Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
State Route 74 Improvement Program
STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE S Status Report to City Council August 1993 Prepared by Project Dimensions, Inc. EN11TEM. N0. 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 STATUS REPORT 1.1 Measure A 1.2 Riverside County Transportation Commission 1.3 Right-Of-Way Engineering/Aquisition 1.4 Caltrans 1.5 Landowners 1.6 Community Facilities District s 1.7 City Improvement Program 1.8 Cost Estimate Analysis 1.9 Annexation Program 1.10 Land Use Plan 1.11 Fiscal Impact Report 1.12 Plan for Services 1.13 Annexation Negative Declaration 2.0 FUTURE PROGRAM COMPONENTS 2.1 Landscape Concept 2.2 Project Study Report Interstate 15/SR74 Interchange 2.3 Cooperative Agreements 2.4 Engineering Request for Proposals 2.5 Benefit Analysis 2.6 CFD Formation/Funding 2.7 SR74 Annexation Workshops 2.8 Right-Of-Way Coordination - 2.9 Agency Coordination { i 3.0 CONCLUSION j i s 4.0 EXHIBITS 4.1 Correspondence 4.2 Right-Of-Way Maps i 4.3 Right-Of-Way Analysis 4.4 Memorandum of Understanding 4.5 Draft Landowner Participation Agreement 4.6 Debt Service Analysis 4.7 CFD Schedule 4.8 General Plan of Circulation-SR74 Access Study 4.9 Typical Crass-Section 4.10 Cost Estimate 4.11 Annexation Legal Description/Plat 4.12 Annexation Schedule 4.13 GPA Revision-Land Use Plan 4.14 GPA Implementation-Alternate One 4.15 Land Use Plan-Alternate Two 4.16 Land Use Plan-School Site 4.17 Fiscal Impact Report 4.18 Plan For Services 4.19 Negative Declaration Schedule 4.2o Draft Negative Declaration State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 1.0 STATUS REPORT 1.1 Measure A The Measure A Program, under the management of Riverside County Transportation Commission, includes widening of State Route 74 from Dexter Avenue in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. The widening is proposed to improve the SR74 from two lanes to four, realign the route centerline and to purchase right-of-way for ultimate build out to sic lanes with a 134' row width. The improvements to the SR74 are not, however, scheduled within the first ten years of the program. The City of Lake Elsinore has several large developments in the planning stages adjacent to or in the vicinity of the SR74, including the North Peak Development and the Ramsgate Community. In an effort to address the additional traffic demands that these developments will impose, the City has the ability to accelerate the improvements to SR74 within the Measure A Program and receive allotted funds for design and construction. 1.2 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), lead agency for management of the Measure A Program, has worked closely with City staff and Project Dimensions, Inc. (PDI),the City's project manager, to coordinate the expanded improvement program i for State Route 74 (SR74)within the City of Lake Elsinore. Originally, RCTC did not have improvements to the SR74 scheduled within the first ten years of the Measure A Program. In addition to the non-priority status, improvements were proposed to be interim, i.e, two lanes widened to four lanes, in lieu of the ultimate six lane service requirement. As a result of the City and their consultant's efforts, the Measure A Program for SR74 has been revised to incorporate Lake Elsinore's needs and implementation goals. The Project Study Report (PSR), prepared initially for SR74 from Dexter Avenue to 7th street in the City of Perris, provided a four lane widening effort. This report was revised, through negotiation by the City to include Lake Elsinore's Program of sic lanes with a raised median, curb, gutter and sidewalk from Dexter Avenue to Riverside Street, an approximate 2 1/2 mile distance. The result of having RCTC incorporate this revision into the PSR eliminated the requirement and associated costs, which would have been borne by the City, to prepare a separate PSR for the additional improvements. In addition to the acceleration of the program schedule and the .. : incorporation of additional improvements to the SR74, PDI has negotiated with RCTC to give lead agency role for the program to the City of Lake Elsinore (see Exhibit 4.1). By taking the lead agency role for design and construction, the City will maintain control of schedules, project scope, budgets and consultant selection, with RCTC and Caftrans acting in an oversite role. 1 State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 1.3 Right-of-Way Engineering/Acquisition The Riverside County Transportation Commission awarded contracts for engineering services along State Route 74 from Interstate 15 (1-15) to 7th Street in the City of Perris on February 10, 1993. The analysis was divided among three firms, for a total contract amount of $1,618,737, with a breakdown as follows: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) - $480,738, Rick Engineering - $480,470 and Hemandez, Kroone & Associates - $657,529. RBF's Scope of Services encompasses the section of State Route 74 through the City of Lake Elsinore within the City's State Route 74 Improvement Program. Initial submittal of the mapping and legal description by RBF to RCTC and Caltrans, District 8, for their review is scheduled for mid-August. PDI, through participation in team coordination meetings, is reviewing progress documents to verify that City design goals and landowner concerns are being addressed (see Exhibit 4.2). PDI has provided to RCTC, Caltrans and RBF an analysis of right-of-way dedication requirements (see Exhibit 4.3) for properties adjacent to the SR74. This analysis will enable Caltrans to.limit negotiation and purchases to those properties which are not already conditioned upon approval to dedicate the required right-of-way for the widening of SR74. a a i 1.4 Caltrans The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is an active participant within the i Measure A Program. Through negotiations and discussions at Project Development Team (PDT) meetings held at the offices of RCTC, PDI has worked with Caltrans representatives to amend various standard design criteria normally imposed by the i. agency on state. highway projects. Those amendments included incorporating a crowned section, rather than the standard superelevation configuration and reducing controlled intersection spacing which reflects current city street layout. A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Caltrans and the City of Lake Elsinore for improvement of the SR74 through the City was prepared and distributed to City staff for review and comment. Coordinating a response through the Public Services Director, PDI provided a request for revision to the MOU to Caltrans which resulted in an acceptable format to both the City and the agency (see Exhibit 4.4). This document is s. currently being finalized by Caltrans and will then be submitted to the City for review and signature. 1.5 Landowner Participation An analysis of properties adjacent to and in close vicinity of the State Route 74 was conducted by PDI to determine those landowners which may have an interest in 2 State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 participating in the SR74 Improvement Program. Criteria utilized to determine possible participation included proximity to the SR74, benefit of road and infrastructure improvements and existing development agreements or conditions upon the property r for improvements to SR74 prior to issuance of building permits. The analysis, entitled State Route 74 Service Area, East of I-15 In The City of Lake Elsinore: Community Facilities District Analysis, dated October 1992, identified seven major landowners that would benefit through participation in the program. The mechanism which hest met the needs for implementation of the improvement program was determined to be a community facilities district. Following preparation of this analysis, landowner workshops and coordination meetings have been conducted by PDI on behalf of the City for the purpose of presenting the program and obtaining feedback. Landowner coordination meetings were held on the following days: { f • Program Presentation: November 10, 1992 • Coordination Mtg.#1: February 1, 1993 ; • Coordination Mtg. #2: April 7, 1993 It was deemed necessary by the attendees at the April 7th meeting, to have a resolution of the Ramsgate property and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) prior to formation of the CFD. This property is currently in a negotiation phase between RTC and the holder of the first. Resolution is anticipated to occur in August 1993. A draft landowner participation agreement (see Exhibit 4.5) was prepared by PDI with review and input by the City's legal staff, and distributed to the landowners for signature. 1.6 Community Facilities District (CFD) The mechanism deemed most appropriate and feasible for implementation of the State Route 74 Improvement Program financing is a Community Facilities District (CFD). Landowners which have expressed an interest in participation in a CFD, to satisfy either Conditions of Approval, Development Agreements or to obtain required utility services for construction, have been identified. Annexation of additional properties into the CFD, following formation will be considered. Based upon a proposed CFD participation list, a cost analysis was prepared on a per acre basis (see Exhibit 4.6). Two scenarios were developed; the first scenario neglected the annexation area proposed for the program, the second included those properties. The analysis resulted in the following: Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Total Taxable Acres: 3522 4204 Annual Debt Svc/Taxable Acre: $273.74 $229.34 3 State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 This debt service would begin in the year 1995, fora period of thirty years at 6.5%. The anticipated CFD Formation Schedule is shown on Exhibit 4.7. { 1.7 City Improvement Program The Measure A program for State Route 74 designates a four lane interim widening solution which does not address ultimate traffic requirements, or solve the infrastructure and utility deficiencies in this area. The City of take Elsinore's State Route 74 Improvement Program not only provides the ultimate section of sic lanes with a raised median, it also includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, infrastructure, dry utilities and signakation at major intersections (see Exhibit 4.8). Through negotiations with RCTC ` and Caltrans, the City has acheived a crowned section in lieu of a super-elevation configuration, which provides for design and. construction at or near grade. Through j landowner coordination meetings, it was determined that, in addition to the conditions placed on development projects for road improvements, utility services are of a major concern. Therefore, the City's program also includes construction of backbone services for sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water, storm drain, a transmission water main, . cable television, gas, electricity and street lighting (see Exhibit 4.9.) i 1.8 Cost Estimate Analysis A cost estimate analysis was prepared by PDI based upon the improvements to State Route, 74 within the City's program. This analysis (see Exhibit 4.10) incorporates the allocation of Measure A funds to finance right-of-way acquisition and also to fund construction of four lanes of asphalt concrete paving.The total cost of improvements for State Route 74, for ultimate buildout of sic lanes, utilities and infrastructure, including design fees is approximately$20,760,000. The break down is as follows: • City $10,070,000 • Measure A $10,690,000 s 1.9 Annexation Program The existing City boundary limits along State Route 74 result in a jurisdictional boundary for the highway that alternates between the City of lake Elsinore and the County of Riverside. During the North Peak Development Annexation in 1992, the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) stipulated that the City was required to eliminated an 'island' of land adjacent to SR74, North of Trellis Lane. In an effort to address this request and to eliminate the jurisdictional boundary problem, the City 4 i State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 incorporated an annexation effort within the SR74 Improvement Program. PDI selected Christensen & Wallace, a professional services company specializing in annexation representation, to contract with the City, to prepare a Plan for Services, Fiscal Impact Report and provide representation to LAFCO during annexation proceedings. PDI also selected Van-Smith Planning Consultant to provide land planning services to analyze . existing General Plan land uses and proposed land uses within the annexation area. The boundary limits for the annexation area were determined by PDI, Christensen and Wallace, Van Smith Planning and City staff. At the direction of staff, PDI coordinated Trans Pacific Consultants to prepare a legal description and plat (see Exhibit 4.11) for the proposed acreage. The Annexation Program will include a total of 741.1 acres comprised of three non- contiguous parcels: • Parcels A: 126.1 acres • Parcels B: 542.1 acres • Parcels C: 72.9 acres Parcel A addresses the original request from LAFCO during the North Peak annexation, x and solves a portion of the jurisdictional boundary problem. Parcel B places the remainder of SR74 within City limits and Parcel C annexes the Temescal Valley High School site, located at the intersection of Dexter Avenue and El Toro Road. A detailed schedule for the annexation program has been prepared (see Exhibit 4.12), which determined that a LAFCO determination should occur in March of 1994, with City Council resolution in April of 1994. 1.10 Land Use Plan Included as a part of the Annexation Program, was the preparation of a Land Use Plan within the annexation boundary for the State Route 74 Improvement Program. City Staff and the consultant team, including Mr. Van Smith of Van Smith Planning Consultant, analyzed the existing General Plan and prepared two alternatives which provide for a more logical land use layout and circulation element along SR74. With input from Robert Christen, City Planner,and PDI, Van Smith prepared three land use exhibits: • Proposed G.P.A. Revision • GPA Implementation-Alternative One • Land Use Plan-Alternative Two The proposed GPA Revision (see Exhibit 4.13) represents the General Plan revision currently under preparation by PBR. The GPA Implementation - Altemative One, (see 5 i State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 Exhibit 4.14) utilizes the land use designations within the adopted General Plan. However, the City's General Plan of Circulation is incorporated to depict future street configuration. Also reflected is the church site currently under construction at the intersection of Dexter Avenue and 11th Street. Land Use Plan - Alternative Two (see Exhibit 4.15) represents the preferred land use and circulation configuration of the City Planner and the Program Consultants. The benefits to this alternative include: • Parallel collector roads to SR74 for local traffic - Elimination of an overabundance of freeway business • Adjacent land use compatibility In addition to the analysis of Parcels A and B, the Temescal Valley High School site, Parcel C (see Exhibit 4.16) provides for a Specific Plan Land Use designation in lieu of the existing General Plan commercial use which would allow development undesirable to the School District. 1.11 Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) The Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) for the Annexation Program (see Exhibit 4.18 } was prepared by the annexation consultant, Christensen&Wallace. This report analyzes the Land Use Plans, Alternative One and Two, prepared by Van Smith Planning Consultant and determines the fiscal impact to the City in order to implement the two alternatives. The findings of the report are summarized below: Alternative One Alternative Two General Fund $1,533,770 $1,203,986 Road Fund <$ 177,859> <$ 113,000> Landscape/Lighting District $ 488 <$ 94,189> The Road Fund deficit is offset through the surplus to the General Fund, which is reflected in the figures above. Therefore, the General Fund surplus is the net surplus after deficit payment. The Landscape and Lighting District deficit for Alternative Two is due to the inclusion of collector roads on either side of the State Route to improve circulation. The improved cost/revenue relationship for Alternative One is primarily a result of the lower population projected for that alternative (i.e. Alternative One - 1,219 dwelling units, Alternative Two - 2,330 dwelling units). However, it was determined during the Land Planning effort that Alternative One is comprised of a large percentage of freeway business, which was subsequently reduced in Alternative Two. 6 I State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 In summary, both Alternatives One and Two result in a surplus to the General Fund. Although Alternative One has a greater surplus, the land planning for Alternative Two provides for an improved land use and circulation layout and is therefore the preferred alternative of the City. I i 1.12 Plan for Services Another component of the Annexation Program is the preparation of a Plan for Services, which was also prepared by Christensen&Wallace (see Exhibit 4.18). The Plan for Services addresses the following catagories prior to and following annexation: . I • Law Enforcement and Traffic Control • Fire Protection .... i • Ambulance Service • Building Inspection, Planning and Land Use Regulation Parks and Recreation • Solid Waste Collection • Street Maintenance • Street Sweeping • Street Lights, Sidewalds, Curbs and Gutters • Water and Sewer Service • Electric,Gas and Telephone Service • Library Services j • Schools 1.13 Annexation Negative Declaration Requests for Proposal to provide environmental services to prepare a Negative Declaration for the State Route 74 Annexation Program were issued on March 19, 1993 to P & D Environmental Services and LSA Associates. Both firms responded and submitted proposals which were reviewed and evaluated by PD1. A recommendation was made to City staff to contract with LSA Associates based primarily on a cost of services comparison as both proposers were deemed equally qualified from an experience and professionalism standpoint. City, staff issued a contract to LSA Associates in the amount of $3,500 on April 26, 1993. The current schedule for the Negative Declaration will result in the following milestones: 7 State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 • Notice to Proceed: May 24, 1993 • Initial Study Complete: May 31, 1993 i • Begin Public Review: August 24, 1993 • End Public Review: September 13, f 1993 • N.O.D: October 12, 1993 See Exhibit 4.19 for the complete Negative Declaration schedule and detailed task breakdown. Submittal to the City for initial review of the Draft Document (see Exhibit r 4.20), occurred on June 16, 1993. ` 8 State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 2.0 FUTURE PROGRAM COMPONENTS 2.1 Landscape Concept The State Route 74 Landscape Concept will include median and right-of-way enhancements. Concept and construction drawings will be funded through the CFD i and will be coordinated for design standards and acceptance through Caltrans, District B. All landscape irrigation requirements will be met via the reclaimed water source, which is a component of the SR74 Improvement Program. 2.2 Project Study Report-Interstate 15/SR74 Interchange The interchange at Interstate 15 and State Route 74 is a component within the City's SR74 Improvement Program. it is not, however one of the designated interchanges slated for improvement funding within the Measure A Program. As a result, and in an effort to address all of the required mitigation measures for future traffic demands, the c budget for the City's program includes preparation of the Project Study Report (PSR)for the interchange. This study is the first step in analyzing future traffic demands, interchange configurations and subsequent required right-of-way. Identification and 3 purchasing of required right-of-way prior to future development is a priority. A Statement of Qualifications to prepare the PSR for the interchange was requested, by PDI from four firms: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Centennial Engineers, NBS Lowry and Trans Pacific Consultants. All four firms responded. The proposals were reviewed by PDI and submitted with comments and recommendations to Frank Tecca, Public Services Director for his review. Upon formation of the CFD, selection of a consultant to prepare the Project Study Report will be finalized. '• 2.3 Cooperative Agreements Cooperative Agreements will be required between the City of Lake Elsinore and various agencies such as the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and other-dry utility companies which will be involved in the improvement program. Negotiation with these agencies and preparation of the cooperative agreements will be handled through PDI, the Project Manager, coordinating with the City Attorney and the Special Projects staff for review and acceptance. 2.4 Engineering Request for Proposals The City of Lake Elsinore will function as the lead agency for both design and construction of improvements to State Route 74 from 1-15 to Riverside Street. As a component of this role, the City will be responsible to prepare and distribute request for proposals (RFPs) for engineering professional services. RCTC has prequali ied several 9 I State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 engineering firms to perform services within the Measure A Program and will accept the use of any of these firms to provide professional services to the City of Lake Elsinore. j RFP's will be prepared by PDI and City staff and distributed to firms selected from the prequalification list. 2.5 Benefit Analysis Each participating landowner within the CFD will benefit from improvements to State Route 74 in varying degrees. In order to determine a fair share method of apportionment for the City's financial responsibility for development and construction costs, a benefit analysis will be prepared. This analysis will be used to determine the extent to which each participant benefits by the widening of SR74 and the construction of backbone infrastructure. Based upon the outcome of this analysis, an equation or method of apportionment can be prepared to distribute the required debt in an equitable manner. Cost for the benefit analysis will be funded through deposits to the capital account by participants in the CFD. 2.6 CFD Formation/Funding The Community Facilities District (CFD) proposed to fund the City share of improvements within the SR 74 Program will require coordination by PDI between the participating landowners and the City of Lake Elsinore's Special Projects Staff. Involvement of Jones Hall Hill & White, City Bond Counsel, BSI Consultants Inc., and Harper & Bums, City Attorney, along with Mr. Ray Wood, Special Projects Coordinator i for the City Manager's office, will facilitate formation of the CFD and the preparation of necessary agreements between other agencies involved within the program and the City. Funding of the CFD, as determined by the method of apportionment derived from the benefit analysis,will be accomplished through the sale of bonds,to be implemented by First Caldomia Capital Markets Group,the City's financial consultant. 2.7 State Route Route 74 Annexation Workshops The Annexation Program will be presented to City Council and also to landowners through a series of workshops held at the Middle School, as attendees may reach close to 200. These presentation workshops, chaired by Project Dimension Inc., with participation by Christensen&Wallace,Van Smith Planning Consultant and City staff will be utilized to educate the attendees on the program and to gain feedback for determination on public opinion. 