as noted in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, all prohibitions of §17.31(a) and (b) shall apply to the coastal California gnatcatcher. (2) Incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher is permitted if the take results from activities conducted in accordance with a Natural Community Conservation Plan for the protection of coastal sage scrub habitat, provided that•. (i) The Natural Community Conservation Plan has been prepared, approved, and implemented pursuant to California Fish and Game Code sections 2800-2840; and (ii) The Fish and Wildlife service has issued written concurrence that the Natural Community Conservation Plan also meets the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2). The Service shall issue its concurrence pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 4, 1991, between the California Department of Fish and Game and the Service regarding coastal sage _ scrub natural community conservation planning in southern California. (Copies of the Memorandum are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA 92008). A-6 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A (3) During the period that a Natural Community Conservation Plan referred to in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is being prepared, incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher is permitted if the take results from activities conducted pursuant to guidelines prepared by the Scientific Review Panel forthis program and adopted by the California Department of Fish and game pursuant to 1 California Fish and Game Code section 2825, provided that: • (i) The take occurs in an area within a local governmental jurisdiction that is ti enrolled"in the natural community conservation planning process; (ii) The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued written concurrence that the guidelines. meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2). The Service shall issue its concurrence pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 4, 1991, between the California Department of Fish and Game and the Service regarding coastal sage scrub natural community conservation planning in southern California; and (iii) The total loss of coastal sage scrub habitat resulting from activities covered by this paragraph does.not exceed the restrictions defined by the Scientific Review Panel/California Department of Fish and Game guidelines. (4) If the Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred in the guidelines referred to in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Service shall review the guidelines every six months to determine whether they continue to meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2). If the Service determines the guidelines no longer meet those standards, the Service shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 4, 1991,to seek appropriate modification of the guidelines,and shall revoke its concurrence under paragraph (b)(3) of this section if appropriate modification of the guidelines does not occur. 2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA makes it•unlawful to pursue, hunt, capture, kill, or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States and Great Britain, United Mexican States, Japan, and the Union of Soviet States. As with the federal ESA, the act also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for take. The procedures for securing such permits are found in Title 50 of the CFR, together with a list of the migratory birds covered by the act. 3. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act i ,, The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: 1. Provide assistance to and cooperate with federal, state, and public or private agencies and organizations: A-7' • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A (a) in the development, protection, rearing, and stocking of all species of wildlife, resources thereof, and their habitat, (b) in controlling losses of the same from disease or other causes, (c) in minimizing damages from overabundant species, (d) in providing public shooting and fishing areas, including easements across public lands for access thereto, and (e) in carrying out other measures necessary to effectuate the purposes of said sections; i 2. Make surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the public domain, including lands and waters or interests therein acquired or controlled by any agency of the United States; and 3. Accept donations of land and contributions of funds in furtherance of the purposes of said sections. The act's stated purpose is to: 1. Recognize the contribution of the wildlife resources to the nation, the increasing public interest and significance thereof due to the expansion of the national economy and other factors; and - 2. Provide that wildlife conservation receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource development programs. Specifically, the act requires that, except for water impoundment projects less than 10 acres in size and federal projects on federal lands, all federal agencies must consult with USFWS and the head of the state wildlife agency with jurisdiction over the project area with a view to preventing loss of and damage to and providing for the development and improvement of wildlife resources. The reports and recommendations from such consultations must be included in any documents prepared as part of the approval process for the project and must be considered prior to approval being given. The act further authorizes federal agencies responsible for the construction or operation of water-control facilities to modify or add to the structures and operations of such facilities and acquire lands in order to accommodate the wildlife conservation measures. 4. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into the A-8 Volume I: Habitat Conservation.Plan Appendix A waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" generally defines COE's jurisdiction and is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 as: 1. All navigable waters (including waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), 2. All interstate waters and wetlands, 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, .wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds,the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce, . 4. All impoundments of waters mentioned above, 5. All tributaries to waters mentioned above, 6. The territorial seas, and 7. All wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above. Wetlands are further defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support . . . a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of a wetland is further characterized in the manual used by COE as normally meeting the following three criteria: More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands); Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottled with a matrix of low chroma • indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year. Certain activities in wetlands or waters of the United States are automatically authorized by COE or granted a nationwide permit, provided they meet specific conditions. All impacts of 10 acres or more and aggregate wetland impacts greater than 1 acre require an individual permit. The permitting process entails consultation with federal agencies, public notice, and preparation of a project alternatives analysis in accordance with guidelines issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA's guidelines are used as the primary environmental criteria for evaluating the necessity of the proposed activity and for determining the least damaging feasible A-9 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A alternative appropriate mitigation for unavoidable impacts. In accordance.with the provisions of Section 404, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and, if federally listed species are present, Section 7 of the ESA, COE also is required to consult with USFWS prior to acting on a permit. B. California Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws State wildlife and habitat conservation laws include the. California ESA, Native Plant Protection Act, NCCP Act, and streambed alteration laws. 1 . California Endangered Species Act The California ESA is part of the Fish and Game Code. Key sections include: • Sections 2070-2079, which cover the state listing process; • Section 2080, which prohibits the taking, importation, or sale of state • listed species; • Sections 2081 and 2053, which authorize California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to allow take that is for scientific, educational, or management purposes through memoranda of understanding(MOUs) and specify state policy regarding projects with impacts to listed species; and Sections 2090-2097, which cover the state consultation process. a. Sections 2070-2079 Sections 2070-2079 of the California ESA specify the process by which species are - proposed for listing as threatened or endangered or as candidates for such listing. Unlike the federal law, however, the state law does not specify factors that could trigger a listing. Instead, state law requires the CDFG to recommend and the Fish and Game Commission to adopt criteria for determining a species' status. b. Section 2080 • Similar to Section 9 of the federal ESA, Section 2080 of the state law prohibits the import, export, take, possession, purchase, or sale of listed species unless explicitly authorized by other provisions of the law. However, the state restrictions on take differ from those under federal law in two key ways: 1. Take is defined simply as "to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill or attempt the same;" the terms "harm" or "harass" are not used; and A-10 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A 2. Take of species designated as candidates for state listing is prohibited for the one-year period during which the final listing decision is made (federal law does not prohibit the taking of species proposed for federal listing). c: Sections 2081 and 2053 Section 2081 authorizes CDFG to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUS)with "individuals, public agencies, universities, zoological gardens, and scientific or educational institutions, to import, export, take or possess species for scientific, educational or management purposes." In general, a 2081 MOU is similar to an implementing agreement for a 10(a) permit in that it is a legal contract with CDFG. regarding implementation of conservation and mitigation measures. A "management agreement" typically is prepared in which the parties seeking the authorization for take provide CDFG with the same information required for consultation under Sections 2090-2097 (see below). The state ESA, however, does not specify the contents of or approval criteria for such agreements other than the requirement that the agreements can be approved only if they comply with Section 2053. Section 2053 stipulates that: . it is the policy of the state that state agencies should not approve projects as proposed which would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitats which would prevent jeopardy. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature that reasonable and prudent alternatives shall be developed by the department, together with the project proponent, and the state lead agency, consistent with conserving the species, while at the same time maintaining the project purpose to the greatest extent possible. If the species also is federally listed, CDFG's practice has been to accept an HCP prepared for a federal 10(a) permit as the basis for the MOU if it contains information that is sufficient for purposes of Section 2081 and 2053. Following review by both CDFG and the State Legal Advisors Office, the MOU is signed by the Director of CDFG. d Sections 2090-2097 Sections 2090-2097 of the state ESA require state lead agencies to consult with CDFG on projects with potential impacts on state-listed species and incorporate by reference Section 21104.2 of CEQA. (CEOA requires state lead agencies to consult with and obtain written findings from CDFG when preparing an environmental impact report [EIR]for a project that affects a state listed species.)These sections also require CDFG to coordinate consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally as well as state listed species, and whenever possible, to adopt the federal biological opinion as its findings in such consultations. A-11 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A To make its written findings on projects involving listed species, CDFG requires that the following information be presented: V 1 1. A full description of the project area and project impact area, including maps. 2. Known and potential distribution of endangered and threatened species in the project area and project impact area, based on recent field surveys conducted in compliance with Fish and Game guidelines. • 3. Additional information on the species' distribution and habitat, based upon literature, scientific data review, and discussions with experts. 4. Analysis of possible effects of the proposed project on listed species, including cumulative effects. 5. Analysis of alternatives designed to reduce or eliminate impacts to endangered and threatened species. A specific format for the data is not stipulated, but the information must be presented clearly. CDFG then applies the following questions to the project: 1. Would a viable or recoverable population be eliminated, or would a significant proportion of a population be adversely affected by the project or the project's effects? 2. Would the range of the species be significantly diminished by the project? 3. Would habitat used by the species be reduced in quantity or quality by either the immediate or future effects of the project? 4. Would a species' access to its habitat be reduced or rendered more hazardous as a result of the project? 5. Would the project adversely affect current or future efforts at providing protection for the species? - 6. Would plans for recovery or eventual delisting of the threatened or endangered species be adversely affected by the project? 7. Would the project interfere with reproductive or other behavior of the endangered or threatened species? 8. Would the project cause extinction of the species? • To support a no jeopardy finding, the answers to all of the questions must be no. A yes answer to any of the questions is considered the basis for an initial assumption that a threatened or endangered species would be jeopardized. Final determination of whether or not jeopardy would occur is based on the degree to which the project would increase the risk of extinction, limit options for immediate protection, or decrease the likelihood of future recovery. A-12 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A 2. Native Plant Protection Act. The Native Plant Protection Act includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plants. The definitions of "rare" and "endangered" in the plant act differ from those in the state ESA, but the list of protected native plants encompasses ESA candidate, threatened, and endangered species. The plant act also includes its own restrictions on take, stating that "lnlo person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state" any rare or endangered native plant, except as provided in the act. The exception is where a land owner has been notified of the presence of a protected plant by CDFG and is required to notify CDFG at least 10 days in advance of changing land uses to allow CDFG an opportunity to salvage the plants. Salvaging typically is planned and authorized in connection with consultations triggered by Sections 2090-2097 of the state ESA and Section 21104.2 of CEQA. 3. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The NCCP Act was approved in 1991 and added to the Fish and Game Code as Sections 2800-2840. In general, the act authorizes the preparation and approval of conservation plans for communities of plants and wildlife, with Section 2835 explicitly providing for the authorization of take of listed species covered by such plans. Currently, the NCCP program is focused on the coastal sage scrub community in southern California, which includes a broad range of sensitive plant and wildlife species. a. Purpose and Focus The primary purpose of NCCP program is to preserve local and regional biological diversity, reconcile urban development and wildlife needs, and meet the objectives of the state and federal ESAs by conserving habitat before species are on the brink of extinction. As stated in the planning and conservation guidelines prepared by CDFG and the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) appointed as technical advisors, the NCCP process is designed to: Promote coordination and cooperation among public agencies, landowners, and other private interests; Provide a mechanism whereby landowners and development proponents can effectively participate in the resource conservation process; Provide a regional planning focus which can effectively address cumulative impact concerns, minimize habitat fragmentation, and promote multiple species management and conservation; Provide an option for identifying and ensuring appropriate mitigation for impacts on fish and wildlife; A-13 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A Promote the conservation of broad-based natural communities and species diversity; JI and Provide for efficient use and protection of natural and economic resources while — promoting greater public awareness of. important elements of the state's critical resources. As also stated in the guidelines, the NCCPs are intended to: 1. Protect sufficient coastal sage scrub habitat to ensure the long-term survival of designated "target" species associated with the habitat; 2. Be based on biological data on the distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements of the designated target species; 3. Include habitat enhancement and protection measures for small as well as large parcels of lands; and • 4. Satisfy the requirements of the federal and state ESAs for any listed species. The "target" species recommended by the SRP include but are not limited to: the coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, and the orange-throated whiptail. The SRP also has identified other sensitive species associated with coastal sage scrub habitat and has prepared biological field survey guidelines for use in the planning process. b. Subregion/NCCPs and Ongoing Multi-Species Plans Conservation planning under the NCCP program will be conducted in a series of ten to twenty subregions through a process that is designed to: Encourage maximum cooperation between landowners, local governments, and conservation interests; and • Encourage local government participation by allowing local governments to adapt the NCCP process to their existing administrative processes relating to plan preparation, public participation, public hearing, and environmental review. In general, the subregional planning process entails six steps: 1. Enrollment of local governments and landowners in the NCCP program; 2. Designation of NCCP subregional boundaries by local governments and land- owners who have enrolled in the NCCP program, with each subregion of sufficient size and diversity to me meet the guidelines set by the SRP and CDFG; 3. Establishment of a coordinated process for the preparation, review, and approval of each subregional NCCP, with the process specified in a planning 1 A-14 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A agreement signed by the participating local agencies, landowners, CDFG, and USFWS; 4. Formulation of the conservation plan through a public planning process, with opportunities for public participation that equal or exceed those provided by existing ordinances, public notice and hearing requirements, and related laws; 5. Preparation and approval of an implementing agreement that specifies all terms and conditions of activities under the NCCP plan; and • 6. Preparation of appropriate CEQA and NEPA documentation for the actions to be taken on the plan, with the lead agency responsibilities and type of documentation identified in the planning agreement. The guidelines do notspecify a format for individual plans but require that the following components be included: 1. Maps and text that clearly present: (a) The boundaries and extent of the area included in the subregional NCCP; (b) Existing coastal sage scrub habitat within the subregion; (c) The distribution of target species populations within the subregion and the presence of other sensitive species; (d) Quantitative and qualitative assessments of the coastal sage scrub habitat required by the designated target species; (e) Proposed land uses or other activities that would affect coastal sage scrub habitat. 2. A habitat conservation and management component that includes: (a) A range of habitat protection and management options that have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (b) Criteria for habitat conservation and mitigation that treat all of the target species as listed species; (c) Policies for habitat protection and management, including short-term and long- term actions to mitigate identified impacts; (d) Evaluations of potential alternatives to planned development or other activities that would result in incidental take of target species; and (e) a recommended habitat conservation plan. 3. An implementation component that includes (a) a phasing program designed to assure the long-term protection of habitat and open space corridors over time; A-15 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A (b) funding measures; (c) a mitigation monitoring program that satisfies CEQA requirements and is adequate to measure the effectiveness of plan implementation; and (d) procedures to address the effects of unforeseen circumstances. . The guidelines also provide for the recognition of pre-existing conservation planning efforts as NCCP equivalents if the following conditions are met: 1. The planning effort was funded and underway at the time that the NCCP Act became effective (January 1, 1992), as documented by a memorandum of understanding, an agreement, a statutory exemption, or other formal process. • 2. The plan protects coastal sage scrub habitat and/or contains an mitigation agreement approved by CDFG pursuant to a prior planning effort, and the plan substantially achieves the objectives of the NCCP Act, meaning that the plan provides assurance that coastal sage scrub habitat and named species will be protected to a degree substantially equivalent to an NCCP prepared under the guidelines. 3. CDFG approves the plan, and the plan meets Section 2081 requirements for named species of concern. 4. USFWS approves the plan, and the plan meets Section 10(a) requirements for named species of concern. Such efforts are called "on-going multi-species plans" in the process guidelines and may differ from NCCPs in one or more of the following ways: 1. The plan covers species and habitats in addition to those in the coastal sage scrub community. 2. The boundaries of the planning area are different from those for NCCP subregions (but have been previously approved by CDFG and do not significantly impair long-term opportunities for conserving coastal sage scrub region-wide). 3. Survey methodologies differ from SRP recommended guidelines but have been approved by CDFG. 4. Timing requirements differ from the target NCCP milestone. c. Draft Conservation Guidelines and Interim Strategy Following publication by USFWS of the proposed special rule for the gnatcatcher (see above), the SRP issued draft recommendations for an interim NCCP conservation strategy. In general, the strategy is to minimize short-term loss of coastal sage scrub habitat until a long-term enhancement and conservation program is formulated. Under this strategy, interim loss would be limited to 5 percent of the coastal sage scrub A-16 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A habitat in any subregion. Implementation of the strategy would occur in the following sequence: 1. In each subregion where an NCCP would be prepared, a planning body would be established according to the approved NCCP process guidelines. 2. Working in consultation with USFWS and CDFG,the subregional planning body would define the boundaries of the area to be included in the subregional NCCP. 3. An inventory of coastal sage scrub habitat and species would be completed for the subregion. 4. All natural lands within the subregion would be evaluated for their long-term conservation based on the method described below. 5. The amount of coastal sage scrub within the subregion would be calculated, verified by USFWS and CDFG, and used to compute the allowable 5 percent interim loss. 6. A central clearing house for data on habitat loss would be established within the subregion, and that entity would advise the local land use jurisdictions, USFWS and CDFG regarding actual and anticipated impacts to coastal sage scrub within the subregion. 7. Interim mitigation requirements would be established for all development of - coastal sage scrub habitat, either through a subregional NCCP planning agreement or other written document requiring the concurrence of USFWS and CDFG. 8. The subregional planning body would work to identify and fill data needs for long-term planning, using SRP conservation guidelines in the process. 9. The subregional NCCPs would then be completed according to the approved process guidelines. • Regarding the evaluation of the long-term conservation value of specific lands,the SRP recommends that all lands with natural habitats be included in the analysis, including forestlands, brushlands, native and non-native grasslands, non-irrigated grazed land, and vacant or disturbed natural land. Lands subject to intensive agriculture and urban uses would be excluded. Coastal sage scrub would be identified based on the presence of primary or secondary cover characteristics as defined by the SRP. The effective size of coastal sage scrub patches would then be determined by assays of relatively continuous natural habitat and relatively dense clusters of coastal sage scrub within a one or two mile diameter circle. Proximity to other habitat patches would be measured as a direct, straight-line distance, with the appropriate scale determined for each subregion. Landscape linkages also would be determined by drawing geometric corridors that connect each higher value area to the closest two or three other higher value areas. The presence of species also would be taken into account, with higher A-17 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A value assigned to areas that support significant populations of target species, highly endemic species, or rare sub-habitat types. In this way, areas within an NCCP subregion would be determined to have higher, intermediate, or lower potential value for long-term conservation. Development would be constrained to the maximum degree practicable on the higher value area until the NCCP is completed; development in intermediate areas would be evaluated on a case- - by-case basis; and development on lower potential areas would be allowed with appropriate mitigation. • 4. Streambed Alteration Laws • 0 Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code regulate all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife. "Stream" is defined in CDFG regulations as: A body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is basedon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife and generally mirrors that of COE under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Under state law, CDFG must be contacted for a streambed alteration agreement for any project that may impact a streambed or wetland. CDFG has maintained a "no net loss" policy regarding potential impact and has required recreation of wetlands on at • least an acre-for-acre basis. Replacement ratios typically are higher than one-for-one in order to offset the immediate loss, replacement time, and inherent failures in mitigation attempts. Public agency projects are addressed under Section 1601 of the Code; private sector projects are addressed under Section 1603. C. Federal and State Environmental Documentation Requirements Both federal and state laws regarding the documentation and analysis of environmental impacts pertain to habitat conservation and species protection planning. • 1 . National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their proposed actions on the human environment in a written statement that addresses: A-18 • • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix A 1. The environmental impact(s) of the proposed action; 2. Any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed action be implemented; 3. Alternatives to the proposed action; • 4. The relationship between short-term uses of the human environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and 5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the proposed action is implemented. Compliance with NEPA generally begins with an internal "scoping" process. If a preliminary review indicates that the proposed action has no or minimal environmental impacts, then a "categorical exclusion" may be determined and no further • environmental documentation is required. If the review indicates that the proposed action may have significant effects, then an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared. An EA is prepared when the preliminary review indicates that the proposed action is not likely to have significant impacts; an EIS is prepared when the expected impacts are significant. 2. California Environmental Quality Act Similar to NEPA, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state agencies empowered to make discretionary decisions to evaluate the environmental effects of a proposed project before rendering a decision. The evaluation begins with an initial study that includes: 1. A description of the project, including the location of the project; 2. An identification of the environmental setting; 3. An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method; 4. A discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any; 5. An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and 6. The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study. If one or more significant impacts are identified, a detailed environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. If no significant impacts are determined or if all of the significant impacts can be mitigated, a negative declaration is prepared. CEQA also requires that a negative declaration or draft EIR be prepared if a project has statewide, A-19 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan . Appendix A regional, or area wide significance and defines projects that would substantially affect sensitive habitats as projects of area wide significance. • • • ;I A-20 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B Appendix B HCP-Related Policies in the . General Plans of RCHCA Member Agencies . A. General Plan Requirements B-1 B. HCP-Related General Plan and Community Plan Elements of the RCHCA Members B-1 1. County of Riverside B-2 a. Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve B-3 b. San Jacinto-Lake Perris Core Reserve B-3 c. Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountains Core Reserve. B-5 d. Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base Core Reserve B-5 e. Motte Rimrock Core Reserve B-5 2. City of Corona B-6 a. Conservation Element B-6 3. City of Hemet B-6 a. Resource Management Element B-6 4. City of Lake Elsinore B-7 a. Open Space/Conservation Element B-7 5. City of Moreno Valley B-8 • a. Conservation Element B-8 6. City of Perris B-9 a. Land Use Element B-9 b. Conservation/Open space/Recreation Element B-1 0 7. City of Riverside B-11 a. Conservation Element B-1 1 8. City of Temecula B-1 3 a. Land Use Element B-13 b. Open Space and Conservation Element B-14 C. References B-17 B-1' Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B This appendix provides an overview of the HCP-related policies and relevant goals, objectives, and programs stated in the General Plans and Community Plans of RCHCA member agencies. A. General Plan Requirements The State Government Code requires each city and county in California to prepare and adopt "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City or county." The General Plan must contain seven elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and public safety) and may contain other elements important to the physical development of the community (e.g., parks and recreation, public services and facilities, scenic highways and historic preservation). Habitat conservation is incorporated into the Government Code requirement in connection,with three of the mandatory General Plan elements: • As part of the conservation element, which provides for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soil, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources;" • As part of the open space element, which in part provides for "the preservation of natural resources including but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species;" and • Indirectly, as part of the land use element, which must designate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space (including agriculture), natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land." B. HCP-Related General Plan and Community Plan Elements of the RCHCA Members The adopted General Plans and Community Plans of the RCHCA members are consistent with the provisions of the Government Code; they address habitat conservation primarily under one or more of these three mandatory plan elements or a combination of elements. Taken together, these General Plans address a broad spectrum of habitat conservation-related policies, including: • sensitive species protection; • habitat inventory/mapping; • habitat acquisition; • development review/control; • site specific biological assessment; • wildlife buffers/corridors; B-1 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • mitigation/monitoring, and; • multi-species planning. All eight General Plans and pertinent Community Plans address the issue of sensitive species protection through the planning process, which provides the basic framework for habitat conservation. As a means of ensuring wildlife protection, j five General Plans also specify the creation of buffer zones around sensitive habitats and the preservation of wildlife movement corridors. Since planning is intended to produce orderly and appropriate development, the majority of General Plans also focus on policies related to the development process. Seven of the eight General Plans require further site specific biological assessment when warranted by proposed development impacts or an inadequate habitat data base, and six require appropriate mitigation measures and subsequent monitoring for new development. Habitat acquisition (four plans), habitat inventory/mapping (three plans) and multi species planning (four plans) are also recognized by RCHCA members as important policies for implementing habitat conservation. The most relevant of the policies stated in one or more elements of each RCHCA member's General Plan are presented below, along with a summary list of goals, policies, and programs included in each member agency plan (Table B-1). 1 . County of Riverside Unincorporated lands within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside encompass almost 72% of the 517,857 acres covered by this HCP. Accordingly, policies adopted by the County are of particular importance to this document. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is the primary statement of goals and policies for implementing the development and conservation programs of the County of Riverside. The Community Plans, developed as subsets of the General Plan, are intended to provide additional land use goals and policies that address the unique concerns and needs existing within the Community Plan area. In so doing they are intended to facilitate the implementation of Comprehensive General Plan policies and programs. The core reserves defined in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures are contained within the boundaries of the following Community Plans: SKR Core Reserve Applicable Community Plans LS-DV Southwest Area Community Plan SJ-LP Lakeview/Nuevo Community Plan LM-EM Lake Mathews Community Plan MRR No Applicable Community Plan SC-MAFB No Applicable Community Plan B-2 Volume I: 'Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B a. Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve A portion of the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP), adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1989. The SWAP covers an area generally bordered to the south by the San Diego County line, to the west by the Cleveland National Forest,to the north by Keller Road, and to the east by the boundary of the Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan. This area includes those portions of the core reserve in the vicinity of Lake•Skinner. The SWAP includes the following HCP related goals .concerning open space. planning for important natural resources: • Retention of open space land containing important natural resources such as scenic beauty, sensitive vegetation, wildlife habitat, and historic or pre-historic sites; • Preservation of the open space characteristics of the SWAP area, including Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and the mountains, through the careful control of public services, facilities, utilities and other capital improvements; • Preservation of agricultural lands and their associated uses; • Support for policies and programs which implement the concept of extending urbanization contiguously from established urban centers, rather than allowing scattered development which infringes upon open space. b. San Jacinto-Lake Perris Core Reserve The southeast portion of the San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve is located within the Lakeview/Nuevo Community Plan (LNCP), adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on December 18, 1990. The LNCP area lies to the east of the City of Perris, south of Lake Perris, west of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet, and north of the communities of Homeland and Romoland. The LNCP includes the following HCP related goals concerning open space planning for important natural resources: • Retention of openspace land containing important natural resource such as scenic beauty, sensitive vegetation, wildlife habitat, and historic or pre-historic sites; B-3 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B Table B-1 Summary List of HCP-Related Goals, Policies, and Programs in General Plans of the RCHCA Members Type of HCP-Related Goals, Policies, and Programs RCHCA Member/ Senative Habitat Habitat Develop- sal Specific Wldi(e "litigation Multi- Plan Element Species Inventory Acquisition resent �iobp'eal Buffets/ Mon toeing species Pvotection Mapping Reviei/ Aaseaament Condor' Planning Control RivarciriP ['minty Land Lintz X X X X Reginnal X �nvil�nmental X X X X X X a7 esnurr.Pc Cnrnna Conservation X Hemet Resource X X X X X management Lake Flsinnre pnnespnprvatiSpacnne/ X X X X X Moreno Valley Cnnservatinn X X X X Perris l and Li se X SoHari nsetvatiopanen/ X X X X X . Riverside Trityl Cnnservatinn X X X X X X X TPmerula loand (Ise X X Cpen Spatlnn X X X X X X X X B-4 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • Preservation of the open space characteristics of the LNCP area, including the San Jacinto River and the Lakeview Mountains through the careful control of public services, facilities, utilities and other capital improvements; • Support for policies and programs which implement the concept of extending urbanization contiguously from established urban centers, rather than allowing scattered development which infringes upon open space. c. Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountains Core Reserve A majority of the Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountains Core Reserve is located within the Lake Mathews Community Plan (LMCP), adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on December 22, 1987. The LMCP covers approximately 42,386 acres south of the City of Riverside; this area is within the City's sphere of influence. The LNCP includes the following HCP related goals concerning open space planning for important natural resources: • Retention of open space land containing important natural resources such as scenic beauty, sensitive vegetation, wildlife habitat, and historic or pre-historic sites; • Preservation of the open space characteristics and the LMCP area, including Lake Mathews and the mountains, through the careful control of public services, facilities, utilities, and other capital improvements; • The protection and preservation of wildlife. d. Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base Core Reserve Only a small percentage of the Sycamore Canyon core reserve is within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside. Since there is no applicable Community Plan in this area, any proposed projects within the County's jurisdiction are evaluated for consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinances on a case-by-case basis. e. Motte Rimrock Core Reserve The majority of the Matte Rimrock core reserve owned by the University of California, an entity of the State. Accordingly,the University of California acts as the lead agency when processing "projects" within the.NEPA and/or CEQA process. Under the NEPA and/or CEQA process, the County acts as a commenting entity. For those lands within the County's jurisdiction no applicable Community Plan exists. Proposed projects are evaluated for consistency with the General Plan and zoning on a case-by-case basis. Both the County and the University of California exchange information on proposed projects within the vicinity of the Motte Rimrock core reserve. B-5 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B 2. City of Corona The City of Corona General Planadopted in 1992 includes nine elements, including: land use; circulation; housing; conservation; open space; parks and recreation; community design and scenic highways; noise; seismic safety and public safety. Policies contained in the conservation element of the General Plan provide a basis for implementing habitat conservation within the City. a. Conservation Element • Conservation goal To create a productive balance between man and his uses of land and the conservation of areas with unique environmental and aesthetic value. • Conservation objective To identify and preserve lands of significant value as natural resources. • Conservation program Implement policies that will: 1) conserve the unique aspects of the City's resource base, and; 2) minimize the disruption caused by the interface between development and the resource base. 3. City of Hemet Elements of the General Plan adopted by the Hemet City Council in 1992 include: community development; economic development; public services and facilities; transportation; public health and safety; resource management and housing. The resource management element addresses habitat conservation through a biological resources goal and discussion of related issues, strategies, and programs. a. Resource Management Element The Resource Management element includes the following goal and strategies related to this HCP: • Biological resources goal The management of rare, endangered, and candidate species and their habitats through appropriate and accepted preservation programs. • Biological resources strategy Promote a multi-species approach to habitat management programs;which can be used to mitigate expected impacts on biological resources of future development within the General Plan study area. • Biological resources strategy Require biological assessments to be performed by a qualified biologist in areas where the existence of rare or endangered species is known or_can be reasonably expected to exist. B-6 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B Require the implementation of recommendations included in biological reports as a condition of approval. • Biological resources strategy Require all development, including roads, proposed adjacent to sensitive biological areas, blueline streams, and riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats, to provide adequate buffers and be set back a sufficient distance to eliminate significant impacts to such areas. • Biological resources strategy. Where preservation and conservation of biological resources depends upon mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval, establish the following monitoring programs: 1) All discretionary approvals requiring mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources shall include the condition that the mitigation measures be monitored and modified, if necessary, unless a finding is made that such monitoring is not feasible; 2) The monitoring program shall be designed to determine if the mitigation measures were implemented and if they were • successful; 3) The monitoring program shall be funded by the project applicant to ensure compliance with and effectiveness of conditions of approval; 4) Explore opportunities of land banking of both sensitive species and their habitats for use in future mitigation programs. 4. City of Lake Elsinore The open space/conservation element of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan encompasses eight sub-elements: biological resources; water resources; energy conservation; air resources; cultural resources; open space and visual resources; mineral resources; agricultural resources. The contents of the biological resources sub-element form a basis for habitat conservation planning. a. Open Space Element The Open Space element identifies specific species and habitat of concern and related regulations adopted by the City. • Biological resources issue Certain plant and animal communities are restricted in distribution throughout the study area, and loss of these habitats through build out of the General Plan will be significant. These habitats include sage scrub and riparian woodland communities, least Bell's vireo, Stephens' kangaroo rat, and the slender-horned spineflower. B-7 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • Biological resources regulations On the local level, efforts should be made to preserve important habitats and protect plant and animal species of concern. The City requires that all development proposals include adequate environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA and AB 3180 (Chapter 1232, State Statutes of 1989). Biological studies should provide adequate mitigation measures for identified significant biological impacts. • Biological resources procedures Permanent open space preserves may be • designated as a condition of a project approval. Permanent open space preserves may be designed in future specific plan areas for the purpose of —i protecting identified sensitive biological resources. Moreover, a comprehensive approach should be taken to conserve continuous areas.of open space, including open space linkages between projects, wildlife corridors and trails. Such methods to evaluate and, where appropriate, acquire areas of high biological significance may include the acquisition of land by exaction, development agreement or gift; the dedication of conservation, open space and scenic easements; joint acquisition with local agencies; the transfer of development rights; lease-purchase agreements; and eminent domain: 5. City of Moreno Valley The conservation element of the City of Moreno Valley General Plan sets forth an objective and supporting policies which provide a basis for habitat conservation within the City. - a. Conservation Element The conservation element identifies a habitat conservation objective and includes four HCP-related policies: • Objective Maintain, protect, and preserve biologically significant habitats within the study area, including the San Jacinto Wildlife Preserve, riparian areas, habitats of rare and endangered species, and other areas of natural significance as part of the need for development of a balanced community. • • Policy Require all development, including roads, proposed adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats to provide adequate buffers and be set back a sufficient distance to eliminate significant impacts to such areas. • Policy Require that development occurring adjacent to the San Jacinto Wildlife Preserve provide appropriate mitigation for potential impacts to the preserve. Potential measures include, but are not limited to: B-8 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B 1) Project design so as to minimize or eliminate the potential for unauthorized entry into the wildlife area; 2) The creation of buffer areas adjacent to the preserve, incorporating the most passive uses of the adjacent property; 3) Provide wildlife dispersion corridors linking the wildlife preserve to the Badlands area, including roadway crossings; 4) Provide wildlife movement linkages to water sources; 5) Protect the visual seclusion of large forage areas from road intrusion by vegetative buffering; 6) Provide vegetation that can be used by wildlife for cover along roadsides; and 7) Avoid intrusion of night lighting into the wildlife preserve. • Policy Require biological assessments to be performed by a qualified biologist in areas where the existence of rare or endangered species is known or can be reasonably expected to exist. Require the implementation of recommendations included in biological reports as a condition of approval. 