Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
101204 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title III AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE OCTOBER 12, 2004 — 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:30 P.M. Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property acquisition located at I-15/State Route 79 South (APN Nos. 922-210-060, 922-210-061, and 922-210-052). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Margarita Canyon LLC. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of real property interests. The City/Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson and James O'Grady. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2004-13 Resolution: No. 2004-101 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Kenji Oberlander Invocation: Reverend Howard Brown of Winchester United Methodist Flag Salute: Councilman Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Relay for Life Proclamation Goals for Graduation Proclamation Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation Breast Cancer Awareness and Race for the Cure Proclamation R:1Agenda\101204 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 14, 2004; 2.2 Approve the minutes of September 28, 2004. Resolution approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A R:Wgenda\101204 City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2004. First Amendment to Webb Associates Professional Services Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a First Amendment to agreement between the City of Temecula and Albert A. Webb Associates for CFD Annual Administration Services in an amount not to exceed $5,500.00 for a total contract amount of $53,500.00. Annual Purchase Agreement for Citywide Street Name Sign Replacement and Repairs for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve an annual agreement with Main Street Signs for the purchase of Citywide street name sign replacements and repairs in the amount of $50,000.00. Completion and Acceptance of the SR 79S Sidewalk Improvement Project — Project No. PW01-02 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Accept the construction of the SR 79S Sidewalk Improvement Project — Project No. PW0l-02 as complete; 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 7.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Approval of the Plans and Specifications and solicitation of Construction Bids — Traffic Signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive — Proiect No. PW99-11TS RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW99-11TS — Traffic Signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive Expenditure of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Funds RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Increase reimbursement revenue to the General Fund by $16,568; RAAgenda\101204 9.2 Approve an additional appropriation of $16,568 to the Police Department Budget; 9.3 Approve the expenditure of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds and local match funds in the amount of $18,409 for the purchase of police equipment. 10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-10 (Development Code Amendment for multiple office buildings in BP and L1 zones) RECOMMENDATION 10.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 04-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0477) 11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-11 (Development Code Amendment for private heliports RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 04-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE HELIPORTS IN VARIOUS ZONES AND TO MAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0297) 12 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-12 (Community Standards Preservation) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 04-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.24 — COMMUNITY STANDARDS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE R:\Agenda\101204 RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:\Agenda\101204 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICESDISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2004-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2004-12 CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Stone, Washington PUBLIC COMMENTS A" total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of September 28, 2004. 2 Veteran's Memorial. Project o. PW04-10CSD — Additional Work and Appropriation RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve an appropriation in the amount of $95,839.70, from General Fund Capital Reserves ($74,339.70) and from Contribution Revenue ($21,500) to the Veteran's Memorial Project, Project No. PW04-10CSD, to cover items of work not covered in the original contract and budget; 2.2 Increase Contribution Revenue Estimate from the VFW in the amount of $21, 500. RMgenda\101204 6 2.3 Authorize contractual expenditure in excess of the approved 10% contingency in the amount of $44,714.11; 2.4 Approve an expenditure to Sun City Granite, 425 W. Rider #B-3, Perris, CA 92571, for a total amount of $25,125.59. 3 Community Services Recreation Brochure RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award a contract to Graphics Unlimited Lithography for the preparation and printing of four (4) issues of the Community Services Recreation Brochure over a two (2) year period with a third (3) year option to renew. The cost of printing the brochure is $40,370 annually. 3.2 Approve a contingency of 10% or $4,037 annually. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. RAAgenda\101204 7 TEMECULA`REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2004-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2004-10 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Stone, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of September 28, 2004. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, October 26, 2004, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\101204 8 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 13 An Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of PA03-0027 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan), a proposal to develop a 24,287 square foot church facility on a 4.72 acre lot RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Continue the public hearing to the October 26, 2004 City Council meeting. 14 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Site (PA02-717) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717 which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072; 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717 — A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO INCLUDE A 45-FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF THE TREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012) R:\Agenda\101204 15 Weed Abatement Liens for FY 2003-04 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, October 26, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\101204 10 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS •Y � N � y O � U N ;� Cd •b O y � O ..., r y OU c ❑ 5 v� CU t 3. C� on O o cd O J.' U u O. CAI v b 9b o w O a 0 ti o a) u np.1 w cl wail • ^^y p ,�.,, w L 7 wd V w y U U� d u �v cJn w v Cd a Ln C b chi 0. O L •d ° C .. cj .. d C R '� ❑ � Cl .41 Cd •� w y � v � �' o �, b03 y v .� W m R w° dd-- W W W W W W o U d Ha ° a u Cd b0 6' UO O ° cl FT" o O cli 3> cn y q° °� en a ° U x y' cn cn cd as b X 4� o ., 5 > cz cu w v l�l p ai o s° U f o>10 V o 0 3 CA = N O 0 v u ° rO� o rl U T 'O (�/� � (•A � O G cl Q U cd F N mm N cC �t 333°°310, EJ° C .r U o`n to o cd +O+ O N O U r°. in. m 0 o > o o x o ro 10 'b N p U 0 J o y w a e U v o o o o0 a x oF"v to U q '^� Cd U U _ � h ❑❑� 0 0o o o y o o cd N � '� •� ,� p. LL w o b 5 ar CL C. h to 10 4- rFi X y F 9b LL O U CVj t D ��vll � OM 'd U •C � � �' n�`i O'Cr. a U W •~ p cd ti y Y O O o O ow w o cl �b Y 41 O o C' ou bn 0 (Cyi U n C 0 C O q v w � � N 0•l 4� Z3 0 ° =' � •ti 0 U V 0 as o7 o w U r 0 O W7 ' V U y U a a N o 'o c077 O O U •O �0 O O A O W vi 9" vi o vi V o W -4 w b 3 3�0 0 cC 5 'o x bo •„ v on � h °F b O .L M .p UO �. "" 41 d s E a ' ^ Ft U oo 4t WOW ai r a> > • X L o a> y \ o a't'+ N L W A �• O . u O W y U Cd 0.0 Go L a y N at o 0 o w g n a >�° 3 U � �w c� tb Cd °� °' 4) pO eon❑°�3 w (4�� �vv os Imo' .o •G a o c� > v❑ �,., O Wit V. .. L; ,? U 'O by ca V Y la 0 U>- a a o V O ¢ O O O C O W �� � p ❑ w V O U 'd O O U —M ° Z 8 ono L w CT� N y 3 Ei y y 41 Z O mb O O N 7, L L 'o cs N 7�� O v • O Oo � Q C* N 3 o �c°�qq�i o O N b U i N° Ri N Ri 7 V NL 7E ❑ E O 9 d O° N .5 �..i td �, U 0 E 0 o�•=v o y > ow 4 gO c nr Q 00 5 ° a° °'�w Yb. ti �� ❑ w Y O -` VW]VWi f% N (4W) V fV��l y VW]V]VW1 C4C4W �C4 aC4s��W ���F bo a a0Y Y ''7 w- '� o a a U 0 ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: 5 Councilmembers: Absent: 0 Councilmembers: PRELUDE MUSIC Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, and Naggar None The prelude music was provided by Vronti Kelly. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Rabbi Hurwitz of Chabad of Temecula Valley. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Councilman Stone. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS Sister City Association Presentation While celebrating the 101h anniversary of our Sister City relationship in Leichtendam-Voorburg in April/May of 2004, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that the City's Sister City had honored the City of Temecula by naming a new civic square which houses a new Fire Station and Police Station as Temecula Plane. To further honor the City, Mr. Comerchero advised that a replica of this street sign was provided to the City; he displayed the street sign; and presented it to Mr. John Lieberg, representing the Sister City Association. National Preparedness Month Proclamation Proclaiming the month of September as National Preparedness Month, Mayor Naggar encouraged residents to partake in the Temecula Citizen Corps Program. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Apprising the City Councilmembers of businesses that no longer exist in Old Town, Ms. Lorena Spencer, Temecula, reiterated and submitted a petition opposing the Farmers' Market. B. As a shop owner in Old Town, Ms. Valerie Harris, Temecula, expressed her support of the Farmers' Market but clarified the definition of a certified Farmers' Market and encouraged that the original intent of a Farmers' Market be resumed — flowers, fruits, vegetables, and handmade crafts. She noted that a lot of the smaller stores in Old Town are not able to R:\Minutes\091404 1 compete with what is being sold at the Farmers' Market, stating that it has turned into more of a retail/flee market affect. C. Concurring with the opposition of a flee market directly competing with the Old Town shops, Mr. Doc Lane, Temecula, suggested that the City Council take this matter seriously. D. Commenting on the Saturday morning impact on her business, Ms. Lynne Di Cenzo, Temecula, as well requested that the City Council halt the wholesale to retail portion of the Farmers' Market. E. Ms. MaDonna White, Temecula, requested to be placed on the City Council agenda for the September 28, 2004, City Council meeting to provide a presentation of her business called The Hidden Wineries of Southern California. Mayor Naggar suggested that Ms. White e-mail or write to the City Manager and/or the City Councilmembers with that request after which it would be evaluated and placed on the agenda if someone chooses to do so. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Washington apprised the public of an upcoming workshop (Thursday, September 16, 2004 — 6:30 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. in Lake Elsinore) conducted by the Riverside County Transportation Committee to evaluate the possibility of a new route from Riverside County to Orange County. Mr. Washington apprised the Council, as Council liaison to the Information Systems Department, of technology advances to improve City services, commenting on the collaboration with other public agencies such as the School District. Mr. Washington advised that Councilman Roberts had nominated him as Council liaison to the Senior Citizens of the community. Councilman Washington thanked the Council and the City for its support of the Temecula -on -Stage fundraiser for the Theater Foundation and extended special appreciation to the Rotarian volunteers. Commenting on the success of the recent Temecula Valley International Film and Music Festival, Mr. Washington commended Ms. Joe Moulton and organizers of the Festival on a job well done. B. Echoing previously made comments made by Councilman Washington with regard to evaluating the possibility of new routes from Riverside County to Orange County, Councilman Roberts address the major investment study (18 months) to explore funding of a second major roadway for Orange County to Riverside County. Advising that the Governor has signed SB 87 (Caltrans relinquishment of SR 79 North and South), Councilman Roberts noted that matter be go before the California Transportation Commission in November. C. Having previously reported that Riverside Transit Agency had lowered its fare on the commuter link route from Temecula/Murrieta to the Transit Center in the City of Oceanside from RAMinutes\091404 2 $4 to $1 in an effort to increase ridership, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that figures indicate that an increase in ridership has occurred due to the reduction in fare and that the $1 fare will remain in place until the end of the year at which time all fares will be analyzed. Mr. Comerchero commended Councilman Washington on his efforts associated with the Temecula -on -Stage Fundraiser for the Theater Foundation. Having met with Housing and Redevelopment Director Meyer, Mr. Comerchero advised that he has requested that consideration be given to providing additional funding for the Special Events budget for July 2005. D. Echoing the comments of success of the Temecula Valley International Film and Music Festival, Mayor Naggar requested that additional funding for this event be considered in next year's budget. CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 10, 2004 — City Council/Planning Commission Workshop; 2.2 Approve the minutes of August 10, 2004; 2.3 Approve the minutes of August 24, 2004. 3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A RAMinutes\091404 3 4 City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 30, 2004. Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004; 5.2 Approve an appropriation of $700,000 to Police Department budget; 5.3 Approve a budget transfer of $54,000 to Sales Tax reimbursement from Planning Department; 5.4 Approve an appropriation of $52,300 to Rancho California Road Widening and Median east of Ynez Road to be funded from Development Impact Fees — Street Improvements. Two-year Cell Phone Contract Renewal with Sprint RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve a two-year agreement with Sprint for the renewal of City Cellular Services. Microsoft Software Licenses — Annual Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Authorize the annual purchase of 250 Client Access Licenses (CAL) of Microsoft Windows Professional from ASAP Software for $54,972.50. Approve the Sponsorship Request for The Great Tractor Race Event RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the event sponsorship agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the following event sponsorship agreement; 8.2 Approve the event sponsorship agreement for actual City -support costs in the amount up to $12,500 for The Great Tractor Race. R:\Minutes\091404 Amendment to Agreement for Advance Payment of CFD 88-12 Reimbursements RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve an amendment to the City's agreement which provides for advance payment of reimbursements for certain parcels within CFD 88-12; 9.2 Appropriate $65,134 from the unallocated reserves of the General Fund to provide for an increased payment amount. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9. The motion was seconded by Councilman Washington and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:33 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:38 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 10 An Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of PA03-0027 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan) — a proposal to develop a 24,287 square foot church facility on a 4.72 acre lot RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration; 10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0027 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND UPHOLIDNG THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0027 TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH FACILITY CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MULTI -PURPOSE ROOM, CLASSROOMS, AND MEETING ROOMS TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON A 4.72 ACRE VACANT PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 955-050-017 Mayor Naggar reviewed the process of the public hearing. City Attorney Thorson advised that under Section 17.02.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code, this public hearing must be limited to the five points set forth within the filed appeal. RAMinutes\091404 Planning Director Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). Both Planning Director Ubnoske and Public Works Director Hughes referenced and provided clarification with regard to the five specific issues cited in the appeal, noting the following: Issue No. 1 — Adjacent property owners question how the existing drainage ditch along the eastern property line will be improved? Analysis That a 6' to 8' grade difference currently exists between the subject property and the existing residences to the east; that a drainage easement and brow ditch exists at the tow of the slope along the eastern property line; that at the public hearing, church representatives agreed to construct an 8' high CMU retaining wall between the church and the adjacent residences to the east; that the retaining wall will enable the rear yards of the residences to be leveled off thereby creating a larger useable area; That the Public Works Department has indicated that necessary drainage modifications/improvements associated with the proposed retaining wall have not yet been provided by the applicant's engineer; that Condition No. 27 will require the developer to submit a drainage study which will address both onsite and offsite drainage concerns; that the drainage study will be submitted and reviewed concurrently with the grading permit and will recommend how the existing glows along the west side of lots 20 through 26 of Tract No. 22916-1 will be picked up and conveyed to an appropriate outlet. Staff Comments • That currently there is a brow ditch on the adjacent residential property; • That, within 6' to 10' of the residential properties, there is a drainage easement on the residential properties not on the church property; • That any drainage work would have to be completely contained on the church property and would have to comply with civil engineering requirements; • That with regard to backfilling the 8' retaining wall, the church would offer grading services to the individual property owners as work will be completed on the church property; that there was no discussion at the Commission meeting of the church being financially responsible for grading costs; • That a retaining wall would not be necessary for the purposes of filling the backyards; that a retaining wall would not necessarily be a needed function for the church but more of an accommodation to the residents; • That drainage will be necessary for the church parking lot as well as additional drainage will be placed on the backside of the retaining wall; that the appeal issue pertains to who will be responsible for building the drainage and that the construction of the retaining wall is an unresolved issue; • That moving the retaining wall closer to the church and, thereby, creating an easier grade for multiple -level grading would create a concern with impacting parking spaces; RAMinutes\091404 Issue No. 2 — The church has proposed the gate off the eastern property line during the overnight hours. Area residents are requesting that the western property line also be gated. Analysis • Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, staff spoke with Mr. Rocky Snider, LDS Church project manager. Mr. Snider indicated that the church would have no objection to also constructing a gate at the western driveway and closing both gates from 10:00 P.M. through 6:00 A.M. seven days a week. Issue No. 3 — Area residents believe the size of the facility is too large for the neighborhood and that the colonial architectural style is incompatible with surrounding buildings in the area. Analysis • After reviewing the staff report and project plans and after considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission determined that both the size of the facility and architectural style of the building are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as conditioned. Staff Comments • That the residents had expressed that the proposed architectural style is inappropriate. Issue No. 4 — Area residents are requesting that proposed youth dance activities cease by 10:00 P.M. rather than 11:00 P.M. as approved by the Commission. Analysis • After reviewing the staff report and considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission subsequently required the applicant to draft and conform to Youth Dane Operational Guidelines. In addition, the Commission required the church to have a reliable phone contact available seven days a week that area residents may contact should problems arise. Based on these requirements, the Commission determined that the operation of youth dances until 11:00 P.M. would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding residences. Staff Comment • That the primary entrance to the church would be on the west side of the building, not adjacent to the residential homes; • That the residential homes sit approximately 6' to 8' above the level of the church parking lot. R1Minutes\091404 7 Issue No. 5 — Adjacent property owners to the east are requesting that larger trees be planted along the eastern property line so as to provide more immediate screening. Analysis Upon reviewing the conceptual landscape plan and the staff report, which listed the maturity rates for the proposed trees, the Commission determined that the trees were adequate to provide long-term screening. Since the hearing, staff has worked with the City's landscape architect consultant to determine what modifications could be made to achieve more immediate screening. Should the Council wish to require more immediate screening, the consultant recommends that 24" box pepper trees be planted 15 feet on center along the entire length of the eastern property line along with groupings of 24" box Arizona Cypress. The pepper trees are faster growing than the cypress. Moreover, to achieve further screening, the consultant recommends that the size of all threes proposed along the east side of the church building be enlarged to 36" box to achieve quicker growth rates. Staff Comments • That screening would be on the east side of the church property as part of the 20' landscape buffer (residential from church); • That area residents requested substantial screening to mitigate the view of the church; that the proposed landscape plan will address the screening concerns; • That the construction of a retaining wall will affect the type/height of trees chosen; • That planting the trees on the plateau of the slope could be a possibility; that in the long run, the approach with the retaining wall and the trees located on the lower section would be a more desirable buffer for the residents; that trees will be more effective when located lower and the crown of the trees will be blocking the views; For Councilman Stone, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the church had made the following concessions in response to the area residents' concerns, noting that staff would be of the opinion that the church has adequately addressed staff's concerns as well as the area residents' concerns: • Relocating the church to the center of the site and, thereby, creating substantial setbacks • Providing substantial landscaping • Agreeing to place a gate on the west side and to keep the gates located from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. • Providing ample parking • Moving the light poles on the east side of the property to the end of the landscape fingers --- 40' away from the property line; that the light poles be hooded • Agreeing to mitigation measures indicated in the traffic study. For Councilman Stone, Planning Director Ubnoske noted that the height of the church will be 31' and that as per the Development Code, only the steeple section in the front will be 50' high. In response to the Council, it was noted by staff that a traffic study was completed and consistent with the City's standards; that the goal was to determine impacts on an average daily week; and that imposing No parking on Pauba Road condition was not part of the application RAMinutes\091404 nor was it a condition imposed by the Commission. Because of the volume of traffic and site distance problems, Councilman Roberts commented on how dangerous that situation may be. It was noted by staff that this matter could be addressed at the time of the actual street improvement plans. At this time, Mayor Naggar opened the public hearing. The following residents spoke in opposition to the proposed church project: • Mr. Stephen Longo and Mrs. Rebecca Longo Temecula • Ms. Beth Ceja Temecula For Ms. Ceja, City Attorney Thorson reiterated that the appellants are limited to addressing, at the public hearing, the five points noted in the appeal which are the issues that are in question about the Planning Commission's decision. The above -mentioned residents expressed the following concerns and made the following recommendations: That the existing brow ditch is currently located on residential property adjacent to the project site That the existing catch basin should be relocated to outside of the property line (Lot 1) o It was noted by Public Works Director Hughes that one option could be that each property could have its own individual drainage, draining onto the church property and then connecting into the church system o Another option could be that each property could have a new V-ditch on top of the retaining wall, dropping into the catch basin from a higher point That along with the 8' retaining wall, residents as well requested fencing at the top of the slope but also backfilling the properties and including the reconstruction of the wing walls (wooden fencing for the area that is being backfilled) after backfilling to complete the transition from the retaining wall to the existing grade, allowing residents to level off the property and reducing noise levels from the parking lot as well as a dust barrier; that the existing backyards have existing drains that drain toward the street; that none of the property owners are desirous of a slope; that because of already existing mature landscaping, the property owners would not be willing to have some of the proposed church landscaping located on their newfound property; that the impacted property owners would have no objection with backfilling the already landscaped slope area but it was noted that existing irrigation has been installed as well by the property owners; that the property owner of Lot 1 who would be desirous of retaining an existing tree; o That by backfilling the slope area, the property owners' backyards will be extended by approximately 16 feet or more That the size of the church as well as the colonial architecture are neither consistent nor compatible with the southwestern Mediterranean architectural design of the adjacent neighborhood That the church site directly abuts residential housing That it was requested that the church be reduced in size to 18,000 square feet; that the proposed size of approximately 25,000 square feet with a height of 50 feet for the steeple area would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that it will create unreasonable negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and will not be compatible with the surrounding areas in relation to scale and surrounding uses; that the R1Minutes\091404 proposed use would be more suitable in another location where it would create less impact and, therefore, request that this project be denied That with regard to Issue No. 2 (the gate), the hours of proposed vehicle access to the church only pertains to the easterly gate and should as well apply to the westerly gate, referencing security issues; that the opening of the gate at 6:00 A.M. is too early and should be at 7:00 A.M.; that there is a concern with vandalism, not necessarily just for the residents but as well for the church facility o It was noted by Planning Director Ubnoske that after discussing the matter with the church representatives, both gates (east and west) will be locked between the hours 10:00 or 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., seven days a week o That verbiage could be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit, requiring that if vandalism were to occur, it would be mitigated by security That the proposed activities within the structure will not be compatible as well; that the residents were not notified of the operational changes prior to the public hearing; that hours of operation for the primary activities have been extended and these activities have not been specified in the Conditional Use Permit; for example, that the LDS dances are not limited to LDS members but that guests are as well allowed to attend; that blood drives are being planned to be held at the proposed facility; that the types of activities, the times, the frequency, and the number of participants must be identified; that who will be responsible for monitoring the compliance of these activities; that all primary and secondary activities must be identified as part of the Conditional Use Permit; that the increased activities will have a negative impact on the lifestyle of the neighboring residents o It was noted by Planning Director Ubnoske that the parking lot will be strictly for parking and no outside activities in the parking lot o That an operational statement describes the kinds of events that will be occurring at the facility; that all events will be inside the facility; that the primary activities are described in this operational statement That with regard to the retaining wall issue, the residents are of the opinion that they are being penalized, noting that the church has agreed to construct the retaining wall but has not agreed to construct the wing walls (separating the residents) and to provide the backfill and compaction; that such action on LDS' part would be good public relations as a good neighbor; that fair compensation would be for the developer to absorb the cost of the retaining wall, the wing walls, and the backfilling of the properties That with regard to the traffic report, the traffic from the proposed facility as well as the existing neighboring schools including the high school will not be tolerable. For Mayor Naggar, Mr. and Mrs. Longo noted that they had filled out the appeal based on the collective resident input. At 9:04 P.M. a short recess was called, Mayor Naggar reconvened the meeting at 9:15 P.M. Proponents of the project Mr. Kevin Osborne, Temecula, commented on the value this project would provide to many residents of the City as well as the community as a whole; advised that the submitted petition in support of the church included a majority of signatures from residents of the City but not necessarily members of the church; and noted that the church facility could be utilized for other community activities not limited to the church. R:\Minutes\091404 10 Mr. Kent Cornwall, representing Cornwall Associates Architects (retained by the church), Pasadena, reviewed and highlighted the planning/design review process of this project which included the neighboring residents, noting that as a result, significant changes were made such as moving the building to the west away from the neighbors, increasing the landscape buffer, doubling the number of islands with trees in the parking lot, and constructing a second driveway; noted that a neighborhood meeting was called in March 2003; that as a result of this meeting, additional changes were made such as the parking lot light poles were moved away from the property line (40' away), a wall was added to the west property line, the landscape planter was widened on the west property line, 50% more trees were added on the east property planting buffer, the steeple was lowered by 20', a full traffic study was requested, a gate was added to the east driveway which would be locked throughout the weekdays to limit access on the easterly property line, and the primary building access was created on the west side. Mr. Cornwall advised that a second neighborhood meeting was held in September of 2003 and the primary issue of concern pertained to traffic. It was noted that in May of 2004, the first Planning Commission public hearing was held. With regard to the five points of concern noted in the appeal, Mr. Cornwall noted the following: Retaining wall along the east property line • That the City would require, as a standard condition, a 6' masonry wall; that an 8' retaining wall has been offered by the church at its expense; that the church would not be willing to construct work not on its own property and would not be in a position to offer money or compensation for neighbors to complete work on their own property; that for the applicant to complete work on the owners' property would create legal issues; • That whether a retaining wall were constructed or not, the drainage on the neighbors' side would continue to function until it is backfilled; that once the slope is backfilled, a drainage issue would be present; • That the applicant will hire a grading contractor and will contractually have that contractor make himself available to the neighbors to move dirt and to provide excess dirt but that such work would be completed through an arrangement with the neighbors • That the retaining wall will be built on the church's property With regard to the retaining wall, Councilman Washington suggested that following: • That the slope be moved; that the top of the slope be on the property owners' property line and then slope down, eliminating the need for a wall and eliminating the need to duplicate drainage; that the existing V-ditch would be covered but the slope would then direct drainage toward the new drainage that the homeowners would have to construct on their property anyway, eliminating two different drainage systems • That the trees could then be planted on the slope of the church's property and still achieve the desired screening affect. In response to Councilman Washington suggestions, Mr. Cornwall noted concurrence with constructing a slope on the church's property within the 20' setback but continued to express concern with backfilling the portion for the property owners. R:\Minutes\091404 11 West driveway gate • That this gate will be constructed • That if there were any vandalism on the church property, the church would immediately gate that driveway; that the church's original intent would not be to gate its facilities, appearing as though people are being shut out • That the east gate will be locked 24 hours a day during the weekdays; that when a majority of the parking will be needed such as on Sundays, this gate will be open • That the west gate will be opened at 6:00 A.M. Size, scale, and design of the church That uses of the proposed church include the following: o A larger sanctuary for special meetings and for the State Conferences held twice a year o A Stake administrative offices and Council room for meetings o A full-sized basketball court o A stage for cultural events o A baptistery o A permanent satellite dish for the occasional special programs o A family history center (space for it) That the size of the Murrieta-stake center building is at approximately 25,000 square feet • That no kitchen will be provided That with regard to the style of architecture, the church has four basic styles — all Colonial/New England style with variations, representing the church's image Hours of Operation That the proposed hours of operation are to meet the needs of the church That the church will not be used continuously from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.; that typically there will be no activity at the church after the high school seminary program which ends at 7:00 A.M. until around 7:00 P.M.; that the seminary program would include approximately 60 to 80 students; That the church has been authorized 12 11:00 P.M.; that a dance would be defined Trees in the buffer zone primary activities per year authorized to as a primary activity That the approved plans of 15 gallon trees has been changed to 24" box trees along the eastern landscaped planter; that staff is proposing 36" box trees to achieve a quicker growth rate; that the applicant's landscape architect's experience has indicated that a 24" box tree will be optimum for quickest growth rate; That Arizona Cypress trees will be planted, per the approved landscape drawings, at 12' on center through the entire 400' length of the eastern property; that a variety trees will be utilized along the eastern property line. In closing, Mr. Cornwall quoted the support comments made by Chairman Telesio of the Planning Commission, noting that the church will intend to function as a good neighbor. R:\Minutes\091404 12 To further address the issue of the applicant completing specific work on the neighboring residents' property, Mr. Rocky Snider, project manager for the applicant, Lake Elsinore, noted the following: • That the liability of performing contract work on someone else's property would be tremendous • That the applicant will already be incurring a significant cost to mitigate concerns • That dirt will made available to the residents free of charge Raising an important issue with regard to liabilities of the church, City Attorney Thorson as well commented on complex legal issues, noting that it may be addressed by the homeowners directly contracting with the contractor, eliminating the church. Mr. Thorson also stated that another issue to address by the City Council would be what will be the impact of this project on these properties and will those impacts only be solved by a retaining wall and backfilling or may it as well be solved with a block wall and the drainage issues accommodated. In closing. Mr. Thorson commented on the difficulties associated with the City imposing a condition which would require an applicant to complete work on other people's property, referencing liability issues, product liability issues, noting that under State law, if the people were not to agree, the City could not enforce that condition. Although the dirt may be free, Councilman Roberts expressed concern with the homeowners being financially responsible for the moving of the dirt and for the completion of the grading work. In lieu of some of the landscaping and berming issues, Councilman Stone suggested that the church make a small contribution to the seven property owners, provide dirt, provide a $5,000 allowance to import the dirt and to extend the fence to the retaining wall, and, in turn, the church will be held harmless. Once the properties have been backfilled, Public Works Director Hughes advised that a new V- ditch would have to be constructed on top of the retaining wall, noting that if a monetary contribution were made, sufficient funds should be allocated to ensure the rebuilding of the V- ditch to City standards and, thereby, eliminating the church from the drainage issue. Public Comments Speaking in favor of the Appeal By way of overheads, the following individuals spoke in support of the Appeal: Mr. David Kimball, Temecula Mr. James Hill, Temecula Ms. Jenny Elliott, Temecula Mr. John Wilshire. Temecula Ms. Kristen Boano, Temecula Mrs. Susan Reed, Temecula Mr. Chris Reed, Temecula Mr. Jim Johnston, Temecula Ms. Marjorie Gregory, Temecula Ms. Beth Ceja, Temecula Ms. Bobbie Korn, Temecula RAMinutes\091404 13 Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula The above -mentioned residents spoke in support of the Appeal and noted the following: • That the applicant choose to obtain land that was not zoned for the proposed intent — a choice made by the applicant • That if this Conditional Use Permit were denied, there would be no encumbrance on the applicant • That the hours of operation conflict and, thereby, impact the neighboring residents' daily lifestyle • That the enormity of the facility/parking lot will be equivalent to seven houses • That there may be concern with future expansion of the proposed facility • That he had purchased his home with the understanding the area was rural residential • , That the retaining wall should be constructed • That the proposed facility will be approximately 140' from her bedroom sliding door, eliminating her view • That the proposed project would not be compatible with the surrounding use — massiveness • That a smaller church be proposed or that it be relocated • That the construction of the retaining wall, backfilling of the dirt, resolving the drainage ditch, and constructing the wing walls would be an acceptable resolution • That the quality of life of the existing neighborhood will be impacted, commenting on the size of. the facility, appropriateness of the use of the land, and privacy of the adjacent residents • That buildings of this size are not constructed in residential communities; that there will be 300 parking spaces on this site • That the church has provided compromises but the size of the facility will not be acceptable • That the applicant just recently closed escrow on a parcel of land over 5.5 acre, less than three miles from the proposed site on Highway 79 South, east of Butterfield Stage Road • That the impact of the proposed facility goes beyond impacting the seven neighboring residents and that it will impact the neighboring community • That the homeowners of Vintage Hills and Paloma del Sol currently have 14 public use facilities within one and a half miles of the proposed church site; that although these uses provide invaluable services to the community and to the extended communities, these uses do impact the residential nature and the privacy of the owners home fifes • That there are already existing traffic concerns on Pauba Road; that as a result, there are concerns that emergency vehicles would not be able to reach the neighborhood in adequate time • That if it weren't for the Religious Institution Act, the City would not permit a facility of this massiveness in a residential area • That the General Plan, Policy 1.4, states that the City should consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development; that