10 State Route 74 Improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 2.8 Right-of-Way Coordination The right-of-way engineering and aquisition effort for SR74 is under the coordination of RCTC. The City however, will be responsible for coordination with landowners and residents along SR74. In addition, continued review and oversite of RCTC's consultants will guarantee that the City's goals are incorporated, and that the SR74 Improvement Program time-frame is adhered to. 2.9 Agency Coordination Numerous agencies will be involved during design and construction of the widening of State Route 74. Coordination with these agencies will be required for permit processing i and design coordination. Agencies include: - RCTC - Caltrans - EVMWD - County of Riverside - Cable TV Southern California Edison Company - Southern California Gas Company - General Telephone ms 11 State Route 74 improvement Program Status Report: August 1993 3.0 CONCLUSION The State Route 74 Improvement Program has achieved significant accomplishments including: • City of Lake Elsinore to act as lead agency • RCTC and Caltrans incorporation of City requirements for design and alignment • Memorandum of Understanding between Caltrans and the City • Cooperative Agreement commitment between the City and RCTC • Acceleration of program within Measure A and subsequent funding allotment. • Landowner identification and education for participation in a CFD for funding • Draft Landowner Participation Agreement • Annexation boundary preparation: eliminates jurisdictional boundary problems • Proposed Land Use Alternatives • Land Use Plan which incorporated the General Plan of Circulation and provides for a more logical land use and road configuration. • Fiscal Impact Report Preparation • Plan for Services Preparation Although several tasks are still required prior to realization of the improvements to SR74, RCTC has formally recognized the City's program and has agreed to accelerate Measure A funding, purchase R.O.W. beginning at Dexter Avenue and continuing North Easterly, placing the City in a priority status and has also agreed to release the lead agency role to the City of Lake Elsinore. In addition to the RCTC agreements, the CFD formation process is progressing as well as the Annexation Program, nearing presentation to the public. An important aspect for all of the aforementioned milestones is that they have been acheived at no cost to the City's General Fund, but have been financed through developer and property owner contributions. 12 41 Correspondence \� � �] 3560 Un versty Avenue Sli;te 700 R+versr�E. CA 92501 V'EI.DRAItDUY, . To: Fatty Kroll, Project Dimension From; Tom Horkan, Bechtel Date : November 24 , 1992 RE: Meeting on December 3, 1992 I have taken the liberty of inviting Caltrans District 8 personnel to the meeting on December 3 , 1992 at RCTC. I have looked at your agenda and suggest we format slightly different, based on who will be attending. _i Related to design issues, I have instructed DMJY,. to iricbt' orate a crOlV s2ctfoh into the E_s2nore uacnt betvecan :avers de Vtreet. The design speed will be 60 mph. This Ehould taxe care o he City concerns related to design speed, superelevation, and horizontal alignment. The access system is corres ondent with the Caltrans and City of a -eElsinore access uucly. I would SU99OSr. thatose issues are reso ve an ono nee to be discussed. If you stall have concerns I will be glad to feet with the City and DP':JH prior to, or immediately follovincr the ZLeet ing. To be the most productive I would suggest we discuss the City's desire to proceed with the design phase of the project. I ar assuming the City of hake Elsinore would like to proceed v,ith design on the segLant of Route 74 from Dexter kvenue to River:ide street. several i sues need to be discussed relative to hone thE,t work. i� acconpli�.hcd. Izzues include design responsibility, funairy of design, riarit of way Fctivit}•, dccian and construction scope, schedule, for construction, and agreements that would need to be entered into. The other agenda item should include the City/s desire to discuss the state Route 74 and I-15 interchange. I would suggest the attached agenda. - ` Please call if. , you have any questions. i ���" (J�•v�6a/ VV� 7r�`.. C tfQ�}Ci.il Campary PROJECT DIMENSIONS INC. December 10, 1992 Tom Horkan, P.E. Measure A Project Coordinator Bechtel Corporation 3560 University Avenue,Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: State Route 74 Improvement Program-R.O.W. Dear Tom: To follow up to our telephone con arsation an Wednesday, 1 understand that RCTC will be distributing a scope of work on the right of way engineering for State Route 74 from Dexter Avenue, in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris,to the top three firms on the RCTC approved consultant list This distribution should occur by the end of the day today with a contract decision by the end of January 1993. Right of Way engineering is scheduled to be complete by July or August,with acquisitions finalized by the end of the year 1993 The schedule for right of way analysis and acquisition for State Route 74 by RCTC is in line with the schedule for design and construction by the City of lake Elsinore for the segment from Dexter Avenue to Riverside Street. The city will act as lead agency for design and construction of this segment,therefore, it is very important that RCTC continue to coordinate with them in this work effort to facilitate our interfacing with landowners and city consultants. Since the right of way analysis will require finalization of centeriine horizontal alignment and this same information will be necessary for the city's engineering consultant to begin final design work, continued city involvement is imperative throughout R.O.W.analysis and acquisition. We also discussed the options the city has for receiving Measure A funds. You stated that it is unlikely that the city could receive the funds in a lump sum distribution, but that instead of reimbursements, it is possible to request up front cost disbursements as long as the city can provide a guarantee that the local share will be secured. It is my understanding that if the CFD is formed to finance the entire project from Dexter to Riverside Street, this should be a satisfactory guarantee to the Commission in order for up front disbursements to be issued. Please continue to update me on the schedule and progress for State Route 74 through the City of Lake Elsinore. I look forward to working with you on these issues. Sincerely, PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC. Patrice D. Kroll, P.E./ Senior Project Manager cc: Frank Tecca, City of Lake Elsinore Robert Christen, City of Lake Elsinore Ray Wood, City of Lake Elsinore George E. Peterson, Project Dimensions, Inc. PK121504 PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC. 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1170, Irvine, California 92714 714.476.2246 FAX 714-476.8520 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION December 21, 1992 Z. Mr. Frank Tecca City of Lake Elsinore 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Reference: Letter from Project Dimensions to Tom Horkan dated December 10, 1992. Dear Mr. Tecca: - RCTC has received the referenced letter from Project Dimensions, Inc. regarding the Route 74 improvements. There are several items that I would like to clarify to ensure we are all of the same understanding. At your meeting with RCTC staff on December 3, you expressed desire for the City to function as lead agency in order to accelerate the project. 1 will recommend to Jack for consideration bv the RCTC Board to dale ate this responsibility to Lake Elsinore provided our agreement incorporates normal contracting and expen ature control- arrangements as have been worked out with projects in other cities. Such controls include RCTC (and Caltrans) participation in consultant selection; review of contract scopes, budgets, and major change orders; review of project construction scopes and costs: and final auditing of expenditures. In such an arrangement, RCTC staff will also be available to assist with processing your project through Caitrans. When you are reacji, I will have my staff worK with the City to formalize a Cooperative Agreement for RCTC Board action. Per your request, we are awaiting direction from the City of Lake Elsinore on a proposed funding concepts for the project right-of-way and construction prior to drafting the Agreement. As explained at the meeting, funding for the Route 74 project in the Measure A plan is not currently programmed within the first ten years of the 20 year program. Detailed programming for the second ten years has not yet been undertaken. At our December 1992 meeting, RCTC approved the concept of immediate acquisition of right-of-way for the project in accordance with RCTC policy to avoid potential decreases in program purchasing power due to escalation of land values projected for specific projects. 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 . Riverside. California 92501 Page Two December 28, 1992 Mr. Frank Tecca Basically, the City is requesting that RCTC change its priorities and make an early commitment of funds for design and construction of the southerly segment of Route 74. I cannot see how your funding request to move the project up could be favorably acted upon by RCTC unless there is also a substantial financial commitment by the City to the project. For example, the City of Perris commmed funding for 50 percent of project cost to accelerate the 7th to G Street project segment on Route 74. 1 would suggest that a reasonable commitment might include the following: right-of-way dedication,to the extent possible; funding for design and construction of the two additional lanes requested by the City; and funding of ali improvements that would not have been normally included in the Measure "A" project (enhanced landscaping, raised median, sidewalks, etc.). RCTC has issued Request for Proposal's (RFP) to three firms to perform right-of-way engineering services on Route 74. Robert Bein, William Frost, Inc. (RBF) has been sent an RFP for the right-of-way services to be completed from Dexter Avenue to Riverside Drive. Assuming successful negotiations, RCTC expects to contract with RBF in January or February of 1993. The right-of-way engineering effort will be completed in August or September of 1993. Appraisal and acquisition services will be carried out by Caltrans District 8,with acquisition for all three segments to be finalized by the end of 1994. RCTC could expedite ac uisition in the area within Lake Elsinore 2iven the C' 's desires' o accelerate the praect. When we have a final schedule commitment from Caltrans. we will note you nt the ear iest expected right-of-way certification date. Project Dimensions questioned if RCTC would provide a lump sum advance for the project. While we are o en to whatever methods work best for the City and for RCTC, we have not made major lump sum advances in the past. I Here Have 5een some mthor lump sum advances to minimize cash flow impacts to Cities with commitments to expedited processing of City billings. Should the RCTC board approve the use of Measure A funds to accelerate the design and construction of the project,the actual cash _1;yburserrent schedule would be set in whatever method works best for both of the agencies. Page Three December 28, 1992 Mr. Frank Tecca ! hope we have adequately answered the questions in the letter. We will await further correspondence from you prior to proceeding with development of a draft Cooperative Agreement. If you have further questions, please call me or Mark Massman at (909) 787- 7141. Sincerely, auI Br ac! elder, De puty Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission Attachment cc: Jack Reagan, RCTC Patty Kroll, Project Dimension Mark Massman, Bechtel Tom Horkan, Bechtel 3 Don Weaver, Caltrans n t 4.2 Right-Of-Way Maps a i ,j ''i I 3 i 110N RF]rAlIKS aft. OalflT IIOI/R r0{T YLL f1Yt Al o 6 ft TENTH ST. °~ 08 RIV 74 17.4-20.1 3 15 Ln w w FD BRASS DISH STAAPED 'COOTTEM I M&,,fl.U�Sa PLR TER pFm No rwnmmvm Lao w�[vaB 22939.P1B 157/53-54 'COOT 45+W5I .�BC , I + PERw No 22939,PW IS Ne.4547 n £xP.9-30-94 .� fwwrr.mom OUR T•mmwft"Um { J rAnfs OF�Tw ON 1 y Nfsfalflt<earlr►r� O� /� ..rrffr�wre.r�ww wf«swr� r P,w TJA DN LUJ OF r r TACOED LS 3696', y ROS 92/53. i 00' 1� I 0 I A IZ FU BRASS �P 'MOT 4414u2�`�.DN ON. PER PM NO 22239.PN3 bT/5Ji4. N��00,E�\ 1 Z �¢ N 0.24'4PE-<J 1 x 27.i1' \ h f' M — I r STA.D-3A65 CL R7E 74 F - — TO INTERSTATE 15 _ 1 I 257.T4' Z_T , N : f N u^4c'494 �ALOs 'COOT r TO a R IS U.G _ } 1 I LUM PEA ROS t21M � + I� > .1 I Fo BRASS DISK STAWIM Y90T DWM C8lTRAL%FU47I.PER w' k NO ZWO.PW N 9T'IS'164 —" S46"!S M 06W CWTEAUE 27.66' / i N 43tar PAR GEL MAP NO 1 i 804 Z ; PUB 54/44 i V r FLUSN.PER w NO 25404. `ID r R TAGGED iS 263r. lD J ON OX.PER w NO 8434 PMB 32/BA M O V CYr WTATI[OF G,Al.WOM" Y trlSMAS AND TRANf/ORTAt"AORICT DEPAf1Ttl6JT W TftY (NTAT" 1 l RIGHT OF WAY MAP ALLAN I FEET 1 0 50 IN ISO N 43'443W 25T.45' \~ SCALE r Ft)2'I►TA"o LS 3696'. O°°•' � �+°^ttsu.Zeti K Not—ti�wlenYa ON U.PER PM NO 22930. arr aria u-+—mmt b.h' ►0000n" to.6+df pauw QMe i Ai �1 PNB U/644%W-4413" O.OV Or%�w+vbWw0 f—NJi.+Aaq:Jm"m.l "r Rw*W f9 aw y FROM COMM bhY fqf. -Olk- wq a..abf k d*w It.Q%l~Of"— t 1 �PF N0143D4 Nla9.l ' — . CA R"- -fV-V &—We 14T W.TWd St. w rrrri rrrerfrurnnn u € THIRD ST. ACCESS PROHIBITED w SOURCE OB'4O CHMOE M-30 E. A. 464*0 ' f i I i IssaT 19TM. Cc, 6 Ili'T. boL■IY IIOULi 1'OLT 1■i 1 ■ Ln O9 RN 74 R.4-20J 4 6 w ` FD P P.N0 TAG,DN 0.3', ry ■yl LAa s aftim IAI■ N LKU OF P P TAG=LS 36W. yAA L.�� PER ROS 92/53. r n I 10'VACATED 6 m43 NQ4547 CAMBEA1 A>F� E><F,9-30-94 ftm ` ", Mwlaiet.111M FBI A ArdrY • 'r p. sA0.�R/��L■■w �!Z OAI� >w��wA•!M �� C � j A � z fq FO P P TAGGED LS 36W,DPI 0.7', F!44 F PER ROS 92/5& 4 E•�11 I i r z I N 44"OS'2I'E N 43-44WIE T ILw 4,00' . t tTA-234f93!a IMP.SLL 74 TO NTERSTATE 6 FD BRASS DISK STAMPED 'COOT ED 5RA.55- STAYED'6 {. CFJtTRAI CONAND PI L.S]3A; H J f CENTRAL CANBERN P1 LS 3315 I 199d,DN O.M.PEA ROS 22/5J. 1 �+ MO',FUM PEA 805 92/53. ^ 3 1 1 F ! I �•� TO PERRIS "'N 3503-i N 66-]°�9c LW r If' Jtar 1 w ai I u5 - 0.5d - > �. In s� i a H 1 N°27.Br4' SO' i aN 43.40ar 1348?-1 13502-I YN 1 f ag z i� d z z 19 9 A A 4 ;41 42 0 a 30' mz N 86"42'394 FD PP TAGGED LS 4104', 11/�y We, � L{may. � fUMV.PER TRACT NO 12M Isc 7T• 9a 6ia'' 34 35��_ all _ R 44.4 CAWi - - r yl 99- FD P P TAGGED RCE 199JP, r PPus RV4g0-PM A NO 2S40L 1 e1 ISK STAMPED LS 404% STATL OF CAL■'OONA �n 'TRACT ND 1293, B115sJESs AND T/IANSPORTATLON AOSNCY ` $ N43'42%-E L5P OQAnTWWT a TRANSPORTATION y€t RIGHT OF WAY MAP _ sckE co cowtw and b.a vva a on ccss3.za tR.Ohtanor v4 stanartw T ZZ SI s G dtWt bLttVWI by L0000 A "obtln 0—A a.Mon Omits w► P.P WId vaA .+cbgm-4 fw•a1A IAas.trlonN +vW -R-ky■■aM Q503-1 srt■s IL Sam 65021 LYIRIsM a I t I woo-1 Ae■I L91Rnsn AipM,�snh'Y Mo —k..■W b0 obtasl.a x tM Dt~.t OTtfw 92401 OT■�it rYq 9r'aMIY 247 L TIJM St. C7 W99-I ssLN��tisc Ip titl ttt 11 lll111111111 W P . GRAN aR. REALARKS ACCESS F'ROHtB1TE0 SOIIR� Os-4q aE 09-2N1 E. A. 4— I I I -TOO"ST. u , osr. oarrr .a.r ri C FD P P TAOM 9S 36W,DN ar,/-, 06 IW 74 II.4-zo.l 5 t5 Put Ros 1Y yAm C. +` ' UtIY ISJ993 ! p$� No.4547 i p 1 F Exp.9-30-94 S: o U ;f FL r P TAGGED RDS TJ/54. Y r ' 1 FD BRASS DISK STWPED��'}}l,,5 4104% DN�i TRACT MU M4J 44'n IB A/96-9916 Mt-58`42-E DA' i l t0o' FROM 8C. s ! I \ 'r Mrs^44.4J4 .: (' 2tq I I I-AO2' N u.4wVko JJ 9r $ ! T /r SA 23f693s IN7ISr4ERE S - -i a ' S�n4 3^7s' - t ► �35�33 s . Ld f 3504-I 5 0.27 4 bVsx74 DAZE• � x i A G-rSr..c4J�•y -� � a ' j N4T./D ' 99' t0 PERRIS N I 4.3 S' 97.6', Lip.SY Q 2tU'8F'E ITS T'SOG.R' . r top• 1351; � � f Z r p 43 44 4 A S I , I �r Nt4"Jr'07-E 94, N 4J'4276��OAyJ•-�' _ FL 1'.F1USN. f FD F P TAGGED LS 41DP, FLU_S PFA TRACT NO 1293. YB■/9c-1L sTAn of cAuforou FD BRASS MA STAMPED LS 4104'. sta>,w0z Ma riulls►MlTAT10N Aa�ICY f FLUSH,PER:TRACT NO 22U, OVA,frUDff of TKAM FCftl'A'"0N i �99L RIGHT OF MAY MAP SCALE ' Ca dhatA arW Daa%"are e„CCU&Ze vL M i-.,a.tat$m*v FD I'P TAGGED'RCE 1993r. F04',N LIEU OF r Jaf ,Aftbor by ►aapo995a to bt k,w ww s.x.,a.� �EP NO 25404. PEA TRACT No QMvia aaimtwrA frees tta s.Manpaa,4on.4aM«r heap a NX W r[TwcD ST. syp"o—t-7 r,fornaMen aM w etrtaawa frees MM Mefrfat Oflft. 0 Survey 4tr a b¢,E M aaY w arena 74i IL1rAra St. san a..•nard,4h o.ra 024a , , n C, ^ ACCESS PROHIBITED �...r��•+.��.. SOURCE 08-410 CKOW 08-210 E. A. 464100 t rs o N Olaf. COIfRT IIOIm ►OfT I" orAl 1,1 F0)','P TAf.GfD VC 08 RIV 1 74 17.4-20d 6 15 m rnorufluflL tAlo sunaTne y 9 9 WFOM Url, J& t5.1993 No,4547 F V.-0 4 gyp.9-38-94 �f `� >M r rr rlrnrf w>ti snn s uarr 7 wrRrn r esrrmr w f�9y '� �AnfRAftRdYl7114wRvkArrlrflf J Iry NDR7H 2�� �it M 1 NO. IS,J7. M �$ o � E35E0-I Stl�� ot��� 2tit PARCEL 3 p.i'7�73'6f• N s SH. r ul W I W = w &C.STA.34*30.2T W.ST HST I----------'- ^i�-"� � N 6 >32J6' i f R•200.00, 48. A In L•107, --N" 4'AlE S\ III 13520-1 I FUY.'r TAGGED'LS 4343•,tP 0.3' PER TRACT lq 120.YR"-m STATE OF CALW01"A ......... PARCEL 4 - SUS0,33 AND TRANJPORTATIM AGp1CT OfrART11IXT Of TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP � V FEET i 0 so m 50 scup / rearQw/w vw Rr fq�o+A—=*,%Z—.%OReTr.w� 3'R' RFaIAItlIS a1 to�e�.e I winft A .+*1'rlftMMen rft Viso ky NA via rJt.N n3L C 4ry Ma.-Nf1on Nb M obfal/w0 @ ft.OfV.TW OSt. 1 f.+wy Rt'e.ok or IMpM eT N ksfall247 V.thlrA ff. N A SVt WMdno.U�72401 � $ll COf0E7t OF ' ' FD r P TA I R R+I R LLUA.l1"LULUI R .o ° PER TRACT ACCESS PROHIBITED o E 08-410 apRW 08-210 E. A. 464100 1 If _ FD rf iAGQM U 44MY.. O.V. war. cuwrr fwne rmT Mu �* u rEn TRACT NO 920.T.la IV26-99 ae FUv 74 R.4-20l T IS ro PARCEL tP T La 04T. 10o.2S' y�' s'\ \ a�Dv~sAe'r 4•'�rrwMiac'�'� ( 1 tnan1aw14.u.o fu1r�T1w T��'` PARCEL 1 \\\ -I- ' \ Judy 15.1993 i \ F/ so. f;S3 b o.N 4547 r s Exp.9-30-94 i G �( Pw w S./ball A A.Tll[w aa1� AdWtftb.WWM~&Anafdlfha • i ,} � T� 4 � s x � IrwMarr4erlawa > � 1� �i 1W O� /► ��f � \\ wwwtiw�M�wsw�Ye��� i /A fp VIP TAGGED 1WCE 9455`.9N 0.3'. ROS UPIC sTT-49'OM aor FROM . ~C I copj�VL I w d NN lop j N \ 3 a--0^35n4.4a'AT a ` CENTER OF 5ECT10N 29 1* �d/ b. N 10^d131 I co S Y � •yam p� � � I.{ S oy�Res i I. t. � �� �T• z I i 9•� Q f1 L � V gcj � f l FD P F a C PER PM I z fy i \ FD P P TAGGED TCE a470*.FLUSR,NO RFFEREWCE,STT-49.Oaf O.W fAOM CORNER. YG aj4Za; � Q7• L y ?4 PAf _' L CENFER OF SECTION 22,TSS.R4Uy • fDl/ P V/PK No 7AG ofA1MG N O.P.••I((/✓✓f�SEL�.D Pdl R1 NO tTl. PUS S7A& \ STAT;of GALwoap4y 1U511[St"m TUIa/MTATfo1(Aat"" D6PMffb ETtr OF T4AMPORTATOM r z RIGHT OF WAY MAP 1 FEET 0 50 100 150 �• C—Vkwt..Ow•. ww. CCSS&Z .vl.Dlmtww ww.ranw,Yw .TT Or.1Me A.t�ruby b ta000aM to Oeta www a.taf..L 4tW.w..'t,".h.d f4--KLS.trtanguW"n.i014— 1a.d01 NN-W cl M4 vwdo1 S. a 1T.3 CAM L7A9 4t.a.H31. MV-1 Smaa ILI9fOar•1 KW .OAKS Lou fra It.DI."-wt ot"... O ♦SS7X� ARMT^f1gfFAi 0.7.4E 0.151 S-vq ff--h r rty.t a.m D qb—*w Mr—.14T V.TS"St. N i 0�2 LA d01Yf.wl (�y San 9.PIIT 6-,CO.12401 u F PARCEL REO11R_® R£Y_ _ AHIFR liiiifiiiililuffiiff NO. GRANTOA AREAS On ACCESS PROM9ITED ���..r.aw..«.., SOURCE 08-410 C*VM 08-M E. M. 464100 s i • orT. Dawn 4OOfi .�laA .�* rt " PMCELam o N0. GRANTOR REOUREA R�1ARM OR R!V 74 R.4-20J RL.P. Nia5rEsil;= IS u 0 AgM L.O.JOHISON COWANIIES 4.13W MTO ! w tllorurlalrr ute wrlt+rall i JJy 6,t993 ; ggg Na 4647 1 r/cad ER SECTION 21 Exp.9-391-44 s NO f ON 0.1'. PER Lr r M1 M coj+ �w11t1t 1MIrf OrA/.Rl�Ot rw&AwftVw � ntl�a t�tN1/r ■..w �r�rr+�+r i a�. I'- i3532-1 `n r PARBL MAII ROS 15/g2 P►IB i i i 13539-I i k3540-t ROS 24/68 E3531-I 94r43'3" `--- I am) SI.O 13530-E ,E t.. HA vs `Q ts. — 2941. 4 r-rse3.T2 w gyp `• � / L•- 5 W .y 6' '^ yob"`, �Ipt f° 4^' 7 i STATE HIGHWAY 74 .G 4—f�aN TO PERRIS ' R�19.76'' N IE2"21'O51c VV) i � Tp 1tiSEfzSTA�E IS � �� Pac t \�R.245 9O` 4 .... `.22r06'3�•`�s416.0 T LyAb.3r R L • � Sig \` OG `- 6� STATU Of CALWONMA WSMSS NoTIUINSIORTATWO Aa41CT \ OVMTMENT OF TtAN =TA710M RIGHT OF WAY MAP 1 FM so 0o 50 uu.E r� ry9 1 coa-s+.t..era er�t >ras� K ow4.w..rr.r.nxra ♦e a4rY�4n ,nd ral nft.". " w 1 *O.��� � C� a�Ad via Mt�Ml.d Iran IIC.i.f14slp.AarMot,.4.++.+r .la Up"r hry 1(ttaf}l im ■O N o"apwd ff the Ww"lat""00. ( 1 �2-C441• f.,—y F'M.l1—R101f aR tAgr 43.Oc+Mw i- ld'24T■.ITtO if. m ao ACCESS PROMBI7ED � SOUlCE 0R-4t0 pYFDE. OB-210 E. 4, 464100 I 1 !SFolle r ow. c"m nwu MT N" INGET I TOTAL `�^ 1�11 of OB RIV 74 1T.4-20.1 s t5 r" PO R01 r 'O ._--- -- _—_—_—_ NnrTicor+ Imm nRrTT9R �aµ t•y l July 15.1993 j No.4647 �} Exp.4-30-94 V I�M71�11' 1 w * aw`J Ill�4R11•Il��frN t rwww ' ROs 15/92 � LOT 12 LOT 11 slip,Ie >s� p fp Py - - - ' F< _ N 5frof 32.E y� 9,a J�/373,3A. -Nag& 4 _ Rr7200.0 0' RLLLU `327f,», TO INTERSTATE 15 i!• r Leos Ake - or lipD.our c.�s��, wd Z-26'pS7 M4•Q - FD E F TAG= '<S WM OF' LO'.PER PM NO IM4.PUB UV44-4f.S l"'2M OX PROM o 41 •l382.56' L•202.53' N COMM � 13523-1 W h 144v V N w� N4Yi3 Rf TO PERRIS N LBO' DN 0.3'.PER PARCEL 3 wr XTATS OF CALtORMA SUS*W= AND TRAMPORTATM A%V�T DPARTMfNT OF TRA~ORTATNIN RIGHT 4F WAY MAP N SO"00'444 M&4r FEET 0 50 100 60 SCALE r M 0.FL RFJIAR><S c ,td. enA br.fp�r•oL OOOS5 8 1 wL b+dh grs.d rtcNonMq r.P/A Atrlaxra Yf— L0 LOo0Ofa7a M adtalt TVUMt A4TV.o�V o-ta var rsraOfN»A+ra,x.as trTa.aAeNe•..reTtery Redry na VM [A1W.WIL PARCEL 2 ayptR. to lror.afton oftw°°"r"d frm the Dtc~offl . N Sur%"frvroh r NO"eT Vqr f+t0>Meo-*V Vr'uwh 147 N.TWA sT. u sm Mrnrdhn CA.U40 W-LL rL'L'-"lif tilll ACCESS PROI B ITEd SOURCE OB-410 CNRROE 08-210 E. A, 4�4= i ' FD a X 6 X R WM TA46ED LS 3699'.N(7 40N HILT. caurtY ttII11T9 iOst I� t 1 i4' o _ ILY SOL Po RDS 64/35-71. 03 RIY 74 17.4-20.i f0 l5 u + t 1 IP LS',Pat PH NO a r F 0.74•FROM COFOOL N t4tuu►Inss.tAla tttwtetaR � y 15�1443 -_- H ,4547 Exp.9-3B-94 a I»..�....,.,..�.... {y aAo&,m,wffm Fnw6 A1M�#. w•�4Y[1•r11r�J. Na All i 13550-1 e N d 0.1 o.j9'j0' R.1 Ls TS3•tT, l 00, p3' —-L P'1 1 4 11�• � r r 9T�41•i6 [d 80 STA• iA,9nr N 9-04z6'6 0W Y *Y to o m $ io r a i V 3 w Ai Sd Id 14 4.4 Id to 1 ur371� A o�.1;ID i 4E 8 a r a M-MtS b 2 d /' /d► ¢ Us �pF'j 5 J Ap,..�y'�• pp' a 'N 24-6149E Z 2027 bx x �. pp STAT(OF LALIFORMA i �Y n�Il 2 "i35 AND TRANSPORTATION A00+G7 0 �G'j ^ Df1ARTMOff OF TtANSPORTATON jt1{ K I I I I I IRI Ht OR WAY MAP QAJ $ FEET o so 100 50 L r Y SCALE I C�.h.,�A...,F.a.�,=RL Z VL IR.t.,. d.,.,,erdho i w Vid Arfa+o•a M+fyy by I.000OH9E{ »rotrn 01-M a.+en... arw.a.—+f ff re tr—tta s.4r Isp tenon rtatm— radar Ma—d 1 i a Kt."taw 3a �Q 7wvt+•n1' y Roma""n m be aD*0hwC t Mr OrNrlat OTRo.. o 9--y 9rw,h ar Rw.r or we u dnw sw r. d s47 IL TYrd st. 21401 u Ilnlltttttlttttulu o FD t/a P■/PfI NO TAQ LEA"50.Y,E7N DJ ACCESS PROHIBITED PER fU 140,TL PMB 57AL SOIRCE 05-410 C} fM--08-210 E. A. 464100 '� oarrtY lrarta roar Mu �* � u PM NO. 151 S-7 aR RO"I 08 wv 74 rr.4-2o1 11 is r P14B 94/73-74 _ N �{ COUNTRY nro«+nAnLtL ure ww eTaR ►��. - MOW Jay IS .1993 T}o,4547 X 9 art ArPROtm Ems.4-30--94 s F9 P r TAGGED LS 3698',UP M rYP t.i A4�R#99 run r arwu p Q Y or.PER PH NO 11 ff16 ZAII o rrr 0*a r SS/36 3T.S 36-54'44'9 0.05'FROMROCK TAGGED LS Aly wab.PO>A9!Fowl Ar mwm 1. CORI F471 w4w�6rrpr�wa FD P P TAGGED %OM NLY St7E. �rwarwn�+ 3 K? PER PM NO 10702.: fK N 9"04'" DJO'I S d � 2 FD PIP TAGGED'IS 3696%LIP d 4 aY.PER ROS 69/35-31L MOTES 11 6ri � 66lAS' - d +' It V3310E IM7.74' '' I Q� OF r r�TAG�D�W PER PM NO K9]T,PIA 9T/3. f 0. f! ML . 17 P1b 27/3.4724'UP © FD PERPIP PM NO TAGGED3 PW 9T/11 TUN4 CORNEA. b' FD rr.NO TAG.IP OJ'N LIEU �. gg © OF Or TAGGED LS 36�6'PER PM Ld NO 1693T.PM6 97/3.S 39'24'ZM �1 r OAS'FROM EC. ¢ d S 4724r.UP 11, LSg 937.1 91/3. F0 f P LAGGED L5 3696'DN �A ROM COI1I4F71 © 0.5'.PER PM Ip Kl3T.PM�4T/3 u�b S K'56'37E 0.06'FROM 6C. Q FD P P.NO TAG.DN 0 N UW i ® OF Pr TAGGED LS 369r PER PM ` NO 1693T.PIB 97/1 ell 7 FD P P TAGGED LS 369r,FLUSFL k © PER PIA MO K937 P16 91/3, 7724'.DO S 44.4T'O" O.OIY FROM COW4M .L Pwa T9/E6. W z FD YIP TAGGED LS 3698'.FLUSK m PER PM NO K93T PmB 97/3. ; S 35-26-32M 0.0TS'FROM COf61ER. 7 FD I-IF Pot PM NO�Y P16 97/3 S 36108'58'f 0.06'FRDM EC. c } � o 4,•-0'35IC40`AT 9 WiTER OF SECTIOII 29 f < i pY U � w t n FD P P TAGGED LS 36W.DI7 yt 0,31.PER PM NO 16937.PMD 9T/7. r S M71557 0A'FROM CORIEIL z ` STATB:OF CALVOW4A to ! 9US9Mi35 AND TRANSPORTATM"A08HCY OpARTL6R OF TRANS►ORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FEET R 0 Sp ao 50 Rik � IrE�J_-� � j SCALE �Sl)E 'di rarsmfw.IM b-*W 4 ..CCU&Tor.VL 01►�rM•MMrr�t9 (-29.2A ars grid 4L1Tft.. wst*0r by L600046M +O erfdn areuta A.f�u... � � � ^� 9rta tre...+s6.n.a 4r.r.K9.i.TMrPr.r7an er.Morw- 8arpr Iu4RA �. 93/95. syprw*arr Mtrar+.Tlat■a a»a.+srr 4►m it.Dft"la+os4+a. fVrY.y 4►.0/�aP x Ripft+oP Yqy o'trrt.rrYtO rftaltl t4T V.TTirA It. U CRUMPTON Srrt•.rRrdw.CA.U401 wr u I ROAD Lronrrur�lllutrr 1 r ACCESS PRO14181TED E�tRCE OB-VO CHAROE 08-ZI0.__E. A. 464100 1 f I N!S I I�o � orT. mum AoIIR err7�,oj PARCEL 2R.4 12 L5 Ts cc N -Wr4r02'/ 404.5Y h f z bn e,4reYrowL i..o Rwrc7oR S PARCEL MAP " } PA NO 16437 �I >' C DULY Ls,I993 4547 { x z z , -30- PMB 97/3 E� `>-�e 94 PARCEL 3 i AMMf D4M.lgeyre FelrA Arrdab ` st 13552-1 L•aor i �r:N�; �o's� r P TAGGED LS Mr.oN as'.PER PM D-Wo Oa \ o�U / `' g 63-c6 V FROM CORN FA. Je 99'4r47'M L-49A' I m .� \ s i s pj�to j" 680.99' b O � an S 13559-1 � a 0 m +5 r ' a_ N >z a ROS 16/5 1 MONU ENIT NOTES n d ® FD FIN NO TAG.FLUSH.N M OF PP TAGGED LS 369r PER PN N 88 NO 16937.P1B 87/3. 0 1 ® FD P P TAGGED "369er,FLUSH. •--—�� ' —-PER PM NO 16937.PUB 87/S H W46'344 r �I 7TIT FD P p.90 TAG.UP 0.1' N LEU I -106147' —� p ,p . Q OF P P TAGGED LS 369w PER PM a •v� fl R NO 16937 PMB 97/3.5 3r24'22E S EXIST.RIVERSIDE ST. FD rip TAGGED LS 364r.DN l 1 STATE OF CALFOR OS'.PER PY NO 169l7.pm 87/!. �74� ' 1 DI15NE55 AND TRAK PMTATION AOENCY S Ir 56,371E 0.06'FROM CORNER. OtrAR•TwwT oP rwewSfORTATMf11 k- FD P p P NO TAG.DR 0.4 IN LIEU �T.RIV£R�SID--E Q l- RIGHT 0 F WAY M A P © OF rGGED LS 36 TA2$'PER PM - NO 16937.PMB 97/3. 