6. City of Perris The City of Perris General Plan adopted in 1991 incorporates seven elements: land use; housing; circulation; conservation/open space/recreation; public safety; noise; public facilities. Habitat conservation planning is addressed in the growth management sub-element of the land use element and in the conservation and open space sub-elements of the conservation/open space/recreation element. a. Land Use Element The Land Use element contains a growth management goal and three policies • relevant to this HCP. • Growth management goal Manage growth and development to avoid adverse environmental and fiscal impacts. • Growth management policy Manage the outward expansion of all future development to maintain continuity with existing development, provide for orderly expansion of infrastructure and public services, minimize impacts on natural environmental resources and preserve designated or potential open space. B-9 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • Growth management policy Manage growth within the planning area to minimize disruption to important environmental resource areas, such as biological habitat, historical and archeological sites, steep slopes, floodplains, geologically sensitive lands, mineral resources, agricultural preserves and water recharge areas. • Growth management policy Provide for the use of planned unit developments, which incorporate creative site design for new residential --- projects as a means of maintaining open space, reducing impacts to environmental resources and avoiding environmental constraints. b. Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element This element includes a wildlife conservation goal, four related policies, and a sensitive habitats program. It also includes the following open space goals, policies, and strategies relevant to this HCP. • • Conservation goal Conserve and protect natural plant and animal communities. • Conservation policy Conserve and protect important plant communities and wildlife habitats, such as riparian areas, wildlife movement corridors, wetlands, oak woodlands and other significant tree stands, and rare or endangered plant and animal species by using buffers, creative site planning, revegetation and open space easements and dedications. • Conservation policy Require development proposals in areas expected to contain important plant and animal communities to include biological assessments identifying species types and locations. • Conservation policy Allow new development to remove only the minimum natural vegetation and require revegetation of graded areas with native plant species consistent with public safety requirements. • Conservation policy Support programs to consolidate public lands as a means of preserving natural habitats. • Sensitive habitat program Grasslands within the Perris planning area support other animals considered sensitive such as the Ferruginous hawk and other raptors. The most sensitive of these species if the Stephens' kangaroo rat, which is designated as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The City of Perris is participating in a joint powers agreement between surrounding cities in Riverside County and the County of Riverside to acquire habitat lands for the kangaroo rat as part of the RCHCA Habitat Conservation Plan. Three study areas (Steele Peak, Motte Reserve and Kabian Park) have been identified in the Perris planning area for potential permanent reserves. Mitigation fees are also collected by the cities participating within the joint powers agreement to acquire lands within these future reserve areas. B-10 , I Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • Open space goal Protect open space areas to preserve natural resources. • Open space policy Encourage in-fill and contiguous development to -preserve outlying open space areas. • Open space policy Designate and acquire important open space lands such as endangered plant and animal species habitats, and, land containing unique geologic features,through dedication or other means of acquisition. • Open space action strategy Jointly acquire environmentally sensitive lands through a joint powers agreement with other cities or the County. • Open space action strategy Using the City's development review process, development proposals within natural resource areas identified in the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element will be assessed in terms of impacts to the following characteristics where they exist on or near the proposed development site: riparian corridors; sensitive biological habitat; naturally steep slopes lover 30 percent grade); ground and surface water resources;rock outcroppings;state recognized mineral resource zones;and prime agricultural soils. 7. City of Riverside Elements of the 1993 General Plan for the City of Riverside include: conservation; open space; community character; land use; public safety; transportation; noise; housing. The conservation element addresses habitat conservation through its natural resource goals and policies. In addition, the plan implementation section specifies recommendations for furthering natural resource protection and environmental review. a. Conservation Element The conservation element contains a natural resource protection goal, eight policies, and implementation recommendations which support this HCP: • Natural resource goal To protect the biotic communities and critical habitats for endangered species throughout the General Plan Area. • Natural resource policy The City should design its plans, policies, and implementation techniques to protect key wildlife habitats, habitats of rare, threatened, or endangered species, wetlands and other significant environmentally sensitive areas. • Natural resource policy The City shall use the generalized locations of rare and endangered species habitat, identified in the Plan on the date of Plan adoption, to identify areas for which more .specific analysis will be necessary as part of the development review process. The City shall update as more detailed habitat information is developed. The City may require habitat analysis for proposed developments in areas of potential B-11 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B habitat for other species listed in the Plan, even though such habitat is not mapped. Site specific review may be required because the habitats for these unmapped, sensitive species range from pristine to disturbed areas. • Natural resource policy The City shall consider requiring development projects in areas identified in the Plan to undergo review to assess their impact on habitats of rare, threatened or endangered species. This review _ of habitat impacts should be conducted as part of the project's environmental review. Developers of projects found to have potential —! impacts on sensitive species may be required to mitigate the impacts of proposed habitat changes. • Natural resource policy The City shall cooperate with the County, State and Federal governments to protect the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) by complying with the terms of the adopted Short-Term SKR Habitat Conservation Plan, including provisions for development regulations, mitigation fees, and the acquisition and operation,of Sycamore Canyon as part of the park. • Natural resource policy The City should participate with the County, State and Federal governments in developing and implementing both a long-term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and a county- wide multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan. • Natural resource policy The City shall endeavor to protect native plant communities in the General Plan Area, including the inland sage scrub, i riparian and vernal pool habitats. • Natural resource policy The City should protect and enhance known wildlife migratory corridors and help create new corridors whenever possible. • Natural resource policy The City should establish programs to identify,. map and monitor the habitat for sensitive species listed in the Plan, or for other species added to the State or Federal listings of rare, threatened or endangered species. • Natural resource implementation recommendation Require developments • that include property identified as potential habitat for the rare or endangered species listed in the Plan to submit site specific analysis for the effect of the proposed development on the affected rare or endangered species and to propose strategies for minimizing those effects. _ • Natural resource implementation recommendation Continue active participation in Federal, State and local efforts to preserve rare, threatened and endangered species in the General Plan Area. • Natural resource implementation recommendation Require site specific biological assessment and appropriate mitigation measures for all B-12 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B developments of property containing native plant communities and other potential habitats for sensitive species listed in the Plan. • Natural resource implementation recommendation Implement a program of research and field work to identify and map areas of habitat for sensitive species. Revise the Plan to reflect the results of this analysis. Periodically review and update this habitat information. • Environmental review implementation recommendation Continue to use mitigation monitoring for EIR's and mitigated negative declarations in order to ensure compliance and completion of mitigation measures required of development and other projects. • Environmental review implementation recommendation Continue to participate in regional and subregional environmental planning programs including, but not limited to, the development of coordinated air quality plans, habitat conservation plans and congestion management plans. 8. City of Temecula The City of Temecula General Plan includes ten elements: land use; circulation; housing; open space and conservation; growth management/public facilities; public safety; noise;air quality; community design and economic development. Habitat conservation is addressed in the goals, policies and implementing programs of two elements: land use and open space and conservation. a. Land Use Element The element includes the following goal,policies,and implementation programs supportive of this HCP: • Land use goal A development pattern that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the study area. • Land use policy Cooperate with other agencies to develop Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans in western Riverside and northern San Diego Counties. • Land use policy Work with the utility districts to develop a trail system and enhance the natural resources along the San Diego Aqueduct, creeks, and other utility easements where feasible. • Land use policy Conserve the resources of Pechanga, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks through appropriate densities of development, setbacks, landscaping, and site design of surrounding projects. • Land use implementation program Design and development of flood control improvements, habitat conservation, and recreation uses along Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and other waterways. B-13 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • Land use implementation program Preservation of significant biological resources in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. Open Space and Conservation Element This element contains the following goal, policies, and implementation - programs relevant to this HCP: • Open Space/Conservation goal Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. • Open Space/Conservation policy Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. • Open Space/Conservation policy Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve and enhance significant biological resources on publicly owned lands. • Open Space/Conservation policy Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. • Open Space/Conservation policy Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City through periodic updates of the Master Environmental Assessment. • Open Space/Conservation policy Limit the recreational use of designated open space areas where sensitive biological resources are present. • Open Space/Conservation policy Maintain and enhance the resources of the Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River, Pechanga Creek, and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Require development proposals in areas expected to contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential • impacts, and to mitigate significant impacts. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species. B-14 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses and rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the development process. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Develop Open Space zoning classifications that effectively regulate the types of uses and activities allowed in open space areas to minimize the impacts of grading and development in open space areas. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Require new developments to be monitored in compliance with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program")and report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for each project. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas of high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include: acquiring land by development agreement of gift; the dedication of conservation, open space and scenic easements; joint acquisition with local agencies; the transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; state and federal grants; and impact fees. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Utilize the resources of national, regional and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors. • Open Space/Conservation implementation program Continue participation in multi-species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning and water resource management planning efforts. •• Open space - Related plan The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Stephens' kangaroo rat, implemented in 1989, identifies ecological and land use characteristics of the historic range of the species. The HCP also provides a program to acquire permanent reserves for the species, using development fees to purchase land within the designated reserve areas. The Temecula General Plan Study Area is included within the HCP fee area; currently no reserve areas are designated within the General Plan study area. B-15 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix B C. References City of Corona General Plan (1992) * City of Hemet General Plan (1992) City of Lake Elsinore General Plan (no date) City of Moreno Valley General Plan (no date) City of Perris General Plan (1991) City of Riverside General Plan 2010 (1993) ** City of Temecula General Plan (1993) ** County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan (1992) * * Date of most recent plan amendment or addendum 4* Draft plan for review; not adopted . • • • B-16 Volume I: Habitat Conservatii,..: .an Appendix C Appendix C The Habitat Transaction Method: A Market-Based Alternative for HCP Implementation . I. Introduction C-3 A. Principles Followed C-3 B. Summary of the HTM Alternative C-4 II. Biological Criteria C-7 A. Habitat Value C-7 B. Conservation Value C-7 C. Tally of Conservation Units C-9 D. Conservation Ratio C-9 III. Habitat Transactions C-10 A. Credits Given for Habitat Preservation C-10 B. Credits Required for Habitat Loss C-12 C. Trading of Conservation Credits C-14 D. Variations on the General Approach C-14 • IV. Reserve Management Program C-18 A. Core Reserve Management Plan C-18 B. Conservation Fund C-19 C. Habitat Management Activities C-19 D. Direct RCHCA Acquisitions C-19 IV. Monitoring Program C-21 A. Annual Adjustments to the Conservation Ratio C-21 B. Periodic Reviews C-21 C. Emergency Reviews C-24 11-4-93 Draft C-1 I Appendix C 1, Je I: Habitat Conservation Plan V. Biological Surveys C-24 A. Type of Biological Surveys C-24 B. Survey Requirements and Fees C-25 -, C. Survey Process C-26 D. Survey Guidelines C-26 E. Qualifications of Survey Biologists C-26 VI. Adminstration C-28 A. Resource Agency Responsibilities .0-28 B. RCHCA Responsibilities C-29. C. Member Agency Responsbilities C-30 D. RMCC Responsibilities C-30 E. Registrar Responsibilities C-30 • F. Enforcement Against Illegal Take C-32 G. Summary of Program Funding C-32 VII. Multi-Species Planning C-33 VIII. Meeting ESA Requirements. C-35 A. Summary of Conservation Assurances C-35 B. Meeting of Federal ESA Requirements C-36 '_1 C. Meeting of State ESA Responsibilities C-38 __I IX. Conclusion C-38 - Attachment 1 Calculation of Conservation Value C-39 - - C-2 Draft 11 x-93 - Volume 1: Habitat.Conserv Plan Appendix C I. INTRODUCTION Our present economic and regulatory systems do a tragically poor job of account- ing for the value of habitat for rare and endangered species. Landowners typi- cally find that the presence of "valuable" habitat devalues their property by virtue of the federal and state endangered species acts (ESAs) and other resource protection laws. The perverse incentive is created for landowners to destroy—by legal means or otherwise—the valuable habitat whose presence destroys the eco- nomic value of their land. Riverside County can reverse this troubling result by adopting conservation strategies that align the economic interests of landowners with society's interest in protecting precious natural resources. With such a view in mind, the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) commissioned the development of a "market-based" alternative for implementing the long-term Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat conservation plan (the HCP) or a future multiple-species habitat conservation plan (multi-species HCP). This appendix presents the initial results of that commission. It shows how positive economic incentives can be used as the primary means of attaining habi- tat protection goals and that such goals need not be achieved at the expense of the local economy. The approach presented here is based upon a concept known as the "Habitat Transaction Method,'1 and shall be referred to as the "HTM al- ternative." Although the HTM alternative is described here in terms of the Stephens' kangaroo rat, its more appropriate application may be for a future multi-species HCP that covers the SKR along with other species and habitat types. Section VII below discusses how this HTM alternative could be adapted to a multi-species HCP. A. PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED The HTM alternative adheres to the following basic principles: 1. Both Preservation and Loss of Habitat are Evaluated Based on Con- servation Value. All actions that preserve or destroy habitat are evalu- ated in terms of the "conservation value" preserved or lost. Conserva- tion value takes into account not only the quantity and habitat quality of land, but also reserve design considerations such as how a parcel contributes to the overall contiguity and shape of a potential reserve system. 2. Preservation of a Quantified Amount of Conservation Value is As- sured. The amount of conservation value that is believed necessary to 1See Todd G. Olson, Dennis D. Murphy, and Robert D. Thornton, "The Habitat Transaction Method: A Proposal for Creating Tradable Credits in Endangered Species Habitat," in Building Economic Incentives into the Endangered Species Act, ed. Hank Fischer and Wendy E. Hudson (Wash.D.C.:Defenders of Wildlife,1993),27-36. • C-3 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C aVolume I: r o tat Conservation Plan meet the conservation objectives of the HCP is determined at the outset, ; j and the conservation value that exists within the plan area is never al- lowed to drop below that level. 3. R- -ry- .r- B ' •m xi in: .r• .The core areas preserved under the short-term Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat conservation plan (the short-term SKR HCP) and through other efforts act as catalysts for the building of a larger preserve network, yet the addition of new core ar- eas is not precluded. ti,,,. Always Occurs Before Take. The mitigation required for - 4. Mite -- any take of habitat shall always occur before the take. 5. Sufficient Fundin for Ac uisitions is Assured.The funding necessary ' - to acquire a reserve system with sufficient conservation value os f creditd because the compensation acquisitions nproportiontothe form the conservation which are automatically generated value of land dedicated to the reserve system. 6. L.n• .w •r .r- iv•n - -in .n• ffi i- M- . . R• .1v- En- dangered Species Issues. Each landowner in the credit-trading area is given a certain and efficient means to resolve SKR issues, with the op- tion of either dedicating land to preservation and receiving compensa- tion (in theform,of credits) or developing land after providing sufficient mitigation (in the form of credits). Owners of land outside of the credit- trading area simply pay a conservation fee prior to developing. 7. Landowners are Given Positive Incentives to once veon the higher the conservation value of a parcel,.the more comp will receive by preserving it. In this way, landowners have positive in- centives to protect and preserve the most important habitat. 8. Local Land Use Planning is Not Impaired. The HTM alternative does nothing to impair or preclude local land use planning. Local planning can continue to be used to determine acceptable uses on all lands within • the plan area. 9. " _'1- . - - .'r•vi• - . . : - - • i f. • R- 1 An addition to the assurance that a certain amount of conservation value will neces- sarily be preserved, additional fail-safes are provided in the forms of an adaptive management program and a monitoring program that will al- low for "mid-course adjustments" to the HCP. B. SUMMARY OF THE HTM ALTERNATIVE Under the HTM alternative, a process is established for measuringexpressed the initiinal con- servation value for the SKR of all of the land in the plan of standardized conservation units. Any landowner who dedicates land within Draft 11-4-93 C-4 i , ' Appendix C Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan ,- the plan area to the SKR reserve system or takes other specified conservation ac- tions receives credits based on the conservation value arved within the plan area will ed to the reserve sys- tem by the dedication. Lands that have been p be referred to collectively as thhp reserve network." Any landowner proposing a project within the plan area tatwould destroy SKR habitat would be required n the loss f conservation vue that to first offer a number of credits based ber of cred�s that would be requiredrof e- sults from the development. The such a landowner would be equal to the conservation value to be lost by the de- velopment multiplied by a pre-established "conservation ratio." Landowners who receive credits for conservation actions would be ree to eiher use the t ed is he cred- its to develop SKR habitat elsewhere within the plan area ortell o any other landowner who needs credits to compensate for habitat impacts. A typical set of conservation credit transactions is illustrated below. Owner A dedicates land to the SKR reserve Systemand redits to receive Owner B fo cash. Owner B s conservation credits in re- turn from the RCHCA. Owner A sells th then uses the credits by presenting them to the RCHCA,along with a registration fee, and in return receives a permit to take (eliminate) a certain number of con- servation units worth of habitat (based on the number of credits presented). RCHCA 4) hoc �'s�, d�o,� N �a Goc� o'�y $Cash Owner A4 Owner B Conservation Credits • O The following example further illustrates the HTM alternative. In this example, the conservation ratio is 1:1. Ms. Clark owns a 30 acre parcel of land The conser- vation value of preserving her land would be 2.0 conservation units per acre, or 60 conservation units. Mr. Romero owns a 100 acre parcel of land he would like to develop. His proposed development would result in the loss of 0.6 conserva- tion units per acre, or 60 conservation units worth of conservation value. Ms. ', Clark grants her land to the RCHCA in exchange for 60 to $6,000 per acre of and she and advertises the credits for.sale for$3,000 per credit (which equates granted to the RCHCA).Mr.Romero sees Ms. Clark's �s adand he reg st anon creditss her e. By a total of $180,000 (or $1,800 per acre of his project) p turning those 80 credits over to the RCHCA, he receives a permit to take 60 con- servation units worth of habitat (based on the 1:1 conservation ratio), exactly what he needs to go forward with his project. C-5 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volume 1: �<<,,_'tt Conservation Plan H JIB RCHCA d� jeci° a aCo @�'�¢ O ' -'i4 /)s. °''e 0d4o�.��`�aicG Go 's $180,000 Cash Clark 41 Romero 60 Conserv.Credits 00, — . 1 I , 30 acres 100 acres Credit value-2 c.u./ac. Credit requirement-0.6 c.u./ac.- Total value-60 c.u. Total requirement-60 c.u. Because higher conservation value land was used to compensate for lower con- servation value land, Ms. Clark was able to realize $6,000 per acre in compensa- tion, but the mitigation cost to Mr. Romero was only $1,800 per acre plus the registration fee. If Ms. Clark wanted to develop her land, her mitigation cost per acre would be much higher than Mr. Romero's because of the high conservation value of her land. —? Lands within the plan area but with no SKR habitat value will be designated as "credit-exempt areas." Projects within credit-exempt areas will not be required to offer credits under the HCP,but will be required to pay a$1,950 conservation fee (adjusted annually for inflation). The registration fee will be $250 per conserve- __ tion credit, about$50 per credit of which will be used to cover the cost of register- _, ing the conservation credit. The balance of the registration fee and all of the con- servation fees will be placed in a conservation fund, which will cover the cost of reserve management and overall program administration. Habitat management will be implemented by a Reserve Managers Coordinating Committee (RMCC), which will be established as described in Chapter 5,Section C(1) of the main text of this Volume I. j The balance of this appendix describes the HTM alternative in more detail, in- J cluding the biological criteria for the plan (Section II), the basic process of creat- ing, spending, and trading credits (Section III),the reserve management program • (Section IV), the monitoring program (Section V), the role of biological surveys (Section VI), plan administration (Section VII), how the HTM alternative can be adapted for application to a multi-species HCP (Section VIII), how the HTM al- ternative could be used to satisfy the requirements of the ESAs (Section IX), and a conclusion (Section X). C-6 Draft 11-4-93 F Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Pian Appendix C II. BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA The HTM alternative is driven by biological criteria which are established as part of the HCP in coordination with the resource agencies (the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)) and modified.over time, as necessary, through a monitoring program (see Section IV below). Although the HTM alternative gives landowners flexibil- ity in resolving SKR issues with their property, it is the biological criteria that govern what landowners may do. The definition of conservation value deter- mines how trade-offs between development and preservation are evaluated, and • the conservation ratio determines the total amount of conservation value that must be preserved. This section discusses how these key biological criteria are es- tablished and applied. A. HABITAT VALUE Any given parcel within the plan area can be evaluated in terms of its inherent habitat value. That is done by assigning habitat value points to the parcel based upon the presence and density of active SKR burrows. If no active burrows are present, some habitat value is still assigned if there are historical records of SKR habitat on the site or if there is other natural habitat on the site that is suitable for SKR dispersal. The specific criteria for assigning points are provided in Attach- ment 1. Applying this point system will yield a habitat value of between 0 and 2 points per acre for any given parcel of land within the plan area. B. CONSERVATION VALUE Conservation value differs from habitat value in that conservation value takes into account not only the inherent habitat value of each parcel, but also how parcels relate to each other to support the long-term survival of the SKR. The plan area and the preserve network each have a conservation value based on their total inherent habitat value,the contiguity (or connectivity) of the patches of habitat within the area (the more connected the better), and the shape of the patches of habitat within the area (the rounder the better). Conservation value, then, applies to an entire configuration of habitat at a given point in time, such as the current habitat contained in either the plan area or the preserve network. A certain amount of conservation value exists in the plan area at the beginning of the HCP (the initial conservation value). The objective of the HCP using the HTM alternative is to create a preservescertain netok over time that has a conservation value equal to or greater than "target conservation value" which is calculated to be sufficient to meet the conservation objectives of providing for the survival and recovery of the SKR. The HTM alternative mea- sures losses of conservation value to the plan area and additions of conservation value to the preserve network. C-7 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volume 1. _ bitat Conservation Plan ' The remainder of this subsection (B) summarizes how the habitat value of the plan area or preserve network is adjusted for contiguity and shape to arrive at the conservation value of the area in terms of "conservation units" (abbreviated, "c.u."). Attachment 1 provides a more detailed explanation of these adjustments. 1. Contiguity Adjustment i To translate habitat value into conservation value, the first step is to adjust inher- ent habitat value for contiguity. The contiguity adjustment is based on how much • the patches of habitat are dumped into contiguous areas, as shown below: I _ , Better ► Worse When evaluating the conservation value of the plan area, all habitat within the plan area is included to define the habitat patches. When evaluating the conser- vation value of the preserve network, only habitat within the preserve network is included for purposes of defining patches (i.e., habitat outside of the preserve network is treated as though it were not habitat). 2. Shape Adjustment Finally, the contiguity-adjusted habitat value is adjusted based on the overall shape of the patches of habitat. For purposes of this adjustment, the ideal shape is a single circle. All else being equal, a cirde has the smallest perimeter to police and fence for its area, and a circle maximizes the opportunity for interaction among species within its perimeter. As shown below, the shape values of patches and groups of patches are adjusted downward as they become less round. L — [1 0 , Better or. Worse Once again, when evaluating the conservation value of the plan area, all habitat within the plan area is included for purposes of the shape adjustment. When evaluating the conservation value of the preserve network, only habitat within the preserve network is included. When the habitat value of the plan area or preserve network has been adjusted for contiguity and shape, the resulting value is its conservation value, expressed C$ Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C in terms of conservation units. Attachment 1 provides the actual formulas and exact procedures for making these adjustments. C. TALLY OF CONSERVATION UNITS An estimate of the initial conservation value of the plan area is needed as a basis for determining the conservation ratio and for measuring losses of conservation value to the plan area. In order to estimate the initial conservation value, an esti- mate must be made of the total habitat value contained within the plan area. The RCHCA shall use a map of the plan area overlaid with 100-hectare grid cells for purposes of this estimate. Then, using existing mapping of presence and absence of SKR, the RCHCA shall assign estimated habitat value points to each cell. A value of zero will be assigned only to (1) cells that are known by site visits or aerial photography to have no SKR habitat value and that are not mapped histor- ically as having SKR habitat value (credit-exempt areas) and (2) cells that would qualify as being under cultivation based upon the definition set forth in Section III(D)(4) below (cultivated areas). A computer will be used to adjust each cell's habitat value for contiguity and shape. The computer will then be used to tally the initial conservation value contained within the plan area. The map developed for this purpose will be referred to as the "base map," and shall be updated as new biological information becomes available (see Section V below). The base map will show the estimated or surveyed habitat values of all lands in the plan area, along with the plan area boundary, the preserve network boundaries,areas boundaries, and the the areas boundaries,the cultivated already- developed areas. D. CONSERVATION RATIO The remaining critical biological factor to be established is the Conservation Ra- tio. The conservation ratio is the number of conservation units that must be pre- served for each conservation unit lost to development.This ratio determines both the mitigation cost to landowners and the total amount of conservation value that will be preserved in the long run. For example, if the initial conservation value is 200,000 conservation units,de one conservation credit(representing one landowners will be required to prove conservation unit of preservation) for each conservation unit to be developed, and a total of 100,000 conservation units will be preserved in the long run. If in- stead the conservation ratio is 2:1, then landowners will be required to provide two conservation credits for each conein the long dreveloped, and a total of 133,333 conservation units will be preserved The resource agencies and RCHCA staff will use a computer model to evaluate the types of reserve configurations that could result from various conservation ratios. They will then recommend a conservation ratio to the RCHCA Board, along with any recommended changes to the formulas for adjusting habitat val- ues for contiguity and shape. The HTM alternative can be implemented only if C-9 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan the RCHCA Board approves biological criteria that are also acceptable to the re- source agencies. III. HABITAT TRANSACTIONS The essence of the HTM alternative is to permit the takeof conservation value from the plan area only if sufficient conservation value is first contributed to the preserve network. The amount of conservation value that must be contributed to the preserve network is equal to the conservation value to be taken from the plan area multiplied by the conservation ratio. This section describes the actions, or "habitat transactions" that landowners may take in. accordance with this princi- ple. A. CREDITS GIVEN FOR HABITAT PRESERVATION Any owner of land within the plan area may voluntarily grant land to the • RCHCA to become part of the SKR reserve system and receive conservation credits in return. The number of conservation credits that a landowner will re- , ceive is equal to the number of conservation units added to the preserve network by the grant of land. The calculation of added value would take into account the added habitat value of the new land, any increase in contiguity caused by the addition, and the net change in the shape value of the preserve network caused by the addition. The procedure for calculating increases in habitat value to the preserve network is described in Attachment 1. The concept of measuring increases in conservation value to the preserve net- work as a whole is very important under the credit trading approach. It is this concept that provides landowners with strong incentives to preserve land that not only has high inherent habitat value, but which also adds to the preserve network in a way that is truly beneficial from a conservation standpoint. The following observations illustrate this fact: 1. The preservation of a small parcel (®) that is not connected to other lands that are part of the preserve network will receive minimal credits because the contiguity adjustment will discount its value dramatically. :vf .>•::.r=` Low value because • n>::> 4:4�'y'�5:<.••.,.•. of lack of contiguity ..4�::jni•:vtii::�• C40 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C 2. The preservation of a small parcel that is connected to a large patch of habitat within the preserve network will receive substantial credits be- cause the contiguity value of the entire patch increases with the addi- tion of the small parcel. mg ..... <:> ;_ i. Significant value • :.NI :; >�'`< because of contiguity 3. The preservation of a parcel that fills in a hole or a notch in a patch in a preserve will receive extra credits because of an increase in the shape value (roundness) of the patch. ::::::ft }:.:;::;;;:v >,.::::;};:.:.:'},K - Extra credits i:iii: --- because of >_ ` {.:::.. .:A .. improved shape 4. The preservation of a parcel that creates a connection between two . patches of habitat that are in the preserve network will tend to receive a large number of extra credits because_the contiguity value of both of the formerly disconnected patches will increase significantly. Y"�`'"�}�``µ '} ` ` Substantial extra credits i :i+l,!:P'$}u�,`LtiZ ti f �'• }4rh,:4..:•.,,,,:%•:-..%-,` ` 4 ry•} �`•-•• ��������- �- ' because of great increase -, : ... v.:-* : in contiguity 5. The preservation of a ofparcel a the shapeens a tvalue of the affected rridor will receive extra credits because an increase patch. :wig } :; .,4,: r0: , ...z>:i<{;.; leOM.;:::: �<:� .: � Y Extra credits because of ry$:}i'%::}n .4....•�] :K:•q}.t Lti•}i}%':::i:::i::q'§ii:ph'n:Y.y:.+ .;i ' •. ry?^vn.•+A xi.Y•J'::.; k ;}.:;.:,:::;.:::}:; : oka ft< , improved shape ............... wase.gooft 01.417 . 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan ii B. CREDITS REQUIRED FOR HABITAT LOSS Any owner of land within the plan area may engage in an activity which reduces conservation value only by offering sufficient conservation credits to mitigate the take. The number of conservation creditslandowner be caused by the actio the loss in conservation value to the plan area that would ity,multiplied by the conservation ratio.The calculation of lost value takes into ac- count the loss in habitat value resulting from the activity, any decrease in conti- guity caused by the activity, and the net change in the shape value of the plan area caused by the habitat loss. If the loss in value is 100 conservation units, and the conservation ratio is 1:1, then the number of credits required would be 100 (100 c.u. x 1). If the conservation ratio is 2:1, then the number of credits required would be 200 (100 c.u. x 2). The more detailed procedure for calculating de- creases in habitat value to the plan area is described in Attachment 1. Complementing the concept of rewarding increases in conservation value to the preserve network as a whole is the concept of penalizing decreases in conserva- tion value to the plan area as a whole. The following observations illustrate this fact: 1. The development of a small parcel (D) that is not connected to other SKR habitat within the plan area will cost minimal credits because the contiguity adjustment will discount its value dramatically. H Low cost because of lack of contiguity 2. The development of a parcel that creates a hole or a notch in a patch of SKR habitat will cost additional credits because of a decrease in the shape value (roundness)of the patch. Extra cost ▪ "'' because of ▪ �.▪ V; worse shape C-12 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C 3. The development of a parcel that breaks a connection between two patches of SKR habitat will tend to cost a large number of credits be- cause the contiguity value of both of the formerly connected patches will decrease significantly. Substantial cost because of breaking of connection (i.e., great • loss of contiguity) • It is important to note that the conservation value that would be added to the preserve network by preserving a parcel is not equal to the conservation value that would be lost to the plan area by developing the same parcel. In the illustra- tion below, preserved land is indicated by the 'r: pattern, and other SKR habitat is indicated by the El pattern. Planning Area : :at#401Sgra Parcel A \.iip:Y.??moi:. : . • • :> ;> aineorvey.4.0y41 • nos ;;:aar>:k.sia2 If Parcel A is preserved at this time, it would generate relatively few credits be- cause it is not connected to the existing preserve network.This result is appropriate because there is no guarantee at this time that Parcel A will ever be connected to the preserve network. The owner of Parcel A could increase the preservation value of the parcel either by waiting until other parcels are preserved which con- nect Parcel A to the preserve network or by negotiating with other landowners to have them preserve their land to make the connection to the preserve network. If Parcel A were to be developed, Areas 1 and 2 (including the preserved por- tions) would be disconnected from Area 3. The result would be two separate patches of SKR habitat instead of one large one, and each of the two patches C-13 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volume 1 1 '.:bitat Conservation Plan would have a smaller contiguity factor than the one large one did. As a result, the loss in conservation value to the plan area would be substantial, would be relatively thelarge number of conservation credits required to develop Parcel On the other hand, the cost of developing Parcel A would decrease significantly if a large part of Area 3 were developed first. _I C.TRADING OF CONSERVATION CREDITS Landowners who need conservation credits can obtain them either by preserving land and obtaining credits from the RCHCA, o bylan purchasing and credits fcrerom may an- other party. Conversely, landowners who preserve either use them to mitigate their own take of conservation value or sell them to any other party. The tradability of credits is a key to the efficiency and flexibility of the HTM alternative. For example: 1. An owner of a small parcel with high habitat value could preserve the parcel, receive credits, and sell them to a larger landowner who,wishes to develop. 2. A larger landowner wishing to develop could design the project so that a portion of the land could be preserved to generate credits. If those credits fell short of what was needed to offset take elsewhere in the de- velopment, the landowner could purchase some credits from others. If those credits were in excess of what was needed for the development, the extra credits could be sold to another landowner. 3. Adjoining landowners could collaborate to preserve several parcels si- multaneously, thereby increasing the contiguity value of each of their preservation actions. Such cooperation could yield a particularly large number of credits for the landowners if the combination of parcels cre- ates a new connection between two habitat patches in the preserve net- works The landowners could then sell the credits they receive.. 4. If the RCHCA or a conservancy group desired that a particular parcel of high habitat value be preserved, it could negotiate with the owner to purchase the parcel,preserve it,and obtain credits. The credits could ei- ther be left unused (thereby increasing the total conservation value to be • preserved),retired (thereby decreasing the mitigation burden on private landowners), or sold to replenish a revolving fund for future acquisi- tions. See subsection D(1) below regarding unused and retired credits; see Section IV(D) below regarding direct RCHCA habitat acquisitions. D. VARIATIONS ON THE GENERAL APPROACH This subsection describes variations on the approach described above that would also be permitted under the HTM alternative. C-14 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C 1. Unused and Retired Credits There is no obligation for a person who obtains conservation credits to sell those credits. A person with credits may, in fact, choose to either leave the credits un- used or to "retire" the credits. When credits are left unused, they are still counted as having been used to permit a corresponding amount of take for purposes of adjusting the conservation ratio (see Section V(A) below egarding gcannualrred, the justment of the conservation ratio). Since the take Y effect is to increase the total amount of conservation value preserved under the HCP beyond the target conservation value. If a person retires credits, the credits. are no longer counted as having permitted take of habitat. Because there has been preservation with a guarantee of no corresponding take, they are not counted as having been used to permit take when adjusting the conservation ratio, and the conservation ratio is therefore reduced. In essence, a person who chooses not to sell conservation credits can credits toward an increase in con- servation value or toward a decrease in landowner b2. Public Lands Public lands would generally be treated like private lands for purposes of the long-term SKR Plan. If a public agency permanently preserves SKR habitat and allows it to be managed by the RCHCA, it will receive credits in accordance with its habitat value, which it is free to use, hold, or sell. Similarly, public agencies may mitigate impacts on SKR conservation value by providing conservation . credits. The following are exceptions to these general rules: 1. The RCHCA may not receive landowners it has under the shorturchased to - termeof SKR habitat that was allocated t SKR HCP. 2. Federal and state agencies will be subject to the restrictions of the HCP and will enjoy the benefits of the HCP only if they formally agree to submit their lands to its restrictions. 3. Conservation credits will not be issued for public parks or open space unless such lands are specifically dedicated for permanent preservation in accordance with the HCP, and such lands shall be treated as not part of the preserve network unless and until they are so preserved. 3. Conservation Easements Any public or private landowner may preserve land by a conservation easement in favor of the RCHCA rather than by grant deed to the RCHCA. Such a conser- vation easement must, however, forbid all uses other than as an SKR habitat re- serve, with such restrictions as the RCHCA may adopt for time to time for other portions of the SKR reserve (except with the prior approval of the resource agen- cies). The conservation easement must also grant the RCHCA full control over the management of the land. The option of using a conservation easement rather C-15 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volume 1: -_r'"itat Conservation Plan than a grant deed provides flexibility to avoid legal or other restrictions against grants of fee title to land. It may also provide means of preserving portions of a parcel without being required to subdivide it under the Subdivision Map Act. 4. Replacement.Preservation A landowner who sets aside habitat and receives conservation credits may retain the right to later replace the habitat preserved with habitat or with conservation credits of equal conservation value. A conservation easement would be the method of preservation in such cases. If management costs were incurred by the RCHCA (e.g., fencing or habitat enhancement) after the original grant of ease- ment, dollar compensation for those management costs must be paid to the RCHCA along with the replacement habitat or credits. If the original habitat of- fering increased in conservation value after it was preserved because of adjacent preservation, the replacement habitat would be required to match the higher conservation value. Once the replacement has occurred, the landowner would still be required to provide conservation credits in order to develop the land that was formerly preserved. The replacement preservation option would provide added flexibility to owners of large tracts of land when they cannot be certain which portions of their land will be most valuable to develop or preserve in the long term. Since the conser- vation value of the original preservation must be matched by any replacement preservation, this option does not compromise the overall conservation value of the preserve network. 5. Restoration and Enhancement Landowners may desire to restore and/or enhance habitat before offering it for preservation in order to increase its habitat value (and therefore the number of conservation credits the landowner can receive). The RCHCA shall publish restoration and enhancement guidelines from time to time describing what restoration or enhancement activities a landowner may conduct on land cur- rently occupied by SKR and providing restoration and enhancement suggestions based upon the best research available. Such guidelines must be approved by the resource agencies prior to publication. 6. Agriculture Certain agricultural activities are partially compatible with the existence of the SKR, making them a special case under the HCP. In order to avoid placing an undue burden on agriculture, while providing incentives for agricultural conser- vation, the following special rules apply to agricultural activities: 1. Exemption for Ongoing Cultivation. All land under cultivation when the HCP takes effect, or which had been under cultivation during at least 6 months during the past 7 years, shall be designated as cultivated C46 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C lands on the base map. Cultivation activities, including specified inci- dental land uses, may continue on cultivated lands without any re- quirement for surveys, payment of a conservation fee, or payment of conservation credits, regardless of fallow periods after the HCP takes effect and regardless of actual presence of SKR. Such lands shall be treated as having no habitat value for purposes of calculating the conti- guity and shape factors. Owners of agricultural lands that were not ini- tially designated as cultivated lands may petition to have their lands so designated upon offering sufficient evidence that their lands qualify as cultivated lands. Any conversion of cultivated lands from cultivation to other uses shall be treated the same as any other :developmentvalue of activity ctii converted under the HCP based on the actual conservation land. 2. Agricultural Conservation Easements. Agricultural land which (a) is of a specified list of soils types, (b) is cultivated in accordance with speci- fied rules,and (c) is adjacent to the preserve network, ill la iris e signed the coda habitat value equal to 0.5 per acre for purposes of • servation value of granting a special agricultural conservation easement over such land. Provided that an owner roved e con- servation easement in a form pre app by the RCHCA and the re- source agencies restricting the land to such agricultural use and prac- tices, the owner shall receive conservation credits in accordance with the conservation value of granting the easement.Individual landowners • may negotiate variations on the pre-approved conservation easements and corresponding changes to the standard willd ermit replacement ed. Agricultural conservation easements p preserva- tion in accordance with Section III(D)(2) above. 