Goal 3 dictates a Land Use pattern that will protect residential neighborhoods, noting that a building of the proposed size will not be protecting the established neighborhood • That the applicant was requested to provide additional concessions because the proposed facility will be built in a residential area R:\Minutes\091404 14 • That although Councilman Washington's suggestion would be a favorable resolution, the resident continue to not support overall construction of the church • That a clearer definition of primary/secondary activities and the associated number of people be provided • That the project will create noise issues and will as well block the existing neighbors' views • That the proposed parking plan will be inadequate; that the church owns approximately 2.5 acres immediately adjacent to the proposed site to the north; that half of this acreage be rededicated as parking for the proposed site; that, if approved, an additional 100 parking spaces be provided for this particular site The following individuals spoke in support of the project: Mr. Thom Landro, Temecula Mr. Stewart Morris, Temecula The above -mentioned supported the proposed project, noting the following: • That the accessibility of a religious building is important to his family • That churches don't create a deterioration of a neighborhood; that data indicates that there is great security, safety, community diversity. Appellant Rebuttal Readdressing the City Council, Mr. and Mrs. Longo stated the following: • That having visited the existing LDS churches in the City and not having viewed an abundance of activity, maybe those facilities are underutilized • That although they were not able to attend the recent church dance to which they were invited, they did drive by to observe the function; that there was no function on the indicated date at the North General Kearney site nor at the SR 79 site • That they had purchased their home last year in September from members of the LDS church • That if the applicant were not in a financial position to compensate the neighbors for the backfilling, the retaining wall, and the compaction, how will the neighbors be able to fund these costs • That Councilman Washington's suggestion would be a favorable resolution • That the proposed facility will have a stage, a basketball court, and offices, and an area for worship; that a great deal of space has been provided for sports/entertainment and administration usage • That the other two LDS churches are not directly next to a residential area • That Planning Commissioner Chiniaeff had expressed concern with the overall massing affect of the proposed project and its impact on the surrounding area; that the proposed facility would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood • That size and location of the proposed structure is a primary concern • That the architectural style will not be compatible with the neighborhood • That the approximated amount of $5,000 to compensate the neighbors would not be sufficient RAMinutes\091404 15 Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Cornwall noted the following: • That no property in the City of Temecula is zoned for a church • That the proposed facility will not be expanded • That schools and churches are facilities placed within neighborhoods • That the existing churches are being overused; that the proposed facility is needed • That the church will concede to construct the west gate • That with regard to design and size, the proposed facility is what is needed • That hours of operation have been presented and approved by the Planning Commission • That with regard to trees/landscaping, the church would be willing to work with staff • That with regard to Councilman Washington's recommendation, applicant would propose to construct a 10' retaining wall, to berm that up by 4' to ensure City's standard of a 6' wall; that the church would complete all the improvements on its site; that by doing so, tree screening would be placed several feet higher from its proposed location; that the church would be willing to monetarily contribute to the seven homeowners to ensure the needed improvements are made • That the church has no plans for the 2.5 acres to the north of the proposed site • That a Stake is usually anywhere from 6 to 10 Wards, depending on the geography; that the proposed church will be designed for 3 Wards; that each Ward encompasses approximately 500 to 600 members; that if a need for additional parking were necessary, arrangements could be made with neighboring schools and carpooling to the facility At this time, Mayor Naggar closed the public hearing. Not having all seven property owners in attendance of this meeting, Councilman Roberts suggested that this public hearing be continued; that a subcommittee be formed to address the grading issue; that, in his opinion, all other issues have been properly addressed; and that in an effort to address noise concern, those attending the church be required to park on the west side of the building, locking the east side gate. Although an argument could be made that the proposed use may not be an appropriate or a compatible use with the neighborhood as per the City's General Plan, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that the proposed use is an allowable use; that although sympathetic to the church's need for additional space, the issue before the Council is a planning issue; that he would concur with Councilman Roberts' comments; and that if the church were approved and as a result does create certain impacts on the neighbors, those property owners must be made financially whole. Not viewing traffic as a concern with the already existing LDS churches in the City, Councilman Washington stated that he would be of the opinion that traffic for the proposed use may not be the issue of concern as some residents may feel at this time; that for Mr. Washington, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the church will be 31' high; that the top of the homes and the top of the church would be at approximately the same height; and that he would be interested in the property owners' response to the church's suggestion of a dirt slope. R:\Minutes\091404 16 Noting that churches, in any zonings, provide value to the neighborhoods/industrial areas and promote a piece and tranquility for the entire community, Councilman Stone, in reviewing the original proposal, applauded the applicant's efforts in meeting with the neighborhood and as well in attempting to mitigate the impacts of this large facility; that the church has agreed to work with landowners to mitigate the visual impacts by compensatory contributions; that the church has lowered the height of the building by 20'; that the church has agreed to provide additional mature landscaping; that traffic studies have validated that there will be no change in the level of service as a result of the proposed project; that the church will be a good neighbor; that the impacts currently envisioned will be minimal once completed; that living adjacent to North General Kearney with the location of two churches, he has not experienced traffic issues with regard to these two facilities during the week or even on Sundays; that the church has been sensitive to the ingress/egress of their facility; and that he would concur with the formation of a Council Subcommittee to negotiate with the adjacent landowners and the church to come to an agreement that will effectively make the adjacent homeowners whole by eliminating the visual impacts. Thanking those in attendance for a cooperative public hearing, Mayor Naggar stated that churches, under the Religious Institution Act, may be constructed in any zone but that it should be incumbent upon the churches to be a good neighbor and the churches should be held responsible for mitigating the impacts; that the berm/retaining wall issue will need to be addressed; that the landscape issue will need to be clarified; that the lights in the parking lot should be studied especially for the east side; that the hours of operation are a little vague in defining a primary activity; and that parking on Pauba Road be prohibited within the area of discussion. MOTION: Councilman Stone appointed Mayor Naggar and Councilman Roberts to serve on the Council Subcommittee to address the unresolved issues of concern with regard to fencing, grading, retaining wall, parking restrictions on Pauba Road, defining primary activities; to limit discussion at the next public hearing solely to those issues; and to continue the public hearing to the October 12, 2004, City Council meeting. Councilman Roberts seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. In light of an upcoming business trip, Councilman Roberts requested that Councilman Stone amend his motion to appoint Councilman Washington to the Subcommittee. City Attorney Thorson noted that restricting parking on Pauba Road would have to be considered as a separate agenda item. AMENDED MOTION: Councilman Stone appointed Mayor Naggar and Councilman Washington to serve on the Council Subcommittee to address the unresolved issues of concern with regard to fencing, grading, retaining wall, and defining primary activities; to limit discussion at the next public hearing solely to those issues; and to continue the public hearing to the October 12, 2004, City Council meeting. Councilman Roberts seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RAMinutes\091404 17 COUNCIL BUSINESS 11 Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 04-09 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt an interim zoning ordinance entitled: URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 04-09 AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY City Attorney Thorson presented the staff report (as per agenda material). Providing brochures to the City Clerk, Mr. Lanny Swerdlow, Palm Springs, Director of the Marijuana Anti -Prohibition Project/American Harm Reduction Association, stated that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes to provide substantial relief to a variety of ailments is law; that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Federal law making the medicinal use of marijuana illegal is unconstitutional in California and, therefore, may not be enforced; that State law is the only law regulating medicinal marijuana; that the concerns of citizens of the City, who are legal medical marijuana patients under California law, must be considered; and that a citizen task force should be formed to address this matter. Mrs. LaVonne Victor, Temecula, a Cannabis patient, would be willing to volunteer her time to address this issue and commented on the positive affects the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has had on her quality of life. Concurring with Mr. Swerdlow's comments, Mr. Martin Victor, Temecula, as well volunteered his time to serve on a task force; commented on the City need for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes; and referenced Senate Bill 420. City Attorney Thorson read by title only the Urgency Ordinance and advised that the passage of this ordinance will require a 4/5ths vote. Although appreciating the testimony given, Councilman Stone, as a pharmacist/pain control specialist and an assistant professor of pharmacology, provided a different viewpoint, noting the following: • That he is well aware of the active ingredient in marijuana • That marijuana is not a drug of choice for multiple sclerosis • That the active ingredient in marijuana is tetra hydrocannabinol — a very potent drug that should be utilized only under the supervision of a physician just like morphine • That the active ingredient of marijuana could be attained by way of a prescription through a drug called Marinol (pill version); that by taking the pill version, the patient would be monitored by a physician and may be regulated because these drugs are potentially addictive drugs RAMinutes\091404 18 In light of his comments, Councilman Stone expressed his opposition to the cultivation and utilization of marijuana plants by anyone without the expressed prescription of a physician that has, in fact, prescribed the active ingredient in marijuana, commenting on the advise of a physician with regard to drug interactions, potential addiction, and use with alcohol. MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 04-09. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. Because of the nature of this ordinance, City Attorney Thorson advised that this ordinance will be readdressed at a public hearing in 45 days, noting that this ordinance does not deal with the right for personal medicinal use of marijuana; that such use is set by State law; and that any questions regarding that use, should be directed to the Sheriff's Office or the District Attorney's Office. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no issues to report but noted that Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero had not participated in the County litigation discussion on the RCIP. ADJOURNMENT At 12:13 A.M. on September 15, 2004, the City Council meeting regular meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., in 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk [SEAL] was formally adjourned to a the City Council Chambers, Michael S. Naggar, Mayor R:\Minutes\091404 19 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: 5 Councilmembers: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, and Naggar Absent: 0 Councilmembers: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Matthew Fagan. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Larry Koger of Hope Lutheran. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Councilman Washington. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS VFW Presentation of ongoing activities to support the Veterans' Memorial Mr. David Michael reported on the ongoing activities to support the Veterans' Memorial. He specifically reported on the "Path of Honor" pavers, stating that to date 765 pavers have been sold, and calls are still coming in for the future. He relayed what an honor and privilege it has been to talk to the hundreds of veterans and their families and thanked them for their presence at this meeting. He shared stories of veterans, or families of veterans, that live in the Temecula Valley, and thanked the City Council for their support of those who have put their lives on the line for the defense and support of their Country. International Walk to School Proclamation Ms. Tara Rodi thanked the City Council for its support, accepted the proclamation; and supported the cause, stating it is a simple way to promote physical activity among our youth. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. MaDonna White, Temecula, representing Hidden Wineries, Inc., requested the support of the City of Temecula. B. Mr. Pete Ramos, representing the American Legion Post 852 of Temecula Valley, thanked the City Council for their support and reported on Boys State, introducing Laif Ball, the Temecula Valley High School representative chosen to travel to Sacramento. He explained that R:W1inutes%092804 1 Boys State is a program where approximately 800 boys learn and participate in a "mock government" learning the workings of local and state level government proceedings. C. Mr. Richard Shahan, Temecula, commented on the need for an Olympic -sized swimming pool in the City. He asked all those parents present in support of this request to stand. D. D. Kristen Post and Kelsey Ball, of Temecula Swim Club, voiced the need for more pool time and stressed the over -crowding that currently exists at Temecula pools. E. Bryan Davis, Temecula, coach of the Temecula Swim Club, invited the City Council to observe a swim practice, to see the over -crowded conditions, and further emphasized the need for a long course pool in Temecula. F. Lorena Spencer, Temecula, addressed her displeasure of the Farmer's Market and their ability to sell "craft items." G. Julie Timm, Temecula, addressing the Holiday Display at the Duck Pond, requested that the Nativity Scene be displayed during the upcoming Holiday Season. Mayor Naggar explained that three spaces are reserved for these types of displays. He further commented that they are privately sponsored and directed Ms. Timm to contact Community Services for information to implement this request. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Washington brought to the City Council's attention that he was utilizing digital technology this evening, instead of the normal paper City Council Agenda Packet. He further highlighted the following recent updates on the City's website: inspection schedules and status; permit information; Temecula Citizens Corp information; and information on flag etiquette. He also reported that in response to those requesting additional pool time, there will be two new pools built in Temecula; one at the new Great Oaks High School, and one at Temecula Valley High School. B. Reporting on the County Committee discussing the Temecula Ridgeline, Councilman Stone said the County be. drafting an ordinance prohibiting development on the escarpment, which will protect the hillside from future scaring. He stated he will forward this to the Council when this language is drafted. Due to his recent election to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Councilman Stone presented his official letter of resignation, effective 12:01 a.m., January 3, 2005, to Mayor Naggar and the Temecula City Council. C. Councilman Comerchero informed the public of the recent selection of an Architectural Firm to develop the master plan for a new Civic Center. He expressed his excitement for the future of this development and the positive impact it will have on Old Town and the City as a whole. R: W inutes\092804 In an effort to address the needs of the community, Councilman Comerchero announced an RFP has been sent out to consultants regarding a feasibility study on a new teen center, which was put into the Capital Improvement Program this year. He made it clear the Council is looking for something fresh and different, and that only the exceptional will be accepted in this process. He invited the teens of the Community to get involved in the process. He also reported that letters, will be distributed as part of the Veteran's War Memorial. He explained these letters were chosen by the artist and range from the Revolutionary War Period to the current conflict in Iraq. Addressing the concerns of Lorena Spencer during public comment regarding the Farmer's Market, Councilman Comerchero stated that she had asked when something would be done about this situation. In response, Mr. Comerchero stated that this situation had been addressed a couple of years ago. He answered that merchants of Old Town and the owner's of the Farmer's Market, who he emphasized is a business in Old Town, worked out a compromise agreement that all those Old Town Merchants wanting to participate in the Farmer's Market would be given the opportunity to do so. The Farmer's Market owners agreed to hold a certain number of spots open for this purpose. He answered that the City Council have been responsive to this situation and have taken action. D. Councilman Roberts reported that as the President of Southern California Association of Governments, he has been working with the USC School of Policy Planning and Leadership Institute on the US/Indonesian Conflicts Resolution Exchange Program. He announced he has been invited to attend the second part of the exchange, held in Indonesia, January of 2005, explaining this is a State Department Grant. He further stated he has been invited to attend a symposium in Sole, South Korea , in October of this year, regarding planning issues for sustainable growth of our two Pacific Rim Metropolitan Areas. He explained the purpose is to share knowledge in Regional Transportation Planning. E. Mayor Naggar followed up on the Temecula Ridge discussions and asked Councilman Stone if he is aware of any planning applications in process, and whether an urgency ordinance is needed to stop potential impact to the escarpment. Councilman Stone answered that Supervisor Buster has assured him that this ordinance is a top priority of the County, and will be in place prior to any further development in this area. Mayor Naggar reported that members of the group, S.O.S., (Save Our Slopes), will be presenting him with information that he will forward to Councilman Stone. Informing the City Council, Councilman Stone stated that Supervisor Buster and he had discussed a building moratorium for approximately 90 days to make sure this ordinance gets in place. He emphasized, however, that this is Supervisor Buster's area of responsibility, and that a spirit of cooperation does exist on the matter. Mayor Naggar further reported on the recent success of SB 87, with the Governor's signature, and with the City's ability to take control of Winchester Road and Highway 79, he requested that bus shelters be installed, as soon as possible. He asked that this be accomplished prior to summer of next year, to assist those using public transportation during the hot summer months. RAMinutes\092804 Commenting on the recent Middle School Dance Event at the CRC, Mayor Naggar thanked staff for their excellent control and for a fine event. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 Review of City Conflict of Interest Code !! RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the event sponsorship and funding agreement in the amount of $25,000 and City -support costs in the amount of approximately $11,725 for the Inland Empire Affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Race for the Cure event; 4.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. recommendation: R: MinutesX092804 4 Councilman Stone requested that this funding be increased by $5,000 to educate high school students about the need for breast self-examination and preventative measures that do save lives, both for female and males. Councilman Washington further requested that this subject be placed on the next City CounciUTemecula Valley Unified School District Sub -Committee meeting. Item amended to include an additional $5,000 to provide educational literature to Temecula High Schools. 5 Substitute Agreements and Bonds for Public Improvements in Tract No. 25004 (located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and east of Seraphina Road 11 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Accept substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds as security for improvements and labor and materials for Tract Map No. 25004; 5.2 Accept substitute Erosion Control Agreement and Erosion Control Faithful Performance Bond as security for erosion control improvements for Tract Map No. 25004; 5.3 Accept substitute Subdivision Monument Agreement and Subdivision Monument Bond as security for monumentation for Tract Map No. 25004; 5.4 Authorize the release of the existing Faithful Performance, Labor and Materials, Erosion Control, and Monumentation Bonds for Tract Map No. 25004; 5.5 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR THE 5TR ANNUAL TEMECULA FALL CAR SHOW EVENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT RWinutes\092804 5 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET CLOSURES FOR INLAND EMPIRE "RACE FOR THE CURE" EVENT ON OCTOBER ENGINEER TO ISSUE EVENT 8 Second Amendment — RECOMMENDATION: 17, 2004 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL 8.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with STK Architecture, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $145,540.00, to provide redesign services for the Fire Station Wolf Creek Site - Project No. PW01-11 - within the planned Wolf Creek Development; 8.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. Standard Pacific will fund the cost of the redesign and any increase to construction costs attributable to the new design. First Amendment to Contract Inspection Services for Building and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve a First Amendment for Consultant Services with Berryman and Henigar to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety 9.2 Department in an amount not to exceed $78,000 for a total of $103,000; 9.3 Approve a 10% contingency in an amount of $7,800, and approve the term of the agreement extending it until March 28, 2005; 9.4 Approve a First Amendment for Consultant Services with P & D Consultants to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department in an amount not to exceed $78,000 for a total amount of $103,000; 9.5 Approve a 10% contingency in an amount of $7,800 and approve the term of the agreement extending it until March 28, 2005. RAMinutes\092804 10 Architectural Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the Director of Planning to solicit Request for Qualifications (RFQs) from architectural firms to provide consulting services to the Planning Department. 11 Amendment No. 1 to the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Operating Agreement with regard to increasing the funding for the Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Operating Agreement with regard to increasing the funding for their Convention and Visitors Bureau in the amount up to $34,000; 11.2 Approve an appropriation from the General Fund designated for the Dutch Villages settlement in the amount of $17,000. 12 Support of Proposition 1A — Protection of Local Government Revenues RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE PROPOSITION 1A PROTECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES 13 Promenade Mall Storefront Lease Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the lease agreement in substantially the form presented, with the changes recommended by the City Attorney, for a Police Department storefront facility in the Promenade Mall beginning October 1, 2004 and terminating after a five-year period; 13.2 Approve the amended and restated agreement for partial funding of police services by and between the City of Temecula and Town Center Associates, L.P.; 13.3 Increase Reimbursement Revenue to the General Fund by $17,500; 13.4 Approve an additional appropriation of $17,500 to Police Department Budget. RAMtnutes\092804 14 Rancho California Road Widening from 1-15 to Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for EA 04-113 and direct staff to file the Notice of Determination. 15 California Department of Justice — Drug & Alcohol Analysis/Fingerprinting RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve an annual expenditure of $45,000 with the California Department of Justice for Drug and Alcohol analysis and Fingerprinting services. 16 Upgrade to Schedule of Authorized Positions RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve a position upgrade from Recreation Services Manager to Cultural Arts Administrator in the Community Services Department. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-18. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval with the amendment on Item No. 4, increasing the funding by $5,000 to include funding to provide educational literature to Temecula High Schools. At 8:08 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 9:05 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 17 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 04-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) RVAinutes1092804 Principal Planner Don Hazen presented the staff report (of record) Councilman Washington questioned the reasoning of decreasing the requirement from 50,000 square foot minimum office buildings to no minimum. Mr. Hazen explained that due to the extreme variation of lot sizes, it was difficult to establish a reasonable number. He further clarified there is a natural inclination for applicants to maximize their investment, and set back standards, open space and parking requirements, would determine the building size that could be built. Mr. Washington further asked why this change would make properties more economically viable, instead of less, as suggested by a recent letter the City Council received. Mr. Hazen stated there are two applications currently in process which are working on the clustering arrangement, showing that this could be economically feasible, while retaining the high quality of the current business park. Questioning the future potential uses, Councilman Comerchero asked how this change would impact this area. Mr. Hazen answered that Planning is not seeing any objectionable uses, but rather corporate offices for businesses, and certain uses, such as "automobile repair shops" would not be permitted. Mayor Naggar opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. Phil Oberhansley, representing RM Pacific, spoke in support of the Development Code Amendment, stating there is a large market for medium-sized businesses to own their own building. He.explained that the 50,000 minimum building size requirement, is prohibitive in cost for these types of businesses. He requested one amendment to the Ordinance, under Number One of the Additional Performance Standards, where it states "larger single and multi -tenant office buildings are preferred;" he requested that the language "but not required," be added to clarify this language. Max Harrison, representing Westside Business Centre Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the Code Amendment, explaining he feels the amendment will decrease the value of investment for original owners of the Westside Business Centre. He further stated there is no inventory of industrial property in the City of Temecula, since the last few acres in the business park have been sold. Councilman Washington asked if the objection was only due to the square footage, or whether the uses were also in question. Mr. Harrison answered that he feels that changes should not be made because there is no Industrial property available, and that is also a concern. Mayor Naggar closed the public hearing at 9:22 P.M Explaining from an economic development viewpoint, there is a very good reason for this amendment, he also expressed concerns for maintaining the current level of quality in the business park. Councilman Comerchero disagreed with the amendment requested by Mr. Oberhansley, feeling that the language should stand as written. He suggested, as an additional layer of protection, that anything under 50,000 square feet be automatically forwarded to the City Council for review. RAMinutes\092804 Councilman Stone, in response to Councilman Washington's comment's of high costs for development, suggested that fees should not increase, due to the extra layer imposed by projects under 50,000 square feet coming before the City Council for approval, and asked that this be direction to staff. Councilman Stone spoke in favor of the amendment, stating there is a significant need for business owners to have the ability to purchase their own building, and a 50,000 square foot requirement is cost prohibitive. He said he would be in support of these uses coming before the City Council, as was suggested by Councilman Comerchero. Councilman Washington questioned whether adding another layer to the process would increase costs and time constraints to future business owners, reminding the Council that any project can be appealed to the Council level. He agreed with the language change proposed by Mr. Oberhansley, stating that it would add clarity for those processing the application. Realizing that a change is needed to address specific needs, Councilman Roberts spoke in favor of the Code Amendment, agreeing with Councilman Comerchero's suggestion that anything under 50,000 square feet come before the City Council for approval. Mayor Naggar spoke in favor of the Code Amendment, while emphasizing that usage is critical to maintaining the nature of the business park, and noted that he feels the approval of the City Council is a safe -guard that is needed. Councilman Washington stated he will support his colleagues in this motion, but asked that permit fees and expenses are kept at a low cost. He emphasized that not only the cost, but the time involved can be burdensome to a business owner. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved staff recommendation with the following amendment to Section 3 of the Ordinance, under the section "Performance Standards," adding Paragraph 5 as follows: "Office Buildings under 50,000 square feet shall be considered by the City Council and approved, conditionally approved or denied by the City Council." Electronic Vote showed unanimous approval. 18 Development Code Amendment (Planning Application 04-0297) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 04-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE HELIPORTS IN VARIOUS ZONES AND TO MAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES (PLANNING APPLICATION 04- 0297) RAMinutes1092804 10 Principal Planner Don Hazen presented the staff report (of record). Mayor Naggar opened the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. Hearing no requests to speak, Mayor Naggar closed the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. Councilman Stone expressed his appreciation to staff for coming up with the criteria, and expressed his support for heliports'for hospitals. Noting a philosophical problem with helicopters landing in the business park as it relates to safety concerns, especially in view of the close proximity of a municipal airport, he stated he will not be supporting the ordinance. Councilman Washington noted his support for the ordinance, listing opportunities for corporate support and economic development. He stated he feels it can be done safely and staff has done a good job of mitigating any areas of concern. Listing the benefits to economic development with the use of helipads, Councilman Comerchero voiced his support of the Code Amendment. He, however, expressed a concern for the 100 foot set -back in residential areas. He suggested it be the same as the set -back from a school. Clarifying the language of the ordinance, Mr. Hazen explained the 100 foot set -backs only apply if the flight patterns go over the residential areas. Councilman Comerchero stated he feels there should be a possible difference in regulations in regards to helipads for hospitals, since that usage would definitely be necessary. Mayor Naggar stated that even with the passage of the ordinance, all helipads will be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process, and must be reviewed individually by the Planning Commission. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation with the amendment to Section 2(d), deleting language, "unless the helicopter flight pattern does not encroach into a residential area," and that a 100 foot set -back be imposed for residential areas. Electronic Vote showed approval with the exception of Councilman Stone, who voted in opposition. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to extend the meeting until 10:15 P.M. Mayor Naggar seconded the motion and voice vote showed approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who voted no. 19 Community Standards Preservation Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: R:%Minutes1092804 11 ORDINANCE NO. 04-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.24 — COMMUNITY STANDARDS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Principal Planner Steve Brown presented the staff report (of record.) Mayor Naggar opened the public hearing at 9:58 P.M. Hearing no requests to speak, Mayor Naggar closed the public hearing at 9:58 P.M. Mayor Naggar complemented Mr. Brown on the excellent work done on this issue. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to approve staff recommendation. Electronic Vote showed unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported there is no reportable business from Closed Session, and that Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero did not participate on one of the initiating litigation matters. ADJOURNMENT At 10:04 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:Wtinutes\092804 12 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO.04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $2,546,606.45. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 12`h day of October, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 04-_ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12`h day of October, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RJResos 2004/Resos 04- CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 09/23/04 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 1,601,164.35 09/30/04 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 594,484.68 09/23/04 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 350,957.42 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 10/12/04 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 2,546,606.45 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 497,400.76 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 7,328.01 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 17,739.88 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 166,263.23 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL'B' STREET LIGHTS 73.86 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 'C' LANDSCAPF/SLOPE 73,327.21 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL'D' REFUSE/RECYCLING 589.93 210 CAPITAL IMPROV PROJECT FUND l,15l,939.68 261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 364.75 274 JOHN WARNER AD 145,000.00 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -CIP PROJECT 30,499.26 300 INSURANCE FUND 15,495.40 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50,214.09 330 SUPPORTSERVICES 16,775.50 340 FACILITIES 22,637.47 $ 2,195,649.03 001 GENERAL FUND 245,101.97 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 5,299.69 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 61,385.71 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 'B' STREET LIGHTS 111.08 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL'C' LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 5,284.92 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL'D' REFUSE/RECYCLING 818.77 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -CIP PROJECT 2,326.00 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,064.80 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 19,076.38 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 3,330.58 340 FACILITIES 7,157.52 350 957.42 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 2,546,606.45 PREPARED BY RETA W ESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. I�GENIE ROBERTS, D� I�RE�/CTT//jOR OF FINANCE T . . HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 382 09/23/2004 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 16,988.80 16,988.80 383 09/23/2004 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 64,946.08 64,946.08 384 09/23/2004 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SO Nationwide Retirement Payment 18,450.93 18,450.93 385 09/23/2G04 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME PERS ER Paid Member Contr Pmt 88,481.28 88,481.28 386 09/23/2004 000389 U S C M WEST COBRA), OKRA - Project Retirement Payment 2,538.22 2,538.22 94495 09/17/2004 006832 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK OF THE Eminent Domain: 41530 Enterprise Cir 75,000.00 75,000.00 94496 09/17/2004 000867 WESTIN SEATTLE, THE Hotel:Eden Cf:9/20-23:Simpson 566.90 586.90 94497 09/23/2004 004765 ACTIVE NETWORK INC, THE On -site tmg Safari recreation software 11,035.25 Safari recreation software appplication 11,035.25 22,070.50 94498 09/23/2004 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP Duck Pond Japanese Garden design 6,500.00 6,500.00 94499 09/23/2004 007522 ALL STAR WATER HEATERS Refund: Overchg 19 heater permits 1,235.19 1,235.19 94500 09/23/2004 008062 ARROW STAFF RESOURCES, I Temp help PPE 9/5 Grove,Heer 5,535.41 Temp help PPE 9/12 Grove,Heer 2,270.61 7,806.02 94501 09/23/2004 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Jul Bottled wtr servs @ Skate Park 278.18 Aug Bottled wtr servs @ Skate Park 141.18 419.36 94502 09/23/2004 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC Jul -Aug prjt mgmt:R.C. Rd Widening 8,386.04 8,386.04 94503 09/23/2004 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES Jul -Aug DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 460.06 Aug DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 448.15 908.21 94504 09/23/2004 008109 BOGROFF, TIFFANI Refund: Hawaiian:Beg Teen/Adult 30.00 30.00 94505 09/23/2004 006721 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE Misc office supplies: Finance 66.47 Misc office supplies: Finance 29.68 Misc office supplies: Finance 4.67 100.82 94506 09/23/2004 008115 BROWN, ANTHONY Refund: ParentlMe Swim Lessons 30.00 30.00 Page:1 apChkLst 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check k Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94507 09/23/2004 008103 BUTLER, KIM Refund: Aquatics -Lifeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94508 09/23/2004 006908 C C & COMPANY INC Race for Cure booth entertainment 150.00 150.00 94509 09/23/2004 000588 C C A P A '04 Ann'I Cf:Hogan:10/17-20104 395.00 395.00 94510 09/23t2004 007829 C S LEGACY CONSTRUCTION I Aug Prgss:79 S.Sidewalk Impr Pdt 99,054.08 99,054.08 94511 09/23/2004 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 14th Ann'[ Educ Wk:11/1-5:Staff 2,080.00 2,080.00 94512 09/23/2004 006768 CALIF REGIONAL WATER DUAL Wolf Vlly Creek Wr quality certif. 