3-—-4 -" FEET FD P IF TAGGED LS 369M,FLUSH. Tv Fg D So 00 50 © PER NO 18437 PI! 9T/3, ,$ S S 44'4TPM'04'r 0.0§'FROM CORFiYt. ,,� .. FD PP TAGGED LS 3698'.FLiWL F :EF".j �� $CALF. _ PER PM ND 6937 PMB 9T/!. qqy� Do� 4 my?.�+0+ on 0CS/y 2arr yt.OM"�or Qy.tanpM,p S 3S'26'3r11 O.OS'IRON CORFE7i. 6 ,7}� on D'74 4.roncAa b"%ft e+Y L00009m 1e mm vaa.d at�t— ' I ip� O' 9.4a rep_+."h�a Trvr N.as.irte psateert ehelwn- Reds M71 aw FD P p TAGGED LS 3688'.FLUSH. �E 99� �y M, PER PM NO 1623T.PMB 97/3. 16 S 36-0r6PN 0.06'FROM EO. H of rutN...�+arY 4ve4r+�otta.+br a aOFlrC 4Yew 4M D4t'4e4 o" N 77 Aa'v4Y rq�y rydyt p}Apr R7 4Y•4f.1�247 M TfM•A St. N TAGCEO Wyamm CUNTY Q H sm 9.r.+a-i�e.CA.224a i SUR 0R VI& S 29.2$TSS R4D',DIN CENTER OF LY.PER RM 63/10 SECTION 28 LLL L Lu41 LLU"+UJ ` ACCESS PROHIBITED SOURCE 08-410 pyBOE 08-210 E. A. 464100 � yR, pplMry A9D1/ POST Ill "�T � rARCA. TOR AWAS a 08 R1v 74 R.4'20d 13 IS Md l7 ,tM/zMAns rf. 0.065 $53YS .. t r/or[mowl�Lro sLRleroA jLAy 15 1993 No.4547 Exp.9-30-94 { S s rr�s 1�.+nil tw uan r rAs QFtlg Mrrw r nrea+r w IYMrrBdt.l»Iw fYAIt ASSWMn !i Alm wlzzRrw a SIISSSI rw44/sw�rl�s..a itr i Lea fD r r TAGGED tS 36 W.Ur 0.1'. � FO PY TAGGED LS X/M i1N rF71 IIOSCR N/4"M'R'M LSD' a3'.PEl1 Ml NO 1693T,rMb tt/3. ER ROs iRDY s Y07'557 OV FROM COMM M tw l i / FD NAL/1 ROC!(TAGGED u 4343•. N i/'49347 , �, N LEU pF rP 7AGCED LS 43W ffi.OP �' �16 PER PM NO D431,PM/66/S4-/S. 13564-1 ` SAC 29 1 Fo r r TAGGED is 30fi r.UP D.Y. S 35'43'064 D.41' k M CORNERS o ' t PARCEL 3 *T I PARCELMAP � y _ ! 1 o 13554-1 °R.—uoo Sr L�67.C4' ►d 1� �,y�P') STATL Or CA FORMA A ItZ94"S AND TRARS►ORTATMN A06NCT ORPARTYOfT W TRANSPORTATION L ' A' l9 /q✓ RIGHT OF WAY MAP F� so w 60 scuE Coar0-t—aM bw r*� rr—CCSu ton.vL Dl.tv+o..a,a.f.ndrw w ,dWt � I.+I4rb sr LOOGCISSS w aetdM Uwnd dLwl' w 0 W.as-.+Ibd M.Tray R.ai.tM'VjC'—M�Marr Redpr ISS arf ./ SyPrr.M.y tirw+.rHa..o'w a6++r. rar»w OYM ptrv. or /r svwy Grawh—Aran e+•w 6r il/ arwh:r .ih*-ra Sr. sr.srrr*la�e.CA.924a 0 C, Illlrllrr tl lrlrrf ltlf 4 s!s 1 ACCESS PROHIBITED �' 11 08-410 Q+AROE Da-zro E. A. 464100 1 4.3 Right-Of-Way Analysis 1 >.1 I ` I a...... XXXX :..........: . :: «� �XiVivRE EDP ,�.T���. « ......... . .... ....�.....,..,..,..,..,....-....- -. ............,.......,.....:..:::..:.::.:::.:..::.......:............,.,............,........................,. .ti .:.'.:.' ...........'.'...... .. .{.S:W:•'r:�:ii:S� ::if:X'i r' :; ..............�..�.....,..,..,..,............-.-....-.,.-.................................,...::...:.::::..::..:..,.::..,.::..�::.::::.:�:._:.�+.�:::.�::..,..:.:..�..�...................,:r.,.....r..........., ........r.... .>:kici?;tSxS'::::;k:?;<:;:}+.• ,;:a>:o: ax•, 'i'vf::.2;;25:2:;»' :...:::....:.:...:::.....5..:t...:.;:.::..:�.{.S:.:..:n;..:.5: iri.:;...:.:�....�:?.::.-:......t rS:v:.v:•::<::::)1,.:::::�:-::?.S:]:OS::::fi,ii:.:,::.:ii'J.Q]:i<:)i.}:.:r.:.:air:.:i:SNi:.^ Xxx ............. :. X,..................................................... .....:....,.....�.............:,+..:.,..::.r:.,.Y.... �Sti _................................................ ..,,::::::: ............. ..............,.....,........:,.... .. ......................... ......: ......................... .............,....... .. fain+'. ..tiiSC:r ............ ..................:......�....,....,......:...., ... �a,. ... :.........,. ..... ............................:.......:...:...,.....,............. ... }'.f}a}}:f•}So-:..:.: ....al..,.a::`;iii.3?i`ii`'ii:?:::.n. ... ... ■� ....�...�.................................... .. ....�.:. ............... �y y� ..y.;..,. .,......... ................................................ .. .......:.......,.......... .:.......................................... ......:.. ..2, 377•-03-58-60 Cleveland Investments • From TPM 24099-Conditions February 28, 1989 condition number 21- 377-03-31 28465 Front Street "Dedicate sufficient property frontage on central to provide for Suite 321 a 10-foot Right-of--Way and 86-foot roadway Temecula, CA (55-foot Right-of-Way and 43-foot roadway half section).' (714)676-4148 Contact: Roger Epson Condition Number 27- *Dedicate a standard comer cut-off at the North comer.' 377-03-14 Cleveland Investments 28465 Front Street Suite 321 Temecula, CA (714)676-4148 Contact: Roger Espon 377-37-08 Ramsgate - From Development Agreement dated June 20, 1990- 347-12-16 RTC-Present Sec. 9.9, PG 25- ... 'Developer will be required to dedicate and 347-14-20 Leinholder improve any additional land necessary to accomodate Highway 74 improvements along and adjacent to the property's boundary.' 347-10-M thru Northpeak Partners From specific plan dated October 1990 347-10-10 c/o TMC Development Mitigation Measure 42, pg 14 and 3080 South Bristol St. -"The Developer of the spa shall dedicate the necessary half section 347-11-03 &04 Suite 150 (67 foot half section, per Caltrans)for improvements adjacent to 347-11-67* Costa Mesa, CA 92626 their properties." thru 68 Contact: Brian Myers * Future Annexation Parcels GRAN :........... Aft ] .......:.::::............... ....................�:::..:.i:r{.:...:.:'..i;•:,;.:::::.:�:.�::......................... ........�:..�.:.:�::::�.......:.::::::::::.:::..::•::.::�:.::::.: :...........n... :............r:..... .. ::1..,....r:r:.:0;•::�::i.:��:�. :;'s:.�r:�;i:::::'::::::vv ................................:.:. :..�.:..: r...tn ,.....,...r......... ...::.r:•:. ...........: ....................... .......l..�:.::�:.:.::. r........ .:..:n..v:.::�.:�:vnv:.:�.:. .:.:........ l.:.r. ...: ;{.::.:.r...v.�\:..v...............:........ x......... �:.�ti r:'rnY.:r'f{.;ti:.tl...,E:.: .'.r.:•::•i�:Y\�y.: 377-04-13 William G. &Rosalyne J. Hall* • Property is currently in Annexation. City will condition on 67 foot 377--02-08 P.O. Box 56524 half section dedication for improvements adjacent to their properties. Riverside, CA 92517 *Representative From mitigated negative declaration, Hall Annexation No. 64 dated Entec Consultants, Inc. October 1992 1355 E. Cooley Dr., Ste B Colton, CA 92324 -Item C, Page 23 Impact on Transportation Systems, "All Contact: Kim Quon future developments would be expected to comply with the City requirements and conditions." I i i - I i >'I '1 i I i j 1 `i 4.4 Memorandum of Understanding ' i I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -'4 DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 m SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (909) 383-5959 June 21, 1993 Patrice D. Kroll, P.E. Senior Project Manager Project Dimensions, Inc. I 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1170 Irvine, CA 92714 i Dear Ms. Kroll: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Route 74 - East of Interstate 15 (I-15) . City of Lake Elsinore We have reviewed your response to the draft MOU for Route 74 in the City of Lake Elsinore and revised it to reflect some of your concerns. An update draft MOU is enclosed. We are now looking forward to finalizing the MOU and moving to the next stage, which is the creation of a Cooperative Agreement, after the MOU has been in effect for one year allowing for adjustments etc. In the interest of all concerned parties (Caltrans, Riverside County and the City of Lake Elsinore) , negotiations will continue for the relocation and re-design of Dexter Avenue for safety and operational factors. If you have further comments and/or questions, please contact Emmanuel V. Aggreh at (909) 383-5922 , FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, ROBERT G. V Y, Chief Transportation Planning Riverside Coordination r ch Enclosure cc: Louise Givens, Caltrans Don Weaver, Caltrans ' Jack Reagan, RCTC Edwin Studor, Riverside County Frank Tecca, City of Lake Elsinore MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between the State of California's Department of Transportation (hereinafter, Caltrans) and the City of Lake Elsinore (hereinafter, the City) . This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes solely a guide to the respective obligations, intentions and policies of the City and Caltrans to use in approving new development along State Route 74 in the City of Lake Elsinore (East of Interstate 15) . This MOU addresses the Concept Facility as proposed by the City, however, the Ultimate Facility however, is of utmost importance to Caltrans. This MOU is not designed to authorize funding for the project effort, nor is it a legally binding contract. It is the intent of this MOU to establish a mutual policy leading to a Cooperative Agreement between Caltrans and the City within approximately twelve (12) months after the execution of this MOU. The basic understanding is as follows: ROUTE 74 EAST OF INTERSTATE _1(I-15 1. Access Management for Route 74 in the City of Lake Elsinore will be handled by Caltrans and the City. Limited Access will be retained for existing lots with a goal of creating rear access points to local streets ultimately. 2. For the Ultimate Facility, the Build-out will be six lanes with a 134 ' Right-of-Way from I-15 to Riverside Street however, four lanes with a 134' Right--of-Way thereafter, will be recommended. 3 . All full access openings will be signalized and synchronized. 4 . All existing non-full access points will be limited by construction of Right In/Right Out Lanes with raised medians. Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes will be highly recommended. 5. Realignment of sections of Route 74 (PM. 17 . 9-PM. 21. 8) will be necessary to eliminate sight restriction (Northpeak and Ramsgate areas) . The City will protect Right-of-Way for this realignment. A. >> * 6. From Cambern Avenue to Conard Avenue, the spacing between these two streets is 0.25 miles. In order that these two access points become major signalized intersections with Route 74 , agreements between Caltrans and the City will be negotiated. 7 . Other major full access points of approximately' a half mile spacing will be allowed by Caltrans through negotiations with the City. These will include from; Ramsgate Drive to El Toro Road and El Toro Road to Riverside Street. 8. Intersection and Limited Access Design will be developed in accordance with policies, procedures, practices and standards normally followed by Caltrans and the City. Exceptions will be granted based on agreements reached by Caltrans and the City. 9 . The City will require dedications of the Ultimate half width Right-of-Way as adjacent parcels develop. 10. Maintenance, intersection signalization and design specifications will be in accordance with policies, procedures, practices and standards of the various departments within Caltrans and the City. 11. This MOU supersedes all previous agreements entered into by Caltrans and the City for the development of Route 74 , East of Interstate 15 (1-15) . ' f ATTEST: i i APPROVED AS TO FORM: i i John R. Harper, City Attorney Vicki Kasad, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Date Date - i I Concur: BEN STEELE, GARY WASHBURN, Caltrans, District S Director Mayor, City of Lake Elsinore Date Date SEE ATTACHED MAP q�q _ I i .y� I Z CI �a R1VERslpe sr r �' OG - 'PO < O i HgMSGQT� OR CplVq ALA ,r.�'�'• t� 1i�,~y� RD N Sp { ,, Aye --� C4MBFRhr 4 O ROUTE 74 MOU MAP East of I-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore rF/s Not to Scale Note: Rte 74 is presented on Proposed Realignment. 4.5 Draft Landowner Participation Agreement I 'i DRAFT OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT k RE: COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF l �.. A PORTION OF STATE ROUTE 74 THIS OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (the 'Agreement') is made and entered into as of , 1993 by and among the City of Lake Elsinore,a public agency(the'City') and each of the following landowners (collectively the 'Developers') with respect to their development projects (collectively,the'Development Projects') set forth below: Developer Development Proiect Resolution Trust Corp. Ramsgate Mr. and Mrs.William Haft Hall Property North Peak Partners, LP. North Peak Cleveland Investments Gateway Commercial Mr.and Mrs. Donald Schwerin Schwerin Property { Clurman Development TTM 25931 TMP Investments North Lake Elsinore Hills j Partin Development TTM 25487 RECITALS A. The City and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (`ROTC') expect to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for the widening and Improvement of a Portion of State Route 74 (the 'Cooperative Agreement) pursuant to which the City and RCTC will agree to undertake the 'PROJECT" described therein that includes the preconstruction costs related to widening and improving the segment of State Route 74 from Dexter Avenue to Riverside Street within the City's sphere of influence. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the City may be obligated to pay a portion of the costs of the PROJECT. S. Developers are owners of real property within the City's sphere of influence upon which the various Development Projects will be constructed. Each of the Development Projects will be benefrtted by the proposed PROJECT undertaken by RCTC and the City. C. The parties wish to enter into this agreement to provide a means whereby the Developers shall contribute to the City by way of the formation and implementation of a Community Facilities District ('CFD`) to assist in the performance of City's obligations under the Cooperative Agreement so that the PROJECT may proceed in a timely fashion. DRAFT Owner Participation Agreement Community facilities District for The Widening and improvement of A Portion of State Route 74 page 2 of 3 i r : AGREEMENT i NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, l the parties hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1. Funding. Funding for the performance of the City's obligations under the Cooperative Agreement will be accomplished through formation and implementation of a Community Facilities District ('CFD'). The total obligation by the City, under the Cooperative Agreement, to be funded by the CFD shall not exceed$ (the'Total Amount')and the total obligation by each developer shall not exceed its Proportionate Share(as defined below) of the Total Amount. SECTION 2 Proportionate Share. Upon execution of this Agreement, each developer agrees to participate in the CFD based upon their respective 'Proportionate Share' as derived from a Developers' mutually agreed upon rate and method of apportionment. This rate and method of apportionment will be developed during CFD formation by the City through input from the developers. This Agreement in no way shall pre-empt voting rights or obligate a developer to vote in a CFD. SECTION 3. Reimbursement. The Proportionate Share for each developer may be reduced after formation of the CFD upon annexation of additional participants into the CFD. Upon annexation, such additional participants will be required to financially participate in the CFD based upon a method to be determined during CFD formation. SECTION 4. Copies of Documents. The City will use its best efforts to provide each developer with one copy of any formal plan, report, map, or study prepared by or on behalf of the City or RCTC pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement. SECTION 5. Obfigations. This Agreement shall not obligate the City to form any CFD, to enter into any Cooperative Agreement with RCTC,or to advance any of its own funds for the PROJECT. Formation of a CFD shall be subject to public hearing, City Council approval, and agreements with RCTC. SECTION 6. Deposits. City reserves the right to request deposits from developers to pay for CFD formation costs. SECTION 7. Liabilifty. All liability of the City under this Agreement shall be payable solely from developer contributions or CFD bond proceeds. No Council member, officer or agent of the City shall incur any personal liability hereunder. SECTION 8. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. SECTION 9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart CRAFT Owner Participation Agreement Community Facilities District for The Widening and Improvement of A Portion of State Route 74 page 3of3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. i CITY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,a municipal corporation ATTEST: and political subdivision of the State of Califomia By: City Clerk Mayor DEVELOPERS i Resolution Trust Corp. Mr. and Mrs.William Hall i Brian Myers,North Peak Partners, L.P. Roger Epperson,Cleveland Investments Mr. and Mrs. Donald Schwerin Don Clurman, Clurman Development TMP Investments Rob Partin, Partin Development I j . 1 i i i .I "I '3 4.6 Debt Service Analysis 1 i j i I i CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS ON PROPOSED BOND ISSUE SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 " NO. OF ACRES NO. OF ACRES W/OUT ANNEXATION W/ANNEXATION r:•n_ ---------------- --------------- NORTH PEAK PARTNERS 1,964.00 1,964.00 LD. JOHNSON 1,239.00 1,239.00 TMP 169.00 169.00 PARTIN DEVELOPMENT 60.00 60.00 THE CLUBMAN CO. 50.00 50.00 DON SCHWEEN 25.00 25.00 CLEVELAND INVESTMENTS 15.00 15.00 ANNEXATION: PARCEL "A" 0.00 135.80 PARCEL "B" 0.00 546.20 TOTAL ACRES 3,522.00 4,204.00 SCENARIO "A" (RCTC WILL DISBURSE FUNDS UP FRONT) TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $28,617,262.50 $28,617,262.50 CAPITALIZED INTEREST (1,621,750.00) (1,621,750.00) ---------------- --------------- NET DEBT SERVICE $26,995,512.50 $26,995,512.50 NET DEBT SERVICE/ACRE $7,664.82 $6,421.39 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE/ACRE $273.74 $229.34 FIRST DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT BY LANDOWNERS WILL BE IN 1995. ---------------- --------------------------------_------------------------------ SCENARIO "B" (RCTC WILL REIMBURSE $11,500,000) TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $59,655,700.00 $59,655,700.00 CAPITALIZED INTEREST (3,380,000.00) (3,380,000.00) RCTC FUNDS (11,500,000.00) (11,500,000.00) ---------------- --------------- NET DEBT SERVICE $44,775,700.00 $44,775,700.00 NET DEBT SERVICE/ACRE $12,713.15 $10,650.74 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE/ACRE $552.75 $463.08 FIRST DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT BY LANDOWNERS WILL BE IN 2000. • NOTE: FOR SCENARIO "B", LANDOWNDERS WILL PAY $287,000 IN THE YEAR 2000 (THE BALANCE OF THE DEBT SERVICE AFTER THE LAST RCTC PAYMENT) . THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE/ACRE CALCULATION IS BASED ON 23 YEARS (2000-2022) . ASSUMPTIONS: 1. SCHOOL SITE (PARCEL "C") WILL NOT PAY INTO CFD. 2. BOND ISSUE WILL BE RATED AND WILL BE AMORTIZED OVER 30 YEARS @6.50%. 3. APPROXIMATELY 2% COST OF ISSUANCE FOR BOND ISSUE. 4. 2 YEARS OF CAPITALIZED INTEREST. 5. NO RESERVE FUND. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SCENARIO A DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE i DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST PERIOD TOTAL FISCAL TOTAL -------- -------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 9/ 2/93 405,437.50 405,437.50 405,437.50 9/ 2/94 810,875.00 910,875.00 810,875.00 s 9/ 2/95 170,000.00 6.500000 810,875.00 980,875.00 980,875.00 9/ 2/96 180,000.00 6.500000 799,825.00 979,825.00 979,825.00 9/ 2/97 190,000.00 6.500000 788,125.00 978,125.00 978,125.00 9/ 2/98 205,000.00 6.500000 775,775.00 980,775.00 980,775.00 9/ 2/99 215,000.00 6.500000 762,450.00 977,450.DD 977,450.00 9/ 2/ 0 230,000.00 6.500000 748,475.OD 978,475.00 978,475.OD 9/ 2/ 1 245,000.00 6.500000 733,525.00 978,525.00 978,525.00 9/ 2/ 2 260,000.00 6.500000 717,600.00 977,600.00 977,600.00 i` 9/ 2/ 3 280,000.00 6.500000 70D,700.00 980,700.00 980,700.00 9/ 2/ 4 295,000.OD 6.500000 682,500.00 977,500.00 977,500.00 9/ 2/ 5 315,000.00 6.500000 663,325.OD 978,325.00 978,325.00 9/ 2/ 6 335,000.00 6.500000 642,850.00 977,850.00 977,850.00 9/ 2/ 7 355,000.00 6.500000 621,075.00 976,075.00 976,075.00 9/ 2/ 8 380,000.00 6.500000 598,000.00 978,000.00 978,000.DD ' 9/ Z/ 9 405,000.00 6.500000 573,300.00 978,300.00 978,300.00 9/ 2/10 430,000.00 6.500000 546,975.00 976,975.DO 976,975.00 9/ 2/11 460,000.00 6.500000 519,025.00 979,025.00 979,025.00 9/ 2/12 490,000.00 6.500000 489,125.00 979,125.00 979,125.00 t 9/ 2/13 520,000.00 6.500000 457,275.00 977,275.00 977,275.00 9/ 2/14 555,000.00 6.50000D 423,475.00 978,475.00 978,475.OD 9/ 2/15 590,000.00 6.500000 387,400.00 977,400.00 977,400.00 9/ 2/16 630,000.00 6.500000 349,050.OD 979,05D.00 979,050.00 9/ 2/17 670,000.00 6.500000 308,100.00 978,100.00 978,100.00 9/ 2/18 715,000.00 6.500000 264,550.00 979,550.00 979,550.00 . 9/ 2/19 760,000.00 6.5000DD 218,075.00 978,075.00 978,075.00 9/ 2/20 810,000.00 6.500000 168,675.00 978,675.00 978,675.00 9/ 2/21 865,000.00 6.500000 116,025.00 981,025.00 981,025.00 9/ 2/22 920,DOO.00 6.500000 59,800.00 979,800.00 979,800.00 12,475,000.00 16,142,262.50 28,617,262.50 ACCRUED 12,475,000.00 16,142,262.50 28,617,262.50 Dated 3/ 2/93 with Delivery of 3/ 2/93 First California Capital Markets Group, Inc., San Francisco, CA 94111 RUNDATE: 01-04-1993 9 09:38:22 FILENAME: HMR KEY: ELSINORE RCTC CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SCENARIO B DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST PERIOD TOTAL FISCAL TOTAL 9/ 2/93 845,000.00 845,000.00 845,000.00 r-; 9/ 2/94 1,690,000.00 1,690,000.00 1,690,000.00 9/ 2/95 350,000.00 6.500000 1,690,000.00 2,040,000.00 2,040,000.00 9/ 2/96 370,000.00 6.500000 1,667,250.00 2,037,250.00 2,037,250.00 9/ 2/97 395,000.00 6.500000 1,643,200.00 2,038,200.00 2,038,200.00 9/ 2/98 420,600.00 6.500000 1,617,525.00 2,037,525.00 2,037,525.00 9/ 2/99 450,000.00 6.500000 1,590,225.00 2,040,225.00 2,040,225.OD 9/ 2/ 0 480,000.00 6.500000 1,560,975.00 2,040,975.00 2,040,975.00 9/ 2/ 1 510,000.00 6.500000 1,529,775.00 2,039,775.00 2,039,775.00 9/ 2/ 2 545,000.00 6.500000 1,496,625.00 2,041,625.00 2,041,625.00 9/ 2/ 3 580,000.00 6.50000D 1,461,200.00 2,041,200.00 2,041,200.00 9/ 2/ 4 615,000.00 6.500000 1,423,500.00 2,038,100.00 2,038,500.00 9/ 2/ 5 655,000.00 6.500D00 1,383,525.00 2,038,525.00 2,038,525.00 9/ 2/ 6 700,000.00 6.500000 1,340,950.00 2,040,950.00 2,040,950.00 9/ 2/ 7 745,000.00 6.500000 1,295,450.00 2,040,450.00 2,040,450.00 9/ 2/ 8 795,000.00 6.500000 1,247,025.00 2,042,025.00 2,042,025.00 9/ 2/ 9 945,000.00 6.500000 1,195,350.00 2,040,350.00 2,040,350.00 9/ 2/10 900,000.00 6.500000 1,140,425.00 2,D40,425.00 2,040,425.00 9/ 2/11 960,000.00 6.50D000 1,081,925.00 2,D41,925.00 2,D41,925.00 9/ 2/12 1,020,000.00 6.500000 1,019,525.00 Z,039,525.00 2;039,525.00 9/ 2/13 1,085,000.00 6.50000D 953,225.00 2,038,225.00 2,038,225.00 9/ 2/14 1,155,000.00 6.5000D0 882,700.00 2,037,700.00 2,037,700.00 9/ 2/15 1,23D,000.00 6.500000 807,625.0D 2,037,625.00 2,037,625.00 9/ 2/16 1,315,000.OD 6.500000 727,675.00 2,042,675.00 2,042,675.00 9/ 2/17 1,400,000.DO 6.500000 642,200.00 2,042,200.00 2,042,200.00 9/ 2/18 1,490,000.00 6.500000 551,200.00 2,041,200.00 2,041,200.00 9/ 2/19 1,585,ODO.00 6.500000 454,350.00 2,039,350.00 2,039,350.00 9/ 2/20 1,690,000.00 6.5000DO 351,325.00 2,041,325.00 2,041,325.00 9/ 2/21 1,800,000.00 6.500000 241,475.00 2,041,475.00 2,041,475.00 9/ 2/22 1,915,000.00 6.500000 124,475.00 2,039,475.00 2,039,475.00 26,000,000.00 33,655,700.00 59,655,700.00 ACCRUED 26,000,000.00 33,655,700.00 59,655,700.00 Dated 3/ 2/93 with Delivery of 3/ 2/93 First California Capital Markets Group, Inc., San Francisco, CA 94111 RUNDATE: 01-04-1993 a 09:32:29 FILENAME: HMR KEY: ELSINORE RGTC 1 STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVE M4T PROGRAM I DWELLINGS/ % ACRES TRAFFIC % TRAFFIC iLANDOWNER PROJECT IGROSS AC. ISF. COMM. IOF TOTAL GENERATION TOTAL 1 i i i NORTH PEAK PARTNERS NORTH PEAK I I.964 4,621/378,972 54.7 12,700 13.41 iLD JOHNSON(RTC) RAMSGATE 1,239 3,330/370,000 I 34.5 40,000 42.2 I ! 'CLURMAN DEV. TTM 25831 50 195/0 1 1.4 1,900 2A I , ff CLEVELAND INVESTMENT GATEWAY 15 0/130,000 I 0.3 7,900 8.3 � I I ITMP INVESTMENT N.L.E. HILLS 169 355/0 1 4.7 1,400 1.5 i PARTIN DEVELOPMENT TTM 25487 60 139/0 1 1.7 1,100 1.2 i MR.&MRS.HALL HALL 71 0/600,000 2.0 18,000 19.0 # I MR.&MRS. SCHWENN I SCHWENN ?S 0/200.000 1 0.7 11,800 2.41 1 ITOTAL.S I I 3,593 864011,678,972I 100.0 94.800 100.0 ANALYSIS No. i I ANALYSIS NO. 2 Spread S10.1 million over benefit area Spread S10.1 million over benefit area I based upon protected traffic generation. based upon acreage. EST.TRAFFIC I % OF I TOTAL 9 OF ;LANDOWNER GENERATION I TOTAL 1 TOTAL ACREAGE TOTAL TOTAL(S) 1 I (NORTH PEAK PARTNERS 12,700 I 13.4 1,353,400 1,964 54.7 5,524,700 1 I ILD JOHNSON(RTC) 40,000 1 42.2 4,262,200 1,?39 34-5 3,494,500 1 'CLURMAN DEV. 1,900 I 2.0 202,000 50 1.4 141,400 � I I CLEVELAND INVESTMENT 7,9001 8.3 838,300 15 0.3 30,300 .. I 1TMP INVESTMENT 1.4001 1.5 151,500 169 4.7 474,700 PARTIN DEVELOPMENT 1,100 I 1.2 121,200 60 I 1.7 171,700 I I I I NIR. &MRS. HALL 18,000 I 19.0 1,919,000 71 2.0 202,000 MR. &MRS. SCHWENN 11.8001 12.41 1,252,400 ii 25 0.7 70,700 I I f TOTAL 94,8001 100.0 10,100,000 i 3,593 1 100.0 10,100,000 1 ............ ...,:.....,.,.i v....,.... ..., - ....... . STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UW�LIYNG UNITS/ LANDOWN>~R PitOY1;C'C. S ,CONCMI:RCXAL I;DU'S TOTAL:: SPlt)4A1 ES) North Peak Partners North Peak 4,621 / 378,972 5,246 46.0 4,646,000 Ramsgate (RTC) Ramsgate 3,330 / 370,000 3,940 34.5 3,484,500 Clurman TTM 25831 195 / 0 195 1.7 171,700 Cleveland Gateway 0 / 130,000 214 1.9 191,900 TMP NLE Hills 355 / 0 355 3.1 313,100 Partin TTM 25487 139 / 0 139 1.2 121,200 Hall Hall 0 / 600,000 989 8.7 878,700 Schwenn Schwenn 0 / 200,000 330 2.9 292,900 TOTAL 9,640 / 1,678,972 11,408 100.0 10,100,000 Note: EDU's are calculated based on Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's (EVMWD)capacity units equivalency factor for commercial shopping centers of 1.6483 capacity units per 1000 SF commercial. STATE ROUTE 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DWELLIt�T UNIT 16. )LANDOWNER'>> .. )pROlC1' S1a CO1V1M1;RCrA). >;DYJ'S %.TOTAL SPREAD ($j'' North Peak Partners North Peak 4,621 / 378,972 4,765 51.4 5,191,400 Ramsgate(RTC) Ramsgate 3,330 / 370,000 3,471 37.4 3,777,400 Clurman TTM 25831 195 / 0 195 2.1 212,100 Cleveland Gateway 0 / 130,000 50 0.5 50,500 TMP NLE Hills 355 / 0 355 3.9 383,800 Partin TTM 25487 139 / 0 139 1.5 151,500 Hall Hall 0 / 600,000 228 2.5 252,500 Schwerin Schwerin 0 / 200,000 76 0.9 80,800 TOTAL 8,640 / 1,678,972 9,279 100.0 10,100,000 Note: EDU's are calculated based on Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's (EVMWD) capacity units equivalency factor for commercial stores of 0.3807 capacity units per 1000 SF commercial. R i 4.7 CFD Schedule i } k 3 , i i i i � e CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE JECT DIMENSIONS , INC . REMARKS AUG MAR REMARKS i I 1900 " — CFO FORMATIO� 0x ; 1-? f BONDS 211 BOND SALE COMPLETE z 204 PREP. j e 17 ELECTICNiFORM ❑ISTRICi I 200 BEG APING .� 201 202 24 i t i..i AUG MAR PVS NETWORK PLOT D LEGEND PROJECT START ❑ATE: EARLY FINISH DATE PROJECT FINISH DATE: 7 PROJECT TOTAL ELAPSED TIME: 131 STATUS DATE: 1 Cx ACTIVITIES SHOWN/TOTAL ACTIVITIES: N PERCENT MASTERFILE NAME: coMPLEr ASSOCIATED COMMAND FILE: fIEo OR BOLO ARE CRITICAL. NETWORK ANALYZED ON: NETWORK PLOTTED ON: ;TON BLDG. SEATTLE, WA 96101 (206) 62S-0412 NETWORK PLOT SOFTWARE VERSION 9.10 93 XESEK, INCORPORATED \� >§� - 4 8 General Pl a of Circulation.SR7 Access Study. . \\ } \�[ �......... _ ._.. r_..... _ _. . a • � _,-"• •: I , .1'�•. tiff L ` tVlYWQMA ' ,{ ; V J v SkPFIC PLAN _ 4 f' "'�" 'c'r'-'1 t i i,• twL�,�f.sw�°ks �V • - � � OAF a -�1� I anmwnu o. - . I _ _ _�/ ,-f.• `_ YERY LOW DENSITY ,,�. oaer,'� 11'•Ir.AI l7�D: 'fi,i - ►OW bk#ASITY -- �av{sF.csT NORTH PEAK SPECIFIC DLAlf/ ILK / � - - saaLe nMEr - AEMoolrw.r _.- . e{xaLE.naJ,- r; C. �r.ems.k `\-�•!-^•: ' T.T.M.-272Ta I � f m bi.ONARBA - sioP CAMBEPN AVE.-COLLECTOR�m n-aiai•w us'rsoe v sa_.,war, c.lLeeax.vE Nrua;r Nu{ccEss sr rus m LLaarmrtn G -NICHOLS RD.-wsr.La,luxetauaoww.morE asrw CONARDAVE.»COLLECTOR im n.amraarsn,me oru {.aia•. nn_orraa rrcws[cra•L rvrwxraorwermmar.r-rlrl{mrtan c.LLaowrumsrasor, •xcss u,ur,ecw.kmox o•rurwaarwro cur-wPru a.wros.taa n. N -CAMBERN AVE-E[rsrixoirk.Kma.usTwoul{a Lrc EASTSIDE REMAINING STS.wsm.m,a a uk Lacu srs m n,ar.n FASt T �'r NNIIE/Nll$CESS STATUS EE YANIlSIE0. u.[xsr.[u{xc sr-rancx u{.sm sr-i o{F,aaL.cox.m wE.Lxoaas•ca }{ _EL TORO CUT-OFF RD.-rarwsrl LnK Pn,vPaoEa••w•Lae O-DEXTER AVE-... r L,rM.arrn.k.P.aa,. .r.sr or L-u WESTSIDE REMAINING STSiosw{oror{.LL Loa{slueuaem wer a.,uac•wnx*L¢rry.ae-un.�{x*orm-T•uwma xoarxewxoaws.Nrwxr wrw w..uLreeus rrlrsm w.nw{n Lmx r..a,ns,,inronrm-arrmrL.cnoLs*a.ruLus Lx rcow{a•w..wcwnmsw in r acoL.Lcxom rw.lrarc sex{{.nraulAx a{sluam lvaa,xea vnrxrr< sLroxxorrw{rx rn{oLo.Lcxx,xr uo n{iaoac�arslm r,.s orcwLoi� EnrlonaLcwnoxw,xei rs a.ws.neruwcr<aLrclak cacv*s iau,mawoE•oo n,wcrw rxewsrra wreasreraL{ - usx I -MERMACK RD.-nLs+wsi xanE NNa[.nu0a a0.GCGwt a9•-w{• NOTE • .LL STafrll LEwclLo axxw sxow,xrT.v,l{plRTxaTE IUW axo PARCEL B0% .xeooxorxEc{ss{aE..{ruc,cwaexr{plrmo cawrxMs f . QRCU14AUM/ :ram ao.w eesEss[as rao.xo.'ss-r.x.re se[xnwwrm a[aurtr e•ae aCGOLLrO�a{rpu Or 5,.,[appC•CGFlS s,UDW dlrsuCamP..MxCsugx{aar-•aEr[a aa0.,aPA SR '' *M ADCMS SMYP x� P�a�ar aaa�axrsa cm w luvC[LswaaE 9cu;wc wo cnrrflui[x.xo vuLru,E nC CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE „r SR =74 BATE:12.92 10 AC, 300 SCALE ...rsn. ....... r T_^ 4.9 Typical Cross-Section ko SR 74 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONSTRUCTION COST RESPONSIBILITY <°. ..ITEM .. .', DPBCRII►I`[ON Ap13HCYRk�P[fNS�ll!1`r1�`.....:.:......... :. A 14' wide raised median includes City of Lake Elsinore 6" curb and landscaping B 4 lanes of pavement include RCTC removals and compaction C One 12' lane, one 8' parking lane, City of Lake Elsinore curb, gutter and sidewalk, each direction D 134' Right-of-Way aquisition RCTC Sewer,potable water, reclaimed water City of Lake Elsinore Street lights, landscaping City of Lake Elsinore D R/W 134, R1W 102' 10' 1. a' 12' 12' 12' 14' 12' 12' 12' V C B A B C 0 0 0 0 p o Gas Sewer oStorm o Drain o 0 CAN Reclaimed Domestic CA-ry Stre Oet Water Water Light Transmission S.C.E. Water Main Street Light ULTIMATE SECTION (6 LANES) 4.10 Cost Estimate F � 1�.G E I N ...MPRCIEiVIET FRQiI 11S RitiRSDE BEET ST:>1ALYS .S .....:::.;;::;;::.;�.::- fir .nve:: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE $10,066,100 RCTC -MEASURE A $10,689,866 TOTAL COST OF PROTECT $20,755,966 I1P> OYE1�+IEIT FRUIVI IS TQ RI '1~1151 STREEZ` ::::::::>:;.:::: ::: ::.:...:::...:. COST BZtA +L�W1INA ,1'SIS ::. - O>~ :. x. t'izPltxtt]t } , rs Ord>.> MMINO. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS UNrr uNTrCWT Qu1N= AMOUNT 1 Mobilization LS 100,000.00 1 100,000 2 Finish Roadway LS 25,000.00 1 25,000 3 Aggregate Base CY 23.00 15,000 345,000 4 Asphaltic Emulsion TON 300.00 20 6,000 5 Asphalt Concrete TON 30.00 10,000 300,000 6 Curb&Gutter LF 9.50 23,000 218,500 7 Concrete Sidewalk SF 2.50 115,000 287,500 8 Median Curb LF 6.75 22,000 148,500 9 Street Name Signs EA 200.00 12 2,400 10 Barriers&Guardrails LF 25.00 1,500 37,500 1I Street Lights EA 1,500.00 60 90,000 12 Striping&Signing LS 40,000.00 1 40,000 13 Signalization EA 125,000.00 2 250,000 # SUBTOTAL, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1,850,400 i MmNO. LANDSCAPING UNrT WarcWT QUAN= AMOUNT 1 Parkway Landscaping SF 1.75 180,000 315,000 2 Median Landscaping SF 2.00 126,000 252,000 SUBTOTAL, LANDSCAPING 567,000 rr04NO. DRY UTILITIES UNrr VMTCQST QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 Utility Trench&Conduits LF 65.00 11,000 715,000 2 Gas Line LF 10.00 11,000 110,000 SUBTOTAL, DRY UTILITIES 825,000 rrEVNo. POTABLE WATER UNrr uxrrcrzrr QUAN7rlY AMOUNT 1 42' CML&C Pipe LF 168.00 11,000 1,948,000 SUBTOTAL, POTABLE WATER 1,948,000 MEWN0. SEWER crNrr UNIT CUS QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 24" VCP LF 120.00 j 11,0001 1,320,000 SUBTOTAL, SEWER 1,320,000 HEW No. RECLAIMED WATER uNrr UNrr COST QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 18" CML& C Pipe LF 72.001 11,0001 792,000 SUBTOTAL, RECLAIMED WATER 792,000 SR 74 IIViPR43I1rIENTS I5 TIj RiVtS1D S' REET GIT K�JF LAKEl✓SI1f3RE conL ::.r::::::>::::::::::: +�ri¢tiry rrrraa.xo_ SR 74/I-15 INTERCHANGE UNIT UNrTCUff Quwxmr ,MOUNT 1 Interchange Improvements PSR LS 95,000.00 LS 95,000 SUBTOTAL, SR 7411-15 INTERCHANGE 95,000 rrEWNO. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UNIT Mrr MST QUANTfrY .MOUNT 1 Civil Engineering& Surveying % 8.00 12,059,500 964,760 2 Geotechnical Engineering % 0.80 12,059,500 96,476 3 Landscape Architect LS 70,000.00 1 70,000 4 Utility Consultant LS 50,000.00 1 50,000 5 Construction Engineering % 6.00 12,059,500 723,570 6 Materials Testing&Inspection % 3.00 12,059,500 361,795 7 Project Management % 5.00 12,059,500 602,975 SUBTOTAL,PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,869,566 i 39% 1,119,131 *NOTE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE DISTRIBUTED ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS OF 5 LANES VS 7 LANES OR 61% VS 39% rrEuxO. FEES UNIT U?aTCUT QUAW= ,MOUNT 1 EVMWD Sewer Plan Check % 1.00 1,320,000 13,200 2 EVMWD Sewer Inspection % 7.50 1,320,000 99,000 3 EVMWD Water Plan Check % 1.00 1,948,000 18,480 4 EVMWD Water Inspection % 7.50 1,848,000 138,600 5 EVMWD Reclaimed Water Plan Check % 1.00 792,000 7,920 6 EVMWD Reclaimed Water Inspection % 7.50 792,000 59,400 SUBTOTAL, FEES 336,600 TOTAL, CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 9,753,131 15% CONTINGENCY 1,312,970 TOTAL 10,066,100 i TO <:::::� RI'i�'E1ZSII313 OD7INT'Y TISI�ORTATiOI`T COMMI5�101� TrnuNO. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS UNa UAW COST QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 Mobilization LS 200,000.00 1 200,000 2 Clearing&Grubbing LS 50,000.00 1 50,000 3 Pavement Removal SF 0.75 300,000 225,000 4 Develop Construction Water LS 50,000.00 1 50,000 5 Roadway Excavation CY 2.00 240,000 480,000 6 Brow Ditch LF 12.00 5,800 69,600 7 Export CY 5.00 170,000 850,000 S Overexcavate&Recompact(2' Depth) CY 2.00 75,000 150,000 9 Finish Roadway LS 25,000.00 1 25,000 10 Aggregate Base CY 23.00 49,000 1,127,000 11 Asphaltic Emulsion TON 300.00 40 12,000 12 Asphalt Concrete TON 30.00 31,000 930,000 13 Striping&Signing LS 40,000.00 1 40,000 14 Signalization EA 125,000.00 2 250,000 15 Traffic Control LS 75,000.00 1 75,000 r.. . 16 Sound Walls SF 12.00 3,000 36,000 17 Barriers&Guardrails LF 25.00 1,500 37,500 SUBTOTAL, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 4,607,100 rrsuxo. STORM DRAINAGE UNIT UNITaatiz QUAN= AMoaNr 1 Culvert LF 100.00 700 70,000 2 Catch Basins EA 4,000.00 10 40,000 3 R.C.P. Storm Drain LF 100.00 1000 100,000 4 Concrete Ditch LF 20.00 2000 40,000 SUBTOTAL, STORM DRAIN 250,000 JTEWNO. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISTION UNIT UNIrCOtST QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 State Route 74 Widening&Realignment AC 100,000.00 24 2,400,000 2 Right-Of-Way Administration % 12.00 2,400,000 288,000 SUBTOTAL, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 2,688,000 : :: K'74 IIVIPRQTEMEI+IS�FRIVI �5 7X)RRSIDE 'PREET ::.:::::. ..::..:.:::::::::.::;;:::.:.:.:.:.:::..:::.:::;:<.;::::..::..:_.::.G£3i�i'CF,P�CTAL;±CAS ;ES`�.`Ilr+�1�;::::.;:.,.;>:«:.::»:•;;;.:::<;.>::::<::;: - 5PQ-RTAN:CQ.. rrecur <uiic rr�rNo. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UMT uxrraarr QUANTITY AMOUNT I Civil Engineering&Surveying % 8.00 12,059,500 964,760 2 Geotechnical Engineering % 0.80 12,059,500 96,476 3 Landscape Architect LS 70,000.00 1 70,000 4 Utility Consultant LS 50,000.00 1 50,000 5 Construction Engineering % 6.00 12,059,500 723,570 6 Materials Testing&Inspection % 3.00 12,059,500 361,795 7 Project Management % 5.00 12,059,500 602,975 SUBTOTAL, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,869,566 61% 1,750,435 * NOTE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE DISTRIBUTED ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS OF 5 LANES VS 7 LANES OR 61% VS 39% i 1 s TOTAL RCTC $9,295,535 15% CONTINGENCY $1,394,330 TOTAL $10,689,866 i i 7 j R7 4.11 Annexatlon Legal Descriptlon/Plat t : i i I I EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. TO COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. LAFCO NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ANNEXATION BEING PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 28 THROUGH 32 INCLUSIVE, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, AND ALSO A PORTION OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 11475 AS FILED IN BOOK 57, PAGES 65 THROUGH 66 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 , SOUTH 00° 38 ' 20" WEST 1297. 67 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30. 00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF RIVERSIDE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 11475; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 89' 45' 19" EAST, 330. 00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 269186, RECORDED OCTOBER 28, 1986 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 1357 . 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8478 AS FILED IN BOOK 31, PAGES 52 THROUGH 53 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 330. 00 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE ALONG THE Sr' 29 SOUTH 89 ° 43' SHOWN ON A RECf OF SURVEYS IN THENCE NOP' NORTH 00' CENTERT' FILED' COUP r I THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34 ' 02 ' 00" , A DISTANCE OF 425.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81' 44 ' 30" EAST, 752 . 86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 1510. 16 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15' 05' 30", A DISTANCE OF 397. 78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66° 45' 33" EAST, 341. 34 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF WALLING ROAD AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 16937 AS FILED IN BOOK 97 , PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF WALLING ROAD NORTH 000 39' 29" EAST, 781. 72 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 29 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 16937 ; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 29 SOUTH 89 ' 20' 31" EAST, 731. 99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5, 493 , 045. 15 SQUARE FEET OR 12.6. 10 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL B BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 19924 AS FILED IN BOOK 122, PAGES 44 THROUGH 48 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ALSO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 NORTH 01° 31' 28" EAST, 323 . 29 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4 NORTH 46 ' 19 ' 47" WEST, 483 . 45 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF--WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 74 AS SHOWN "" ^TTr` n71Ur'L'T. Mate. THENCE ALONG THr LINE NORTH 46' THE CENTERLI' THENCE N' COURSES THEY 33' THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51' 03 ' 4611 , A DISTANCE OF 511. 28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14' 21' 57" EAST, 884. 31 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 716.78 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43' 41' 07" , A DISTANCE OF 546. 51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58 ° 03 ' 04" EAST, 525. 43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 2864 . 93 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06' 28 ' 10" , A DISTANCE OF 323 . 49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64 ' 31' 14" EAST, 201.86 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 230187 , -RECORDED JULY �.! 11, 1989, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND ALONG SAID j WESTERLY LINE NORTH 00° 01' 30" EAST, 1714 .97 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 15, PAGE 92, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 29 ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY SOUTH 88' 41' 30" WEST, 2050..95 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3 , SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 6578 AS FILED IN BOOK 20, PAGES 60 THROUGH 61 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY SOUTH 01° 02 ' 00" WEST, 2652 . 86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29 ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 3 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY AS FILED IN BOOK 23, PAGE 89 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 88 ` 45' 30" WEST, 679.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3 , SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 9499 AS FILED IN BOOK 43 , PAGE 81 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUD" -� -"-- THENCE SOUTHER' SOUTH 00' 33' SAID PARCEL OF LOT 3 , FILED IV RECORD' THF" A' THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAX LINE SOUTH 43 ° 28' 00" WEST, 2002 . 51 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF GROVE 115, FOREST NO. 8 OF SAID ELSINORE EUCALYPTUS TRACT; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID GROVE 115, SOUTH 89' 45' 00" WEST, 392 . 03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID GROVE 115, SAID POINT BEING ALSO ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RED GUM DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID ELSINORE EUCALYPTUS TRACT; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID GROVE 115 AND SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 165. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID GROVE 115; - THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID GROVE 115 AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GROVE 109 AND GROVE 105 AND ALONG THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID GROVE 105, SOUTH 890 45' WEST 1364 . 62 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER -OF GROVE 133 , FOREST NO. 10 OF SAID ELSINORE EUCALYPTUS TRACT, SAID POINT BEING ALSO ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ELEVENTH STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID GROVE 133 AND SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 00° 41' 03" WEST, 50. 10 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID ELEVENTH STREET SOUTH 43 " 41' 12" WEST, 549.43 FEET TO THE OLD NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 15 AS SHOWN ON RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 916534 , NOVEMBER 19, 1975 SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHEASTERLY CITY LIMITS OF LAKE ELSINORE AS DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION NO. 11 AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN ORDINANCE NO. 437, RECORDED DECEMBER 28 , 1966 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND SAID CITY LIMITS THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES; THENCE SOUTH 43 " 25' 50" EAST, 60. 00 FEET TO THE . SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID ELEVENTH STREET; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 47 ' 51' 0311 EAST, 1621. 51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50° 30' 08" EAST, 330. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43` 0' -- - -- -' "� THENCE SOUTH 38' THENCE SOUTY RIGHT-OF-W" NO. 9165.- THENC' EASE r THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68° 04' 55", A DISTANCE OF 172 .30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 ° 12' 47" EAST, 393 .98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37 ° 01' 30" EAST, 1670.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36° 28' 33" EAST, 800.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39° 41' 47" EAST, 100. 12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 26' 24" EAST, 55. 02 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SECOND STREET AS SHOWN ON RIGHT OF WAY MAP NO. 916532; THENCE SOUTH 46° 13' 32" EAST, 60. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID SECOND STREET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY LIMITS SOUTH 08° 11' 36" EAST, 123. 36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 360 49' 59" EAST, 542 . 00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 31 AS SHOWN. ON SAID RIGHT OF WAY MAP; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89 ° 27' 40" EAST, 835. 60 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 31 AS SHOWN ON SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF RECORD OF SURVEY AS FILED IN BOOK 9, PAGE 17 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4 NORTH 89° 17' EAST, 1321. 37 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED WEST ONE HALF 2640. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 9539 AS FILED IN BOOK 43, PAGES 30 THROUGH 31 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID WEST HALF NORTH 00" 05' 09" WEST - - - -- _- -- SECTION 32 , SAID OF PARCEL MAP INCLUSIVE, OF'' THENCE WES' THE NORT 1317 . 6' EXC~ OF ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANNEXATION NO. 42 AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN INSTRUMENT NO. 316229 , RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 1986, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN INSTRUMENT NO. , RECORDED , OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; k. 1 ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANNEXATION NO. 55 AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN INSTRUMENT NO. 206667, RECORDED JUNE 19, 1991, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; PARCEL "B" CONTAINING 23 , 613 , 119 . 1 SQUARE FEET OR 542 . 1 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL C BEGINNING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY AS FILED IN BOOK 4.8 , PAGE 18 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID } POINT BEING ALSO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 4 OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY; r' THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY NORTH 89° 09' 17" WEST, 2691. 78 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION + WITH THE OLD NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE NO. 15 AS SHOWN ON RIGHT OF WAY MAP NO. 916541, NOVEMBER 19 , 1975, SAID zs POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHEASTERLY CITY LIMITS OF LAKE ELSINORE AS DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION NO. 11 AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IN ORDINANCE NO. 437 , RECORDED DECEMBER 28 , 1966, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND SAID CITY LIMITS SOUTH 47 ° 51' 03" EAST, 2030. 32 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND SAID CITY LIMITS THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES ; THENCE SOUTH 50 ' 42 ' 48" EAST, 200. 25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42 ' OR' 2ri" FAST _ inn AQ FRFT• THENCE SOUTH 47 THENCE NORTY i i THENCE Sr SAID SF' THEY 22' EXN!BI T "B" I -- PARCEL 'A "' CONTAINS 5,49-5,045 o SQUARE FEET OR 126. 7 A CRES. 0 N PARCEL "B" CONTAINS 23,61J,, I19. 1 SQUARE FEET OR 542 7 AORES. PARCEL "C" CONTAINS 3, 774,056 k SQUARE FEET OR 729 ACRES. PARCEL "B" �� 7'5S FY W Ill, ® +G . ti ....A: 3 r O J� s . ............ ... ANNEXA T/ON ND. ? ANNEXA ION r t a ►: n r J z o +ILA. Im�+ 0 O N U r N O N w IL c=i tii I J HN il- a 0 EXHIBIT I DA TA TABLE DA TA TABLE I NOI SEARING IL R L NO BEAR/NG R _ _L_ 1 NOO 38 20'E 1297.67' J7 N4341'12 E 549.43' 2 N89 45797- 330.00' 38 N432550"W r 60.00' 3 SOUTHERL Y 1357.00 39 N4751103"W 1621.51 4 WESTERLY 330.00' 40 N5030'08"W 33000' 5 N89 43'W 2641.98' 41 N43 01111"W 363.92' 6 NOO 01'30"E 1288.69' 42 N38 52'21"W 203. 19' 71 N47 42'JO'E _ 117.02' 43 N78 30'52"W _ 10_5.2_6_' I 8 0=34 02'00" 716.78' 425.42' 44 N43 45'17 E M 221.38' 9 N8144'30'E 752.86' 45 N467443"W 80.00' 10 Z�=150530" 7510. 16' 397.78' 461 N3552108"E _ 201.69' I 11 1V66 45 3.3E 341.34' 47 6=68 04'55" 145.00' 17_2.JO' 12 N00:39'29'E 781.72' 48 N32 7247"W. 393.98' I 13 N0131287- J23.29' 49 N37 01'30"W 1670.69' 14 N4679'47"W 483.45' 50 _N36 28'33"W 800.02 15 N19 57'38E 341. 17' 51 N39 41147"W 100.1_2 16 L=45 28 05" 319.62' 253.64' 52 N89 26 241E 55.02' i 17 N652543'E 561.40' 53 N467332"W 60.00' 18 La=5103'46" 57.j69' 511.28' 54 N0871'36"W _ 123.36' 19 N14 21 57E 7 884.31' 55 N36 49 59"W 542.00' 20 La=43 41 07" 716.78' 546.57' 56 N89 27'40"W _ 835.60' 23 N58 03'04'E 52543' 57 N8977100"E 1321.37 24 �=0628'10' 2864.93 323.49' 58 NORTHERLY _ IJ20.00' 25 1V64 31'14'E 207.86" 59 NOO 05'09"W 126J7 31' 261 N00 01',301- 1774.97' 601 N89 251007E 13_17.63' 271 N88 41'30 E 2050.95 61 N89'09'17`'W 2691.75' 28 NO 02'00'E 652.86 62 N47 51 103"W _ 20JO J2 29 N8845'30"W 679.20' 63 N504248"W 200.25' 30 NO033'30'EE 7.328.20 64 N4208'25"W 100.49' 31 N88 53'00"W 32 N43 28'00 E _33 _N89 45 001F 34 NOR THERL' 35 N89 45 i 36 NOO V d � Ui I LLJJ 0 1� 1 M 4J v o II ! N � ,{ J W rW U W ICY V1 Q `1 Q N i 3 i 4. I r"R I . I ' 1 i 1, E 4.12 Annexatlon Schedule 4 s r . f I i i CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PROJECT DIMENSIONS , INC. 94 REMARKS REMARKS FEB MAR R APR MAY 02 " - ANNEXA ION - 106 PREPAH BOUNDARY MAP 2 1 20 100% 1 05 CITY R VIEW PLANNING 1 PUBL C NOTICE 107 PREP AR" :TSCAI_ IMPAC 2 117 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION LA 12 1 6 LAFCO OE ERMINATION i i I FEB MAR R APR MAY PVS NETWORK PLOT DA LEGEND ` PROJECT START DATE: 4 eaRLY FINISR GATE PROJECT FINISH DATE: IPTIOr1 PROJECT TOTAL ELAPSED TIME: 31 STATUS DATE: 3 �x ' ERCEN ACTIVITIES SHOWN/TOTAL ACTIVITIES: 1i DURATION CDMPLET MASTERFILE NAME: ASSOCIATED COMMAND FILE: SHOWN IN FEB OR SOLO ARE CRITICAL. NETWORK ANALYZED ON: 0s40 WASHINGTON BLDG. SEATTLE. WA 98101 (20F,) 625-0412 NETWORK PLOTTED ON: NETWORK PLOT SOFTWARE VERSIUN 9.10 C) 1993 XESEK, INCORPORATED I i i i f is • j: i 4.13 GPA Revision - Land Use Plan E r 1 , i R Le SPECIFIC PLAN +/\\ _ '. •/Mf11p9TAWbiPE ,4d' ,n� s Welootrtu r { �4 J! lelp[h1MIlY {, vemr Low DEN51Tr trtaodruir qq wsCi - - r - ' !