3. Preservation of Agricultural Land. Agricultural land which c with (a) sof a specified list of soils types, (b) was either last plantedspecified crops or has been fallow for at least 12 months,and (c) is adjacent to the preserve network, will be assigned accordance with the normal valuationseater of its current habitat value pro- cedures or 1.0 points per acre for purposes of calculating the conserva- _ tion value of preserving such land. All other agricultural land will be assigned a habitat value in accordance with the normal valuation proce- dures only. 7.Utilities Utility companies and public agencies proviing r he HCP, except that the following treated the same as other landowners uride special rules shall apply: 1. Emergency Maintenance and Repair. Utility companies shall be auto- matically permitted to conduct emergency maintenance and repairs on C-17 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C • L'umnie 1: Habitat Conservation Plan -- existing facilities in accordance with guidelines published by the RCHCA from time to time with the concurrence of the resource agen- cies. i 2. Temporary Disturbance. The construction,maintenance, and use of dirt or gravel roads used for maintenance and repair of utility facilities, and periodic boring or trenching of dirt areas for purpose of maintenance and repair of utility facilities, shall require mitigation in conservation credits at 50% of the level that would be required for other development ,-,, activities on the same land. 3. Utility Conservation Easements. An owner of land that is used only for utility facilities may receive conservation credits for granting a conser- i vation easement over such land in a form pre-approved by the RCHCA and the resource agencies restricting the use of portions of the land to conservation purposes only, restricting the use of other portions to tem- porary disturbance activities only (as in (2) above), and designating other areas as containing existing facilities which disturb the land. The 1 credits given will be based upon the actual conservation value of the conservation-only areas, 50% of the actual conservation value for the portions designated for temporary soil disturbance, and no credit for the footprint of areas containing existing facilities. Individual landown- ers may negotiate variations on the pre-approved utility conservation easements and corresponding changes to the habitat values assigned. Utility conservation easements will permit replacement preservation in accordance with Section III(D)(2) above. IV. RESERVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - In order to assure the best use of program resources for the benefit of the SKR, an adaptive reserve management program for the reserve system is a key compo- i nent of the HCP. Reserve management will be implemented in accordance with a Core Reserve Management Plan and will befunded from the conservation fund. l Reserve management shall consist of both habitat management activities con.- ; ducted by the RMCC and direct habitat acquisitions conducted by the RCHCA. A. CORE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN The RCHCA shall adopt a Core Reserve Management Plan (CRMP) from time to 1 time upon the recommendation of the RMCC. The CRMP is similar to that de- scribed in Chapter 5, Section C(1) of the main text. The primary purpose of the CRMP is to establish priorities for reserve management activities based upon ,1 their conservation value and their cost effectiveness.The CRMP shall be updated upon each periodic review date under the monitoring program (described in Sec- tion V(B) below), and at other times as may be necessary or appropriate. • sl _, C-18 Draft 11-4-93 -, , I Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C B. CONSERVATION FUND Although the credit-trading component of the HTM alternative provides the primary means of habitat acquisition, there is still the need for cash to cover vari- ous costs of the HCP. These include the cost of ongoing reserve management, the cost of overall plan administration, anaredthe cost of funded out of acco servation fund that acquisi- tions. All of these additional costs would be supplied from the following sources: 1. Any unspent monies generated by the short-term SKR HCP. 2. The$1,950 per acre conservation fee (adjusted for inflation) collected on projects in the credit-exempt areas. 3. That portion of the$250 per conservation unit registration fee that is not needed to cover the cost of registering conservation credits; this excess portion is expected to be approximately$200 per conservation unit. 4. State and local bond issues, supplemental utility fees, and other local sources,to the extent available. 5. State and federal grants and other special funding, to the extent avail- able. C. HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES The CRMP will establish priorities for undertaking management activities that are intended to provide the most benefit to SKR conservation for each dollar ex- pended. The types of management activities that may be undertaken are listed in Chapter 5,Section C(1)(d) of the main text.The management activities will be co- ordinated by the RMCC. The ongoing management will be funded out of a man- agement endowment fund established in accordance with the CRMP using funds from the conservation fund. D. DIRECT RCHCA HABITAT ACQUISITIONS The CRMP will allocate management monies between habitat management of the existing preserve network and a revolving fund for direct RCHCA acquisitions of additional habitat. The credit-trading system is designed to bear the primary burden of habitat acquisition, so the need for direct RCHCA habitat acquisitions is provided primarily as a safety net for the credit-trading component of the pro- gram. In addition to acquisitions out of the revolving fund, the RCHCA may, if the resources are available, make "supplemental acquisitions" as a means of (1) enhancing the amount of conservation that can be accomplished under the HCP and (2) relieving existing landowners from bearing all of the cost of the HCP. Re- volving fund acquisitions and supplemental acquisitions are further described in the following two subsections. 11-4-93 Draft C-19 Appendix C Volur. �. Habitat Conservation Plan 1. Revolving.Fund Acquisitions Based on the CRMP, the RCHCA may allocate money to a revolving fund for key acquisitions. Moneys in the revolving fund would be used to acquire lands for J! permanent preservation. The RCHCA would receive conservation credits for the lands preserved, which it would auction or otherwise sell to replenish the revolv- ing fund. In this manner, the fund can be repeatedly replenished. Revolving fund acquisitions would not increase the total quantity of conserva- - tion value that gets preserved because the RCHCA will sell the credits generated by the preservation, which in turn will permit the same amount of development _ as if a private party preserved the land and obtained the credits. The RCHCA can use the revolving fund technique, however, to influence the location of preserva- tion in the following ways: 1. Acquire particular parcels on which it discovers special conservation values that it desires to ensure are preserved. 2. "Seed" an area with newly preserved habitat to provide a magnet that attracts future preservation to the same area (by virtue of the contiguity adjustment). 3. Acquire key parcels needed to start or complete a new corridor between reserve patches or between a reserve patch and other natural lands. _ The use of the revolving fund for these various purposes would be in accordance with priorities established by the CRMP. 2. Supplemental Acquisitions Supplemental acquisitions are acquisitions of habitat that are not followed by the - sale of the resulting conservation credits to replenish the revolving fund. Instead, • the credits are either left unused or retired in order to either increase the total amount of conservation value that will be preserved or to decrease the mitigation burden on private landowners (see Section III(D)(1) above regarding unused and retired credits). Potential sources for funding of supplemental acquisitions are public and private grants earmarked for acquisitions, state and local bond mea- sures, and any conservation fund amounts that can be allocated to supplemental acquisitions under the CRMP after covering administration, habitat manage- ment, and revolving fund requirements. Since supplemental acquisitions can be used either to increase total conservation or decrease economic burden, a tension is created over the use of supplemental acquisition funds. In order to encourage both conservation interests and landowner interests to support efforts to obtain funding for supplemental acqui- sitions, the RCHCA shall split the use of credits generated from supplemental acquisitions. Fifty percent of the credits shall be left unused to increase total con- servation, and fifty percent shall be retired to decrease economic burden. C-20 Draft 11-4-93 Volume l: Habitat Conservat.—.= Appendix C Ian - - V. MONITORING PROGRAM The monitoring program is an integral part of the HTM alternative ltrnati de- signed to assure that the conservation goals of the HCP arebeing satisfied and that no unnecessary economic burdens are being imposed by the plan. Under the monitoring program, as new information becomes available, the conservation ratio is automatically adjusted annually, the CRMP is adjusted from time to time as necessary, and numerous other changes can be made pursuant to a periodic review process. In addition,an emergency review may be initiated at any time by USFWS or CDFG in the event of certain unforeseen circumstances. A. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONSERVATION RATIO The HTM alternative is based upon assuring that, at a minimum, the target con- servation value will be preserved in the long term, and that the preservation of the target conservation value is never precluded by development in the interim. In keeping with this objective, the conservation ratio will be adjusted annually and automatically, on each anniversary date of the commencement of the HCP, based upon the following formula: Target CV–Preserved CV Conservation Ratio= Uncommitted CV–Target CV–Preserved CV For purposes of this formula, Target CV is the target conservationaluPreserved a CV is the total conservation value that has been committed to p preser- vation; and Uncommitted CV is the total estimated conservation value existing within the plan area (based upothe ion and lessethe total conservation value less the conservation value already committed to prese represented by unused conservation credits (retired conservation credits are not subtracted). The resulting conservation ratio shall be rounded upward to the nearest 1/10. For example, if the formula yields a conservation ratio of 1.024, then the new,rounded conservation ratio would be 1.1 (i.e., 1.1-to-1). Based on the foregoing formula, the discovery that less uncommitted conserva- . tion value exists than previously shown on the base map will result in an in- crease in the conservation ratio. Conversely, the discovery that more uncommit- ted conservation value exists than previously shown on the base map will result in a decrease in the conservation ratio.resultingo, if a creditsPrather thanublic gholding them oor other r preserves habitat, then retires the selling them),the conservation ratio will decrease. B. PERIODIC REVIEWS Periodic reviews shall be conducted beginning on the following anniversary dates of the HCP (periodic review dates): the first, second, third, sixth, ninth, twelfth anniversary dates, and each fifth anniversary date thereafter. On each scheduled periodic review date, the RCHCA shall deliver to the resource agen- cies the current base map and an accounting (both in terms of changes since the C-21 I 1-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volui;ie-': Habitat Conservation Plan previous periodic review and cumulatively) of the current conservation value preserved, conservation value uncommitted, conservation credits issued, and conservation credits retired. On the same date, the RMCC shall deliver to the re- source agencies a qualitative report on the condition of habitat and species in each portion of the preserve network,a description of management activities uti- lized and an evaluation of their success, the results of any special studies per- formed since the RMCC's previous report, and an evaluation of any extraordi- nary threats to the long-term survival of the SKR that it has discovered. Based upon all of this information, and any other information obtained by the RCHCA or the resource agencies form any source,adjustments can be made to the HCP, if necessary. Such adjustments fall into three categories—CRMP modifications, mi- nor HCP adjustments, and major HCP adjustments. 1. CRMP Modifications As discussed in Section IV(A) above, the CRMP is modified upon each periodic • review, and at other times as necessary. In this manner, the reserve management strategy can be adjusted at any appropriate time to accommodate new informa- tion or understanding without an amendment to the HCP. 2. Minor HCP Adjustments Minor HCP adjustments are those that are anticipated under the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and are permissible with minimal review. The following are minor HCP adjustments: 1. Modifications to Biological Survey Guidelines. Modifications to the - biological survey guidelines for determining the density of active SKR burrows. 2. Modifications to Habitat Value Point Assignments. Modifications to the number of points per acre assigned to each category of SKR pres- ence or absence. 3. Minor Additions to Plan Area.Modifications of plan area boundaries that add land with an aggregate estimated conservation value of no more than 5% of that existing in the plan area prior to the adjustment, based upon the base map. In order to qualify as a minor HCP adjust- ment, the conservation ratio must be adjusted using the formula de- scribed in Section IV(A) above after adding the values pertaining to the land to be annexed. For purposes of that calculation, the amount to be added to the target conservation value shall be the total estimated con- servation value existing within the annexed area multiplied by the fol- lowing factor: Conservation Ratio/(Conservation Ratio+1). Minor HCP adjustments must be proposed within 30 days after a periodic review date by the RCHCA, USFWS, or CDFG (these parties shall be referred to as the - "coordinating agencies"). The proposal shall be made by notifying all persons C-22 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conserved__=-'Ian Appendix C 0-day who have previously submitted a request for such notices. A the end public coordinating comment period shall commencethe agency has objected to the proposed date of the notice. If atpublic comment period any adjustment, then the adjustment may be made as a major HCP adjustment (see subsection 3 below). If no such objection is made,sto review party the p hi ch reposed the adjustment shall have an additional 30 days and decide whether to make the adjustment t thel, abandon the modified proposal or an addi- adjust- ment, or modify the adjustment and sA or tional 90-day review in the same manner as the nor HCP adjustments because tial review. No Qminor --- NEPA processing will be necessary fo HCP adjustments will be contemplated bye the aginalminoEHCP adjustmentIR/EIS. The is un ooperate as usual (without the adjustment) der review. 3.Major HCP Adjustments Major HCP adjustments are any adjustments to the HCP ecomeed Such ao- by a co- ordinating agency which do not qualify as minor HCPadjustments. justments may include,without limitation, changes to the conservation fee or the registration fee, a change of the target conservation value, additions to the plan area that do not qualify as minor, etc. Major HCP adjustments must be proposed within 60 days er a periodic review notifying the other date by a coordinating agency.The proposal shallbe made by Coordinating Agencies and all persons who have previously submitted a request for such notices. A 60-day public comment period shall commence from the date of the notice. During the second 30 days of the comment period, the RCHCA Board shall hold a public hearing on the proposed modification (unless the RCHCA is proposing the adjustment and previously held a publicheari hearing on tthe matter) and shall vote whether to approve it, disapproveor app ith modifications. If the adjustment is approved by the RCHCA Board with modifi- cations, then the RCHCA shall so notify the other coordinating agencies. If the RCHCA Board approves the adjustment and, by 30 days after the closing of the comment period, the party which proposed the adjustment has approved any changes to it approved by the RCHCA, and none of the other coordinating agen- cies have entered a written objection to the proposed is not adjustment, then t party ad- justment will be deemed approved. If the adjustmentapproved, which proposed it may submit a revised proposal within 30 days for processing in accordance with the foregoing. If counsel to the RCHCA or to the party that proposed the Aad�e ment deems it se foregoing necessary to take actiocly with oA an /or ent CEQA,and/or NEPA process shall be modified to accommodate on u pro- cessing. The HCP shall operate as usual (without the adjustment) while a major HCP adjustment is under review. • C-23 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volun.... Habitat Conservation Plan C.EMERGENCY REVIEWS _ In the event of unforeseen circumstances (as defined in Chapter 5, Section D(4) of the main text) which create a substantial risk of precluding the survival and re- covery of the SKR if changes are not made to the HCP prior to the next scheduled - periodic review date, either USFWS or CDFG may commence an emergency re- view. An agency commences an emergency review by notifying the other coor- dinating agencies and all persons who have previously submitted a request for such notices of the commencement of the review and of the unforeseen circum- stances which gave rise to the emergency review.The agency calling the emer- i gency review may, if it deems necessary, suspend the issuance of new conserva- tion credits during the pendency of the emergency review. Commencement of an emergency review starts a 30-day public comment period - 1 during which the other coordinating agencies and members of the public may ` _ suggest adjustments to the HCP to remove the emergency condition. Within 30 days after the close of the public comment period, the agency that commenced the emergency review must specify the adjustments to the HCP, or alternative sets of adjustments, that would remove the emergency condition. If within 60 days thereafter, the RCHCA approves such a course of action, or another course of action which is approved by the agency that commenced the emergency re- view, then the HCP shall continue with such adjustments; otherwise, the agency that commenced the emergency review may suspend or revoke its permit to take SKR. In the event that an emergency condition exists because of a failure of a coordi- nating agency or an RCHCA member jurisdiction to fulfill its obligations under ___ the HCP, then the default provisions of the implementing agreement for the HCP (the Implementation Agreement),and not this subsection,shall apply. VI. BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS The habitat value of land under the HTM alternative is determined by surveys performed by qualified biologists under contract to the RCHCA. The base map will be updated based on each survey that is certified in accordance with this section. ; '. A. TYPES OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS Three types of biological surveys may be performed in furtherance of the HCP: habitat value surveys,habitat value estimates,and exemption surveys. The scope and purpose of each of these types of surveys is as follows: • 1. Habitat Value Survey. This is the ordinary survey performed to deter- mine the habitat value of a parcel of land in order to calculate the cred- its available for preserving the parcel or the credits required for devel- oping a parcel (base map information may be used for calculating con- tiguity factors, but is not sufficient to determine the habitat value of a C-24 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conserva..:,..'lan Appendix C given parcel). A habitat value survey involves a procedure of sampling transects to estimate active SKR burrow density. 2. Habitat Value Estimates.This is a survey performed for purposes of refining the base map. It employs rougher means for determining pres- ence of SKR and for estimating burrow densities than a habitat value survey. It is not sufficient for purposes of calculating the actual habitat value of the land surveyed, but it is sufficient for purposes of calculat- ing contiguity and shape factors. A habitat value estimate may not be • . used to override the existing base mapinformation if the existing in- formation is based upon more precise surveys than the habitat value es- timate, and such surveys are no more than three years old. 3. Exemption Surveys.This is a survey performed only to confirm the ab- sence of any habitat value. If any habitat value is found, the survey re- port simply states that fact, and no adjustment is made to the base map. If the absence of habitat value is confirmed, then the area surveyed is designated a credit-exempt area,and conservation credits can thereafter neither be issued for preserving land in that area nor required for de- velopment within that area. Only a subsequent habitat value survey can reverse the credit-exempt area designation. Credit-exempt areas are • subject to the standard conservation fee. Any private party may request that the RCHCA perform any of these three types of surveys so long as the requester pays any relevant survey fee and access is available to the subject lands. The RCHCA may also perform any of these three types of surveys on its own initiative in furtherance of the HCP. As its resources allow, the RCHCA shall conduct ongoing exemption surveys to continually re- fine the base map as to the location of credit-exempt areas. B. SURVEY REQUIREMENTS AND FEES A current habitat value survey shall be required as part of the conservation value determination for purposes of issuing conservation credits for preserving habitat or requiring conservation credits for purposes of permitting the take of habitat. Only if land has been designated as part of a credit-exempt area will no survey be required prior to development. Agricultural lands in cultivated areas may be cultivated without a survey. A habitat value survey is current if it has been certi- fied by the RCHCA within the previous nine (9) months. habitat value estimates and exemption surveys are never required,but a party may find it advantageous to have one of these optional surveys performed. The cost of surveys that are performed at the request of a landowner shall be reimbursed to the RCHCA based upon a standard fee schedule that takes into ac- count the number of acres to be surveyed and the type of survey to be per- formed. The fee shall be waived for the first 10 acres of survey work requested by any given landowner on his or her own land during any two-year period. The fee C-25 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Habitat Conservation Plan for an exemption survey shall be reimbursed to a landowner who requests it for any portion of his or her land that is designated as a credit-exempt area as a re- sult of the survey. C. SURVEY PROCESS Biological surveys must be certified by the RCHCA before they may be used for any purpose under the HCP. The survey and certification process will take be- tween 90 and 180 days for parcels of 100.acres or less, and between 150 and 270 days for parcels of more than 100 acres. The actual time depends upon whether or not the initial survey is challenged. The survey process is set forth in the table on the following page. Each time a survey is certified, regardless of survey type, the base map is up- dated to reflect the new information, and contiguity and shape factors are there- after calculated based upon the updated base map. D. SURVEY GUIDELINES ' All surveys shall be performed in accordance with survey guidelines which are published by the RCHCA from time to time with the concurrence of the resource agencies. The survey guidelines shall set forth the methodology to be used by ! J` biologists to determine the density of active SKR burrows, including a method for determining which burrows should be counted as SKR burrows. The proce- dures required shall be designed to provide good quality data for their cost; costly procedures that yield only marginal increases in data quality will be avoided. The procedures required for each type of survey shall be appropriate for the level of accuracy they are intended to achieve. The procedures for habitat value surveys shall be the most rigorous. E. QUALIFICATION OF SURVEY BIOLOGISTS All biologists retained by the RCHCA to conduct SKR surveys for purposes of the HCP must be qualified to perform the surveys. In order to be qualified, a bi- ologist must be permitted by USFWS to trap SKR and must sit for a seminar with the RCHCA staff biologists on the HCP and the biological guidelines. If a biolo- gist meets these qualifications, the RCHCA may contract with the biologist or his or her firm to do survey work under the HCP. If at any time the Executive Direc- tor of the RCHCA or the RCHCA Board determines that a biologist is in breach of its contract with the RCHCA, is unwilling or unable to follow the survey guidelines, or is otherwise unfit to do survey work under the HCP, such biologist shall be disqualified from doing such further work. { C-26 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat ConservL Plan Appendix C SURVEY PROCESS DAYS TO COMPLETE STEP <_100 ACRES .>100 ACRES 1. Landowner applies for survey using standard form and 15 15 pays survey fee; RCHCA publishes notice of survey which identifies parcel(s) to be surveyed and solicits information from the public that would be helpful to the survey. 2. Public, including survey applicant and governmental 15 30 agencies submit any information to the RCHCA that they wish to have considered when the survey is performed. . 3. RCHCA selects a biologist and provides the biologist with 30 60 the information obtained from the public;biologist performs survey; RCHCA publishes a notice of preliminary survey results and a request for public comment. 4. Public, including survey applicant and governmental 15 30 agencies, submit any comments to the RCHCA that they wish to have considered before the survey is made final; biologist finalizes survey; RCHCA publishes notice of sur- vey results. 5. Public, including survey applicant, may file challenges to 15 15 the survey, along with (a) a description of objections, (b) any new information that was not available by the end of the original solicitation for information under Step 1, (c) if desired by the challenger, a request for resurvey, and(d)a deposit to cover administrative costs of the challenge, in- cluding any cost of resurvey; if no challenge filed, RCHCA publishes certification of survey results. [6. If resurvey was requested by a challenger, RCHCA selects 30 60 a different biologist from the original one and provides the biologist with all relevant information on file with the RCHCA;biologistperforms resurvey.] [7. RCHCA Board makes final determination of survey result 60 60 as follows: if the habitat value under the resurvey is less than 10% different than under the original survey, the original survey stands and the cost of the challenge is borne by the challenger; if the habitat value under the resurvey is 10% or more different than under the original survey,then the RCHCA solicits a report from its biological staff and input from the resource agencies analyzing the reason for the differences in the two surveys and holds a public hearing to determine the habitat value; if the value ultimately determined varies by 10% or more from the value reported under the original survey,the original biol- ogist pays 50% of the cost of resurvey;the RCHCA pub- lishes certification of survey results.] C-27 11-4-93 Draft • Appendix C Volu.• Habitat Conservation Plan • VII. ADMINISTRATION The responsibilities of the coordinating agencies and the RCHCA member agen- cies with respect to the HCP shall be set forth in detail in the Implementation Agreement. This section provides a summary of those responsibilities. A. RESOURCE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES The HCP is administered primarily through the RCHCA and its member agen- cies. The RCHCA receives its authority to permit take, however, from a master ti take permit from USFWS under Section 10(a) of the federal ESA and from CDFG under an agreement pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code (collectively,the master permits). See Section VIII below for a discussion of how the HTM alternative can meet the requirements of the ESAs for the issuance of take authority. Based upon the master permits, the RCHCA will have the authority to permit individual projects to take SKR upon presentation of sufficient conservation credits in accordance with the HCP. The role of the resource agencies after the is- ; t suance of the master permits is primarily as follows: ;_ 1. To monitor the RCHCA to ensure that it is authorizing take only in ac- cordance with the HCP; 2. To participate as a member of the RMCC; 3. To participate in the monitoring program by proposing changes to the HCP as appropriate and by calling for and participating in emergency reviews if necessary; 4. To review survey guidelines, restoration and enhancement guidelines, emergency utility maintenance and repair guidelines, and acceptable forms of conservation easements from time to time, as requested by the RCHCA; and 5. To evaluate proposed exceptions to forms of conservation easement and other matters when they are proposed. The resource agencies ultimately have the authority to suspend or revoke the master permits if the RCHCA is allowing significant take to occur that is not in accordance with the HCP or if an emergency review is called,and sufficient steps are not taken by the RCHCA*to remove the conditions that prompted the need for the emergency review. Upon a suspension or revocation of the master per- mits, no new conservation credits will be issued, but conservation credits then in circulation may be used to obtain project take permits in accordance with the HCP. C-28 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conserv'.'..-; Plan Appendix C • B. RCHCA RESPONSIBILITIES The RCHCA has overall responsibility for the administration of the provisions of HCP. Its responsibilities after the issuance of the master permits are summarized as follows: 1. To contract with staff biologists and survey biologists to carry out the survey provisions of the HCP; 2. To contract with an accounting firm to perform the duties.of the Regis- trar described under subsection(E) below, and to oversee the Registrar; 3. To contract with an accounting firm other than the Registrar prior to each periodic review date, and at such other times as it deems necessary or appropriate, to audit the Registrar; 4. To contract with a law firm to provide general legal advice to the RCHCA and to review the forms of grant deeds and conservation easements to ensure that they are in accordance with the approved forms and properly executed and recorded; 5. To participate as a member of the RMCC and provide staff to the RMCC as it deems appropriate; 6. To provide annual reports to the public and to the resource agencies on the status of the HCP; 7. To implement the monitoring program in accordance with the HCP; 8. To collect fees from its member agencies for projects occurring in credit- exempt areas; 9. To publish from time to time,upon advice from the RMCC and with the concurrence of the resource agencies,survey guidelines,restoration and enhancement guidelines, emergency utility maintenance and repair guidelines, and acceptable forms of conservation easements; 10. To manage administrative costs so as to make as much of the conserva- tion fund as possible available for the acquisition of key habitat and for the management of the reserve system; and 11. To promulgate regulations from time to time that provide detailed guidance regarding the implementation of the procedures set forth in the HCP. 11-4-93 Draft C-29 - i Appendix C Volurrw i; Habitat Conservation Plan C. MEMBER AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES Each member agency of the RCHCA shall have the following responsibilities: 1. To establish and administer a process to require the presentation of a project take permit prior to allowing any activity to occur within its ju- risdiction that would disturb land that is within the plan area, unless the land has been designated on the base map as a credit-exempt area (each jurisdiction may use its normal permitting processes as the check- point for this requirement for any activities which require a permit from the agency); 2. To collect the conservation fee prior to allowing disturbance of land within the credit-exempt areas; and 3. To enforce the illegal take ordinance described in subsection (F) below, and report such enforcement actions to the RCHCA. If a member agency fails to meet any of its responsibilities in a material manner, the RCHCA shall suspend the issuance of any new conservation credits for preservation of land in that agency's jurisdiction and the issuance of project take permits for projects within that agency's jurisdiction until the member agency has remedied its failure to the satisfaction of the RCHCA. D. RMCC RESPONSIBILITIES Each member of the RMCC shall have the following responsibilities: 1. To carry out specific responsibilities allocated to it for the implementa- tion of the habitat management portion of the CRMP; 2. To participate in the RMCC's production of a qualitative report on the preserve network in conjunction with each periodic review. 3. To recommend from time to time, and in no event less frequently than upon each periodic review,an updated CRMP; and 4. To advise the RCHCA from time to time,at the request of the RCHCA, on adoption of survey guidelines, restoration and enhancement guide- lines, emergency utility maintenance and repair guidelines, and accept- able forms of conservation easements. E. REGISTRAR RESPONSIBILITIES The RCHCA is required to contract with an accounting firm to act as the "Registrar" for the HCP. The Registrar is the central clearing house for the cre- ation, exchange, and use of credits. The Registrar will subcontract with an escrow and title insurance company and an engineer to assist it in verifying and register- ing conservation credit transactions. C-30 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conserv..:.::_Plan Appendix C Landowners are required to register the following actions: 1. Creation of Credits. To obtain conservation credits for a preservation action, the landowner must apply to the Registrar with (a) a certified habitat value survey for the land to be preserved, (b) a completed stan- dard worksheet showing the landowner's calculation of the conserva- tion value of the preservation action, (c) an executed grant deed or grant of conservation easement in a standardized form for the land being pre- served. The Registrar verifies the amount of credit, checks the form of the grant deed or conservation easement, and verifies that the grantor has insurable fee title, free and clear of monetary liens (except liens for nondelinquent property taxes and assessments). When all such items are in order, the Registrar records the grant deed or conservation ease- ment and issues conservation credits to the grantor. 2. Transfer of Credits. To transfer conservation credits from one landowner to another, the transferor must sign the credits over to the Registrar, give the Registrar the name and address of the transferee and the dollar price paid for the transfer, and pay a flat $100 transfer fee. The Registrar will issue a new certificate in the name of the transferee and mail it to the transferee. 3. Spending of Credits to Obtain Project Take Permits.To use conserva- tion credits,a landowner must apply to the Registrar with (a) a certified _ _ habitat value survey for the land to be disturbed, (b) a completed stan- dard worksheet showing the landowner's calculation of the conserva- tion value to be lost by the disturbance, (c) conservation credits suffi- cient to compensate for the proposed disturbance, (d) an assignment of those credits to the RCHCA in a standardized form, and (e) a registra- tion fee of $250 per credit. The Registrar verifies the number of credits required and checks the form of assignment. When those items are in order, the Registrar issues a taking.permit to the applicant for the par- cel(s) described in the application. • The Registrar will process all requests for registration within five (5) days, and will act upon requests in the order they are received. If a check of conservation value by the Registrar yields a less favorable conservation value than indicated by the worksheet completed by the applicant, the Registrar will immediately no- tify the applicant and suspend processing of the application until the applicant - notifies the Registrar whether it wishes to go forward with the application. The Registrar will make the following information available to the public to facil- itate habitat evaluations and transactions in conservation credits: 1. The current base map. 2. The current size of each patch of undisturbed habitat, and the contiguity factor for each of those patches. C-31 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Vo h is Habitat Conservation Plan 3. The current size of each patch of habitat in the preserve network, and the contiguity factor for each of those patches. 4. The current shape factor for the plan area. 5. The current shape factor for the preserve network. 6. A list of the transfers of conservation certificates, with the following in- formation for each transfer: number of credits transferred, sale price, and description of any special terms of transfer (such as seller financ- • ing). F. ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ILLEGAL TAKE Each member agency shall have in place an ordinance that imposes an automatic penalty for any disturbance of land in the plan area that is not in accordance with the HCP or otherwise permitted by State or federal law.The penalty shall be to obtain and assign to the RCHCA conservation credits equal to the number that would have been required to obtain a permit for the disturbance,'but assuming a habitat value of 2.5 habitat units per acre, which is 25% greater than the greatest habitat value that can otherwise be assigned to a parcel. Since the penalty credits are greater than the highest possible credit requirement for permitted take, the penalty system leaves no incentive whatsoever for illegal take to occur. The penalty shall become a lien against the parcels affected, and no activity shall be allowed on the disturbed parcels until the penalty is paid in full. The enforce- ment measures described in this subsection are in addition to any law enforce- ment actions that the federal or State government may take under federal or state law. G. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FUNDING Acquisitions under the HTM alternative are funded entirely by the issuance of conservation credits and therefore require no outside funding source. Costs that must be funded are general RCHCA administrative costs, the cost of biological surveys, credit registration and transfer costs, the cost of ongoing reserve man- agement, and the cost of any direct RCHCA habitat acquisitions. The funding sources for these various costs are summarized below: • • C-32 Draft 11-4-93 Volume l: Habitat Conserv-- --Plan Appendix C COST SOURCE . . • 1. Acquisitions generally Issuance of conservation credits (no monetary cost) 2. Reserve management Endowment funded out of the conservation fund 3. RCHCA administrative costs Conservation fund 4. Biological surveys Survey fees charged to landowners; conservation fund for RCHCA-sponsored surveys • 5. Credit registration&transfer Registration fees and transfer fees 6. Revolving fund acquisitions Conservation fund 7. Supplemental acquisitions Conservation fund +grants, matching funds,earmarked d�d fundiic and private funds VIII. MULTI-SPECIES PLANNING The long-term SKR HCP, as presented in the main text, would achieve its pur- poses in a more simple fashion than the HTM alternative would allow. This fact is due in large part to the existence of the core reserves described in Chapter 4, Section D of the main text. By contrast, the existence of numerous endangered, threatened, and sensitive species on thousands of parcels of private land across Western Riverside County continues to create an intractable problem for both the environmental and economic health of the region. In this context, the HTM ap- proach could be a valuable implementation tool for a multi-species HCP. The HTM approach is well-suited to the challenge of achieving quantifiable multi- species protection while providing landowners with a certain and equitable means of addressing project impacts to most Western Riversidian species. A multi-species HCP would be a major step toward ending the biological and eco- nomic tragedy of having to deal with one endangered species listing after an- other in Western Riverside County, and the HTM approach could help make such a multi-species HCP practical. The same basic 'methodology presented in this appendix for the SKR can be adapted for multi-species planning. Since the sage scrub, chaparral, and grass- land habitat types typically occur in a mosaic across Western Riverside County, these three habitat types could be considered for protection together using a sin- gle type of credit and an integrated conservation valuation methodology. Since the SKR inhabits a type of native grassland, SKR take permitting might also be covered by the new sage/chaparral/grasslands(SCG) credit system. In addition to the SCG credits, which would cover a large percentage of the re- maining natural habitat in Western Riverside County, separate credits might be developed for the following: - 1. Riparian habitat, with the objectives of (a) no net loss of wetlands Nabi- tat, (b) qualification for a take permit under Section 10(a) of the federal C-33 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volui, �-. Habitat Conservation Plan ESA for listed and other sensitive riparian species, and possibly (c) • qualification for a programmatic filling and dredging (Section 404) permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for small to moderate fills. that may not otherwise qualify for a nationwide,permit (e.g., up to 25 acres). 2. Oak woodlands habitat, with the objective of meeting or exceeding the level of protection provided by the existing oak tree ordinance. 3. Vernal pool habitat, with the objective of qualification for a take permit under Section 10(a) of the federal ESA for .Riverside fairy shrimp and other sensitive vernal pool species. Other species that require very specialized habitats or occur in very limited geo- graphic ranges may not be conducive to protection using the HTM approach and may have to be protected by other means. Most such species that have attained protected status are plant species, for which mitigation is typically easier to pro- vide than for animal species. As part of the multi-species HCP, the RCHCA might undertake a planting program to attempt to expand the populations of rare plant species on appropriate sites within the multi-species preserve network. Such populations could serve as a habitat bank for mitigation of project impacts on those species. For each of the four types of credit—SCG, riparian, oak woodlands, and vernal pool—separate biological criteria would be developed. Except for the oak wood- lands, the biological criteria for these credits would emphasize overall habitat quality and diversity, using presence of selected target or indicator species as well as other measures of habitat quality. Each of the four habitat types would have its own contiguity factor, although contiguity among habitat types may also be given a certain amount of value. Similarly, the shape of each habitat type may have its own value,but the combined shape of all protected habitat could also be considered. Many parcels will contain more than one type of habitat. For example, a parcel might be predominantly SCG, with a riparian corridor and a patch of Munz's onion. In such a case, the conservation value for both SCG and riparian would be considered, and credits would be given or required (depending on whether the land is to be preserved or developed) for both. Since Munz's onion would not be covered by the general credit system, the landowner could either seek to bank Munz's onion values for sale to other,landowners,or perhaps relocate the onions to a suitable site within the multi-species as a mitigation measure for developing the parcel. When doing multiple-species planning, it will be critical to landowners that they receive as much assurance as possible that offering credits will solve their en- - dangered species problem, with minimal risk that future listings will halt future phases of their projects. Existing law does not give clear standing to pre-listing endangered species permits,but it is hoped, and coming to be expected, that pre- C-34 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservai . 'Ian Appendix C listing permitting authority will be clarified with the reauthorization of the fed- eral ESA. If Riverside County moves toward multi-species planning, it should consider lobbying for this change, or for a pilot program for the County that would provide the benefits of a pre-listing take permit. IX. MEETING ESA REQUIREMENTS The HCP must satisfy the criteria of Section 10(a) of the federal ESA and Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code in order to be the basis for the is- suance of the master permits. This section discusses the conservation assurances of the HTM alternative generally, then discusses in.detail how the HCP could meet the requirements of the ESAs for issuance of take authority. A. SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION ASSURANCES 1. Existing Preserved Land The first assurance is that 52,547 acres of land containing 12,410 acres of occupied SKR habitat has already been set aside for permanent preservation under the short-term SKR HCP to form the initial core reserves.This assurance is not pecu- liar to the HTM alternative and is discussed more fully in Chapter 4, Sections D and E, of the main text. 2. Inherent Safeguards The HTM alternative provides substantial inherent safeguards which are calcu- lated to assure that the conservation objectives of the HCP will be met (i.e., the target conservation value will be preserved). These assurances are summarized below: (a) The quantitative objective of protecting a given amount of conservation value (measured in conservation units) is assured of being attained in the long run by requiring mitigation in the form of preserving conser- vation value. This is the key assurance because it is the assurance of a particular result that is based upon sound principles of conservation biology. (b) The mitigation requirements make it impossible for any development or the accumulation of development to preclude the attainment of the tar- get conservation value. (c) Because acquisitions are based on project mitigation, it is impossible to have a funding shortfall for purposes of attaining the target conserva- tion value. (d) Mitigation always occurs prior to the take of habitat. C-35 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Voluf.« Habitat Conservation Plan • (e) The contiguity and shape factors ensure that preservation will not be fragmented,but rather will occur in configurations that have substantial long-term conservation value. 