5,300.00 5,300.00 94513 09/23/2004 007859 CALIFORNIA REPLACEMENT W Res Imp Prgm: Anguiano, Connie 5,000.00 5,000.00 94514 09/23/2004 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Oct lease pmt for City copiers 6,930.78 Oct lease pmt for Stn 73!CRC copiers 328.63 Oct lease pmt for Stn 12 Copier 69.96 7,329.37 94515 09/23/2004 008102 CAPPIELLO, ANGELA Refund: Aquatics -Lifeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94516 09/23t2004 008108 CHRISTOPHER LACK Refund: Music for Toddlers 40.00 40.00 94517 09/23/2004 002989 CLEAR IMAGE WINDOW CLEA CRC exterior window cleaning svos 595.00 City Hall exterior window cleaning 412.00 West Wing exterior window cleaning 75.00 1,082.00 94518 09/23t2004 008106 COHEN, KATHRYN Refund: Scuba Diving 135.00 135.00 94519 09/23/2004 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI Community Health Charities Payment 163.00 163.00 94520 09/23/2004 008107 CONDIT, DAVID Refund: Scuba Diving 135.00 135.00 94521 09/23/2004 001923 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS May -Jun Geotech test:Diaz realignm 500.00 .500.00 94522 09/23/2004 003986 COZAD & FOX INC May -June surveying svcs:Diaz realig 3,840.00 3,940.00 94523 09/23t2004 004524 CRAFCO INC/ABSOLUTE ASPH Asphalt cold mix for PW patch crews 784.42 784.42 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 94524 09/23/2004 005398 CROUCH, BETTY 94525 09/23/2004 003210 DALLAS MIDWEST (Continued) Description Amount Paid Refund: Aquatics -Lifeguard Tm 135.00 Porcelain Steel Marker Boards: TCC 94526 09/23/2004 008100 DAVID MUSSER FINE ART Painting for Dutch Sister City gift 94527 09/23/2004 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES Oct'04 Federal lobbyist svcs 94528 09/23/2004 003006 DEW ITT CUSTOM PAINTING Res Imp Prgm: Rosales & Urban 94529 09/23/2004 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Vail Ranch Prk portable restroom-Sept Veterans Prk portable restroom-Sept Riverton Prk portable restroom-Sept Lg Cyn Prk portable restroom-Sept 94530 09/23/2004 003317 DOMENOE, CHERYL '04 Tech Track Tmg:9l7-8104 94531 09/23/2004 007782 DONAHOO, ANDREA Refund: Aquatics -Lifeguard Tm 94532 09/23/2004 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles: TCSD 61343 Fuel for city vehicles: TCSD 61343 Fuel for city vehicles: PW 61353 94533 09/23/2004 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Temp help PPE 9/3 Cammarota Temp help PPE 8/27 Grove 94534 09/23/2004 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 Diego Dr Ldscp-Sept 94535 09/23/2004 008114 EUBANKS, DANIELLE Refund: Music for Toddlers 94536 09/23/2004 006487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD Refreshments:Civic Ctr Interviews 94537 09/23/2004 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 94538 09/23/2004 000478 FAST SIGNS Aug Idscp impr. Sports Parks Aug Idscp impr. South Slopes Aug Idscp impr. North Slopes Aug Idscp impr: Medians Aug Idscp impr. MPSC T.Museum exhibit supplies 94539 09/23/2004 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOCIA Aug Financial analysis:Roripaugh CFD Credit: Invoice exceeds purchase ord 318.00 215.50 57.48 57.48 57.48 57.48 MEL 135.00 1,051.91 955.18 573.16 1,403.20 221.36 525.14 74.89 32,219.00 25.731.00 22,173.00 6,924.00 6,686.00 53.68 7,043.18 -4,567.47 Check Total 135.00 318.00 215.50 3,000.00 3,100.00 229.92 64.90 135.00 2,580.25 1,624.56 525.14 40.00 74.89 93,733.00 53.68 2,475.71 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank; union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check ft Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94540 09/23/2004 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER I C M A JO City/County Mgr Cf:10117-20 584.00 I C M A SN City/County Mgr Cf:10/17-20 545.00 HAMPTON INN & SUITES SJ Htl:O'Neii Tmg:8/16-19:GF/GR 356.43 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS TT Computer equip & supplies 96.80 CLAIM JUMPER RESTAURANT MN Refreshments: Business Mtg 65.87 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL MN Flowers per council discretionary 64.60 EARTHLINK INC TT IS away internal access svc 54.05 MARIE CALLENDER TT Refreshments:lnterview panel 48.79 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA IN SJ Misc Supplies for 10/14 Comm Din 47.41 MICHAELS STORES INC SJ Misc Supplies for 10/14 Comm Din 46.04 JOANN ETC- SJ Misc Supplies for 10/14 Comm Din 36.05 SPRINT TT Phone equip deductible chrg 35.00 AMAZON.COM, INC TT Book purchase 18.42 1,998.46 94541 09/23/2004 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL MED New hires physicals & drug screening 325.00 Employee first aid care 289.64 New hires physicals & drug screening 50.00 664.64 94542 09/23/2004 004239 FISHER SEHGAL YANEZ INC Aug Architectual design:Theater 12.387.75 12,387.75 94543 09/23/2004 008113 GAIER, NANCY Refund: Ex Miramar Air Show 36.00 36.00 94544 09/23/2004 007736 GRIFFITH COMPANY Aug Prgss:Jefferson Rehab Phase 11 149,497.20 Credit: Excess Billing for item no. 20 -2,970.00 146,527.20 94545 09/23/2004 000520 H D L COREN & CONE INC Jul -Sept Property tax consulting svcs 2,400.00 2.400.00 94546 09/23/2004 008110 HAWKINS, WENDY Refund:Sports:BB Fundamentals 40.00 40.00 94547 09/23/2004 008104 HEJNY, DAVID Refund: Aquatics-Lffeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94548 09/23/2004 001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & AS 3rd Qtr Sales tax recovery secs 11,280.91 11,280.91 94549 09/23/2004 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Support Payment 40.92 40.92 Page:4 apChkLst 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check R Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94550 09/23/2004 008112 HOFFMAN, KATHRYN Refund:Miss Sues Dance 5-7/Thur 56.25 56.25 94551 09/23/2004 004217 HYDRO TEK COMPANY PW Pressure Washers repair parts 572.09 572.09 94552 09/23/2004 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 1 C M A Retirement Payment 7,245.79 7,245.79 94553 09/23/2004 008101 1 W C E'04 TRAVELING RD SHO AMTEX'04:McBdde:l 1/15-16/04 125.00 125.00 94554 09/23/2004 002166 INGRAM ELECTRIC Gate electrical repaiffire Sins 84 55.00 55.00 94555 09/23/2004 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H Sept employee assistance program 698.70 698.70 94556 09/23/2004 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 228.86 Pool sanitizing chemicals 222.50 451.36 94557 09/23/2004 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD instructor earnings 80.00 80.00 94558 09/23/2004 008111 JENSEN-SIRINGO, LORI Refund: Kids Luv PreSoccer 4-5yrs 65.00 65.00 94559 09/23/2004 008105 JOHNSTON, KARI Refund: Aquatics -Lifeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94560 09/23/2004 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES Jul -Aug plan ck,map & legal descripti 4,656.00 4,655.00 94561 09/23/2004 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC RDA Car Show banners clean/store 161.30 161.30 94562 09/23/2004 004481 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES I Jul prof. svcs Diaz Rd Extension 1,407.50 Jul design: Creek Multi -Pure. Trail p6t 1.036.50 2,444.00 94563 09/23/2004 003631 KLEINFELDER INC Jul design prgss:R.C. Bridge Widening 402.00 402.00 94564 09/23/2004 004051 L O R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Aug Geotech Test:Pechanga Pkwy 6.020.00 Aug Geotech Test:Pechanga Pkwy 5,378.75 11,398.75 94565 09/23/2004 008116 LA VORGNA, CHRISTINE Refund: Aquatics -Lifeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94566 09/23/2004 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVICE Aug svcs-library system agrmnt 1,362.60 1,362.60 94567 09/23/2004 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMOR Aug HA legal svcs for TE06040001 864.00 864.00 Pages apChkLst 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94568 09/23/2004 004174 LIGHT IMPRESSIONS T.Museum exhibit supplies 63.13 63.13 94569 09/23/2004 004068 MANALILI, AILEEN TCSD Instructor Earnings 500.52 TCSD Instructor Earnings 255.31 TCSD Instructor Earnings 210.00 965.83 94570 09/23/2004 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER temp help We 09/05 Dankworth 617.25 617.25 94571 09/23/2004 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL Htl:Assault Investion Tm:#81052015 530.60 530.60 94572 09/23/2004 002693 MATROS, ANDREA TCSD Instructor Earnings 250.80 250.80 94573 09/23/2004 005806 MATTHEWS, CATHERINE J. Jul -Sept street addressing svcs:B&S 362.50 362.60 94574 09/23/2004 008119 MCGONIGLE, LYSE Refund: Ex: Balboa Park 28.00 28.00 94575 09/23/2004 003800 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING Prgs Pmt #12: J.Warner Rd 145,000.00 145,000.00 94576 09/23/2004 007210 MIDORI GARDENS Aug Ldscp Svcs:Neighborhood Parks 30,000.00 30,000.00 94577 09/23/2004 004208 MILANOS Refreshments:Council Mtg:8110/04 393.75 393.75 94578 09/23/2004 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Envelopes for Planning dept. 235.05 235.05 94579 09/23/2004 001892 MOBILE MODULAR Sept modular bldg rental:Fire Stn 92 832.40 832.40 94580 09/23/2004 004128 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. TCSD Instructor Earnings 256.00 256.00 94581 09/23/2004 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORN Map/Autocad:Old Town Sound Sys 1,425.00 Credit: amount exceeds agreement -225.00 1,200.00 94582 09/23/2004 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies for Planning 195.22 195.22 94583 09/23/2004 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 25.65 25.65 94584 09/23/2004 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY TCSD Halloween supplies 1,039.78 Teen Programs supplies 167.68 MPSC Rec supplies 97.65 1,305.11 Page& apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check a Date Vendor 94585 09/23/2004 000733 PARTY PZAZZ (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total linen rental for 9/11 Remembrance 70.40 70.40 94586 09/23/2004 003218 PELA Jun Idscp plan ck svcs: Planning 11,295.00 Jun -Aug Ldscp svcs: R.C.Widening 1,655.50 12,950.50 94587 09/23/2004 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE FROG PERS Long Term Care Payment 288.55 288.55 94588 09/23/2004 008117 PETRICH, BROOKE Refund:Aquatics-Lifeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94589 09/23/2004 000249 PETTY CASH Petry Cash Reimbursement 655.45 655.45 94590 09/23/2004 000252 POLYCRAFf INC City Seal decals: Police 91.59 91.59 94591 09/23/2004 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Aug recruitment ads for H.R. Dept. 3,542.22 3,542.22 94592 09/23/2004 002483 PRO TECH SERVICES/PARTS D Repair water heater at TES pool 136.47 -136.47 94593 09/23/2004 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPL uniforms/fir mats/towel rentals: City 882.68 Credit: chrgs not per contract -2.08 880.60 94594 09/23/2004 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PRK ASSN Oct -Dec Business Prk Dues:Diaz 1,948.77 Oct -Dec Business Prk Dues:City Hall 1,417.29 Oct -Dec Business Prk Dues:C.H. Adj 1,169.26 4,535.32 94595 09/23/2004 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Various Water Meters - - 30,426.34 Various Water Meters 2,930.09 Various Water Meters 410.01 Sept 01-04-10033-2 Marg Rd 103.84 33,870.28 94596 09/23/2004 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS. Dup blueprints:Pechanga Pkwy 58.52 58.52 94597 09/23/2004 008121 RAY, CHEREE Refund:Swim Lessons Level 1 & 2 65.00 65.00 94598 09/23/2004 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATI propane gas: PW Maint Div. 15.01 15.01 94599 09/23/2004 005406 RIVERSIDE CO TRAIN OFF. Command 113: 10/26-28, 11/4-5 130.00 - 130.00 94600 09/23/2004 000271 ROBERT BEIN WM FROST & A Jun dsgn svcs: Veteran's Memorial 7,677.62 Jul dsgn svcs: Veteran's Memorial 467.46 8,145.08 94601 09/23/2004 005018 SACHER, SUZANNE L. TCSD Instructor Earnings 120.00 120.00 Page:? apChkLst 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94602 09/23/2004 008124 SAN DIEGO CAPCA Entomology Cf:9/30/04:M.Wiechec 85.00 85.00 94603 09/23/2004 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment 25.00 25.00 94604 09/23/2004 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment 12.50 12.50- 94605 09/23/2004 008120 SCOTT(, PETRA Refund:Kids Luv Soccer 65.00 65.00 94606 09/23/2004 000645 SMART & FINAL INC High Hopes Supplies 185.62 185.62 94607 09/23/2004 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Aug 2-19-999-9442 Various Mtrs 1,294.28 Sept 2-25-393-4681 T.E.S. pool 827.71 Sept 2-23-365-5992 Fire Sin 92 361.76 Sept 2-22-891-0550 Various Mtrs 270.14 Sept 2-24-628-8963 Btrfld Stage 29.00 2,782.89 94608 09/23/2004 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Sept City. Facilities gas meters 1,880.88 1,880.88 94609 09/23/2004 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST pest control secs: CRC 90.00 pest control svcs: Fire Stn 84 80.00 pest control svcs: City Hall 56.00 pest control svcs: Fire Stn 92 42.00 pest control svcs: TCC 36.00 pest control svcs: C. Museum 36.00 340.00 94610 09/23t2004 007851 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR qtdy HVAC prev. maint: City Facilities 2,735.00 install new HVAC circuit board @ Sr 932.60 HVAC repair 0 City Hall 175.00 HVAC repair 0 TCC 105.00 HVAC repair @ C. Museum 73.00 4,020.60 94611 09/23/2004 003467 SPECTRUM POOL PRODUCTS Aquatics supplies 138.00 Credit: amt exceeds agreement -12.42 125.58 94612 09/23/2004 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS TRANSCRI Aug transcription srvcs:Police 970.24 970.24 94613 09/23/2004 000305 TARGET STORE Special Events Supplies 211.15 Family Fun Nights Supplies 55.28 SMART Program Supplies 22.66 289.09 94614 09/23/2004 006465 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR Fire Prev vehicle repair/maint svcs 29.00 29.00 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94615 09/23/2004 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. Aug copier usage chrgs: City Facilities 4,238.02 Jul copier usage chrgs: City Facilities 3,532.37 Credit: Aug over chrg / T. Museum -48.68 Credit: Jul over chrg / T. Museum -162.27 7,559.44 94616 09/23/2004 005412 TEMECULA GARDEN & POWER Repair/maint Svcs: PW Maint Div 333.79 333.79 94617 09/23/2004 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith svcs: Paramedics 65.08 Locksmith svcs: Paramedics 29.09 94.17 94618 09/23/2004 003862 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR. Sept Inspect/Svc Elevator: Maint Fac 125.00 125.00 94619 09/23/2004 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC Performance by Super Freaks 8r5/04 650.00 DJ/MC Teen Prgm Dance: 7/30 350.00 DJ/MC Teen Prgm Pool Party: 7117 350.00 Sound tech for Band Jam: 9/17 250.00 Sound tech 9/11 Ceremony 150.00 1,950.00 94620 09/23/2004 005937 TOMCZAK, MARIA T. TCSD Instructor Earnings 144.00 144.00 94621 09/23/2004 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTIO Prgs Pmt #6: Community Theater 432,202.08 432,202.08 94622 09/23/2004 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE I traffic control supplies: PW Maint 439.62 439.62 94623 09/23/2004 005873 TRI AD ACTUARIES INC Sept Administration Fees 357.00 Credit: 41 participants for Sept. -8.50 348.50 94624 09/23/2004 007118 U S TELPACIFIC CORPORATIO Sept Internet IP Addresses Block 547.97 Credit: service chrg -8.22 539.75 94625 09/23/2004 002065 UNISOURCE - Paper Supplies for City Hall 612.00 612.00 94626 09/23/2004 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 218.00 218.00 94627 09/23/2004 007602 VANCE CORPORATION Prgs Pmt #2: Diaz Rd Realignment 118,977.09 118,977.09 94628 09/23/2004 006807 VANIR CONSTRUCTION Jul Constr Mgmt Svc:Community Thtr 17,979.03 17,979.03 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 09/23/2004 11:00:05AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94629 09/23/2004 004261 VERIZON Sept xxx-5072 general usage 4,146.17 Sept xxx-0074 general usage 253.27 Sept xxx-0073 general usage 223.12 Sept roux-1473 P.D. O.T- Stn 111.41 Sept xxx-3564 alarm 56.43 Sept xxx-5473 general usage 38.44 Sept xxx-8573 general usage 30.64 Sept xxx-3923 Stone 28.42 4,887.90 94630 09/23/2004 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES 1 Sept long distance phone svcs 2.52 2.52 94631 09/23/2004 004200 VERIZON WIRELESS LLC Sept -Dec pager rental: Stone 39.29 3929 94632 09/23/2004 007872 WAYER, LOREE Refund:Creative Beg Mom & Me 100.00 100.00 94633 09/23/2004 005845 WETTELAND, KARLA M. Refund:Aquatics-Lifeguard Trn 135.00 135.00 94634 09/23/2004 008118 WISE, KIRK Refund:Aquatics-Lifeguard Tm 135.00 135.00 94635 09/23/2004 004774 WOODCREST UNIFORMS re -fit motorcycle vest: Police 75.00 75.00 94636 09/23/2004 008122 WUEBBEN, MARCI Refund:Complete Scrapbooking 45.00 45.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 1,601,164.35 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 387 09/24/2004 007659 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Acquisition agnnt APN 909-270-020 79,773.00 79,773.00 94637 09/30/2004 004148 AT&T Sept Long distance Svcs: P.D. 81.07 81.07 94638 09/30/2004 004064 ADELPHIA Sept/Oct high speed internal Svcs 40.95 40.95 94639 09/30/2004 008134 AMAZING GRACE ACADEMY Refund: Security Depst Picnic Shelter 100.00 100.00 94640 09/30/2004 005037 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH I Rel Retention: PW04-03 slurry seal 56,014.06 56,014.06 94641 09/30/2004 008131 AMERICAN ASSOC OF Refund: Security Depst: MPSC 100.00 100.00 94642 09/30/2004 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC[ Membership: Gary Thornhill 082461 443.00 Membership: David Hogan 083407 395.00 Membership: Knute Noland 131044 230.00 1,068.00 94643 09/30/2004 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI AICP Planner Series:l 1/3:Emery 315.00 315.00 94644 09/30/2004 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help PPE 9/11 Wills 558.08 Temp help PPE 9/11 Lee 528.00 Temp help PPE 9/11 Kasparian 518.40 Temp help PPE 9/11 Pee 450.07 2,054.55 94645 09/30/2004 001561 ARCH WIRELESS Sept -Dec pagingtrental svcs 619.50 619.50 94646 09/30/2004 008062 ARROW STAFF RESOURCES, I Temp help PPE 9/19 Grove/Heer 3,146.04 3,146.04 94647 09/30/2004 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled wtr sews @ City Hall 658.83 Bottled wtr sews @ West Wing 347.44 Bottled wtr sews @ CRC 141.55 Bottled wtr sews @ Skate Park 68.27 Bottled wtr sews @ City Hall 46.82 Bottled wtr sews 0 C.Museum 36.73 Bottled wtr sews @ T.Museum 32.41 Bottled wtr sews @ SMART prgm 25.00 Bottled wtr sews @ TCC 20.26 Bottled wtr sews @ TESC Pool 9.69 1,387.00 94648 09/30/2004 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA Membership: Doug Armstrong 76766 44.00 Membership: Jay Oldham 56332042 44.00 Membership: Jeff Beardshear 452779 44.00 Membership: Ryan Castillo 54068262 44.00 176.00 Paget apChkLst 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94649 09/30/2004 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRV Diaz Rd Culvert repair & Barricades 4,520.00 4,520.00 94650 09/30/2004 008130 BESANCON, CYNTHIA Refund: Security Depst: TCC 100.00 100.00 94651 09/30/2004 004176 BROADW ING Sept Long distance &Internet was 1,775.02 1,775.02 94652 09/30/2004 000588 C C A P A '04 CCAPA CfA 0/17-20:Kitzerow 395.00 395.00 94653 09/30/2004 005384 CALIF BAGEL BAKERY & DELI Refreshments:Council closed session 196.11 196.11 94654 09/30/2004 001089 CALIF DEBT & INVESTMENT Bond Sales Tmg:10/27-28:MD 195.00 195.00 94655 09/30/2004 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICEIACCT Fingerprints info for new ee recruitmen 2,472.00 Jun 03 DUI Screening 1,470.00 3,942.00 94656 09/30/2004 004604 CALPELRA Labor Academies II & III:11/8-9:DL 540.00 540.00 94657 09/30/2004 003628 CHUYS RESTAURANT Refreshments:PW Qtrly staff training 520.60 520.60 94658 09/30/2004 001923 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Jun -Jul geo review:Diaz Realignment 140.00 140.00 94659 09/30/2004 003739 COTTON BRIDGES ASSOCIATE Jul -Aug General plan update svcs 11,138.20 11,138.20 94660 09/30/2004 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED ING Traffic Count Data Collection 10,935.00 10,935.00 94661 09/30/2004 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Oct lease/CAM:Police storefront 2,086.14 2,086.14 94662 09/30/2004 000684 DIEHL EVANS & COMPANY LLP FY 03/04 Audit Svcs: Citywide 9.000.00 9,000.00 94663 09/30/2004 003223 EDAW ING Aug environmental reveiw: R.C. Bridg 680.00 Aug bio monitoring:Lng Cnyn Basin 612.00 Aug monitoring svcs:Pala Bridge 233.22 1,525.22 94664 09/30/2004 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE Repair PAP Pumper truck 542.65 Repair Hydro Tek Power Washer 310.26 852.91 94665 09/30/2004 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION Aug plan check svcs 11,382.10 11,382.10 94666 09/30/2004 006487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD Refreshments: Council closed session 246.64 Refreshments: Civic Ctr Interview 76.13 322.77 Page2 apChkLst 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94667 09/30/2004 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Aug Idscp impr. Vail Ranch/OVInd 248.30 Aug Idscp impr.Vail Ranch 107.84 Aug Idscp impr. Sports Parks 105.00 461.14 94668 09/30/2004 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 147.73 147.73 94669 09/30/2004 007238 FILIPINO CHURCH COMM- Refund: Security Depst: CRC 75.00 75.00 94670 09/30/2004 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL MED Employee first aid care 84.55 84.55 94671 09/30/2004 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY I Day timer supplies: Planning 367.40 367.40 94672 09/30/2004 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC Printer toner supplies: Citywide ` 334.46 Printer toner supplies: Citywide Printer toner supplies: Citywide 211.62 766.55 94673 09/30/2004 008133 GALAN, ARACHELI Refund: Beg. Gymnastics 186.00 186.00 94674 09/30/2004 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Misc office supplies: TCSD 353.52 353.52 94675 09/30/2004 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT Express Mail Service: Fire Prev 44.03 44.03 94676 09/30/2004 000711 GRAPHICS UNLIMITED LITHOG Imagination Wrkshp/TCM brochures 966.52 966.52 94677 09/30/2004 008127 GUNDERSON, C.L. Refund:Grading Depst:30150 Cabrillo 995.00 995.00 94678 09/30/2004 000378 HAFELI, THOMAS Reimb:'03 Micro Exchg Tmg:9/13-17 524.86 524.86 94679 09/30/2004 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD Misc computer supplies:lnfo Sys 344.80 344.80 94680 09/30/2004 001158 HOLIDAY INN Htl:Mediator Cert:10/4-8:Gutierrez 802.75 802.75 94681 09/30/2004 005313 HUFFER MANUFACTURING INC Special Events Supplies 638.00 638.00 94682 09/30/2004 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 203.43 203.43 94683 09/30/2004 008132 JIMENEZ, ADRIANN Refund: Security Depst TCC 100.00 100.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check if Date Vendor 94684 09/30/2004 005928 JUTKIEWICZ, ROBIN J- (Continued) Description Amount Paid TCSD instructor earnings 136.00 Check Total 136.00 94685 09/30/2004 003631 KLEINFELDER INC Aug geo review:R.C. Bridge Widening 1,562.00 1,562.00 94686 09/30/2004 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC Misc repair parts for CRC pool 249.21 Credit: returned ABS slide valve -91.59 157.62 94687 09/30/2004 008129 KTM SPORTSMOTORCYCLES U Refund:Bldg Fees:Withdrawn Permit 12,997.41 Rfd:Ld Devel Fees:Withdrawn Permit 9,112.50 22,109.91 94688 09/30/2004 008135 LIFELINE SCREENING OF Refund: Security Depst CRC 100.00 100.00 94689 09/30/2004 008126 LOWE'S BBQ Refund:Security Depst: TCC 100.00 100.00 94690 09/30/2004 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS Street Signs:PW Maint Div 2,445.39 Street Signs: PW Maint Div 2,024.35 4,469.74 94691 09/30/2004 004141 MAINTEX INC Custodial Supplies: Maint Fac 185.11 Custodial Supplies: Various Parks 133.66 - Custodial Supplies: TCC 80.36 Custodial Supplies: CRC 56.58 455.71 94692 09/30/2004 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER temp help We 09/12 Dankworth 526.72 526.72 94693 09/30/2004 007997 MARGARITA CANYON LLC CLOMR (FEMA) fees:]-15/SR79S 17,350.50 17.350.50 94694 09/30/2004 004894 MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIA 6/26-7/30/04 Svcs:Pech.Pkwy, Ph 2 1,157.50 1,157.50 94695 09/30/2004 003163 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS toner for MPSC copier 43.80 43.80 94696 09/30/2004 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Business cards: Planning staff 342.64 Envelopes for City Mgr's Dept 299.48 Envelopes for T. Museum 205.52 business cards: McLaughlin/Lopez 85.66 business cards: Searles 42.83 business cards: McAteer 42.83 business cards: Casey 42.83 1,061.79 94697 09/30/2004 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEER Jul eng. svcs:F.V.Pkwy/1-15 5,958.08 5,958.08 94698 09/30/2004 007011 MORRIS MEYERS MAINTENAN Jul Maint Svcs:Park R.RJPicnic Shelt 4,690.00 Aug Maint Svcs:Park R.RJPicnic Shel 4,690.00 9,380.00 Page:4 apChkLst 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # . Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94699 09/30/2004 007860 MT SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY entertainment: Hot Summer Nights 300.00 300.00 94700 09/30/2004 007564 MURRAYS HOTEL & Freezer for CRC 2,318.78 2,318.78 94701 09/30/2004 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORN Oct "On -Hold" Phone music: City Hall 120.86 120.86 94702 09/30/2004 005959 NEW COVENANT FELLOWSHIP Refund:Sec. Deposit:9119104 100.00 100.00 94703 09/30/2004 006140 NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS B.P.A. dues/Lot 20:F.V.Pkwy/1-15 447.00 B.P.A. dues/Lot 17:F.V.Pkwy/1-15 329.00 776.00 94704 09/30/2004 007979 OCE NORTH AMERICA INC 9/1/04-8/31/05 maint:Map Rm Copier 1,395.96 1,395.96 94705 09/30/2004 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies: P.D. O.T. Stn 523.22 523.22 94706 09/30/2004 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 584.03 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 222.12 City Vehicle-Repair/Maint Svcs 207.87 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 107.42 1,121.44 94707 09/30/2004 007959 ONEIL SOFTWARE INC ONeil Software for Records Mgmt 6,280.48 5,280.48 94708 09/30/2004 004389 OUT OF THE ORDINARY Team Bldg/Mid Mgm:1077/04 2,930.00 2,930.00 94709 09/30/2004 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC Aug temp bldg inspection svcs:R.H. 10,822.68 10,822.68 94710 09/30/2004 006939 PAINT CONNECTION, THE Res Imp Prgm: Carter, Gwen 2,575.00 Res Imp Prgm: Ristau, Fred & Leonic 1,695.00 Res Imp Prgm: Mendoza, Jesus & Ya 1,420.00 5,690.00 94711 09/30/2004 008143 PETERS, MATT Reimb:'04 Urban Land Inst.Cf:9/12-14 233.51 233.51 94712 09/30/2004 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 613.16 613.16 94713 09/30/2004 000252 POLYCRAFT INC City Seal decals: Police 114.43 114.43 94714 09/30/2004 003697 PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTAN 7/12-8/8/04 Dsgn svcs: SR79S Median 2,612.00 2.612.00 94715 09/30/2004 007976 QUINANOLA, G. DELMAR Refund:Ex-Balboa Prk:DeVGary/Jake 42.00 42.00 Pages apChkLst 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94716 09/30/2004 002012 R D O EQUIPMENT COMPANY Back Hoe maint/repairs:PW Maint 2,995.04 2,995.04 94717 09/30/2004 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Various Water Meters 942.80 Sep 01-08-38009-0 Fire Stn 92 67.39 1,010.19 94718 09/30/2004 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Dup. blueprints: W.C.Sports Complex 1,090.64 Dup. blueprints: W.C.Sports Complex 32.97 Dup. blueprints: Pechanga Pkwy 30.49 1,154.00 94719 09/30/2004 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Old Town electrical supplies 256.01 Electrical Supplies: C. Museum 28.58 Credit: Items Returned -28.58 256.01 94720 09/30/2G04 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE Mosquitoes control:Citywide channels 3,500.00 3,500.00 94721 09/30/2004 007402 RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATE Aug dsgn secs: Maint Fac. Expan. 40,938.00 40,938.00 94722 09/30/2004 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & Jul 2004 legal services 153,290.13 153,290.13 94723 09/30/2004 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR Jul parking cite assessments 2,328.25 2,328.25 94724 09/30/2004 005334 RIVERSIDE CO FACILITIES Jun svcs: F.V. Pkwy/1-15 55.20 1 yr land lease: Interim Fire Stn 92 1.00 56.20 94725 09/30/2004 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP Fingerprint, Spec Tech:8/9:Jeryegan 51.00 51.00 94726 09/30/2004 001624 ROBERTS, GENIE Reimb:Bond Buyer Conf:9/12-14/04 98.26 98.26 94727 09/30/2004 005073 ROCKY ZHARP entertainment:Smr Nights:7/30 & 8/13 1,000.00 1,000.00 94728 09/30/2004 008128 RODERICK, MICHAEL Refund:Eng Deposit:Tr3883 Lot 98 995.00 995.00 94729 09/30/2004 000793 SCANTRON FPC CORPORATIO Annual maint:scanmark 2500 785.00 785.00 94730 09/30/2004 004562 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CDR Aug plan ck svcs:Fire Prevention 1,700.00 1,700.00 94731 09/30/2004 003492 SCHOLASTIC SPORTS Sponsor ads: NHS Sports 100.00 100.00 94732 09/30/2004 003492 SCHOLASTIC SPORTS Sponsor ads: CHS Sports 100.00 100.00 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 94733 09/30/2004 007342 SHUTE, MIHALY & W EINBERGE Aug legal services pmt 509.20 509.20 94734 09/30/2004 004814 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING I Aug dsgn svcs: Maint Str Bridge 13,440.12 13,440.12 94735 09/30/2004 000645 SMART & FINAL INC Teen Programs Supplies 89.88 89.88 94736 09/30/2004 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Sep 2-00-397-5042 City Hall 7,887.36 Sep 2-02-351-4946 MPSC 1,634.33 Sep 2-18-937-3152 T. Museum 1,133.11 Sep 2-00-397-5067 Various Mfrs 975.56 Sep 2-20-817-9929 P.D. O.T. Sin 386.55 Sep 2-11-007-0455 6th Street 269.30 Sep 2-21-911-7892 O.T. Prk Lot 153.78 Sep 2-19-171-8568 Wedding Chpl 83.27 Sep 2-21-981-4720 Hwy 79S 69.97 Sep 2-14-204-1615 Front Str. Radio 53.99 Sep 2-18-528-9980 Santiago Rd 44.51 12,691.73 94737 09/30/2004 007851 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR HVAC repairs: Fire Sin 84 146.42 146.42 94738 09/30/2004 008141 SOUTHWESTERN ASSN TECH mbrshp dues:Truscott/Nelson/Kurylow 195.00 195.00 94739 09/30/2004 005786 SPRINT 8/15-9/14/04 Cell Phone Svcs 5,997.71 phone for I.S. Dept 646.49 Credits taken on prev month's invoice 574.14 Sept Acct Level Chrgs 33.88 7,252.22 94740 09/30/2004 000293 STADIUM PIZZA refreshments:SMART Prgm:8/19 148.72 CIP budget update mtg:8/11:TCSD 116.63 refreshments:Citizen Corp tMmtg 918 88.54 billing correction of inv# 10196 14.23 inv# 2642 paid twice -33.10 inv# 2736 paid twice -58.66 inv# 3862 paid twice -91.03 185.33 94741 09/30/2004 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CL Carpet Cleaning: City Hall 2.200.00 Carpet Cleaning: Maint Fee 800.00 Janitorial Cleaning: City Hall 800.00 3,800.00 94742 09/30/2004 007670 STUDIO "C" TCSD Instructor Earnings 525.00 525.00 94743 09/30/2004 000305 TARGET STORE SMART Program Supplies 97.18 Aquatics Program Supplies 21.51 Aquatics Program Supplies 21.51 140.20 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 94744 09/30/2004 006465 TEMECULAAUTO REPAIR (Continued) Description Amount Paid Medic Squad vehicle maint/repair 84.07 Check Total 84.07 94745 09/30/2004 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. Copier repair/ Maint. & Usage chgs 95.00 95.00 94746 09/30/2004 005412 TEMECULA GARDEN & POWER Repair/maint small equip:PW Maint 25.73 25.73 94747 09/30/2004 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN MPSC Recogn Award 299.81 Recogn. Awards: Treadwell/Grant 205.03 High Hopes Prgm Recogn Award 182.10 Aquatics Prgm Recogn Awards 80.81 767.75 94748 09/30/2004 008043 TEMECULA VALLEY ETIQUET Refund:Sec.Deposit/Room Rental 1,345.00 1,345.00 94749 09/30/2004 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & SU Irrigation Supplies: Various Parks 273.56 273.56 94750 09/30/2004 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Storage cabinet locks: TCC 317.35 317.35 94751 09/30/2004 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED S Aug City vehicles fuel usage 978.44 978.44 94752 09/30/2004 006192 TRISTAFF GROUP Temp help w/e 08129 Long/ridwell 1,424.80 Temp help We 08/22 Long/Tidwell 1,331.20 Temp help We 09/05 LongTdwell 1,192.10 Temp help We 09/12 Long/Tidwell 977.60 4,925.70 94753 09/30/2004 008022 TRITON RISK MANAGEMENT Risk mgmnt consulting svcs 554.00 554.00 94754 09/30/2004 004124 TRUELINE Replace caulking @ S.P. hockey rink 1.045.50 1,045.50 94755 09/30/2004 004368 VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATES I Aug temp inspection svcs: Hernandez 16.464.00 16,464.00 94756 09/30/2004 004261 VERIZON Sep xxx-2016 general usage 104.53 Sep xxx-3526 fire alarm 84.65 Sep xxx-2676 general usage 28.22 217.40 94757 09/30/2004 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Internet svcs:xx0544 72.35 72.35 94758 09/30/2004 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Internet svcs:xx7411 72.35 72.35 94759 09/30/2004 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Internet svcs:xx9549 42.35 42.35 Page$ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 09/30/2004 11:06:19AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid 94760 09/30/2004 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC Aug 2004 TUMF Fees 6,650.00 94761 09/30/2004 002109 WHITECAP INDUSTRIES ING Misc supplies: PW Maint Div 55.54 94762 09/30/2004 006218 YOUNG, R.E. Refund:Sec. Deposit:09/16/04 100.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: heck Total 6,650.00 55.54 100.00 594,484.68 Page9 ITEM 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF F CITY MANAGER, CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2004 PREPARED BY: Karin Grance, Revenue Manager-0— Shannon Domenigoni, Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Reportas of August 31, 2004. DISCUSSION: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information.. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of August 31, 2004. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2004 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of August 31, 2004 Cash Activity for the Month of August: Cash and Investments as of August 1, 2004 Cash Receipts Cash Disbunteramts Cash and Investments as of August 31, 2004 Cash and Investments Portfolio: Maturity/ Purchase Termination Type of Investment Institution Yield Date Date Petty Casb City Hall n/a General Chucking Union Bank n/a Flex Benefit Demand Deposits Union Bank n/a Checking Account -Parking Citations Union Bank n/a Local Agency Investment Fund StateTreasurer-LAIF 1.672% Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank 1.885 % Federal Agency -Callable Federal Home Loan Bank 2,500% Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.000 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.000 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank 3.000 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.070 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.100 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.125 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.150 % Federal Agency -Callable Federal Home Loan Bank-BDS 3.520% Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.810 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank 2.250 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co 2.000 % Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co 3.000 % Certificate of Deposit - Retention Escrow Comcrunity National Bank n/a Bond Fund - CFD 88-12 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 (Money Market Account) Delinquency Maintenance Account -CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.430% (Investment Agreement) Delinquency Maintenance Account - CFD 88-12 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Reserve Fund - CFD 88-12 CDC Funding Corp 5.430 % (Investment Agreement) Reserve Account- CFD 88-12 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.910 % (Money Market Account) Improvetnent Fund - CFD 01-2 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Special Tax Fund -CFD 01-2 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890% (Money Market Account) Admin Expense Fund - CFD 01-2 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Variable Bond Fund - CFD 01-2 U.S. Bank (Fust Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Interest Differential Fund - CFD 01-2 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) City Improvement Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) City Improvement Fund -CFD 03-1 State Treasurer-LAIF L672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Cal Tons Improvement Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Cal Trans Improvement Fund -CFD 03-1 State Treasurer-LAIF 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Acquisition Account Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Markel Account) Acquisition Account Fund -CFD 03-1 State Treasurer-LAIF 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Special Tax Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Capital Interest Fund -CID 03-1 U.S. Bank (Furst Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Page 1 6262003 7/162003 4n2004 4222004 329I2004 4/152004 4/82004 4/162004 4/142004 4/30/2004 5/132004 6262003 6/62003 12/302003 1232006 8/142006 in2oo8 1222008 12282007 1/152008 1/82008 1/162008 1/142008 1/302008 2/132008 7242006 6/30/2006 3292007 9/12017 9/12017 $ 129,272,194 4,991,096 (5,114,525) $ 129,148,765 Market Par/Book Value Balance $ 1,500 775,966 (1) 5,365 (1) 4,931 58,068,911 (2) 993,750 1,000,000 1,993,760 2,000,000 2,902,913 2,965,000 1,984,380 2,000,000 3,972,520 4,000,000 1,989,760 2,000,000 3,036,671 3,050,000 995,940 1,000,000 996,560 1,000,000 2,003,760 2,000,000 1,003,750 1,000,000 993,130 1,000,000 990,540 1,000,000 991,270 996,000 272,176 1,132,319 500,000 596,355 1,531,469 16 3,542,100 827,160 761,609 2,756 131,405 170,195 1,230,603 1,116 1,006,643 1,329 1,287 764 433,770 44,745 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of August 31, 2004 Reserve Pond-CFD 03-1 Aig Match Fed Corp Ref 4.830 % (Investment Agroamem) Reserve Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (Fast Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) City Improvement Pond - CFD 03-3 U.S. Bank (Fast Ant Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) City Improvement Fund - CFD 03-3 State Treasurer-LAIF 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Pond) EMWD hnprovement Pond - CFD 03-3 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) EMWD Improvement Fund -CFD 03-3 StateTmasurer-LAIF 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Acquisition Account Fund- CFD 03-3 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.990 % (Money Market Account) Acquisition Account Fund -CFD 03-3 State Treasurer-LAIF 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Capital Interest Fund - CID 03-3 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Capital Interest Fund -CFD 03-3 State Treasurer -LAID 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Reserve Fund - CFD 03-3 Cdc Funding Corp 3.000 % (Investment Agreement) Reserve Fund - CFD 03-3 U.S. Bank (Fast Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Cost of Issuance Fund - CFD 03-3 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Improvement Fund - AD 03-04 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.990 % (Money Market Account) Redemption Fund - AD 03-04 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) ' Admin Expense Fund - AD 034 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Reserve Fund - AD 03-04 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0,890 % (Money Market Account) Project Account -RDA TABS U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890% (Money Market Account) Project Account -RDA TABS State Treasurer -LAID 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Interest Account - RDA TABS U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.880 % (Money Market Account) Reserve Account - RDATABs U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) n/a (Surety, Bond) Project Fund - TCSD COPS U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) Project Fund-TCSD COPS State Treasurer -LAID 1.672% (Local Agency Investment Fund) Installment Payment Fund - TCSD COPS U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 0.890 % (Money Market Account) (I) -This amount is net of outstanding checks. (2)-Al August 31, 2004 total market value (including seemed interest) for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LATE) was $50,732,136,879. The City's proponianate share of that value is $57,975,082. All investments are liquid and currently available. The City of Teraccula's portfolio is in compliance with the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. 863,900 23,871 517 7,429,683 2,952 3,642,112 9,950 9,950,878 1,423 837,279 2,171,120 11,563 90,078 323,537 65,017 30,054 99,906 593 3,437,258 64 9,522 2,806,184 101 $ 129,149,765 Page 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT AUGUST 2004 Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND 28,224,191.17 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 257,207.55 101 STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND 73,622.02 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 15,009,648.71 150 AB 2766 FUND 163,607.05 165 RDA DEV LOW/MOD 20% SET ASIDE 7,909,389.84 170 MEASURE A FUND 4,334,967.76 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 158,551.79 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 97,858.42 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 187,785.99 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSEIRECYCLING 113,571.68 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 29,703.69 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 20,374,297.14 261 CID 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 10,474.50 271 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,540,895.12 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,697,650.06 274 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER IMPROVEMENT FUND 481,071.00 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 21,036,091.88 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 8,322,186.14 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,411,630.70 310 VEHICLES FUND 71,642.74 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 697,146.97 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 209,642.01 340 FACILITIES 102,150.16 380 RDA 2002 TABS DEBT SERVICE 1,959,206.25 390 TCSD 2001 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 2,272.97 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,735,197.83 470 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,087,176.15 471 CFD 98-1 WINCHESTER HILLS DEB SERVICE 11,550.73 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,535,011.31 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 191,742.92 475 CID 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,111,622.64 GRAND TOTAL 129,148,764.89 ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER 41 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: First Amendment to Webb Associates Professional Services Agreement PREPARED BY: Polly von Richter, Senior Debt Analyst �j RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a First Amendment to Agreement between City of Temecula and Albert A. Webb Associates for CFD Annual Administration Services in an amount not to exceed $5,500.00 for a total contract amount of $53,500.00. BACKGROUND: On July 13, 2004, the City Council approved the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for annual administration of the City's Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) and Assessment Districts (ADs). Subsequently, in September 2004, CFD #03-06 (Harveston II) was finalized and bonds were issued. This amendment will allow Webb to provide administration services for this new CFD including calculation of special tax levy, public contact, delinquency management, and disclosure and reporting. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with this amendment will be funded by the Costs of Issuance fund established with bond proceeds. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment to Agreement R:Vlgendas�Staff Report - Shell.d FIN04-14 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ALBERT A WEBB & ASSOCIATES CFD ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 12, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Albert A Webb & Associates ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On June 21, 2004 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Professional Services, CFD Annual Administration and Sales Tax Reimbursement ("Agreement") in the amount of $48,000.00 B. The parties now desire to increase the payment for services in the amount of $5,500.00 for the Harveston II CFD 03-06 and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 Payment of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B for services described in Section B of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. The first amendment amount shall not exceed Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($5,500.00) for annual administration of the Harveston II CFD 03-06 for a total contract amount, of Fifty - Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($53,500.00). 3. Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment 'W' Consultants Proposal for Annual Administration for Harveston II CFD to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. P:/Finance/Contracts.04-05.M-Z. FI N04-14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: F-W Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Albert A. Webb & Associates 3788 Mc Cray Street Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: Leni Zarate Phone 909-781-6190 WN NAME: TITLE: F-W I Z r-A LTAI TITLE: (Two Signatures Required For Corporations) P:\Finance%Contracts.04-05.M-Z.FIN04-14 2 ATTACHMENT A Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the additional scope of work and associated cost for annual administration of the Harveston II CFD 03-06 as provided by the Consultant. P:\Finance\Contracts.04-05.M-Z.FIN04-14 3 A` LLL B EE -RRT RA. 1 EBB A S S O C I A T E S ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 3788 McCray Street, Riverside, CA 92506 Phone (951) 686-1070 Fax (951) 788-1256 www.webbusmiates.com September 15. 2004 CITY OF TEMECUL.A SEP 16 M Ms. Genie Roberts Director of Finance '�IAnICE pGpv,,�, fi,,; 10- City of Temecula Y.O. Box 9033 Tentzcuia, CA 92589 RE: Proposal for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Administration of Community Facilities District (CFD) 03-06 (Harveston II). Dear Ms. Roberts. Albert A. Webb Associates is pleased to submit this proposal to continue to provide ucbt service administration for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 for CFD 03-06 (Harveston II). Onr proposal is organized in two parts: • Scope of Services • Compensation SCOPE OF SERVICES S--r=ices to be L:evided with regard to annual administration services are: CALCU),A'fION AND LEVY SPECIAL TAX CONSULTANT will, in consultation with staff assigned to administer the Special District, determine the special tax requirement for the current fiscal year and apportion the special tax to each parcel. The calculation of the special tax "requirement will consist of tit. following: A. Parcel Information. CONSULTANT will maintain current Assessor's Maps for all Community Facilities District parcels and shall update annually, prior to enroliment of the current year's levy, any information necessary for use in calculating the special tax ii.e land use classifications. building permits). CONSULTANT shall also maintain a cnmFait-or database of development and land use information for all Community Facilities District parcels where development and land use inforation is necessan- for use in calculation of said special tax. CONSULTANT will calculate the maximum special tax for all parcels. CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL • WATER RESOURCES • ASSESSMENT / SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING SURVEYING • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION • TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION Ms: Genie Roberts September 15. 2004 Page 2 of 4 B. Debt Service. CONSULTANT will coordinate with staff or with the Fiscal Agent of the district as necessary to review updated or current debt service schedules and determine the amount needed to pay principal and interest on the outstanding bonds. C. Administrative Expense. CONSULTANT will determine with staff the amount needed to meet the anticipated administrative expenses for the Community Facilities District for the current fiscal year and prepare a summary of administrative costs. D. District Funds. CONSULTANT will determine with staff if the district fund flows impact the special tax requirement as a debit or credit. CONSULTANT shall provide an update of the Reserve Requirement and determine any surplus or shortfall, as required for the district and prepare a summary of fund balances to be included in the annual disclosure report. E. CONSULTANT will determine the proposed special tax levy based upon the debt service requirements, administrative expenses and current status of district funds and prepare a summary of the total levy for each special tax category for inclusion in the annual disclosure report. F. Submittal of Annual Levy. Each fiscal year CONSULTANT shall prepare the annual levy for each Community Facilities District in a format and media acceptable for direct submission to the Auditor -Controller's office prior to the statutory deadline and shall perform adjustments and corrections to the levies on the property tax rolls as necessary. CONSULTANT will provide staff with hard copy report of special taxes as calculated. If corrections/revisions after deadline are necessary, CONSULTANT will research, recalculate, and follow staff s direction to rectify the issue. II. PRIMARY CONTACT WITH PUBLIC. CONSULTANT is to serve as the initial and primary contact with the public regarding the levy of the special tax. A telephone number of the Consultant's designation will appear on the regular property tax billing next to the particular special tax to facilitate contact with the public. CONSULTANT is to provide information with regard to formation of the Community Facilities District, the facilities to be constructed, the number and maturities of bonds outstanding, the purpose and use of the bond proceeds issued for the District and the method of apportionment. III. DELINQUENCY MANAGEMENT A. Delinquency Policy. CONSULTANT will review and make recommendations to staff that any policies established related to the collection of delinquent special taxes are consistent with the foreclosure covenant and/or with the requirements of the bond issue for the district. \4:4,"W—SID\PROPOSALITemeculaQO03-2004\adminproposal Dated September 15, 2004.doc Ms. Genie Roberts September 15. 2004 Page 3 of 4 B. Delinquency Tracking and Reporting. CONSULTANT will research the records of the Riverside County Tax Collector for payment information to determine which parcels are delinquent after the December 10 and April 10 property tax installment due dates. Delinquency reports will include parcel lists showing the. APN, property owner and delinquent amount for each parcel. Reports will be prepared to reflect the delinquency status of parcels after each installment due date and will be posted on Albert A. Webb Associates website. C. Delinquency History. CONSULTANT will maintain a database that includes a regularly updated delinquency history of the parcels located in the district, as derived from the Riverside County property tax system. Delinquency history shall include delinquent amounts for each parcel including penalties and interest due, reference to those parcels that have been referred to Foreclosure Counsel, and prior year: delinquencies that have been paid D. Notification to Delinquent Property Owners. (Optional at City's direction) CONSULTANT will prepare and mail letters (on letterhead), via first-class mail to property owners at the times and in the format determined by the delinquency policy. Notice of Default letters will be sent to mortgage lenders or first trust deed holders if directed by staff. CONSULTANT will respond to public request regarding delinquent notices and shall prepare, as necessary, statements to the requesting party all amounts delinquent including penalties, interest, and roll removal fees. E. Removal from Roils. CONSULTANT will prepare correspondence to the Auditor - Controller's Office to remove any assessments from the roll for the purposes of delinquent special taxes and/or special taxes that have been paid directly to a particular district. F. Foreclosure Coordination. CONSULTANT will assist in preparing documents submitted to the City of Temecula requesting authorization of foreclosure action. This includes preparation and recordation of the Notice of Intent to Commence Foreclosure, preparation of Exhibits for the Resolution to commencing foreclosure, and coordination of the removal of the Special Taxes approved for foreclosure from the tax roll. CONSULTANT will provide delinquent amounts (including penalty and interest at the time the foreclosure is transferred) to Special Counsel. CONSULTANT will provide technical support or act as an expert witness, (optional at City's direction) on behalf of the City of Temecula and Special Counsel as required in the preparation and litigation of foreclosure cases. W. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING A. Community Facilities Districts. CONSULTANT will prepare the report to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission as required annually for bonds issued after January 1, 1993. M:W %N'—STD\PROPOSALiTemecula�2003.2004;adminproposal Dated September i 5, 2004.doc Ms. Genie Roberts September 15, 2004 Page 4 of 4 B. Enhanced Disclosure. CONSULTANT shall prepare the continuing disclosure report pursuant to the Fiscal Agent Agreement subsection Continuing Disclosure Agreement, C. Internet Dissemination. CONSULTANT shall post the continuing disclosure report on Albert A. Webb Associates' web site as well as delinquency information and updates. COMPENSATION Albert A. Webb Associates propose to be compensated a fixed fee of $5,500.00 for services performed for CFD 03-06 (Harveston II). The amounts include calculations necessary for the annual levy of special taxes, submittal to the' County of Riverside Auditor -Controller the annual special tax levy, assist the City in scheduling, preparing and delivering presentation for the annual disclosure report, preparation of the annual delinquency reports, assist the City in reviewing and analyzing legislation that may have an impact on the district, and researching questioned special taxes which may have an impact on the district's annual levy. For the services performed related to the projects which are not listed herein, compensation shall be at the hourly rates set forth on Attachment "A", together with reimbursement, at cost, for incidental expenses incurred in connection with such services, together with reimbursement for outside services at cost plus 15%. We have enjoyed working with the City in th relationship. If you have any questions regarding needed, please contact our office at (909) 248-4280. Sincerely yours, ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES 6 8 -"" - Lem Zarate Senior Special Tax Consultant Lbbs e past and look forward to continuing our our proposal, or if additional information is A4_\AA W_STD\PROPOSAL Temecula\2003-20041adminproposal Dated September I : 2004.doe FIN04-14 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ALBERT A WEBB & ASSOCIATES CFD ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 12, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Albert A Webb & Associates ("Consultant'). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On June 21, 2004 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Professional Services, CFD Annual Administration and Sales Tax Reimbursement ("Agreement') in the amount of $48,000.00 B. The parties now desire to increase the payment for services in the amount of $5,500.00 for the Harveston II CFD 03-06 and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 Payment of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B for services described in Section B of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. The first amendment amount shall not exceed Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($5,500.00) for annual administration of the Harveston II CFD 03-06 for a total contract amount, of Fifty - Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($53,500.00). 3. Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" Consultants Proposal for Annual Administration for Harveston 11 CFD to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. P:/Finance/Contracts.04-05.M-Z. FIN04-14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA M3 Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: ME Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: -53 Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Albert A. Webb & Associates 3788 Mc Cray Street Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: Leni Zarate Phone 909-781-6190 M NAME: TITLE: NAME: TITLE: (Two Signatures Required For Corporations) P:\Finance\Contracts.04-05.M-Z.FIN04-14 2 ATTACHMENT A Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the additional scope of work and associated cost for annual administration of the Harveston 11 CFD 03-06 as provided by the Consultant. P:\Finance\Contracts.04-05.M-Z.FIN04-14 3 A L 8 E R T A. WEBB A S S O C I A T E S ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 3788 McCray Stree4 Riverside, CA 92506 Phone (951) 686-1070 Fax (951) 788-1256 www.webbassociates.com September 15. 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA cro .s Ms. Genia Roberts VAA(CE DEPAo-R-, =_^' Director of Finance City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Tenlecuia, CA 92589 RE: Proposal for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Administration of Community Facilities District (CFD) 03-06 (Harveston II). Dear Ms. Roberts: Albert A. Webb Associates is pleased to submit this proposal to continue to provide .ecbt service administration for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 for CFD 03-06 (Harveston II). Olir proposal is organized in two parts: Scope of Services Compensation SCOPE OF SERVICES Sar. ices to be provided with regard to annual administration services are: CALCiII.ATION AND LEVY SPECIAL TAX CONSULTANT will; in consultation with staff assigned to administer the Special District, determine the special tax requirement for the current fiscal year and apportion the special tax to each parcel. The calculation of the special tax lequirement will consist of die following: A. Parcel Information. CONSULTANT will maintain current Assessor's Maps for all Community Facilities District parcels and shall update annually, prior to enrollment of the current year's levy. any information necessary for use in calculating the special tax ';.e land use classifications. building permits). CONSULTANT shall also maintain a computer database of development and land use information for all Community Facilities District parcels where development and land use information is necessal}- for use in calculation of said special tax. CONSULTANT will calculate the maximum. special tax for all parcels. CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL • WATER RESOURCES • ASSESSMENT / SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING SURVEYING • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION • TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION Ms. Genie Roberts September 15.2004 Page 2 of 4 B. Debt Service. CONSULTANT will coordinate with staff or with the Fiscal Agent of the district as necessary to review updated or current debt service schedules and determine the amount needed to pay principal and interest on the outstanding bonds. C. Administrative Expense. CONSULTANT will determine with staff the amount needed to meet the anticipated administrative expenses for the Community Facilities District for the current fiscal year and prepare a summary of administrative costs. D. District Funds. CONSULTANT will determine with staff if the district fund flows impact the special tax requirement as a debit or credit. CONSULTANT shall provide an update of the Reserve Requirement and determine any, surplus or shortfall, as required for the district and prepare a summary of fund balances to be included in the annual disclosure report. E. CONSULTANT will determine the proposed special tax levy based upon the debt service requirements, administrative expenses and current status of district funds and prepare a summary of the total levy for each special tax category for inclusion in the annual disclosure report. F. Submittal of Annual Levy. Each fiscal year CONSULTANT shall prepare the annual levy for each Community Facilities District in a format and media acceptable for direct submission to the Auditor -Controller's office prior to the statutory deadline and shall perform adjustments and corrections to the levies on the property tax rolls as necessary. .CONSULTANT will provide staff with hard copy report of special taxes as calculated. If corrections/revisions after deadline are necessary, CONSULTANT will research, recalculate, and follow staffs direction to rectify the issue. II. PRIMARY CONTACT WITH PUBLIC. CONSULTANT is to serve as the initial and primary contact with the public regarding the levy of the special tax. A telephone number of the Consultant's designation will appear on the regular property tax billing next to the particular special tax to facilitate contact with the public. CONSULTANT is to provide information with regard to formation of the Community Facilities District, the facilities to be constructed, the number and maturities of bonds outstanding, the purpose and use of the bond proceeds issued for the District and the method of apportionment. III. DELINQUENCY MANAGEMENT A. Delinquency Policy. CONSULTANT will review and make recommendations to staff that any policies established related to the collection of delinquent special taxes are consistent with the foreclosure covenant and/or with the requirements of the bond issue for the district. M:NAAW_SIDWROPOSAL\TemmulaQ003-2003`.udminpropmal Dated September 15, 2004_doc Ms. Genie Roberts September 15. 2004 Page 3 of 4 B. Delinquency Tracking and Reporting. CONSULTANT will research the records of the Riverside County Tax Collector for payment information to determine which parcels are delinquent after the December 10 and April 10 property tax installment due dates. Delinquency reports will include parcel lists showing the. APN, property owner and delinquent amount for each parcel. Reports will be prepared to reflect the delinquency status of parcels after each installment due date and will be posted on Albert A. Webb Associates website. C. Delinquency History. CONSULTANT will maintain a database that includes a regularly updated delinquency history of the parcels located in the district, as derived from the Riverside County property tax system. Delinquency history shall include delinquent amounts for each parcel including penalties and interest due, reference to those parcels that have been referred to Foreclosure Counsel, and prior year delinquencies that have been paid D. Notification to Delinquent Property Owners. (Optional at City's direction) CONSULTANT will prepare and mail letters (on letterhead), via first-class mail to property owners at the times and in the format determined by the delinquency policy. Notice of Default letters will be sent to mortgage lenders or first trust deed holders if directed by staff. CONSULTANT will respond to public request regarding delinquent notices and shall prepare, as necessary, statements to the requesting party all amounts delinquent including penalties, interest, and roll removal fees. E. Removal from Rolls. CONSULTANT will prepare correspondence to the Auditor - Controller's Office to remove any assessments from the roll for the purposes of delinquent special taxes and/or special taxes that have been paid directly to a particular district. F. Foreclosure Coordination. CONSULTANT will assist in preparing documents submitted to the City of Temecula requesting authorization of foreclosure action. This includes preparation and recordation of the Notice of Intent to Commence Foreclosure, preparation of Exhibits for the Resolution to commencing foreclosure, and coordination of the removal of the Special Taxes approved for foreclosure from the tax roll. CONSULTANT will provide delinquent amounts (including penalty and interest at the time the foreclosure is transferred) to Special Counsel. CONSULTANT will, provide technical support or act as an expert witness, (optional at City's direction) on behalf of the City of Temecula and Special Counsel as required in the preparation and litigation of foreclosure cases. IV. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING A. Community Facilities Districts. CONSULTANT will prepare the report to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission as required annually for bonds issued after January 1, 1993. M:SAAW_STU,PROPOSAL\Tmie IM2003-2004tadminproposal Dated September 15, 2004.dm Ms. Genie Roberts September 15.2004 Page 4 of 4 B. Enhanced Disclosure. CONSULTANT shall prepare the continuing disclosure report pursuant to the Fiscal Agent Agreement subsection Continuing Disclosure Agreement. C. Internet Dissemination. CONSULTANT shall post the continuing disclosure report on Albert A. Webb Associates' web site as well as delinquency information and updates. COMPENSATION Albert A. Webb Associates propose to be compensated a fixed fee of $5,500.00 for services performed for CFD 03-06 (Harveston II). The amounts include calculations necessary for the annual levy of special taxes, submittal to the County of Riverside Auditor -Controller the annual special tax levy, assist the City in scheduling, preparing and delivering presentation for the annual disclosure report, preparation of the annual delinquency reports, assist the City in reviewing and analyzing legislation that may have an impact on the district, and researching questioned special taxes which may have an impact on the district's annual levy. For the services performed related to the projects which are not listed herein, compensation shall be at the hourly rates set forth on Attachment "A", together with reimbursement, at cost, for incidental expenses incurred in connection with such services, together with reimbursement for outside services at cost plus 15%. We have enjoyed working with the City in th relationship. If you have any questions regarding needed, please contact our office at (909) 248-4280. Sincerely yours, ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES Leni Zarate Senior Special Tax Consultant tabs e past and look forward to continuing our our proposal, or if additional information is M:\AAW_STDNPROPOSAL1Temeculat2003-2004'adminpmposal Dazed September 15, 2004.do FIN04-14 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ALBERT A WEBB & ASSOCIATES CFD ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 12, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Albert A Webb & Associates ("Consultant'). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On June 21, 2004 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Professional Services, CFD Annual Administration and Sales Tax Reimbursement ("Agreement') in the amount of $48,000.00 B. The parties now desire to increase the payment for services in the amount of $5,500.00 for the Harveston II CFD 03-06 and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 Payment of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B for services described in Section B of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. The first amendment amount shall not exceed Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($5,500.00) for annual administration of the Harveston II CFD 03-06 for a total contract amount, of Fifty - Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($53,500.00). 3. Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" Consultants Proposal for Annual Administration for Harveston II CFD to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. P:/Finance/Contracts.04-05.M-Z. FIN04-14 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: -33 Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Albert A. Webb & Associates 3788 Mc Cray Street Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: Leni Zarate Phone 909-781-6190 NAME: TITLE: F3'A 1►T.1114 TITLE: (Two Signatures Required For Corporations) P:\Finance\Contracts.04-05.M-Z.FIN04-14 2 ATTACHMENT A Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the additional scope of work and associated cost for annual administration of the Harveston II CFD 03-06 as provided by the Consultant. P:\Finance\Contracts.04-05.M-Z.FIN04-14 A L 8 E R T A. WEBB A S S O C I A T E S S rGIR®W 1G CONSULTANTS 3788 McCray Str"e Riverside. CA 92506 Phone (951) 686-1070 Fu (951) 788-1256 www.webbassociates.eom September 15. 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA Ms. Genie Roberts Director of Finance 'VAnICE DEP�,+ City of Temecula Y.O. Box 9033 Temecuia, CA 92589 RE: Proposal for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Administration of Community Facilities District (CFD) 03-06 (Harveston II). Dear Ms. Roberts: Albert A. Webb Associates is pleased to submit this proposal to continue to provide . tcbt service administration for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 for CFD 03-06 (Harveston II). Om proposal is organized in two parts: Scope of Services Compensation SCOPE OF SERVICES S--r.-ices to be provided with regard to annual administration services are: CALCULATION AND LEVY SPECIAL TAX CONSULTANT will, in consultation with staff assigned to administer the Specia; District, determine the special tax requirement for the current fiscal year and apportion the special tax to each parcel. The calculation of the special tax requirement will consist of the following: A. Parcel Information. CONSULTANT will maintain current Assessor's Maps for all Community/ Facilities District parcels and shall update annually, prior to enrollment of the current year's levy, any information necessary for use in calculating the special tax 'i.e. land use classifications, building permits). CONSULTANT shall also maintain a cornputer database of development and land use information for all Community Facilities District parcels where development and land use information is necessan• for use in calculation of said special tax. CONSULTANT will calculate the maximum special tax for all parcels. ..c L" A CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL • WATBR RESOURCES • ASSESSMENT / SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING SURVEYING • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION • TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION Ms. Genie Roberts September 15, 2004 Page 2 of 4 B. Debt Service. CONSULTANT will coordinate with staff or with the Fiscal Agent of the district as necessary to review updated or current debt service schedules and determine the amount needed to pay principal and interest on the outstanding bonds. C. Administrative Expense. CONSULTANT will determine with staff the amount needed to meet the anticipated administrative expenses for the Community Facilities District for the current fiscal year and prepare a summary of administrative costs. D. District Funds. CONSULTANT will determine with staff if the district fund flows impact the special tax requirement as a debit or credit. CONSULTANT shall provide an update of the Reserve Requirement and determine any surplus or shortfall, as required for the district and prepare a summary of fund balances to be included in the annual disclosure report. E. CONSULTANT will determine the proposed special tax levy based upon the debt service requirements, administrative expenses and current status of district funds and prepare a summary of the total levy for each special tax category for inclusion in the annual disclosure report. F. Submittal of Annual Levy. Each fiscal year CONSULTANT shall prepare the annual levy for each Community Facilities District in a format and media acceptable for direct submission to the Auditor -Controller's office prior to the statutory deadline and shall perform adjustments and corrections to the levies on the property tax rolls as necessary. CONSULTANT will provide staff with hard copy report of special taxes as calculated. If corrections/revisions after deadline are necessary, CONSULTANT will research, recalculate, and follow staff s direction to rectify the issue. II. PRIMARY CONTACT WITH PUBLIC. CONSULTANT is to serve as the initial and primary contact with the public regarding the levy of the special tax. A telephone number of the Consultant's designation will appear on the regular property tax billing next to the particular special tax to facilitate contact with the public. CONSULTANT is to provide information with regard to formation of the Community Facilities District, the facilities to be constructed, the number and maturities of bonds outstanding, the purpose and use of the bond proceeds issued for the District and the method of apportionment. III. DELINQUENCY MANAGEMENT A. Delinquency Policy. CONSULTANT will review and make recommendations to staff that any policies established related to the collection of delinquent special taxes are consistent with the foreclosure covenant and/or with the requirements of the bond issue for the district. M:'AAW_SlD1PROPOSAL1Temeculat20034004`adminpropmal Dated September 15, 2004.doc Ms. Genie Roberts September 15. 2004 Page 3 of 4 B. Delinquency Tracking and Reporting. CONSULTANT will research the records of the Riverside County Tax Collector for payment information to determine which parcels are delinquent after the December 10 and April 10 property tax installment due dates. Delinquency reports will include parcel lists showing the. APN, property owner and delinquent amount for each parcel. Reports will be prepared to reflect the delinquency status of parcels after each installment due date and will be posted on Albert A. Webb Associates website. C. Delinquency History. CONSULTANT will maintain a database that includes a regularly updated delinquency history of the parcels located in the district, as derived from the Riverside County property tax system. Delinquency history shall include delinquent amounts for each parcel including penalties and interest due, reference to those parcels that have been referred to Foreclosure Counsel, and prior year, delinquencies that have been paid D. Notification to Delinquent Property Owners. (Optional at City's direction) CONSULTANT will prepare and mail letters (on letterhead), via first-class mail to property owners at the times and in the format determined by the delinquency policy. Notice of Default letters will be sent to mortgage lenders or first trust deed holders if directed by staff. CONSULTANT will respond to public request regarding delinquent notices and shall prepare, as necessary, statements to the requesting party all amounts delinquent including penalties, interest, and roll removal fees. E. Removal from Rolls. CONSULTANT will prepare correspondence to the Auditor - Controller's Office to remove any assessments from the roll for the purposes of delinquent special taxes and/or special taxes that have been paid directly to a particular district. F. Foreclosure Coordination. CONSULTANT will assist in preparing documents submitted to the City of Temecula requesting authorization of foreclosure action. This includes preparation and recordation of the Notice of Intent to Commence Foreclosure, preparation of Exhibits for the Resolution to commencing foreclosure, and coordination of the removal of the Special Taxes approved for foreclosure from the tax roll. CONSULTANT will provide delinquent amounts (including penalty and interest at the time the foreclosure is transferred) to Special Counsel.. CONSULTANT will. provide technical support or act as an expert witness, (optional at City's direction) on behalf of the City of Temecula and Special Counsel as required in the preparation and litigation of foreclosure cases. M DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING A. Community Facilities Districts. CONSULTANT will prepare the report to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission as required annually for bonds issued after January 1, 1993. M:1AP.W_STD',PROPOSALITemecuiat2003-29041adminproposal Dated September 15, 2004.doc Ms. Genie Roberts September 15. 2004 Page 4 of 4 B. Enhanced Disclosure. CONSULTANT shall prepare the continuing disclosure report pursuant to the Fiscal Agent Agreement subsection Continuing Disclosure Agreement. C. Internet Dissemination. CONSULTANT shall post the continuing disclosure report on Albert A. Webb Associates' web site as well as delinquency information and updates. COMPENSATION Albert A. Webb Associates propose to be compensated a fixed fee of $5,500.00 for services performed for CFD 03-06 (Harveston II). The amounts include calculations necessary for the annual levy of special taxes, submittal to the' County of Riverside Auditor -Controller the annual special tax levy, assist the City in scheduling, preparing and delivering presentation for the annual disclosure report, preparation of the annual delinquency reports, assist the City in reviewing and analyzing legislation that may have an impact on the district, and researching questioned special taxes which may have an impact on the district's annual levy. For the services performed related to the projects which are not listed herein, compensation shall be at the hourly rates set forth on Attachment "A", together with reimbursement, at cost, for incidental expenses incurred in connection with such services, together with reimbursement for outside services at cost plus 15%. We have enjoyed working with the City in the past and look forward to continuing our relationship. If you have any questions regarding our proposal, or if additional information is needed, please contact our office at (909) 248-4280. Sincerely yours, ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES Leni Zarate Senior Special Tax Consultant LZ/bs M:UAW_STD\PROPOSAL1Temecula\2003-20041adminpmposal Dated September 15, 2004.doe ITEM 6 UTOJ00-TOZIUM CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Ailliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Annual Purchase Agreement for Citywide Street Name Sign Replacement and Repairs for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 PREPARED BY: Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an annual agreement with Main Street Signs for the purchase of Citywide street name sign replacements and repairs in the amount of $50,000.00. BACKGROUND: Main Street Signs has been providing all City street name signs and repair hardware for 13 years. In obtaining price quotes from various vendors, Main Street Signs has consistently been the low bidder in providing the City's street name signs for installation, replacements and repair hardware. Now that the City has grown our needs for street name signs and repair hardware has increased resulting in cost exceeding $25,000.00. In order to remain consistent with the City's current street name sign stock, and to maintain the ability to provide signs and hardware within 24 to 48 hours from the vendor for sign installations and repairs we are requesting approval to enter into a contract with Main Street Signs for these services. During the FY05-06 budget process, the Public Works Department will be soliciting informal bids for the purchase of Citywide street name sign replacements and repairs. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Public Works, Maintenance Division Signs Account 001-164-601-5244 and the Public Works Traffic Division Signs Account 001-164-602-5244 for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. ATTACHMENTS: Contract Agreement 1 R:\AGENDA REPORTS\20041101204\Annual Sign Purchase Agrmt.DOCAnnual Sign Purchase Agrmt NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMODITY AGREEMENT PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION CITY STREET NAME SIGNS ANNUAL AGREEMENT FY04-05 CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of October 12, 2004, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation and Main Street Signs (Vendor). In consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Purchase of Goods. Vendor recognizes and agrees that this Agreement is for the purpose of establishing a contractual relationship between the City and the Vendor for the non-exclusive procurement of retail goods as specified on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The Vendor understands this Agreement is non-exclusive and the City reserves the right to purchase similar goods from other vendors. 2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on October 12, 2004 and shall terminate as of June 30, 2005. 3. Payment. The City agrees to pay the Vendor for merchandise ordered and received with an annual not to exceed amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($50,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement. Vendor will submit invoices monthly for actual merchandise ordered and received. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth day of each month for merchandise delivered and accepted. Payment will be made within thirty (30) business days following the receipt of invoice as to all non -disputed fees. The not to exceed purchase amount listed herein is an estimated expenditure and this Agreement does not guarantee Vendor this amount in purchases. 4. Representations and Warranties of Vendor. Vendor makes the following representations and warranties to City: a. Authority and Consents. Vendor has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. No approvals or consents of any persons are necessary in connection with Vendor's execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement, except for such as have been obtained on or prior to the date hereof. The execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by Vendor have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Vendor and constitute legal, valid, and binding obligations of Vendor, enforceable against Vendor in accordance with their respective terms. b. Title and Operating Condition. Vendor has good and marketable title to all of the merchandise. All of the merchandise are free and clear of any restrictions on or mortgages, liens, pledges, charges, encumbrances, equities, claims, covenants, conditions, and restrictions except for such as may be created or granted by City. All of the merchandise is in good condition, free of any defects, and are in conformity with the specifications, descriptions, representations and warranties set forth in the Vendor's catalog, website, retail store, quote or in the Contract Documents that may be attached hereto or incorporated herein. C. Full Disclosure. None of the representations and warranties made by Vendor in this Agreement contain or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 5. Time and Place of Delivery. The date and time of delivery of the merchandise shall be stated at time of order. The merchandise shall be delivered to the City location as stated on the purchase order or at time of merchandise order. 1 r.\Maintain\WodcordersNGontract Mastor\2004-2005\Main Street Signs 6. Risk of Loss. Risk of loss, damage and destruction of the merchandise shall remain with the Vendor until after inspection and acceptance of the merchandise by City. 7. Inspection and Acceptance. City shall inspect the merchandise at the time and place of delivery. Such inspection may include reasonable review by City. If in the determination of the City, the merchandise fails to conform to the Agreement IN ANY MANNER OR RESPECT, City shall so notify Vendor within ten (10) days of delivery of the merchandise to City. Failing such notice, the merchandise shall be deemed accepted by City as of the date of receipt. 8. Rejection. In the event of such notice of non -conformity by City pursuant to Section 7, City may, at its option (1) reject whole of the merchandise, (2) accept the whole of the merchandise, or (3) accept any commercial unit or units/portions of the merchandise and reject the remainder. The exercise of any of the above options shall be "without prejudice" and will full reservation of any rights and remedies of City attendant upon breach. In the event of such notice and election by City, the City agrees to comply with all reasonable instructions of Vendor and, in the event that expenses are incurred by City in following such instructions Vendor shall indemnify in full for such expenses. 9. No Replacement of Cure. This Agreement calls for strict compliance. Vendor expressly agrees that both the merchandise tendered and the tender itself will conform fully to the terms and conditions of the Agreement on the original tender. In the event of rejection by City of the whole of the merchandise or any part thereof pursuant to Section 8, City may, but is not required to, accept any substitute performance from Vendor or engage in subsequent efforts to effect a cure of the original tender by Vendor. 10. Non -Assignability. The Vendor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 11. Independent Contractor. The Vendor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the Work under this Agreement on behalf of the ContractorNendor shall at all times be under Contractor'sNendor's exclusive direction and control. 12. Legal Responsibilities. The Vendor shall keep itself informed of all local, State, and Federal ordinances, laws, regulations, and procedures which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. Vendor shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws, regulations and procedures. The City, and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Vendor to comply with this section. 13. Indemnification. The Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of negligent or wrongful acts o r omissions a rising out of o r i n a ny way related to the p erformance o r non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 14. Termination or Suspension. This Agreement may be terminated or suspended at any time, for any reason, with or without cause at the sole and exclusive discretion of the City Manager, without default or breach of this Agreement by the City. 15. Survival of Representations and Warranties. All representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties contained in this Agreement shall survive the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement. 16. Remedies. The remedies and rights conferred on the City by this Agreement are in addition to and cumulative of all other remedies and rights accorded the City under law or equity. 2 r:\Maintain\Workorders\Contract Maslor\2004-200SMain Street Signs 17. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by any court of final jurisdiction, it is the intent of the parties that all other provisions of this Agreement be construed to remain fully valid, enforceable, and binding on the parties 18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are executed and performed entirely in California. 19. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties regarding the commodities purchased by this Agreement. Any modification or amendment of this Agreement shall not be effective unless in writing and assigned by the parties to this Agreement. 3 rAMaintain\WorkorderslContract Mastorl2004-20051Main Street Signs IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Vendor: Main Street Signs 1211 W. Brooks St., #A Ontario, CA 91762 Phone: (909) 391-0988 FAX: (909) 391-0249 Chuck Atha, Owner 4 r:\Maintain\Workorders\Contract Mastor\2004-2005\Main Street Signs Exhibit A Description and Price List of Merchandise 5 r:Vvtaintain\Workorders\Contract Mastor\2004-2005\Main Street Signs 09/27/04 11:SSa P. 001 Estimate MAIN STREET 1211 W. BROOKS DATE ST. STE. A ONTARIO, CA 91762 eE2rE2ooa ' SIGNS 909-391-0988 FAX 909-391.0249 I NAMEIADDRESS Ii +CITY OF TEMECULA - �A`('N:.ACCFSPAYARL.E BRAD BORON PO BOX 9013 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9033 _ I i 1 _ TERMS 1 Net 30 SIGN I DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT i TOTAL RI jSEOPSIGN 30" HIw/l160 1: 32.00 32.00Ti W I7 'STOP AHEAD SYMBOL 36" - 1! 