�F', �! Irlloefbntrr aeeia\Aleu tow DENSITY •� weRe wale ta.n. ` 7 L11.272y0-' q om WAIN C art tmLa-rNmr. r y y da NORTH PEAK SPECiFI(:PLAtj•/ t acwewce J tetra '. � • ' •M1r eCN00La14 � ,r'M�IT A� _ f�_, Ma0t.TU,, .t,ti;t •. a '� •�\' � ,y%fJ"sa'�j, 1b� ta•oar..aY opm atgts NiNLi: amwAce % a tuewa+nty i �.1 'J l CAP. . ,.,F..n.w.,.`. �`• \./t' SPE611616 PLAN ... T.T.M.27270'. _, i.••dt 12 1 AC :: RAFRSgICf€9PECIFJC.PLAN r /+ +.•�.f t . R' + ]DOBDtiPF AL.HES) .i T.TiL'23474 t + \ • ��; ati •,s .I __:_�______I _�_.�___ ____ _._FREEWAY BUSINESS ...... ... .. ... ....... ......_.263.7 AC. — — SPECIFIC PLAN F 126.1 AC. 8 D.U./AC.MAX. 1,009 D.U.UF ALL RES.) FRWY.R/W 2.6 AC. — LOTH STREET R/W 9 AC. — TOTAL 672.3 AC. 2.4/AC.AV. 1.613 D.U. NOTE: ALL ROAD ACRES ARE INCLUDED WITHIN DEVELOPMENT AREA ACRE TOTALS- NOTE- PARCEL B .el itfe.Haiuitroon•u s•a...fenno,nr.0 ft•wtwe • ilrwl.t.owrut r.niau..an.ct eu•nf.fnnr.< ;� co.ofrurl _ REVWN ' ffi GRA, r....nv•..er ntoc nr i+t••+e • 411.r0 Yiti Wf,q.r•P Ulr.enefYttlr.gre�.lYI N� RFE F ' ED , tM- F::lwmM • NIeM.NY Mr.NglOer.,lt C.f.O Wr YSI.OfL - rMARCreMMt•tlrl sw..lC crw•a<•wYY.rO WtM..0 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ..e /eH. FT SRm74 DATE: 12/92 10 AC. 300 SCALE 4.14 GPA Implementation-Alternate One �..w I r- i I ... ,..., r._..�, _ . _ . _.__....... _.... -..........-. + ..� . .. - _....... tow"\w:,.. ' 1. ... is 1+a1llrWn. SPECIFIC PLAN MOUNTAINOUI! - srwuoa '�• / VERY LOW DENSITY ` j I •=Y t:htl.t raY1L.' YL40[uru. nw..l....:. T.T.M.27270 a LOW DENSITY sr.c. N NOFIT14 PEAK SPECIFIC PLAN ^S orth sn.c[ caw � -`_ prP' •�0 - % MgIC..Ws v�.t+�.erWaY a.qput SYGl HY4Y . ` NM yaCt ' ..fit'" .;�, ,�' ^• ^ ` .,'�+ J a' MC PL ld. F� ♦ \� 1 ? •O� `S- - pw RAMSOATE SPECIFIC PLAN r T.T.M.27270 oc •;. nx ` \ / J' -' a„ teiwatio uvrW.Y.� !N T.T.M.25474 RES./MOUNTAINOUS 41.2 AC.GR, I DM 10 AC. 4 D.U. .r ; a gy,'7A �� �It, / .. r f�' •rJ,• SPECIFN'.PLAN F • TOTAL 73.6 AC- — — 459 AC. -- .43862,489 S,F, -- GRAND r..e.:w:, ..u.: -. _- - .. ._ ...e .o•• . us.. ..e.• TOTAL 126"AC.S O.U✓AC.4200.0 82.3 AC,11.6 D.U.+AC..43$62.489 S.F. ROAD SUMMARY TOTAL 343.6 AC. — — 253-2 AC. — A5 5,077.353 S.F. CH&M 11 ,At W[5 u 1 GRAND TOTAL 546.2 AC.2.8 O.U./AC.569 D.U,409.5 AC.3.6 D.U./AC_46 6.077.353 S.F. ,.n..•w s. ts.+ w . . TOTAL 44.0 AC. — 19.250 L.F,8,738 L.F. TOTAL 16.0 AC. r' — 5-550 L.F- 3.600 L.F. PARCEL A/B NOTE: G.PA UT-z rw .•� • R.EM s' ' " RNATW ON-t CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE . .... SR =74 DATE: 3/93 10 AC. 300 SCALE ........ 1......... ».,. 4.15 Land Use Plan-Alternate Two r- I . I j I i i iii �Ifallalncl. La \ SPECIFIC PLAN MOUNTAINOUS 0.13+D1xr14. � SuaO,t rwN. \ /U° �� / 1• VERY LOW DENSITY Lu -5 T.T.M.212 COMM.OFFICE �� LOW DENSITY xzf 7.6 AC.NET .50 FAR �•. y Q NBRHD.COMM. corxEwt 165,528 S.F." '4a 0.8 AC.NET .30 FAR Yle vVV y NORTH PEAK SPECIFIC.PLAI{ ` oa &;� 86.6fi2 S.F. Offx SPILL WE 0.lfrpfxluL ,yri - f ���'44 -_ 10rmEffYl � ' • �' \ � _� et4 6noo¢ar¢ � � I COMM.OF 12,6 AC.NET .50 FAR �r1 274.428 S.F. GEN£RAL'COMM. wcywol y'•y,, . - IIEa0lxufs, I t 16,2l�C,NET .40 FAR 'GOMwBlf+ff sIx4.luw.r `'282.2695,F111 1 yfx¢f.a - E us- e•� \._�`1 .' l ��• RAMSOATE SPECIFIC PLAN T.T.M.21210 4s �� ua •�` %"� T,T.M.26474 - ' t + RES./MOUNTAINOUS + �gb v BUS.PARK fir, 32,8 AC, GR. 1 D.U.l IO AC. `gyp ; �� 10.9 AC,NE7.40 FAR �hA3 D,U-- ;�,y all ' },� 189.922 S.F� _ ._.. .,I� - MI4 CIFIC_P1.AT4.F•,_...__.._ —--... ___......_................---........ . .� .w� �u.,lp.a. • ..Is t� • swcv .[cuw i) Itac ul+ a lVfiU .- I.�w�l.)I W. a.a r. .._ Sa_u -- au •w)LY.s1 TOTAL 296.7 AC. - - 251.4 AC. - .46 5.085"195 S.F. TOTAL 16.9 AC. - - 7,650 L.F. 3.600 LF, TOTAL 53.2 AC. - - 25.212 L.F.8.138 L.F- TOTAL 55.7 AC. - - - - - - _ GRAND NOTE: TOTAL 546.2 AC. 11.41AC. 2"211 D-U- 405.8 AC. 14.3/AC. .46 5.085.195 S.F. „a PARCEL A/8 LANDUM PLM ,>o xu.fao.ln w:c....A el.yy�c+n+k�lr..-.,.,)Ivo.•. ALTERNATIVE TWO CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SRm74 UDY DATE: 3/93 10 AC. 300 SCALE �W�� 4.16 Land Use Plan -School Site �. s i I . \f • s .: �-^ '.�w '\,fie 1` r••t}.� `.•a �•�S`{J�'��4 �• �,�, �����' �� � a�}_ N VV OVA MEN few, •1�Y �' ` �v .•� � �♦ � '������{"? .,x E In" �,�,�s..��.�-�'"~ -- _ .��1���,'f��,'�i_��'�g `., ;law�•" _ f 4.17 Fiscal Impact Report z FISCAL EAPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SR74 AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSE4 SECTION I. BACKGROUND Christensen& Wallace, Inc. has been retained by the City of Lake Elsinore to assist in the annexation of certain unincorporated territory lying generally along the State Route 74 (SR74) corridor between the existing City boundary at Interstate Highway 15 (I-15) and the recently annexed North Peak Specific Plan. At the time the North Peak Specific Plan territory was annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore, the City assured the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission that it would make a positive effort to annex a pocket of territory south of the proposed annexation. That pocket is identified as Parcel "A" in the map at the end of this Preliminary Report. In reviewing available options, it was decided to expand the . . annexdation study area to include all of the territory between the existing City Limits and the SR74 corridor to provide a more rational boundary as well as place the SR74 right-of- way within a single jurisdiction,that of the City, for planning purposes. This preliminary analysis involves two land use plans. These plans are described in the following Section. Following the Executive Summary Section, this preliminary analysis will outline some initial conclusions as well as identify limitations of this study. Preliminary Draft Page I Text and Numbers fiscal Impact Report 07108193 Subject to Mnal Audit SR74 Annexation FISCAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SR74 AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SECTION 1I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS 1. The subject area contains a total gross acreage of 741.1 acres. For the purposes of this study, the area is contained in three parcels. Parcel "A", which is located at the northeasterly end of the SR74 corridor contains 126.1 acres; Parcel "B", which lies between the existing City boundary at I-15 and runs along the SR74 corridor in a northeasterly direction contains 542.1 acres; Parcel "C", a triangular parcel which is situated west of Parcel "B" and is the sire of a high school, contains 72.9 acres. 2. This study analyzes two land use alternatives prepared by Van Smith, Planning Consultant. Alternative One is a land use plan which follows the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan overlying the subject area. Alternative Two is a suggested land use plan. The major difference between the two is the inclusion of collector roads on either side of the State route to improve circulation in the area in Alternative Two. 3. The residential component of Alternative One provides for 1,219 dwelling units. Using a persons-per-household factor of 2.8, this results in a projected population of 3,413. 4. The residential component of Alternative Two provides for 2,330 dwelling units. Again, using the 2.8 pph factor, the projected population is 6,524. 5. In analyzing commercial development, this analysis' allocates commercial office and business park land use designations to the office/research and development use for sales tax generation purposes. This analysis also assumes that 25% of the square footage allocated to freeway business will be used for high volume retail sales activities (such as discount department stores, auto dealerships, etc.) and 75% for office/research and development uses. Preliminary Draft Page 2 Text and Numbers Eiscal Impact Report 07108193 Subject to Eina1 Audit SR74 Annexation 6. The commercial component of Alternative One contains a total of 6,129,328 square feet (net). This space is allocated to four types of commercial uses: general commercial, commercial office, business park, and freeway business. For the purpose of this analysis, based on the criteria noted in the previous paragraph, the commercial uses are allocated as follows: a. Office/research and development is allocated a total of 4,836,031 square feet net. b. General commercial is allocated 297,950 square feet net. c. Freeway business(high volume retail) is allocated 995,346 square feet net. 7. The commercial component of Alternative Two contains a total of 6,832,387 square feet net. This space is alloocated to five types of commercial uses: -neighborhood commercial, general commercial, commercial office, business park, and freeway business. For the purpose of this analysis, based on the criteria noted above, the commercial uses are allocated as follows: a. Office/research and development is allocated a total of 5,355,485 square feet net. b. Neighborhood commercial is allocated 243,500 square feet net. c. General commercial is allocated 507,039 square feet net. d. Freeway business(high volume retail)is allocated 726,363 square feet net. 8. Based on these allocations of land use, Alternative One results in the following cost/revenue relationships for the City of Lake Elsinore: a. The General Fund shows a surplus of$1,533,770 based on projected expenditures of$1.083,117 (which includes a subsidy of$177,289 to the Road Fund) and revenues of$2,616,887. b. The Road Fund shows a deficit of $177,859 baed on projected expenditures of $246,859 and revenues of$69,570. As noted in the preceding paragraph, this deficit is offset through a subsidy from the General Fund. c. The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District is, for all intents and purposes, balanced, showing a surplus of$448 based on expenditures of$195,253 and revenues of$195,701. Preliminary Draft Page 3 7ext and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report 07108193 Subject to Ninal Audit SR74 Annexation 9. Based on these allocations of land use, Alternative Two results in the following cost/revenue relationships for the City of Lake Elsinore: a. The General Fund shows a surplus of$1,203,986 based on projected expenditures of$1,919,538 (which includes a $113,000 subsidy to the Road Fund) and revenues of $3,123,524. b. The Road Fund shows a deficit of$113,000 based on projected expenditures of $250,447 and revenues of$137,447. As noted in the preceding paragraph, this deficit is offset through a subsidy from the General Fund. c. The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District shows a deficit of$94,189 based on expenditures of$306,744 and revenues of$212,555. The better cost/revenue relationship showing for Alternative One is primarily resultant from the lower population projected for that alternative. Since many cost elements (most importantly,.law enforcement) are population-driven, the costs for Alternative One can be expected to be lower than for Alternative Two. However, note the last item in the Conclusion Section regarding the potential for additional law enforcement costs for both alternatives. i 1 Preliminary Draft Page 4 7 ext and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report 07108193 Subject to Final Audit SR74 Annexation Caw FISCAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SR74 AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SECTION III. CONCLUSIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS i 1. Further consideration should be given to the amount of land that is committed to office/research and development uses. As allocated in this preliminary study, over three-fourths of the total commercial square footage is allocated to this use classification. 2. The key element resulting in this amount of Office/R&D involves the use of land designated "freeway commercial." This classification provides for a wide variety of commercial uses, and, in the absence of any specific land development plans, it was arbitrarily decided to allocate 75% to Office/R&D and 25% to high volume retail sales. 3. In the absence of a market analysis, any allocation would have to be arbitrary. However, both the quantity of Office/R&D allocation and the low retail sales generation(projected at $10 per square foot) for this land use classification results in a low sales tax generation for a substantial amount of commercially designated land. 4. One additional observation with respect to the freeway business land use allocation. in Alternative One; this land sue contains 43% of the total net acreage allocated to commercial uses; while in Alternative Two; it contains 53% of the total net commercial acreage. Since the acual use allocation for this type of activity is so broad, the asumptions made in its allocation can significantly affect the revenue generation with respect to sales tax. 5. As a corollary to the preceding conclusion, it must be noted that sales taxes make a substantial portion of total revenues: 63.2% in Alternative One and 61.8% in Alternative Two. 6. The higher Road Fund deficit in Alternative One is a direct result of the method of allocation of road taxes. Since these revenues are more closely related to population than other revenues, it follows that the higher population resujltant from residentail uses in Alterantive Two provide a stronger base for this Fund even though road mileage does not vary as much as population. Preliminary Draft - Page 5 "I'ext and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report 07108193 Subject to Final Audit SR74 Annexation C� 7. Two major limitations in this study must also be kept in mind: a. The impact, both short- and long-term, of the 1993-94 State Budget on property taxes for the City of Lake Elsinore is unknown at this time. Property tax allocations were developed based on existing allocation formulae. b. This analysis is based on the buildout of the entire subject area. As a result, property taxes are overstated to an unknown extent. As a buildout scenario, this study assumes all development takes place in a single year. Obviously, this development will occur over a number of years. Portions of the property tax will be added to the City's revenue on an annual basis. Property taxes for those portions will generally not keep pace annually with inflation as the result of the Jarvis factor which allows only a two percent annual increase regardless of actual inflation until a property sells. With substantial amounts of commercial property which resell at a much lower rate than residential property, it can be anticipated that property taxes will actually deflate over whatever period is required to obtain buildout. Nonetheless, this analysis provides a reasonable indication of the fiscal impact of each proposed alternative to the City of Lake Elsinore. S. Finally, we have asked the Riverside County Sheriffs Office for information with . respect to any added costs resulting from the substantial amount of commercial development compared to total population. Since law enforcement costs are now developed on a per capita basis, the lower population-to-commercial development ratio may well understate those costs. The Sheriffs Department was unable to provide per acre cost estimates for commercial development without a specific development plan, but acknowledged that there may well be a higher law enforcement cost. It should also be noted that this analysis involves only the fiscal impact of the land uses on the City of Lake Elsinore. Prior to any processing of an annexation proposal, it will be necessary to also determine the impacts on the County and on County Service Area #124 which serves a portion of the proposed annexation area. Preliminary Draft Page 6 7?xt and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report 07108193 Subject to Final Audi SR74 Annexation Caw 4.18 Plan For Services i i i I i 3 PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SR 74 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE This plan for the provision of services has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 56653 of the Government Code. It covers the proposed annexation of approximately 962 acres in three parcels situated generally north of the existing city limits of the City of Lake Elsinore in the vicinity of State Highway 74. Law Enforcement and Traffic Control At present police protection is provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department while only accident investigation is performed by' the California Highway Patrol, the agency responsible for traffic control and accident investigation in unincorporated areas. Police protection is provided to the proposed annexation area from the Lake Elsinore Sheriff Station at Langstaff and Poe Streets. Upon annexation, the responsibility for both of these functions will shift to the City,of j Lake Elsinore. The services will be extended upon the completion of the annexation based ' on the existing contract between the City and the County Sheriffs Department. Services to be provided include police protection, traffic patrol including a radar enforcement program, and on call response to accidents. Current levels of service for the County are: 0.8 officers per 1,000 population, with priority response at approximately 10 minutes and low priority response at approximately 30 minutes. Under the contract with the City, levels of service will increase commensurate with the 0.9 officers per 1,000 population City level resulting in a seven minute response time for priority calls and 15 minutes for low priority calls. A branch police facility is planned in conjunction with the development of a community park in the TMC Development just north of SR74 and the proposed annexation area. Fire Protection The Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, provides the full range of fire protection, fire suppression, emergency medical aid, hazardous material abatement, disaster preparedness, and future planning for development review basically at the same level of service for both the unincorporated area adjacent to the City of Lake Elsinore and the City. Page l Plan for the Provision of Services Page 2 Proposed SR74 Annexation 06/30/93 to the City of Lake Elsinore The City contracts with the County for fire protection and receives the same service level as the unincorporated area. Station #10 is located in Lake Elsinore at 410 West Graham Avenue with a response time of 8 to 10 minutes; and Station #1 1 located in Lakeland Village at 17643 Brightman Avenue with a response time of 5 to 8 minutes service residents in the city and the surrounding unincorporated areas. In addition, the City is planning another station to be City-funded and City-staffed in the near future to be located near Lincoln and Machado Streets. According to the Riverside Fire Department, this station would also serve the residents in unincorporated areas as well as city residents. In addition, a new fire station is planned in the TMC Development just north of SR74 near the proposed annexation. As development occurs in the proposed annexation area, fire impact protection fees will be collected by the City to offset the capital costs for future fire protection needs. Ambulance Services The City of Lake Elsinore has acquired a dedicated ambulance unit which is dispatched simultaneously with the fire department in response to emergency calls. The service is contracted with the Goodhew Ambulance Company and currently serves both the unincorporated areas surrounding the City and the City itself with similar levels of service. Building Inspection. Planningand Land Use Regulation Currently, building inspection, planning, and land use regulation is provided by the County of Riverside through their Riverside and Perris Offices. Upon annexation, the City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, located at 130 South Main Street, will provide building inspection, planning review and land use regulation services to this area. The costs for these services will be recovered through fees paid for the services. Plan for the Provision of Services Page 3 Proposed SR74 Annexation 06/30/93 to the City of Lake Elsinore. Parks and Recreation Currently, much of the proposed annexation area is within the Ortega Trail Recreation and Park District(O.T.R.P.D.). Upon annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, the area will be de-annexed from the O.T.R.P.D., and reorganized to allow the City to collect the existing parks and recreation tax base. The City will assume the parks and recreation responsibilities for the area and new facilities will be provided with funds collected from the park and recreation mitigation fee program "Quimby Fees." Recreation programs are funded through the General Fund, program fees, donations and grants. Solid Waste Collection The subject unincorporated area is currently served by Perris Disposal and other waste hauling companies. Residential fees range from $13.09 to $17.95 monthly, and trash i cinoval is done once; a week. Following annexation, solid waste disposal will be handled by Lake Elsinore Environmental (formerly Rodriguez Disposal) with a fee of $11.05 monthly. As in the j unincorporated area, refuse collection occurs weekly. Street Maintenance Local streets would be added to the City street system as development occurs, with the cost borne by the developer or builder. Collector and arterial street improvements would proceed as required funded by mitigation fees as development occurs. The City is currently working with CalTrans and the Riverside County Transportation Commission in developing plans and financing for the improvement of State Highway 74. In fact, this annexation is being initiated in part as a portion of the Highway 74 development plan so that the planning will occur with only one local jurisdiction involved. Regular maintenance is provided by the City's Public Services Department - Public Works Division, located at 521 North Langstaff. The City uses General Fund (property tax), gas tax, and some Proposition "A" funds to perform its ongoing maintenance. Revenues from the proposed annexation area will offset the maintenance costs. Plan for the Provision of Services Page 4 Proposed SR74 Annexation 06/30/93 to the City of Lake Elsinore The City budgets $100,000 annually for asphalt and slurry seals under a three- to five-year program; $100,000 for miscellaneous drains and striping; $25,000 for curb, gutter and sidewalk maintenance. These budgeted amounts are $150,000 over and above the annual operating costs. This maintenance schedule would be extended to the annexation area following completion of the annexation process. Street Sweeping The City sweeps residential streets twice a month on a regular basis. This service would be extended to the annexation area. Street Lights, Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters Street lights are provided for through the Landscaping and Street Lighting District. The subject territory would be annexed to the district as part of the proceedings. Areas willioul sheet lights would IIaVC It Zero assessment rate. As development occurs, however, fees would be imposed on property owners based on the number of street lights in the zone that would be created as part of the development. Sidewalk, curb and gutter construction would proceed as part of the conditions accompanying any land use entitlements connected to future developments in the subject area. Water and Sewer Service Both of these services are now, and will continue to be, under the jurisdiction of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Sewer service i.s currently provided to Dexter Avenue at the southern extremity of the proposed annexation area, and no sewers exist within the proposed area beyond that point. The District is currently planning to bring in facilities in conjunction with the recent annexations of the Ramsgate development (immediately adjacent to the proposed annexation area to the east of Parcel 'B" and south of Parcel "A") and the North Peak development (north of Parcel "A"). As development occurs, land use entitlements will be conditioned on appropriate sewer development. Water service is available through a 10" line along State Highway 74 from Dexter Avenue north to Wasson Canyon Road, where the line becomes an 8" line. As in the case of sewers, appropriate extensions of the water service will be part of the mitigation required of developers and/or builders. Plan for the Provision of Services Page 5 Proposed SR74 Annexation 06/30/93 to the City of Lake Elsinore Electric, Gas and Telephone Service Electric service is provided by the Southern C'alilurnia Edison C ouipany,- natural gas service by the Southern California Gas Company; and telephone service by General Telephone Company. Library Services Library services will be provided by the Riverside City/County Public Library. The nearest branches are located in downtown Lake Elsinore and at the main gate commercial center in Canyon Take. Schools The proposed annexation area is served by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. The District's newest high school, Temescal Valley High School, is situated in Parcel "C: of the proposed annexation area. All applicable impact fees resulting from future proposed development will be required of the developer/building at the appropriate time. i f t 4.19 Negative Declaration Schedule I i i � I i; I I ir r. i CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE fCT DIMENSIONS , INC . REMARKS REMARKS MAY OCT i "01 " - NEG. DEC . PROC STY COUNCIL NTG. I r., 12 j S 150 C.C. Issue N.O.O. )0 COMPLETE g.. .n 1 5€ f Y 1 i 3 j. C..i is a 0 10 MAY OCT _ PVS NETWORK PLOT DA_EGEND PROJECT START DATE: 3 EARLY FINISH GATE PROJECT FINISH DATE: PROJECT TOTAL ELAPSED TIME: 131 STATUS DATE: 1x ACTIVITIES SHOWN/TOTAL ACTIVITIES: 1 PERCENT MASTERFIL.E NAME: L CC�MPI ET ASSOCIATED COMMAND FILE: N RED OR BOLO ARE CRITICAL. NETWORK ANALYZED ON: �N OL06. SEATTLE, WA 96101 (205) 525--0412 NETWORK PLOTTED ON: NETWORK PLOT SOFTWARE VERSION 9.10 3 XEBEK INCORPORATED r . 