3. Direct Agency Acquisitions If the RMCC and the RCHCA find it appropriate, funds from the conservation fund that are not needed for administrative costs or reserve management may be used to make key acquisitions within the plan area for the HCP. This option provides a means for the RCHCA to directly intervene to influence the conserva- tion outcome rather than leave the outcome entirely to the results of the creation, trading, and use of conservation credits. Moreover, the RCHCA can replenish its acquisition fund at least partially by selling the conservation credits it receives for preserving the land acquired. In this manner,an ongoing acquisition effort on the part of the RCHCA is greatly facilitated by the HTM Alternative . - 4. Monitoring Program As an additional safeguard, the HCP incorporates a comprehensive monitoring program. Under this program, new information that adjusts the estimated amount of existing SKR habitat results in an automatic adjustment in the conser- vation ratio on an annual basis; new information regarding the efficacy of vari- ous management strategies can be effected at any time by modifying the CRMP; new information on the characteristics of SKR habitat value can be easily incor- porated into the definition of habitat value at each periodic review; limitless other adjustments can be made to the HCP with the concurrence of the partici- pating agencies at each periodic review; and emergency reviews that call for emergency action can be called by the resource agencies immediately upon a finding of certain adverse unforeseen circumstances. This multiple-tiered moni- toring process provides an important set of fail-safes for the HCP. B. MEETING OF FEDERAL ESA REQUIREMENTS The criteria applied to the review of applications for take permits under Section 10(a) of the federal ESA and a description of how each of these criteria is satisfied under the HTM alternative are shown in the following table: C-36 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix C SECTION 10(a)CRITERIA HOW SATISFIED The taking will be incidental to an All takings would be pursuant to the master permits, otherwise lawful activity which would allow only incidental take The applicant will, to the maximum The conservation ratio quantifies the impact of take extent practicable, minimize and miti- that will be permitted and the extent to which take gate-the impacts of the taking will be minimized and mitigated in terms of conserva- tion value for the SKR; the cost of mitigation to pri- vate landowners is also reflected by the conservation ratio, and the public discussion of the conservation • ratio and its impact will provide ample documentation that the ratio finally implemented, with the automatic adjustment mechanism incorporated into the moni- toring plan, minimizes and mitigates "to the maxi- mum extent practicable" The applicant will ensure that ade- Acquisition is through private actions taken to miti- quate funding for the HCP will be pro- gate project impacts; since mitigation is required on vided a true "pay-as-you-go" basis, with preservation of replacement habitat always occurring prior to take of habitat, acquisition"funding"is assured Funding for administration and reserve management • is provided from a combination of registration fees and conservation fees (including any unused funds generated by the short-term SKR HCP); the conser- vation fee and registration fee is to cover projected • costs and can.be modified as necessary if actual costs vary too greatly from projections The taking will not appreciably reduce The combination of the following factors should be the likelihood of the survival and re- -found to meet the survival and recovery standard: covery of the species in the wild • Substantial SKR conservation value is already under permanent preservation; • • The conservation value to be protected under the HCP is likely to equal or exceed what is required to provide for the survival and recovery of the SKR; • The management program to be implemented under the HCP assures that the conservation value of the SKR habitat preserved is likely to be maintained or increased during the life of the permit;and • The monitoring program provides a means of continually adjusting to new scientific information • and of implementing emergency measures in the case of unforeseen circumstances C-37 11-4-93 Draft Appendix C Volo; Habitat Conservation Plan SECTION 10(a)CRITERIA HOW SATISFIED The applicant will assure that other Such "other measures" must be addressed as they measures (if any) that USFWS may become known, but the HCP has the flexibility to co- require as being necessary or appro- ordinate well with a wide variety of"other measures" priate will be met The applicant will ensure that proce- The monitoring program provides multiple levels of dures to deal with unforeseen cir- review to incorporate new information, including cumstances will be provided emergency review provisions to deal with unforeseen circumstances USFWS must be assured that the The RCHCA already has the political and basic ad- conservation plan will be imple- ministrative framework in place to implement the mented plan, as well as a three-year track record of imple- menting perhaps the most complex HCP ever under- taken; in addition, all funding mechanisms necessary to implement the plan will be in place from the outset of the HCP, and the Implementation Agreement will be in place setting forth the specific responsibilities of the resource agencies, the RCHCA, and the RCHCA's member agencies C. MEETING OF STATE ESA REQUIREMENTS In order to issue take authority under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG must be able to determine that the proposed action (implementation of the HCP) will not jeopardize a listed or candidate species. Since the State ESA requires CDFG to coordinate with USFWS with respect to federally listed species and, whenever possible, adopt its findings, compliance with Section 10(a) of the federal ESA should, as a practical matter, result in a no jeopardy finding by CDFG. Therefore, the above description of how the HCP would complies with Section 10(a) of the federal ESA should suffice for purposes of Section 2081. X. CONCLUSION The HTM alternative is designed to satisfy the requirements of the ESAs by em- ploying economic incentives to preserve habitat. The HTM approach assures that quantifiable conservation objectives will be reached while providing landowners with certainty and flexibility concerning the use of their lands. • It may not be appropriate, however, to apply the HTM alternative to the long- term SKR HCP. Because substantial lands have been preserved under the short- term SKR HCP, a long-term plan for the SKR may be attainable in a relatively simple fashion. If the strategy described in the main text is acceptable to the re- source agencies, then there is little need for the HTM approach for purposes of the SKR alone. On the other hand, as the RCHCA faces the challenges of multi- species planning, it may find the HTM approach to be a useful tool to assist in achieving the conservation goals and economic needs of the community. C-38 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conserva Plan 2chment 1,Appendix A ATTACHMENT 1 CALCULATION OF CONSERVATION VALUE UNDER THE HTM ALTER- NATIVE The procedure for calculating the habitat value and the conservation value of any given configuration of habitat is described in detail below. • I. HABITAT VALUE The habitat value of a parcel or group of parcels refers to its inherent habitat quality, based upon the presence of SKR. Up to 2.0 points per acre are awarded to the land area as follows: POINTS PER ACRE OF 0.00 Unoccupied 0.25 Suitable for Dispersal 0.50 Historically Occupied 1.00 Trace to Low Density 2.00 Medium to High Density Applying this point system using the survey guidelines referred to in Section V(D) of the text will yield a habitat value of between 0.0 and 2.0 points per acre for any given parcel of land. II. ADJUSTMENTS TO DETERMINE CONSERVATION VALUE In order to determine the conservation value of the plan area or the preserve network at any point in time, the habitat value of such area must be adjusted for contiguity and shape as follows: A. CONTIGUITY ADJUSTMENT The habitat value is first adjusted for contiguity. Each patch of habitat has a con- tiguity factor based upon the habitat value of the patch. The contiguity-adjusted value of the plan area or preserve network is determined by multiplying the habitat value of each patch by the contiguity factor for that patch. A formula rep- resented by the following graph is used to determine the contiguity factor for each patch of habitat: • 11-4-93 Draft C-39 Appendix A,Attachment 1/0114711c A. Habitat Conservation Plan 2.0 1.8 • 1.6 d a 1.4 .5 1.2 2 1.0 ▪ 0.8 co ▪ 0.6 0 U 0.4 0.2 0.0 . . . . s . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o7 IA tD 1: m O O r N l7 t0 m Edge-Adjusted Habitat Value of Habitat Patch The formula for the contiguity factor represented by the foregoing curve is as fol- lows for any habitat patch with a habitat value x that is greater than 0: 2 f(x)=211—x/F+1) , whereF= 1000 =414.21 11 ll— u2 Note that the contiguity factor for a habitat patch with a habitat value of 1,000 is 1.0, and that the contiguity factor approaches,but is never greater than or equal to 2.0. The RCHCA will publish a table of contiguity factors to facilitate calcula- tion of conservation values without the use of the above formula. For purposes of these calculations, a contiguous habitat patch is defined as the maximum unbroken area from any given starting point consisting of any combi- nation of SKR habitat with an unadjusted habitat value of at least 1.0 point per acre and all natural land within a radius of 300 feet of all such SKR habitat. Any place where such a patch is connected only by land with a minimum width of 300 feet or less shall be considered a break in contiguity at that.point. The map- ping of contiguous habitat on the base map shall govern contiguity calculations, subject to updates of the base map with more detailed surveys. B. SHAPE ADJUSTMENT Finally, the contiguity-adjusted habitat value is adjusted for shape. A single shape factor exists for the entire plan area or preserve network based on the total C-40 Draft 11-4-93 Volume 1: Habitat Conserve _ Plan achment 1,Appendix A land area (A) and the total perimeter (P) of all the habitat patches combined. The formula for the shape factor is as follows: f(A.P)=2ic p��) l / This formula will yield a factor between 0 and 1, which is applied to the total contiguity-adjusted habitat value of the plan area or the preserve network to pro- duce the conservation value of such area in terms of conservation units. As for the contiguity factor, the RCHCA will publish a table of shape factors to facilitate calculation of conservation values without the use of the above formula. • • • J ( • C41 11-4-93 Draft Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D Appendix D Biogeographic, Land Use, and Land Ownership Profile of the SKR Core Reserves A. Overview D-4 B. Lake Skinner - Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve D-4 1. Topography D-4D-8 2. Soils 3. Vegetation D-8 4. SKR Occupied Habitat D-8 5. Other Species of Concern D-8 6. Ownership D-8 7. Land Use D-8 8. Connectivity D-9 C. San Jacinto - Lake Perris Core Reserve D-13 1. Topography D-13D-13 2. Soils 3. Vegetation D-13 4. SKR Occupied Habitat D-13 5. Other Species of Concern • D-13 • 6. Ownership D-14 7. Land Use D-14 8. Connectivity D-14 D. Lake Mathews - Estelle Mountain Core Reserve D-18 1. Topography D-18 2. Soils D-18 3. Vegetation D-18 4. SKR Occupied Habitat D-18 5. Other Species of Concern D-19 6. Ownership D-19 7. Land Use D-19 8. Connectivity D-19 D-1 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D E. Sycamore Canyon - March Air Force Base Core Reserve D-23 1. Topography D-23 2. Soils D-23 3. Vegetation D-23 4. SKR Occupied Habitat D-23 5. Other Species of Concern D-23 6. Ownership D-24 7. Land Use D-24 8. Connectivity • D-24 F. Motte Rimrock Core Reserve D-28 1. Topography D-28 2. Soils D-28 3. Vegetation D-28 4. SKR Occupied Habitat D-28 5. Other Species of Concern • D-28 6. Ownership D-28 7. Land Use D-29 8. Connectivity D-29 References Cited D-33 Attachment D-1 Other Species of Concern Associated with Habitats in the Plan Area and Their Known or Potential Occurrence in the SKR Core Reserves D-34 • D-2 • y � Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D Table D-1 Summary Characteristics of Acreage within SKR Core Reserves D-7 Figures D-1 HCP Plan Area and SKR Core Reserves D-5 D-2 Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve: Cover Types D-10 D-3 Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve: • p-11 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat D 12 D-4 Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve: Ownership D-12 D-5 San Jacinto-Lake Perris Core Reserve: Cover Types D-6 San Jacinto-Lake Perris Core Reserve: D-16 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat D-16 D-7 San Jacinto-Lake Perris Core Reserve: Ownership D-17 D-8 Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain tore Reserve: Cover Types 20 D-9 Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain Core Reserve: D-21 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat D-22 D-10 Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain Core Reserve: Ownership D-11 Sycamore Canyon- March Air Force Base Core Reserve: Cover Types D-25 D-12 Sycamore Canyon- March Air Force Base Core Reserve: D-26 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat • D-13 Sycamore Canyon- March Air Force Base Core Reserve: Ownership D-26 D-307 D-14 UC Motte Rimrock Core Reserve: Cover Types D-31 D-15 UC Motte Rimrock Core Reserve: Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat D-32 D-16 UC Motte Rimrock Core Reserve: Ownership D-3 Volume I: Habitat Conserva __, Plan Appendix D A. Overview The SKR core reserve system consists of five individual core reserves encompassing 38,125 acres, including 11,225 acres of SKR occupied habitat. (Table D-1 and __ Figure D-1). Vegetation mapping completed in 1994 under an interagency contract with Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS) indicated the presence of seven habitat types within the SKR core reserves. Sage scrub is the most abundant vegetation (15,556 acres) within the core reserve system, followed by grassland (11,530 acres), chaparral (5,325 acres), alkali playa (2,791 acres),.riparian (468 acres), woodland (347 acres), and marsh (2 acres) (Table D-1). It should be noted that the PSBS data is based on vegetation data obtained prior to the October 1993 California Fire which burned a significant portion of the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve. Accordingly, vegetation calculations contained in this Appendix do not reflect temporary alterations of habitat resulting from the fire. In addition to SKR, 111 other species of concern are either known to occur or potentially occur in one or more of the SKR core reserves (Attachment D-1). Following are detailed descriptions of the SKR core reserves, including information concerning SKR occupied habitat, vegetation types, 1990 land uses, and current land use designations. For convenience of review, the sequence of tabulated data and corresponding maps for each reserve follows the narrative description of the individual reserve. Additional technical information concerning soils associated with SKR and other habitat factors is included in the literature review and individual reports found in Volume.II. B. Lake Skinner - Domenigoni Valley Core Reserve The Lake Skinner- Domenigoni Valley core reserve is located southwest of Hemet and east of State Highway 79 (Figure D-1). This is the southern and eastern most core reserve, consisting entirely of unincorporated territory under County jurisdiction. Encompassing approximately 12,780 acres, Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley is the largest SKR core reserve. This core reserve includes nine parcels in RCHCA ownership totaling 177 acres that currently are not connected to the rest of the reserve. These parcels generally are located along Rawson Road. (Figures D-2, D-3, and D-4). 1 . Topography The topography of the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley reserve is variable, consisting of steeply sloped mountainous terrain as well as relatively flat and gently sloping areas. Elevations range from approximately 1,500 feet to 2,672 feet above mean sea level. The lowest elevations occur around the existing Lake Skinner Reservoir in the southern portionof the reserve, and the proposed Domenigoni Reservoir in the northern portion of the reserve. The highest portions of the reserve lie south of the proposed Domenigoni Reservoir site and on Black Mountain near the eastern Boundary. Elevations in ares north of the Lake Skinner Reservoir are nearly as high, reaching up to 2,412 feet above mean sea level. I D-4 HIVERSIDF COUNTY I HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY • . . FEE AREA — CORE RESERVES • - . . . SAN BERNARDNO COUNTY PI • • liabili ,• i • . . .„. • • N k V 1 .L. . 'i \-•''' \..:',I.V -N. - ' " - ‘k -' ' ltL7s- t7,,`."0•,\ - . ;\ 44. .....\ .•.. vis .e, NN,,,,,,, -• -..,...k.s... .. I . N :•\, ,..,s, , "0'2'. 6.1h: ,. ...t.',,,, ,.\%, .N., , IL.V.,. .4,L \ R...11!":•;.° • SCALE II MILES IV 7.v.. x t\_N Ai, , ...5.".:iii.':',11::ii :ii..'. . . /ji '.. '‘.474.111 . .". ..:''.....,A1'';.:•M'ii:;,...Zi... I IC —: N'k. .NA , lk. • *;:ii:;.::"':,;;!,!:;.!;.:,iiii::i:.:i:- . 0 5 10 N". .Illiil ....-.7.-.7.. .!:!,:::.. • • 1 N i!'..,...:: .!•;.;i..2:i:i:ji•i:v. K • .. .,..•,4:,z.„, .... ...,:.....,.--. _,,,t11.111 .... , , LEGEND MiAi:-.•,.. -•i:::. k\.: NTINI115'N(1,\\,4..:-. .2 ;•••.4 'V: t s H.1:•i-•i::. .. vvi FIGHWAYS • ' ' , itirn.4N . . ' .k .. • .• . •••,....,,,: , i :-ii: . -.':; .N..•.& I vv, FEE AREA BOUNDARY • ORANGE 6...._ ' COUNTY ;••.„ •im. '—qZ3 . N vN• . „71111p-_,.... vi..*'. ' iv CITY BOUWARY 'N, '. 1 :&., M LAKES ,%,*Ii.4 .‘..,k,kCANI21€ \ . ii:...„...:,::::. ''''' •N\4s.,, I Bilm CCRE RESERVES , ymm.:11 AS PER RCHCA . 4.41,7;11.1 i• I' • ...,,'i:e...r+. a a.. 1, :: ' . 1".'.1k.N 1 .31101 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii• .aws• . • • K1 CITES I . '• i :..-;:. ...:.:.::: ,...,....• , n • / ..A.:.:,:;iiVI." IMARNE COW).108TAT CCNSERVATICH AGENCY(RCHCA) ... .:Tric:i::;:,. . . • aTy 5 Zarnerd.aleyati•cd HMV ItrireatalyUte DiRtZdb? .,..k.,,, oty of ilIMICIZ•CarAtYrof RIvirlds . 1?. \ li . ...... \ 4C: - nose • TZLiteeMiftrYCIri Lgt:Ughriptro,IMAI, I • ', : ;.‘; .. k*1 tj!vs.ws• piii ,.. . - \\ " -.w-:li dILIP A I I P" ,... ,- -• . • ,1 lir Hamden coidrod hr•11 I•tool wen data po.lad 4,%.__NI I Apri 25, 1994 (e<11•:,,..re bybraErtyn Web 6 DM ard mar%Wort 1t•armei flA61. lad*roweled.14.rcy•fid.l•cernpriod d en Atriligrafin kiairn r..,r• v MI NA a by4Prid llrrIFIVIkar2Snrce. ad llamas,Rm.= idle:crd el•ft4Mireed7.red mi. i:;.7 % • , . le I dcrn="111Y f'1111..---4.,..=r;ti.s..n..=. a.,-wtt._ —;.:.:>,--4,t Ult 21.:7•Vd,brs.bas • • .. lig=oarrdearrethri Syetrn erd odor=ram doll b•"mind fo 'tv ....y b,......,„dyad.s..k. SAN DIEGO COUNTY Figure D- %,.... ." i . .._ Volume I:. Habitat Conservation Hppenaix u Table D-1 Summary Characteristics of Acreage in SKR Core Reserves CATEGORY 1SJZV SJ-LP LM-ENL SC MRS TOTAL SKR Habitat On Public Lands 1,588 3,778 2,965 1,264 333 9,928 On Private Lands 349 2 852 94 0 1,297 Total SKR Habitat 1,937 3,780 -3,817 1,358 333 17,225 • Total Area* 12,780 11,919 10,360 2,508 618 38,185 Vegetation Grassland 2,343 3,923 3,407 1,727 130 11,530 Sage Scrub 4,453 3,885 5,995 741 482 15,556 Chaparral 4,992 52 281 0 0 5,325 Riparian 297 45 122 4 0 468 Woodland 174 3 - 170 0 0 347 Marsh 0 0 2 0 0 2 Alkali Playa 0 2,791 0 0 0 2,791 • Open Water 0 32 0 0 0 32 Agriculture 488 436 357 0 0 1,281 Residential/Urban/Exotic 33 752 26 36 6 853 Ownership RCHCA 1,629 90 1,984 0 141 3,844 MWD•• 8,003 87 5,113 6 0 13,209 County 662 35 0 0 0 697 City of Riverside 0 0 0 1,230 0 1,230 State 0 11,404 224 132 397 12,157 BLM 425 0 320 0 80 825 MAFB 0 0 0 1,040 0 1040 Total Public 10,019 11,616 7,641 2,408 618 33,002 Total Private*** 2.061 303 2.719 100 0 5,183 Codes MRR Motte Rimrock Reserve LS-DV Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley LM-EM Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain SJ-LP San Jacinto-Lake Perris , SC-MAFB Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base Notes • Excludes lakes, reservoirs,and MWD operations areas. 4.. MWD has not yet completed its proposed acquisitions in Domenigoni Valley in the plan area for the Southwestern Riverside County MSHCP: ownership estimate includes proposed acquisitions. ,..• Includes RCHCA acquisitions currently in escrow and dedications to RCHCA pending final approval. Also includes acquisitions, dedications,and conservation agreements currently in negotiation or to be proposed by RCHCA,MWD,or the City of Riverside. Sources: RECON SKR March 1994 GIS SKR occupied habitat overlay, Pacific Southwest Biological Consultants May 1994 vegetation survey of Western Riverside County, MWD, and Riverside County GIS data base. D-7 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix.D � 2. Soils The Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core'reserve contains 89 different soil types from _ 34 different soil series. Based upon previous research, 63 of the 89 soil types which occur in this reserve are known to support SKR (Knecht 1971, O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, Price and Endo 1989). I �� 3. Vegetation This core reserve supports six major vegetation communities (Table D-1). The three most common vegetation types are chaparral (4,992 acres), sage scrub (4,453 acres) and mixed grassland (2,343 acres). These three vegetation communities cover approximately 92% of the core reserve. Other vegetation communities within the reserve include riparian (297 acres), and woodland (174 acres). Approximately 521 acres or 4% of the reserve consists of land cleared of native vegetation. 4. SKR Occupied Habitat As of June 1994 approximately 1,937 acres of SKR occupied habitat were contained in the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve. (Figure D-3). Although a majority of the reserve contains appropriate soils and topography for SKR, the dominant vegetation in this reserve (chaparral and sage scrub) is not suitable for this species. Much of the SKR occupied habitat in this core reserve occurs on lands which were converted from sage scrub and chaparral to cleared land by agriculture, '_ grazing, and/or fire. 5. Other Species of Concern In addition to SKR, 32 other species of concern (including 7 plants, 5 reptiles, 14 birds, and 6 mammals) are known to occur in the Lake Skinner core reserve. An additional 78 species of concern (including 35 plants, 3 invertebrates, 14 amphibians and . reptiles, 19 birds and 7 mammals) potentially occur in this area. (Attachment D-1). 6. Ownership As of June 1994 the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley reserve included lands in both public and private ownership. Within the reserve, MWD is the largest land owner (8,003 acres,including proposed land acquisitions in Domenigoni Valley area),followed by the RCHCA (1,629 acres), County of Riverside (662 acres), and BLM (425 acres). The remaining acreage in the reserve is currently in private ownership (Table D-4). 7. Land Use Most of the land within this reserve is undeveloped, but is crossed by numerous dirt roads. Some portions of this core reserve have been used for agriculture in the past, D-8 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D particularly grazing. Land surrounding Lake Skinner is developed as a County Regional Park with camping and water recreation facilities. The park is classified as a scenic park/recreation area/cultural heritage site. Current uses include 24-hour camping and recreational vehicle hook-ups, swimming, fishing, boating, equestrian and hiking trails, and picnicking. Land uses adjacent to the reserve boundaries of the reserve are generally agriculture intermixed with some rural residential development and open space. 8. Connectivity The Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley core reserve is,part of a contiguous block of relatively natural habitat that extends east to the San Bernardino National Forest, and southeast to the Cleveland National Forest. Included in this region is Vail Lake, an area encompassing many sensitive animal and plant species. Vegetation in this area is dominated by chaparral but also includes grassland, coast live oak woodland, riparian forest, and desert chaparral. All of this land is presently unincorporated and is under much less development pressure than areas to the north near Hemet, to the west in the vicinity of State Highway 79, and to the south near the City of Temecula. • D-9 -- r- - i-- .-- ,------ '-- .- _. - - ,., • • "111115 6 1n g . I§ . 5 144 • cl z 1 , • ..... z • .k._ . 4:0,4. . _ . -- 8 1 .-.4:4...x.m." I K..01.0'' - ,-:.:- • .::::- Iliklinitig § . r-: ypiroirrip -0 ' k . . ''''' il pet.. . i . (4) , - o " ill,..; iiii141114..11 Alt; , ... ni% & akik �i `7►�=-� J=?:; .illi �-�� .,�.;��,�►,�� �: Qitc 1 r it"rr-; 104:.-, 1„;110,7 0 -710 . , • ;-,' * ,i tll 1 I �j illli . , „,. �• I �/►i \ iii � t114 ...: . . I, .. v •r. `x- • \:4 4,1: ., ., :;; pyi ti k k ..., . 1 . • .-. 41i ' ' ki I01 i .. i= : iiia ��} . :tir.‘444:..rt ' , li Z ,, .:; r` ,I��� ) ' . � .� ��� • + I 1 yJ 4{•� 4-1. ..L A ), veil 11111, O — — ® - ...e.. _..... IS NOl dM 0 ---,.. . IS g g 1. j Li.), • • H ;:;: Ri 1 -1 :i:. :4 ,, •.•1 1 f M I Irn . •.. , •••. .,....... ' a Ial › ,.1(1)9 s WA INGTON ST ..4..-......._ . ,... ('••••••-• • .0•.•01 u• . �' ,a • •,!.'0� • ,.... a 1 ...... _ Cr . a N ..� , a a. �F n 14+1 F�{�N.i ��►./� )°rr k~E • ® rj.......,:. • d rrq, t , •f �stXX� I I 0 (`(`(`���}��''' .�.1►�.I.A Vail �hdlld �.X'i. Ari + /k., i. tr e41�1•X 1 vri �yP VEVA, •fX►!f. Ik,,air pf�,�i l�+i� 5 �tl O 6 kii �1'Yt , i . •, a� a+ i���Lr t� n� k: t 4R16r 1 r.a:.. i4.k�',,'.1'.17,1-E.,-4V:, 4i•I. .4 rti;�. ►.����.. kt. ,6 Xw ,...e1.-,i4 j i F s r :.i'r h I t:3 Al 73 �' • �r r r.� �► ••+ ' .•;I:.! i.4.,r.1 �I ' ll ,11 r I i d 7 .i�.• •.�.•. •• —4~./:•+• '-',Ilit,D .. t ♦•. 0 ♦��� • 401 +r: Yr 1.54 \ 0, i ,...2.,,,,,,t.,(L cn41 %ha,' /pp 1? kt:+1, 1 ,t � gig . 0 .. ...5.=i::::,/,:.:.:, M_r.... .I•r�_ 1 8 \....,r -----._.. DE i , i ,,:a4(..el , I co v /jot § 2 1 i 0 -1-1 .., foil x A 0- t , to _., •c • (7 1 StAPSON RD _— . w , � / � ,/ :,„.,., ._,...;,:.;t.4.1...,,t. --:-.•'3.. ...,..ii;.,.-:'-.::::::..:;,::.....:,-71.,4.0 Air., fr y7 t b'.V<' aTRD r r A ,‘I:1•3,7.IT,'"""' ' ''''41Fr , ,r. 7- '''.-.7-',...",---,z,. ....%,........—,....7:::„.„... :,,.....,7.-4,..„..2.:;.-2-..7.,:!,,,,f-,..,..?,,,,- so- a *�1:MilLz.i.,W,.470eAtre'''77:'-'4. '17tir.: 7,4.1...:. ' s" ,41 441-• r4Pf \ .__. . J p� t4.007 A / . �. • RN • IoII lIna ---,_. .76. f- . • • {r viii, ' i.■ i.■■: .i.i 07Al ' /yp l:i iiii;iirill : J S _ ) F: ✓ - RSg • 4 . • 0 ,,-„,‘,.;,...-..-,..--:,r, / \ , _, <,<`: 6 row <> .4■S<> • E BENTON Z.AVE r_' '47ryn �^ i`- Iii.Z4-r? c- { is 'r1~� /1 /w:o ..M.t.,; ;-ti. ;.fig.:%�` '— I. fi •"\-='-'\ , , ....) I ......, .._ . , * NOTE MWD HAS NOT YET COFFEE TED ITS PROPOSED ACQUIST1ONS N TIE SCALE N FEET VALLEY PORTION CP TIE RESERVE; BOUOARES REFLECT PROPOSED AS WELL AS COIPLE ED ACCUSTOM. ; f......* X-.- • 0 4000 8000 16000 I I PRIVATE MWD OPERATIONS -T. .,: LAIES/RESERVORS/OPEN WATER '---' LAND UNDER NEGOTIATION FOR ��:< � �� CONSERVATION EASEkeITS Vcil CORE DESERVE BOUNDARY �1111111111 I" 'a11 t.IG WAYS Akt RgiCA . atx RNERSOE COQ i , ARTERIAL/MA Figure D-1. LAKE SKN€R V/I 'Am ' DOA/0103 VI VALLEY CORE RESERVF, : OWPERSH Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D C. San Jacinto - Lake Perris Core Reserve The San Jacinto - Lake Perris core reserve encompasses 11,919 acres located south • of central Moreno Valley and north of the Ramona Expressway (Figure D-1). Approximately 3,780 acres of SKR occupied habitat are contained within this area. Over 93% of this reserve lies within the County of Riverside; most of the balance is within the City of Moreno Valley, and less than an acre of the southern portion of the reserve lies within the City of Perris. (Figures D-5, D-6, and D-7). 1 . Topography The topography of the San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve consists of areas of relatively flat and gently sloping terrain around the lake and in the eastern portion of the reserve. Land to the south of the lake is steep and rugged. Elevations in this SKR core reserve range from 1,420 feet to 2,689 feet. 2. Soils Included in this core reserve are 62 different soil types from 23 different soil series. Forty of the soil types within the reserve are known to support SKR (Knecht 1971, O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, Price and Endo 1989). 3. Vegetation Six major vegetation communities exist within the core reserve. (Table D-1). Approximately 89% of the land within the reserve consists of grassland (3,923), sage scrub (3,885 acres),and alkali playa (2,791 acres). The other vegetation communities within the reserve are chaparral (52 acres),riparian(45 acres),and woodland (3 acres). Approximately 10% of the reserve consists of land cleared of native vegetation (1,220 acres). • 4. SKR Occupied Habitat The San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve includes approximately 3,780 acres of SKR occupied habitat. This illustrates that almost all of the grassland habitat most suitable for SKR is presently occupied by the species. 5. Other Species of Concern In addition to SKR, 13 other species of concern (including 5 reptiles, 6 birds, and 2 mammals) are known to occur in this core reserve. An additional 88 species (including 34 plants, 2 invertebrates, 14 amphibians and reptiles, 27 birds, and 11 mammals) have the potential to occur in this area. D-13 • Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D 6. Ownership With the exception of approximately 300 acres under option to the RCHCA, the entire San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve is presently in public ownership. The State (through the Department of Parks and Recreation, CDFG, and Department of Water Resources) is the largest land owner in this reserve, covering more than 95% of the total acreage. The balance of acreage is owned either by the RCHCA or MWD. 7. Land Use The San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserve consists of undeveloped hills and slopes surrounding Lake Perris, active recreation and water resource facilities in the State Recreation Area, and previously farmed lands to the east. The State Recreation Area has several paved access roads and developed campgrounds on about 500 acres near the lake, with several water tanks located in the surrounding hills. A small area west of the dam is basically undeveloped, except for small support and maintenance facilities and areas that are farmed or used as fairgrounds. The San Jacinto Wildlife Area has been previously grazed and includes a small office, limited visitor facilities, levees, and ponds. Land within the vicinity of the core reserve are primarily in agriculture to the south and east and residential development to the north and west. 8. Connectivity The northeast portion of the reserve extends east of Gilman Springs Road and adjoins the Badlands. The Badlands cover a large block of sage scrub, grassland, and chaparral habitats extending to the San Bernardino National Forest. This area, which includes significant blocks of land under County of Riverside and BLM ownership, is generally considered a wildlife migration corridor of regional importance. Through the acquisition _ of the Anderson property the RCHCA secured an important section of habitat necessary to ensure the conservation of this corridor. D-14 i €11111111�1■G� Iiil ..� l is j w. ,%.\\` i linie ' ...►�`. 1, ar'ivi.'p'p•1�1'pP1-.1 •��.���� ; ou4,1.1.1'1.1.•1.,•1 •�������•• _ fi _ , ....... r....ruu P� bb1.1.11 0������.�.�� ,. :uu111 41.1.111- ♦�.���ilOi t. A :i::0:i4;4.4. i�i1��i1111��e. • re �Il�, �i,- �� Q :::is i�1�1�i�1�101�10111�r,��•i .� ro..1 01 1 1.1.1 1:1'►.4• i u..p1.1.1'1.1•}II:.:r:.1� `� ' .rouU1 P11.1. �: • AVIV L C i. :. . u.'L i•1'. . u...4 1•Lr 1'1:•1�11i:I ii::1/11i�i�1�1;1.•�•••• � i:'Iii,;.X44,i„y' 1111111 rup. 1.41:1•► 11'• ..0..041 .�• 1 1 1''0o..1./.�•r. 1.41 1� I�11�•1.11. WIlAimiii If 'FY �� �� 11 it io: 6, ....., ..._ hi;4 •‘l'ii 4.0. V414 -��-� , t ..;►►r iii, 1 1 ► _ 111.11.111 01'.0! .0.• 1111kgre4jOiltiltiti + ;,,2..-7.:44..7, ;r3.5:77:: _ 1 / . 1 1 1 1 1 1.1•► r�1►►►►'►,►' 11 � 411111,00004. Vg; t '14�i� i ►' !� 11i1111�11111� 1 1 1 1 1 r �i1i1i�1•1 .x::� ce �.V . . 111111►/►1► r:,� i�i1.1'�•1' } •w .� • 1 1 1 1 1 1 ► ►.r..0. x41'1.1 ■... .. ' lyr snc6 ,� ,11111111►1►►►►►r►r�1"1/1�i�i; \ a ` 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 ► C•r :1.1.1.1.01• . t. „ a �`" 1 41 1 1 ► ► ► r•rtri�i:1,1.i.i.1. i;'w � .F-s•- 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1•� `„' •• .� 11111111111•1►1►► ►i1r:.iii:i�l�i�i�i N .� `sem ^"tet - ,p / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ► ►•►••0 . . 1 4. 1 11/11111111. r• ma......, ......... - o .I.1 1 1�1 1 ��-. e • .6., t' -'-' 1111, 441-!. la --.0.\\F. it- 4:,.„:,,Ipr 114 41� . !111 *4411!' Emil IN • . ...NE at.11. . am. • Wing_10111111111\A ILI El . -,.........ftsA • . r,,., ;h. MIMI AffiElliss:::: _ I II SCALE N FEET N + 0 3000 6000 12000 GRASSLAND OAK WOODLAND .7S1 I = TIAL/MAN/EXOTIC PLANTS mei e4 AGRCIlLTURE talk r• SAGE SCRI8 F7 ODS ATER / , IL____1 CHAPARRAL CORE RESERVE BOUNDARY �� Figure D-5 I 1,'!► ALKALI PLAYA SAN JACNTO--LAZE P CORERESERVE COVER TYPES 1V118YH OONVONvi SN3-Id31S • ' 3A I3S3e1 3803 SI&I3d 3 IV1—o1NOVP NYS - 9-a and A wrince 3A8S3Z1 38S3a03 1�!� savoy doril /-wiav i✓ . /saonm raw lva oo .xwN SJr3s a3droao 00021 0009 000£ 0 \•,__,,/ N 31V05 • :• e i• e __ • 771-1 -7-C ,.. ------ . _. I 1•••••••❖•I rS4 3' -ipl _ . • 0ty6 ' .,Y1l- 4.❖. • I If•♦..• • - ' -I&7 'Yf�r 4. 41114* -' A� •. - {'+� .ratez ••••j iz 3i N ►•••4 ••• • I • r •••• • • Rte' p mry •• • • • . I� •I I•.•.❖, .•••••••••.t rk y3 '--'�u'?E'-�r # +F tom. "••♦•♦ - rid • �.• ►❖• . �•4►•••••••••• i} # -••••• �� •.f�� ..♦• 41.14*•••••Y + f•• • _ .•• ••• ��1....• _ "� �••••••• + • i i i�i►•••••••••••:••••••••••••••••••••••t i•,,•••••0 �.. e'•. •.y•t ilk►❖.••••••••►i.•••.••••••••••••••••••••f•••►•••:•�+••••�••••• 1 I.A .••1•►.•.•••❖•❖•.•1•1•1•.V.•.❖.•.••'�•�.�`••♦•. • •.•r••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••;►••♦4 i••• , {,•04• ,❖••••••••••••••••••••••••♦,f:•.•_•_.••, .•.•i,,„ .t• 0... tom•••••••••♦ ♦� ►.•..o•.• V ♦ Di''*• �••❖•❖1111•: -11111 L�r- I IIS ���■■ -- r`�r�,, rill iii E Jj M H _ ��� ��� 111 a 91NM= 1 g 5 li A •iiisnwe! 111117, .\ \ fi li ii A — MEMIMMI i mob .. ,st,..ki,,,A,o, ''' ....,0,4',\,,,4 ''. ill I i ILE g A --IrV''. At.VM 4. ' v',43:444 NIITI .1 4P4,,,,‘1/4,14 %.4*-,, N 4 in urn g -•-:4,11',A4q• - MI6, "WW474.tAt' 11....911 a II MIL; \ 4‘`*1,4* k.A I I,11111 / i II • tot* - a ta i s IN\ \\\\ Nb I.1 1 r 1.60 hmesavip . ., ‘. I. D 41 DAMS RD 1 111 �s���411;1\ \\`N.Ng t' O 11111......� , �� 11111..■.....�s% ` I 11111■ pelt1.111 I' N i 1 1 P P!" *fa IR 01 rn 4 , ab Z \ Nk 47.66 k t R::::::liiE:, co I .I lop . .,........; • --z .. .,.... O 'N ..,:....i,!. ip a3o g i , _1i. , 1 __ Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D D. Lake Mathews - Estelle Mountain Core Reserve The Lake Mathews core reserve covers an area of 10,360 acres located south of the City of Riverside and northeast of Interstate 15 (Figure D-1). This reserve consists entirely of land within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside. The Lake Mathews reserve includes approximately 3,817 acres of SKR occupied habitat, more than any other reserve. (Figures D-8, D-9, and D-10). 1 . Topography In the northern portion of the reserve around Lake Mathews, the topography is relatively flat and gently sloping with elevations ranging from 1,180 feet to 2,200 feet; the majority of land lies between 1,400 and 1,600 feet. In the southern portion of the reserve the land is mostly rugged and steep, with elevations ranging from 1,000 feet at the western end of Dawson Canyon to 2,767 feet at the summit of Estelle Mountain. 2. Soils The Lake Mathews core reserve includes 45 different soil types from 26 different soil series. Of this group, 32 of the soils types are known to support SKR (Knecht 1971, O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, Price and Endo 1989). 3. Vegetation Six major vegetation communities are included within this reserve. (Table D-1). The two most common vegetation types are sage scrub(5,995 acres)and grassland (3,407 acres); approximately 92% of the entire reserve is covered by these two vegetation communities. The other vegetation types occurring within the reserve are chaparral (281 acres), woodland (170 acres), riparian (122 acres), and marsh (2 acres). Within this core reserve only 4% of land is cleared of native vegetation. - 4. SKR Occupied Habitat As noted above, the Lake Mathews core reserve contains approximately 3,817 acres of SKR occupied habitat; this represents 34% of all SKR occupied habitat within the entire reserve system. At present almost 37% of all land in the reserve is occupied by SKR. Although a majority of the reserve contains vegetation and soils capable of supporting SKR, the topography in some areas (particularly in the southern portion of the reserve), is too steep and rugged for the species. D-18 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D 5. Other Species of Concern In addition to SKR, the Lake Mathews core reserve is known to support 46 other species of concern (including 8 plants, 7 reptiles, 23 birds, and 8 mammals). An additional 43 species of concern (including 19 plants, 2 invertebrates, 12 amphibians and reptiles,.5 birds, and 5 mammals) potentially occur in this area. (Attachment D-1). 6. Ownership The Lake Mathews core reserve presently includes lands under both public and private. ownership. MWD is the largest land owner (5,113 acres) followed by,the RCHCA (almost 3,000 acres), BLM (320 acres), and the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) (224 acres). The remaining acres in the core reserve are currently .in private ownership. 7. Land Use Lands surrounding the lake are essentially undeveloped. The northwest corner is also undeveloped but is crossed by numerous roads. Small orchards totalling about 56 acres are located along the north edge of the reserve, south of El Sobrante Road. There is a large water tank surrounded by intensive off-road-vehicle tracks in the northeast corner, and a water works facility is located near the Colorado River Aqueduct inlet on about 10 acres. MWD also is in the process of identifying the route and configuration of a bypass system along the perimeter of the reservoir to intercept urban runoff. Between El Sobrante Road and the eastern boundary of the core reserve, the land is mainly undeveloped. Over 80% of the reserve is within the County's Lake Mathews Community Plan area. Land outside the Lake Mathews Community Plan with slopes grater than 25 percent is designated "mountainous area," which permits low intensity land uses.on 10-acre minimum lot sizes. Land uses within the vicinity of the northern edge, and the northern half of the eastern edge of the reserve primarily consists of agriculture and residential • development. Land within the vicinity of the remainder of the reserve is primarily undeveloped with some agriculture. 8. Connectivity The Lake Mathews core reserve is part of a contiguous block of generally undeveloped grassland, sage scrub, and chaparral habitats extending from State Highway 91 to Interstate 15. The best opportunity for connections to regionally significant open space exists in the southwestern portion of the reserve. In this area it is still possible to link the core reserve to the Cleveland National Forest through the Temescal Wash. from the boundary of the core reserve, the Wash extends to the southwest, crosses under Temescal Canyon Road, an abandoned railroad line, and I-15, and continues into the Cleveland National Forest. D-19 . , I ' • •I \-- •• \.rn V ..•••4 , VI '1, . EL SOBRANTE DR . rftmit.:.:44 . „4,,,, , . J 0 V.V.•.4 4•..$ i '.-.- 0••••••••••••••g..,. • 4 -dde'-'°C i • ' , 4.' , u,..7.4'.,,IP- F.m:': :::1z, --.-- -4..-.,, ir,-t-• , .. 1-:' t!.::AttitTrl'itili4..;.j.: .fiti7,...r;„:.:.:1'.-;1:::.0 . • '''i..! 1 --, _ -:. 7...i-,: ,,1,-...,';:,,ifili,s4,;vt-Rwit-,%-,.,,,,,,,. .s.,-,,... .... A Jr "fp ---Ie.4.-..• - -Z•I _ . '' ''''.2:'±',*- -ti-74,1-H.-- ;:rv..&wr-.'.';'..r$7.:•;-;•Eiii:O ., •,- ,!t".,-• ( ,::: :':: :;-,':'..;.A.'-* :,;:`5,''.,t'-:-7-4.44:414,rniti-,14-4iti.,$.-77:. .• '.' 1:* :_* ... r:Ar A aPP :."0...':,..4 ,,,...../ ':;:21ePT,;7.7‘AS.IggrO4Ker*VAL'illt :'444 .!:: •. I7' ., V419fArjw i 1 , rzA.N-Fr-- 7•%''17".a rf ,4"."14774-54ttiiit&itjt,i0Vj:4071i.r,t7L : .:. . .ipr, _ . g '.--/4" L'..i,••a-Tot„ ,„,•.F7',4':'-' ,•-,:,-,-.1.4001,,i,...,.. • , toff..s ," A ,_- "a'a 161—:-%1/411kel*,14.1rt;4 .',Ark;''• I .'N,„'''"-'.- ;ijkL_.„NaF7I14d- . •., , ...,, •••••" L-7.,..4140\71k. %-..:,r lb, a ,C.ti liter' , ‘r 14- ,‘' • • . , . . Lf 1w006., ille7 • ,,,,,,p7„.. . L . L.i • "..... . v., - er 1 i A P. :Mt. • ,!..,..„...; • I , \\\ • rifiriti.1.°.54Ir .17 . • • j, ., ... tIP‘ - .;,;••;•-. .1.1....1; . 1 -. .." , AT • .1 • '.-..z...„, '... .'...' ' ---:•,...... . SCALE IN FEET • 6......----+ • . 12000• %LIFER WOCOLAW = PEMENSLLAR REscocKARBAN/DCOTC RANTS SCRUB OAK WOODLAM) :04.** • MS NA! , L79 GRASSLAM) in MARSH :ii:iZ AGRICLUTLRE 1777 SAGE SCRU3 VSZ :ui RESERVE 9311)ARY' -E. Figure D. . , 11711 vgi HORWAYS . LAKE MKftEWS„"nr- ES CHAPARRAL ' MOUNTAIN UkJr • RESERVE RPARIAN 771 MERIN-AM" R°AC6 ' COVER TYPE! . • Emi LAkCES/RESERV OES/CPEN WATER • r.: z .•. "' 2 N -4 EL SOBRANTE DR .•►•••••••••••. 0 ♦••••••••••• ••••i l►••, ., ,••• 1••••••••••. ••.•.•.•• • ••• . /�. •i ►i 44,•. .•••f41,• • .*, ♦•• •••••••• :C► ♦•` •• •••+••�f� =a O• -,t41•41. *,.;,.4,, ':,-: V 00N. .,..... Aft : - .:... • :'.••. . ••❖-❖• ♦f •ff r- `.-_ :`-•••• •• ••••• "*WV**,,♦•41♦•,,•-♦. .4111•14- ►•1••••.•.• ,.41 , 41.41•..•... ►. 1 Z ►� 9 •�. ♦41•••41••• • . • 4•4:,•••••••••4 .�. .1, • Q 4141••i •i♦/4141••.•0 i� ♦•••i 1 • •i '4••"--4r4-•;•;',4:'•••'•-•-•-•-•-•Y'••1•• .,,,.•. ♦•. - ♦. �♦ i•4.41•••♦4141♦4141•.••• > 1•••f ••'4 •••41-1 ••••i.',:•1.4.,,V,..-":7-.. 41,❖f••••iI♦4141••4f•••••••••••••••• ,•�. .••�••••,. -•-.;. .4141 t9'• '‘:7•-•i•;•,7•„4 7. 1:�••i::2W...9,-94949..9,_• .7 , < •. • ,•.. -1+:4 . Vti i:).•:•.� •41•►•.� ;• ,4141• .4•••••.,....14'.-•- , •� CP V '4141 ♦�0 .�� �•�•�•• e �.<' ,�*•; I 1 .�� •`41.41. r • ��•• ._• �� .` ►� '�/''' 'i._:_• __. i .---� re a L MAT W�RR _ $ -'II kit •: B• , ....,. • 4...❖•.. • , • ►..� !• ,,..•..! 12. ,Z•• \ ® G .�:`'- ,,`•.4141,... -. •�4,4` ; I 4. 445 ••4141• r •••t. !41.41. �•.••:KS•. e•4••�41.'41• .• �, 4141 ♦••.�•.•..• �. ..�• 14446:..74.4%, N.!,0, 4119 '•-• 1,••••. . �\ �1.� .L. 4•.. 4141 js s . • \ .41..41 r29 ® 41.41►1 4,•;•;•-•;•!.• t' '•4141••,.. `,% CI . .-.•• .n SCALE N FEET 0 3000 6000 12000 • ..,•;•; OCCI�EED STIE EJ'S KANGAROO RAT HABITAT• 1-... 1 LA}�s/RESERVORS/OPEN WATER his CORE RESERVE B X DARY • �� I I WAYS c / ARTERIAL/MAJOR ROADS Figure D-9 LAKE MATI-EWS-ESTELLE MOUNTAIN CORE RESERVE: . STEPFENS KANGAROO RAT HABITAT 1 f \ &IA ( AP w-, EL SOBRANTE DR NZ Apir _ffaIN ii r 4p6w.A \111641.1<". L- _4 r• : ---.." Pr Aki," 1 , •11 e ,,,• , ...4.• A Aft-8 ./4",- • v., F „000 tr.- ..... ..„, - AP_4 IIPA.3/4"4-‘•-— •IPA ...Lai ffidio. 4 p . , - . ,.... I..r• 4 ; •.•... ......, MAIIII "NM. °Se rajnetteriP '4 1 Nr-4`4 „..40" AirAl Alio% R mii:.......... FA i A tH I Z .....................mom .....................== EM AO ) > ==II:......................... :•:••::•-•:":somill.....::::::::::.::::.::::: ...........:.mEms ...................--1111 C., 1 ............................ ii 1 11• OM I ............................ OM m 4.... .,. ............................ ."..""*..... 'MIME 111110i06. •. \ AN. Wait . \ I ONO14 •••....M11.11M. 10 . VME. Al• :1:;g:I . NL, ‘..t.O. I .... ...• • ii NM 110-• ...SENS...Ir.. ..... . If.114•1111 x i:..... i a sem. 1••1/6•11 IN•11•11 riillii;:"....1". ''''''",,• . 0\ • isT2gh•sr.....• dr ------ , A...r—T-1.01 ati.iall ,•..,...„ En..12111111111111111111111111 \\ • ...,. S C ALE .isl FEET • , _ , 0 3000 6000 12000 T = LArco lt4)OR /CGOTIADON FOR cao LAKES/RESERVORS/OFEN WATER CONSERVAION EASEMNTS l RCHCA WV CORE RESERVE BOLWARY jimr—rio1/4 f77 STATE WLDLFE CONSERVATION WARD Vgl IIGHWAYS NA,i tr v A MA! ARTERIALAIAJOR ROADS WD En PRNATE Figure D-1C 1111111111 BUA LAKE waFEws-Esmui MOUNTAN CORE RESERVE _ 00ERS1-11 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D E. Sycamore Canyon - March Air Force Base Core Reserve The Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base core reserve is located south of Highway 60 and west of Interstate 215 (Figure D-1). Approximately half of the reserve lies within Sycamore Canyon Park in the City of Riverside. The balance of the reserve south of Alessandro Boulevard is part of March Air Force Base and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Encompassing 2,508 acres, this is the second smallest of the SKR core reserves. (Figures D-11, D-12, and D-13). 1 . Topography The Sycamore Canyon portion of the reserve consists of moderate and rocky terrain, with elevations ranging from 1,100 feet to 2,660 feet above mean sea level. The southern portion of the reserve on March Air Force Base consists of relatively flat and gently sloping terrain, with elevations ranging from 1,540 feet to 1,800 feet. 2. Soils The Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base core reserve includes 29 soil types from 11 different soil series. Of these 29 soil types, 23 are known to support SKR (Knecht 1971, O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, Price and Endo 1989). • 3. Vegetation The two major vegetation communities within this core reserve are grassland (1,727 acres), and sage scrub (741 acres) (Table D-1). The remaining 40 acres encompass lands classified by PSBS as are residential/urban/exotic (36 acres) and riparian (4 acres). 4. SKR Occupied Habitat Approximately 1,358 acres of SKR occupied habitat are contained within the Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base core reserve; thus, more than 50% of the reserve is occupied by SKR. This is the highest percentage of SKR occupied habitat found on any individual core reserve. Although a majority of the reserve contains vegetation (grassland and sage scrub), and soils which are suitable for SKR, the topography in portions of the Sycamore Canyon is too steep and rugged to support this species. 5. Other Species of Concern This core reserve supports 25 species of concern (including 7 reptiles, 15 birds, and 3 mammals). Another 35 species of concern (including 21 plants, 2 invertebrates, 4 birds, and 8 mammals) potentially occur in this area (Attachment D-1). D-23 i I Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D 6. Ownership The entire core reserve is presently under public ownership (Attachment D-1). The Department of Defense is the largest land owner (1,040 acres), followed by the City of Riverside (1,230), State of California (132 acres), and MWD (6 acres). 7. Land Use The reserve is essentially undeveloped, but is crossed by underground water and gas lines, overhead electric lines, and a number of dirt roads. Sycamore Canyon Park is designated as a wilderness area to be protected and preserved. Ultimately, the park will include an interpretive center and hiking trails. The Sycamore Canyon Park portion of the reserve is presently surrounded to the north and west by development, and will be surrounded to the east as well. The northern and southern portions of the reserve are bisected by Alessandro Boulevard, a major arterial. • The southern portion of the reserve on March Air Force Base is generally undeveloped with the exception of a weapons storage area. This area is bordered to the west and south by residential development. 8. Connectivity As noted above, the Sycamore Canyon-March Air Force Base core reserve is largely surrounded by development. As a result, opportunities for connections to other areas of open space are relatively few. A potential wildlife corridor may be established between the core reserve and Box Spring Mountain County Park. The University of California at Riverside and the Riverside Land Conservancy have sought to define and initiate conservation efforts in this corridor. However, the success of these endeavors will depend upon the availability of new funding for necessary land acquisitions. The most significant issue is ensuring a connection across Alessandro Boulevard between the Sycamore Canyon and March Air Force base portions of the reserve. As detailed in Chapter 5. SKR Conservation and Mitigation Measures, this connection is - now highly problematical due to the abandonment by the USFWS of a 1990 Biological Opinion requirement for construction of a wildlife undercrossing beneath Alessandro Boulevard. it D-24 N ' ��. 80X SPRINGS RD i� \\ 60 1,0 + 4,7 AVE N:s„ idA: . .,,o‘as 0 i \ 47*** \ - `_ALESSAPDRO BBV , — \\ ---—--—- , 4 Is \\ \ t , NOT CACTUS AVE \-8APART4 - �� J01+1F KENNEDY DR . 2.1,` r • • —�_--- •r---\ /� vAN env�` I \ SCALE N FEET 00 0 2000 4000 8000 R rrIAL/1Nw/ OTIC PLANT'S c, ARTERIAL/MAJOR ROADS ® GRASSLAI) RPAR1A NAlt•ll1=` , •-Wall.11/4 77 SAGE SCRUB A, ppb CORE RESERVE BOUNDARY Figure D-11 ® FERNAYS SYCAMORE CANYON-MARCH AR BASE CORE RESERVE: COVER TYPES • \ • ' 1 • 4 4 •v..�•••': BOX SPRNGS RD •• ••� • •• •••••••••••••••• • • fir..•. •. •• ►•..e• -•' ►••♦.•. ►�•� ` 11 •• •••• 4•^A••••e•••►••. ►• •••• ►. AVE •••.••• •••••• •. •.•••��.•.•••• %♦•N g \ / c. •••.e•..• .w. .•.e•►.-.�•..•... .• P CD all .m.1 '1) % •%% ❖•ee❖0•+4'•'".e••••O...Pe❖i i��'moi! �••. \ • }•••..•••••a• ••►•••• • •. •••••• •• e \ ,•••••••... :►•♦••••,►••••�•••$ ••..♦• • •• .••••• •.e.• ,4••,.•. e: d••i•• . . .. • •••••••••••••••i. •.•••••••••••••O• �. - - . --.... .•.��.- ••••••••• •••••e•.• �� \ •••••••••• ••••••• ALESSAPDRO BLV •••••••• •.••.•••.•• ••••.e•• •.••e••••• .••► _ • •••• ••••••• ei�.� ►••••:,4,�..•‘.... ....t..4..44-0• �•i ^��b•i.•.. i ••• • — ` - \ CACTUS AVE • 4 •-•-••► NOT • "74.►..•. •.. APART ..•. . .444444444 ..♦..Y.• - •❖e• ' O+ F KEMEY DR ,.;_._.:• ►, •'.04 .a...re-wwwi` •, e•we; It • !O.•!'• ..ae►. •i' • § I \ •• •••.tee •a.:••••:,\...•, .•.. • 4. „,„-.1.--� ,:•. ,:�. -—\ -\igAiEtlIEN _– l"-.- I' 4' •••/••.-. •,• \ , ,. ► .• I r.4,• •.•••e1. •� • SCALE N FEET 0 2000 4000 B000 ;�;�;�; OCCIJPED STEM-ENS KANGAROO RAT FUIB(TAT CORE RESERVE BOIMARY . HIGHWAYS A/ ARTERIAL/MAJOR ROADS . *IA • ill • , Figure D-12 • SYCAMORE CANYON—MARCH AR BASE CORE RESERVE: ---, . STEPI-ENS KANGAROO RAT HABITAT • . X . - - �/ ••4 . \ . ..."/ in \ NEI •• . . • . ,---- \ . i R g ii i 1 •Ih . . ._ril 1 >I 4 4 1 IgA 1 i . . I :.;; 11'40.•.O. �.❖.•. r••,••♦••♦•,•••♦••••,••••♦•'• WOOD . y�i..1 .1-41-ff • ►.i►,.,.•.,�,.,.•.,.,...,.,.•...•:.o-. \........am omm...m Emir/. 1 CO * ..P.:•:4:4444'ee,e4s.v......A if V ri lh 0 ea,• •••r-••••••••�m .�.•••••••► __•_ :a ••••••�� • . ii )41, 57 RI ... 01.-:-.1.3.3::.44.4.:44$.0:4+:01::::**.f ..10 I A .....--*,,,,,- ...........................4....._.„....,.......,............. t --"lpi < y ifs, r 1 1 '1:4V14 1 \ \•••••••••. ••• A: i 1 , "'•.r.::• •••••••••• 5 i� �/_, \\\ 40.40 . . i 1 rei A .40, 1 `07 1 1 g j \ ____ ....._ 110 M i 2 I . t('‘._il . (10, F 4)/1\ :-_--ft i • o 13 M c -_,L-=-_.---- .-1 I I . RI w . I I 1 . ;—�Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D F. Motte Rimrock Reserve Core Reserve The Motte Rimrock core reserve is located two miles northwest of Perris, east of Old Elsinore Road and south of Cajalco Road (Figure D-1). Approximately 300 acres within this reserve are under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside and 318 acres lie within the City of Perris. At 618 acres Motte is the smallest of the SKR core reserves. (Figures D-14, D-15, and D-16). 1 . Topography The topography of the Motte reserve consists of numerous ridges and depressions. A ridge forms a steep escarpment on the eastern side of the reserve, while other ridges consist of relatively gentle slopes. Elevations on the reserve range from 1,700 feet to 1,985 feet above sea level. 