28.00 28.0OT' R26 NO PARKING ANY TIMI: 12X 18 I I 3.75 5.75T �W31 (.ND 30" ' 1 24.00 24.001-1 RII DO NOTENTER 30" I 24,00 ! 24.00I11 W 55 FLOODED 30" 1 ' 24.00 24.00'1' W5 'CURV6(ARROW) 36" 1i 28.00 28.00'Ei G93 BIKEROUTF, 24X18 1. 12.00 12.00 1- SPCC ESPECIAL SIGNS (PER ES"F(MATC ONI.Y) 11 0.00 � 0.001'1 W54 f PED XING W/CROSSWAL.K UNRS SYMBOL 30" 1 24.00 1 24.00"f W2 ' REVERSE TARN (I;FOR R7) 36" I 28.00 28.00'I' W6 MPH 24" i 1 16.00 16.00'F W57 SINGLE-. HEAD ARROW SYMBOL LT OR R'F 36X18 : 11 18.00 1 18.00T R7 . KEEP RIGIIT SYMBOL 24X30 I I 20,00 ' 20.00'L R16 'NORIGHI-IURNSYMBOL 24" I' 16.00 16.001' RI7 I NO LEFT TURN SYMBOL. 24" I I 16.00 16.001 1135 1 TRUCK ROUTE 24X24 I i 16,00 16.00T CIB i ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD 36" 1; 28.00 28.00T I I C5 DETOUR W/ARROW 36X 12 1 j 12.00 1 12.00"F i ? R2 i I SPEED LIMIT (25) 2030 I 20,00 2U.00I i i i I TOTAL i I j i ALL QIIOFES GOOD FOR 30 DAYS. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MAIN S'F. SIGNS FOR ALL YOUR SIGN NEEDSI YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL US AT REC,ENVED 4muinst2(ygro.uct SEP 2 71804 CITY OF ITEM 7 APPROVAL CITYATTORNEY DIRECTOROFFIN C CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: ��VVWW A_j�j\William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Completion and Acceptance of the SR-79S Sidewalk Improvement Project Project No. PW01-02 PREPARED BYAmerAttar, Principal Engineer Avlin R. Odviar, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Accept the construction of the SR-79S Sidewalk Improvement, Project No. PW01-02, as complete and; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond and accept a one year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; and; Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2004, the City Council awarded a construction contract for Project No. PW01-02, State Route 79 South Sidewalk Improvement, to C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc. of Corona, California in the amount of $152,825.00. Under this project, concrete sidewalk was installed along the north side of SR-79S between the 1-15 southbound off -ramp and La Paz Street, and on the south side between Bedford Court and Pechanga Parkway. As part of this project, roadside signs were relocated, a curb ramp adjacent to the 1-15 northbound on -ramp was replaced, and a pressure release facility owned by Rancho California Water District was removed. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, and all work will have a warranty for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the City. The final contract amount including all contract change orders is $147,327.59. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: The SR-79S Sidewalk Improvement, Project No. PW01-02 is funded by Assembly Bills 2766 and 2928, and Assessment District 159. The base amount of the contract was $152,825.00. Two contract change orders were issued for a total of $12,402.50, and the total quantity for bid item 9 was not needed, which corresponds to a reduction of $17,899.91. The final contract amount is $147,327.59. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-165-734-5804 to cover the final contract amount. R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2004\101204\PW01-02 ACCEPTANCE.DOC ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2004\101204\PWO1-02 ACCEPTANCE.DOC RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. Nature of Interest Vendee Under Contract. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to C S Legacy Construction, Inc., 381 Jenks Drive, Corona, CA 92880 to perform the following work of improvement: STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE PROJECT NO. PW01-02 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on October 12, 2004. That upon said contract the Arch insurance Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE PROJECT NO. PW01-02 6. The location of said property is: State Highway 79 South, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this 121h day of October, 2004 City of Temecula Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1 ss CITY OF TEMECULA 1 I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 121 day of October, 2004. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk RAC1RProlec%s M0"2\Comp1etion Note 13ad Nnisr: sU 5009020 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' MAINTENANCE BOND FOR PROJECT NO. PW01-02 STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: C.S. Legacy Oistr iadcri, Inc., 381 Jenks Dr., Om m3, CA 92B80 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S a (xxpaaticn hereinafter called Principal, and poi in wNraar a covV 0A Pa,6 f0* orkX%d,sa Archinsm-rcp 03%)a ry, 135 N. Lrs Pules, Suite 825, Palma, CA 91101 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY herehafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, the penal sum of o,e F1rdred Fifty'1`40 Tv'53 d a`t DOLLARS and (_ - ) in lawful money of the United Sta (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, severally, firmly by these presents. unto CITY OF TEMECULA and the HrrhecT�ty FFi_rc maid bd/10U NER in tes, said sum being not less than ten of Temecula under the terms of the successors, and assigns, jointly and THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the City of Temecula. dated the 6th day of Ju1v 2DO4, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW01-02, STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of one (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was the final estimate approved on .2004. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the final estimate on said job pursuant to the Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship In the execution of said work, and the carrying out of the terns of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were fumished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified, costs and reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorney's fees Incurred by tam a.+urweo�crsrrw,wvromazswnsaum�ws"aro,� saecaeoc the City of Temecula and the California Department of Transportation in successfully enforcing this obligation. all to be taxed as costs and Included In any judgment rendered. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, exhuWon of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the ConIrad, or to the work to be perforated thereunder, or to the spedfications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect RS obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change. extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the work, or to the Specifications. Signed and sealed tltis 7th day of sKtetber 2004• (Seal) (tore) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Matson. City Attorney M-7137T.-M. (Name) MB&2 N MFIDJECI M1WMI- Q SfieSaurt MNtai gyp° ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of On q•ri-o4 personally appeared 'A personally known to me I SS. before me, ZL'4uj M e l�ov� .. IVU�aS �f �u l01t t —` I ( OTARY) •' NANCY J. hTMN Comm. q 1467963 N NOTARY PUBM-CALIFORNIA N San Be(nadno County My Comm. Expires Feb.3,2008 -' ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r►Cai (J. wajr)-� Y'S SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl- edgment to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER ❑ PARTNER(S) 9j ATTORNEY -IN -FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: UIY-�eAO0IC xP yOJt TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT OTHER SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER APA 5/99 VALLEY -SIERRA, 800-362-3369 ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California } SS. l County of Riverside J On "I -"I - 0 q before me, Nancy J. Mellon, Notary Public (DATE) (NOTARY) personally appeared Gregg Strumpf SIGNER(S) ® personally known to me OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. �NANCY J. MELLON Norge mm' # 1467963 PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA VI San Bernardino County WITNESS my hand and official seal. my Comm Expires Fe8.3, 2008 r MJ11— OTARY'S SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl- edgment to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) ❑ INDIVIDUAL © CORPORATE OFFICER TIME(S) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT �C,.t h tey�UVl�2 �ov� TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER OTHER E 'o APA 5r99 1 VALLEY -SIERRA, 800-362-3369 POWER OF ATTORNEY Know At Men By These Press: That tie Arch Insurance Company. a corporation mganoed and w r under Me laws or the State of Missour% thavemg its primdpab ollice;n Kansas Cty, Mssari (homer referred to as the 'Com Mr/) does hereby appahrt KWO P. Reed of Santa Arm, CA as true and lawfd Attomey(s)-tr Fad. to make, execute, seal, and derrors Stan the date of IsstKE100, of this power far and an its behalf as surety. and as its ad and deed: EXCEPTION: NO AUTHORITY is granted to make. Wmeute, seat and dtfiver bonds or nude wkwigs Rot guarantee the payment or collection of any promissory note, dmck, draft or latter of o reM This authority does not permit the saute obbgatom to be split Into two or more bonds in order to bring each such bond water the dour Omit of autivx" as set forth herein. The Company may revue this appointment at any Rme- The a meortion of such binds and undab inphrsa� of these preseFhts shall be as:bindehg upon the said Company as Arty and empty m all Intents and Purposes. as C tie same fie been m4ity executed a nd adanawle�ted try uequiarly elected officers at its principal office in Kansas Cry, M-hssorxL This Power of Attorney is executed by atftwrity of rsdufiorls adopted by rnarhhnots mumIt of the Board of Directors of The Company on March 3, 2003, true and s=Sate cop[" of which are hereinafter set forth and am thereby ex tMW to by due huxlerskned Secretaryas bemhg'ar tut force and effect -VOTED. That this Ctuarnharh of the Board, the Part. or am vice Prasiderd. or their appaatle4MS desk in hwritiro and toed with the SeaeFary, or the Secretary slot have the P� and authonly to appdnt ash and and to authorize them to a mcuie on bdo f of the Camp Nly. and attach the saes of the Company flhereto. bonds a� wderrata� rerx>grfmhces, eouhdds of emde+rhruTY and dtnec wri6t9s Y m the rhedhue tlhereat and any such effrcers of the Company may appointagents for aoceptarmce Of This Power of Attorney is signed, sealed and certified by tie under and by ahutmrdy of the fatowctg rewbbon adopted by the unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of the Company on March 3. 2003- VOTED. That the sisnabae of the C3haaman of the Board. the Pte!iideM or arty Vince PresjderC or tlea appoefears des�gnglad in writing and fiW watt the SecrelarY. and the of the Secefaq: the seed of the Comparh}. We certgimbons by the Secretary. may be by tacsimile, on any power of atomay or bond 00=AW parcoarht to the resolution adopt by the Bid of D"aectors on Made 3. 2003, and cry such P'so "Guled, sealed and ostiffed wim respect W any bond or umlrrtaimtg to mk idh it is attached. shall oorralue m be valid and bindng q= Me Cwg=W 00MLD013 00 03 03 Printed in US-6- Paige 4 of 2 tpow lnTediaa7t6mCaatpm0tbasi�u�1a daafotta,9as?syLd�� naa _�`� 1W.Sm0, �� a 1�:s1ary �® ��aa� as �P ► as % as Peril >ta mE, go69 na sama t n � and wage tomor to ors of � appeasd 6daa mo ais d�1 � PaaOtt asd sue/ aak ate t seat�d>ast 1� ttt 9�i otd d'eCt� stascid itsfn� oaPagam and as 80W =M gee a M sdmdmY tram totals asEs ab! pupasm I • wgar➢i1RMmB'%� so�r�oomrs� alarm sq as'i ilm yplafa:_7th - dogof 'Rai Pawn of AUWAW HMO ormax- Kamm CRY. MD eats of arose meted?vT*- t b ate lads ad Deal tabe atibw d by at* tonmt akft of IAWXOUA sobsc$md W eta Bid"BW beft Ommu da t* as to ties mid M>kueuy art of alfd bsalarb_ asayaoRan aaidod PbssWaf § a boa apdamea =VT mtd a" sake[ma sa mofsoaettscoK iw...wasVimFtrJsm aotpamiasasscf taFadt hwxamm ommimiscoosOs page202 I Fri�dmifSJl. CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PWOI-02 STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE This is to certify that C.S. Legacy ConstrucV*Peinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTORSs agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW01-02, STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: State Route 79 South Sidewalk Projdct INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code §7100, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. C.S. LegacyConstruction, Inc. President Print RELEASE R-1 R:\CIPTROJECTS�PW01TW01-02 SR79South\Specs1PW01-02_Specs.doc ITEM 8 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: awilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Solicitation of Construction Bids Traffic Signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive Project No. PW99-11TS r PREPARED BY• /,KAmer Attar, Principal Engineer S�W%3 Steven W. Beswick, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW99-11TS, Traffic Signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department will construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Pechanga Parkway and Murifield Drive. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan recommends the installation of a traffic signal at Muirfield Drive. The traffic signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive will be constructed to accommodate the current traffic configuration (Two northbound and southbound lanes and a single left turn lane for Muirfield Drive). When the Pechanga Parkway Phase Il Street Improvements (Project No. PW99- 11) are constructed next year, the traffic signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive will be modified to align with the urban arterial highway (6 — lanes) design condition. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $130,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase II project is a Capital Improvement Program project funded through DIF — Street Improvements, Pechanga Indian Tribe Reimbursement, Public Land and Highways Grant, and the Wolf Creek Community Facilities District. Adequate funds are available in the Account No. 210-165-668-5804. ATTACHMENT: 1. Project Location 2. Project Description R9AGENDA REP0RTS\2004\101204\PW99-11TS BM DOC d V d L a z� FM c� w O O O\ O O O O T m O O O oo O G O N (-� N '7 �D rD y a h W N v� vi sv ug va us vi va 0 0 N O O O O O. O VI O O O 00 N M N O C m O O'O 00 l� o N O O r o �O O oo O oo <+t O N ON .� N V' oo �O r• O V Eq�� � 619�I� ono M h N O b d v�i. Q rMn O N M N Q Vi Vi 4Y 69 Vi Vf Ft 0 V A o A � .� F p p a � N+ o VN1 o -�•� o0io Ci 7 Itl- O .-� t N IT It N V Vi V V V V 1 V 0 N aVA4' _ p F a u �o 3 b�x r U a N A 5 A O O U 3 Y ❑ qq rn O pp gn:a4¢�aUE� ITEM 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FII CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULI AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim Domenoe, Chief of Police DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Expenditure of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Funds PREPARED BY: Ashley Jones, Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council; 1) Increase Reimbursement Revenue to the General Fund by $16,568; 2) Approve an additional appropriation of $16,568 to the Police Department Budget; 3) Approve the expenditure of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds and local match funds in the amount of $18,409 for the purchase of police equipment. BACKGROUND: The Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) provides funding to units of local government to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. These funds must be spent according to specific program purposes which include increasing personnel and equipment to support law enforcement and establishing various crime prevention programs. The funds are being tracked and interest is being allocated based on the unspent money in accordance with the grant guidelines. For fiscal year 2004/2005, the City of Temecula has been awarded a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant totaling $16,568. The City is required to provide matching funds in the amount of $1,841 for a total of $18,409. The Police Department has identified the following equipment that will be purchased with these grant funds and used in accordance with the Department of Justice's grant parameters: • Sony Digital Cameras • Ballistic Raid Vest Cover • Steiner Binoculars • CopWare Software • PUMA Digital Voice Recorders • HP Fax Machine • HP Laptop & Desktop Computers • HP Computer Monitor • HP Photo Printer FISCAL IMPACT: This action will require an additional appropriation of $16,568 to the Police Department Budget. In addition, Reimbursement Revenue to the General Fund should be increased by $16,568. R:\ASHLEYS\Staff Reports\Staff Repo" - LLERG 04-05 Funds OOC ITEM 10 ORDINANCE NO. 04-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0477) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; WHEREAS, the continuing economic development in the Temecula Valley has created an increased demand for office buildings to house desirable and beneficial businesses and the real estate community has identified a present shortage of necessary and desirable professional office buildings; WHEREAS, the City's currently adopted LI zone development standards restrict the size and type of office buildings that may be developed within the zoning district. However the lands with this zoning designation are of a type and nature that would accommodate the type of development deemed necessary and desirable; WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 2004 to consider the proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Table 17.08.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code for "Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft." and "Offices, professional services less than 50,000 sq. ft., including but not limited to business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance" to read as follows: Descrlptlon of Use _m _ _.r Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters s C C C P ps P5 Offices, professional services including, but not limited to, business law, P P P P P P5 PS medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance 6 RJOrds 2004/Ords 04-10 Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17.08.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code to add Footnote Nos. 5 and 6 to read as follows: "5. New office buildings in the BP and LI Zones are subject to Performance Standards contained in Section 17.08.070. E. 6. Supplemental Design Review. Office buildings that are less than 50,000 square feet may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the City Council." Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Section 17.08.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding Subsection "E" to read as follows: "E. Additional Performance Standards for Office Buildings in the Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Zones. In order to encourage desirable characteristics of these zones, multiple free standing office buildings must be designed to be compatible with the surrounding scale. Performance standards to achieve this include but are not limited to the following: Larger single and multi -tenant office buildings are preferred. 2. If multiple freestanding office buildings on a single site are proposed, they should be clustered around a courtyard or common area sufficient to retain a pedestrian scale and to prevent long "barrack -like" rows of buildings. 3. The site should be designed with features that reinforce the visual and spatial relationship of each building and courtyard area, such as the use of decorative paving, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities that complement the architectural design of the buildings. 4. The landscaping and pedestrian scaled elements of the courtyard and building entrance areas, such as awnings or trellises, should be integrated into the elevation and the passageways should be safely lit." Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Environmental Compliance. The City Council hereby finds that this amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements that have no potential to individually or cumulatively to impact the environment beyond that which currently exists. As a result, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 6. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. R:/Ords 2004/Ords 04-10 Section 8. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12`h day of October, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-10 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28'h day of Septemver, 2004 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2004/Orris 04-10 ITEM 11 ORDINANCE NO. 04-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE HELIPORTS IN VARIOUS ZONES AND TO MAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0297) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2004, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Municipal Code; WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2004 to consider the proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17.08.030 to add the following uses: 'Description of'Use fNC ACC HT` SCPOBP pLl` n ; Private Heliport' - C C~ C Private Heliport for Hospital C C C C C C Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Chapter 17.10 adding Subsection P to read as follows: "P: Private Heliports 1. Conditional Use Permit Required. A Conditional Use Permit approved by the planning commission shall be required for all private heliports. All conditional use permits for heliports shall comply with the requirements of Section 17.04.010. 2. Siting and Design Criteria. All private heliports shall comply with the following requirements: RJOrds 200410rds 04-11 a. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measured from structure to structure) of an existing or designated public or private primary, secondary or high school. b. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured property line to property line). C. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measured structure to structure) of an existing or future assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associated with hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement. d. The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance shall it be located within ten (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one -hundred (100) foot setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially zoned properties. e. Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of the rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free. f. The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter. g. Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from adjacent residences. 3. Requirements for Rooftop Heliports. Rooftop heliport facilities shall also comply with the following standards. a. No roof openings shall be permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of the Touchdown Liftoff Area. b. Rooftop exits shall not be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the Touchdown Liftoff Area. C. Rooftop heliport facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City Building and Fire Code requirements in addition to applicable State and Federal heliport design standards and regulations. 4. Required Finding: A Conditional Use Permit may be approved only if the following finding is made: a. The heliport is in compliance with the requirements described in Subsections 2 and 3. 5. Operational Requirements. a. Hours of flight operation shall be determined on a project specific basis. b. The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall remain free of free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter. 6. Enforcement Review. Upon receiving a public complaint regarding heliport operations, a biennial monitoring report shall be submitted by the applicant. The monitoring report shall be submitted within forty-five days from the date the complaint was submitted. The R:/0rds 2004/Ords 04-11 2 report shall include data on the types of helicopters using the facility, hours of operation, performance standards, number of monthly flights and any other necessary data. All enforcement reports shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. The modification or revocation of the conditional use permit shall comply with the provisions of Section 17.04.010.1. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Section 17.34.010 by adding the following definitions: "Helicopter" means a rotary wing aircraft which depends for its support and motion in the air principally upon the lift generated by one or more power -driven rotors that rotate on a substantially vertical access. "Private Heliport" means a landing area used to take off or land private helicopters for the purpose of picking up and discharging passengers, cargo or medical emergency passengers and do not include fueling or service facilities. The use of the heliport shall be accessory and incidental to the primary use of the property. Private heliports do not include facilities for regularly scheduled commercial operations such as commuter passenger service. "Private Heliport for Hospital" means a landing are used to take off or land helicopters for the purpose of picking up and discharging general, acute care and emergency care passengers. The use of the heliport shall be accessory and incidental to an existing hospital facility. "Touchdown Liftoff Area (TLOF)" means the area of the heliport where the helicopter lands on and takes off from." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this le day of October, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] RJOrds 2004/0rds 04-11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) 1, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-11 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28t' day of September, 2004, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12'" day of October, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RJOrds 2004/Ords 04-11 ITEM 12 ORDINANCE NO. 04-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1.24 — COMMUNITY STANDARDS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 1 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended, by the addition of a new Chapter 1.24, which shall read, in words and figures, as set forth on Attachment 1 hereto. Section 2. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 121h day of October, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2004/Ords 04-12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-12 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of September, 2004, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12`h day of October, 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RJOrds 2004/0rds 04-12 ATTACHMENT Community Standards Preservation Ordinance 1.24.010 Scope: Chapter 1.24 Title 1 governs the administrative assessment of civil penalties for violations of the Temecula Municipal Code ("TMU) and applicable state codes so as to ensure the City's community standards are preserved for the beneficial enjoyment of all citizens. 1.24.020 Purpose and Intent a) The Council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcement of the Temecula Municipal Code and applicable state codes. The Council further finds that the assessment of civil penalties through an administrative hearing procedure for code violations is a necessary additional method of code enforcement which will augment the City's existing code enforcement remedies. b) The administrative assessment of civil penalties established in this Chapter is in addition to any other administrative or judicial remedy established by law which may be pursued to address violations of the municipal code or applicable state codes. 1.24.030 Authority a) Any person violating any provision of the municipal code or applicable state code may be subject to the assessment of civil penalties pursuant to the administrative procedures provided in this Chapter. b) Each and every day a violation of any provision of the municipal code or applicable state code exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation for which remedy shall be sought by the City. c) Civil penalties may be directly assessed by means of a Notice and Order issued by the City Manager or his designee. Civil Penalties may be recovered by assessment of a Code Enforcement Lien pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.16.080 and related sections. d) Civil penalties for violations of any provision of the municipal code or applicable state codes shall be assessed at a daily rate determined by the "City Manager" or his designee or Enforcement Hearing Officer pursuant to the criteria listed in Section 1.24.050 of this Chapter. The maximum rate shall be $2,500 per violation. The maximum amount of civil penalties shall not exceed $100,000 annually per parcel or structure for any series of violations. e) The City has the authority to record a lien against the owner's property for failure to pay the civil penalties levied against the premises. R:/0rds 2004/Ords 04-12 1.24.040 Procedures -Notice and Order a) Whenever the City Manager or designee determines that a violation of one or more provisions of the municipal code or applicable state code has occurred or continues to exist, a written civil penalties Notice and Order may be issued to the Responsible Person. b) The Notice and Order shall refer to all code sections violated and describe, in reasonable detail, how each section is being violated. c) The Notice and Order shall refer to the dates and locations of the violations. d) The Notice and Order shall describe all remedial action required to permanently correct outstanding violations and establish time frames for completion. e) The Notice and Order shall establish a daily amount of civil penalties. The City Manager or designee shall determine the daily amount of civil penalties pursuant to the criteria in this Chapter. f) The Notice and Order shall identify a date when the civil penalties began to accrue and a date when the assessment of civil penalties ended, unless the violation is continuous. In the case of a continuous violation, there shall be an ongoing assessment of penalties at the daily rate established in the Notice and Order until the violations are corrected. g) If the City Manager or designee determines that the violations are continuing, the Notice and Order shall demand that the Responsible Person cease and desist from further action causing the violations and commence and complete all action to correct the outstanding violations under the guidance of the appropriate City Departments. h) The Notice and Order shall enumerate any other consequences should the Responsible Person fail to comply with the terms and deadlines as prescribed in the Notice and Order. i) the Notice and Order shall identify appropriate hearing procedures as required by Section 1.21 of the Temecula Municipal Code. j) The Notice and Order shall be served upon the responsible Person by any one of the methods of service listed in Section 1.21 of the Temecula Municipal Code. k) The Notice and Order shall identify the factors used by the City Manager or designee in determining the duration and the daily amount of civil penalties. 1) More than one Notice and Order may be issued against the same Responsible Person if it encompasses either or both different dates, different violations, or different parties responsible for the violation. 1.24.050 Determination of Civil Penalties a) In determining the date when civil penalties started to accrue, the City Manager or designee may consider the date when the City first discovered the violations as evidenced by the issuance of a Notice of Violation or any other written correspondence. R:/Ords 2004/0rds 04-12 b) The assessment of civil penalties shall end when all action required by the Notice and Order has been completed. c) In determining the amount of the civil penalty to be assessed on a daily rate, the City Manager or designee may consider some or all of the following factors: 1) The duration of the violation. 2) The frequency or recurrence of the violation. 3) The seriousness of the violation. 4) The history of the violation. 5) The Responsible Person's conduct after issuance of the Notice and Order. 6) The reasonable and good faith effort by the Responsible Person to comply. 7) The economic impact of the penalty on the Responsible Person. 8) The impact of the violation upon the community. 9) Any other factors that justice may require. d) The City Manager has the authority to establish a penalty schedule to use as a guideline in determining the amount of civil penalties to be assessed in each individual case. The City Manager shall also establish criteria and procedures for the application of this penalty schedule. 1.24.060 Administrative Costs The Enforcement Hearing Officer is authorized to assess any and all reasonable administrative costs. Administrative costs may include scheduling and processing of the hearing, staff and consultant time and materials and all subsequent actions. 1.24.070 Failure to Comply with Director's Notice and Order The City Manager shall appoint an Enforcement Hearing Officer, which may be a third party, and to establish a date, time and place for the civil penalties hearing in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code when the Responsible Person fails to comply with the terms of the Notice and Order. Failure to comply includes failure to pay the assessed civil penalties, failure to commence and complete corrections by the established deadlines or failure to refrain from continuing violations of the municipal code or applicable state codes. 1.24.080 Civil Penalties Hearing a) The procedures for the civil penalties hearing are the same as the hearing procedures set forth in Section 1.21 of the Temecula Municipal Code. All Enforcement Hearing Officers, including a third party Enforcement Hearing Officer, shall follow these regulations and procedures and the requirements of this Chapter. RJOrds 2004/Ords 04-12 b) The Enforcement Hearing Officer shall only consider evidence that is relevant to the following issues: (1) whether the Responsible Person has caused, suffered, condoned, or maintained a violation of the municipal code or applicable state code that existed on the dates specified in the Notice and Order; and (2) whether the amount of civil penalties assessed by the City Manager or designee pursuant to the procedures and criteria outlined in Section 1.21 was reasonable. 1.24.090 Administrative Enforcement Order a) Once all evidence and testimony are completed, the Enforcement Hearing Officer shall issue an Administrative Enforcement Order which affirms or rejects the City Manager or designee's Notice and Order or which modifies the daily rate or duration of the civil penalties depending upon the review of the evidence. The Enforcement Hearing officer may increase or decrease the total amount of civil penalties and costs that are assessed by the City Manager or designee's Notice and Order. b) The Enforcement Hearing Officer may issue an Administrative enforcement Order that requires the Responsible Person to cease from violating the Municipal Code or applicable state codes and to make necessary corrections. c) As part of the Administrative Enforcement Order, the Enforcement Hearing Officer may establish specific deadlines for the payment of penalties and costs and condition the total or partial assessment of civil penalties on the Responsible Person's ability to complete compliance by specified deadlines. d) The Enforcement Hearing Officer may issue an Administrative Enforcement Order which imposes additional civil penalties that will continue to be assessed until the Responsible Person complies with the Hearing Officer's decision and corrects the violation. e) The Enforcement Hearing Officer may schedule subsequent review hearings as may be necessary or as requested by a party to the hearing to ensure compliance with the Administrative Enforcement Order. 1.24.100 Failure to Comply With The Administrative Enforcement Order a) Upon the failure of the Responsible Person to comply with the terms and deadlines set forth in the Administrative Enforcement Order, the City Manager or designee may use all appropriate legal means to recover the civil penalties, administrative costs and obtain compliance with the Administrative Enforcement Order. The City shall consider and, when desirable, utilize the imposition of a lien upon the Responsible Persons' real property that is the subject matter of the Administrative Enforcement Order to secure recovery or collection of the civil penalties, administrative costs and costs related to the proceedings authorized by this Chapter. b) After the Enforcement Hearing Officer issues an Administrative Enforcement Order, the City Manager or designee shall monitor the violations and determine compliance. R:/Ords 2004/Ords 04-12 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:08 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Stone, and Washington ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of September 14, 2004. Japanese Garden Construction Contract RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Award a contract to John Werber Construction Landscape, Inc., and authorize the expenditure of $133,066 for the construction of the Japanese Garden at the Temecula Duck Pond and approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $13, 307. 2.2 Approve the appropriation of funds in the amount of $60,000 for the additional construction costs from the General Fund Unsecured Fund Balance. Award the Construction Contract for the Sports Complex — Proiect No PW01-17CSD RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award a construction contract for the Sports Complex — Project No. PW01- 17CSD — to Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc., in the amount of $12,150,50.49, which includes the five additive bid items, and authorize the President of the Board of Directors to execute the contract. R:Win utes.esd\092804 3.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,215,005.05, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 3.3 Accelerate the appropriation of budgeted funds in FY 2005-2006 to FY 2004- 2005 in the amount of $3,000,000.00 for the future procurement of synthetic turf soccer fields. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 3. The motion was seconded by Director Comerchero and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. DISTRICT BUSINESS Renaminq Rancho California Sports Park RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Consider changing the name of the Rancho California Sports Park to Ronald Reagan Sports Park to honor President Ronald Reagan. Deputy Director Phyllis Ruse presented the staff report (of record). Director Naggar asked the City Attorney to elaborate on the deed restrictions on this property. City Attorney Thorson reported at the time the City took ownership of the park property from the County of Riverside, there was a deed restriction which stated the park name should remain the Rancho California Sports Park. He further explained that the restriction was in place so that the park would retain the name of the Community which was being developed at the time, "Rancho California." Since the incorporation of the City, the name Rancho California has been dropped and Temecula was chosen as the City's name. Since that time, property being developed has changed ownership several times, and the value of retaining this name has diminished. He noted the Council's option would be to wait for a representative from Kaiser to complain that the deed restriction still occurs, but also said there would be a question whether this restriction could legally be enforced. Ultimately, the City would have eminent domain rights to purchase the name and remove any deed restriction. A. Carol and Hailey Strode, mother and 8-year old daughter, of Temecula, addressed the Board expressing their desire for the park to be name after President Ronald Reagan. Eight year -old Hailey read a letter that she wrote to Nancy Reagan, describing her personal hero, Ronald Reagan. B. Expressing his desire to rename the Rancho California Sports Park, to Ronald Reagan Park, Mr. Perry Peters of Temecula, recalled a speech made by former President Ronald Reagan, where he extolled the efforts of citizens in the area that joined efforts and privately raised funds to build a Sports Park for their children to utilize and play in. He further purposed that on the anniversary of the President's Speech, March 3, 1983, the tape of this event is played and Mrs. Reagan be invited to attend. RAMi nutes.csd\092804 He also asked that the citizens be allowed to raise funds to erect a permanent plaque serving as a reminder of this proud moment in history. C. Adele Harrison of Temecula, a retired Temecula Valley Unified School District teacher, joined those requesting the name of the Rancho Sports Park being changed to the Ronald Reagan Park. She urged the Council to honor one of our "greatest presidents," as he honored Temecula. D. Also of Temecula, Mr. Dennis Chiniaeff, displayed the language from the deed restriction and stated that as the last General Manager representing the former developer, there are still interests that the park remain the Rancho Sports Park. He further explained that he felt that renaming the Sports Park after the former President, goes against what he was trying to do, in honoring those who built the park. He suggested naming the Community Recreation Center, the Ronald Reagan Community Recreation Center, and retaining the name, Rancho Sports Park. E. John Hunneman, Murrieta, spoke in favor of changing the name of Rancho Sports Park to the Ronald Reagan Park, stating that there is a history of changing names of parks and roads in this area, and that this is an appropriate name change. Director Roberts expressed his admiration for former President Reagan, and expressed his thanks for the honesty in which Ronald Reagan operated as Governor of the State of California. He supported the name change to Ronald Reagan Park. Joining Director Roberts in his desire to rename the Rancho Sports Park to the Ronald Reagan Park, Director Comerchero stated he does not see a significant historical significance to the name Rancho Sports Park, and supported the name change to honor former President Ronald Reagan. He emphasized his support of also recognizing those who built the park, in the form of an interpretative plaque. Director Naggar stated the Ronald Reagan is his personal "hero." He explained how the former president influenced his life, and how he inspired all Americans to be patriotic. In reference to a commemorative plaque, he explained he invisioned more, possibly even "public art" depicting Ronald Reagan's life. Describing Ronald Reagan as his "political mentor," Director Stone outlined his reasons for honoring the former president and voiced his approval of the name change of the Rancho Sports Park to the Ronald Reagan Park. He also complimented Kaiser and their visionary planning in the early stages of this City's development. He suggested that Kaiser be remembered in future naming of City park sites. In anticipation of possible approval of this name change, Director Comerchero invited Hailey Strode and her family to assist the City in the dedication ceremony of the Ronald Reagan Park. President Washington, in stating how opportunity is available in this country for those who work hard, described the humble beginnings of his grandmother and father, and how through hard work, the later success of his father becoming the first black physician in the State Hospital at Jackson, Mississippi. Mr. Washington explained it is his desire to not lose site of what Ronald Reagan was trying to do; honor those people R:VNinutes.cs=92804 who built the Sports Park. While in support of the name change, he requested that those individuals, who actually built the park, are recognized and honored. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to change the name of the Rancho California Sports Park to Ronald Reagan Sports Park to honor President Ronald Reagan. The motion was seconded by Director Stone and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No comments. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No comments. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 8:51 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] R:NAinutes.csd\092804 ITEM 2 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Herman Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Veteran's Memorial, Project No. PW04-10CSD Additional Work and Appropriation PREPARED BY: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jon Salazar, Assistant Engines RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: `/ 1. Approve an appropriation in the amount of $95,839.70, from General Fund Capital Reserves ($74,339.70) and from Contribution Revenue ($21,500) to the Veteran's Memorial Project, Project No. PW04-10CSD, to cover items of work not covered in the original contract and budget; 2. Increase Contribution Revenue Estimate from the VFW in the amount of $21,500. 3. Authorize contractual expenditure in excess of the approved 10% contingency in the amount of $44,714.11; 4. Approve an expenditure to Sun City Granite, 425 W. Rider #13-3, Perris, CA 92571, for a total amount of $25,125.59; BACKGROUND: On August 24, 2004 the Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to SFM Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $160,000.00 and authorized the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed a 10% contingency of $16,000.00. At the time of award the scope of work with regard to the sale and installation of the granite pavers honoring veterans was unknown, and an estimate of 500 pavers was used for bidding purposes. Since award of the construction contract, the memorial pavers marketing campaign has turned out to be much more successful than originally anticipated, and the total number of pavers sold has increased to nearly 800, with additional pavers also having been purchased for future installation. Following is a summary of the increased project construction costs: ITEM COST CUMULATIVE TOTAL Administration Costs $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Granite Pavers/Tile material $13,389.07 $23,389.07 Pavers Engraving & Surfacing + Cost of Original Pavers $25,125.59 $48,514.66 Granite Pavers/Tile install $10,560.40 $59,075.06 Electrical $15,000.00 $74,075.06 Accelerated Schedule (Overtime) $21,764.64 $95,839.70 I RAGENDA REP0RTS\2004\101204\PW04-10CSD Addl Allo fionFinal.DOC The appropriation requested will cover administration costs, the cost of the pavers, engraving and surfacing the pavers, installing the pavers, the cost of the electrical fixtures, and the cost to accelerate the work by having the contractor work 10-hour days, including Saturdays. Partof the requested cost will be offset by a Construction Revenue of $21,500 from the VFW for a portion of the cost to purchase and engrave the pavers. The "Veteran's Memorial Project" or "Walk of Remembrance" will be located at the Temecula Duck Pond. This memorial is to recognize and honor those who served our nation in the armed forces. The memorial design is titled "Letters Home" and the steps and wheelchair ramp leading to the memorial will be dedicated as the "Paths of Honor." The design concept was completed by the artist, Chris Pardell, and the Board of Directors has previously approved a contract for that portion of the work with Mr. Pardell. The work includes grading the site, constructing the wall and the steps, installing the landscaping, irrigation, the necessary utilities, and light fixtures. The artist's work, including the art piece, the letters, and the engraved pavers, will be coordinated with this construction. The original construction contract with SFM Constructors was in the amount of $160,000, with a 10% contingency of $16,000 for a total of $176,000. This additional appropriation in the amount of $95,839.70 brings the total construction cost to $271,839.70. The contract with artist Christopher Pardell was in the amount of $178,307 with a 10% contingency of $17,831 for a total of $196,138, bringing the total project budget to $467,977.70. FISCAL IMPACT: The Veteran's Memorial Project is a Capital Improvement Program Project funded through Capital Reserves and Development Impact Fees — Open Space & Art for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. An appropriation of $95,839.70, from General Fund Capital Reserves ($74,339.70) and Contribution Revenue Estimate ($21,500) from the VFW is necessary to cover the increased costs for the project. ATTACHMENT: Project Location 2 R:VAGENDA REP0RTS7200411012041PW04-10CSD Addl AllocaUonFinal.DOC N z� ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service;�J DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Community Services Recreation Brochure PREPARED BY: Julie Crowe -Pelletier, Recreation Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Award a contract to Graphics Unlimited Lithography for the preparation and printing of four (4) issues of the Community Services Recreation Brochure over a two (2) year period with a third (3) year option to renew. The cost of printing the brochure is $40, 370 annually. 2. Approve a contingency of 10% or $4,037 annually. DISCUSSION: A Request for Proposal (RFP) was released by the City to solicit proposals for the development and professional production of the Community Services Recreation Brochure. The Winter/Spring issues will be distributed citywide to approximately 30,000 residences on December 17, 2004 and December 16, 2005. The Summer/Fall issues will be distributed May 20, 2005 and May 19, 2006. The brochure will include 36 pages with glossy, full color, seventy -weight pages. Services provided will include design, camera-ready artwork, typesetting layout, final printing, and delivery to the U.S. Post Office for bulk direct mail delivery. Request for Proposals (RFP) were sent to the following twelve (12) qualified printing and graphic professionals. Graphics Unlimited Lithography Minuteman Press Rancho Graphics Cregar Printing Publication Printers Corporation Moore Graphics Robinson's Printers Quickset Printing Winning Colors Continental Litho Valley Printing Service Image Zone In addition, a Public Notice was submitted to the local newspaper and information was made available through the City's website informing potential printing and graphic professionals that the City was seeking printing and graphic services. Staff received one proposal from Graphics R.\CROWH\AGENDASWmg.mn \Brochure\BROCNURE.AGN24 Unlimited Lithography. Based upon the vendor's previous experience with the City, the ability to meet projected deadlines, the superior quality of printing, and overall cost, staff is recommending award of the contract to Graphics Unlimited Lithography. Staff has worked with Graphics Unlimited Lithography on many previous projects and has been completely satisfied with their work performance. In addition, the Community Services Department has received numerous statewide recognition awards for recreation brochures that were produced by Graphics Unlimited Lithography. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to produce two (2) issues of the Recreation Brochure in fiscal year 04-05 is $40,370, plus a 10% contingency. This cost reflects an expenditure of one dollar and fifteen cents per issue, per Temecula residence. Unencumbered funds exist in account #190-180-999-5222 RACROWU\AGEN DASTwgrame\Bmchuml ROCHURE. AGN2000.dm CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES GUIDE TO LEISURE ACTIVITIES BROCHURE THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of October 12, 2004 between the City of Temecula Community Services District ("District") and Graphics Unlimited Lithography ("Consultant"). Inconsideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on October 12, 2004, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2006, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The "District" reserves the option to extend the contract under the same terms and conditions for a maximum of (1) one additional one-year tens per the attached pricing schedule in "Exhibit B". 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The District agrees to pay Consultant, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Forty Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Dollars and no Cents ($40 370 per City fiscal year for the term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement, which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time District's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed four thousand and thirty seven dollars ($4, 037) per City fiscal year. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the District Board of Directors. C. Consultant will submit invoices for actual services performed. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the District disputes any of Consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Vendor within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. crowej\Agreements\Brochure2004 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The District may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Vendor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the District suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the District shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the District. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Vendorwill submit an invoice to the District pursuant to Section 4. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to complywith the provisions of this Agreementshall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, District shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the District shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by District that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of District or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give District the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit District to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and otherdocuments prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the District and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the District without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the District, upon reasonable written request by the District, the necessary crowe1Wreements\Brochure2004 computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. C. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the District, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Vendor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the District. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 1185 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, anon -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employers Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. «OweJ\Agreements\Brochure2004 (4) Professional Liability coverage: One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; orthe Consultantshall procure a bond guaranteeing paymentof losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the District, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the District, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self - insured maintained by the District, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the District, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the District. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the District. Self- insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the District with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the District. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the District before work commences. As an alternative to the District's forms, the Consultants insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. croweJ ftreementstBrochure2004 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the District a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither District nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the District. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against District, or bind District in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, District shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for District. District shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The District, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without District's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives District notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify District should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any projector property located within the City. District retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with District and to provide District with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, District's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by District to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (1) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. crowei%geements\Brochure2004 To District: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Paris Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Vendor. Graphics Unlimited Lithography 43171 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Kevin Schroeder 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the District. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Kevin Schroeder shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Kevin Schroeder may use assistants, under his direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide District fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Kevin Schroeder from Consultant's employ. Should he leave Consultant's employ, the District shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the District Board of Directors and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW. The District and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of Califomia shall govem the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govem the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation conceming this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attomey fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each partys own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the perfonnance of its obligations hereunder. crowej Wgreements\Brochure2004 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Chuck Washington, President Attest: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Graphics Unlimited Lithography 43171 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3666 By Name: Title: crowe'Vjgreements\Brochure2004 CITY OF TEMECULA "EXHIBIT A" RECREATION BROCHURE SPECIFICATIONS AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of this project is to provide the City of Temecula with a professional guide to City leisure activities. It is envisioned that the end result of this project will be used to inform the general public of all leisure, sports, special events, social and cultural activities and services available through the Community Services Department. The Community Services Department shall: 1. Provide a typewritten copy of all activities for the brochure in a timely manner. 2. Review Vendors production schedule and provide input as applicable. 3. Promptly review and respond to all proofs submitted. 4. Reserve the right to review and reject any printed material that does not comply with guidelines or is deemed inaccurate. SPECIFICATIONS 1. Vendor shall have a minimum of three years experience in the printing/publishing industry. 2. Vendor shall provide evidence of insurance liability and abide by the City's Risk Management procedures. 3. Vendor shall provide references and samples of at least three (3) similar publications that the Vendor has produced or caused to be produced. 4. Vendor will be responsible for the coordination of the entire project. Vendor agrees to meet and/or confer with City staff on an ongoing basis to develop, design, refine, and print a Recreation Brochure. 5. Produce four (4) issues of the City of Temecula's Guide to Leisure Activities. Brochures must be distributed December 17, 2004, May 20, 2005, December 16, 2005 and May 19, 2006.. Should both parties agree to exercise the option for a third year renewal, the option dates will be December 15, 2006 and May 18, 2007. 6. Vendor will supply City staff with a production schedule. Vendor will guarantee the brochure will be timely prepared for distribution by direct mail. 7. The brochure will be 8-1/2" x 1111. A minimum of 35,000 printed and bounded copies of each issue will be required for distribution. 9. The brochure will have thirty-six (36) total pages, cover included. 10. The brochure will have glossy, full color, seventy -weight outer cover of good ink and high quality prints. 11. Two colors of ink will be used within the brochure. 12. Vendor will provide photography for outer cover of the brochure. Vendor shall provide any camera-ready artwork, photos, or graphics that are requested or are related to the design and concept of the brochure that will enhance the visual depiction of outlined activities, amenities and services. 13. Vendor shall provide map and chart to identify park locations and amenities. 14. The front cover photo shall encompass the entire page (i.e.: 8-1/2 x I ). 15. Internal pages shall be white, glossy, seventy -weight paper. 16. Arrange for the completion of design, typesetting layout and paste-up of all artwork, and pages to be camera-ready for printing. 17. Submit adequate proofs for approval, as needed, by the Community Services Department prior to printing. Any final printing of the brochure without a final approval from authorized Community Services staff will result in non-payment. The City recognizes its role in certifying the accuracy of the publication. The Vendor shall be responsible for guaranteeing the accuracy of the publication from receipt of the approved final proof to the printing press. 18. Divide brochure by postal route, label, route, and deliver to the U.S. Post Officefor bulk direct mail delivery, and to the Community Services Department office located at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Please attach your firm's Statement of Qualifications outlining your corporate profile, organization structure, location of principal offices, number of professional personnel, and other pertinent information, including the names and experience of all staff members who will work on this project. Please attach a statement of related project experience and client references. Please include at least three (3) samples of similar publications you have produced or caused to be produced. Please include the name(s) of any outside consultants or subcontractors to be utilized, along with an experience and project resume. Please list in detail items of work to be performed by the Vendor. Please outline in detail your approach to the project, to include but not limited to: task analysis, timelines and production schedules, cost components, and corresponding man-hours. The proposal will include all work related to completing four to six (4-6) Recreation Brochures. The quotes that are stated on page 7 are all-inclusive. Please include a statement confirming that Vendor is able to meet all insurance requirements. City of Temecula "Exhibit B" PROPOSED FEES The City recognizes the Vendor may not be able to project cost for a two (2) year period. Please provide an estimated publication cost not to exceed 10%. The proposed fees associated with this project shall be submitted as follows, I have included all associated costs within this quote: Section I (Based upon a thirty -sir page brochure at 35,000 copies) A. December 17, 2004 publication cost $ 20 ,184.80 (Please include tax) B. May 20, 2005 publication cost $ 2 0 ,184.8 0 (Please include tax) C December 16, 2005 publication cost $20 ,184.80 (Please include tax) D. May 19, 2006 publication cost $ 2 0 ,18 4 .8 0 (Please include tax) Section II (Option year based upon a thirty-six page brochure at 35,000 copies) A. December 15, 2006 publication cost $20 ,184 .80 (Please include tax) A May 18, 2007publication cost $20 ,184 .80 (Please include tax) Section III (Additional cost should numbers of brochures necessary exceed 35, 000 copies) A. Per 1,000 copies $ 438.02 (Please include tax) By signing this Request for Proposal, Vendor has read and wsll comply with all terms and conditions herein, which includes a penalty clause. tature of Authorized Representative Name, Title and Date g-7- 2 -04 City of Temecula 432oo Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92S90 Attn: Julie Pelletier September zi, 2004 Note: Attached prices are quoted without possible paper cost increase. Any increase of paper will be added at time of publication. All other production costs will remain without increase throughout the contract. Quoted costs are based on delivering 30,000 copies to the Post Office and the balance to be delivered to City of Temecula. Sincerely, Stan Schroeder r6tilrOwrM�if�� 43171 .- ... SENTRY IN§URANCE.A MUTUAL COMPANY STEVENS POINT, (A PARTICIPATINGG MUTUAL MUTUAL COMPANY) A MEMBER OF THE, SENTRY FAMILY OF DECLARATIONS SENTRY'S BUSINESSOWNERS POLICY INSURANCE COMPANIES POLICY NUMBER 24-20405-04 FIRST NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS PRODUCER 31050418 STAN SCHRODER DBA RANDOL,DIANE M GRAPHICS UNLIMITED LITHOGRAPHY 43171 BUSINESS PARK DR TEMECULA, CA 92590 909-296-9604 Policy Period: From 06-01-04 To 06-01-05 at 12:01 AM Standard Time at your mailing address shown above. Form of Named Insured's Business: INDIVIDUAL In return for the payment of the premium, and subject to all the terms of this policy, we agree with you to provide the Insurance as stated in this policy. The Premium for this policy .is Forms applicable to this policy: BP 00 03 07 02 80-2313 01 86 For Service Please Contact Us at: 41593 WINCHESTER RD STE 210-A TEMECULA, CA 92590 909-296-9604 BP DS 01 07 02 (MECH) a M GRA 24-20405-04 00 041 THIS POLICY IS NON -ASSESSABLE 06-25-04 CHANGE EFFECTIVE 06-01-04 0048 SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY SENTRY'S BUSINESSOWNERS STEVENS POINT, POLICY (A PARTICIPATINGG MUTUAL MUTUAL COMPANY) A MEMBER OF THE. SENTRY FAMILY OF INSURANCE COMPANIES COVERAGES PROVIDED POLICY NUMBER 24-20405-04 PREMISES LIMIT OF NUMBER PROPERTY INSURANCE 001 BUILDING $500,000 Actual Cash Value Option NOT INCLUDED Automatic Increase In Building Limit 4% Protective Safeguards P-1 Increased Construction Cost INCLUDED 001 BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY $800,000 Protective Safeguards P-1 001 SIGNS INCLUDED 001 GLASS INCLUDED 001 EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN INCLUDED 001 MONEY AND SECURITIES Inside The Premises t101000 Outside The Premises '$101000 001 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $200,000 001 CUSTOMERS' PROPERTY $27,000 001 BUSINESS INCOME COVERED UP TO 12 MONTHS Ordinary Payroll Expenses 365 DAYS Extended Business Income 60 DAYS BP DS 01 07 02 (MECH) GRA 24-20405-04 00 041 06-25-04 X CHANGE EFFECTIVE 06-01-04 004R: ' SENTRY'S BPOLICYSOWNERS POLICY POLICY NUMBER 24-20405-04 ADDITIONAL INSURED SCHEDULE The following information is required to complete the additional insured endorsements which form a part of your BUSINESSOWNERS POLICY. THE CITY OF TEMECULA BP 70 36 07 02 FROM JUNE O1, 2004 CITY CLERKS OFFICE TO JUNE O1, 2005 PO BOX 9033 TEMECULA, CA 92589 (CERTIFICATE NUMBER 0001) 4 J BP 89 05 01 87 (MECH) GRA 24-20405-04 00 041 04-26-2004 PAGE 1 oin nanc 02 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:52 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, and Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS Naggar, Roberts, Stone, Washington, and Comerchero ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Assistant Executive Director O'Grady, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of September 14, 2004. 2 Annual Contract for Keyser Marston Associates. Inc. for Real Estate Economic and Affordable Housing Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the amount of $125,900.00 to provide as -needed Real Estate .Economic and Affordable Housing Consulting Services. 2.2 Authorize the Redevelopment Chairperson to execute the agreement. MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Naggar and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No comment. RAMinutes. rda\092804 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 8:52 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 12, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] RAMinutes.rda\092804 ITEM 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Cou it FROM: Debbie Ubnosk , Director of Planning DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: An Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of PA03-0027 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan), a proposal to develop a 24,287 square foot church facility on a 4.72 acre lot. PREPARED BY: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Continue Item to October 26, 2004 City Council meeting On September 14, 2004, the City Council considered the above referenced appeal. The Council subsequently voted to create a sub -committee to negotiate drainage and screening issues between the church and neighboring residential property owners. The sub -committee is continuing to negotiate with the affected parties and is in need of additional time to resolve all issues. RAC U P\2003\03-0027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\CC Continuance Memo.doc 1 ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA C CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Site (PA02-0717) PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. 2. ADOPT a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717 - A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO INCLUDE A 45-FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF THE TREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012). BACKGROUND: PA02-0717 is a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 45-foot high artificial palm tree with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of the tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 1 square foot block screen wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane. After continuing the application from the April 7, 2004 Planning Commission hearing to the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission hearing so that the applicant could provide the Planning Commission with additional information regarding other properties considered for this facility and provide propagation maps for a 45 feet high mono -palm (rather than the 56 foot high mono - palm originally proposed), the application was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2004. At the Planning Commission hearings on April 7 and April 21, 2004, several neighboring property owners (including appellant Ms. Valesta Ayer and her representative, Ms. Roma Stromberg) spoke in opposition to the project due to concerns related to Radio Frequency (RF) emissions, aesthetics, air quality and noise. APPEAL: On May 5, 2004, Ms. Valesta Ayer filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve PA02-0717, requesting that the project be denied or that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project. In a letter dated May 5, 2004 from Ms. Roma Stromberg, Ms. Ayer's representative, Ms. Stromberg indicates that the Planning Commission did not adequately resolve or address all of the issues she presented to the Planning Commission. These issues include the adequacy of the environmental review prepared for the project, Ms. Stromberg's belief that a master plan and EIR should be prepared for all cellular facilities, and concerns Ms. Stromberg has regarding RF emissions and their effects on hearing aids and pacemakers. Following is a response to the concerns Ms. Stromberg stated in her letter: Environmental Review: Ms. Stromberg stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was inadequate and did not sufficiently and objectively analyze potential impacts related to land use, aesthetic, noise, air, cumulative impact and alternatives. It is both staff's opinion and the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney that the Initial Study prepared for the project does adequately address environmental concerns as each of the abovementioned potential impacts were analyzed and addressed in the Initial Study. Land use impacts are addressed in the Initial Study. Staff determined that the project would not physically divide an established community, would not conflict with any applicable land use plans or policies, and would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Aesthetic impacts were addressed in the Initial Study. Staff determined that any potential impacts to scenic vistas created by the wireless communication facility would be mitigated through the use of landscaping and building materials to make the equipment enclosure complimentary to the existing single-family home at the site and through the use of a mono - palm (with the antennas inside the bulb of the mono -palm) to screen the communication antennas from view. R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 2 Noise impacts were addressed in the Initial Study. Staff determined that the equipment associated with the wireless communication facility would operate virtually vibration and noise - free. The initial study recognized that increases to noise levels would likely occur during the construction phase of the project, but because these impacts would be of short duration they were not considered to be significant. Air quality impacts are addressed in the Initial Study. Staff determined that the project will be within the threshold for potentially significant air quality impacts established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Although the project may create minor pollutants during the construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction equipment pollutants, these impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Once construction is completed, the project is not anticipated to generate pollutants. Cumulative Impacts: Ms. Stromberg stated in her letter that cumulative impacts must also be addressed. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. As part of the Initial Study process, staff does consider cumulative impacts. However, in the case of this application staff did not find that two or more individual effects which, when considered together, would be considerable or would compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cellular "Master Plans": Ms. Stromberg stated in her letter that cellular facilities are being developed in a piecemeal fashion. While the proposed facility is a part of a larger network, the facility itself is proposed at its ultimate configuration and will not be developed piecemeal. Staff has determined that unlike other utilities that require large-scale interconnected networks, cellular facilities can effectively be built as stand alone facilities due to placement and infrastructure flexibility allowed by the nature of radio waves. Furthermore, because of site specific environmental situations, environmental review of cellular facilities needs to be completed on a site by site basis. RF Emissions: Ms. Stromberg stated in her letter that she believes that cellular facilities adversely affect hearing aids and pacemakers. Staff is not aware of any such "substantial evidence that cellular facilities adversely affect these devises" as Ms. Stromberg has stated. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions and prohibiting local governments from regulating wireless facilities based on RF emissions. The Federal Communications Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with RF emission regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve PA02-0717. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 3 ATTACHMENTS: City Council Resolution — Blue Page 4 2. Appeal Application — Blue Page 9 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004-018 — Blue Page 10 4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing of April 7, 2004 — Blue Page 11 5. Minutes for Planning Commission Hearing of April 21, 2004 — Blue Page 12 6. Agenda Packet for the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing — Blue Page 13 R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 5 RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717 — A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO INCLUDE A 45-FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF THE TREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012). WHEREAS, Doug Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0717, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0717 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 7, 2004 and April 21, 2004 to consider the application; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the staff report, conditions of approval, and public testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application No. PA02-0717 was properly filed by Ms. Valesta Ayer on May 5, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal, staff report, conditions of approval, Planning Commission minutes, and the complete public record at a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City council determined that the Planning Commission's findings were consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other applicable state and local laws; and WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a `lair argument" and lacked sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Commission's decision; R:V\ppeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 6 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The City Council, in denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application No. PA02-0717 hereby makes the following findings as required by Sections 17.04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code: Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010.E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The City Council has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antennas are located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend with the surrounding environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, building, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas mounted within the bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed monopalm is forty-five feet high and has been designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The City Council has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, the City Council has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Very Low Density Residential zoning district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The RAAppeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 7 project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF) above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (17.05.010.F) A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with all applicable requirements of state law. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined in the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed forty-five foot high -unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02- 0717, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula City Council this 12th day of October, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12tn day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: R:Wppeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO.2 APPEAL APPLICATION RMppeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 10 `City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula • CA • 92590 P.O. Box 9033, Temecula • CA • 92589-9033 (909) 694 M • FAX (909) 694-6477 Appeal Original Case D.t.sts" IRCOVED MAY 0 5 2004 The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or dissatisfied with an action taker► by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code. �� I I► • 11: ul' ►Y 1. Development Application. 2. Appeal Form. 3. Filing Fee. ► •lY • • • ylul' IutY A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be acted upon unless filed within fifteen (15) calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. �0 Appealing the decision of: F LA tJ N 1 K) 9 LUM M l 5S I o /J LI I ',?I (Specify Director of Planning or Planning Commission AND Action Date) Specify exactly what is being appealed: T H-E DC&GloN T"o /,rPRoOE I` AO - O71 7, f.:\faGNanT¢pyiCUpp,>pp 7/16/9'! klD ], Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item of evidence. (Attach separate sheet of paper if necessary). P 1,E/}5E beE /a-T��GI-E D . Desired action to be taken: I�FNiIk� of I"'R�JcGT or2 PRE EI 477 ©�v off- 14Ay E N V1 PyAu yr cN F;r t L tf In the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails.to answer any information set forth above, then the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to refile the notice of anneal. 6-VAGAYM UC%>".A 7/16/97 k Z •4: May 5, 2004 Donald Hazen, Principal Planner Planning Department Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92589-9033 Environmental Impact Analysis and land Use Planning Mr. Hazen This letter is to inform you of my clients request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision regarding PA-02-0717 made on 4/21/04. The proposal is request for a Conditional Use Permit to install and operate a cellular tower and appurtenant facilities. It is my professional opinion and the opinion of my clients (Residents of Windsor Road) that the Planning Commission did not thoroughly consider all of the issues that were brought before them. Some of the issues brought to the Planning Commission's attention that were not adequately resolved or addressed include: The Mitigated Negative Declaration was inadequate and did not sufficiently and objectively analyze potential impacts related to land use, aesthetics, noise, air, cumulative impacts and alternatives. (See attached) I am a professional land use and environmental practitioner. It is my job to do land use and aesthetic impact analyses and it is my opinion that construction and operation of the proposed facility would result in significant land use and aesthetic impacts. We are also receiving input from hundreds of people who are appalled that the City would set precedent for cellular towers placed on residentially zoned property with very little or no impact analysis. Cumulative impacts must also be addressed! We have substantial evidence that this facility will result in significant aesthetic and land use impacts. Cellular facilities are being developed in a "Piecemeal Fashion". Cellular providers should prepare "Master Plans" as do most utility providers. Prior to the adoption of the Master Plan, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) can be prepared to assure that a thorough alternative analysis is completed and that all means to reduce the number of facility sites are implemented. Cumulative impacts could also be adequately addressed. If this project is approved, it is "Reasonably Forseeable" that several more cellular facilities will be constructed at this site and throughout the City on residential property. Preparation of and adoption of MNDs for individual cellular tower sites, is a form of "piecemealing" to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts (Fozung v. Local Agency Commission 1975) 13 Cal.3d 263. and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. Some of my clients utilize hearing aids and pacemakers and are concerned about the effects that the cellular facility may have on them. There is substantial evidence that cellular facilities adversely affect these devices. Respectfully yours, Roma Stromberg, Principal Plann & President ROMA ENVIRONMENTAL ROMA ENVIRONMENTAL 40384 Windsor Road Temecula, Ca 92591 909-544-3170 Applicable Cases Assertion of Aesthetic Impacts Did Not Require "Expert Opinion" Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 4`" _Cal. App. Montecito Water District prepared an Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for its plan to place a roof over an existing 4 acre reservoir. Ocean View brought suit alleging that the mitigation measures intended to prevent downstream flooding (i.e. Holding excess runoff at the reservoir site) may themselves have a significant impact ("fair argument" issue). Ocean View pointed to a memo from the District's consultant warning that should the reservoir's outlet pipe be blocked during a storm, the reservoir's dam could fail. This view was not included in the initial study. The court held that this material provides substantial evidence that significant impacts of contamination of dam failure may occur and that the MND failed to discuss or identify those impacts. Nothing in the MND requires any measures to mitigate contamination or dam failure. Ocean View also alleged that the project may result in an aesthetic impact. The aluminum cover would be visible from a couple of houses nearby and the County of Santa Barabara had commented that appropriate mitigation would be needed in order for the cover to blend with the surrounding terrain. The court dismissed the District's argument that private views are not environmentally significant under CEQA. And, it is disagreed with the District's contention that a fair argument required an expert opinion over the aesthetic effect. Because of the subjective nature of aesthetic effects, the court held that "[p]ersonal observations on these nontechnical issues can constitute "substantial evidence." The court made it clear that expressions of concern by one or two people might not constitute "substantial evidence", but in light of the County's concern, there was substantial evidence in this case. The court ordered the trial court to issue a writ of mandate ordering the District to vacate its MND. AT&T Wireless v. Virginia Beach In AT&T Wireless v. Virginia Beach, AT&T had properly submitted applications for the construction of two 135-foot communications towers on church property in a residential area of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The church and many of its parishioners were in favor of the tower construction and the towers were intended to provide increased quality and quantity of digital communication service to the residents of Virginia Beach. The Virginia Beach residents in opposition spoke vehemently that such towers would not conform to the residential nature of the community and that the towers are better placed in commercial settings. While efforts were being made to mitigate the view of the towers, the opposition residents argued that no mitigation efforts would be sufficient. The City Council voted unanimously to deny the application and AT&T sued for discriminatory violations of the Telecommunications Act. The appellate court held that the City Council members are legislators fully capable of determining whether their constituents are in favor of towers in the location proposed. The City Council did not discriminate by denying the application in light of the opposition expressed in the City Council meeting and that the minutes of the meeting supported that there was substantial opposition. When determining the existence of substantial evidence the court specifically found that it is proper and expected that a legislature and its members will consider the views of their constituents to be particularly compelling forms of evidence and trump the views of bureaucrats or experts in the process. ROMA ENVIRONMENTAL 40384 Windsor Road Temecula, Ca 92591 909-544-3170 Submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Commission April 7 2004 Good evening, My name is Roma Stromberg. My address is 40384 Windsor Road. I have been in the planning and environmental field for 16 years. I am here to submit to you "substantial evidence" defined as being "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" that construction of the proposed facility will result significant direct and cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the (Mitigated Negative Declaration) MND that you are presently considering. I would like to state that I met with the City Planner who prepared the MND, Stuart Fisk and made it immensely clear that I would like to review the MND that he prepared for this project. I made several phone calls to get the status of the project and despite my numerous inquires, I was not informed that the MND was available for review, until after the public review period was over. So I must apologize for the tardiness of my comments. If you don't mind, I would like to refer you to the photographs of the proposed project site, attached to the letter I submitted to you, as I did not find any photographs in the Board's package. The MND inadequately addressed the project's potential to result in significant land use, air quality, noise, aesthetic impacts and cumulatively considerable impacts. Land Use Impacts (Section 1 of MND) The land use analysis is inadequate. There is not enough information for the public or the decision makers to base an educated decision on. A simple statement stating that the proposed facilities are consistent with the existing zoning and general plan designations does not constitute a land use impact analysis. There is no discussion of land use compatibility or community character. There is also no discussion of how and why the project is or is not consistent with the existing zoning and general plan designations. The land use section doesn't even mention that a conditional use permit is required. Land use impacts associated with the proposed facilities should include an analysis of the project's consistency with existing land uses and the project's consistency with the existing community character. It is my opinion and the opinion of several of my neighbors that this facility is not consistent with existing residential land uses and is not in character with the existing community and would therefore, result in a significant land use impact. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that it is the policy of the state to: "require governmental agencies to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors .... There is no qualitative land use impact analysis in the MND. The thresholds presented Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines that were utilized by the City in their land use analysis are only guidelines and if appropriate, other thresholds should be utilized. There are several cases that support my statement. Considering the abundance of public outcry that the Planning Commission has been subjected to against cellular towers, other thresholds in addition to general plan and zoning consistency should be applied. Air Quality (Section 5 The Air Quality Impact analysis is deficient. The project description in the MND does not mention whether a backup generator will be on -site. If a diesel generator will be operated on - site, a toxic air contaminant assessment would be appropriate. Aesthetics (Section 13 of the MND) There is no visual analysis in the MND. The project site is on a hilltop that hundreds of single family homes have a view of. It would be appropriate for the visual impact analysis to include photos of the site and a visual simulation so that the public can be informed and so that Commissioners can have some information to base their decisions on. The proposed location of the monopole will result in significant visual impacts. Visual impacts are qualitative in nature and the residents south of the site that will be looking at this facility from their bedrooms believe that this facility would be an eyesore despite any fakey palm tree adorations that are added to it. This facility is industrial in nature and not in character with the existing surrounding land uses. Palm trees were recently planted on this hilltop to accommodate this project. These newly added palm trees are not in character with other hilltops and ridgelines in the area and the addition of a monopole will not be consistent with the visual character either. The property on which the facility is proposed has also been recently littered with outbuildings. More outbuildings on this site will also result in significant impacts. Cumulatively Considerable impacts (Section 17 d of MND) Another impact that was overlooked in the MND is the potential for the project to result in cumulatively, considerable impacts even though the project's individual impacts are limited. The MND does not provide any discussion of cumulatively considerable impacts. This is a major oversight. The City Telecommunications Ordinance actually encourages the co -location of cellular facilities on several instances and the proliferation of cellular facilities on this hilltop would definitely result in cumulatively considerable visual and land use related impacts. In Summary, the proposed project will result in significant direct and cumulatively considerable land use and visual impacts that will not be mitigated by the proposed monopole palm design. It is my recommendation that the City require that throrough air quality, noise, land use and visual impact analyses be completed. I also recommend that an alternative analysis be prepared. The alternative analysis should be based on a goal to "avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project". The alternative analysis previously prepared for this project was not based on avoidance of significant impacts, but was merely compliance with City Code. Furthermore, the alternative sites evaluated were suggested by the City Planner and were not even remotely feasible. Y Submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Impacts to Aesthetic Resources The proposed project will result in significant visual impacts to nearby residents. It appears, from the photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting on April 7, 2004, that the proposed monopole will be extremely straight and much larger in diameter than a typical palm tree. No viewshed analysis or line of site analysis was completed. Why did the City come to a finding of no significance? The City Planners almost completely ignored the fact that there are several homes quite close to and adjacent to the proposed facility. Please see the attached photographs. These photographs are just a sampling of views that nearby residents have of the project site. The discussion presented in the Aesthetics portion of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was sparse. No analysis was presented and no visual impact studies were referred to. I personally submitted photos of views from my home months ago and none of these were included in the analysis. This is inconsistent with the City's "Procedures for Cell Tower Impact Analysis" (see attached). It is the intent of CEQA to inform the decision makers and the public of potentially significant impacts. The public was not given the opportunity to review the material on which the City Planning staff made their finding of no significant impact. I recently asked Mr. Fisk for copies of the visual analysis and all he provided was a reduced 11x17 site plan with topography only shown in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility. Where is the facility going to be situated on the site? Where is the facility going to be situated in relationship to the adjacent homes? The pad should be shown on the topographic survey. The existing palm tress look quite distant from the proposed facility on the elevation graphics (see attached). How close is the proposed facility to the existing palm trees? From the topographical survey, the highest existing palm tree appears to be at 1364 average mean sea level. At what average mean sea level will the proposed facility be at? What is the expected height differential between the proposed facility and the existing palm trees? What species of palm are the existing palms? Will the proposed facility be decorated as the same species of palm currently on the site? The Cingular monopole proposes a huge "bulb" just under the artificial palm frawns. The existing palms do not have any visible "bulbs". How are the proposed and existing palm trees going to "shield" our views of the proposed monopole if they are significantly shorter than the proposed facility? It is my professional judgement that the existing and proposed trees will not shield the proposed 58-foot Cingular facility at all. To achieve any shielding at all, the proposed monopole should be grouped with the existing palm trees and be no higher than the average height (amsl) of the existing palm trees. Why should our neighborhood be afflicted with a significant visual impact so that others do not have any facilities at all? Why not construct more facilities at visually compatible heights? Alternatives This facility is to be located on a ridgeline that is highly visible from over 300 homes. Our representative spoke to the city planner months ago about looking at alternatives on the north side of the proposed site to reduce visual impacts to hundreds of homes located south of the proposed site. Development north of the site is large lot residential and if the facility was situated on the north side of the ridge, significantly fewer views would be affected. We have seen no alternative or feasibility analyses considering the north side of the proposed site. The alternative analysis should be based on a goal to "avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project". The alternative analysis previously prepared for this project was not based on avoidance of significant impacts, but was merely compliance with City Code. Furthermore, the alternative sites evaluated were suggested by the City Planner and were not even remotely feasible. Land Use Impacts Signficant visual impacts will The proposed project will result in significant land use impacts. Using the Telecommunications Ordinance alone was not appropriate in this case. The City is the lead agency and is responsible for the environmental analysis, including the thresholds that are utilized to evaluate significance. Utilizing the Ordinance alone is not appropriate. No analysis is presented to the public. A conditional use permit is required. Cingular claims that since their facilities exist in all different land use settings, they are therefore, compatible land uses. I challenge this assumption in regards to residential areas. Just because two incompatible land uses exist near each other that doesn't mean that they are compatible land uses. It is my opinion that Cities and Counties have consistently prepared inadequate environmental documentation and residents have not been adequately informed. I understand that CEQA requires only very minimal notification of the intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. List ways here. The typical homeowner however, is not informed of environmental law nor do they consistently read notices in their local newspaper, therefore, they do not become informed nor do they understand the potential consequences of projects in their areas. Residents only become informed when there are informational meetings and people like me personally informing other residents. Nearby residents received a stapled flyer from the City of Temecula from the Planning Commission stating their intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the construction and operation of a cellular facility at a Planning Commission meeting. I spoke to several of my neighbors regarding this flyer. Several of them didn't even open it thinking it was a recreational flyer and several read it and did not understand where it the project was or why they were being notified. The land use analysis is inadequate. There is not enough information for the public or the decision makers to base an educated decision on. A simple statement stating that the proposed facilities are consistent with the existing zoning and general plan designations does not constitute a land use impact analysis. There is no discussion of land use compatibility or community character. There is also no discussion of how and why the project is or is not consistent with the existing zoning and general plan designations. The land use section doesn't even mention that a conditional use permit is required. Land use impacts associated with the proposed facilities should include an analysis of the project's consistency with existing land uses and the project's consistency with the existing community character. It is my opinion and the opinion of several of my neighbors that this facility is not consistent with existing residential land uses and is not in character with the existing community and would therefore, result in a significant land use impact. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that it is the policy of the state to: "require governmental agencies to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors .... There is no qualitative land use impact analysis in the MND. The thresholds presented Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines that were utilized by the City in their land use analysis are only guidelines and if appropriate, other thresholds should be utilized. There are several cases that support my statement. Considering the abundance of public outcry that the Planning Commission has been subjected to against cellular towers, other thresholds in addition to general plan and zoning consistency should be applied. Air Quality (Section 51 The Air Quality Impact analysis is deficient. The project description in the MND does not mention whether a backup generator will be on -site. If a diesel generator will be operated on - site, a toxic air contaminant assessment would be appropriate. Noise There is absolutely no analysis or basis for the statements made in the MND regarding the significance of noise impacts.- CEQA mandates that all impacts are evaluated. Construction noise levels should be considered along with potential mitigation measures even if they are temporary. Additionally, if a generator will be on -site, an evaluation of noise impacts associated with the generator should be considered. Generators associated with these facilities can produce noise levels up to 100 dB. Cumulatively Considerable Impacts (Section 17 d of MND) Another impact that was overlooked in the MND is the potential for the project to result in cumulatively considerable impacts even though the project's individual impacts are limited. The MND does not provide any discussion of cumulatively considerable impacts. This is a major oversight. The City Telecommunications Ordinance actually encourages the co -location of cellular facilities on several instances (see attached) and the proliferation of cellular facilities on this hilltop would definitely result in cumulatively considerable visual and land use related impacts. Erosion On page 6, the Mitigated Negative clearly states that the project will be required to acquire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. A NPDES permit is required when there is 1 acre of more of grading proposed. Does the proposed project require 1 acre or more of grading? This is not disclosed in the mitigated negative declaration. If a NPDES permit is required, then isn't the State Water Resources Control Board a Responsible Agency per the California Environmental Quality Act? If so, why wasn't the Mitigated Negative Declaration sent to the State Clearinghouse per CEQA Guidelines Section 15205(b) (2)? ... w i. WI.I. -n �A mawnyo -3mal Oot s �Q mmmolm cm RIM SS311lulm x feinbuio . [(((Mvqs z 0 O ANTENNA APPROVAL MECHANISM MATRIX Residential Radio and Television If freestanding up to 10', or an Exempt Antenna attached antenna that is less than 10" above the top of the residence in height Any freestanding antenna that Director Hearing is more than 10', or an attached antenna more than 10' above the roof line Citizens Band Up to 35' Exempt Between 35' and 50' Director. Hearin Above 50' Planning Commission Amateur Radio Antenna Up, to 35' Exempt Between 35' and 50' Director -Hearing Above 50' Planning Commission Dish Antenna Less than or equal to 2 Meters Exempt. in diameter Greater than 2 Meters and Less Residential — Exempt. than 10'/2 Feet in diameter Non -Residential - Administrative Design Review Larger than 10 %2 Feet in Planning Commission diameter Vertical (commercial) Antennas Up to 2 antennas that are up to Exempt 15' in height More than 2 antennas or any Administrative Design Review antennas more than 15' in height Wireless Telecommunications Building mounted with Administrative Design Review Antennas architectural integration and less than 12' above roof Building mounted more than 12' Director Hearing above the roof, or that are mounted on a light tower, sign, or other structure Monopole and all other facilities Planning Commission not specifically mentioned Approval to co -locate onto an Administrative Design Review existing building Approval to co -locate onto an Director Hearing existing antennastructure Approval fora multi-user. site. Planning Commission (i.e. multiple antenna - structures Any variation from the standards or any type or size of antenna not I Planning Commission specifically listed F:1DeptsNPLANNING1GrdlnancesWNTENNA%242PA97=Aoc 52 '� ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 00- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 17.40 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND ANTENNAS AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDMENTS (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0242) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission, on March 17, 2000, and City Councilofthe City of Temecula, State of California, on May 23, 2000, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the Municipal Code of the City of Temecula. Section 2. Chapter 17.40 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 17.40 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND ANTENNA ORDINANCE 17.40.010 Purpose The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the installation and maintenance of telecommunication facilities and antennas to achieve the goals, objectives and policies of the Temecula General Plan. It is furthermore intended that, to the extent permitted by law, the City shall apply these regulations to specifically accomplish the following: A. Protect and promote public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Temecula; B. Protect the visual character of the City from the potential adverse effects of telecommunication facility development and antenna installation by maintaining architectural and structural integrity and preventing unsightly facilities; C. Insure against the creation of visual blight within or along the City's scenic corridor and ridgelines; D. Retain local responsibility for and control over the use of public right-of-way to protect citizens and enhance the quality of their lives; E. Protect the inhabitants of Temecula, to the extent permitted by law, from the possible adverse health effects associated with exposure to high levels of NIER (non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation); F. Protect environmental resources in and around Temecula; G. Promote the planned and managed development of telecommunications infrastructure; �:� F:TeptsTLANNINGIordinances%NTENNAV42PA97CCl.doe 30 H. Promote fair and effective telecommunication services and insure that a broad range of competitive telecommunications services with high quality telecommunications infrastructure are available to serve the community; I. Create and preserve telecommunication facilities that will serve as an important and effective part of Temecula's emergency response network; J. Establish simplified and shortened approval processes for obtaining permits to install and operate telecommunication facilities while at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of Temecula citizens to the maximum extent possible; K. Ensure area access to satellite telecommunications services; and L. Encourage the co -location of new telecommunication antennas. Furthermore, it is the stated goal of the City of Temecula that these local restrictions and regulations shall not preclude the reception of acceptable signal quality, create an unreasonable delay, prevent, or increase the cost of installing, maintaining and using these facilities. It is also the stated intent of this Chapter to provide a public forum to insure a balance between public concerns and private interests in establishing telecommunication and related facilities. 17.40.020 General Requirements for all Telecommunication Facilities and Antennas No non-exempt telecommunication facility or antenna shall be constructed or operated without the appropriate City entitlement. All non-exempt telecommunication facilities and antennas shall meet the following general requirements and standards. A. Be consistent with applicable General Plan Goals, Objectives, Programs and Policies, Specific Plan, Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Standards, Design Guidelines, and the permit requirements of any agency which has jurisdiction over the project; B. Meet all the requirements established by the other chapters of the Temecula Municipal Code and Temecula Development Code that are not in conflict with the requirements contained in this chapter, C. Comply with all applicable FCC rules, regulations, and standards; D. No antenna, antenna array, or wireless telecommunications antenna arrays shall be located within any recognized local or national historic district, or on a structure recognized as a local or national historic landmark, unless screening has been provided to completely camouflage the facility; E. Comply with the Uniform Building Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Fire Code, where applicable; F. Comply with applicable Airport land use compatibility criteria/policies and Federal Aviation Administration regulations; G. Antennas shall be constructed of metal or other non-flammable material, unless specifically approved by the City to be otherwise; H. Shall not be installed in any location where it could impede normal vehicular or Pedestrian circulation, ingress to, or egress from any building, structure, or parking facility; F:UeptsWLANNING10rdinances%NTENNA1242PA97 CCt.doc 31 Maintain applicable easements or similar restrictions on the subject property; J. All setbacks shall be measured from the base of the tower or structure to the applicable property line or structure and shall not be situated between the primary building on the parcel and any public or private street adjoining the parcel, so as to create a negative visual impact; K. Maintain a security program when determined to be necessary by, and subject to the review and approval of, the Temecula Police Department that will prevent unauthorized access and vandalism; L. Satellite earth station antennas (dishes and parabolic antennas) larger than 1 meter in diameter shall be situated as close to the ground as possible to reduce visual impact without compromising their function; M. All references to different zones and zoning districts shall also be construed to mean the planning areas in an approved Specific Plan; N. Shall not contain or add advertising or signs to telecommunications facilities and antennas. Not withstanding the previous, the co -location of telecommunications antennas onto legally established sign structures is not prohibited. The location of wireless telecommunication antennas shall be considered on a case by case basis where the intent of the support structure is for advertising purposes only and the structure complies with all applicable sign ordinance requirements; and O. Not withstanding the provisions of Subsection N above, all freestanding telecommunication sites shall provide unlight identification signage of not more than three (3) square feet in size. The sign shall indicate the name of the company operating the facility and shall provide a phone number to be called in an emergency. The sign should be located near the entrance to the support facility. 17.40.025 Publicly Owned Property The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to the placement of non-exempt wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas on publicly owned property within the City of Temecula. 17.40.030 Application Requirements All applications for non-exempt telecommunications facilities and antennas shall comply with the submittal requirements authorized by Section 17.03.030. In addition, other specific supplemental requirements described in this Section may also be required. The decision to require additional information with as part of an application shall be made by, and be at the sole discretion of, the planning director. A. Examples of supplemental project information that may be required include the following: Service area and network maps; 2. Alternative site analysis and alternative facility designs. The analysis shall identify all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities which could provide the proposed telecommunication service. The analysis shall address the potential for co -location at an existing or a new site and the potential to locate facilities as close as possible to the intended service area. It shall also F:\Depta�PLANNINGWrdinance&ANTENNA1242PA97 CC1.dx 32 explain the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible altematives. The intention of the altematives analysis is to present altemative strategies which would minimize the number, size, and adverse environmental impacts of facilities necessary to provide the needed services to the City and surrounding rural and urban areas; 3. Visual impact analyses or demonstrations (including mock-ups and/or photomontages). Consideration shall be given to views from public areas as well as from private residences. The analysis shall be "worst case° and shall assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed facility and other existing and foreseeable telecommunication facilities in the area, and shall identify and include all feasible mitigation measures consistent with the technological requirements of the proposed telecommunication service; and 4. Information on the location of other nearby telecommunication facilities within the city limits of Temecula and within one mile of the proposed facility; B. Special design studies of the proposed facilities where findings of particular sensitivity will have to be made (e.g. proximity to historic or aesthetically significant structures, views and/or community facility.) C. The planning director is explicitly authorized at his/her discretion to employ on behalf of the City an independent technical expert to review any submitted supplemental or technical materials or provide technical knowledge to the City. The technical expert shall be agreeable to both the City and the service provider. The applicant shall pay all the costs of said review, including any administrative costs incurred by the City. D. Any proprietary information that is disclosed to the City or any expert hired shall be located in a separate private file, shall remain confidential, and shall not be disclosed to any third party. 17.40.040 Determination of Height The height of the support structure must be the minimum necessary to provide the required coverage. Antenna and structure heights are determined in the following manner. A. For ground mounted antennas: The height of the antenna structure shall be measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower to the top of the tower or from the top of the highest antenna or piece of equipment attached thereto, whichever is greater. B. For building mounted antennas: The height of the antenna structure shall be measured from the top of the building roof on which the antenna is mounted to the top of the antenna or screening structure, whichever is higher. The height of antenna structures that are attached to a building shall be measured from the top of the building roof. C. In the case of "crank -up" or other similar towers, whose height can be adjusted, the height of the tower shall be considered the maximum height to which it is capable of being raised. F:'DeptST ANNING%OrdinancesANTENNA�242PA97 =.doc 33 17.40.050. Non -Exempt Telecommunication Facilities and Antennas in Residential Zones Non-exempt facilities may be installed, erected, maintained and/or operated in any residential zoning district, except within recognized historic, districts, where such antennas are permitted under this title, without the need for a use permit or other entitlement. The following wireless communication facilities are permitted as accessory uses if in compliance with the requirements of this Section. A. Any satellite earth station antenna designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite services and multi -channel multi -point distribution services, provided that such antenna is one meter (39.4'inches) or less in diameter. 1. If the diameter of the antenna is 18 inches or less, the antenna may extend above the ridgeline of a roof only to a height that is reasonably necessary to ensure the reception of broadcast signals of an acceptable quality. 2. If the diameter of the antenna exceeds 18 inches, but does not exceed 39 inches, then the antenna may not extend above the ridgeline of a roof. B. Any satellite earth station antenna that is designed to be a receive only dish antenna that is less than ten and one-half (10.5) feet in diameter. Provided that the top the antenna does not extend more than 12 feet above the ground. C. Any vertical antenna that is designed solely to receive television broadcast signals. Such an antenna, if ground -mounted; shall be no more than (10) feet in height If the antenna is building -mounted the height of the antenna may not exceed more than ten (10) feet above the roof. D. Any citizens band or amateur radio antenna for a licensed amateur radio operator provided that the maximum height of the antenna does not exceed thirty five (35) feet above the ground surface. E. The following requirements apply to all facilities described in this Section. 1. The antenna is accessory to the primary use of the property and that the use of the property is not a telecommunications facility; 2. Exempt antennas do not need a written approval from the planning director provided they comply with the provisions of this chapter, 3. Shall not be located within the front yard setback or the actual front yard unless proven by substantial evidence that no other location for the antenna is possible; 4. Sufficient anti -climbing measures have been incorporated into the facility, as needed, to reduce potential for trespass and injury; and, 5. In any historic area, satellite dishes and parabolic antennas must be situated as close to the ground as possible to reduce visual impact without compromising their function. F. For a single family structure, no more than one (1) support structure for a citizens band or licensed amateur radio antenna and two (2) satellite dishes (or vertical radio or television antennas), provided that only one dish antenna is larger than one meter (39.4 F:CopbWLANNINGIordinances%NTENNA\242PA97CCt.doc 34 inches) in diameter, are allowed. For an attached residential structure, no more than one meter (39 inches) in diameter dish is allowed per unit. 17.40.060 Non -Exempt Telecommunication Facilities and Antennas in Non-residential Zones Non-exempt facilities may be installed, erected, maintained and/or operated in any non- residential zoning district, except within recognized historic districts, where such antennas are permitted under this title, without the need for a use permit or other entitlement. The following wireless communication facilities are permitted as accessory uses if in compliance with the requirements of this Section. A. Up to two vertical antennas that are less than fifteen (15) feet in height above the roof of a commercial or industrial building: B. Any satellite earth station antenna designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite services and multi -channel multi -point distribution services, provided that such antenna is two meters (78 inches) or less in diameter. 1. If the diameter of the antenna is 18 inches or less, the antenna may extend above the ridgeline of a roof only to a height that is reasonably necessary to ensure the reception of broadcast signals of an acceptable quality. 2. If the diameter of the antenna exceeds 18 inches, but does not exceed 39.4 inches, then the antenna may not extend above the ridgeline of a roof unless it is screened from public view by an integrated architectural design feature only to a height that is reasonably necessary to ensure the reception of broadcast signals of an acceptable quality. C. The following requirements apply to all facilities described in this Section. 1. The antenna is accessory to the primary use of the property and that the use of the property is not a telecommunications facility; 2. Exempt antennas do not need a written approval from the planning director provided they comply with the provisions of this chapter; 3. Shall not be located in the front yard and street setbacks unless proven by substantial evidence that no other location for the antenna is possible; 4. Sufficient anti -climbing measures have been incorporated into the facility, as needed, to reduce potential for trespass and injury; 5. Utility or accessory equipment must be located within a completely enclosed building or otherwise screened from view; and 6. In any historic area, satellite dishes and parabolic antennas must be situated as close to the ground and screened from public view to reduce visual impact without compromising their function. 17.40.070 Administrative Approval of Telecommunications Facilities and Antennas A. The planning director may administratively approve a development plan for any wireless communications facility or antenna in a commercial, industrial, public institutional, open space, or public park and recreation zoning district subject to administrative design F:VeptstPLANNING\Ordinances\ANTENNA\242PA97 CC1.doc 35 review (i.e. an administrative development plan). The facilities and antennas that are subject to administrative design review are as follows: 1. Any building or roof mounted antenna that extends above, the top of the parapet wall by less than twelve (12) feet and is fully screened from public view. Antennas on pitched roof surfaces are not eligible for administrative design review. 2. Three (3) or more vertical antennas, or any vertical antenna that extends more than fifteen (15) feet above the roof line of a commercial or industrial building. 3. Any dish antenna that is larger than two (2) meters in diameter. B. An increase in the height or size of a previously installed and approved antenna or structure by no more that twenty (20) percent of the original approval. C. The co -location of a new antenna onto a building where another antenna is located. D. The following requirements apply to all the facilities described in this Section. 1. All utility or accessory equipment must be screened from view; 2. The screening material and antenna, if visible, shall be architecturally integrated into the building or structure; and, 3. No variance or minor exception is required to approve the telecommunication facility or antenna. E. The planning director shall either approve the application within thirty (30) days of receiving a complete application or refer the application to either a director hearing or the planning commission for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting. F. Telecommunication facilities and antennas that are described in paragraphs A and B above, shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of either Section 17.40.080 or 17.40.090, at the sole discretion of the planning director, whenever the following occurs: 1. A variance or minor exception is necessary to approve the proposed telecommunication facility or antenna; and/or 2. The telecommunication facility or antenna is located in a zoning district not listed in this Section. 17.40.080 Planning Director Approval of Telecommunication Facilities and Antennas A. Antennas that comply with the following criteria are permitted in any residential zoning district subject to the requirements of a minor conditional use permit (i.e. a conditional use permit for an existing building). The planning director may act on the application or may refer the application the planning commission for its consideration at its next available scheduled meeting. 1. Any citizens band or amateur radio antenna for a licensed amateur radio operator that has a maximum height of between thirty five (35) feet and fifty (50) feet above the ground surface. F:1DepteIP NNINGIOrdinances\ANTENNA\242PA97 CC1.doc 36 2. Any vertical antenna that is designed solely to receive television broadcast signals that if ground -mounted, is more than ten (10) feet; or if the antenna is building -mounted the height of the antenna exceeds ten (10) feet above the roof. B. Wireless communications facilities that comply with the following criteria are permitted in any commercial, industrial, public institutional, open space, or parks and recreation zoning districts subject to the requirements of a minor conditional use permit (i.e. a conditional use permit for an existing building). The planning director may act on the application or may refer the application the planning commission for its consideration at its next available scheduled meeting. 1• Any building or roof mounted antenna that does not extend above the top of the parapet wall by more than twelve (12) feet above and that is screened from public view, including any antennas proposed to be located on pitched roof surfaces. 2. Antennas mounted on other existing structures, such as water tanks, pump stations, utility poles, or bail field lighting. Not the above, antennas mounted on existing structures are not limited to commercial or industrial zones. 3. The co -location a new antenna to an existing approved support structure without an increase in height. C. Additional antenna or dishes up to 4 feet in diameter, provided that the additional antenna or dishes do not exceed more than twenty five percent (25%) of the existing antennae or dishes in number, area or height D. The following requirements apply to all the facilities described in this Section. 1. All utility or accessory equipment must be screened from view; and, 2• The screening material shall be architecturally integrated with the building, structure, or landscaping so as not to be recognizable as an antenna or accessory equipment structure. 17.40.090 Planning Commission Approval of Telecommunications Facilities and Antennas A. All other wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas that are not specifically exempted from regulation or are described in Sections 17.40.050, 17.40.060, 17.40.070 and 17.40.080, including the approval of a request for a multi-user site, as well as all monopoles and towers shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning commission. B. Exceptions to the requirements specified within this Chapter may be granted through issuance of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. Such a permit may only be approved if the planning commission finds, after receipt of substantial evidence, that failure to adhere to the standard under consideration in each specific instance will not increase the visibility of the facility or adversely effect the public health, safety or welfare. C. A conditional use permit authorizing the establishment of a telecommunication facility or antenna may be reviewed whenever the City determines that circumstances warrant the review. F:1DeptSTLANNINGIOrdlnancesWNTENNA�242PA97 CCt.dac 37 17.40.100 Revocation of Development Plans and Conditional Use Permits The revocation of a development plan and conditional use permit for a telecommunication facility or antenna shall be undertaken in conformance with the provisions of Section 17.03.080 of the Temecula Municipal Code. In addition to the revocation findings set forth in Subsection 17.03.080.A., a development plan or conditional use permit for a telecommunication facility or antenna may also be revoked for any of the following reasons: A. The facility has failed to comply with any applicable Federal standards; B. The operation fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter as they exist at the time of permit renewal, C. The facility has not been upgraded to minimize its impacts (including aesthetics) on the community to the greatest extent permitted by the technology that exists at the time of renewal; D. The permittee has failed to supply assurances acceptable to the planning director that the facility will be brought into compliance within one hundred twenty (120) days, or E. The facility has not been properly maintained. 