4.20 Draft Negative Declaration t..i. 5 . J. � i 1 3. i NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANNEXATION NO. _ i i 3 June 16, 1993 I Prepared for: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Prepared by. LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 (714) 553-0666 LSA Project #CLE301 L£A Associates,Inc. ,DRAI INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ANNEXATION NUMBER CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE INTRODUCTION This initial Study has been prepared to provide the factual is or c byle tion of environmental documentation required for Annexation City of Lake Elsinore. Project Location The project site is approximately 741 acres, located outside the northerly boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, located on both sides of State Route 74, as shown in Figure 1, Specifically the properties included in the proposed annexation are depicted in Figure 2, Project Location. The entire annexation area is within - the City Sphere of Influence, and is included in the City's General Plan. Project Description The City of Lake Elsinore proposes to annex prof the s shown on Figure 2 proposed annexation into the City corporate boundaries • Objectives include 1) elimination of pockets of County unincorporated areas surround- ed by City incorporated properties; 2) creation of logically drawn City boun- daries that avoid checkerboard patterns; and 3) inclusion of State Route (SR) 74 improvement programs and community facilities district proposals that will serve previously approved projects within a single jurisdiction enabling better planning and coordination. There is no development being proposed as part of this action. All future uses in the area are governed by the City's General Plan and zoning, in place at this time. No changes to any land use or General Plan or zoning land use designation are proposed with this annexation. Proposed Actions Project approval requires the following discretionary approvals by the City of Lake Elsinore and the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)• 06/16/93(1:,.CLE3301,.NEGDECANN) 15 247 San Bernardino County 5 San Bernardino 62 IN 10 M DIY � 60 Lw Riverside 15 10 Riverside County 91 111 215 79 243 City of Palm Springs Lake Elsinore 74 74 10 Orange PROJECT County LOCATION 111 15 74 5 r r 371 74 86 79 79 76 78 San Diego County S e g �' 78. Escondido. rr 7 73 4�: 8 15 %f "s 5 67 79 :}r 6l10l93(CLE301) G Figure 1 N L scale Miles 0 Regional Location IM,Uwdates,Ina DRAFT' 2 - Location Map f I i i • I i i I . I I 06/16/93(1='••CLE301.1NEGDECANN) 3 DRAFTLSA Associates.Inc. , Certification of Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Acceptance of environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Lake Elsinore requirements. This Negative Declaration is prepared for the proposed actions and requires certification prior to final decision to annex. Approval of Annexation No. Approval by LAFCO of.the proposed annexation. Contact Persons The lead agency for preparing this Negative Declaration is the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department. John DeGange Associate Planner Planning Department City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92330 Scope of Environmental Analysis The proposed actions do not include any physical development. The pro- posed annexation will not change or redirect growth in the area. Future development of the area will conform with permitted uses and development standards contained in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Since physical development is not being proposed with this action, evaluation of physical changes that might result from specific development proposals would be speculative. Future development will be reviewed on a project-by-project basis and will be required to comply with applicable City and State environ- mental review processes and regulations. Environmental Checklist In accordance with CEQA, the following evaluates issues and topics marked as "yes," "no," or "maybe" in the attached environmental checklist form. As permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, environmental docu- ments such as this Negative Declaration can incorporate by reference other documents that are a matter of public record. The information presented in 06/16/93(1:--.CLF301',NEGDEC.ANN) LSA Associates. Inc. DRAFT.. this document is based, in part, upon another environmental document entitled "North Peak Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report" prepared by LSA in 1991 and "Checklist and Environmental Analysis for North Peak Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 27270," May 5, 1993, by LSA. Copies of these documents are available for review at the Lake Elsinore City Hall; 130 S. Main Street; ph (909) 674-3124, attention: John DeGange. i 3 1 i , i 06/16/93(I-.••.CLE301.1NEGDECANN) 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY .OF LAKE ELSINORE I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92330 (909) 674-3124 3. Date of Checklist: JUNE 28, 1993 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ANNEXATION NO. II. Environmental Impacts Explanation of all "yes" , "no", and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. Yes Maybe No 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground X surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of. Z Yes Maybe No the ocean or any bay, inlet X or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as '._.. earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2 . AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient X air quality? b. The creation of objectionable X odors? i C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X t 3 . WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X. c. Alterations to the course or X loss of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or X rate of flow of ground waters? 2 Yes Maybe No g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X Flood Zone Designation: 100-Year Flood Level: 4 . PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) ? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in 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 (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? X 3 Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. 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 people to severe noise levels? X 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. LAND USE. will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9 . NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? X 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 4 Yes Maybe No 11. 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 parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? 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, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14 . PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 5 Yes Maybe No 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 of energy, or require the development of X new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X- C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X g. Street lighting annexation and/or improvements? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or .quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 6 Yes Maybe No 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or X historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. i a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare Qr endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. 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 X the future. ) 7 Yes Maybe No C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where i. : the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the t- effect of the total of those j impacts on the environment is X significant. ) III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of potential environmental impacts is attached) Iv. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 X . will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a j significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date signature a For the City of Lake Elsinore 8 ISAAssoaates,Me DRAFT' DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. EARTH a. Unstable Earth Conditions The project site includes a variety of topography, soils types and sub-surface geologic structures. Topographic features range from fairly flat and wide drainage courses to gently rolling hills to steeply sloping hillsides and incised water courses that have formed canyons in places. Elevations range from 1,255 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the two southerly areas adjacent I- 15 to 1,660 feet MSL on fairly steep terrain adjacent to the North Peak Speci- fic Plan El Toro Road extension, and 1,614 feet MSL adjacent to SR 74 near Crumpton Road. General Plan designations for these areas anticipate devel- opment commensurate with terrain constraints. Residential/mountainous and low density residential uses are planned in the areas of more severe terrain, adjacent to North Peak Specific Plan, while commercial and business park uses are planned in flatter areas, adjacent to 1-15 and SR 74. Develop- ment consistent with the General Plan and existing City grading and building codes should limit residents' exposure to unstable earth conditions. The annexation of these areas will not affect planned land. Should subsequent developments be proposed or changes to General Plan land use designations affecting density be proposed, environmental documentation is required prior to consideration. b. Disruption and Compaction of Soil Each future development in the project area shall be assessed to determine grading requirements, cut and fill amounts and soil suitability for develop- ment, consistent with existing City codes and development procedures. Since there are no proposed projects associated with this annexation, and each subsequent project must be assessed according to the CEQA Guidelines, no project related impacts are identified at this level of analysis. a Change in Topograpby or Relief Features As reported in 1.(a) above, the site varies from flat wide drainages to steep hillsides, with rolling hills in between. This area is currently designated for development with various densities in housing and commercial uses. How- ever, this annexation proposal does not include any changes to development patterns, proposed land uses or densities. Topography is expected to change as a result of future development projects unrelated to the proposed annex- ation. Because this annexation does not include specific development pro- posals, no impacts are anticipated from this action. As each development is processed in the City, separate site specific analysis and environmental clear- ance are required. 06/16/93(1:-,CLE301-,NEGDECANN) 14 [SA Associates,InG DRAFT d. Modifications of Unique Features Review of topography maps for the area indicates that there are no unique features in the project area. The fairly flat areas adjacent to I-15 give way to steeper terrain near the northernmost parcel considered for annexation. These steep hills are set against much steeper hills, intermediate ridgelines and distant ridgelines. The features making up the annexation area are not nt ridgelines. No impacts will occur to unique, nor do they form promine local features. e. Increase in Soil Erosion Much of the area is underlain by soils that have moderately high to high runoff potential, with high erosion potential. As a result, development im- pacts differ for the short term and long term. In the short term, construction may expose large amounts of bare soil to rain induced erosion. Runoff induced erosion during construction should be addressed on a project by project basis. Since this proposed annexation does not include specific development proposals or grading plans, a thorough analysis is not possible and is not required at this time. No impacts are directly or indirectly associ- ated with this annexation proposal. After development, much of the project area currently planned for commer- . vial use will be covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., concrete, asphalt, build- ings, etc.). Little material will be available for erosion in the long term, after development. f. Effects on Beach Sands, Channels, Rivers, Stream, ocean, Bay, Inlet, or Lake No beaches, rivers, major streams, oceans, bays, or inlets are located within the impact area of the annexation area. Consequently, any future develop- meet of the site would not have any opportunity to affect such bodies of. water. Furthermore, the site is not located near enough to the lake to im- pact it. No significant impacts are anticipated. g. Exposure to Geologic Hazards As shown in Figure 3, Regional Fault Map, faults and fault fractures are evi- dent in the region. The recently active northwest trending Elsinore Fault Zone is located southwest of the annexation area. Two faults within the Elsinore Fault Zone are the Wildomar and Glen ivy faults, and both are designated by the State of California as Special Study Zones, and are located approximately three to four miles from the annexation area, on the east side of Lake Elsinore. No Special Study Zones exist on the site. 06/16/93(L-,CLE30i-,NEGDECANN) 15 120• 11r 116*45' 34.45' 34.45' SAN HA,eAE� MpUN . TAws SA OVictorville NrA YNFZ MOUNTAJNS � IN, \� Santa Barber r r SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS O ' ' San Bernardino 34• 34• '— ?erside S v Banning I JECT SITE \� er-Elsinore HemetO` EXPLANATION l Fault with historical sf (last 200 years) Fault with surface rup\ Wildomar (active fault) Fault with surface rup (at least a potentially 0 10 \ 0 10 20 j i 33'15' 33.15' 12(r 117• 11645' i i Source: Ziony & Ycrkes, 1985. 6/15,93(cLE301) Figure 3 N LSARegional Fault Map ISA Aswciates,Inc. DRAFT Active faults, such as those described above, are typical of Southern Califor- nable to expect a strong nia. Therefore, it is reaso ground motion seismic event during the lifetime of any project. The Elsinore Fault Zone has the d acre! greatest potential for generating the highest groun hypothetical 6.7 Richter fore, has the highest Potential for seismic hazards. A hyp magnitude event on the Elsinore Fault, one andmaxinoine-ham edrockles thwestr f the site, could be expected to generate o area. A maximum probable tion of 0.66g beneath the }proposed project earthquake of Richter 6.7 magnitude along the Elsinore could occur onuFault Zone odther expected within the next hundred years. Large even faults in the general area, but because of their greater distance or lesser probability of occurrence they are considered less significant from a seismic ground motion standpoint. Site specific soils analysis and geologic testing is required for any develop- current Cty codes. ment within the City of Lake Elsinore, accordin hisoannexationi and City Because no development is being proposed with codes exist to mitigate, to the extent feasible, exposure of risk from seismic events, there are no potential significant impacts that can be identified now. 2. AIR a. Deterioration of Air Quality The annexation proposal may accelerate project development within the area . through coordination of supporting infrastructure, Aledited of SR 744within community facilities districts and coordination of widening future City boundaries. These activities o nt of development, thera stray affect timing of mount of but would have no impact on the am traffic or the amount and timing of grading/construction of major develop- ment parcels in the annexation area. Permitting of major projects at the area Th- is continuing independently, and is not contingent on o the nn erefore, this annexation has little, if any, connection proposed ro Qo develop- ment. The annexation does not propose to alter land uses, traffic patterns, traffic volumes or site/project design components tthaat this time,eff it t air quality. isdifficult to specific projects are not being proposed precisely determine short-term and long-term impacts. The City shams v basis ate impacts resulting from would be ure !reduced�o a n a level of inroject by significance. to ensure that all impacts expected to comply with applicable City envi-. Future project applicants are ronmental review and other jurisdictional l managemen pans. regulations, includ- ing regional air quality and growth 17 06/16/93(1:-,CMOI%NEGDECANN) 1SA Associates,Inc. DRAFT b. Creation of Obfectional Odors The proposed annexation is not a development proposal; therefore, it will not bring about any change in land use that would increase or decrease odors. c. Changes in Climate Climatic conditions, both locally and regionally, result from air circulation patterns not effected by annexation of County property into the boundaries of the City. No changes and, therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 3. WATER a. Changes in Water Movement in Marine or Fresh Waters No marine or fresh water body or water course is on the site or will be affected by the project. No impacts are possible. b. Changes in Absorption Rates or Drainage Patterns Development in the project area will affect absorption rates by developing impervious surfaces over previously undeveloped or cultivated land. Addi- tionally, grading and infrastructure on new development will alter drainage patterns. Since specific projects are not being proposed at this time, it is not possible to precisely determine impacts. The City evaluates impacts resulting from future development on a project by project basis to ensure that all impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance, when practical and feasible. Future project proponents are expected to comply with applicable City envi- ronmental review and other jurisdictional processes and regulations. It is anticipated that there will be no.significant impact. a Alteration to Course or Now of Flood Waters According to the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, a portion of the project site is located within the 500 year flood zone. Future development would be evaluated on a project by project basis by the City; all developments will be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations pertaining to flood control. People or property will not be exposed to flood hazards. 06/16/93(l.--•CLE301-,NEGDEC ANN) 18 U4 Associates,Inc. IF DRAFT' d. Discharge Into Surface Waters Because the project is an annexation and no specific development is associat- ed with it, no discharge into surface waters or groundwater is anticipated in the area and no change in surface water amount is anticipated. e. Alteration of Surface Water Quality Development of the area proposed for annexation will occur based on the General Plan, independent of the proposed annexation. Developments proposed in the annexation area are reviewed and addressed in the environ- mental review process on a case by case basis. The nearest water body that may be affected by surface water quality changes due to urbanization is lake Elsinore. Due to the distance from the lake (two to three miles) and the relative size of development (700 acres ±) compared to the few hundred square mile drainage basin (the San Jacinto River watershed is many times the size of the overall Lake Elsinore sink), the effects of building out the annexation area, and increasing urban pollutants, is insignificant. However, individual projects are reviewed as they are proposed, and each will be assessed for water quality impacts. f. Alteration of Groundwater Direction Direction and quantity of groundwater flow would not be changed due to the annexation. The proposed annexation does not provide for any change in land use density, coverage or any other factor that would change ground- water recharge, groundwater quantity or groundwater direction. No impacts are anticipated. Please also see response 3.h, below. g. Change in Groundwater Quantity Direction and quantity of groundwater flow would not be changed due to the annexation. The proposed annexation does not provide for any change in land use density, coverage or any other factor that would change ground- water recharge, groundwater quantity or groundwater direction. No impacts are anticipated. Please also see response 3.h, below. h. Reduction in Public Water Water usage and groundwater replenishment effects of the development of the annexation area are very small and incremental to development in the region. Water wells drilled in the vicinity of North Peak indicate high water levels (as shallow as nine feet). Based on data in the North Peak Specific 06/16/93(1:',CLE301%NEGDECAMd) 19 U4 Associates,Inc IF77 . DRAFT> Plan EIR, shallow perched groundwater can be expected beneath low lying canyon bottoms at 10 to 15 feet. No impacts to public water are anticipated. i. EVosure to water-Related Hazards According to the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, a portion of the project site is located within the 500 year flood zone. Future development would be evaluated on a project by project basis by the City; all developments will be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations pertaining to flood control. People or property will not be exposed to flood hazards. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Change in Diversity of Plant Species Based on the North Peak Specific Plan biological studies prepared for that project's EIR, it is evident that many different plant communities currently exist in the immediate vicinity of the project and, by extension, on the pro- ject site. No survey was completed on the proposed annexation site. How- ever, based on patterns evident from the adjacent North Peak, and from a windshield survey, the following plant types can be expected in the annex- ation area: 1) coastal sage scrub, 2) chaparral, 3) annual grassland, 4) ripar- ian woodland/scrub, 5) non-native woodland, 6) sandy wash, and 7) non- native ornamental and agricultural plantings. As with North Peak, many areas of coastal sage scrub and chaparral are highly disturbed or moderately dis- turbed. Because there are no specific development plans, it is difficult to determine and/or quantify impacts. Some grading and minor development (building pads, graded roads, storage, animal husbandry, and ornamental and crop planting) have already reduced native species and imported non-native plant species to the area. This trend toward development is expected to continue, regardless of the annexation of the area. Based on the existing conditions on site, and recognizing that development will occur according to the Gener- al Plan land use designation regardless of action on the annexation proposal, impacts resulting from the annexation are not significant. b. Reduction of Unique Plant Species As reported in the North Peak Specific Plan EIR, the Munz's onion, currently listed by the State of California as a threatened species, is the only known unique plant species. Because specific development plans are not part of the annexation request, approval of the annexation would have no effect .on sensitive plant species. However, parcel by parcel surveys should be conduct 06/16/93(1:1-CLE301',NEGDECANN) 20 DRAFT L&4 Associates, Me- ed prior to development to identify habitat/present of Munz's onion in the annexation area. Coastal sage scrub habitat for the California gnatcatcher and Stephens kanga- roo rat grassland habitat are discussed in Section 5.b. C. Introduction of New Plant Species Please see 4.a., above. d. Reduction in Agricultural Crop limited agriculture, primarily family gardening and family crops, is present in the project area. No significant crop area will be affected by development. S• ANIMAL LIFE a. Change in Animal Species and b. Reduction in Unique Animal Species As with plant species, non-native animals will be introduced to the area as it develops, and native species will be reduced. The general area supports two species listed as threatened or endangered: 1) the Stephens kangaroo rat, and 2) the California gnatcatcher. Because no change in land use is pro- posed with this annexation, and no specific development is proposed with this action, impacts to these sensitive species and/or their habitat (grassland in the case of the Stephen's kangaroo rat and coastal sage scrub for the gnatcatcher), impacts to these species are not significant. Each future project will be subject to City review and environmental clearance. It is more appro- priate and meaningful to address these issues at a later time when grading and development plans are known and at a time when project-specific mitiga- tion can be developed to reduce impacts. c. Introduction of New Animal Species The annexation does not include any development proposal beyond tradi- tional City services and coordination of infrastructure planning and imple- mentation. Therefore, no new animal species will be introduced as part of this project. 