2. Soils This core reserve includes 11 different soil types from six different soil series. Of the 11 soil types, six are known to support SKR (Knecht 1971, O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, Price and Endo 1989). 3. Vegetation Only two major vegetation communities are contained within the Motte Rimrock core reserve. These include sage scrub (482 acres) and grassland (130 acres). The — remaining six acres of the reserve is classified by PSBS as residential/urban/exotic. 4. SKR Occupied Habitat Approximately 333 acres of SKR occupied habitat are contained in the core reserve. Although a large portion of the reserve contains vegetation, soils, and topography suitable for SKR, large rock outcroppings scattered throughout the reserve preclude SKR the species from colonizing some areas. 5. Other Species of Concern In addition to SKR, 33 other species of concern (including 10 reptiles, 19 birds, and 4 mammals) are known to occur in the Motte Core Reserve. Another 6 species (including two invertebrates and four mammals) potentially may occur in the area (Attachment D-1). 6. ,Ownership • All land within the Motte Rimrock reserve is presently in follolic wed by the'p. The RCHCAS141 of California (UCR) is the largest land owner (397 acres) acres) and BLM (80 acres). D-28 Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D 7. Land Use Landswithin this core reserve are almost entirely undeveloped. Land uses surrounding the reserve consist primarily of residential development, open spaces, and a small amount of agriculture. 8. Connectivity Of all the SKR core reserves, Motte Rimrock is the most.isolated. The reserve is not part of a large contiguous block of habitat and is almost completely surrounded by urbanization. Although difficult, a narrow connection between the habitat in Matte Rimrock and the Steele Peak area may be established, but this would include a significant amount of private property subdivided into small lots. D-29 ElEin rta°D.13 WM: i 0 Ti iA C 1 " I &, i ,z 1 / /// N , 61---'—'2 . i g I i 0, ---"A c-I \ g _ LIKENS LN 6i Air r„ 1 . \_ \ , • e14# X4r#A t 401 & \\, ' � E $-g' . 8 I iA .__-__. 5P g —I-- 14/83SIER AVE -—---J /I 8M 2i /- A ST 8 to i / 4 • �- •••••••••••••:►•••••••••°•••••••••••�%S..•.V..0 • .••.♦••.°•°.••°.,`,❖4040.°•°•°4040♦••°•°4040.°•°4040.°•°.°: 1 •.••••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••••••••••••••••i \ • . . ,,:i, I \\\\ ►' r\ I. ORANGE AVE �I I I , : –- - ORANGE AVE -—- \`k. . - -; T • i , . ; ',,----', h 1 :. NOT • . ( I \ NCLUDED �� i , , ... . A w - - ir.--..' � , ,_ . I , , l < , _ �,- ...... % % I \, , ,_ _ / \la r • // V4IY' •,el _ I 1 i 11I. � I eMmolorME/ Mi.i .Mb NUEVO RD r / A. ,.. C .....N...■/ 1.1 Lam..■ 1.1 I 1.1 I Mil MI rte. u• f I NETZ PETZRo I I SCALE IN FEET i- i - 0 750 1500 3000 • 1 - RCHCA ® UNIVERSITY OF RIVERSDE ` ® CORE fSRVE BOUNDARY4`� ® HIGHWAYS Ay Fgure D-16 A/ ARrExuLMaJoR ROADS UC MOTTE .RIMROCK CORE RESERVE: OWNERSHIP Volume I: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix D References Cited Knecht, A.A. 1971 Soils survey for the Western Riverside Area, California. U.S. Department Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Minnich, R.A. and Y. Chou n.d. A geographic information System Database for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. Report prepared for Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. O'Farrell, M.J. and C. Uptain • 1989 Assessment of Population and Habitat Status of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Nongame Bird and mammal Section Report, July 1989. State of California. Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Price, M.V. and P.R. Endo 1989 Estimating the Distribution and Abundance of a Cryptic Species, Dipodomys stephensi Rodentia: Heteromyidae), and Implications for Management. Conservation Biology 3:293-301. Pacific Southwest Biological Services 1994 A geographic information system database of vegetation types within western Riverside County. Report prepared for a consortium consisting of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, the Riverside County Park and Open Space District, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. D-33 _- _ _-__ _ _ _ _____ • Attachment D-1 Other Species of Concern Associated with Habitats in the Plan Area and Their Known or Potential Occurrence in the SKR Core Reserves Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM EM SC MAFB MRR • PLANTS Braunton's milk-vetch Astragalus brauntonii Occurs in burned CSS. U U U U N FPE, CNPS1 B, NCCP Range includes Los Angeles Co. south into the Santa Ana Mtns. California bedstraw Occurs in the shade along the N N N N N Galium californicum ssp. primum lower edge of the pine belt C2, CNPS 1B between 4,050 and 5100 feet. Range restricted to the San Jacinto Mts. California orcuttgrass Associated with VP. U N N N N Orcuttia californica FE, SE, CNPS1B Range extends from Los Angeles and western Riverside counties south into northern Baja, Calif. _ SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register: December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent end not potential D-34 • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status - Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR • Clay bindweed, aka "small-flowered Occurs in G. U U Y U N . morning glory" Convolvulvus simulans Range includes Contra Costa Proposed CNPS 4 County to cismontane southern Calif., Santa Catalina • Island, and Baja, Calif. PLANTS Coulter's matilija poppy Occurs along creek beds and U U U U N Romneya coulteri canyons of CHP and CSS CNPS4, NCCP below 1,000 feet. Ranges from the Santa Ana • Mts. south into San Diego County. Coulter's saltmarsh daisy Occurs in SM and VP. U N N N N Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri C2, CNPS 1B Ranges from San Diego County to Kern County and Twentynine Palms. • Curving tarplant, aka "graceful Occurs in G and OF. N N N N N tarplant" • • Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata Ranges includes mesas west . C2, CNPS 4 of Murrieta, Riverside and San . Diego counties. Cuyamaca larkspur . Occurs in meadows. N N • N N N Delphinium hesperium ssp. cuyamacae C2, CR, CNPS 1B Ranges from San Jacinto Mts. to Palomar and Cuyamaca Mts. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential i Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Cuyamaca meadowfoam Occurs in wet meadows and U U U N N Limnathes gracilis var. parishii along lake shores above 4,300 C2, SE, CNPS 1B feet. Range includes the Peninsular Ranges of southern California. PLANTS Dehesa bear-grass Occurs in CHP and CSS below U U U U N Nolina interrata 6,200 feet. Cl, SE, CNPS 1B Range includes Ventura, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties. Ditch navarretia Occurs in VP. U N N N N Navarretia fossalis Cl, CNPS 1B Range includes western Riverside and southwestern San Diego counties into Baja, • California. • Englemann oak Occurs in canyons and open Y N U N N Quercus enge/mannii slopes of southern oak CNPS 4 woodland below 4,000 feet. Ranges from Los Angeles Co. south to inland San Diego Co. and inland Baja, California. • SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status • Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Gambell's watercress • Associated with wetlands. U U U N N Rorippa gambelii FE, ST, CNPS 1B Ranges from Santa Barbara Co. south into Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties, and Baja, Calif. Great valley phacelia Occurs in G. U U Y U N Phacelia ciliata var. opaca C2, CNPS, 1B Ranges from Glen County to Kern County with uncommon populations occurring south to Baja, California. PLANTS Heart-leaved pitcher-sage Occurs in CHP between 1,800 U U N N N Lepechinia cardiophylla , and 3,600 ft. C2, CNPS 1B Ranges throughout the Peninsular Ranges of the Santa - Ana Mountains. Jaeger's milkvetch Occurs in CHP and dry places U U N N N Astragalus pachypus var.jaegeri below 2,500 feet. C2, CNPS 1B Ranges from Banning to Aguanga. Johnston's rock cress Occurs on dry, rocky slopes . N N N N N Arabis johnstonii between 4,050 and 4,500 Cl, CNPS 1B feet. Limited to the San Jacinto Mountains. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential --_ --- - = - Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Knotweed.spineflower Occurs in G, CSS, and G/CSS. U U Y U N Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina Range is limited to western C2, CNPS 1B Riverside and San Diego counties. PLANTS Lemon lily Occurs in meadows and near N N N N N Lilium parryi streams in montane coniferous C2, CNPS 4 forests between 3,900 and 7,800 feet. • Range extends throughout • Transverse and Peninsular Ranges. Little mousetail Occurs in VP. U N N N N Myosurus minimus ssp. apus C2, CNPS 3 Range includes Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties south into Baja, Calif. • Many-stemmed dudleya Occurs in dry stony places of U U U U N Dudleya mu/ticaulis CSS and G below 200 feet. C2, CNPS1B, NCCP Ranges from Los Angeles County to W. San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and north coastal San Diego counties. • • SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Marsh sandwort Occurs in shallow waters. U U U N N Arenaria paludicola Associated with RF and FWM. FE, SE, CNPS 1B Range limited to localized areas of central and southern • California., including San Luis Obisbo County and the Santa Ana River. PLANTS Mission Canyon blue-cup Occurs in moist or disturbed U U N U N Githopsis diffusa ssp. fi/icaulis areas between 1,350 and C2, CNPS 1B 2,100 feet. Ranges through Peninsular Ranges of San Diego and Riverside Counties. • Munz's hedgehog cactus Occurs in dry habitats, such as U U N U N Echinocereus engelmannii var. munzii CHP, below 7,200 meters. C2 Range extends from San Bernardino Mountains, • Peninsular Ranges, Desert Province, to Utah, Arizona, and Mexico. Munz's mariposa lily Occurs in lower conifer forest. N N N N N Calochortus palmeri var. munzii C2, CNPS 1B Endemic to San Jacinto Mts. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential — — — Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DVSJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR • Munz's onion Occurs in G, CSS and G/CSS. Y U Y U N Allium munzii Cl, CNPS1 B, ST, NCCP Range includes eastern south coastal Calif., the northwest Peninsular Ranges, and western Riverside County. PLANTS Nevin's barberry Occurs in sandy & gravelly U U U U N Berberis nevinii places of CSS and CHP Cl, SE, CNPS 1B between 1,000 and 2,300 • feet. Range includes San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties. Orcutt's brodiaea • Assoc. with VP, G, and U U U U N Brodiaea orcuttii seasonal streams. C2, CNPS 1B Range extends from northern Sierra Juarez in Baja, Calif. through San Diego Co. and southwestern Riverside and San Bernardino County. Orcutt's linanthus Occurs in CHP btw 4,000 and N N N N N Linanthus orcuttii 5,000 ft. C2, CNPS 1B Ranges includes Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties and Baja, Calif. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present ,U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Palmer's grapplinghook Occurs in CSS, CHP, & G; Y U Y N N Harpagonella palmed var. Palmeri typically on open clay slopes CNPS 2, NCCP, C2 and burn areas below 3,300 feet. Ranges from Los Angeles County to San Diego County into Baja, Calif. „.>.: .. . ;. PLANTS Palmer's mariposa lily • Occurs in yellow pine forest. N N N N N Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri CNPS 1 B, C2 Ranges limited to San Jacinto Mts. Parish's bush mallow Occurs in CSS and CHP U U U U N Ma/acothamnus parishii generally below 1,500 feet. C2, CNPS 1A Probably endemic to Riverside • Co. Parish's gooseberry • Occurs in RF. U U N N N Ribes divaricatum var. parishi C2, CNPS 1B Ranges from east Los Angeles basin into San Bernardino and Riverside counties. May be extirpated. Parish's saltbush Associated with alkali sinks U U N N N Atriplex parishii and alkali scrub. C2, CNPS 1B Range includes southwestern Calif., western Mojave Desert, and Baja Calif. Parry's spineflower Occurs in CSS. Y U U U N Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi C2, NCCP, CNPS 3 Range includes central and eastern south central Calif., eastern transverse ranges and northwest edge of Sonoran Desert. - SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 19941; Federal Register: December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential • Occurrence in.Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Payson's jewelflower Occurs in rocky places of CHP Y U Y N Y Caulanthus simu/ans and pinyon-juniper woodland C2, CNPS 4, NCCP below 5,000 ft. Range extends from Riverside Co. to interior San Diego County. PLANTS Plummer's mariposa lily Occurs in CSS and yellow pine U U N U N Ca/ochortus plummerae forest in dry rocky places CNPS 1 B, C2 below 5,000 feet. Range limited to San Jacinto Mts. Robust prickly poppy Occurs in open areas of CHP N N N N N Argemone munita ssp. robusta and cismontane woodland C3B between 2,000 and 9,000 feet. • Found in the Santa Ana Mountains. • San Diego button-celery Occurs in VP. U N N N N Eryngium aristulatum var. parishi FE, SE, CNPS 1B Ranges from Riverside and San Diego counties south into northern Baja, Calif. • San Diego button bush Occurs on dry slopes with CHP U N N N N Tetracoccus dioicus and CSS below 3,000 feet. C2, CNPS 1B Ranges from southwestern Riverside Co. into San Diego Co. and Baja, California. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register: December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR • San Jacinto River saltbush Associated with alkali sinks & Y U N N N Atriplex coronata var. notatior alkali Scrub. Cl, CNPS lB Range includes eastern south coast of California's San Jacinto Valley and Riverside County. PLANTS San Miguel savory Occurs in rocky canyons in U U U N N Calamagrotis densa CHP below 2,500 feet. C3c Range includes W. Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties and northern Baja, California. Santa Ana River wooly-star Occurs in CSS with U U U N N Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum infrequently flooded, and FE, SE, CNPS 1B scoured riparina terraces with . sandy soils. Range limited to Santa Ana River and lowland tributaries below 1,500 feet within southwest San Bernardino. Slender-horned spineflower Occurs in G, CSS, and G/CSS. U U U U N Dodecahema (= Centrostegia) leptoceras Range includes central and FE, SE, CNPS 1 B, NCCP eastern portions of southern California and adjacent foothills of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges. . Small flowered microseris Occurs in G. U U Y U N Microseris doug/asii var. platycarpha CNPS 4 Range includes central & southern portions of southern coastal California, southern channel islands, and Baja, Calif. _ SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Smooth tarplant • Occurs in G below 500 feet. Y U U U N Hemizonia pungens ssp. laevis C2, CNPS 1B Range includes southwestern Kern County County, and Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties. PLANTS Southern tarplant Occurs in G below 650 feet. U U U U N Hemizonia parryi ssp. australis C2, CNPS 1B Ranges from Santa Barbara County south to San Diego County. Sticky-leaved dudleya Occurs in G on rocky cliffs and U U U U N Dud/eya viscida bluffs below 330 feet. Cl, CNPS 1B, NCCP Range includes Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties. Thread-leaved brodiaea Associated with clay soils in G U U U N • N Brodiaea filifolia & VP. Cl, SE, CNPS 1B Range extends from San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains in Los Angeles and , San Bernardino County south to Riverside and San Diego County. Vail lake Ceanothus Occurs on north facing slopes U N N N N Ceanothis ophiochilus of CHP at about 1,500 feet. C2, CE, CNPS 1B Range is limited to area near Vail Lake. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR • INVERTEBRATES • Cuckoo bee Occurs in encelia dominated U U U . U U Ho/ocopasites ruthae CSS. LC Quino checkerspot Occurs in G. U U U U U Euphydryas editha quino C1, NCCP Range includes western edge of Colorado Desert in San Diego and Riverside counties. INVERTEBRATES Riverside fairy shrimp Occurs in VP. U N N N N Streptocepha/us woottoni • FE, NCCP Ranges from Riverside County into San Diego County. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Arroyo toad Frequents sandy banks of U U U N N Bufo microscaphus californicus washes, streams, and arroyos PFE, CSC, NCCP with large deciduous trees. Range extends west of desert from San Luis Obispo County to northwest Baja, California. California red-legged frog Occurs near permanent U U U N N Rana aurora draytonii sources of water in lowland Cl, CSC and foothill woodlands, grasslands, and streamsides. Range extends from coastal northern California to Baja, California up to 8,000 feet. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential -- • • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Coast patch-nosed snake Occurs in G & CHP in sandy U U U Y Y Sa/vadora hexalepis virgultea and rocky areas on the lower C2, CSC, NCCP slopes of mountains. Range extends from San Luis Obispo Co. south to Baja, • Calif. • Coastal rosy boa Occurs in CSS, G/CSS, and U U Y Y Y Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca DIS. • C2, NCCP . Range includes southern Calif. from San Gabriel Mountains south into Baja, California. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES . Coastal western whiptail Occurs in G, G/CSS, CSS, RF, Y Y Y Y Y • Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus JW, DIS, and FWM. Prefers C2, NCCP areas with sparse vegetation and loose soil. Range includes coastal Calif. from Ventura south to western Baia, California. Coast range newt Found in or under logs, in U U U N N Taricha torosa torosa rodent burrows or under rocks; CSC in or near streams, ponds, and reservoirs. • • Range includes coastal areas of Calif. from Mendocino County to western slopes of • Peninsular Ranges in San Diego County. Large-blotched salamander Occurs in OF, old CHP, and U U U N N Ensatina eschscholtzii k/auberi shaded canyons with abundant C2, CSC leaf litter & surface objects. • Found in the mountains of San Diego and Riverside counties - from 4,000 to 6,000 feet. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. • Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB _ MRR • Mtn. yellow-legged frog Occurs in rocky stream N N N N N • Rana muscosa courses with rocks or C2, CSC vegetation to water's edge; rocks and boulders forming pools and small waterfalls. • Range includes Sierra Nevada • Mts., Calif. over 4,500 feet; mts. of S. Calif. from Pacoima Ranch south (1,200-7,500 . feet) to the isolated population on Palomar Mountain. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Northern red diamond rattlesnake Occurs in G, G/CSS, CSS, and Y Y Y Y Y Crotalus ruber tuber DIS. • C2, CSC, NCCP Range includes San Diego Co. and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Co. and Baja, Calif. Orange-throated whiptail Occurs in CSS, CHP, G, and Y Y Y Y Y' Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi G/CSS on coastal slopes C2, CSC, NCCP below 8,000 ft. Range extends from Orange and San Bernardino Co. to • south central Baia, Calif. San Bernardino ringneck snake Occurs in CSS. U U Y N Y _ Diadophis punctatus modestus C2 Range includes San Bernardino, • Riverside, and Orange • counties. . • SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register: December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential - • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR San Diego banded gecko Occurs in rocky areas U U U Y Y Coleonyx variegatus abbotti associated with CHP. C2, NCCP Range includes San Diego and Orange counties and may extend into Los Angeles and Riverside counties. San Diego horned lizard Occurs in CSS, CHP, Y Y Y Y Y Phrynosoma corona tum blainvi//ii cismontane JW, and alluvial C2, CSC, NCCP fan scrub. • , Range extends from San Bernardino Co. to northwestern Baja, Calif. (Distribution not well known.) _ • AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES San Diego ringneck snake Occurs in moist areas in U U U N Y Diadophis punctatus similis woodland, forest, CHP, G, & C2 gardens. Range extends from SW San - Bernardino Co. south into Baja, California. Silvery legless lizard Occurs in CSS, CHP, & open U U U N N Anniella pulchra pulchra RF. • CSC Spotty distribution from Contra Costa Co. south into Baja, California. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential • Occurrence In Core Reserve • Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR • Southern rubber boa Occurs under bark of standing U Y U N N Charina bottae umbratica' and fallen dead.trees, beneath C2, ST, FSS rocks, rotting logs and forest litter in damp woodland, broken CHP and coniferous forests; also found in moist sandy areas along rocky streams in above habitats. Range includes Tehachapi Mts., Mt. Pinos, Mt. Abel, and • the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Southern sagebrush lizard Occurs in sagebrush, U U U N N Sce%porus graciosus vandenburgianus manzanita, and ceonothus C2 brushlands. • Range extends from southern California into northern Baja, • California. • • AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Southwestern pond turtle Typically occurs in ponds, Y U U N N • Clemmys marmorata pal/ida small lakes, reservoirs, and Cl, CSC, NCCP slow-moving streams; has been reported in brackish and sea water; frequently associated with areas having abundant aquatic vegetation. • Occurs in the coastal ranges • and west, San Francisco bay to • Bala; also in Mojave River. • Two-striped garter snake Often occurs near permanent U U U N N Thamnophis hammondii water and intermittent streams C2 with rocky beds. Range extends from Monterey Co. south into Rio Rosario, Baja south California.. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Western spadefoot toad Occurs primarily in aquatic and U U Y N N Scaphiopus (=Spea) hammondii G habitat but also in variety of CSC, NCCP other types; requires at least ephemeral aquatic conditions for breeding. • Ranges west of the desert from San Francisco to Baja, California. BIRDS American peregrine falcon Occurs in G, AG, and desert. U Y N N N Falco peregrinus anaturn FE, SE, CFP Ranges throughout North and Central America. • BIRDS • Bald eagle Occurs in inland bodies of Y Y N N N Haliaeetus leucocephalus water. FE, SE, CFP, BEPA . Range extends over most of the U.S. in the summer, Canada and Alaska in the winter. Bank swallow Occurs in RF in coastal U U Y Y N Riparia riparia lowlands. Nest sites are ST, MBTA burrowed out of vertical banks of fine-textured soils along streams and rivers. • Summers through most of North America. Belding's savanah sparrow Occurs in salt marshes and U Y U Y N Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi lagoons dominated by C2, SE Salicornia. Ranges along the Pacific coast from Goleta Calif.to El Rosario, • Mexico. • SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status : Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Bell's sage sparrow Occurs in CHP and CSS. Y U Y Y Y Amphispiza belli belli C2, CSC, NCCP, MBTA Range is along the coastal slopes from Trinity County south into northwestern Baja, - California. Black-crowned night heron Occurs in RF and OW. U U Y N N (rookery) Nycticorax nycticorax LC, MBTA Range includes most of the US and Mexico. Black shouldered kite Nests in RF and forages in G. Y Y Y Y Y Elanus coeruleus . CFP, MBTA Range includes coastal California and parts of the Caribbean gulf coast. BIRDS Blue grosbeak Occurs in RF, G, & DIS. U U Y Y Y Guiraca caerulea LC, MBTA Range extends through the southern half of the US and into Mexico. California Brown pelican Occurs in coastal salt water & U U N N N Pe/ecanus occidentalis californicus open ocean, rare vagrant FE, SE, CFP inland. Ranges along the US and Mexican coasts. • Burrowing owl Occurs in G, AG, and DIS. Y U Y Y N Speotyto cunicularia CSC, MBTA Ranges throughout most of western North America. California horned lark Occurs in G, G/CSS, AG, and Y U Y Y Y Eremophila alpestris actia DIS. C2, CSC, NCCP, MBTA Ranges over most of North America. - SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, SeptemberN 30, 1 93, Noved not vember 21, 1991 Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Caspian tern Occurs in OW. U U Y N N Sterna caspia LC, MBTA Range includes most of N. America south to Venezuela in winter. - Coastal California gnatcatcher Occurs in CSS and G/CSS. Y Y Y Y Y Polioptila californica californica FT, CSC, NCCP, MBTA Range includes southern Los Angeles Co., Orange Co., western Riverside Co., and San Diego Co., south into northern Baja, Calif. BIRDS Cooper's hawk Breeds in OF. Forages in G Y U Y Y Y Acipiter cooperi and AG. CSC, MBTA Range includes most of continental US, excluding Alaska, part of Montana, and most of the Dakotas. • Downy woodpecker Occurs in RF. U U Y Y Y_ Picodes pubescens LC, MBTA Ranges throughout most of North America above Mexico. Ferruginous hawk Occurs in grasslands and Y U U N N Buteo regaus agricultural fields. . C2, CSC Ranges over the western US. Golden eagle Forages in CSS, CHP, G, & Y Y Y Y Y Aquila chryaetos AG; uses cliffs and outcrops . CSC, MBTA, BEPA, CFP for nesting. Rare but distributed throughout North America. _ • SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 19941; Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present- U = Occurrence unknown by potential • N = Absent and not potential • • —` ,i' Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR • Grasshopper sparrow Occurs in G and G/CSS. U U Y U N Ammodramus savannarum perpa//idus Localized summer populations LC, MBTA occur throughout California. Great blue heron (rookery) Occurs in RF and OW. Y U Y N Y Ardea herodius LC, MBTA Range includes the entire US and Mexico. Least Bell's vireo Occurs in RF with willows and Y U U N N Vireo bel/ii pusillus willows and cottonwoods and FE, SE, MBTA an understory of mulefat and herbaceous annuals. • Breeds in southern Calif. and northwestern Baja, Calif. BIRDS Loggerhead shrike Occurs in G, G/CSS, AG, CHP Y U Y Y Y Lanius ludovicianus and DIS. C2, CSC, MBTA . • Range includes most of the continental US and Mexico. . Northern harrier Occurs in CSS, G, G/CSS, SM, U U Y Y Y Circus cyaneus FWM, and AG. CSC, MBTA . Winters and migrates throughout California. Mountain Plover Occurs in grasslands and U U N N N Charadrius montanus agricultural areas with C2, CSC unplanted plowed fields. • Winter range includes California and parts of Mexico. Summer range is in the Rocky Mountains. • SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California(February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR San Diego cactus wren Occurs in CSS; requires cactus N N Y U Y Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus thickets for nesting. couesi C2, CSC, NCCP : Ranges from southeast Orange Co. south to the Tijuana River area. Sharp-shinned hawk Occurs in CSS, RF and FWM. U U Y Y Y Accipiter striatus CSC Inhabits most of North America. Southern Calif. rufous-crowned Occurs in CSS and G/CSS on Y U Y Y Y sparrow rocky hillsides and canyons. Aimophila ruficeps canescens C2, CSC, NCCP, MBTA Range includes Santa Barbara . Co.south to northwestern Baja, California; occurs infrequently above 1,500 feet, but can be found up to 4,000 feet. BIRDS Southwestern willow flycatcher Occurs in RF, usually along Y U U N Y Empidonax traillii extimus streams, ponds, or lakes, or in FPE, SE, FSS, MBTA canyon or drainage bottoms. Range includes southwestern US and northwestern Mexico. Tricolored blackbird Occurs in AG. Forages in U U Y U Y Agelaius tricolor pasture, cropland, lakeshores, C2, CSC, NCCP, MBTA and irrigated grassy areas; breeds in.FWM composed of cattails, tules, willows, mulefat, & tamarisk. Range includes most of North America; a spring and summer breeding resident in southern California. - SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential i • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Western grebe Occurs in FWM and OW. U U Y N N Aeschmophorus occidentalis LC, MBTA Winters along the Pacific coast of North America. Western least bittern Occurs in salt cedar scrub U U N N N Ixobrychus exilis hesperis bordering dense marshes. C2, CSC Ranges through California, Oregon, and Baja, California, Mexico. Western snowy plover Occurs in sandy beaches, U U U N N Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus lagoon margins, and tidal mud FT, CSC flats. Winters along the Pacific coast of US and Baja, Calif. Summer range includes desert areas of Calif. and Nevada. BIRDS Yellow-breasted chat Occurs in RF. U U Y U Y Icteria virens CSC, MBTA Range includes most of the continental US and Mexico. Yellow warbler Occurs in RF. U U Y N Y Dendroica petechia brewsteri CSC, MBTA Ranges throughout the-entire North American continent. • White-faced ibis Forages in flooded fields, U .U N N Y Plegadis chihi marshes, ditches and occ. C2, CSC estuaries. Ranges throughout U.S., west of Mississippi River. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR MAMMALS American badger Occurs in CSS, G/CSS, and Y U Y Y N Taxidea taxus open G. CSC Ranges from south central Canada•through mid to western US and into north central Mexico and Baja, California. Big free-tail bat Roosts in cliff crevices. U U Y N U Nyctinomops macrotis Breeds in rugged, wooded, CSC mountainous areas of southern California. Ranges from northern South America and the Caribbean to western United States. MAMMALS California mastiff bat Occurs in G, G/CSS, and DIS. U U Y U U ' Eumops perotis californicus Prefers rugged, rocky areas C2, CSC with suitable crevices for roosting. Range extends from central Calif. to west Texas and northern Mexico. Los Angeles little pocketmouse Occurs in lower elevation CSS, Y U U U N Perognathus longimembris brevinasus G/CSS, and G with open C2, CSC, NCCP ground fine, sandy soils. Range includes the Los Angeles Basin, from Burbank and San Fernando to San Bernardino and south to Aguanga. _ SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR Mountain lion Occurs in a variety of habitats Y U Y U N Fells concolor such as rugged mountains, CFP forests, and swamps. Range includes southwestern Oregon, most of Calif., western Nevada, and northwest Baja. Known to occur in San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mtns. Northwestern San Diego pocket Occurs in CSS, G/CSS, CHP, Y U Y Y Y mouse and open weedy areas. Chaetodipus (=Perognathus) fallax fallax Range includes San C2, CSC, NCCP Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Co., most of Orange Co., and east Los Angeles Co. Pallid bat Roosts in caves, tunnels, and U U Y U U Antrozous pallidus attics. CSC Ranges from southwestern United States into British Columbia. MAMMALS Pocketed free-tail bat Rocky desert areas with U U Y N U Nyctinompos femorosacca relatively high cliffs. CSC Range includes southern California, southern Arizona and Mexico. Ringtail Occurs in cliffs & rocky U Y U U N Bassariscus astutus ravines in CHP. CFP Ranges over much of the US and into Mexico. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 1994); Federal Register:December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential N = Absent and not potential • Occurrence in Core Reserve Species Name and Status Habitat and Range LS-DV SJ-LP LM-EM SC-MAFB MRR San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo Occurs in CSS, and G/CSS. U U U U Y rat Dipodomys merriami parvus Range includes southwestern C2, CSC, NCCP San Bernardino County and parts of western Riverside County. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Occurs in G, G/CSS, CSS, JW, Y Y Y Y Y Lepus californicus bennettii DIS, and southern willow C2, CSC, NCCP scrub. Ranges from near Mt. Pinos southward and west of the Peninsular Range into Baja, Calif. San Diego desert woodrat Occurs in CSS, RF, & JW. Y U U U Y Neotoma lepida intermedia C2, CSC Ranges from coastal areas of San Luis Obispo into Baja, Calif.; inland to San Bernardino Mountains and Julian. MAMMALS Southern grasshopper mouse Occurs in open areas of G, U U U U N Onychomus torridus ramona creosote, or sagebrush with C2, CSC, NCCP sandy or gravelly soils. Ranges in southern California from near Palmdale east to Riverside and south to the Tijuana River Valley. Spotted bat Occurs in high rugged remote N N N N N Euderma maculatum habitats. C2, CSC Range includes most of California Mts. SOURCE: RECON June 1994; CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (February 19941; Federal Register: December 9, 1993, September 30, 1993, November 21, 1991. Y = Present U = Occurrence unknown by potential • N = Absent and not potential Status Codes BEPA Bold and Golden Eagle Protection Act Cl Category 1 candidate for federal listing C2 Category 2 candidate for federal listing C3b Names that, on the basis of current taxanomic understanding, do not represent distinct entities meeting the Act's definition of "species";it also includes vertebrate populations that do not meet this definition C3c Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or that are not subject to any identifiable threat CFP Fully protected in California CNPS Listed by the California Native Plant Society as (1 B) rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (2) rare or endangered in California and more common elsewhere (3)•more information needed before assignment to 1, 2, or 4 - . (4) plants of limited distribution CR Rare in California CSC Identified by CDFG as a species of special concern in California FE Listed as endangered under the federal ESA FPE Proposed for sisting as endangered under the federal ESA FT Listed as threatened under the federal ESA LC Species of local concern MBTA Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act NCCP On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program SE Listed as endangered under the California ESA ST Listed as threatened under the California ESA Core Reserve Codes Habitat Codes LS-DV Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley AG Agriculture LM-EM Lake Mathews Estelle Mountain CHP Chamise and mixed chaparral MRR Motte Rimrock Reserve CSS Coastal sage scrub SC-MAFB Sycamore Canyon- March Air Force Base _ DIS Disturbed habitat SJ-LP San Jacinto-Lake Perris FWM Fresh water marsh G Annual grassland , Occurrence Codes G/CSS Mixed annual grassland/Coastal sage scrub JW Juniper Woodland N Absent, and not potential OF Coast live and engelmann oak forest U Occurrence unknown, but potential OW Open water/shoreline Y Present RF Riparian forest SM Salt marsh VP Vernal Pool Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E Appendix E Road Maintenance Activities, Temporary. Haul Roads and Borrow Sites • E. Road Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borrow Sites 3 1. Signage 3 2. Guardrails and Fences 3 3. Pavement Repairs 3 4. Tree Trimming 3 5. Natural Disaster Damage/Restoration of Emergency Access 3 6. Storm Damage 4 7. Weed Spraying/Mowing 4 8. Grading Shoulders 4 9. Grading Existing Dirt Roadways 4 10. Dust Stabilization 4 11. Culverts . 4 12. Curbs/Gutters/Sidewalks 4 13. Roadway Widening 4 14. Rolled Berms 4 15. Roadway Resurfacing 4 16. Ditch Clearing 4 F. Flood Control Maintenance Activities 5 1. Improved Channel 5 2. Improved Basin 5 3. Maintenance 5 G. Landfill and Other Waste Management Facilities Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borrow Sites 7 1. Signage 8 2. Guardrails and Fences 8 3. Pavement Repairs 8 4. Tree Trimming 8 5. Natural Disaster Damage/Restoration of Emergency Access 8 6. Storm Drains 8 7. Weed Spraying/Mowing 8 8. Grading Shoulders 8 9. Grading Existing Fire Breaks 8 10. Drainage Control Structures 8 11. Curbs/Gutter/Sidewalks 9 12. Roadway Widening 9 E-1. . Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E. 13. Rolled Berms 9 14. Roadway Resurfacing 9 15. Ditch Cleaning 9 16. Dust Control 9 17. Litter Control 9 18. Drop Off Programs 9 19. Environmental Monitoring Facilities 20. Landfill Cover 9 21. Haul Roads 9 22. Bird Control 9 23. Surveys 9 24. Expansion 9 25. NPDES Structures 10 26. Maintenance Materials 10, 27. Miscellaneous 10 • H. Other Public Facility Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borrow Sites 10 E-2 • Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E Appendix E Road Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borro w Sites • E. Road Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borrow Sites. Within the boundaries of the HCP area, incidental take of the SKR during the course of otherwise lawful activities may occur in connection with a member agency's • performance of maintenance activities necessary to provide safe travel on public roadways, the construction of temporary haul roads, and the creation of temporary borrow sites without obtaining further approval or authorization from the RCHCA, USFWS and CDFG. Such incidental take of the SKR may occur whether the subject property is inside or outside the boundaries of a core reserve. The advance notice and review and biological assessment procedures set forth in subsections b. and c. shall not apply to these activities. For purpose of this HCP, the term "road maintenance activities" shall include but shall not be limited to the following activities: 1. Signage. The installation and maintenance of signs to control traffic speed, stops, or to clearly identify potentially hazardous conditions such as curves, narrow . roads, etc. 2. Guardrails and Fences. The installation, replacement and maintenance of guardrails and fences solely for vehicle and pedestrian safety. 3. Pavement Repairs. Pothole repair, chipseal, skin patching and resurfacing of roadways in order to reduce roadway hazards. 4. Tree Trimming. Routine tree and shrub trimming to improve sight distance and eliminate potential roadway blockage. 5. Natural Disaster Damage/Restoration of Emerciencv Access. Clearance of debris, rocks, and other natural material from roadways that results from natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, and fire. Such actions shall be E-3 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E necessary for public safety, especially in providing vehicular movement during emergency operations. 6. Storm Damage. Clearance of mud and debris accumulated on the roadway due to a storm event. Road crews shall complete these projects immediately following the end of a storm event and may use the excess mud on the roadway as fill for the shoulders. 7. Weed Spraying/Mowing. Spraying and mowing weeds and vegetation within graded shoulderareas in order to control the weed population and eliminate sight distance problems, roadway hazards, and prevent fires. 8. Grading Shoulders. Shoulder grading up to 12 feet from the edge of paved or unpaved roadways in order to reduce accident potential and improve safety. Additional fill material may be needed to restore the original grade at the edge of the pavement. 9. Grading Existing Dirt Roadways. Grading of existing County-maintained dirt roadways in order to reduce accident potential and improve safety. 10. Dust Stabilization. The placement of dust stabilizers on the soil including, but not limited to, magnesium chloride, permazion, penetration and gravel, in order to prevent erosion, provide dust control and improve sight distance when traffic visibility • is reduced due to dust clouds. 11. Culverts. Construction or replacement of culverts in areas where flooding hazards may arise. 12. Curbs/Gutters/Sidewalks. Construction or replacement of curbs, gutters and sidewalks as necessary in order to reduce vehicular and pedestrian accident potential, improve safety and prevent storm damage. 13. Roadway Widening. Minor widening consisting of 2 to 4 feet or less than a lane width (12 feet) of an existing roadway which is necessary for safety reasons. 14. Rolled Berms. Construction of rolled berms as part of a resurfacing project to control drainage. 15. Roadway Resurfacing. Grinding the pavement surface, relaying the pavement, and grading of dirt shoulders. 16. Ditch Clearing. Clearing of ditches and stabilization of the banks of drainage courses along roadways. In addition, the term "temporary haul roads" shall include those roads necessary to construct a permanent public road facility and which is only used during the construction of the public road facility and the term "temporary borrow site" shall include any site temporarily used as a source of fill material for a project at another location. E-4 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E The member agency shall mitigate impacts to the SKR for the construction of temporary haul roads and the creation of temporary borrow sites within core reserves by restoring the temporary haul road or temporary borrow site to a condition that allows re-colonization by the SKR which may include the preparation and implementation of a revegetation plan, as required by the USFWS and CDFG on a case by case basis. No mitigation shall be required for the construction of temporary haul roads or creation of temporary borrow sites outside the core reserves. F . Flood Control Maintenance Activities Within the boundaries of the HCP area, incidental take of the SKR during the course of otherwise lawful activities may occur in connection with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts' performance of maintenance activities necessary to ensure that flood control facilities continue to provide the design level of flood protection to which the facilities were constructed, to protect the public's investment, to prevent loss of life and property and to comply with local ordinances and regulations,the regulations pertaining to the National Flood Insurance Program and other Federally mandated programs without obtaining further approval or authorization from the RCHCA, USFWS and CDFG. Such incidental take of the SKR may occur whether the subject property is inside or outside the boundaries of a core reserve. The advance notice and review and biological assessment procedures set forth in subsections b. and c. shall not apply to these activities. For purposes of this HCP, the following terms are hereby defined: 1. Improved Channel. A waterway in which significant man-made alteration has occurred to improve the passage of flood flows, including straightening and containing the flows within constructed banks (including levees) and concrete- lined, riprap or earth trapezoidal channels with engineered banks. 2. Improved Basin. A facility which has been designed and constructed to temporarily impound flood waters and/or debris during times of flood flows. An improved basin is typically located along a natural watercourse and has flood waters and/or debris delivered to it via the watercourse or an improved basin may be located apart from a natural watercourse and have flood waters and/or debris delivered to it via an improved channel or underground storm drain system. 3. Maintenance. The removal of sand, silt, sediment, debris, rubbish,woody and herbaceous vegetation and other obstructions to flow, the control of weeds, grasses and emergent vegetation and the repair and/or replacement, cleaning and clearing of constructed channel or basin improvements all as necessary to maintain the structural integrity and capacity of the improved channel(s) or basin(s). The term "flood control facilities/maintenance activities" shall include but shall not be limited to the following activities: E-5 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E 1. Control of weeds and grasses on maintenance roads and on the areas between the top of banks (improved channel and improved basin) and adjacent property to comply with local fire regulations and to provide a safe travel way to conduct facility inspection and maintenance activities by mowing, discing, hand labor or herbicide application. 2. Control of weeds and grasses, and emergent aquatic vegetation on earthen channel bottoms and banks to maintain channel design capacity, or to comply with local fire regulations, or to conduct facility inspection. Vegetation control will be accomplished by mowing, hand labor or herbicide application. 3. Control of weeds and grasses on the basin banks to comply with local fire regulations or to conduct facility inspection by mowing, hand labor or herbicide application. 4. Control of weeds and grasses in revegetated mitigation areas and landscaped areas to allow plant establishment by mowing, discing, hand labor or herbicide application. 5. Removal of vegetation, sand, silt, sediment and debris and other obstructions to flow within the immediate vicinity (not to exceed 100 feet) of the following structures: (1) stream flow measuring stations; (2) culverts and bridges; (3) storm drain outfall structures; (4) drop structures (energy dissipaters), and (5) basin inlet and outlet structures, to maintain the structures design function. Surface flowing water, if any, will be diverted, if possible, from the work area when using equipment in the improved channel or improved basin. 6. Control and/or removal of woody and herbaceous vegetation with large tractor- pulled rotary mowers or equivalent and/or hand labor and tools on channel bottoms and channel banks to maintain channel design capacity. 7. Control and/or removal of woody and herbaceous vegetation, weeds and grasses with large tractor-pulled rotary mowers or equivalent and/or hand labor tools on basin bottoms to comply with local fire regulations or to minimize the potential for obstructing the basin outlet structure. 8. Removal of trees or branches that are in imminent danger of falling, fallen trees and associated debris to maintain the channel or basin outlet structure design capacity. 9. Removal of accumulated sand, silt, sediment, woody and herbaceous vegetation, debris, rubbish and other obstructions from concrete-lined or rock- lined channels or transition sections to maintain design capacity. E-6 • Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E 10. Removal of accumulated sand, silt, sediment, debris, rubbish and other obstructions or accumulations in improved channels with unlined channel bottoms to maintain channel or basin design capacity. 11. Removal of accumulated sand, silt, sediment, debris, rubbish and other obstructions or accumulations in improved channels with unlined channel bottoms to maintain low flow channel design capacity or, when necessary, to provide fish passage or habitat identified in District environmental documents. 12. Repair of failed sections of rock, gabion, masonry block, rail and wire, concrete-lined, gunite, grouted concrete riprap or other bank protections to maintain bank stabilization measures or drop structures to provide invert stabilization measures. Surface flowing water, if any, will be diverted from the work area, if possible, when using equipment in the improved channel. Maintenance activities shall be confined to the section affected by the failure. Upon maintenance activity completion, disturbed portions of the channel bottom shall be scarified from the work site to the equipment entrance where equipment traffic has caused compaction of the streambed soil materials. 13. Restoration of eroded earth levees or channel and basin banks previously installed and/or maintained for public health and safety. Surface flowing water, if any, will be diverted from the work area, if possible, when using equipment in the improved channel or improved basin. 14. Scarify bottom of improved channel(s) or improved basin(s) by discing, ripping or bulldozing for the purpose of increasing the percolation rate related to the promotion of groundwater recharge. 15. Control of burrowing rodents in channel, basin (including dam embankment) or levee banks with application of rodenticides. 16. Removal of accumulated sand, silt, sediment, woody and herbaceous vegetation, debris,rubbish and other obstructions from basin bottoms including low flow "wet" areas by mowing, discing, bulldozing, hand labor or herbicide application. G . Landfill and Other Waste Management Facilities Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borrow Sites. Within the boundaries of the. HCP area, incidental take of the SKR during the course of otherwise lawful activities may occur in connection with a member agency's or its assignee's performance of maintenance activities necessary to provide for the safe - operation, closure and post-closure maintenance activities of landfills and other waste E-7 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E management facilities, the construction of temporary haul roads, and the creation of temporary borrow sites without obtaining further approval or authorization from the RCHCA, USFWS and CDFG. Such incidental take of the SKR may occur whether the subject property is inside or outside the boundaries of a core reserve. The advance notice and review and biological assessment procedures set forth in subsections b. and c. shall not apply to these activities. For purposes of this HCP, the term "landfill and other waste management facilities maintenance activities" shall include but shall not be limited to the following activities: 1. Signage. The installation and maintenance of signs to control traffic speed, stops, or to clearly identify potentially hazardous conditions such as cross traffic, curves, narrow roads, etc. 2. Guardrails and Fences. The installation, replacement and maintenance of guardrails and fences for vehicle and pedestrian safety, litter control, etc. 3. Pavement Repairs. Pothole repair, chipseal, skin patching and resurfacing of roadways in order to reduce roadway hazards. 4. Tree Trimming. Routine tree and shrub trimming to improve sight distance and eliminate potential roadway blockage. 5. Natural Disaster Damage/Restoration of Emergency Access. Clearance of debris, rocks, and other natural material from on site roadways that results from natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, and fire. 6. Storm Drains. Construction and repair of storm drains and clearance of mud and debris accumulated on the roadway due to a storm event. Work crews shall complete these projects immediately following the end of a storm event and may use the excess mud on the roadways as fill for the shoulders. 7. Weed Spraying/Mowing. Spraying and mowing of weeds and vegetation within graded shoulder areas in order to control hazards, and prevent fires. 8. Grading Shoulders. Shoulder grading up.to 50 feet from the edge of the landfill roadways in order to reduce accident potential and improve safety. Additional fill material may be needed to restore the original grade at the edge of the pavement. 