06/16/93(r:%CLE301%NEGDECANN) 21 U"Associates,Inc. DRAFT d. Deterioration The annexation does not include any development proposal beyond tradi- tional City services and coordination of infrastructure planning and imple- mentation. Therefore, no.deterioration of habitat will occur. 6. NOISE a. Increase in Noise and b. F_%posure to Severe Noise The annexation does not include any development proposal beyond tradi- tional City services and coordination of infrastructure planning and imple- mentation. No noise producing uses or activities, beyond noise expected to be generated by already planned land uses, are anticipated. Two noise sources exist in the area: 1) I-15 freeway, and 2) SR 74. Future projects considered in the an- nexation area are required to undergo project review and environmental study, per City requirements. Widening of SR 74 is being proposed by the County of Riverside and Caltrans. That project will require separate environ- mental review and extensive noise impact studies and mitigation. These 7 studies and site specific mitigation resulting from these independent projects are more appropriately completed when project specific details (e.g., ultimate width and alignment of SR 74, and location of future sensitive receptors) are available. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Development of the area consistent with the existing General Plan will in- crease light/glare potential. However, because the annexation has no effect on these land uses, no significant impact is anticipated. 8. LAND USE No change in land use is proposed as part of the annexation. The City shall review all future commercial development on a project by project basis to ensure that all potential land use conflicts are mitigated to a level of insignifi- cance. All future developments would be expected to comply with the City's General Plan designations and zoning requirements. 06/1"3(I:'••CLE30I,NEGDEC ANN) 22 MA Associates,Inc. DRAFT 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. Increase of Natural Resources Future development would not be of an intensity that significantly increases the rate of use of any natural resources. No significant impacts are anticipat- ed. b. Depletion of Natural Resources Natural resources would not be affected by annexation, and would not be substantially depleted. 10. RISK OF UPSET a. Risk of Explosion or Release of Hazardous Substances Commercial uses would be permitted with the proposed actions. It is antici- pated that development would not be of a use that could create a risk of upset or release hazardous substances. No significant impacts are anticipat- ed. b. Interference of Emergency Plans Any future development would not be of an intensity or use that could inter- fere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated. 11. POPULATION The annexation area contains land uses devoted to commercial and residen- tial uses. The combination of these land uses and the expected build out of this area, consistent with the City's General Plan, will lead to addition of approximately 1,219 dwelling units, using the 2.8 persons per household factor from the fiscal impact report prepared for this annexation; please see Appendix A (Christensen and Wallace, Inc., April 1993). Anticipated popula- tion in the annexation area will be 3,413 people. The commercial com- ponent will add up to 6.1 million square feet of commercial and business uses. These factors are included as part of the CEQA disclosure process, not to indicate impacts. Development in the area is not contingent on the pro- posed annexation, and could occur under the jurisdiction of the County. However, development schedules and growth would be accelerated by pro- vision of City services and coordination of infrastructure improvements with the annexation. Because there are no proposed changes to development 06/16/93(1:-,CLE301:NEGDECANN) 23 LiA Associated Inc. DRAFT` patterns in the area and densities would remain as indicated on the City's General Plan, no significant impact is expected. 12. HOUSING As indicated in No. 11, above, 1,219 housing units will be generated in the annexation area. There is no schedule of development, and it is uncertain when development will occur. However, the annexation may accelerate housing development in the area, but not faster than the economy in general will allow. At present, development in general has slowed as a result of the recession in 1991, 1992 and 1993. By annexing the proposed area into the City, the City will be better positioned to control development and respond to housing demand. Because of the reported housing rapacity in the annex- ation area, housing opportunities will exist to a greater extent within the City. These housing opportunities will allow the City to better respond to demand for housing of all types. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Generation of Vehicular Movement By including the proposed area in the City of Lake Elsinore, the City will be in a much stronger position to control road system improvements. Project design can be coordinated by the City to provide capacity needed for devel- opment as it occurs throughout the area using a Master Plan approach, rather than relying on piecemeal planning as development is proposed. Another primary goal of the annexation is to coordinate the improvements necessary to SR 74 to ensure timely expansion of that major .circulation element so that traffic capacity is available as demand increases. In this context, the annexation proposed will benefit traffic capacity and circulation throughout this region of Lake Elsinore. b. Effects on Parking Facilities or New Demand for Parking Annexation will not affect parking supply or demand in the affected area. Since a development plan has not been proposed, it is difficult to precisely determine effects on parking. The City shall review all future development on a project by project basis to ensure that all parking impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. All future developments would be expected to comply with City parking requirements. 06/16/93(1r••CLE3301-,NEGDEC.ANN) 24 DRAFT- LSA Associates,Inc. c. Impact on Transportation Systems The City shall review all future commercial development on a project by project basis to ensure that impacts to transportation systems are mitigated to a level of insignificance. All future developments would be expected to comply with City requirements and conditions. Please see response to 13.a, above, for further discussion. d. Alterations to Circulation or Movement The City shall review all future commercial development on a project-by- project basis to ensure that impacts to circulation and movement are mitigat- ed to a level of insignificance. All future developments would be expected to comply with City requirements and conditions. Please see response 13.a, above, for further discussion. e. Alterations to Waterborne, Rail or Air Trafflic Future development would not be of an intensity or use that could alter air, waterborne or rail traffic. f. Hazards to Motorists, Bicyclists or Pedestrians City review of future development on a project by project basis will ensure that City standards for pedestrian and streets are applied to each develop- ment so that impacts to motorists, bicyclists, and/or pedestrians are mitigated to a level of insignificance. All future developments would be expected to comply with City requirements, conditions and standards in place to address safety concerns. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Information and data used in this section are derived from "Fiscal Impact Report for the Proposed SR-74 Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore" (Christensen and Wallace,April, 1993), included in its entirety in Appendix A to this report. a. Fire Protection and Ambulance Services The Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, provides the full range of fire protection, fire suppression, emergency medical aid, hazardous material abatement, disaster preparedness, and future planning for development 06/16/93(1:-,CLE301-,NEGDECAW 25 LSA Assoaatex Inc- DRAFT review at basically the same level of service for both the unincorporated area adjacent to the City of Lake Elsinore and the City itself. The City contracts with the County for fire protection, and receives the same service level as the unincorporated area. Station #10, located in Lake Elsino- re at 410 West Graham Avenue, and Station #11, located in Lakeland Village at 17643 Brightman Avenue, service residents in the City and the surrounding unincorporated areas. In addition, the City is planning another station, to be City funded and City staffed, in the near future; it will be located near Lincoln and Machado Streets. According to the Riverside Fire Department, this station would also serve the residents in unincorporated areas, as well as City residents. The City of Lake Elsinore has acquired a dedicated ambulance unit that is dispatched simultaneous with the fire department in response to emergency calls. The service is contracted to Goodhew Ambulance Company, and cur- rently serves both in the unincorporated areas surrounding the City and the City itself with similar levels of service. b. Police Protection At present, police protection is provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department; only accident investigation is performed by the California High- way Patrol, the agency responsible for traffic control and accident investiga- tion in unincorporated areas. Upon annexation, the responsibility for both of these functions will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. The services will be extended upon the completion of the annexation, based on the existing contract between the City and the County Sheriffs Department. Services to be provided include police protection, traffic patrol, including a radar en- forcement program, and on call response to accidents. Current levels of service for the County are: 0.8 officers per 1,000 popula- tion, with priority response at approximately 10 minutes and low priority response at approximately 30 minutes. Under the contract with the City, levels of service will increase commensurate with the City's ratio of 0.9 offi- cers per 1,000 population, resulting in a seven minute response time for priority calls and 15 minutes for low priority calls. a scbools The proposed annexation area is served by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. The District's newest high school, Temescal Valley High School, is situated on the northerly side of the I-15 freeway at Nichols Road (directly opposite the freeway from the Elsinore Outlet Center), within the proposed annexation area. All applicable impact fees resulting from future proposed 06/16/93(I-.-,CLE301-,NEGDECANN) 26 IM Associates,Inc. DRAFT development will be required of the developer/building at the appropriate time. In addition, the larger Specific Plan projects, such as North Peak, pro- vide school sites within the Specific Plan and provide additional financing for new schools, per City conditions on the Specific Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated. d. Parks and Recreation As the area develops, parks and recreation requirements will be satisfied by developers and/or builders through the payment of mitigation fees and park space dedication and park improvement at the time of development. Resi- dential projects adjacent to the annexation area that are currently within the City, (e.g., North Peak and Ramsgate) have dedicated open space and im- proved park.area for public use. With City requirements such as park im- provement fees and park/open space dedication requirements, there will be no significant impact. e. Maintenance The City slurry seals streets every three to five years, while overlay is accom- plished every ten years, as needed. Shoulder grading is done every quarter for City streets. This maintenance schedule would be extended to the annex- ation area following completion of the annexation process. Local streets would be added to the City street system as development oc- curs, with the cost borne by the developer or builder. Collector and arterial. street improvements would proceed as required, funded by mitigation fees, as development occurs. The City is currently working with Caltrans and the Riverside County Transportation Commission in developing plans and financ- ing for the improvement of State Highway 74. This annexation is being initiated in part as a portion of the Highway 74 development plan so that the planning will occur with only one local jurisdiction involved. Because fees will be collected for improvements as they are developed and tax revenues will be available from new development within the annexation area, no significant impact is anticipated. f. Otber Governmental Services The City sweeps residential streets twice a month on a regular basis. This service would be extended to the annexation area. Library services will be provided by the Riverside City/County Public Library. The nearest branches are located in downtown Lake Elsinore, and at the main gate commercial center in Canyon Lake. 06/16/93(I:%CLE301•.NEGDECANN) 27 U4 Associates.Inc. DRAFT Street lights are provided for through the Landscaping and Street Lighting District. The subject territory would be annexed to the District as part of the proceedings. Areas without street lights would have a zero assessment rate. As development occurs, however, fees would be imposed on property owners based on the number of street lights in the zone that would be created as part of the development. U Sidewalk, curb and gutter construction would proceed as part of the condi- tions accompanying any land use entitlements connected to future develop- ments in the subject area. Tax revenues generated from new development in the annexation area will provide revenues to cover increased expenses. No significant impact is anti- cipated. 15. ENERGY a. Substantial Amounts of Energy Future commercial and residential development would not be of an intensity that would require substantially more fuel or energy. i Electric service is provided by the Southern California Edison Company i (SCE) and natural gas service by the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). Plans for service are in place, and anticipated development in the I _ - annexation area is included in the City's General Plan. No significant impact is anticipated. i b. New Sources of Energy I Any future development would not be of an intensity of use that would substantially increase energy demands or require development of new sourc- es of energy. 1G. UTI MES a. Power or Natural Gas The City, SCE and SCG review all future development on a project by project basis to ensure that adequate power and gas utilities will be provided. All future developments would be expected to comply with City, SCE and SCG requirements. 0&16M(1:%CLE301 k NEGDEC.ANN) 28 LSA Associates,Mr- DRAFT b. Communication Systems The General Telephone Company (GTE) reviews all future development on a project by project basis to ensure that adequate communication will pro- vided. All future developments would be expected to comply with City and GTE requirements. Plans for service are included for the area. As reported in the North Peak EIR, GTE has indicted that they have service along SR-74 that will need to be updated to accommodate area development. GTE will design and pay for service extension. No significant impacts have been identified. c. Water and d. Sewer The City and Elsinore Valley Water District (EVWD) review all future develop- ment on a project by project basis to ensure that adequate water and sewer service will be provided. All future development would expected to comply with City and EVWD requirements. Both of these services are now, and will continue to be, under the jurisdic- tion of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. i Sewer service is currently provided to Dexter Avenue at the southern extremi- ty of the proposed annexation area, and no sewers exist within the proposed area beyond that point. The District is currently planning to bring in facili- ties in conjunction with the recent annexations of the Ramsgate development (immediately adjacent to the proposed annexation area to the east of Parcel "B" and south of Parcel"A') and the North Peak development (north of Parcel "A!). As development occurs, land use entitlements will be conditioned on appropriate sewer development. Water service is available through a ten inch line along State Highway 74 from Dexter Avenue north to Wasso Canyon Road, where the line becomes an eight inch line. As in the case of sewers, appropriate extensions of the water service will be part of the mitigation required of developers and/or builders. e. Storm Water Drainage The City reviews all development proposals on a project by project basis to ensure that adequate drainage utilities will be provided. All future devel- opments would be expected to comply with City requirements. 06/16/93(1:%CLE301,.NEGDECANN) 29 LSAAswdates,Inc. DRAFT" f. Solid Waste and Disposal The subject unincorporated area is currently serviced by Perris Disposal and other waste hauling companies. Residential fees range from $13.09 to $17.95 monthly, and trash removal is once a week. Following annexation, solid waste disposal will be handled by Lake Elsinore Environmental (formerly Rodriguez Disposal) with a fee of $11.05 monthly. As in the unincorporated area, refuse collection occurs weekly. No significant impacts are anticipated. g. Street Ligbting Annexation Future development would require annexation into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District as part of the proceedings on the annex- ation into the City of Lake Elsinore. Areas without street lights would have a zero property tax assessment. As development occurs, fees would be imposed on property owners based on the number of street lights in the zone crated by the development. The City's method of street light assess- ment for maintenance and development requirement for installation create no impacts. 18. AESTHETICS Any future development would be required to undergo the City's Design Review process. The City shall review and approve the design of each devel- opment based on aesthetics and other related criteria. Future applicants would be expected to comply with City requirements and conditions pertain- ing to aesthetics. No impacts are anticipated. 19. RECREATION As the area develops, parks and recreation requirements will be satisfied by developers and/or builders through the payment of mitigation fees and park space dedication and park improvement at the time of development. Resi- dential projects adjacent to the annexation area that are currently within the City, (e.g., North Peak and Ramsgate) have dedicated open space and im- proved park area for public use. With City requirements such as park im- provement fees and park/open space dedication requirements, there will be no significant impact. 06/16/93(l:-,CLE301,,NEGDEC.ANN) 30 LSA Associates, Inc. DRAFT. APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SR-74 AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF IAKE ELSINORE i I s J I 06/16/93(1:':CLE301=.NEGDEC.ANN) DRAFT LSA Asso ciates, Ina 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Alteration of Archaeological Sites The proposed actions would not alter or destroy any prehistoric or historic archaeological site. I r b. Effects to Structures No prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object is known to e3dst on site. No impacts are anticipated. c. Change to Cultural Values Any future development would not be of an intensity of use that could change or affect any ethnic cultural values. No impacts are anticipated. i i • i i i 06/16/93(I:,,CLE3G1.1NEGDEC.ANN) 31 APR-23-199Z 11:�4 FROM CHRISTENSEH P WALLACE INC TO 1714476852a P.02i11 FISCAL MPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SR74 AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE i i SECTION I, BACKGROUND i BACKGROUND Christensen&Wallace, Inc. has been retained by a group of property owners on behalf of the City of Lake Elsinore to assist in the annexation of certain unincorporated territory lying generally along the SR74 corridor between the existing City boundary at I-I5 and the recently annexed North Peak Specific Plan. At the time the North Peak Specific Plan territory was annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore, the City assured the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission that it would make a positive effort to annex a pocket of territory south of the proposed annexation. In reviewing available options, it was decided to expand the annexation study area to include all of the territory between the existing City Limits and the SR74 corridor to provide a more rational boundary as well as k place the SR74 right-of-way within a single jurisdiction, that of the City, for planning purposes. This reli min p ary analysis involves two alternative land use plans. These plans are described in the following section. Fallowing the Executive Summary section, this preliminary analysis will outline some initial conclusions as well as identify limitations to the study., i Preliminary Draft Page I Text and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report Subject to Fnal Audit SR74 Annexation ���-��-_��J mil• rrul I I WHLLH�,t Ih'- I J 17144768520 P.03i11 FISCAL EWFACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSE SR74 AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CTTY OF LAKE ELSINORE SECTION II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS X. The subject area contains a total net acreage of 677.2 acres. For the purposes of this study, the area is contained in three parcels. Parcel "A", which is located at the northeasterly end of the SR74 corridor contains 126.1 acres; Parcel W, which ties between the existing City boundary at I-15 and runs along the SR74 corridor in a northeasterly direction contains 546.2 acres: Parcel "C", a triangular parcel which is situated west of Parcel "B" and is the site of a High School, contains 4.9 acres. i 2. This study analyzes two alternatives prepared by Van Smith, Planning Consultant. Alternative One is a land use plan which follows the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan overlying the subject area, Alternative Two is a suggested land use plain The major difference between the _ two is the inclusion of collector roads on either side of the State route to improve circulation in the area. 3. The residential component of Alternative One provides for 1,219 dwelling units. Using a persons-per-household factor of 2.8, this results in a projected population of 3,413. 4. The residential component of Alternative Two provides for 2,330 dwelling units. Again, using the 2.8 pph factor, the projected population is 6,524. 5. In analyzing commercial development, this analysis allocates commercial office and business park to the officeiresearch and development use for sales tax generation purposes. This analysis also assumes that 25% of the square footage allocated to freeway business will be used for high volume retail sales activities (such as discount department stores, auto dealerships, etc,) and 75%for office/research and development uses. l Prefiminary Draft Page 2 Text and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report Subject to Final Audit SR74 Annexarion Hrtc—cam—���� 31 �� t-r of I uriY.l i tty��#16 WHLLHCE INC C TO 17144768520 P.a4i11 6. The commercial component of Alternative One contains a total of 6,129,328 square feet (net). This space is allocated to four types of commercial uses: general co=ercial, commercial office, business park and freeway business. For the purpose of this analysis, based on the criteria noted in the previous paragraph, the commercial uses are allocated as follows: a. Office/research and development is allocated a total of 4,836,031 square feet net. b. General commercial is allocated 297,950 square feet net. f c. Freeway business(high volume retail)is allocated 995,346 square feet net. 7. The commercial component of Alternative Two contains a total of 6,832,387 square feet (net), This space is allocated to five types of commercial uses: neighborhood commercial, general commercial, commercial office, business park and freeway business. For the purpose of this analysis, based on the criteria noted in the previous paragraph, the commercial uses are allocated as follows: a. Office/research and development is allocated a total of 5,355,485 square feet net_ b. Neighborhood commercial is aflocated 243,500 square feet net. 3 c. General commercial is allocated 507,039 square feet net_ d. Freeway business (high volume retail)is allocated 726,363 square feet net. S. used on these allocations of land use, .Alternative One results in the following cost/revenue relationships for the City of Lake Elsinore: a. The General Fund shows a surplus of $1,533,770 based on projected expenditures of $1,083,117 (which includes a $177,289 subsidy to the Road Fund) and revenues of $2,616,887, b. The Road Fund shows a deficit of$177,859 based on projected expenditures of$246,859 and revenues of$69,570. As noted in the preceding paragraph, this deficit is offset through a subsidy in the General Fund. c. The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District is, for all intents and purposes, balanced; showing a surplus of$448 based on expenditures of$195,253 and revenues of$195,701. Preliminary Draft Page 3 Text and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report Subject to Final Audlt SR74 Anmexatran I-Irrc cJ-177� li• y rMUTA L-rlMi; ICN='I & WHLLHLt 1NL I 17144766520 P.051,11 8. Based on these allocations of land use, Alternative Two results in the following cost/revenue relationships for the City ofLake Elsinore: a. The General Fund shows a surplus of $I,203,986 based on projected expenditures of $1,919,538 (which includes a $113,000 subsidy to the Road Fund) and revenues of $3,123,524, b. The Road Fund shows a deficit of$113,000 based on projected expenditures of$250,447 and revenues of$137,447, As noted in the preceding paragraph, this deficit is offset through a subsidy in the General Fund c. The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District shows a deficit of $94,189 based on expenditures of$306,744 and revenues of$212,555. The better cost/revenue relationship showing for Alternative One is primarily resultant from the Iower population projected for that alternative. Since many cost elements (most importantly, Iaw enforcement) are population-driven, the costs for Alternative One can be expected to be lower than those for Alternative Two. However, note the last item in the Conclusion Section regarding the potential for additional law enforcement costs for both alternatives. i I :t j 1 I Pmliminary Draft Page 4 Teo and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report Subject to Final Audit SR74 Anne=n*?t h-rr �� 1�7� 11 �b rf�ul'I tiNK 1 5;ci'I�tf WHLLH E I hC T 17144768520 P.06/11 FISCAL IlVIPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SR74 AREA,ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SECTION M. CONCLUSIONS OF TFIE PRELBMgARY ANALYSIS i CONCLU SIONS i 1_ Further consideration should be given to the amount of land that is committed to office(mearch and development uses. As allocated in this preliminary study, over three- fourths of the total commercial square footage is allocated to this use classification. 'i 2. The key element resulting in this amount of office/)R&D involves the use of land designated "Freeway commercial " This classification provides for a wide variety of commercial uses, and s it was arbitrarily decided to allocated 75%to office/R&D and 25%to high volume retail uses. 3. In the absence of a market analysis, any allocation would have to be arbitrary. However, both the quantity of office/R&D allocation and the low retail sales generation(projected at $10 per square foot) results in low sales tax generation for a substantial amount of commercially designated land_ 4. One additional observation with respect to the freeway business land use allocation: in Alternative One, this land use contains 43% of the total net acreage allocated to commercial uses; while in Alternative Two, it contains 53% of the total net commercial acreage. Since the actual use allocation for this type of activity is so broad, the assumptions made in its allocation can significantly agect the revenue generation with respect to sales tax. 5. As a corollary to the preceding conclusion, it must be noted that sales taxes make up a substantial portion of total revenues; 63.211/o in Altemative One and 61.8% in Alternative TWO. 6. The higher Road Fund deficit in Alternative One is a direct result of the method of allocation of road taxes. Since these revenues are more closely related to population than other revenues, it follows that the higher population resultant from residential uses in Alternative Two provide a stronger base£or this fund even though road mileage does not vary as much as population. PrelfMinaru Dorf Page S Tw and Numbers Fiscal Impact Report Subject to Flnal Audit SR 74 Annexation �� c� 1 11•�o rKut't �r�r i ttra�tl+ WH-LH�-t 1fq(: U 17144768S20 P.07/11 7. One major limitation in this study must also be kept in mead. This analysis is based on the buildout of the entire subject area. As a result, property takes are overstated to an unknown extern. As a buildout scenario, this study assumes that all development takes place in a single year. Obviously, this development will span a number of years. Portions of the property tax will be added to the Cit} s revenue on an annual basis. Property taxes for those portions will generally not keep pace annually with inflation as the result of the Jarvis factor which permits only a two percent annual increase regardless of actual inflation until a property resells. With substantial amounts of commercial property, which resell as a much slower rate than residential, it can be anticipated that property taxes will actually deflate over whatever period is required to obtain buildout. Nonetheless, this analysis does provide a reasonable indication of the fiscal impact of each proposed alternative to the City of Lake EWnore. S. Finally, we are waiting for additional information from the Riverside County Sheriffs Office with respect to any added costs resulting from the substantial amount of commerical development compared to total population. Since law enforcement costs are now developed based on per capita amounts, the lower population-to-commercial development ratio may very well understate these costs. We anticipate receiving some per acre cost estimates in the very near future, and will adjust the study accordingly. { i { Preliminary Draft Page 6 �'¢xt mid�V nsbers Fiscal Impact Report Subject to Final Audit 5R74 Annexation t-Kum (-HHESTENSEN & WALLACE INC TO 17144766520 P,OB/11 SR74 F.I.R. Model SUMMARY Revised Alternative 2A WORKSHEET April 22, 1993 A 8 1 LAKE ELSINORE SR74 ANNEXATION-ALTERNATIVE 2A 2 USING JANUARY 29, 1993 LAND USE PLAN 3 COSTIREVENUE SUMMARY 4 i 6 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 6 Property Taxes 726,797 ! : 7 Property Transfer Taxes '°,`�z. 44,492 ' 8 Sales and Use Taxes 9 NeighgoMood Commercial _ _M i 173,494 14 General Commercial 481,WS 11 Office ResearchlDeveiopment� 411,420 12 General Commercial/Freeway ! _ 862,556 13 Subtotal, Sales and Use Taxes i 1,929,156 14 Franchise Fees 130,530 16 Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees 185,840 16 Fines and Forfeitures — I 4,001 17 Interest Earnings I T 102,708 18 TOTAL,General Fund Revenue ! 3,123,524 19 20 GENERAL FUND COSTS } 21 General Government 498,673 22 PolicewPmtection� ._.. .�. ___ i 780,041 23 Animal Control _ 27,008 24 Co um nmI Services_....'»�_ ' 186,390 W _._ ._ 28 Pubil .. -Orks Non-road ► 314,425 26 Subsid tie Road F n _ r - 113,000 27.E TOTAL_,Zeneral Fund Costs i 1,918,538 29 General Fund Surplus or<DefirA>-'�- 1,203,986 30 Page 1 HFR-21- 1: Z7 FROM CHRISTENSEH & WALLACE INC TO 1714476B=120 P.09i11 SR74 F.I.R. Model SUMMARY Revised Alternative 2A WORKSHEET April 22, 1993 'r A B 31 ROAD FUND REVENUES 32 Sec_ 2105 _ -----�-�— 28,158 33 Sec. 2106 28,619 34 Sec. 2107 , 49,164 36 Sec. 2107.5 _..._ NIA 36 Se-325, Article 8 w _ 2,633 37 Measure (TDA) 26,334 38 Interest Earnings 4.520 39 TOTAL, Road Fund Revenues 137.447 40 41 ROAD FUND COSTS 42 Routine Street Maintenance 161,381 43 Traffle Signal Maintenance 33,000 44 Street Sweeping 5,513 45 Street Overlpy Program 60.553 46 TOTAL. Road Fund Costs 260,447 47 i 48 Road Fund Surplus or<Defir*> ! -113,000 . 49 i 50 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT REVENUES 51 Landscape$U tMng District Revenues 206,364 52 Interest Earnings I 8,191 53 TOTAL,Assessment District Revenues f 212.665 54 _ J 55 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COSTS ! 56 Larsdscspe MaintBnenoe 703 57 Park Maintenance 247,912 58 Street lighting Maintenance M� 56129 59 TOTAL,Assessment District Costs 305,744 60 Assessment District SurplusJ Weit 9d,188 61 Page 2 f-Kuri CHRISTENSEN ! WHLLHCE DC TO 17144768520 P.10i11 SR74 F.I.R. Model SUMMARY Revised Attemative 1 WORKSHEET April 22, 1993 i A B 1 LAKE ELSINORE SR74 ANNEXATION-ALTERNATIVE ONE 2 USING G.P.A_ IMPLEMENTATION LAND USE PLAN 3 COST/REVENUE SUMMARY 4 5 GENERAL.FUND REVENUES i 6 Property Taxes _ I - 676,209 7 Property Transfer Taxes 41,395 8 Sales and Use Taxes 9 Nei hbotood Commercial WA 10 General Commercial -- �—__ I 283,053 11 Office ReseareWevetopment __.....���.__ ----- 459,423 12 General Commercial/Freeway �W + - 910,119 13 Subtotal,Sales and Use Taxes ' 1,652,595 14 Franchise Fees -_ I 65,460 15 Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees - 937183 16 Fines and Forfeitures _�__�........_--- � .._.-. 2,006 17 Interest Eamin S _ ��` � $6,049 18 TOTAL, General Fund Revenue ; 2,616,887 19 20 GENERAL FUND COSTS -� 21 General Govemment i 250,043 22 Police Protection -- �- 391,125 23 Animal Control 13,542 24 Paft and Recreation .25 Public Works IN n-madd157,658 26 Subsidy to Road Fund 177,289 27 TOTAL, General Fund Costs _� 1,083,117 23 -- 29 General Fund Surplus or<Oeficith- 1,533,770 Page 1 Wr%.L-m-a I u 1(144(t3=4W SR74 F.I.R. Model SUMMARY Revised Alternative 1 WORKSHEET Awl 22. 1993 A B 31 ROAD FUND REVENUES 32 Sec.2105 13,116 33 Sec.2106 1 14,350 34 Sec. 2107 i 2401 35 Sec. 2107.5 ._. N/A 36 58-325,Article 8 1,378 37 Measure A T(�DA} — 13,777 38 Interest Earnings.._._. .. __ _y -_— .,. 2,288 39 TOTAL, Road Fund Revenues i 69,570 40 ...._._ _ 41 ROAD FUND COSTS 42 Routine Street Maintenance 138,735 43 Traffic Signal Maintenance 33,000 44 Street Sweep I 5,757 1 45 Street Overlay Pmqram 69,367 46 TOTAL, Road Fund Costs _; 246,869 ! 47 48 Road Fund Surplus or<Deficit> I -177,289 49 50 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT REVENUES 61 Landscape& Lignting District Revenues 190,001 52 interest Eami s 5 700 53 TOTAL,Assessment District Revenues i 195,701 54 66 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COSTS 36 Landscape Maintenance 703 57 Park Maintenance a 125,218 58 Street Lighting Maintenance 89,333 59 TOTAL,Assessment District Costs I 195,253 60 61 Assessment District Su us;/Deficit I 448 62 Page 2 PROJECT DIMENSIONS i ORIGINAL November 1, 1992 Mr. Robert Christen Planning Director CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Subject: State Route 74 Corridor Annexation i l Dear Robert: Per Frank Tecca, enclosed is our proposal to provide State Route 74 Corridor Annexation services to the City of Lake Elsinore. This proposal outlines our scope of work and cost of services related to this key component of the SR 74 Improvement Program. Project Dimensions, Inc. intends to work closely with the City's Planning department and also Christensen & Wallace, Inc. to achieve the proposed annexation. Based on our successful experience on similar projects, Project Dimensions, Inc. is confident that we can provide the professional services necessary. I look forward to working with you, and if you have any questions, please give me or Jeff Oviedo a call. Sincerely, PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC. i Ge/den eterson Pre Attach. GEP/ga j l a f CONTRACT/AGREEMENT # S87 A;I PROJECT DIMENSIONS,INC. 5 Park Plaza Suite 1170 Irvine,California 92714 714 476 2246 FAX 714 476 8520 ! �_ i } SR 74 CORRIDOR ANNEXATION Scope of Work 3 `I 1.0 PROGRAM TASKS 1.1 Develop Annexation Boundary and Strategy Project Dimensions, Inc. will research for pertinent information related to the SR 74 Corridor East of 1-15. Such information may include property ownership, topography, jurisdictional agencies, capital facilities and other related information. Based on this research, Project Dimensions, in association with the Planning Department and Christensen &Wallace, will evaluate and determine a proposed annexation boundary within the SR 74 Corridor. Based on this boundary, Project Dimensions will develop an annexation strategy for the City of Lake Elsinore. This strategy will include annexation objectives, a recommended approach to secure LAFCO approval, anticipated constraints and opportunities, and a proposed timetable to secure LAFCO approval. 1.2 Coordinate Land Use Plan Project Dimensions, Inc. will coordinate the development and preparation of a land use plan for the State Route 74 Corridor. This plan will be used to develop associated costs and revenues for the fiscal impact report. Project Dimensions, in coordination with the Planning Department, will develop a work plan, define objectives,select a land use consultant, review work products, and process and obtain the necessary approvals for the preferred land use alternative. 1.3 Coordinate Preparation of Plan for Services and Fiscal Impact Report Project Dimensions will coordinate the preparation of the plan for services and fiscal impact report. Christensen & Wallace will be responsible for the actual preparation of these two reports. i 1.4 Coordinate Bounda Map &Legal Description Preparation &Processing Project Dimensions will coordinate the preparation and processing of the boundary map and legal description. Project Dimensions will select a civil engineer to prepare the boundary map and legal description under contract with the City of Lake Elsinore. PDI will process this map and legal description through the County of Riverside Survey Department, address all of the County's concerns, coordinate with the Civil Engineer to make corrections as needed, coordinate with the City for the fees required, and secure the approval of the County Surveyor's officer prior to LAFCO agendizing the proposed annexation. 1.5 Landowner Coordination - Project Dimensions will maintain a close and continuous liaison with the affected landowners throughout the duration of the annexation effort. Project Dimensions will meet with the landowners on a regular basis to discuss annexation progress, review constraints and opportunities, and determine proposed action items. j PROJECT DIMENSIONS,INC. 5 Park Plaza Suite 1170 Irvine, California 92714 714 476 2246 FAX 714 4 76 8520 1.6 City of Lake Elsinore Coordination Project Dimensions will also coordinate the Planning Commission and City Council hearings with City Staff, develop correspondence from the City to LAFCO and agencies (if required), coordinate the City to participate at the LAFCO hearing and then follow through with the City Council fiscal procedures. 1.7 Affected Actency Coordination j Project Dimensions will also work with affected agencies to gain their support of the proposed annexation. 1.8 LAFCO Preliminary Coordination Prior to submitting the annexation proposal to LAFCO, PDI will meet with LAFCO j staff to discuss the proposed annexation and determine LAFCO issues, current policies, and other key items regarding the annexation. In addition, PDI will review the key elements of the plan for services with the LAFCO Executive 1 Officer to assure that all issues have been identified and addressed. 1.9 Documenting the Proposal(s) and Filing PDI will assist Christensen &Wallace in the preparation of documents required for annexation requests, including the application form, environmental assessment form, the petition or resolution of application as appropriate, and t the narrative report addressing justification and benefits of the proposal. Once all documents are prepared, PDI will review the information with the Planning Director prior to submittal to LAFCO. Any revisions to filing documents and reports will then be made following this review. All documents will then be submitted to the LAFCO Executive Officer. 1.10 LAFCO Processing, Approvals Recordation PDI will work closely with LAFCO staff to process and expedite the annexation proposal. PDI will also work with LAFCO Board members to lobby their support for the annexation. After LAFCO determination, PDI will process the LAFCO documents to the City for final resolution and then to LAFCO for recordation. 1.11 Other Additional support documents including maps, schedules, presentation materials, etc.will be required and have been included within this proposal. i r PROJECT DIMENSIONS,INC. 5 Park Plaza Suite 1170 Irvine,California 92714 714 476 2246 FAX 714 476 8520 i SR 74 ANNEXATION Cost of Services I Project Dimensions, Inc.will perform the scope of services for a monthly not to exceed budget of $2000. This contract is effective for the six-month period of November 1, 1992 to May 1, 1993. j At the expiration date, the City of Lake Elsinore will re-evaluate the need to an extension for project coordination services with Project Dimensions, Inc. This budget include all principal hours, technical support time, computer processing, and administrative support time. All time spent on the project will be billed on a time and material basis. `I'f i E- J: l 1 1 PROJECT DIMENSIONS,INC. 5 Park Plaza Suite 1170 Irvine,California 92714 714 4762246 FAX 714 476 8520 LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF LAKEEEN E SINORE ORIGINAL AND PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC. 1 i This letter is to memorialize our Agreement regarding annexation services that Project 3 Dimensions, Inc. (PDI)will be providing to the City of Lake Elsinore. i SCOPE OF WORK: (See proposal, dated November 1, 1992.) `f COSTS: Project Dimensions, Inc. will bill on a time and material basis per our rate sheet (see Exhibit A). ,l TERMS: PDl bills on a monthly basis with a net of 30 days. #' ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS: This contract is governed by the laws of the State of California. If any action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this contract, or if brought in the form of an arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, costs and necessary disbursements, in addition to other relief to which such party may be entitled. 'l. INTEREST: The City of Lake Elsinore shall pay PDl compensation for the services rendered by it in accordance with the established fee. A late fee will be charged at the rate of one and a half (1.5) percent per month on all delinquent accounts. The undersigned parties have executed this Agreement on November 1, 19 2. �- `ame: Georgeerson Title: /� Preside1�11 City of Lake Isinore Projectmensions Inc. 1 , A California Corporation 1 1 PROJECT DIMENSIONS,INC. 5 Park Plaza Suite 1170 Irvine, California 92714 714 4762246 FAX 714 476 8520 f EXHIBIT SR 74 Program Management-City of Lake Elsinore Rate Schedule Labor: Principal $110 per hour Project Director $100 per hour 'i Project Manager $90 per hour € Project Engineer 80 per hour 1 9 $ p >„ i Scheduler $75 per hour Graphic Artist $55 per hour Technician $55 per hour 1. Administrative/Clerical $35 per hour i Expenses: *Automobile Travel $ 0.25 per mile *Copying $ 0.10 per copy *Faxes $ 2.00 each * Reproducible Graphic Plots $25.00 each *Mainframe Processing Time (PVS) $62.00 per hour * Mainframe Data Storage $75.00 per Mega Byte (MB) *CADD Workstation $30.00 per hour Miscellaneous Fees: The following costs are billed at our cost plus 10%: • Subcontracted services • Commercial delivery services, including Federal - Express, Express Mail and Messenger Services. • Blueprint services and printing. '1 PROJECT DIMENSIONS,INC. 5 Park Plaza Suite 1170 Irvine,California 92714 714 476 2246 FAX 714 476 8520 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1993 BUSINESS ITEMS ; 31. State Route 74 Improvement Program - Contract Amendment. (F:68. 1) City Manager Molendyk explained this project and the existing agreements to work with L.A.F.C.O. and R.T.C. on the Highway 74 corridor. He further explained that the money previously allocated for this project has been expended and this request is for authorization to proceed if additional funds are available through the impacted developments. ' MOVED BY CHERVENY, SECONDED BY ALONGI AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH WINKLER ABSTAINING TO AWARD AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC. FOR $100, 000 TO BE USED ON A TIME AND MATERIALS BASIS IN VARIOUS AMOUNTS SPECIFIED BY CITY PURCHASE ORDER, BUT NOT TO EXCEED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE SR 74 BENEFIT DISTRICT FUND. i i i i REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL August 10, 1993 Page two The developers support these improvements and want to insure that safe and convenient access from SR 74 is provided as well as the required backbone utility services for development of their properties. They have contributed funds to begin the necessary coordination with RCTC, Caltrans, and the City of Lake Elsinore to resolve the improvement issues between all agencies. As a result of the program' s efforts thus far, RCTC has stated their intent to grant the City the lead agency role for design and construction of the SR 74 from I-15 to Riverside Street. RCTC has also stated that they will provide Measure A funds for design and construction up to the original Measure A concept of a four-lane • widening. The City funding mechanism, i.e. CFD formation, must be in place prior to finalization of a cooperative agreement and commitment of funds from RCTC. Annexation of approximately 741 acres along the SR 74 is in process to eliminate the jurisdictional boundary problems of City to County along the highway as well as elimination of island areas requested for cleanup by LAFCO. A Land Use Plan, Fiscal Impact Report, Plan for Services, Boundary and Legal, and a Negative Declaration are in various stages of completion and workshops for presentation to City staff and the public will begin in the month of June. Project Dimensions, Inc. is the project management firm hired by the City to secure funding, coordinate between agencies and landowners, and manage the consultants preparing the necessary studies. They are currently managing the widening and annexation components of the SR 74 Improvement Program. FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT The State Route 74 Benefit District fund has a small balance. Work will continue as long as funds are available in the District, or the project is complete. If Project Dimensions, Inc. fails to obtain the required funding from developers or from the SR-74 Community Facilities District bond issuance, their contract will terminate. There is no impact on the City's General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Award an amendment to the current contract with Project Dimensions, Inc. for $100, 000 to be used on a time and materials basis in various amounts specified by City purchase order, but not to exceed the funds available in the SR 74 Benefit District Fund. PREPARED BY: F C. tecca, Director of Public Services APPROVED BY: Ph Rogers, Assistant City Manager APPROVED FOR AGENDA LISTING: Ron Mol ndyk, City Manager PAGE,,0F mm Is