9. Grading Existing Fire Breaks. Grading of existing County-maintained fire breaks, mowing or discing combustible vegetation. 10. Drainage Control Structures. Construction of, or improvement to, drainage control structures; such as, watercourses, downdrains, berms, debris and sediment retention basins, grade stabilizers, energy dissipators, runoff flow meters, inlet or outlet works. E-8. Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E 11. Curbs/Gutter/Sidewalks. Construction or replacement of curbs, gutters and sidewalks as necessary in order to reduce vehicular and pedestrian accident potential, improve safety and prevent storm damage. 12. Roadway Widening. Minor widening of an existing roadway which is necessary for safety reasons. 13. Rolled Berms. Construction of rolled berms as part of a resurfacing project to control drainage. . 14. Roadway Resurfacing. Grinding the pavement surface, relaying the pavement, • and grading of dirt shoulders. 15. Ditch Cleaning. Clearing of ditches and stabilization of the banks of drainage courses along roadways. 16. Dust Control. Mechanical application of soil stabilizers to control dust from landfill operations. Soil stabilizers include, but are not limited to, the application of hydroseed,chemical stabilizers,or water in compliance with Rule 403 control measures as approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 17. Litter Control. Activities associated with the collection, transport and disposal of on-site litter. 18. Drop Off Programs. Establishment of areas within the landfill for the collection and temporary storage of recyclables such as white goods and scrap metals. 19. Environmental Monitoring Facilities. Construction, maintenance and operation of ground water wells, landfill gas migration probes, wind recording devices, rain gauges, leachate or landfill gas migration barriers, treatment facilities or collection facilities, landfill gas condensate collection and removal facilities and installation, repair and operation of seismic monitoring devices and landfill gas flare stations. 20. Landfill Cover. Placement of and repair to landfill cover, including movement of heavy equipment adjacent to the landfill area. 21. Haul Roads. Construction and maintenance of access and haul roads required for landfill operations or for public access to the landfill operations. 22. Bird Control. Placement of mitigation devices such as construction supports for overhead wires to effect seagull and other bird species control. 23. Surveys. Access for biological or other environmental surveys. 24. Expansion. Construction related to landfill footprint expansion. E-9 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E 25. NPDES Structures. Construction and maintenance of federally required monitoring stations for control of surface waters in compliance with the Nation Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System. 26. Maintenance Materials. Stockpiling of materials such as soils, gravel, etc. for the placement and repair of landfill cover. 27. Miscellaneous. Installation of security fencing and placement of land survey monuments and control points. In addition, the term "temporary haul roads" shall include those roads necessary to construct a permanent landfill cell, life or phase or provide access to a monitoring site, and which is only used during the construction of same and the term "temporary borrow site" shall include any site temporarily used as a source of fill material for a waste management facility at another location. The member agency shall mitigate impacts to the SKR for the construction of temporary haul roads or creation of temporary borrow sites within core reserves by restoring the temporary haul road or temporary borrow site to a condition that allows recolonization by the SKR which may include the preparation and implementation of a revegetation plan, as required by the USFWS and CDFG on a case by case basis. No mitigation shall be required for the construction of temporary haul roads or creation of temporary borrow sites outside the core reserves. H . Other Public Facility Maintenance Activities, Temporary Haul Roads and Borrow Sites. Within the boundaries of the HCP area, incidental take of the SKR during the course of otherwise lawful activities may occur in connection with a public agency's performance of public facility maintenance activities necessary to protect the structural integrity of the facility and continue operation of the facility, the construction of temporary haul roads, and the creation of temporary borrow sites without obtaining further approval or authorization from the RCHCA, USFWS and CDFG. Such incidental take outside the boundaries of a core reserve. The advance notice and review and biological assessment procedures set forth in subsections b. and c. shall not apply to these activities. For purposes of this HCP, the term "temporary haul road" shall include those roads necessary to construct a permanent public facility and which is only used during the construction of the public facility. In addition, the term "temporary borrow site" shall include any site temporarily used as a source of fill material for a project at another location. The public agency shall mitigate impacts to the SKR for the construction of temporary haul roads and the creation of temporary borrow sites within core reserves by restoring E-10 Volume 1: Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix E the temporary haul road and temporary borrow site to a condition that allows recolonization by the SKR which may include the preparation and implementation of a revegetation plan, as required by the USFWS and CDFG on a case by case basis. No mitigation shall be required for the construction of temporary haul roads or creation of temporary borrow sites outside of the core reserves. • • • • E-11 • ITEM 26 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: c,Ty A oR ;;R°vAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning August23,1994 Request for Comments Concerning the D~aft Memorandum of Understanding between the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the California Department of Fish and Game for the Development of a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for Western Riverside County Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide Comments to Staff to Forward to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency BACKGROUND In 1990, the City of Temecula became a member of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) Joint Powers Authority. The RCHCA is the organization responsible for implementing the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) in western Riverside County and is currently working to develop a Long-Term HCP which will replace the Short Term HCP. Both plans provide the members of the RCHCA with the ability meet the requirements of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts (FESA/CESA) relative to the SKR. The RCHCA anticipates adopting the Long-Term Plan at their October 20, 1994 meeting. In addition to being a 'member of the RCHCA, the City is also a member of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). For the past two years, WRCOG has been preparing a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP provides an opportunity for long-term planning for the preservation of threatened and endangered species on an ecosystem-wide basis as opposed to the current single species/habitat approach of the SKR plan. The MSHCP will not only protect currently threatened and endangered species, but will also provide basis to prevent or lessen the impacts of future species listings. In 1991, the State adopted the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. The purpose of the NCCP is to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth. The NCCP currently focuses on the preservation of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) community. Currently, an estimated 100 species (plants and animals) considered rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered by Federal and State resource agencies are associated with CSS. The State is attempting to enroll private land owners and local government agencies into the NCCP in an effort to preserve the CSS community. R:\STAFFRPT\HSHCPHGU.CC 8/15/9/, k{b 1 In March of 1993, the Department of the Interior listed the California gnatcatcher, one of three target species that inhabits CSS habitat, as a "threatened" species under the FESA. In December of 1993, the Department of the Interior adopted a "special rule" to allow the State's NCCP process to meet the requirements of the FESA as it relates to the gnatcatcher. The special rule provides ~ new alternative for providing incidental take for the gnatcatcher. Both the City of Temecula and Western Riverside County contain areas of CSS habitat and gnatcatchers. Because of this fact, the WRCOG, the RCHCA and the County of Riverside formed a committee to represent the three entities in negotiations with the State of California and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning those terms and conditions deemed necess.ary for local governments in Western Riverside' County to consider participating in the State's NCCP program. DISCUSSION As described in the MOU and summarized in Attachment No. 3 (RCHCA staff report), the MOU contains several key negotiation points to facilitate the transition from single species to multi- species habitat planning. The key points of the MOU are as follows: Upon completion and approval of the SKR HCP, the RCHCA intends to amend the plan into a habitat and ecosystem based multiple species plan consistent with the NCCP. Both the SKR HCP and any subsequent MSHCP will provide for incidental take (i.e. grading) associated with fire prevention measure and public facility operations and maintenance activities. The Bureau of Land Management intends to participate in the process by contributing 25,000 acres of federally controlled land to the conservation effort The goal of the RCHCA is to develop a MSHCP that is based upon lands conserved to date (e.g., SKR reserves, Santa Rosa Plateau, etc.). Ultimately, the conservation efforts of the RCHCA and WRCOG would be merged, and the RCHCA will become the lead agency for multi- species preservation in Western Riverside County. FISCAL IMPACT The signing of the MOU itself has no fiscal impact to the City. The long-term effect of the results of the MOU are unknown at this time. The Short-Term HCP is funded by grants from the Federal and State Governments, grants from private corporations, and a $I ,950 per acre SKR mitigation fee for development as required by Ordinance No. 663. The Draft Long-Term HCP proposes to continue funding in the same manner. Additional funds may be necessary to expand the scope of the Long-Term Plan to a Multi-Species Plan. Those additional funds and funding sources would be identified as part of the adoption of a Multi-Species Plan. R:\STAFFRPT\HSHCPHOU.CC 8/15/9~ ktb 2 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND ND-MNAGEMENT California Desert District Office 6221 Box Springs Boulevard Riverside. California 92507-0714 1736 (CA-060.6) Mr. Mark Goldberg, Chairman Board of Directors Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Chairman Goldberg end Members of the Board: I am writing to encourage your participation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service (I%VS), end the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) m a cooperative effort to develop a habitat conservation plan (HCP) addressing all ecosystems within your jurisdiction. Through · Memorandum of Understanding, BLM, FWS, and CDFG would support RCHCA efforts to implement a multiple ecosystem HCP ~ upon an amendment to the approved Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Long-Term HCP. The BLM is willing to participate through inclusion in the HCP of epproximetely 25,000 surface acres of public land in western Riverside County. Consistent with our South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP), we will also work cooparstively with the RCHCA to exchange surplus BLM properties for lands to be managed as part of ecosystem reserves established under the HCP. The RMP, implemented by our Palm Springs - South Coast Area Manager, places ecosystem management emphasis on BLM lands. It also acknowledges the critical role of local government participation in HCP's, and therefore allows the necessary flexibility for management and ownership consolidations in order for BLM to provide maximum support to local HCP activities. The RCHCA's development of an ecosystem based HCP has the endorsement of the U,S. Department of Interior. Secretary Babbitt is very supportive of ecosystem based habitat conservation planning conducted in a multi-jurisdictional framework. In recent 'public statements the Secretary has clearly indicated the federal govemment's commitment to support in all ways possible local government efforts to implement ecosystem based HCP's. I would encourage the RCHCA to make the scope of its habitat conservation efforts as broad as possible, both in the habitats covered and number oie local governments participating. I appreciate that the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat weighs heavily at this time, but the HCP has the best chance of working for all species, habitats, and jurisdictions if it is extended to all lands in western Riverside County. It is espocially important to include properties within the Cleveland and San Bemardino National Forests; together these federal lands encompass approximately 325,000 acres in western Riverside County. Toward this end I will commit my support to the RCHCA in encouraging the participation of the U.S. Forest Service in the interagency MOU for cooperative development of an ecosystem based HCP for western Riverside County. In Section I (page 9) the USFWS and CDFG agree not to prosecute incidental take of SKR and other listed species which may occur as a result of fire prevention and suppression activities. The agreement not to prosecute would remain in effect for a maximum of one year pending execution of a Cooperative Agreement; In Section II(A) (page 10) USFWS and CDFG agree to use their best efforts to complete processing of the SKR HCP within 120 days after its submission by the RCHCA; Section II(C) (page 10) states that the SKR HCP and any subsequent multi- species plan must include provisions allowing incidental take associated with fire prevention measures as well as public facility operations. and maintenance activities. New public projects must be allowed to proceed without undue delay provided that appropriate and reasonable mitigation is established; Sections Ill(A) on page 11 and Ill(B) on page 12 are intended to release funds appropriated by Congress and the California Legislature to the RCHCA. Assuming approval of the FY 95 Department of Intedor budget, this would allow the RCHCA to claim $1 million appropriated by Congress for NCCP activities in western Riverside County. Those funds are not currently available due to our non-participation in the NCCP; All parties agree to wonk together to prepare a multiple ecosystem HCP/NCCP which must include not only the fire prevention and public facility measures, but also meaningful financial participation by the federal and state governments. That plan also must include agreed upon methods of conserving habitat in order to avoid debilitating impacts of endangered species listings; In Section Ill(C) (pages 12 and 13) BLM expresses its commitment to actively support RCHCA conservation efforts by: managing BLM lands included in reserves pursuant to the conservation objectives of the RCHCA SKR HCP and a successor ecosystem based HCP; consistent with its Resource Management Plan, pursuing exchanges of BLM lands to acquire lands to be managed as wildlife reserves pursuant to the SKR HCP or an ecosystem based successor HCP; cooperating with the RCHCA in management, monitoring, and research programs. Attached is a letter from BLM District Manager Hend Bisson which states BLM's commitment to participate by including in RCHCA HCP's approximately 25,000 acres of federal land in western Riverside County. The tremendous value of that commitment to our conservation efforts cannot be overstated; if the RCHCA had to purchase an equivalent amount of private property for a reserve system, the coat almost certainly would exceed $100 million. With this supremely valuable commitment of land by BLM, and assurances of USRNS and CDFG support in developing an ecosystem based HCP which accommodates the needs of western Riverside County, the attached MOU offers a great deal to RCHCA member agencies. Combined with its ability to deliver $1 million in federal funds, staff sees the MOU as the best opportunity westem Riverside County will ever have to address habitat conservation issues expeditiously, comprehensively, and cost effectively. As a final note, the attached MOU has been reviewed by BLM, USFVVS, and CDFG; support has been expressed by all agencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that your Board: Approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding with BLM, USFVVS, and CDFG; 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the MOU on behalf of your Board, and; 3. Direct staff to forward the MOU to BLM, USFVVS, and CDFG for approval. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency City of Corona · City of Hemet · City of Lake Elsinore · City of Moreno Valley · City of Perris City of Riverside · City of Temecula · County of Riverside July 21, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RCHCA Board of Directors Brian Loew, Executive Directod~ DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT~ U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGARDING INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLAN Backqround By previous action, your Board appointed the Chairman and Executive Director to represent the RCHCA on an interagency negotiating committee consisting of representatives of this agency, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and the Western Riverside Council of Govemments. This committee was appointed to represent the three entities in negotiations with the State of California and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFVVS") concerning those terms and conditions deemed necessary for local governments in westem Riversid.e County to consider participating in the State's Natural Communities Conservation Planning ("NCCP") program. In the pest year the negotiating committee met on two occasions with federal and state officials; additional meetings were held among committee members. Dudng its meetings with senior officials of the State of California Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG'), and USFWS, the negotiating committee presented several key positions: Federal and state approval of the SKR HCP is a necessary condition of participating in the NCCP or any other multi-species conservation plan; After receiving such approval, the committee desired to move to a multiple ecosystem based conservation plan which addresses all sensitive habitats and species. This would be broader then the NCCP focus on sage scrub as a single habitat type; The quickest and most logical method of establishing an ecosystem conservation plan is by mending the SKR HCP. and using the core reserves established under that document as the basis for a regional system of ecosystem reserves. The committee indicated that the conservation plan must provide for receipt of credit from USRNS and CDFG for the natural resource values on all westem Riverside County land conserved to date, e.g., SKR reserves, Santa Rosa Plateau, Box Springs Mountain Park; The ecosystem plan cannot involve Study Areas or similar intedm conservation zones. Since western Riverside County already has more than 50,000 acres of conserved habitat, the ecosystem plan must provide for immediate implementation without pdor interim study periods, and; The committee expressed serious concern that the intedm NCCP guidelines prohibiting destruction of 95% of all sage scrub habitat may exceed the authority of the Endangered Species Act in its protection of almost all habitat, even that which is not occupied by a listed species. Accordingly, the committee indicated that local governments did not wish to be subjected to the NCCP interim guidelines. Participation in the NCCP would be possible only in the context of an approved conservation plan where all terms, conditions, and implications are known. During the second meeting between the negotiating committee and federal and state officials, it was agreed that the above points should be incorporated into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). Subsequently, the District Manager of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") expressed support for the MOU and stated a desire for BLM to be party for the purpose of formaiizing its commitment to incorporate BLM lands into a RCHCA multiple ecosystem conservation plan. RCHCA legal counsel prepared a draft MOU which was reviewed by the interagency negotiating committee on June 30, 1994; no federal or state officials were in attendance. The committee concurred with the contents of the MOU. Since the SKR HCP and its mitigation fee are intended to be the basis for the ecosystem conservation plan, the committee also endorsed the RCHCA as the appropriate local agency to enter into the MOU with federal and state agencies. Finally, the committee expressed its desire to submit the attached draft MOU to your Board for approval at this meeting. Summan/of the Draft MOU Following is a summary of the salient provisions of the attached draft MOU: Recital K (page 6) states upon completion and approval of the SKR HCP the RCHCA intends to amend the plan into a habitat and ecosystem based multiple species plan consistent with the NCCP. This amended conservation plan would support applications for incidental take permits for other listed species, as well as pre-listing agreements for species not presently protected under the Endangered Species Act; ATTACHMENT NO. 3 JULY 21, 1994 STAFF REPORT TO THE RCHCA CONCERNING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING R:\STAFFRPT\NSHCPNOU.CC 8/15/94 kLb 6 Understanding effective the date and year first above written. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OF THE UNH'ED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY Regional Director Chairman of the DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INl!~RIOR By Director By State Director -14- have occurred when other species have been listed; and, 2. Meaningful financial participation by state and federal governments to assist in the cost of developing and implementing the Agency MSHCP/NCCP. 3. Each of the measures set forth in Section II C hereof. B. FINANCIAL CONTK1BUTIONS TO FACILITATEPLANNING: The Service and the Deparnnent agree that execution of this MOU by the parties is intended to and does fulfill any condition imposed by Congress, the Legislature, or any state or federal agency regarding participation in the NCCP process as a condition p_r~c_,yJent to the receipt of all state or federal funds available, either now or in the future, to plan for, create or implement a NCCP, and that all such funds controlled by, or in the possession of, either the Service or Depa~huent shall immediately be paid over to the Agency for the purposes intended. ~8966 C. COOPERATION AND COORDINATION AMONG THE PARTIF_~: 1. The Agency and the Bureau will coordinate their conservation activities to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their respective efforts. Coordination will include the exchange of information, provision of support services to each other, joint planning, joint acquisition efforts, and such other means of cooperation as shall be available to the two parties. 2. The Agency and the Bureau shah confer regarding opportunities for the land managed by the Bureau to be incorporated into or m~ln:~qed as part of reserves identified in the Long-Ten SKR HCP and/or the Agency MSHCP/NCCP. With respect to lands so identified, it is the intent of the Bureau to manage them pursuant to the conservation objectives of those plans. 3. The Bureau and the Agency shall work together to identify opportunities for surplus lands, as idemified in the RMP (or any amendment thereto) to be used to acquire lands to be managed as wildlife reserves pursuant to the Long-Term SKR HCP or Agency MSHCP/NCCP. With respect to lands so identified, it is the intent of the Bureau to pursue the exchange of these lands as feasible to further the conservation objectives of those plans. The Agency shall help facilitate exchanges, identify exchange lands and participants, contribute funde, as appropriate, which may be necessary to conclude exchanges which may not involve equal appraised values, provide funds, as appropriate, to fund real estate specialist position(s) to expedite such exchanges, and participate with the Bureau in the funding of ongoing management responsibilities for lands incorporated into the wildlife reserves. 4. The Bureau and the Agency shall consult on management policies for lands under their respective control to identify objectives and actions which will enhance the habitat and appropriate recreation values of the lands for both parties. 5. All of the Parties hereto shall endeavor to assist each other in developing public information and education activities and strategies which encounge public participation in, and support for, the habitat conservation planning and implementation process. 6. All of the Parties hereto shall cooperate in monitoring, assessment and research programs which may help determine if the ecosystem an~t bioregional conservation strategies and habitat conservation plans ~re accomplishing their respective objectives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Memorandum of H. LONG TERM SKR HCP SUBMITTAI~ AND PROCESSING OF LONG-TERM SKR HCP: 1. The Agency shall use its best efforts to submit the f'mal Long Term SKR HCP to the Service and the Department no later than and the relevant permit applications August 31, 1994. 2. The Service and the Department, consistera with the requirements of FESA, CESA, CEQA and NEPA shall each use their best efforts to conclude the processing of the Long Term SKR HCP within 120 days afar the formal submittal thereof. B. DR.4~"F LONG TERM SKR HCP: The Service and the IX*pament have reviewed the Draft Long-Term SKR HCP and each of its terms and conditions, which have been submitted to them for comment. Subject to submittal of the Long-Term SKR HCP in its final form, and subject to issues and facts which may be brought to light and raised as a result of public input aru~ comment, and subject further to such additional review and analysis as is required by FESA, CESA, CEQA and NEPA, the Service and Deparunent have each determined that the Draft Long-Term SKR HCP appears to fulfill the criteria for issuance of the state and federal permits requested 'by Agency. C. NECESSARY PROVISIONS: Based upon experience with the SKR HCP, the Service and the Deparunent agree that the Long-Term SKR HCP as well as any subsequent Agency MSHCP/NCCP must include pwvisious that: 1. Allow incidental take associated with fire prevention and emergency response activities with oversight by local fwe departments or emergency response agencies. 2. Allow incidental take associated with regular operation and maintenance of public facilities pwvided that reasonable precautions are taken to minimize impacts on habitat and the species in question. 3. Provide for reasonable procedures to allow essential new public projects to proceed without undue delay provided that such projects arc planned to minimize adverse impacts upon habitat and the species to the greatest extent practicable and provided further that appropriate and reasonable mitigation is provided for that incidental take which can not be reasonably avoided. HI. MULTIPLE SPECIES/NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLANNING A. PREPARATION OF AGENCY MSHCP/NCCP: Commencing immediately after the execution of this MOU and delivery to the Agency of all state and/or federal funds currently appropriated by Congress or the Legislature to assist it in the preparation of an Agency MSHCP/NCCP, the panics will work together assiduously to prepare and submit an Agency MSHCP/NCCP for lands within the jurisdiction of the members of the Agency. The paxties recognize that such plan must include: 1. Meaningful assurances from the Service and the Dep~.,huent regarding, and agreed upon methods to deal with the preservation and conservation of habitat which supports, not only species which may currently be listed pursusnt to CESA or FESA, but also species which may be listed after approval of the Agency MSHCP/NCCP in order to avoid the severe and debilitating economic, social and public health and safety effects which -11- DRAFT HEI4OeANDUN OF UNDERSTANDING with the Service, the Department and the Agency in order to submit its Agency MSHCP/NCCP in the form of an amendment to the approved Long Term SKR HCP within 12 months after the approval of the Long Term SKR HCP. M, PURPOSE OF MOU: Pending the conclusion of the Lon~-Term SKR HCP process, and in anticipation of continuing work toward completion of the Agency MSHCP/NCCP, the parties have agreed to enter into thi.~ MOU for the purpose of: 1, Agreeing on a basis for immediate implementation of procedures which will allow species and habitats to be protected without compromi~ing measures enacted by local jurisdictions to protect the health and safety of the cimus of Riverside County. 2. Setting forth those tern which must be included in any Agency NCCP for western Riverside County which will not compromi~ measures enacted by local jurisdictions to protect the health and safety of its residents. 3. Facilitating the submission and approval of the Long-Term SKR HCP at the earliest possible date consistent with FESA and CESA; 4. Agreeing to cooperate and participate in the preparation of an Agency MSHCP/NCCP which meets the .r~.-'quirements of the NCCP Act, CESA and FESA. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: °8- DRAFT NEII2RANDUN OF UNDERSTANDING ~,896~,, I. HEALTH AND SAFETY MODIfICATIONS TO SHORT TERM SKR HCP A. INTERIM AGREEMENTNOT TO PROSECUTE: Effective immediately, incidental take of SKR and other listed species which may occur as a result of fire emergency and prevention activities shall not be prosecuted by the Service or the Department as a violation of either FESA or CESA pending execution of a cooperative agreement which has been negotiated among the County of Riverside, the RCHCA, the Service and the Depaahuent which is intended to specify the terms and conditions of incidental take resulting from fLre emergency and prevention activities. This agreement not to prosecute shall remain in effect until the cooperative agreement has been executed by each of the relevant parties, but in no event shall remain in effect longer than one year. B. LONG 'I'I~RM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT: Subject to review and agreement by the legal advisors to the Service, Deparunent, County of Riverside, the Agency and its member jurisdictions, the pwposed Cooperative Agreement and such other and further amendments to the existing permits, agreements or biological opinions, as may be necessary or convenient to comply with CES.A and FESA w permit incidental take of SKR and other listed species associated with fu'e emergency and prevention measures, shall be prepared and executed by the parties. -9- DRAFT IIEI~ORANDUI4 OF UNDERSTAND|IIG z,8964, individual plans for individual species as those species become in danger of extinction. Pursuant to the terms of the NCCP Act, approved NCCP's shall be compatible with FESA. Furthermore, the NC~CP Act provides that, after approval of a NCCP, the Department may authorize the incidental taking of any species identified in the NCCP for whose benefit habitat is conserved and managed. J. FEDERAL ENDORSEMENT OF NCCP AND INVITATION TO PARTICIPATe:: The Service has announced that it intends to cooperate with the State of California and to promote the NCCP process as a means of proactively protectinE species and their habitats. The Service and the Department have invitecl the Agency and its constituent members to participate in the NCCP process and have encouraged the Agency to prepare an NCCP. They have also encouraged the Bureau to participate in the process. K. ECOSYSTEM BASED PLANNING EffORT: The Agency and its constituent members concur with the goals of the NCCP process and have determined that the NCCP Act may provide the appropriate vehicle for the Agency and its members to provide adequate protection for its range of biological resources while at the same time safeguarding the economic, social, health, safety and property rights of its residents. To that end, the Agency has begun preliminary work toward the preparation of a habitat and ecosystem based multiple species plan ("Agency MSHCP/NCCP") which will utilize the Long Term SKR HCP as its basis, and which is intended to be consistent with the provisions of the NCCP Act. Upon completion and approval of the Long Term SKR HCP, the Agency intends to amend and expand that plan to accommodate many ottzr species, and to apply DRAFT IIF. NCI~ANDUI4 OF UliDERSTAIIQHIG for incidental take permits, prelisting agreements and such other protective assurances which may be available from the Service and the Depa~huent as a result of the implementation of such mended and expanded plan. The Bureau has announced its intention to fully cooperate and assist the Agency in the preparation and implementation of the Agency MSHCP/NCCP. L. COMPLETION OF SKR PROCESS: However, the Agency and its members have also determined that they cannot divert significant amounts of their attention, resources and money to the Agency MSHCP/NCCP until after the Long-Term SKR HCP process has been concluded. The listin~ of the SKR and the implementation of the 5KR HCP have resulted in significant public controversy, economic impacts, and public health and safety concerns. Many of these controversies, impacts and concerns may be ameliorated by the approval and implementation of the Long*Term SKR HCP. Therefore, the Agency and its members have determined that: 1. Their immediate and primary focus must be on the fmalization and approval of the Long-Term SKR HCP which is intended to provide a solid platform for muhihabitat/species preservation and that, as a result of budgetary and staff conslraints, the work necessary to fmalize and present a NCCP will not be completed until after fmalization and approval of the Long-Term SKR HCP by the Service and the Depkstment; and, 2. In the event funds are provided by state and federal sources, the Agency will be able to accelerate and complete the work necessary to submit the final Agency MSHCP/NCCP. 3. It is willing to commit to use its best efforts and work in a cooperative effort DRAFT I~I~ORANDUll OF UNDERSTANDING F. STEPHENS' KANGAROORAT: The Stephem' Kangaroo Rat ("SKR") is a species whose habitat includes land located within the jurisdiction of the Agency, and has been listed as Endangered -pursuant to the provisions of FESA and as Threatened pursuant to the provisions of CESA. The Agency has prepared and is implementing the terms of the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat ("SKR HCP"), and has been issued a Permit (PRT 739678) by the Service winch allows the incidental take of SKR pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(a) of FESA ("10(a) Permit"). In addition, based upon the terms of th~ SKR HCP, the Agency has also entered into an Agreement with, and has been issued a Permit by, the Department winch allows the take of SKR pursuant to the provisions of Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Cede ("2081 Permit"). G, LONG-TERM SKR HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN: The Agency is in the process of preparing a Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR ("Long-Term SKR HCP") winch it intends to submit to the Service and the Department. The Long-Term SK.R HCP sets forth a comprehensive long-term plan for the conservation, preservation, restoration and enhancement of the SKR and its habitat, and is intended to serve as the basis not only for long-term permits issued by and agreements with the Service and the Department winch will allow the incidental rake of SKR within the plan area as set forth in the Long-Term SKR HCP, but also for a habitat and ecosystem based conservation plan winch will be intended to provide protection for many other species. ~.896J, RESOURCE MANAGEMENTPLAN: The Bureau ha~ _recently adopted a Resource '4- 011AFT NE,qORANOUN OF UNDERSTANDING ~896~. Management Plan ("RMP") for the public lands it manages in the South Coast Resource Area, which includes western Riverside County, as well as portions of San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange and-Los Angeles counties. The RMP has been prepared to guide management of its lands with two primary objectives: 1. To address the opportunities to manage the sensitive resources and open space values of these lands and to balance the p~otection of these resources with potential uses such as recreation and mineral development; and, 2. To improve management effectiveness and efficiency through an adjustment of scattered land ownership patterns. The RMP further provides that the BLM shall endeavor to enter into cooperative partnerships with local governments to pwvide open space and habitat preservation and recreational opportunities. I. THE NCCP ACT: Subsequent to the preparation of the SKR HCP and issuance of the 10(at and 2081 Permits, and while the Agency was in the process of concluding its Long-Term SKR HCP planning process, and while the Bureau was in the process of adopting is South Coast Resource Area RMP, the State of California nnnonnc~[ its intention to promote the proactive protection of wildlife and flora and their habitats by the enactment of the Natural Communities Conservation planning Act (California Fish and Game Cede, Section 2800, et.seq.). Pursuant to that act ("NCCP Act"), local, state and federal agencies are eneouraged to prepare and implement Natural Community Conservation Plans ("NCCP's")to provide comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species and their habitats in one plan, rather than wait add later adopt many DRAFT NENORANDIN OF UNDERSTANDING This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU')is made and entered into this __ day of , 1994, by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service"),the California Department of Fish and Game ("Depa, tment"), the Bureau of Land Management ("Bureau") and the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency ("Agency"). ['FIle United States Forest Service may also be added as a party] RECITALS A. RCHCA: The Agency is a Joint Powas Authority created pursuant to the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Governmere Code of the State of California relating to the joint exercise of powers common to public agencies. The Agency was created by and among the County of Riverside and the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Hemet, Pems, Lake Elsinorc, Corona and Temecula to plan for, acquire, administer, operate and maintain land and facilities for ecosystem conservation and habitat reserves and to implement habitat conservation.plans for plants and animals which are either candidates for or listed as Threatened or Endsneered pursuant to the terms of the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq. ("FESA") and/or the California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et.seq. ("CESA*). 4896t~ B. SERVICE: The Service is the agency of the Department of Xnterior of the United States of America authorized and empowered by Congrcss to enforce the terms of FESA, and to enter into agreements with States and other entities in order to preserve and protect various ecosystems of this country and the various flora and fauns contained therein. C. DEPARTMENT: The Department is the agency of the State of California authorized and empowered by the legislature to enforce the terms of CESA, to act as trustee .of the various flora and fauna of this state on behalf of its residents, and to enter into agreements with the federal government and other entities in order to fulf~l its statutory obligations as such enforcement agency and u'ustee. D. BUREAU: The Bureau is an agency of the Department of Interior of the United States authorized and empowered by Congress to manage over 17 million acres of land owned by the Unites States within the State of California. Included among its responsibilities as land manager is the responsibility to conserve and protect the biological and nstural resource values locat~l upon the public lands, including animal and plant species and the habitats which support them. E. JOINT EFFORTS: The Agency, the Service, the Dep.~,Uuent and the Bureau thus share a common interest in sustaining the integrity of biological and natural resource systems as well as the human and economic values they support. Each of the Parties agree that the preparation and implementation of a multiple species habitat conservation plan/natural communities conservation plan as herein contemplaU:d can and should provide for protection of ecosystems and nstural resources as well as responsible economic grovah opportunities. DRAFT HEHCRANDUN OF UNDERSTANDING DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND TIIE DEVELOPMEN'r OF A MULTWLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/ NATURAL COMMUNITIF~ CONSERVATION PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT NO. 2 DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING R:\STAFFRPT\NSHCPHOU.CC 8/15/9~ klb 5 Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency City of Corona · City of Hemet · City of Lake EIsinore · City of Moreno Valley · City of Pen*is City of Riverside · City of Temecula · County of Riverside August 2,1994 Mr. Ron Bradley City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CONCERNING DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Dear Mr. Bradley, Attached is a draft Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency ("RCHCA"), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), U.S. Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), and the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") which addresses the completion of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and provides for its future amendment into a comprehensive plan intended to address all sensitive habitats and species found in RCHCA member jurisdictions within western Riverside County. During its meeting on July 21, 1994 the RCHCA Board of Directors instructed staff to distribute this MOU to all RCHCA member agencies for comment. The RCHCA Board will hold public hearings on the MOU on August 18, 1994 and September 15, 1994; in concert with this. schedule comments from the City are respectfully requested by Thursday, September 8, 1994. Such comments are requested in wdting and may be made in any format you deem appropriate. Please forward comments to my attention and I will distribute them to the RCHCA Board. Attached is a RCHCA staff report which outlines the background of the MOU and describes its provisions and benefits. Also attached is a letter from BLM District Manager Henri Bisson which states BLM's commitment to participate by including in RCHCA HCP's approximately 25,000 acres of federal land in western Riverside County. 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (909) 275-1100 Fax: (909) 275-1.105 On behalf of the RCHCA Board of Directors I would like to thank you for your consideration of this matter, I would be pleased to provide bdefings to your City Council or respond to any questions raised by staff. Executive Director Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency cc: Councilman Ron Parks ATTACHMENT NO. 1 L= I e ER FROM THE RCHCA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR R:\STAFFRPT\MSHCPI4QU,CC 8/15/9~ ktb 4 Attachments: Letter from the RCHCA Executive Director - Page 4 Draft Memorandum of Understanding - Page 5 July 21, 19~4 Staff Report to the RCHCA concerning Understanding - Page 6 the Memorandum of R:\STAFFRPT\NSHCPMOU.CC 8/15/9~ ktb 3 ITEM 27 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATFORNEY ' FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Anthony Elmo/Chief Building Official August 23, 1994 An Ordinance Regulating Construction Activity. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFYING SECTION G (1 .) OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457.73 ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN ORDINANCE NO. 90-04. TO CHANGE THE HOURS AND DAYS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS ALLOWED. 2. Set a Public Hearing of September 27, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., at 30875 Rancho Vista Rd., for the purpose of hearing any objections to a recommendation that the City Council approve a modification to Section G(1 ) of Riverside County Ordinance 457.73 changing the hours and days during which construction activity is allowed. DISCUSSION: On June 28, 1994, the City Council directed staff to re-examine the currently adopted regulations pertaining to the times for which construction activity may be undertaken. This direction came in response to increasing concern by homeowners living adjacent to construction sites over the disruption of their enjoyment of their property due to the commencement of construction activity at inappropriate times of the day. In response, the City Council, on July 12, 1994, adopted an interim emergency ordinance modifying the provisions regulating construction activity found in Riverside County Ordinance 457.73 currently adopted by the City, which provided for construction activity to begin no earlier than 6:00 A.M. and ceasing no later than 6:00 P.M. during the months of June through September. V:\TONY\AGENDA\C0NSTPH.REV 8/15/94 tda Agenda Report August 23,1994 Page 2 During the months of October through May, construction was allowed to begin no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and cease no later than 6:00 P.M. Ordinance 457.73 did not regulate construction activity on weekends or holidays. Resident concerns were generally over the early start time permitted by regulations in 457.73 and that were being implemented by certain active developers, especially when occurring on weekends.. During this interim period, staff re-examined this matter, and is returning to Council with reasonable regulations that address Councils concerns for residents and take into consideration homeowner construction projects as well as Public Works Projects. V:\TONY\AGENDA\CONSTPH.REV 8/15/~/, tda ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF 'rite CITY OF 'r~VIECULA MODLV'YING SECTION G (1.) OF RIVERSIDE COUN'I~ ORDINANCE NO. 457.73 ADOI-rEI) BY REFERENCE BY ~ CITY OF TlfaVIECULA IN ORDINANCE NO. 90-04. TO CHANGE THE HOURS AND DAYS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS AT,I,OWED. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TF_MF_.CULA DOES HEI~Y ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings: That the city of Temecula City Council hereby makes the foilowing findings; A. That it is the mission of the City of Temecula to maintain a safe, clean, healthy and orderly community; B. That it is necessary to re-examine the regulations relating to the days and times in which construction activity is undertaken; C. That it is necessary, pending conduct of such study and enactment of regulations based thereon, that modifications to Section G (1 .), of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73 be imposed pending the completion of such study; D. That if such moratorium were not imposed current regulations may compromise the public health, safety, welfare and quality of life. SECTION 2. That notwithstanding any provision of the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, during such time as this ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 6:30 A.M., Monday through Friday and only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and Holidays. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason held to be invalid, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or potion thereof regardless of whether such other section, subsection, sentence, etause, phrase, word or portion thereof regardless of whether such other section, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. V:\TONY%AGENDA\REVCONST.994 8/15/94 tda CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo - Chief Building Of~cial"'~ August 23, 1994 Ordinance Regulating Construction Activity I apologize for any inconvenience but attached is the c6rrect copy of proposed Ordinance 94- Regulating Construction Activity. A copy of the original Interim Emergency Ordinance was inadvertently submitted for inclusion in this agenda. ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFYING SECTION G (1.) OF RIVERSIDE COUN'I~ ORDINANCE NO. 457.73 ADOFrED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN ORDINANCE NO. 90-04. TO CHANGE THE HOURS AND DAYS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS ALLOWED. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I-IE~h'~Y ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following fmdings; A. That it is the mission of the City of Temecula to maintain a safe, clean, healthy and orde~y community; B. That it is necessary to re-examine the regulations relating to the days and times in which construction activity is undertaken; C. That it is necessary, pending conduct of such study and enactment of regulations based thereon, that modifications to Section G (1 .), of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73 be imposed pending the completion of such study; D. That if such moratorium were not imposed current regulations may compromise the public health, safety, welfare and quality of life. SECTION 2. That notwithstanding any provision of the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, during such time as this ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 6:30 A.M., Monday through Friday and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undemaken on Sunday and Holidays. Public Works projects of any federal, state or local entity are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of construedon activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason held to be invalid, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, .phrase, word or portion thereof regardless of whether such other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or portion thereof regardless of whether such other section, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. This is an urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 36934 and 36937Co) and shall take effect upon its adoption. This ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance because the same is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. The facts constituting the urgency are set forth in Section 1 and in that uncontrolled periods when construction activity may currently be undertaken may impact negatively on the quality of urban life and therefore this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 231h day of August, 1994. ATrF_,ST: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SF_AL] Ords\94-21 STATE OF CAT ,FFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEIVIECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 94- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 231h day of August, t994 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 231h day of August, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNC~ERS: CO~CILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNC~ERS: : June S. Greek, City Clerk Otds\94-21 DEPARTMENTAL 'REPORTS FINANCE OFFICER~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official ~ August 23, 1994 Building and Safety July 1994, Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file, DISCUSSION: The following is a summary of activity for July 1994: Building Permits Issued ............................................. 134 Building Valuation .......................................... $4,216,479 Revenue Collected .......................................... $62,992.34 Housing Starts .................................................... 21 Commercial AdditiOns/Alterations ......................... 8 -- 93,640 Sq. Ft. Building Inspections ............................................. 2,855 Weed Abatement (properties posted) ................................... 973 V:\TONY~REPORTS~JULY'94.RPT 8/15/94 tde TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning · August23,1994 Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Discussion: Caseload Activity; Receive and File The following is a summary of the Planning Department's caseload and project activity for the month of July 1994: The Department received 6 applications for administrative cases and 10 for public hearing cases for the month of July as follows: Change of Zone 1 Master Conditional Use 1 Revised Permit/w/hearing 1 Revised Tentative Tract-2yrs 1 Tentative Tract-residential not R2/R4 6 Total 10 Ongoing Projects: Old Town Specific Plan: The consuitant selection process for the West Main Street Demonstration Project is just beginning to get underway. Old Town Redevelooment Project: Staff continues to meet with Zev Buffman and Gene Hancock. The Notice of Preparation for the EIR was sent to State and Federal Agencies on July 12, 1994. The feasibility studies are expected to be completed in September. R:~MONTHLY.li~1994~JULY 8/15/94 vgw Development Code: Revisions have been completed by the consultant and will be forwarded to the Advisory Committee for more final review. Upon its recommendation, staff will schedule a joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop to formally introduce a public hearing draft of the development code. A draft zoning map will also be presented at the workshop. French-Valley Airoort: The EIR for the Facility Master Plan and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is currently being reviewed by Staff. Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: The Regional Center Specific Plan was approved at the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Environmental impact Report 340 prepared for the Regional Center was approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1993 and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1992. CamDOS Verdes Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Reoort: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were approved at the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Winchester Hills This Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report have been placed on hold by the applicant. Murdv Ranch Soecific Plan and Environmental Imoact Reoort: Applicant is in the process of responding to staff's comments on the Specific Plan. The Addendure to the EIR has been circulated for public review and the applicant is preparing the response to comments. After all of staff's concerns are addressed, this item will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Johnson Ranch Soecific Plan: The public review comment period for the EIR will end on August 29, 1994. At a workshop on April 25, 1994, the Planning Commission provided the applicant direction on the project. The applicant has continually been working with staff to address Planning Commission's concerns. Another workshop with the Planning Commission was held on July 18, 1994 where the applicant presented an amended Land Use Plan. Attachments: 1. Revenue and Status Report - page 3 R:~MONTHLY.RF~1994~JULY 8115/94 vgw ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVENUE STATUS REPORT R:~MONTHLY.RPT~1994UULY 8/15/94 vow 3 VPRIN2 715/94 001 161 :OUNT # GENERAL FUND PLANNING AMENDED FINAL PAP APPEALS CERT. OF LAND DIV. COHPLIANCE EXTENSION OF TIME SlMGLE FAMILY TRACTS MULTI-FAMILY TRACTS PARCEL MAPS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MINOR CHANGE PARCEL MERGER (2-4 LOTS) RECORDABLE SUBDIVISION RAPS REVERSION TO ACREAGE (5+LOTS) SPECIAL SERVICE LETTER SECOND UNIT PERMITS CHANGE OF ZONE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSISTENCY CHECKS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PLOT PLAN PUBLIC USE pERMIT REVISED PERMIT SETGACK ADJUSTMENT SPECIFIC PLAN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TEMORARY OUTDOOR EVENT TEMPORARY USE PERMIT VARIANCE ZONING INFORMATION LETTER CEQA (INITIAL STUO[ES) CEQA ENVIRQNENT IMPACT REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GEOLOGY CEQA GEOLOGY OPD, 547 APZ LAFCO PARCEL NAP/UAIVER MERGER AMENOED FINAL TRACT/PAR. RAP CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION CONDO TRACT MAP REVERSION TO ACREAGE LOT REVIGION AFTER CHECK LOT LINE NDJUST. PLAN CHECK CERT. OF CORRECT. PLAN CHECK CERT. OF COMPLIANCE PLAN CHECK COND. CERT. OF CONPL. PLM. CK. CERT. OF PAR, MERGER PLAN CK CITY OF TENECULA REVENUE STATUS REPORT JUNE 199/, ADJUSTED ESTIMATE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00' .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 150,000,00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 ,00 ,00 ~00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 JUNE REVENUE .00 325.00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 234. O0 .00 ,00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 4,715.00 .00 1,180,00 500.00 .00 570.00 211.00 ,00 ,00 .00 588.00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1993-94 REVENUE .00 1,300.00 1,072.13- 2,577.00 18,466.00 .00 6,724.29 1,866.00 459.00 .00 .OD .00 .00 260.00 4,715.75 11,165.00 .00 .00 14,061.75 8,594.00 3,Z23.00 1,000.00 29,525,00 5,997.00 951.00 .00 571.00 18.00 7,408.46 10,402.00 4,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 PAGE I BALANCE X COL .00 1,300.00- 1,072.13 *** 2,577.00- *** 18,466.00- .00 6,724.29- *** 1,866.00- *** 459.00- *** .00 ,00 .00 .DO 260.00- *** 4,715.75- *** 11,165.00' *** .00 .00 135,938.25 9.4 8,594.00- *** 3,22~.00- *** 1,000.00- *** 29,525.00- *** 5,997.00- *** 951.00' *** .00 571.00- *** 18.00- *** 7,408.46- *** 10,402.00- *** 4,000.00- *** .00 .00 ,00 ,00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 .00 ,00 /PRXN2 /15/94 001 161 :{2UNT # ~7 ,8 .9 ~0 ;1 5 ,6 7 19 '0 10 I0 '6 ~0 .1 · '~ .9 *0 10:45:05 GENERAL FUND PLANNING DESCRIPTION VACATIONS PLAN CK DOCUNENT PROCESSING CONDERRATION PLAN CHECK REVERSION TO ACRE. PLAN CHECK PARCEL MAP PLAN CHECK TRACT MAP pLAN CHECK AMENOED NAP PLAN CHECK 4TH & SUBS. SUBNITTALS FERA STUOY REV[EM LONAREVIEM DRAINAGE STUDY REVIEM IMPROVE INSPECTION ON-SITE K-RAT STUDY FEES FAST TRACK PLANNING FONMA FAST TRACK IN HOUSE PLAN CHECKS ANNERATION FEES TEMPORARY USE PERK|T ACCESSORY MIND ENERGY LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HAZARDOUS MASTE FACILITY LAND DIV UNIT NAP LANOSCAPE PLAN CHECK REVENUE TO DATE GENERAL FUND CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE STATUS REPORT JUNE 1994 ADJUSTED ESTIMATE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 o00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 150,000.00 150,000.00 JUNE REVENUE ,00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,140.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3,050.00 12,3G.00 12,313,00 1993-94 REVENUE .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5,000.00 .00 7,520.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,122.00 14,925.00 160,779,12 160,779,12 PAG~ 2 BALANCE K COL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5,000.00' *** .00 7,520.00- *** .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,122.00- *** 14,925.00' 10,779.12- ,,r.2 10,779.12- 107.2 VPRIN2 /15/9~ 10:45:05 GRAND TOTALS DESCR|PTZON CZTY OF TEHECULA REVENUE STATUS REPORT JUNE 1994 ADJUSTED ESTINATE JUNE REVENUE 1993-94 REVENUE PAGE 3 BALANCE ~COL REVENUE TO DATE GRAND TOTALS 150,000.00 12,313,00 12,313.00 160,779.12 160,779.12 10,T/'9,12-107.2 10,779.12- lo7.2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer August 23, 1994 Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for July, 1994. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report AUGUST, 1994 Submitted by: Tim D. Serletr~ Prepared by: Don Spagnolo~ Date: August 15, 1994 I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. Pala Community Park: The plans have been revised to reflect the proposed phasing of the construction project. On August 9, 1994, the Board of Directors approved a contract amendment between the City and the contractor reflecting the construction changes. The project includes irrigation and landscaping, a concession stand and restroom facility, basketball courts, tennis courts, volleyball courts, soccer field, picnic areas and a parking lot. Construction is scheduled to begin on August 15, 1994 and be completed by June 1995. 2. Soorts Park Slope Repair: Construction began at the end of April, 1994. The project is approximately 95% complete and includes the reconstruction of the slope below Margarita Road, the installation of an irrigation system and landscaping on the reconstructed slope, and the reconstruction of a portion of the earthen channel meandering through the park. The 90 day landscape maintenance period is expected to begin by the middle of August. 3. Loma Linda Park - Ih Construction began the end of July, 1994 and is approximately 15% complete. Construction is expected to be completed by the end of November, 1994 and consists of grading and the installation of irrigation, landscaping, play equipment and other amenities. 4. Solana Way Street Improvements: On June 20, 1994 Yeager Construction started work to widen Solana Way from Ynez Rd. to Margarita Rd. The contractor is expecting to complete the remaining minor items for the street widening by August 19, 1994. 5. Ynez Road Landscape Improvements: Construction began on June 15, 1994. The contractor is planting roses at the south end of the project and is working on the retrofit areas at Motor Car Parkway. The contractor is expecting to complete the landscaping by the end of August. pwO4~moactrpt~cip~94%Aus 08/15/94 Monthly Activity Report August, 1994 Page 2 6. Traffic Signal at Winchester Rd. (HWY. 79N) & Nicolas Rd. City Council awarded the contract to Paul Gardner Corporation at the August 9, 1994 council meeting. The project is for the construction of a temporary three-way traffic signal at the intersection of Winchester (HWY. 79N) and Nicolas Road. A pre- construction meeting is expected to take place by the first of September. 7. Traffic Signal at Rancho California Rd. & Front St. City Council awarded the contract to Paul Gardner Corporation at the August 9, 1994 council meeting. The project includes the installation of new loop detectors and striping to provide a dual left turn lane from south bound Front Street to east bound Rancho California Road. A pre-construction meeting is expected to take place by the first of September. 8. Pala Road/Route 79S Interim Imorovements The bid has been extended for 30 days to solict additional bids. Bids will be open at the end of September. 9. Lona Valley Wash Channel: The Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to Trautwein Construction on August 9, 1994 to repair a portion of the Long Valley Wash Channel. Work is expected to begin in the middle of September, 1994 and be completed by the beginning of October, 1994. Work consist of sediment removals, erosion repair and rip-rap placement within portions of the channel adjacent to Rancho California Rd. east of Calle Tajol. 10. Kent Hinteraardt Memorial Park: The Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to Malek General Contractor on July 26, 1994 to construct a concession stand and restroom facility at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. A pre construction meeting is scheduled for August 18, 1994. Construction is expected to begin prior to the end of August, 1994 and be completed prior to the end of January, 1995. The project consists of the construction of a 950 square foot concession stand and rest room facility with a 225 square foot porch. pwO4~moactrpt\cip%94\Aue 08/15/94 Monthly Activity Report August, 1994 Page 3 II. PROJECTS BEING BID: 1, Traffic Signal & Vehicle Pre-Emption Installation The bid opening for project No. PW94-05 will take place on August 25, 1994 and the construction contract is expected to be awarded at the September 27, 1994 City Council Meeting. The project includes the installation of Traffic Signal Emergency Pre- Emption equipment at four (4) signalized intersections and Vehicle Emergency Pre- Emption equipment on nine (9) Fire Department vehicles. II1. WORK IN DESIGN 1. Winchester Road Interim Ramo Improvements: On July 11, 1994 the Consultant returned the plan check comments along with the plans and specifications to Caltrans. The Consultant is anticipating that an encroachment permit will be issued to the City by Caltrans on this review. 2. Winchester Road Looo: The consultant has resubmitted the revised Project Report and plans to Caltrans for their review. 3. Liefer Road, John Warner Road. and Santiago Road: The City has selected a consultant for each of the three road projects. The consultants were selected and ranked on qualifications. Staff has notified all participants of the results. The service level R funding source for the above road projects was scheduled for a public hearing on June 14, 1994, but the City Council has recommended that an alternative source of funding be used for the above project. 4. Walcott Corridor: RBF & Associates started the design and is expected to submit the first plan check at the end of August, 5. Soorts Park Parking and Skate Board Park First plan check comments were returned to the design engineer August 2, 1994. The plans and specifications are expected to be ready for the solicitation of bids by the end pwO4\moactrpt~cip%94\Aus O8/15/94 Monthly Activity Report August, 1994 Page 4 of September, 1994. The improvements include grading, installation of irrigation, landscaping, roller hockey rink, skateboard park, sidewall~, rest room facility and parking lot. 6. Sam Hicks Monument Park Improvement Proiect The improvement plans and specifications have been submitted for first plan check comments and will be returned to the design architect August 15, 1994. The plans and specifications are expected to be ready for the solicitation of bids by October, 1994. The improvements include the construction of a 950 square foot concession stand and rest room facility, an asphalt parking lot, landscaping and irrigation improvements, and assorted park site amenities. 7. MoraQa Rd. Street Widening The Consultant is redesigning the box culvert outlet structure due to the significant changes in the existing site conditions which were created after the rains in the past year and a half. The new design should be submitted for plan check to the City by the end of August. 8. Traffic Sic~nal at Margarita Rd. & Avenida Barca On May 10, 1994 the plans and specifications were returned to Caltrans for their review. This project is Federally funded and is administrated by the State of California. This project consists of the installation of a fully actuated traffic signal, signing and striping at the intersection of Margarita Rd. and Avenida Barca. pwO4%moactrpt%cip\94%Aus 08/15/94 LAND DEVELOPMENT Monthly Activity Report Special Projects July, 1994 Submitted by: Tim D. Serlet /rc~,~-Prepared by: Raymond A. Casey Date: August 15, 1994 FEMA/OES REIMBURSEMENT: Staff is continuing to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) representatives in seeking reimbursement for costs incurred by the City due to the January 1993 floods and ensuing disaster declaration. OES has reimbursed the City a total of $246,297 to date. LIEFER ROAD/BRIDGE (PROJECT NO. PW93-02): The project has been completed. PARKVIEW SITE (PROJECT NO. PW93-09): The engineering contract was approved by City Council. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 (AD 159): The Supplemental Assessment District was approved by the Board of Supervisors for approximately $25,000,000. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 (AD 161): The Supplemental Assessment Dis:trict was presented to the Board of Supervisors hearing on July 13, 1994. The alternate district re-formation was discussed at the July 29, 1994 property owners meeting. No decision was reached at that meeting. CALLE PINA COLADA BYPASS (PROJECT N0.94-16): Staff is currently evaluating the preliminary alternative alignment study provided by the design engineer. r:%moactrpt\dev~94~july TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Tim D. Seriet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent August 1, 1994 Monthly Activity Report - July 1994 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of July 1994: I. SIGNS 11 16 10 II. VII. A. Total signs replaced B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns Ill. POTHOLES A. Total square feet of potholes repaired 47 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 0 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way .abatement 130,124 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations 27 B. Total S.F. 1,820 STENCILING A. 278 new and repainted legends B. 2,796 L.F. of red curb new and repainted C. 12,510S.F. of sandblasting/grinding 19 r:%roade\ectrpt\94%07 0811 1/94ekg MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - July, 1994 Page No. 2 Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 23 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 28 service order requests for the month of June, 1994. The M~intenance Crew has also put in 40 hours of overtime which includes standby time, P.M. surveillance (weekends only), and response to street emergencies. ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING AND STENCILING COMPANY has comoleted the foliowine: · 0 L.F. of new and repainted striping The total cost for Orange County striping services was $0.00 compared to $621.27 for June, 1994. PESTMASTER SERVICES has comz}leted the followino: · 0 sites, 0 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost $0.00 compared to $3,553.69 for June, 1994. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of July, 1994 was $2,936.00 compared to $21,494.00 for the month of June, 1994. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 $2,936.00 ~0.00 CC; Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer r:%roade%ectrpt%94%O7 O811 1/94~kg MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - July, 1994 ~ Page No. 3 STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed tl~e following I~roject for the month of December. NELSON PAVING AND SEALING Account No. 5402 Date: July 22, 1994 Rio Nedo at end of cul-de-sac Exploratory dig for street failure Total S.F. 108 Total A.C. 2 Tons Total Cost $936.00 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING '- Date: July 28, 1994 Rancho California Road between Business Park Drive and City Limits. Mechanically abated 21,120 S.F. of R.O.W. weeds. Total Cost $2,000.00 · r:\roads~actrpt~94~07 08/11/g4~kg ! i i ~I ';°°! CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED - JULY, 1994 SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG 07-05-94 07-05-94 07-05-94 07-07-94 07-11-94 07-13-94 07-13-94 07-16-94 07-18-94 07-18-94 07-19-94 07-20-94 07-21-94 07-25-94 07-25-94 07-26-94 07-26-94 07-26-94 07-27-94 07-27-94 07-27-94 07-28-94 07-28-94 29836 Villa Alturas 31520 Jedediah Smith Road La Serena E/O Veterans Park 42690 Rio Nedo Way 41884 Borealis Drive Villa AIturas 45335 Clubhouse N. Gen'l Kearney ~ Sierra Way 6th Street L~ Front Street Rancho Vista & Santa Ana 41660 Big Sage 41080 Via Halcon Solaria Way WB E/O Skywood Rancho Calif. Rd. @ Butterfield Stage 45521 Classic Way 31849 Camino Marea Santa Gertrudis Creek 31100 Tecomsen Court 28696 Via Montezuma 28696 Via Montezuma S.W. E of Bridge - Pala Road 41080 Via Halcon 30340 Colina Verde Red curb painted Channel cleaning Sand bags ripped open Erosion Root prune tree Clean up mud and water (R.C.W.D.) Request for tree trimming Missing manhole cover Debris Graffiti Tree leaning against gazebo Tree trimming Loose manhole cover Raised sidewalk Tree trimming Tree leaning on property Black Water flowing and bad odor Trees not growing Odor in drain Plugged catch basin Tree trim Tree trimming Graffiti 07-06-94 07-06-94 07-O6-94 07-07-94 07-11-94 07-13-94 07-13-94 07-16-94 07-18-94 07-18-94 07-19-94 07-20-94 07-22-94 07-26-94 07-26-94 07-26-94 07-27-94 07-27-94 O7-28-94 07-27-94 07-27-94' 07-28-94 07-28-94 TOTAL S.O.R'S 23 DATE 07-14-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 37-14-94 07-14-94 07-19-94 07-21-94 07-22-94 37-27-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED - JULY, 1994 TREE TRIMMING LOCATION ' I . WORK COMPLETED Solana Way W/O Del Rey Road Trimmed I tree Margarita S/O Moraga Road Trimmed 5 trees Margarita S/O Ave. Barca Trimmed I tree Margarita ~ Southern Cross Trimmed I tree Calle Medusa (~ Riverton Trimmed I tree Del Rey Road @ Ave. del Resposo Trimmed I tree Clubhouse (~ Tournament Trimmed 2 trees Rancho Vista N/O Southern Cross Trimmed 1 tree 41080 Via Halcon Trimmed 2 trees Rancho Calif. Road EB W/O Trimmed I tree Moraga Road Pala Road SB W/O Rainbow Trimmed 3 trees Canyon Road TOTAL TREES TRIMMED 19 I! -1- pw03~roads\wkcrnpltd%07,tre 0~0494 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED - JULY, 1994 STREET STENCILING 07-05-94 Area #1 Grind & See Daily for locations. repainted 07-06-94 Area #1 Grind & See Daily for locations. repainted 07-07-94 Area #1 Grind & See Daily of locations. repainted 37-18-94 Lake Village Work Order Installed 07-18-94 Area #2 Grind & See Daily for locations. repainted 07-19-94 Area #2 Grind & See Daily for locations. repainted 07-20-94 Area #2 Grind & See Daily for locations. rel~ainted 37-21-94 Area #2 Grind & See Daily for locations; repainted 37-25-94 Lake Village Work Order Installed 07-25-94 Area #4 Repainted See Daily for locations. 37-26-94 Area #4 Repainted See Daily for locations. 37-26-94 Area #1 Repainted See Daily for locations. 37-27-94 Area #1 See Daily for locations. Repainted 37-28-94 Area #1 See Daily for locations. Repainted 24 Legends 36 Legends 20 Legends 1,050 L.F. of Red Curb. 23 Legends 31 Legends 17 Legendes 15 Legends 1,746 L.F. of Red Curb 14.5 Legends 21 Legends 16 Legends 50 Legends 10 Legends 278 NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 2.796 RED CURB NEW & REPAINTED 12.510 SAND BLASTING/ GRINDING DATE 07-01-94 07-05-94 07-08-94 07-08-94 37-12-94 ~)7-12-94 37-12-94 37-14-94 37-19-94 37-19-94 ~)7-19-94 ~7-26-94 ~)7-28-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL - JULY, 1994 LOC:ATION WORK COMPLETED Santiago-Ynez-Pauba Removed 319 S.F. of Graffiti Pauba E/O La Primavera Removed 48 S.F. of Graffiti Corte Cabera Park Removed 52 S.F. of Graffiti Fspirito ~ Arearite Way Removed 54 S.F. of Greffiti Corte Cabera Park Removed 45 S.F. of Graffiti Margarita S/O Removed 15 S.F. of Graffiti Santiago 30551 Pauba Road Removed 25 S.F. of Graffiti Amarita Way ~ Via Manzo Removed 26 S.F. of Graffiti Ynez Road @ Bus Stop Removed 32 S.F. of Graffiti Ynez Road (~ Soup Exchange Removed 280 S.F. of Graffiti Calle Santa Anna Removed 40 S.F. of Graffiti Community Center (Pujol) Removed 864 S.F. of Graffiti Pala Road W/OPrimavera Removed 20 S.F.of Graffiti TOTAL ~7 LOCATIONS TOTAL S.F. 1.820 -l- pw03~o~ds~wbmplta'~4~07.Graf~ti 080394 DATE 07-05-94 07-13-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 37-14-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 07-14-94 37-14-94 37-15-94 :)7-15-94 37-15-94 07-15-94 37-18-94 37-21-94 37-21-94 :)7-22-94 :)7-26-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETE - JULY, 1994 LOCATION Pujol L~ Main Street N.E.C. Moreno ~ Front Winchester @ City limit Solana W/O Del Rey Road Margarita N/O Solana Way La Serena N/O Pina Colada Calle Medusa @ Everest Place Calle Medusa @ Chauncey Way Margarita @ Hwy, 79 So. La Paz S/O Ynez Road Rancho Vista @ Linfield School Pala Road ~ Loma Linda Rancho Calif. Rd. E/O Ynez Road Rancho Way @ Ynez Road Pauba @ Villa Alturas 41080 Via Halcon Meadows @ Pauba Road Rancho Calif. Rd,EB E/O From Ave. de La Reina SIGNS WORK COMPLETED Replaced Replaced Installed Replaced Repaired Installed Replaced Replaced Installed Repaired Replaced Installed Replaced Replaced Installed Replaced Replaced Repaired Road Closure Maintenance R-1 "T.C." Ro18-2 "T.C." New Population Sign R-2 "45" "Graffiti" R-2 "45" 4 Carsonites "Missing" R-2 "25" "T.C." W-17 "EGG" S.N.S. "Missing" R-2 "35" W-66 "Damaged" 4 Carsonites W-57 Type "N" "Missing" R-1 "T.C.' 4 R-26 2 R-81 R-1 "Graffiti" R-1 "Missing" W-41 (Replace Bolts) Unfreeze 7 removable posts TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 11 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 16 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 1 (I DATE 37-05°94 :)7-05-94 :)7-05-94 :)7--06-94 :)7-11-94 :)7-12-94 :)7-13-94 :)7-13-94 :)7-14-94 :)7-20-94 :)7-21-94 ~7-26-94 ~7-27-94 )7-27-94 ~7-28-94 :)7-28-94 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION WORK COMPLETED - JULY, 1994 WEED ABATEMENT - I LOCATION Pals Road @ Wolf Abated Valley Pals Road @ Loma Abated Linda Pals Road @ 79 S. Abated Bridge Jedediah Smith W/O Abated Margarita Ynez Rd. N/O Town Abated Center Ynez Road btwn Motor Abated Car Pkwy. & Winchester Ynez Road S/O Abated Winchester Vallejo Channel Abated Vallejo Channel Abated Vallejo Channel Abated Margarita @ Hwy. 79S Abated Rancho Calif. Rd. W/B Abated Lyndie Lane Rancho Calif. Rd. Btn. Abated Lyndie Lane & Cosmic Pals Rd. SB N/O Abated Rainbow Canyon Rancho Calif. Rd. EB Abated W/O Cosmic Pals Road S/O Loma Abated Linda WORK COMPLETED 1 ,O00 1,500 3,000 2,500 30,344 21,100 26,020 2,000 10,000 12,200 1,300 2,500 10,560 500 5,000 600 S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.w. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F.of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. We S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of RoO.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds 130.124 TOTAL S. F. -l- pwO3~roads\wbmpltd\94~T/.Weed~ 080394 TRAFFIC DIVISION Monthly Activity Report For July, 1994 Submitted by: Tim D. Serlet~ Prepared by: Marry Lauber/'~,~ Date: August 9, 1994 TRAFFIC REQUESTS Received 10 9 3 Completed 11 6 12 Under investigation 9 11 6 Scheduled for Traffic Commission 2 1 2 II. DIVISION PROJECTS: Completed the Suggested Route to School Exhibit for Vail Elementary School. This exhibit was approved by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at the meeting of July 28, 1994. The exhibit was provided to the Temecula Valley Unified School District for their use as a major component of a complete school area pedestrian safety program. Requested Caltrans to conduct a Traffic and Engineering survey of SR 79(S) between I-15 and Pala Road to determine the appropriate posted speed limit. Caltrans agreed to preform this analysis after the installation of all-way stops at both ramps at I-15. Finalized the Traffic Division's Policy No. 03 - Roadway End Treatment. This policy recommends the deletion of Standard Drawing No. 604A and modifications to Standard Drawing No. 604, to incorporate Traffic Engineering concerns. This was approved by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission on July 28, 1994. Submitted final plancheck to Caltrans for the Traffic Signal at Margarita Road and Avenida Barca. The Jefferson Avenue Subcommittee of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission had its forth meeting. We discussed our updated collision diagram, Traffic Signal warrants for Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road/Enterprise Circle, and signal coordination through the Winchester Interchange. Received approval of a $40,000 gram from the Office of Traffic Safety for a Traffic Device Inventory. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM i APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT 'General Manager/Board of Directors Mary Jane Mc[.arney, Finance Officer August 23, 1994 Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994. Appropriate $7,100 to account 191-180-999-5319"Street Lighting" (Service Level A Fund}. Appropriate $4,842 to account 250-190-129-5227 "Trustee Administration Fees" (Capital Projects Fund). Appropriate 9128,864to account 250-190-129-5802"Design-Community Recreation Center" (Capital Projects Fund). DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the TCSD for the year ended June 30, 1994. Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity. An additional appropriation of 97,100 is needed in the Service Level A budget to cover street lighting costs for 1993-94 in excess of the budgeted amount. An additional appropriation of $4,842 is needed in the Capital Projects budget to cover the cost of administration fees paid to Bank of America (the fiscal agent for the proceeds of the Certificates of Participation). The administration fees were collected directly by Bank of America from investment earnings of the COP proceeds, An additional appropriation of $128,864 is needed in the Capital Projects budget to cover the cost of specific city salaries and benefits which were allocated to the CRC project budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT: 1. As is reflected by the attached financial statements, adequate reserves are available in Service Level A to cover the $7,100 additional appropriation being requested. 2. Adequate development impact fees have already been transferred to the Capital Projects Fund and are available for appropriation. ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Community Services Board of Directors Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager August 23, 1994 Contract Change Order No. 3 Sports Park Slope Repair Project No. PW93-06.CSD PREPARED BY: ~::)~;hawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services l?~;Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects Dennis Armstrong, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve Contract Change Order No. 3 for the Sports Park Slope Repair, Project No. PW93-06.CSD, for labor, material, and equipment in the amount of $4,830.00. Transfer $4,830.00 from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriate this amount to the Capital Improvement Fund. BACKGROUND: During the construction of the Sports Park Slope Repair Project the following item of work has resulted in the final change to the contract: CHANGE ORDERNO. 3 Erosion RePair: Several deep rivulets were exposed while clearing and grubbing the portion of the slope below Margarita Road that lies above a retaining wall. The slope above the retaining wall is scheduled to be irrigated and landscaped, however, it is not a part of the slope reconstruction portion of the project. The rivulets need to be repaired before irrigating and landscaping this portion of the slope. The repairs include removing the eroded material from the existing concrete bench drain at the toe of the slope and clearing the drain boxes and pipes of soil. SUBTOTAL: $4,830.00 TOTAL:S4,830.00 pw13\agdrpt~94\O823\pw93*O6 081294 FISCAL IMPACT: The original contract was awarded in the amount of $223,445.00. Contract Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 were approved for a total amount of 994,827.04. Contract Change Order No. 3 will increase the adjusted contract by an amount not to exceed $4,830.00. The total adjusted contract amount for the project is 9323,102.04. An amount of 94,830.00 must be transferred from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriated to the Capital Improvement Fund to cover the balance of Change Order No. 3. The original reimbursement estimate prepared by FEM A in conjunction with the City totals $27,626.68 (DSR #'s 65754 and 91879). The City is eligible for a reimbursement from FEMA and the State of up to 93.75% of the costs associated with the repair of the channel and reconstruction of slope for a total of 925,900.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract Change Order No. 3 pw13\agdrpt~94~0823~pw93-06 083294 CONTRACTCHANGE ORDERNO. 3 CONTRACTNO. PW93-06CSD PROJECT: ~oorts Park Slope Reoair SHEET I of I TO CONTRACTOR: American Contractino, Inc. NOTE: This chanae order is not effective until aDDroved by the Enoineer. THIS CHANGE PROVIDES FOR: An INCREA~;E in the following items: Erosion Repair: Several deep rivulets were exposed while clearing and grubbing the portion of the slope below Margarita Road that lies above a retaining wall. The slope above the retaining wall is scheduled to be irrigated and landscaped, however, it is not a part of the slope reconstruction portion of the project. The rivulets need to be repaired before irrigating and landscaping this portion of the slope. The repairs include removing the eroded material from the existing concrete bench drain at the toe of the slope and clearing the drain boxes and pipes of soil. SUBTOTAL: $4,830.00 TOTAL: $4r830.0(~ Original Contract Amount Adjusted Contract Amount Change Order No. 03 Total Adjusted Contract Amount' $223,445.00 $318,272.04 (Notto Exceed Amount)-$4,830.00 $323,102.04 Adjustment of Working Days Approved: Principal Engr. 5 We the undersigned contractor have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree. If this proposal. is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above. [ (prin If the contractor does not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the requirements of the specifications as to proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein specified. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROV CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager DATE: August 23, 1994 SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: '~hawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services DISCUSSION: On August 4, 1994 City and Fire Department staff interviewed prospective consultants for design services for the improvements at the Parkview site. Staff is currently in negotiations with the top ranked firm. It is anticipated that we will reach agreement on the final Scope of Work and compensation within a few weeks and be prepared to recommend to the Board that we enter into a contract for these services. The project will provide a fire station on the east side of the 15 Freeway and passive park amenities on the site. Staff is preparing a Request for Qualifications to solicit the design services of a Landscape Architect for the Master Plan of the Margarita Road parksite. Development of this 20 acre site will provide additional active/passive parkland to the City's park system. A meeting between City staff and the Temecula Valley Unified School District has been scheduled for the end of August to discuss joint use and lighting of the sports fields at Temecula Middle School. We 'anticipate reaching an agreement on construction, usage and maintenance issues. Staff will then prepare a Request for Qualifications for the design services of a Civil Engineer. Loma Linda Park Project - phase II is under construction and scheduled for completion in mid- October. It will then enter into a 90 day maintenance period and be open to the public by mid- January. The second phase will increase the parkland by approximately one acre and includes a tot lot, open play areas, picnic facilities, landscaping and irrigation. The slope repair project at the Rancho California Sports Park is nearing completion. The contractor is installing plant material on the slopes, finalizing clean up of the site and addressing punchlist items from the City. Upon satisfactory completion of these items, the project will enter a 90 day maintenance period. The contractor has signed the contract and provided bonds and evidence of insurance for the construction of the restroom/snack bar at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. A pre-construction meeting is scheduled for August 18, 1994. A Notice to Proceed will be issued shortly thereafter with construction estimated to take 90 working days. Plans for Sam Hicks Monument Park have been through first plan check and the consultant is making the required revisions for the second submittal. The museum is moving forward on its portion of the project and anticipates their first submittal for plan check will occur in about three months. The Rancho California Sports Park Improvement Project plans have also been through first plan check and staff anticipates the second submittal will be made prior to the end of August. Development of the 10 acre site will complete the improvements to the northeast corner of the Park at Rancho Vista and Margarita Roads. The improvements will include parking, picnic facilities, a roller hockey rink, a skateboard facility, restroom/concession building, landscaping and irrigation system. The biological study for the Rancho California Desiltation Lake is completed and the report will be issued in about two weeks. Staff is working with the Soil Conservation Service in anticipation of obtaining additional Federal grant funding to help complete this project. At the conclusion of our Summer Aquatic Program in August, the Community Services Department will begin our Fall Aquatic activities on September 6, 1994. This program will have public swim hours on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, and morning lap swim and aqua exercise classes through the month of November. Our Summer Day Camp program, held at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, is now entering its fifth and final session. The camp continues to attract its maximum capacity of 47 youngsters per session ages 5-12 years. Camp participants have had a great summer of organized games, swimming, art projects, tournaments and field trips to Knotts Berry Farm, Camelot Golf Land, Raging Waters, Ice Skating, and the San Diego Zoo. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL~R~~~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer August 23, 1994 Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Agency Members: Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994. Transfer $15,377 to account 280-199-999-5246" Legal Services" from account 280- 199-999-5264 "Economic Development". Transfer $67,236 to account 380-199-999-5231 "Property Tax Administration Fees" from account 380-199-999-5391 "Interest Expense". DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Redevelopment Agency for the year ended June 30, 1994, Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity, m The $15,377 transfer is needed to cover 1993-94 legal costs which exceeded the budgeted amount. The $67,236 transfer is needed to cover the property tax administration fee charged by the County of Riverside for the 1993-94fiscal year. This fee was withheld by the County from the Agency's final tax increment payment of the fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: None. Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994 > E L) ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Board Members Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer August 23, 1994 Approval of RDA Commercial Small Business Loans RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members approve an RDA small business loan to Scarcella's Pizza and Pasta and Ladd Penfold. DISCUSSION: The City has received two (2) applications to improve the property located at 28545 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590. The property is currently vacant. 1) Scarcella's Pizza and Pasta loan request is in the amount of $120,000 over a 5 year term to finance the acquisition of equipment for a new restaurant. The business is owned by Joseph A. Scarcella and Patricia K. Scarcelia. 2) Ladd and Marge Penfold's loan request is for tenant improvements in the amount of $30,000 for the tenant, Blind Pig Brewery, which will be amortized over a five-year (5) period. An additional amount of $168,000 will be for construction and remodeling of the existing building which will be amortized over a fifteen (15) year period, for a total loan request of $198,000. The loan will be secured by a first trust deed on the property. The loans are an exception to the $100,000maximum guideline, but are recommended by our independent loan committee consisting of a local bank officer and a certified public accountant. In addition, the funds will be used to rehabilitate a currently vacant building in old town. FISCAL IMPACT: To date the City has funded $109,400 in Redevelopment loans. Attachment: RDA Loan Recipient Table DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Cc .-(7) Ce-u-K� Y August 2 , 1994 To : Temecula City Council From: Stacey Tescier I recently attended your public scoping meeting regarding the Old Town Redevelopment Project . I spoke near the end of the meeting and, based on the response I received both in the building and in the parking lot after the meeting, I know I 'm not alone in my con- cerns. I have enumerated these concerns below: 1 . Traffic: The Californian has reported that Mr . Buffman estimates that 10, 000 people will visit Temecula per weekend . If he is correct, we will have additional major traffic problems not only on surface streets, but also on the freeways and freeway off- ramps . Envision 2,000 to 5, 000 more cars or 100 to 200 buses getting off the Rancho California and/or Highway 79 off ramps at show time. Cal Trans will have to reduce our freeway speed to 55 and the freeway exits will have to be closed on peak days . I lived near Magic Mountain and I worked at Disneyland , and I can personally attest to the fact that it is a traffic night- mare when they close freeway exits and reroute traffic. We don ' t have a lot of off-ramp options if key ramps are closed . 2 . Noise : When you have 10, 000 extra people, with their cars and/ or buses, you will have additional noise. Old Town Temecula is next to a mountain, which helps to echo noise over the entire valley. 3 . Air Quality: These 10, 000 tourists per weekend will come either by car or bus . The additional cars and buses provide the poten- tial for major smog problems . It has been proven that mobil sources--cars , buses , trucks , airplanes, motorcycles , etc. -- represent by far the largest generator of air pollutants in our South Coast Air Quality Management District . 4. Parking : The project shows a potential need for more than the 4,000 proposed additional parking spaces . Whatever the number , the lots will probably be asphalt or concrete, neither of which absorb water. This brings me to concern number five . 5 . Floods : The entire project will be located in a flood plain , and if the recent Temecula experience isn ' t enough to cause concern, the recent flooding in the south and east certainly should cause concern . People there built their homes in a flood plain and probably thought the water would never rise above their door step, much less their roof line . 6 . Earthquakes : The project will be located on the Lake Elsinore fault line, which has the capability of a magnitude 6 earthquake . Stacey Tescier Page 2 The recent Northridge earthquake, with millions of dollars in damage, was on an unknown fault line with a magnitude 6 .7 . 7 . Hospitals : There are two major hospitals in the immediate area . In the event of a major earthquake, the two freeway overpasses at Murrieta Hot Springs Road could collapse, thus eliminating the freeway access from Temecula to Sharp or Inland Valley hospitals . Branson, Missouri has had a shortage of hospital beds for their citizens due to the large number of tourists . 8 . Water : There is still a water shortage in California , and the lack of recent snow pack could mean reverting back to water rationing in the near future. Assume that the additional tourists will stay in hotels, eat in restaurants , and use our facilities . All of this will utilize water. The hotels will need water to wash linens , and for the guests to bathe, use the facilities , and possibly eat in the restaurants . The restaurants will need water to prepare food , wash dishes , and to serve drinking water. Although the Water District says getting additional water will be no problem, there will be additional expenses involved in getting this water. We will ultimately all share in that expense. 9 . Landfills : The 10,000 additional tourists per weekend will generate additional rubbish, and you may need to find additional landfill locations . If additional landfill sites are required, all citizens will again have to share in this expense. In addition , you may have a hard time meeting the state mandated 25% waste reduction quota . 10. Open Spaces : This valley is beautiful , and the remaining open spaces will be gone forever if this project is allowed to take place. The very thing 90% of the population moved here for will be a thing of the past . 11 . Police and Fire Protection: There will be a need to increase police and fire personnel . This will cost additional money. Tourist towns have increased crime . Tourists don ' t have the same respect for a town, or a town ' s laws , as the town ' s citizens . 12 . The Industrial Park: You have worked hard at getting the indus- trial section of Temecula established . You will be bringing additional major traffic to the west side of the freeway. These business people have invested money and time bringing their companies and employees to Temecula . They will be asked to endure horrendous rush-hour traffic and access to their businesses with thousands of tourists--who will not be utilizing these businesses . 13 . New Hotels : If you allow two new hotels to be built--700 new rooms--before the entire project proves to be a success or a • Stacey Tescier Page 3 failure , you will be discriminating against the current hotel/ motel owners . The newer hotels might survive if the project fails , the older ones may not . 14. Palomar Observatory: All proposed outdoor lighting systems must comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Obser- vatory recommendations dated July 29 , 1985 . This could be a potential problem. 15 . Concessions : I see little difference in giving redevelopment money to one developer, Zev Buffman, versus another developer , Wal-Mart . ( I was also against Wal-Mart receiving city con- cessions , ) 16 . Disclosure Statements : How will this project affect local real estate transactions? Will the future homeowners and industrial park tenants be told there is a potential for 10, 000 tourists each weekend? The project will affect the quality of life in this valley, which is a very important consideration when people consider relocating in this area . 17 . Boundaries of the Project : The map shown at the scoping meeting on June 23 differs from the one the city gave me on July 29 . The new map shows the boundaries on both sides of the freeway, and extending all the way to the Murrieta border . This will directly affect at least four already conjested freeway off- ramps . The proposed Black Angus site is included in the new map, and a few weeks ago you were hesitant to- approve their plan to build at the corner of Rancho California and Ynez because of traffic concerns. 18 . Addition of Projects : No mention was made at the June 23 scoping meeting of your latest entertainment component , the outdoor "quick-draw" , try-not-to-get-"killed" competition. I question this type of "entertainment" and the fact that you are adding to the project before the feasibility study has been completed . 19 . Kemper ' s Land : Where are the 11 ,000 acres Kemper plans to develop along with Zev Buffman and Gene Hancock ' s development? Is Kemper ' s land included in the current boundaries of the project or are we looking at an additional 11 , 000 acres of development? 20 . Old Town Specific Plan : The Old Town Temecula Specific Plan, adopted in February, 1994 after countless hours of work by citizens and city staff members , has as one of its policies to discourage major lot consolidation and development which encourages large single-user tenants on lots greater than 50 , 000 square feet . Will a Wild West arena designed to seat 4 , 800 people be built on a lot smaller than 50 ,000 square feet? 21 . "Done Deal " : Many people have advised me not to waste my time because this is a "done deal . " They could be correct . On page II-13 of the Old Town Specific Plan I purchased last week, there is a policy that was not printed in the first issues sold . Stacey Tescier Page 4 This policy addition states : Promote the development of Old Town in a manner consistent with the Plan and Memorandum of Understanding between City of Temecula and Zev Buffman . When was this policy added to the Old Town Specific Plan? 22 . Sales Tax Sharing Agreement : How will this project affect the sales tax sharing agreement you adopted with the city of Murrieta at a March 30, 1993 meeting? 23 . Recession: We are in a serious recession, and Riverside County has been one of the hardest hit areas in the nation. The vacancy rate in commercial buildings is at an all-time high. A Los Angeles Times article dated July 11 , 1994 says that even Disney has scaled back plans to expand next to Disneyland . Attendance at Disneyland and at Walt Disney World in Florida "has been sagging" , and the Disneyland project, already two years behind its original schedule because of the recession, "remains too financially risky to build . " (Copy of the article is attached. ) 24. "Music Capital of the West" : This is Zev Buffman ' s goal , and I have to assume you have the same goal or you wouldn ' t put $125 , 000 into a study or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Mr . Buffman. This goal is what concerns me the most . In an article written by Carl Love of the Press Enterprise, Buffman says he knows how to work with the bureaucrats and the music industry big shots to make sure this is a great place to visit and live. He is also quoted in Angela Gliser ' s January 16 , 1994 article in the Calif- ornian as saying, " . . . the whole western U.S. doesn ' t have a Music Capital . There is Nashville and there is Branson but now there is Temecula. " This same article states that Buffman feels Old Town will attract a million tourists its first year. I 'm very concerned that he has the power to control the destiny of this beautiful valley by making Temecula the Music Capital of the West . Branson, by the way, has a much smaller population, and it is not located near three major airports . It is located one hour south of a small airport in Springfield, Missouri . Temecula is within an hour ' s drive of the San Diego, John Wayne, and Ontario air- ports . If Branson can attract 5 . 5 million tourists with music as their only draw, think what Temecula could attract . That ' s a scary thought to me . Most people moved to this valley to get away from other densely populated areas , to get away from crime , to get away from bumper-to-bumper traffic, and to provide their family with a better quality of life . This project would change all of that . Branson began with Roy Clark opening a music theatre in "Old Town Branson. " The old town section quickly outgrew the crowds and the building started in the town outskirts . They cut down woods , dug out rolling hills , and built hundreds of motels , gas stations , hotels , theatres , restaurants , strip malls , etc . The building is still going strong today, so much so that OSHA Stacey Tescier Page 5 inspectors can ' t keep up with the growth. It is a great place to visit--except for the impossible traffic, but you would not want to live there. Not one person spoke in favor of this project at the public scoping meeting. There were a lot of unanswered questions . How much will this cost? Who will pay for all these costs? Where is it going to be built? Who pays if it fails? Was the EIR written by an impartial party? Has another city undertaken such a project? The answer to this last question was, "we don ' t know of any. " They indicated that Branson was too small to make a comparison . The Californian said it best: "If Temecula is to become the music capital of the West, there should be evidence that the people here support the idea. It could change the future of this young city forever . And that ' s just the kind of decision that merits a citywide referendum. " I certainly agree--it should be voted on by the public. Please don ' t just look at the potential sales tax dollars . Think of what you have to gain, but more importantly, think of what you have to lose . Sincerely, Stacey Tescier cc : Murrieta City Council Californian Press Enterprise • ■ A lal against the ENTERTAIN! IT . coun • a#i fro Blockbuster Pavilion concerts is put on hold until i� 1 after the Eagles concert. Eagles ticket • By DAVID WAHLBERG Sun Staff Writer 2 3 1994 prices soar rP Blockbuster Pavilion can take By DAVID WAHLBERG• it to the limit at this spring's Ea- Sun Staff Writer gles concert. Friends of Glen Helen, who If you bought a front sued Blockbuster and San Ber- row ticket early this month nardino County three weeks ago to see the Eagles at the over audience size and traffic Blockbuster Pavilion, you problems at the outdoor Devore paid$115. amphitheater, agreed this week Want a front row ticket not to consider seeking a court in- now? Absolute Tickets of junction until after the Eagles Los Angeles has them for a show June 3. mere $750. So does Barry's • "We're not out there to hurt Tickets of Los Angeles. any concertgoers," said Helen Ticket scalpers are des- Kopczynski, leader of Friends of perados in Alan DeZonit Glen Helen, a group of residents eyes — especially when t • from Devore, Lytle Creek and comes to Blockbuster's Ea • - San Bernardino. gles show on June 3. "I'm very glad they've taken "It doesn't make me oc happy," said this position," said Alan DeZon, BlockbusterDeZon,- Blockbuster general manager. general Blockbusterman- "We'll do everything possible to ager.m "It's not unsuai for "r them justify their faith in us." to charge three times In the suit,the group said that the regular price." the countyIt's also not unusual for is violating a set - rt people to buy tickets at a tlement from a previous suit that trumped-uprate. allows only 16,800 people per Mike Ganino of Norco concert until an interchange is built off Interstate 15 at Devore seats,advertised two $18th-row Road. seats, each for $350, in Blockbuster sold 35,000 tick- newspapers Thursday - morning. Both sold barely ets for the Eagles show. County officials said temporary rams after sunrise. built off I-15 at Glen Helen Road It's legalsfor in Californiahto : this winter should accommodate sell tickets a high fee off concert premises.But it's il- 1 � `� '� the extra traffic.The interchange legal to scalp on site. &iJ r�Ci^�.�>'C • � is expected to open next spring. Blockbuster limits each ' - "We are hoping that the coun- buyer to six tickets for most • ty recognizes they have a legal concerts,DeZon said.In an- document that needs addres- ticipation of an Eagles I _) sing," Kopczynski said, explain- scalping spree,the company - ing why the lawsuit was filed. But Friends of Glen Helen de- reduced the limit to four. cided Wednesday to see how the "We did everything"But we - temporary ramps handle traffic these h se,s DeZon said. L. at the Eagles show before decid- of kids scalpers hire a buybthe - ing whether to push for curtailing limit." to go and the . j crowds at concerts. Blockbuster sold Eagles - "(The Eagles concert) might tickets for$35 to $115. The :. I / > .., be the proof in the pudding," rates now—$70 to$750. Kopczynski said. "Maybe it will Ticket prices have / prove or disprove the adjust- jumped since scalpers sold ments of the road system." tickets to Barbra Strei- • Said Jim DeAguilera, an at- sand's New Year's Eve show = I torney representing Friends of in Las Vegas for 1,000. Glen Helen: "If the traffic is real- Said DeZon: "I hope it • ly bad, our chances of getting an doesn't get worse." injunction would improve." 1 No other scheduled concerts i are expected to draw 35,000 peo- leave them — on concert nights. pie this year,DeZon said. But big Attendance averaged 8,000. —a----,- acts such as Elton John and Janet County officials have said that Jackson are possible. once the interchange is open, the Some area residentshad•com- amphitheater could handle plained during Blockbuster's de- 65,000 people a show. but season last year that they Kopczynski isn't convinced. couldn't get to their homes —or "It's not going to be sufficient." I ii A Gv . i-+. >bs'¢ z` s 1±,.tiv a �. 's•4 t 3 41 . , 1.. ;-l t1;Ft�.l i vel ti :SF's, ,r ', K 0 .0.Ys y . J .,r..; 4'�� ;r:5 �r}a..AJ •ur. Y �I. k,r,•n ��,"�, �$` p .�k' f ex ansionplan worries` residentsIflockbusterp • 1 'U:Residents fear the move almost got her arrested. So Ferguson hung a U-turn in could have them trapped inside, t year's She drove home.__ front of the officer, figuring he'd or outside,their homes—again. The Verdemont resident was have to abandon his post to arrest "It's irritating when you want di.�•., r - 'avllion on Palm Avenue, trying to turn. her in her driveway. He didn't. to leave and you have a problem a en•ance may cause an north on Kendall Drive, where But it was an unpleasant encoun- getting out, and then it takes you unbearable traffic crunch. she lives. A California Highway ter — one Ferguson and other twice as long to get back in,"Fer- Patrol Officer directing a stream residents near the Pavilion hope guson said. By CAROL BAKER �p� of Pavilion-bound traffic east on won't be repeated this year. San Bernardino County su- SunStaff Writer 9 .1 Palm to Cajon Boulevard pervisors are expected to give fi- ftb wouldn't let Ferguson go her own They are concerned that the nal approval to the expansion on v ,One night last summer, as way—even after she told him her county's move to increase last Tuesday. They say major road hundreds of cars full of concert- house was just up the road. year's attendance at the Pavilion improvements and temporary oers edged toward the Block- "He said, 'If you don't get by up to 18,200 more concert ramps at Interstate 15 and Glen buster Pavilion, Teri Ferguson going, lady, I'm going to arrest goers on some nights will cause Helen Road should accommodate Eornmitted an act of defiance that you.' " an unbearable traffic crunch,and See BLOCKBUSTER/A9 conttnuetoin Al—`- BLOCKBUSTER TEMPORARY the'elctra`et•affic`after the concert EXPANSION INTERCHANGE ':':<':'::' season opens in late April. :,::: ,::; ............. Some residents re doubtful. > B U p:>< > > > > » "The system they have now Would mitigateate what the had last irY:.i .:` iAs a <; year attendance but it's not $i. : ,:: «•M>:'>L . going to mitigate increased atten- '� :: _ �o: , {o:;; j` dance,"Lytle Creek Canyon resi- ,M6,$00 ; < ; : :Q ' k . y: dent Norm Getchell said. :::Grass : "'"':'' BOrsouSTE , R .:> » < :::: > PAVII LON >: > :.::Other traffic management i . . ; : < ; v > > > . ;>iii::;< . :...:: • : en,..:::::,:::::,,,,,:,:::::::::::::,.:-.Ptans includeholding ::*: . i:ix:Ki:::, ;{ :;;;: :.;;ii::;:::.,; ><rLenke::>Ga :$ >> < > � < : : :� > ><`:' : ;<:: P:: >:: meetings so that officers on Pavil .. . ::.• � •. ,:>::;:; :.i..;:: . «:: ; > ::::> a on arks?<<::z ::> z ::i:i r ::Y`i; ;i ' yai:it< : .. ion dutycan reviews specific rob7r', :`i ;;i$ . : .: ........::: : : : ; : • -6 CV .. PERMANENT ;; ]ems antici ated at each concert. 6. 0. ............ P The county tY also plans s to INTERCHANGE E « >»<>:<:::«:><> �`• spread the word in Verdemont, ``44.44' OPEN 1995 SUN STAFF suN STAFF Devore and other nearby commu- nities that residents' passes are and error. 'It's a very confined cially those in Devore, seem (1 hap- available. Officers will allow mo- area up there." py with the county's traffic man- V� - torists with the passes to go Residents seem willing to wait• agement track record. C against the concert traffic in or- and see, again. "I'm going to try And Devore resident Bob - 1 t der to return home. and see what happens, and if I Rice,a member of a citizens advi- That should help prevent have a problem this year I'm sory committee on the Pavilion, V has faith that the clogged what occurred this last year," going to make more of stink than and access problems that marred county planner Mac Coleman I did last year, Ferguson said. said. Though pleased with the tem- part of the first concert season will not recur. . . Next year,officials hope to in- porary ramps and road im- "It is not going to be a prob- crease Pavilion attendance to provements, San Bernardino city lem." 65,000. A 1987 traffic study found officials also have expressed con- • The county and Blockbuster that permanent interchanges cern about whether they're enough to handle larger crowds, have taken every step possible, next slated tobe built Devore Road „city Councilman Jerry Devlin they have continually worked and * year could accommodate the nvfrn 4rnffin .. . ..said. solved the problems on every- . . • a...a �s \9 4 leading from.Arkansas to Branson and on to Springfield and points north,is particularly scenic(if busy) r in the fall. And once you get to the country music capital of Branson— with enough shows and neon signs to rival Las Vegas—you'll find lots going on. The 5 million tourists this mountain town pulls in each year keep it pumped up with lots of ex- citement. Branson boasts 32 the- aters and three outdoor amphithe- aters, totaling more seats than in all the theaters of New York's famous Broadway Fy;•�,,- In addition to performances by en- tertainers such as Box Car Willie, Mel Tillis, Roy Clark and.Shoji Tabuchi, the celebrated 6-foot-tall finds Safety problems in.Branson . Federal inspectors have found num Japanese fiddler, the Branson area OS A r'obloms at erous safety p offers three major lakes Table -construction sites in Branson that could result in 'serious harm or Rock, Taneycomo and Bull Shoals. death".to workers. The lakespresent wonderful oppor- Inspectors from'the OccupationalsSafety and l eeelth.Adminstration pp '`found vtotattons'at two-thirds of the 2T sites looked at during a six-day tunities for fishing and water sports, inspection, Bloomberg Service reported safetyThursda measuresto d road quate and they're great spots for scenic OSHA:inspectors found a lack of s drives. from falling,inadequate protection from falling debris and inadequate training about dangerous equipment and chemicals. Branson also hosts plenty of spe- (Only two of the 27 projects core tied with federal laws. cial fall festivals.The most notable is OSHA fined 25 companies more than$50,000. the National Crafts Festival (Sept. & O r 4 Ct 14-Oct.30),which has more than 100 l Cl C y exhibitors who appear by invitation only and display pottery,woodcarv- ing,stained glass,wheat weaving and several other arts. The festival is held on the grounds of Silver Dollar City, an attraction that combines music theaters, an amusement park and a crafts village straight out of the 1800s.Demonstra- tions of woodcarving,blacksmithing, pioneer cooking and glassblowing are regular events here. • Keeping pace • with Zev and his dream • G et ready Temecula,because Zev Butfman is for real. So says yours truly after spend- ing a power-lunch hour with him. Heretofore Zev has been a blur of heat lines to me.Ain't he the guy that claims _ he's gonna turn Old r y Town into the coon- [n p) tp D) p� 'iii, 0 CD ,•3 W N',- , v try-western capital of I o m C : o m �'� int Newest? OCCmo �ir ' i1 qt.. Cb `cn �9 D 2i,..4„,,,,.....,..yy. Yeah,right.And N 0 p O en O -'-•V' R C= o L.11..,::::.. I'm Dolly Parton. p. 4.m Uo CDD W CDD W O 'm O'D < y = } r ;: �C Then the city last C C7 O Q t7 O O ? D t�7 _ week lays out ^CD pS O O O CA .. , S125 00C for Zev's vi- Cs ti m p o ('J .1 r� 'g'acw, slot'.Whoa there. /��.-)^ n ^ ^ A'r. D �C A� (D O r•+y p O'FB -i [.A �/� ;t.,.:.- N/Wy) _0'0. es �n -.E 0 CD o ti -9 . on plot'.W.The city of Temecula is loaded, • A ASS 0 C C $ "`• pS u CARL but they're not rich `),,t��.,��.A_v}�� ,..3 12 p 5 enough to blow that f,J 1 y1.-1J]..4_� .7.7..."- D 0 LOVE kind of dough on aCD`� Q a `� �i Q'`< Cr whim.The guy must n [n 9 ty N have something there ' —)i"'' K O p.oV- O 0 ES -(�D 0 .O n m•-t Which brings us to the lunch hour in Ott 0.N r rt a PS a ,. W p. Town on Thursday in a typically busy dayCD in Zev's life.He's just been in a big meet- 'C a o•m o AS • °C tag at City Hall,so the first thing he's go- m m Oto C O =''-' 0., ing to do is relax. to m -1 Now that I'm out of the city building 0 CDD p ,bps Gria �+ m �.�• it there goes the tie,"Zev says as he takes it c'S ti o icCD D < coq" (5 0 a w m off. (3 ti A o O AA y I like Zev and we haven't even shaken hands. O r-..- 0*o O b CD 0 CD 0ti t- Zev's winded from the night before be- .n-.;r ...'�'-. f] '7'CD O . D cause he caught the last flight from West Palm Beach to Orange County,then drove to a Temecula hotel in an hour."I drive CD to Cr [n p ' O m very fast,"Zev says No kidding. 9-W m W m C OAS, ti•ei W 0 tz x• years old.Zev e wantseveryth[ng fast,even to open his extf he's rava- t w" co �f O 0 til -• CD O 0) N a • CDCw §N �Qbda rn -. ganza in Old Town by—I hope you're sit- l � ting down—Memorial Day,1996. ti CDD CD CDD O CDt CD CD •f p I have a reputation for building things on time,"Zev reminds us p ' 0, CDD en p c�D m a ,tg i . cg:2 A couple years ago ar in o.Aes a piece of .8." W !7 0 '. land near San Bernardino. mere 14 (;1: tip v p,0 O m a O• months later,the$15 million Blockbuster By now you know that the difference "t f0 ES. o Q. CD (�D m O ,. o Pavilion—yup,another one of Zev's aetween Zev and most of us is he acts on o' m • dreams—opens to rave reviews.Now ais dreams.He calls then-City Manager >✓ W O W = O0 m o E o''" ti . o Nat's moving'- Dave Dixon as soon as he can,meets with - - pr o m ,mt'd O A• rm,. This is all happening because Zev needs sim as soon as he can,finishes his... RS• CD O -p.pS AS U) G gas one day last April while on his busy Ooops,a woman is now interrupting o ti W o FE,'O m Ory W+00 :., . . way from San Berdoo to San Diego.He Zev's story,asking if she can sit at the end Q•0�'•' W - t�N "w O .--. gets off at Rancho California Road for the cD.,.0 W �O• 0 p O W O m1_ N of our table because she can't find an gas,then cruises through Old Town,where empty one in the busy restaurant we're in. on ACS m- O 0.'b O ACS . +to m y Pa he hears gunfire and sees cops. W [n t]. W ti 0 But instead of trouble,Zev finds an op- I'mGrighting can says imagine, o f4D G .-%m eC m o t� CD C to`C V thinking you most en- `C o .� Da "t o '.. m portunity.It is one of those fake shootouts .ertainment moguls,let alone people, • A) 0.0 cD act m V O'm ..O .d '- and Zev is entertained.He sees the an- igreeing to share a table with a stranger? rp P� [V o ftiD O ti ' m'C 6 co ti0 O tique shops,the old buildings,the beauty, ['m impressed,Zev,I'm impressed.Even Si •4`C 0- p•m ACS '— A ".m CS Si pS and,most importantly,the character. f the woman never does sit with us. y O O t�o 0 ''''',..i..-• t�W m o This is real,Zev thinks,not some con- Now,let's get back to Zev's Temecula AS o .- =',,,-= '4=.07.-.. ....0-= o trived fun that so many entertainment (ream:An opera house,a large showboat t-;""Ea t . m O Lv m N ...Ow PS places today are based on.All this gets n Murrieta Creek,an 1890s-style tent the- Zev to dreaming:Southern California has [ter,six virtual-reality theaters,two cabs- a ton of country-western music fans,Tern- et theaters,saloons,TV and recording "^co .A"'m m 'l7 ' O n . ecula has so much to offer,the 1-15 is a .tudios,and a radio station. e,C A�0 00 o - Wm AS '"'3 o , W N by major freeway and nobody has taken ad- Nobody says Zev thinks small. o'� 0 ' n ti .0�. •'et ti .21 r vantage of this combination. co R. ` N Tv m w fD Actually he's just revving up.Zev plans Cr' ch o comb the country for the top young tat- b Cr O o m -] N Ono ^^ o :nt and bring them here to perform every AI Q.en O f)o o N 0 '-t O- m W light for a year.Sort of a country-western x'Cfo x r-.m o t10 a; 0 0 O •oliege.Zev wants the big name stars here o m En Oi coC'fa)" o o• CD O m G m o oo,and they'll be welcome to stay at the Qo o W CD I-3 m pS 0 -m o tib CD SD o AS- a Cresta spread he's buying o [n rp Ane o m W O o '""'o rd O o m a0 a "This is Temecula,the music capital of 'Cy C m ti 0- mt ,_ —�-•.(n,may g>C 9.'C , he West,"Zev says,as if it's really going n --t-t ^^•--t tJ A N O w c 0 • O'U _ o happen. CD C 0 CD o C W m '-'AS o`C -'�"' `^r Oh-oh.In a recent letter-to-the-editor, mit E'0 O fSS o CCD G o Q•�+ +''-"Q'SD) IIMIDIt >tacey Tescler of Murrieta compares -o G cc.+o^-o• A.C't7 W C].n W �,0'-•3 yr � �ev's dream with Branson,Mo.,another o "1 W O m u) CD 'r, m ISS ^ .p,•-•O 0 C .mall gets 5ed mi music on visitors tl.'He , Ory 0, o a,d,� Si p•'-'m m , ..., ACS cji 0 Fri he town is gridlocked and the hills are Q•W AS o O pS m r7 0 W W 5 4. fined with motels and restaurants. ,--3 C7 p• .oV- �-i O en O W 0 m '--' "It's a great place to visit but you o ,y,-<o'W ,-.t t7 0 •_a to n [n (0 -' vouldn't want to live there:'Tescler ar- CD .+° Al O �'�--''t O ji A , O 0 :ties. . O D m carr '�C m O m m G [n o Zev hates the comparison and here's x W o O CD 7-'0 por`C o el shy:Branson wasn't thought out,Temecu- to rp w C ca, m fb • 0 N en o a will be.Zev says he knows how to work O N En Q•cD C'-'''). o . ti+C o n -o p .vith the bureaucrats and the music indus- CL- o _ 0) m CD in o 0 ry big shots to make sure this is a great >lace to visit and live. Let's hope so,Zev,let's hope so. Carl Love,whose column appears ',Wednesdays and Saturdays,is a general usignment repoiter for the Temecula- ( vlurrieta edition of The Press-Enterprise. f- • • • • profits too heavily,Zev? 2.If your clouded vision isn't a Moneymaker(despite.mar; keting studies)or you get bored and leave town or something • else should happen to you,who gets left holding the bag on the bonds sold by the redevelop- naent agency:The taxpayer ' perhaps? 3:The cit- becomes your- partner,huh?Now,let's imag- ine your myopic vision is a huge success.How many more -•• - venues are We going to build . before we realize the structure improvements won't accommodate the increase in traffic:Maybe we will become a No thanks,Mr.Buthnan Bianson'Missouri after all.If So,Mr. zevBuffni- wants:, we are your partner Zev,how to bring a permanent circus to could we say no to you? Temecula?I don't think so! 4.Many Temeculans moved • Take your vision and head f down here to get away from the back to whereveryou came very junk you are proposing. from.YOur ision is lousy Her,,Herd We are sick of development , • _ are four points about yourvi-, based on the tired old philoso- C CL.1,4 cLI sion that I have a vision prob- phy of Los Angeles and Orange lem of my own with. counties.That's why people are q 1.You want the city redevel- coming to Temecula,Mr.Buff- opment agency to pay for infra- man,to get away from people structure improvements to ac- like you. commodate your unfocused ITi noticed you bought 20 acres vision.Whatever happened to in La Cresta,Zev.Sounds to the developer paying for the me like you don't want to live in improvements he needs to ac- a congested area either. commodate such a large vi- Hoxsey sion?Does that cut into your Temecula • - • • I he Californian Wednesday,J Slow down,Buffman rtialityoftheintended Slow down,Buffman onmental impact report Whenthewas • As a Temecula citizen who written by Torn Dodson, meeting nlusieman attended the recent meeting at who was one of the two men ex- called in June at the Temecu representative democracy the Old Town Senior Center re- garding e pla;eBulrmanproject atthemeeting. Senior Center,the majority c defends fan gardingtheOldTownitedevel- concerned citizens were not • opmentProject(orthe"Buff TheBulTinanProjectismov- aware that the Zev Buffman Sal"The Populist"Munoz had a brainstorm: to build man Project"),I heard many ing fast!Faster than I had Project was moving ahead so et's vote on everything. very valid concerns on poten- thought.In two years the plan fast.I am suggesting a well-a ryt g• tial environmental impacts, to open eightentertainment vertisedtownmeetingofour OK,not everything.He suggested three things: complextn but I would say the three at the centers and two hotels!If we council and local residents to 'he ultimate build-out of the city of Temecula. top ofthe list are traffic, don't voice our concerns now to get a consensus for or againsi Vhether the city should provide incentives to po- Old Town traffic and 3)traffic! our City Council,this might be this massive project.Zev Buf ential businesses,and a grading system for every The tune has There were some great- a done deal before we are even man plans a music capital for ouncil member in every election.- t. p:changed but the sounding proposals for im- aware of it. . the whole western United At Tuesday's City Council meeting,Temecula res- song is the same. proved ramps,parking lots and Haypassaro States for our Old Town Tem When Zev a new bypass road to route traf- Temecula ecula' dent Barry Sackin suggested a fourth item:The J fic around our two infamous How can a rural town boom :ev Buffman project in Old Town Temecula.Sack- man first came to like a gold rush town and still P J town about eight onofframps,Winchester and serve the needs ofyoung farm ns idea is worth consideration.Munoz's ideas months ago,the for- Rancho Calfforniaroads,but I I serve eneeds ofyoung ittle bit 0 vould be a waste of time and money.The council is mer Broadway producer was saw a lot of skepticism about this lected to make decisions,and unless we come a tru- singing a blue streak about the the possible effectiveness of goes ea thisong type of e the- entertainmentandmusicex- these plans. whodesirethistypeofenter- y etrust ntouscrossroadsen a ofolkiii e delect should travaganzaheenvisioned How aboutthis ro- tainment,it'soutthereinVe- �e trusted.That is the essence representative de- buildin m Old Town.His shelving P gam,Laughlin.Branson,Mo. g� ject until we get our long- ty nocracy. hands flew freely in dramatic awaited new freeway overpass and Carson Ci The rest of the council was chilly toward the idea, and improvements on the Win- � ;- We the people were not fully Toting 4-1 to receive and file the Munoz motion.In IN ANGELA GEISER a cheater overpass? informed about Wal-Mart It act,the rest of the council was downright defen- I gestures and his sentences ran I Then,if such a project is ap also waspiushed ahead,then together in an energetic mob. ;proved,how about down-sizing i y PPedmitatrackhby ive Today,as he discusses plans it andproceedingslowly,in informed locale F - •Ron Parks,on the grading system:"I feel as to build the eight Old West en- stages,to determine the actual I� f-,,'t Whobenefitsfromprojects .hotghPmgradedeveryweek.Everytimesome tertainment centers in Old environmental impacts?This such as these?We are leftwith Jody approaches this podium,I'm being graded.... I Town,his answers to question project is really big,just how :fr>lffei3ongestion,people con- Jilhy would I want to put five names on the ballot ev- I are bit more guarded,his voice a biglthinkmostTemeculansdo gestion and undesirables to little more subdued not realize.Hopefully,there our great town. r'y election with anAthrough F?It's just an oppor- I vote no. tunic for le to take Shots". Ameaaureofoppositiontohis win be extensive publicityre-. ^•`''"• • Arleneiiampsor y peoP P j. plan has arisen and Buffman is garding the expense and size of •Ron Roberts,on incentives:"Each time some- doing his best to defend its mer- the venture before any vote by Temecula thing like this comes up,it's completely different its:And the last time I heard our City Council. &omthe last time.You can't just judge that byblan- him.. Californian staff Lastly,I have to question the agafternoon, ket,saying you're for itoragainstit.You ustcan't wasdoingaprettydarngood -, do that." 1 job. i;Rethink Old Town plan . motel,overnight parking for ■Munoz,facetiously:"You guys are really great." E Buffman,who has just fin- 't '' motorhomes andlots of park= ishedsettlingintohisnewTem- �hisletterisinresponseto ing for all the peoplethatii•' N Jeff Stone on how manyeligiblevoters partici- ecula Valley ranch and home, ,tieglapsthat Z,evButTmanthe . wouidliketocom4tosucha � pate in elections:"In the city of Temecula we have first addressed a series ofcon- I 'deveeIIoperhas fddr Old Town'' money. maker.Vail Lake ltaa Temecula. • been closedforfour earstothe 36,000 people,we have 12,000 registered voters.... •cern that are circulating Y If you look at our last election,less than 50 percent around town. Hewantstoputineigbten- public oftheregisteredvoterswenttotJtepolls,which To those who are concerned tertainmentattractionswith Ith;nkZevBnflmanshould.; his projects will only create low- an arena,opera house,a show- drive a little more around Tem means that roughly6,000--ora sixth—came to . .-boat,theaters,saloonsanda eculabecauseIdobelieveifnot incomejobs,Bull'manrespond- I ', ;virtualalace.I n the polls to vote. 1 edthat ofthe1,000jobsjobs cre- 4 realityp. Perso here, "I think that's a mockery of democracy." i atedbythe projectinits first I I 'allywoemecetoseeithappen pen and lwould hiretoseethe year,half would range from -,in theTemecula;valleyitwould jobs and money staying in the ■Pat Birdsall:"We were elected to an office to $20,000 to a comfortable i i sure help put and keep money Temecula Valleywhereitis ` make decisions.We do take the time to be educated $30,000 year.The other half in the valley not to mention the very much needed and informed....Wehave our general plan in jobs it would make and they y Denise M.Dulaney place.It would be really kind of superfluous to me, the perfect employment for are very much needed in the Temecula whether it's 190,000 or a million build-out,to go on a teens,college students and peo- I valley. -- ballottoda askingthe citizens of the cityof 'pleworkingsecondjobs. But where he wants to put it Y I is the wrong place.The traffic ula what theywant to be 50years from now because To those convinced that the Western Bypass,the road pro- in town is bad enough.Imagine 75 percent of them wouldn't be around." posed to run along the foothills the traffic when the employees It is hard to argue against public feedback.Mr. west of town and reduce Old getting to and from work on Munoz comes out of this debate lookinglike the Town traffic,would be an eye- • Front and Main streets,not to y mention everyone else wanting I t took us 46 minutes to cross 1 so re,he responded: theoverpass similar champion of the people,but we agree with the ma- to go to these places. highway rP jrit on his three proposals.There are plentyof o the grading process,the West- Moat of us try to stay out of- to thebridge at Rancho Califor-i ority P P P ;em Bypass will be sunken and nia.The bridgewas on the out- portunitiesfor public feedback,such as The Califor- . ;nv;s;bletosight(fromwithin town now because of the carsI letterstotheeditorsection. Old Town.)" there now.Ithink there isa skirts erewa,inthe off season, nian'sever-popular better place for such an enter- andthrewesntanaccident -- To those who say his project Their beautiful hills and for-1 However, will be little brother to Disney- tainment utopia to happen. � meforwa dw withhiss utimestionthattSackinto Butterfield Country Vail esthave been replaced by an land and thatTemeculawillbe estimated 600 motels and ' :oma forward his suggestion that the citizens lake area would be a good place 1 come Anaheim II,he responded: countless restaurants. "We will put a lid and cap on it. to put ote on the Old Town project.Mrs.Birdsall didn't P received 6.6 million I ike the idea,but the rest of council was receptive.It We don't have to be Disney.We would have water under it.The visitors Branson year. 5.could ' s just the kind of crossroads that could merit an ad- don't want to be as big as Dis- old Butterfield has a park-like Y i setting with big oak trees.It'sa weaawmmodatethousandsof� 7Sor election. nay.The fear of control s good lace to putpeople �Y____._._..___isont_erec _�..._....___ .._.-- withourl4motels? tobeoutofcontrolwillnotbe g P p recording Where.would we build more? The Californian is on the record alreadyof su and television studio,the wildi sup-""'"'\ hot" :ortingBuffman'sconcept,though weremain skep- To those who fear his project west arena,the opera house. Where will they park?Where jwillwe ark?Howwillweget i ical of some details.We worry about how the fi- will damage Old Town's charm There's plenty of room for a P i across town with all the traffic? lancing will be set up,whether it would put the he insists that his business,the How will weget aseat atares- Zev Bufiman Group,will actual- l taurant we all the tours re- iublictreasuryatCreekaquestion the potential 1pdowhateveritcantoseethat T {�C,,, C- JarmonMumetaCreekandwhatmi ht be carried 1. 't 'r`l_If '}-�� serving the tables? 1 g its character is enhanced. - Please talk to someone who ' iownstream,and we're relieved to see that an envi- While he said he is willing to C!, q has been to this town of 3,700 -onmental impact study will be conducted.And we work with residents to come up within the last year.You will I ,.gree with the popular sentiment that envisions a with a plan everyone one likes, see the astyes concerns. me. raffic nightmare if there are 10,000 tourists in Old he seemed reticent to throw the Not another Branson This valley a ey doem he last j :-own,though the project could get the city off the whole idea out to a public vote I'm very concerned about the of the clean air,and beautiful iime to start working on e roathdimP rovements we 1 a somehave atinstsuggested. proposed plans of Zev Buffman open spaces but believe me the ' He said thatinsteadheuldwo , to make Temecula the"Music ' proposed plan with the ulti- reed with or without Zev Buffman's musical extrav- ' like to see the final project Lanza. mapped out through consensus- Capital of the West."It will ob mate goal being"Music Capital viously take more than the sev- of the West,"will take all that building workshops with the 'en proposed to ac- - away. If Temecula is tobecome the country music capital city council members at the complish thisgoal. Isuggestthe CityCouncil goI f the West,there should be evidence that the peo- helm. Hecompareahisdreamto to BransonandseewhyIamao; le here support the idea.It could change the future "A vote goes against my idea Branson,Mo.I was in Branson concerned.Please don't make .f this young city forever.And that's just the kind of of what city officials are meant city tbisanotherBranaon.It'ea J • lecisionthat merits acitywide referendum to be,"he explained. does get their share of tax dol-: great place to visit butyou i . However its fate is decided, last October and while this -------..._..._ , Town lara,with 6.6minion visitors a wouldn't want to live there.Es-' wouldbed developed Oldthth • would be developed withthe in- year,I don't think the citizens ., condido,on the other hand... tereatofits original residents in ofTerneculawould approve of ' StaceyTescler ..,;.,,t the end result. Murrleta rnx,.:- „-4.,„.,-7,,,:,,,v,:::...:d {9r• a trt.� �'+'a>• ,.F.,?t --rt.”- . " too O''' t i,: .puts iaeas4 dFe on paper I ��e+ dgi ; y r ;arxy 1� a Y' RM s+ �. A S' �' r ' ''1' `' + -.ice $ a i.r+ 't 1,4 _ f, f.mow,., t,, •ANGELA GEISER/m.Californian f y., `§bar w• 1 a 4r„Fa2 gr•'. TEMECULA—Developer •r �' a to a °} r •+f t "`_ • ,v s 'V: Zev Buffman'e plans to devel- • fi a.., RP ,t an entertainmentuto utopia f •r' '� - 'D- � t� ° + at+"�r op P ^ • tv . ow n r '' 3r Old Town are beginning to -,-. > rf"_ �.r ''.4'31/.14.• • a¢�r.1- .xeb/ 'g`s y 8� cross the bridge from vision to ,l 'cyrx�"*b' y1 -_r r,'x+• '• ,; roc r „� reality fG .... • .;*S T� ~ # w.a1 Buffman'scompany The ° *� `T Zev Buffman Group,has de- ,r ...1%, + , r t veloped architectural render- J " iigt•• t 1±5 A'•• ` y< of the project's seven cora- 'tic .-g • +' a+.,r i 1, u. 'i,4,.,- ings ponentsandamapoftheir '''' ••r' �k4t '‘..,;1'4i4:..." �n * 4 1.r .t potential location in the city, u 4 ',Ill r� +�.yy ,r,,a'"P•.'4°' " m { s tr t r>f • .44P-3';'4,-11','•-• '4`.: ' r a k s and ie cloee to deciding on an ,,, a ';;.•;,,i ft {r' q,,, y�0. ! architect +ri ,y rrss / p '� Buffman also met with Ci .i �" ��•� •` Ty k �' Axa t ' � :./: �4��'rCouncil members Monday to 1..34 .., + . is r „t,1n .' • . ..j .lbegin working out the details h... �', r Y ?+ ,, 1 S aaXr_nf, +ro t ,irt i - w*"" of a joint financing arrange a r x F _' bl iai •mentfortheproject. F'' :asJ rt 3' y ' r «.G. • While he was in town Mon- "F" _ •as, ..,'.734'..,:, .•t'j ;v 41 day,the former Broadway pro- _ b <. + "'�° ' • ducerrstopped byThe Califor- -a i•-:-- • ii` i_ f clr sai pian to show renderings and '+ * ' j 'give a project update. EJi • ar' .q. In his plans for Old Town '.uk�; •are eight entertainment at ;' , • `..� a I l f tractions,including a 4,800- . ,r et.a „, seat arena,a 950-seat opera t -, • t'*1i ,`v cn' rfw i• ret. lOA r 4 ' house,a showboat,two small- - s 1 i i4 • • 5=. z- ertheaters,two ypalaconsanda •_i"""tz, , JOHN OLORQE/rv.cau�aaa virtual reality palace.All will ' ehnreanOldWesttheme. Developer Zev Buffman has big pi.,for Old Town and now they are on paper—arch;. renderingsWustratehbIdeas. -, Burmran,who has devel- (.1 opedalong list ofperformance PROIECTHIGHUGHTS " Centers including the popular rK BlockblusterPavilion inDe sHANWONWnNN/TAeCalfornan searchwillbeheldtofindthe f a� ; yore,estimates that the Old " 'ems` `" + bestandbrfghtestprofesslonal . �. • -;�� /` Town attractions will lure Lowongasandreadyfor and amateursingerstopertonn r •'y ti 1-1 it 10,000 people per weekend Iunch,ZevBuffmantookthe inthecabaretsunderaiyear r„ .. %T� Y three orfouryearsafter its RanchoCalifomiaRuadexitand entertainmentandrecording y sr, planned 1996 opening. headed down FrontSVeetjustln contract'Thlsisgoingtobethe 'y" . ••'� i 7_ Buffman said Monday that time to get caught up In the ex- discovery zone,the area where - 1-4.-----.1.;.4: 'P'it . "' ,r! \ _ heisleaningtoward choosing citement of a bank robbery. new talent will get it's greatest ~ ";'•*t;ft I0J a+I,i+ `'0; WATG,the Newport Beach- Themelodramaticreenact- opportunity,'Buffmansald. c „,,,,,„;,6-0,-0,..,..-,...,..„-„,,,4,x•,! ..4„ , ;LI;►' ••'.r based firm that made the ren- mentbythe Old Town Gunfight- •A recording studio and 1,-'I .,jrr- v.,f'`s 't+i..''r •�1, .a,i y deringsofthebuildings,asthe ers started wheels turning in the televblonstudio.Buffman ,r lite �3 .00•Veit-074 i'r^"Z �+f i 1.. lead architectural firm for his mind of the man who lured Eliza plans to form a Temecula music a,1r ;.' 9':"r '�,�, y ;••••=u.'• i1 ' proposed music capital. beth Taylor to the Broadway production companyto record ''F.- 1 3Pi..� ° 'l _.:" 'It's a great company in this Stage andconvincedBlockbust- demosfromtherisingstarscho- sli counby and out of it,'Buff- er Entertainment to build their sen to perform at the cabaret rr•+ !i m ” mm t� q:• 4s man said."There's no question Pavillon In a backwater town out- theaters.Thetelevisionstudio , •Pm very partial to them.' side San Bemardino. will be used for promotion and 4....--o(D TOWN TisiECOT-A • WATG has extensive back- 'I began to feel the town had possible taping of liveperfor--' ground in designing attrac- an Interesting momentum— mancesfor later broadcast. MON SEOpOE/The Cal'for"'"a tions and theme parks,with things were happening here,' •Wild West Arena.With the A Wild West arena Isspectators.toseat 4,800 the Ritz Carlton in Newport Buffman said.'There was a feel- look of a old-time tent,this designed Beach and parts of Disney ing of celebration sitting on the 4,800 seat venue will have mov- f <� a r World numbering among its corner of Front and Main.My able stages,a Teflon material f { `) proJe�, mind was just spinning.' top and removable sides.The "Y'`r '""' t''.:.1.;-_,..,.4_,,.,' Within a few days,Buffman1. r :'� r`'-•h arenawillbehometoawildwest i ,; . anc On hisviaidaconcy,Buff came tothecityofTemecula •"$er_4l.4. �'p' '-rr man displayed a conceptual show +trp.� •map of Old Town by WATG. with a grand plan to put Old Town righters and authentic storytell- .a ` . a The map places the arena on a on the map as"The Music Capl- Ing.It will also be used to show- 'a .4.4.:.....11"...41,j" I hillatthAwesternendofMain tal of the West' pe ynational .I '*+i'.; '•y ,9, , case performances Street,whileitputatheshow- Buffmanenvisionsa5-blockrangingfromthelikesof4.:11.•,g,...„!..;f jSl� stars square theme park,featuring Reba mein etoRa s. :• 1 •`k boat and the opera house tY+ Billy Y i tb r'>r w +. ' Murrieta street performers,a wild west ■Two saloons.The'b r 4 frf-16::.,X,'.;;;%; - othertheatrandeealoonaand inthe show,country music concerts places'of the Old West,saloon to }.s q1 i t:••` , `', r I �I twopocketswithinOldTown. and riverboat musical reviews In entertainment will feature cow •t�a'• ;+ `� a"'r3� . antumofoentury western style boystuntfightersandCan-Can It _" • +� •' The map also blocks a short setting. "°"'• ` 'T ' ding !, � � distance along Front Street to The proposed project in g t r vehicle traffic and calls fora III Opera house.The simple hold an rf •d_�� ^� - ti town square with a bandstand eludes: opulentsettclapboard i gformding usic musical •� - 'andsea' along Fourth ■Twocabarettheatarede- opulent settingformusicalpro- , �8 g signed to hold a total of 600 peo- ductions of all sorts.With room '.e OID TOW 9 Tatecu A :: Street Owners of Napa Auto pie,with shows seven days a Parts,which stands on the week.Anatfonwidetalent P1easeserPROJECT,A2> VHS GEORGE/zuCd:b.,,iaa PLANthe City Council to allocate a sphere and improve infra- PLANportion redevelopment structure over the next siix funds toconstruction ofthe years.Thatprojectwouldgo Continued from Al buildings,Buffman said. hand in hand with Buff'man'a r �, ! Under that scenario,the plan. l;-t L ��,l,.l.. y proposed square,have said city would most likely retain Not only is Temecula one of-1 tom+•'-' they may be willing to move. ownership of the building and the last havens of scenic vistas Buffman added that,with land,while Buffman would and clean air in Southern Cali- C, t_} the exception of the Auto Parts lease the buildings and own fornia,butitisaccessibleto store,no other Old Town and operate the businesses. millions,he said.According to building,"has been moved or The city sold about$17 mil- his figures,about 10 million touched by this concept' lion in bonds last year and can out-of-state visitors drive past While the designs have distribute the money to pro- Temecula on Interstate 15 progressed,financing plana jects in the redevelopment each year,and another 10 mil- are still in the early stages, zone,which includes Old lion live within an hour and 20 Buffman said. Town. minute drive. "There's some holes to fill in About$7.7 million is al- "If we don't(build)it some- there,"he said. ready earmarked to enhance oneit,'he in Esconsaid. dido is going to do One possible scenario is for Old Town's western atmo- r '� r V 111.61-h1_ _ Ili __- The SX rks Growth Plans Meet Protests, � 1 • Consume tr Recession,Declining Tourism . predueb Consumer' Filmedproducts Filmed entertainment entertainment By CHRIS WDandJUBESHIVERY. Operating income: TIMES STAFF WRITERSRITERS bile the audience inside Washington's Uptown Consumer Theater was voicing its resounding approval of:-' product Theme parks 76.7% Walt Disney Co.'s new animated feature,-"The Theme parks q3.3% Lion King,"company Chairman Michael Eisner was getting a very different reception outside.100 sign-toting 20 6 demonstrators were chanting"Disney go home." 22.3 . The purpose of the recent protest was'to urge Eisner to 4, shelve plans for the',controversial Disney's America-theme ,--;',� tr>- park near their homes in suburban Virginia. Conaurner Filmed The homeowners are being joined by an unlikely coalition of Det. Filmed'entertainment entertainment civil rights.groups,farmers and historians such as C.Vann Loss than 1% Woodward,who denounces the way"Disney and its Hollywood., Sawa:Company u . Not.:taw ,,,,,,�up to 100%Wawa*W rowan investors"want to commercialize ground that has"soaked up. _- Loa Angeles 00t more of the blood,sweat and tears of American history than - a TRnes any other place in Virginia country." - - ' The troubles in Virginia point up the mess that is being made ?project cost it$514 million last year alone,is hoping to reduce of what Eisner proclaimed would be"The Disney Decade".of ails exposure,by arranging for a Saudi prince to help bankroll new and expanded theme parks. ',- te park. Tinkerbell's wand continues to work magic on the company's •In Florida,constructionf has yet to begin on afourth theme animated movies and its forays into enterprises as diverse.as,Nark,The park was reportedly going to be a newfangled zoo, the Broadway production of"Beauty and the Beast"and the :abut it ran into opposition from environmentalists concerned Mighty Ducks hockey team.But the theme parks-although=about an existing turtle habitat.A group of them picketed a they are still growing—are hardly the happiest places on___` Disney annual meeting dressed in turtle costumes. Disney Earth.. . - :respondedby creating.a"wilderness preserve" on its vast Consider: "Florida holdings . •In Southern California,the company disclosed last month 7..And while Disneyshifts gears between expansion projects, that it will wait until at least next year to decide whether,to attendance at Disneyland in Anaheim and Walt Disney World build a$3-billion resort next to Disneyland in Anaheim,That;I in Florida has been sagging.- - ` project.is already-two years behind its original schedule and ;- The two parks have responded by encouraging older Disney says ie,the remainstootroubled urs llyDi neyy to build r workers to.retire and b investing in lavish new rides and e In in the r the its oEuro in Apr project has fallen Si y attractions. For the..fust time, however, they face strong billion in the red since its opening in April.1992,and the losses,; ,- please see DISNEY,D2 there are continuing to pile up.Disney,whose half-share in_hhe ;os' r DISNEY: Uncertainty Is Parks' New Theme pe iggy Continued from DI build four new theme parks by the be abandoning all its plans, it L t t -T- rr competition from the Universal year 2000—two in Europe,one in turned its attention to yet another Studios and Six Flags theme parks, Florida and one in California. project: the history theme park i-pe-/A-- 'Y"i.- .d l `)Aw and also from new family-friendly —Then the world changed. First that would be built 35 miles west of I �p gambling resorts in Las Vegas. came the Persian Gulf War in 1991, downtown Washington in Virginia.. ll__•• 0 PI The one continuing bright spot is bringing international tourism to a Here, Disney had a project it something in which the company standstill. It was followed by re- actually wanted to build. And it has no significant ownership inter- cession and disasters in California was easy to see one reason:At$650 est: Tokyo Disneyland. That is and Florida. million,Disney's America is a bar- owned by a Japanese company that Tourists shied away from gain compared to the cost of build- pays licensing and other fees to Southern California after the Los ing California and European re- Disney but keeps the bulk of the Angeles riots and earthquake. sorts. profits for itself. Florida became better known for First,though,Disney must con- Disney officials say they expect Hurricane Andrew and as a place quer protesters such as Virginian attendance at the company's parks where tourists are slain than as a Sylvia Gilman. She grouses that to rise as the U.S.and European holiday haven. "the red carpet gets rolled out' economies improve.They also say As demand fell,Disney took the everywhere" when Eisner comes the stops and starts of the new 1 rare step of laying off about 300 to town, and "1 wish somebody theme park developments are nor- park workers. Equally unprece- would listen to me when I say we mal for projects of so large a scope. dented have been discounts,which don't want this park." "You have to be very patient in appear not to have led to substan- Then there are the historians, this industry and be a long-term ,,list rises in attendance. and even some in Congress, who player," Disney theme park divi- Through it all,Disney has con- say they are worried about the sion President Judson C. Green tinued to invest in new attractions park's proximity to Civil War bat- said. He noted that from concep- at its parks. This summer, for tlefields.The site is five miles from Lion to opening day,Euro Disney instance, a new '"Twilight Zone the Manassas National Battlefield took about a decade to create. Tower of Terror—featuring a Park. The theme park troubles are drop down an elevator shaft— ..We don't want them to put a disappointing, but they are sub- made its debut in Florida.Disney- theme park there and destroy real stantially less important to Dis- land has a new parade this sum- history,"said Richard Moe,presi- ney's bottom line than they were a mer,and a big new ride is planneddent of the National Trust for decade ago.When Eisner took over for next spring. Historic Preservation. in 1984, the parks accounted for Other entertainment giants, Many of the the critics,Eisner says, more than three-quarters of Dis- meanwhile, have been angling to are exclusi C bent on stopping ney's operating profit. Last year, catch part of the Disney franchise. all development in Prince William the division contributed less than MCA's Universal Studios divi- County Va."They have a right to half,or only 13% if Euro Disney sion is planning a huge resort in their opinion.I just think they are losses are included. Florida and has already seen big overly sensitive,"he said,adding Said Eisner: "Theme parks are gains from its"Back to the Future" that the opposition took him by still very important to us."Indus- rides on both coasts.Time Warn- surprise. try observers agree,but they note er's Six Flags parks,which include "Had we known there was going that the parks are stable,mature Magic Mountain in Valencia,have to be a public relations issue here, businesses with less opportunity to spent lavishly on new roller coast- we would have prepared more. grow than other endeavors. ers. Eisnerew "It will become a smaller part of Las Vegas has seen the openingGivensaid.trouble encountered in the mix;" predicted Jessica Reif, of the first theme park on the Strip Virginia,the the experience radon who tracks entertainment compa- at Kirk Kerkorian's MGM Grand irginia,ions t to wperer eisney— s nies for the New York brokerage Hotel,and other new resorts have orqueany major park coney- Oppenheimer&Co. also spent generously on enter- obe themeto build a compa- There - There was nothing small about tainment for children. scale able futureuildwithout in vision for its theme parks Against this backdrop,only one significant resort the in the 1980s,when there seemed to of the four parks laid out as part of B ppm n. be a never-ending parade of free- Eisner's Disney decade was built: But industry experts say to give spending baby boomers and their Euro Disneyland. it time; they believe the Disney eager-to-be-entertained offspring Plans for a second park in touch is still intact. streaming through the gates. France are on hold while investors, "1 believe they will hold their Such demand allowed Disney- bankers and Disney try to stave off appeal for a couple of decades if the land prices—now$31 for an adult further damage at Euro Disney. Disney organization is as innova- pass—to rise 14 times during the There is no word yet on the new Live as George Wade, have vetebeen," said past decade. Eisner proclaimed Florida park. g "The Disney Decade"and vowed to Just as it appeared Disney might ment executive.