17.40.110 General Requirements — Location and Facility Separation All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located so as to minimize their visibility and the number of separate and distinct facilities. To this end all of the following measures shall be implemented for all telecommunications facilities and antennas, except exempt facilities, shall comply with the following locations requirements: A. No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off -site shall be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities or other public or quasi -public uses unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be effectively unnoticeable or technical evidence acceptable to the approval authority is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of co -locating it on another antenna or establishing a multi-user site. B. The antenna shall be located outside all yard and street setbacks specified in the zoning district in which the antenna is to be located unless technical evidence acceptable to the planning director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility. C. Telecommunication facilities and antennas shall not be located closer than seventy-five (75) feet from any residential dwelling unit, unless technical evidence acceptable to the approval authority is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility or unless permitted pursuant to an agreement described in Section 17.40.220. D. No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off -site shall be installed closer than one thousand '(1000) feet from another readily visible telecommunication facility or antenna unless it is a co -located facility, is situated on a multiple -user site, or technical evidence acceptable to the planning director is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of placing the antenna in a co - located or multi-user site. This provision does not apply to architecturally integrated building -mounted facilities or to facilities permitted pursuant to an agreement described F:lpeptsTLANNING\OMinancesMNTENNA�242PA97 CCI.doc 38 in Section 17.40.220. E. No new telecommunication facility or antenna that exceeds fifteen (15) feet in height shall be installed on an exposed prominent ridgeline greater than one thousand three hundred and fifty (1350) feet above mean sea level, unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible. . 17.40.120 General Requirements - Basic Tower and Building Design All wireless telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities, shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the greatest extent feasible. To this end all the following measures shalibe implemented: A. Telecommunication towers taller than thirty-five (35) feet shall be monopoles except where satisfactory evidence is submitted to the approval authority that a self-supporting tower is required to provide the height and/or capacity necessary for the proposed telecommunication use to minimize the need for screening from adjacent properties. B. All buildings, poles, towers, antenna supports, antennas, and other components of each telecommunications site shall be treated with non —reflective colors to offer concealment. Galvanized metal or gray paint is the preferred color. C. Satellite dishes other than microwave dishes shall be of mesh construction, except where technical evidence is acceptable to the planning director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing that this is infeasible. D. Telecommunication support facilities (i.e., vaults, equipment rooms, utilities, and equipment enclosures) in the public right-of-way shall be constructed out of non- refiective materials (visible exterior surfaces only) and shall be placed in underground vaults to all extent possible. E. Telecommunication support facilities in areas of high visibility shall be sited below the ridgeline or designed, where possible, to minimize their profile (i.e., placed underground, depressed, or located behind berms). F. Freestanding above ground telecommunication support facilities shall be no taller than one story (about fifteen feet) in height and shall be constructed to look like a building or facility typically found in the area. G. Telecommunication facilities shall insure that sufficient anti -climbing measures have been incorporated into the facility, as needed, to reduce potential for trespass and injury. 17.40.130 General Requirements — Airports and Helipads All wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas located at or near any airport or helipad shall comply with the following measures: A. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed within the safety zone of any airport or any helipad unless the Airport Land Use Commission indicates that it will not adversely affect the operation of the airport or helipad. B. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed at a location where special painting or lighting will be required by the FAA regulations unless technical evidence F:VeptsTLANNINGXOrdlnancesWNTENNA1242PA97 CC1.doc 39 acceptable to the planning director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility, C. Where tower lighting is required, it shall be shielded or directed to the greatest extent possible in such a manner as to minimize the amount of light that falls onto nearby properties, particularly residences: 17.40.140 General Requirements - Co -located and Multiple -user Facilities The co -location of wireless telecommunication antennas is encouraged. The establishment of multiple -user facilities may be approved if the creation of a multiple -user site will reduce the overall impacts on the community. . A. All co -located and multiple -user telecommunication facilities shall be designed to promote facility and site sharing. Telecommunication towers and necessary appurtenances, including but not limited to, parking areas; access roads, utilities and equipment buildings shall be shared by site users to minimize the impacts on the community. B. Facilities that are not proposed to be co -located with another telecommunication facility or antenna shall provide a written explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co -location: Co -location of facilities is not required if, at the sole discretion of the planning director, it may compromise proprietary data, equipment or technology. C. The facility shall make available unutilized space for co -location of other telecommunication facilities, including space for these entities providing similar, competing services. A good faith effort in achieving calocation shall be required of the host entity. Requests for utilization of facility space and responses to such requests shall be made in a timely manner and in writing and copies shall be provided to the planning director. D. Co -location is not required in cases where the addition of the new service or facilities would cause quality of service impairment to the existing facility or if it becomes necessary for the host to go off-line for a significant period of time. E. Approval for the establishment of facilities improved with an existing microwave band or other public service use or facility, which creates interference or interference is anticipated as a result of said establishment of additional facilities, shall include provisions for:the relocation of said existing public use facilities: All costs associated with said relocation shall be borne by the applicant for the additional facilities. 17.40.150 General Requirements - Vegetation Protection and Facility Screening All wireless telecommunications facilities and antennas shall be installed in such a manner so as to maintain and enhance existing native and/or landscaped vegetation to screen the facility, where necessary. The following measures shall apply to all telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities. A. if a telecommunication facility requires the installation of landscaping for screening or erosion control, a landscape plan shall be submitted. The Plan shall indicate all existing vegetation, identify landscaping that is to be retained on the site and any additional vegetation that is needed to satisfactorily screen the facility from adjacent land uses and public view areas. All existing trees larger than four (4) inches in diameter shall be identified in the landscape plan with indication of species type, the diameter at a height of four and one-half (4%2) feet,'and whether it is to be retained or removed with project F:DeptsWUWNINGWrdinances%ANTENNA�242PA97CC1.dx 40 development. The landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval of the appropriate use permit process; B. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the facility and along the access roads and power/telecommunication line routes involved shall be protected from damage, both during the construction period and thereafter. if determined to be necessary by the planning director, a Tree Protection Plan for non -eucalyptus heritage trees, oak trees, or other trees of local importance, shall be submitted with building permit or improvement plan. This Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall specify the measures required to protect trees during project construction; C. Grading, cutting/filling, and the storage/parking of equipmentivehicles shall be prohibited in areas with native or landscaped plants to protect areas within the drip lines of any tree that is required to be preserved. Such areas shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the planning director. Trash, debris, or spoil shall not be placed within these fences nor shall the fences henceforth be opened or moved until the project is complete and written approval to take the fences down has been received from the planning director, and D. All underground lines shall be routed such that a minimum amount of damage is done to tree root systems; E. All areas disturbed during project construction other than the access road and parking areas shall be replanted with vegetation compatible with the vegetation in the surrounding area (e.g., ornamental shrubs or natural brush, depending upon the circumstances) to the satisfaction of the planning director, F. Any existing trees or significant vegetation, on the facilities site or along the affected access area that die shall be replaced with native trees and vegetation of a size and species acceptable to the planning director, and G. No actions shall be taken subsequent to project completion with respect to the vegetation present that would increase the visibility of the facility itself or the access road and power/telecommunication lines serving it. 17.40.160 General Requirements - Lighting All wireless telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities, shall be unlit except for a manually -operated or motion -detector controlled light above the equipment shed door shall be kept off except when personnel are actually present at night. This requirement is not intended to address interior structure lighting. 17.40.170 General Requirements - Roads and Parking All wireless telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities, shall be served by the minimum roads and parking areas necessary to accommodate service vehicles. Existing roads shall be used for access, whenever possible, and be upgraded the minimum amount necessary to meet standards specified by the Fire Chief and Director of Public Works. Any new roads or parking areas built shall, whenever feasible, be shared with subsequent telecommunication facilities and/or other permitted uses. Existing off site parking areas shall be used, whenever possible. F:\Depts'PLANNING10MInances\ANTENNA1242PA97 CC1.doc 41 17.40.180 General Requirements - Environmental Resource Protection All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be sited so as to minimize the effect on environmental resources. To that end the following measures shall be implemented for all telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities: A. Natural vegetation and topography shall be retained to the extent feasible. B. No telecommunications facility or related improvements including but not limited to access roads and power lines shall be sited so as to create a significant threat to the health or survival of rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species. C. Telecommunication facilities or related improvements shall not be sited such that their construction will damage an archaeological site or have an adverse effect on the historic character of a historic feature or site; D. The facility shall comply with all applicable City Floodplain, Floodway and Storm Drainage and Erosion Control regulations. Drainage, erosion, and sediment controls shall be required as necessary to avoid soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways. Structures and roads on slopes of ten (10) percent or greater shall be avoided where practical. Erosion control measures shall be incorporated for any proposed facility that involves grading or construction near a waterway or on lands with slopes over ten (10) percent. E. Potential adverse environmental and public use impacts that might result from project related grading or road construction shall be minimized; 17.40.190 General Requirements - Noise and Traffic A. All wireless telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities, shall be constructed and operated in such a manner as to minimize the amount of disruption imposed on the residents of immediately adjacent homes and the users of adjacent recreational facilities. B. Backup generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. If the facility is located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential dwelling unit, noise attenuation measures shall be included to reduce exterior noise levels to at least a 65 dB CNEL at the property line and an interior noise levels to at least 45 d8 CNEL. Routine testing and maintenance shall only take place on non - holiday weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. 17.40.200 General Requirements - Visual Compatibility All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be sited so as to be visually compatible with their surroundings. To that end the following measures shall be implemented for all telecommunication facilities, except exempt facilities: A. Facility structures and equipment shall be located, designed and screened to blend with the existing natural or built surroundings so as to reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible considering the technological requirements of the proposed telecommunication service and the need to be compatible with neighboring residences and the character of the community. B. The facility shall be designed to blend with any existing supporting structure shall not substantially after the character of the structure or local area. F.,ZepteWLANNING%Ordinances%NTENNAQ42PA97CCi.doc 42 C. Following the assembly and installation of the facility, all waste and debris shall be removed and disposed of in a lawful manner. 17.40.210 Standard Agreements Required A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure the intent of this section will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the planning director prior to approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use authorizing the establishment or modification of anytelecommunications facility which includes any telecommunication tower, a new building or equipment enclosure that in aggregate are larger than three hundred (300) square feet, more than three (3) satellite dishes of any size, or a satellite dish larger than two (2) meters in diameter. ' A. The agreement shall bind the applicant and the applicant's successors -in -interest to properly maintain the exterior appearance of and ultimately removal of the facility in compliance with the provisions of this chapter and any conditions of approval. It shall further find them to pay all costs for monitoring compliance with, and enforcement of, the agreement and to reimburse the City for all costs incurred to perform any work required of the applicant by this agreement that the applicant fails to perform. It shall also specifically authorize the City and/or its agents to enter onto the property and undertake said work so long as the director has first provided the applicant the following written notices: An initial compliance request identifying the work needed to comply with the agreement and providing the applicant at least thirty (30) calendar days to complete it; 2. A follow-up notice of default specifying the applicant's failure to comply with the work within the time period specified and indicating the city's intent to commence the required working within ten (10) working days; and 3. The applicant has not filed an appeal pursuant to Section 17.03.090. If an appeal is filed, the City shall be authorized to enter the property and perform the necessary work if the appeal is dismissed or final action is taken in favor of the City; B. All costs incurred by the City to undertake any work required to be performed by the applicant pursuant to the agreement referred to in this section including, but not limited to, administrative and job supervision costs, shall be bome solely by the applicant. The applicant shall deposit within ten (10) working days of written request therefor such costs as the City reasonably estimates or has actually incurred to complete such work. When estimates are employed, additional moneys shall be deposited as needed within ten (10) working days of demand to cover actual costs. The agreement shall specifically require the applicant to immediately cease operation of the telecommunication facility involved if the applicant fails to pay the moneys demanded within ten (10) working days. It shall further require that operation remain suspended until such costs are paid in full. C. Standard agreements shall include, but not be limited to, the following stipulations agreed to by the applicant: 1. Telecommunication facilities providers shall be strictly libel for any and all sudden and accidental pollution and gradual pollution resulting from their use within the City of Temecula. This liability shall include cleanup, intentional injury or damage to persons or property. Additionally, telecommunication facilities lessors shall be responsible for any sanctions, fines, or other monetary costs imposed as a result F:OeptsTLANNINGtOrdinancesNANTENNA1242PA97 M doe 43 of the release of pollutants from their operations. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, include smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, electromagnetic waves and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. 2. The telecommunication facility provider. shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim orraction is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the provider(s) of any such claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating in the defense. Nothing contained in this stipulation shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 17.40.220 Agreement for Facilities on City Owned Property orRights of Way No approval granted hereunder shall be effective until the applicant and the City have executed a written agreement establishing the particular terms and provisions under which the right to occupy the City owned property or right-of-way shall be used or maintained. 17.40.230 Nonexclusive Grant No approval granted under this Chapter shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, license or franchise to occupy or use the public ways of the City for delivery of telecommunications services or any other purposes.. Further, no approval shall be construed as any warranty of title. 17.40.240 Temporary Facilities A. The planning director may approve, for a period of up to one hundred twenty (120) days, a temporary antenna facility to provide service while an approved antenna facility is being fabricated or when an existing antenna has been damaged or destroyed. B. A pre -permanent temporary facility may only be approved after the approval authority has approved or conditionally approved an application for a wireless telecommunications antenna and the project proponent has signed and returned a copy of the conditions of approval to the planning director. C. The planning director shall approve the actual term, location, and design of the temporary facility consistent with the goals and intent of this Chapter. 17.40.250 Nonconforming Facilities and Antennas Any antenna constructed in violation of this chapter, or in violation of any prior ordinance or regulation, is subject to immediate abatement. Any antenna that is lawfully constructed prior to the effective date of this chapter that does not comply with the performance standards and requirements of this chapter, shall be deemed a nonconforming use and will be subject to the provisions of Section 17.03.070." Section 3. The following. !terns are hereby added in the appropriate alphabetical locations of Chapter 17.34 of the Temecula Municipal Code: F:OeptsWLANNINGWrdinancesWNTENNAt242PA97CCt.doc 44 A. "Antenna" means any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves when such system is either external to or attached to the exterior of a structure. Antennas shall include devices having active elements extending in any direction, and directional beam -type arrays having elements carried by and disposed from a generally horizontal boom that may be mounted upon and rotated through a vertical mast or tower interconnecting the boom and antenna support, all of which elements are deemed to be a part of the antenna. Antennas shall include cellular on wheels (COWS) and cellular on light trucks (COLTs) facilities; as well as dispatch carriers for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services and Enhanced SMR (ESMR). 1. "Antenna - Building Mounted" means any antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, directly attached or affixed to a building, tank, tower, or structure other than a telecommunication tower. 2. "Antenna — Directional" (also known as a "panel" antenna) transmits and/or receives radio frequency signals in a directional pattern of less than 360 degrees. 3. "Antenna - Ground Mounted" means any antenna with its base, single or multiple posts, placed directly on the ground or a mast less than 10 feet tall and 6 inches in diameter. 4. "Antenna — Vertical" means a vertical type antenna without horizontal cross - sections greater than three-quarters of an inch in diameter. B. "Co -location" - see telecommunication facility - co -located. C. "Monopole" is a wireless communication facility that consists of a vertical unguyed structure, erected on the ground to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. D. "NIER" means non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (i.e.. electromagnetic radiation primarily in the visible, infrared, and radio frequency portions of the electromagnetic spectrum). E. "Public Service Use Facility" means a use operated or used by a public body or public utility in connection with any of the following services: water, waste water management, public education, parks and recreation, fire and police protection, solid waste management, transportation or utilities. F. "Public Way" means and includes all public streets and utility easements, now and hereafter owned by the City, but only to the extent of the City's right, title, interest or authority to grant a license to occupy and use such streets and easements for telecommunications facilities and antennas. G. "Quasi -Public Use" means a use serving the public at large, and operated by a private entity under a franchise or other similar governmental authorization, designed to Promote the interests of the general public or operated by a recognized civic organization for the benefit of the general public. H. "Readily Visible" means an object that stands out as a prominent feature of the landscape when viewed with the naked eye. I• "Satellite earth station antenna" means a parabolic or dish -shaped antenna or other apparatus or device that is designed for the purpose of receiving radio or television broadcast signals. F:OepIsWLANNING'Drdinances'ANTENNA�242PA97 =.doc 45 J. "Telecommunication Facility" means a facility that transmits and/or receives electromagnetic signals. It includes antennas, microwave dishes, horns, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, telecommunication towers or similar structures supporting said equipment, equipment buildings, parking area, and other accessory development 1. "Telecommunications Facility— Exempt" include, but are not limited to, the following a. A single ground or building mounted receive -only radio or television antenna, b. A ground or building mounted citizens band radio antenna including any mast, C. A ground, building, or tower mounted antenna operated by a federally licensed amateur radio operator as part of the Amateur Radio Service that is less than thirty five (35) feet in:height, d. A ground or building mounted receive only radio or television satellite dish antenna, which does not exceed one meter (39.4 inches) in diameter, e. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature, f. Hand held devices such as cell phones, business -band mobile radios, walkie-talkies, cordless telephones, garage door openers and similar devices as determined by the planning director, and 9• City government owned and operated receive and/or transmit telemetry station antennas for supervisory control and data. acquisition (SCADA) systems for water, flood alert, traffic control devices and signals, storm water, pump stations and/or irrigation systems. 2. "Telecommunication Facility - Co -Located" means a telecommunication facility comprised of a single telecommunication tower or building supporting one or more antennas, dishes, or similar devices owned or used by more than one public or private entity. 3. "Telecommunication Facility - Multiple User" means a telecommunication facility comprised of multiple towers or buildings supporting one or more antennas owned or used by more than one public or private entity, excluding research and development industries with antennas to serve internal uses only. K. "Inhabited area" means any residence, any other structure regularly occupied by people, or any outdoor area used by people on a regular basis. Section 4. Chapter 17.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as described below. A. Section 17.06.050.D.7 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "7. Antennas. Are subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.40." B. The line for Antennas in Table 17.06.050.D of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: F:1DapbWLANNING%OrdinancesWNTENNAQ42PA97 C AOC 46 Section S. Chapter 17.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as described below. follows: A. Table 17.08.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as •.ni z .: � .i5+f¢ i ,�a`�3F 5V%1.1 �iF4F T 1 S �v11 .... Communications and microwave installations. B. Footnote No. 2 of Table 17.08.030 is hereby amended to read as follows: "2. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code." Section G. Chapter 17.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as described below. A. The following use is hereby added to Table 17.12.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and shall read as follows: Communications and microwave installations B. Footnote No. 1 is hereby added to Table 17.12.030 to read as follows: "1. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code." Section 7. Chapter 17.14 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as described below. A. The following use is hereby added to Table 17.14.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and shall read as follows: B. The Footnote at the bottom of Table 17.14,030 is hereby amended to read as follows: "1. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code in the P-R and OS zones." Section 8. The moratorium on the placement of new antennas contained in Ordinance 99-17 is hereby repealed. F:Wepte\PLANNING%OrdinancesvANTENNA\242PA97 CCt.doc 47 Section 9. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and 'If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this _ day of , 2000, ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of . , 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the _ day of , 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk F:Depts%PLANNING�OMinances%NTENNA\242PA97 CCI.doc 45 �.Id y , � �703 2S Uv lv, SS o e- ,col yes f'D3 �� �4/i�/DSa� 0d. �_ J %<Al *' ^ »§� � � �� ATTACHMENT NO.3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2004-018 R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 11 PC RESOLUTION NO.2004-018 l A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE . CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FOURTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012) WHEREAS, Doug Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0717, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0717 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA02-0717 on April7, 2004 and April 21, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to t and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA02-0717 conformed to the.City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and .finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the -Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The RAC U P¢002102-0717 Cingulm Wireless Mono-PaIm\FINAL RESO & COAs.dw I monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend in with the surrounding t environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. 8. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas mounted within the bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed monopalm is forty-five feet high and has been' designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within 't the Very Low Density Residential zoning district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radlofrequency energy (RF) above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (17.05.01OF) F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and RAC U P0002W2-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono PaImTNIAL RESO & COAs.dm - 2 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with t all applicable requirements of state law. G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore property planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed fourty-five foot high -unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm. . Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed forty-five foot high artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21 st day of April 2004. John lesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] . RAC U F2002\02-0717 Cinguin Wireless Mmn PalmWNAL RESO & COAsAm 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-018 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio None None None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary RAC U MONT24717 Cingular Wi¢l= Monaaaim\rerAL RBSO & COAs.dm 4 ATTACHMENT NO.4 MINUTES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF APRIL 7, 2004 R:V\ppeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music and welcomed Elton and Jean Ward. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Olhasso led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: Chiniaeff. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 7, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 18, 2004. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. Principal Planner Hazen requested that Item No. 3 be continued to May 5, 2004 and Item No. 7 be continued off calendar. RAMinutesPC\040704 1 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's request to continue Item No. 3 to May 3, 2004 and Item No. 7 off calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS New Items 3 tract This was continued to May 3, 2004, see above. 4 me Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: • That the proposed project is within the existing Overland Corporate Center which the Commission approved in 2001; • That Condition of Approval No. 7 of the Development Plan required that the Planning Commission review and approve any changes to the approved building types; • That a lot line adjustment application is currently being processed to reconfigure existing lot line onsite to better accommodate the restaurant facility; • That there will be varying roof plans; that there will be a large porch effect around the building which will create shadow and depth to the building; and that large decorative windows will be applied along the roof lines; • That to further accentuate the building, an outdoor patio will be proposed along the western property line; • That southeast coastal architecture will be utilized to commensurate with a seafood restaurant; • That staff is of the opinion that the unique architecture being proposed will be appropriate for a restaurant building; • That 102 parking spaces will be provided; R1MinutesPC\040704 2 That reciprocal parking and access easements will be provided between adjacent parcels within the center; That staff is requesting that the applicant incorporate a decorative concrete colored sidewalk to accentuate the cobblestone at the front entrance to further enhance the aesthetics along the front of the restaurant; and that this has been made a recommended condition; That staff determined that the proposed project will be consistent with the General Plan and will conform to the Citywide Design Guidelines and Development Standards specified in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP). For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that Promenade Way is a private street and that currently there are no intentions of having the street dedicated; and that with the cooperation of the mall development, staff could explore the intent of installing "No Parking" signs on Promenade Way to aid with traffic. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Michael Riley, 3190-K Airport Loop, architect for the applicant, noted that the applicant would be willing to work with staff in regard to incorporating a decorative, concrete colored sidewalk and a color that will be compatible with the cobblestone. Mr. Craig Turner, 41777 Carleton Way, expressed concern with winds carrying the aroma of cooked fish. For the Commission, Mr. Riley relayed that the Red Lobster, as an operation, would have exhaust hoods that would be installed in restaurants. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero expressed excitement with regard to a Red Lobster in Temecula and expressed delight with the architecture but noted that he would not know how to address the concern of the cooked fish aroma. Although he would he recognize the concern of the fish aroma, Commissioner Mathewson would not view it as a significant concern. For Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it would not be out of line to request that staff add a condition that would have the applicant install top of the line vents. Commissioner Mathewson suggested that staff and the applicant work together to ensure a high quality filtration system. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation; to adopt Resolution No. 2004-015; and to direct staff to work with the applicant on the ventilation system and the colored concrete sidewalk. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. RAMinutesPC\040704 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0671, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A SINGLE -STORY RED LOBSTER RESTAURANT BUILDING TOTALING 7,567 SQUARE FEET ON 1.6 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND PROMENADE WAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 921-830-027 & 028 Ynez Road Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the following: • That one access point will be proposed to the public street system off Ynez Road; that there will be two internal cul-de-sacs; and that there will be no direct vehicular access to Rancho Vista Road; however, there will be a pedestrian path onto Rancho Vista Road; • That as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to provide a landscape median along Ynez Road for the length of the project site which will limit access to the site as a right in and right out; and that there will be no turn lane; • That the applicant proposed to landscape the area between the proposed street and Ynez Road as well as the length of the project adjacent to lot 10 and lot 1; and that once that area is designed and landscaped, it will be transferred to the City by a grant deed; • That there is an existing equestrian easement on the eastern portion of the project site; that new structures are being proposed in this easement; and that there is a condition of approval, that will prohibit any permanent structures within the equestrian easement; • That there was a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the site; and that the potential impacts are noise, air quality, cultural resources, geotechnical, and removal of trees; • That the applicant has provided a noise study and identified sound and barrier walls proposed on the west side of lot ten (10) and on the north side of lot one (1); • That as a mitigation measure and a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a final noise study to determine interior noise levels and if any additional mitigation measures were required; • That the applicant will be removing 19 trees on the eastern portion of the project site; RAMinutesPC\040704 4 That per the request of staff, the applicant agreed to replant all live trees at a 1:1 ratio pursuant to an arborist report; • That staff received letters (which were provided to the Commission) from residents, noting the following concerns: o That there be no vehicular access onto Rancho Vista Road; o That staff protect the equestrian easement; o That residents are concerned with the proposed median; That staff would recommend that the Commission adopt the resolution approving the Mitigation Negative Declaration Monitoring Program and adopt a resolution to approve Tenant Tract Map No. 31344 and the attached conditions. Deputy Director Parks requested to correct Condition of Approval 33a to read: Improve Road (major Highway Standards —100' R/W). For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Long noted that the applicant is proposing to move the trees to provide suitable building pads for the proposed project and that staff required the applicant to plant 24 "box living trees. Clarifying for Chairman Telesio, Mr. Long noted that southbound traffic in order to access will need to make a U-turn at Pauba Road. , Mr. Parks also relayed that when Tierra Vista Road will be completed the tract could possibly have access to a signalized intersection at Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road; that in addition, Preece Road loops around and connects to Ynez Road further south and that at the location, Ynez Road is designated as a secondary highway which is 88 R/W and would not have a raised landscaped median at that location; that the purpose of the condition is to meet the circulation element of the General Plan; that this would be the only time to get the raised landscape medians paid for; however, there is a possibility to take cash in lieu of until the entire median is completed. For the Commission, Mr. Parks relayed that Tierra Vista is a recorded subdivision map and staff has bonds for making the improvements but have not had the need until now; that there is activity within that area for additional development so that the developer would be required to build the roads; that currently there is a signal at Tierra Vista; and that at this time, staff does not have the schedule for the extension. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, relayed the following: That the pre -application was for an 18-unit condominium project which was modified to a 14-unit condominium project both of which have required a Planned Development Overlay (PDO); that after much consultation with staff, the applicant has reduced the project to a 10-unit project; RAMinutesPC\040704 5 That the initial design had a street lining up opposite the street across an intersection; that as per the Public Works Department, the applicant would be responsible for half of the median; that the intent would be to build the entire median across the applicant's frontage, enabling the applicant to generate fee credits for the other side of the half street; that if there were a desire to propose cash in lieu of the interim case scenario, staff informed the applicant would be open to it; That the applicant that access off Rancho Vista Road would not be feasible due to the close spacing of the Rancho Vista and Ynez Road intersection; That Condition of Approval No. 7 be modified to read: that the purple plum trees be replaced by trees that would be acceptable to the Community Services Department (CSD); That the applicant is working with three property owners to resolve the issue of rear -yard encroachments; that the association continues to express concern relative to easements; that the applicant has chosen to pull everything back from the easement edge so that the applicant will not be impacting or restricting any use of the easement; that the easement exists further to the east into a landscaped area within one of association boundaries and is not used for equestrian purposes at this time, but was reserved in place so that there will be no impact to that easement; The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: Earlene Bodman 30216 Mira Loma Drive Jeff Steinorth 43079 Calle Reva Robert Milligan 43064 Calle Reva Rachel Rayluron 28368 Tierra Vista Karen Farrar 28289 Calle Ocasa Ron Hull 42943 Calle Reva John Music 28179 Tierra Vista Kate Chandler P.O. Box 891138 Hal Hoy 28345 Corte Ocaso Mike Medaris 42936 Calle Reva David Moodie 28208 Tierra Vista Road Eve Craig 42960 Calle Reva Jody Sypher 43359 Calle Reva Lori Huot 28312 Tierra Vista Road Paul Botello 29740 Camino del Sol Joe Buchmiller 43048 Calle Reva Bill Selyzer 28242 Corte Malbrino • That Lake Village Community Association members have the right to use the dedicated equestrian, pedestrian easement located along the eastern border of lot No. 252; that the members would like to continue to use the easement and are not planning to give up that right; • That it would be necessary for surrounding residents to access Ynez Road to get to and from the highway; R1MinutesM040704 • That the 50 to 75 year old and 60 to 80 feet tall trees being replaced by small trees is a concern; • That Tierra Vista Road would not be a viable access point; • That exiting at Preece Road to Ynez Road is a concern; • That adding a median along that area will worsen the morning traffic; • That if there would have been proper notification, there would have been more than 17 speakers; • That there are over 406 homes in Rancho Vista and over 300 vehicles that exit a day onto Preece; • That until Tierra Vista Road will be completed, over 300 homeowners will have difficulty exiting their own community; • That residents would recommend aligning Preece and Rancho Vista for a four-way stop light; • That if a median were installed prior to completion of Tierra Vista Road, there will be increased driver frustration and accidents; • That Eucalyptus trees are a concern in regard to fire; • That asking homeowners to make a U-turn to exit their neighborhood for these 10 nearly proposed homes would be absurd; • That adding a median along that stretch of road would lower the value of the homes in the area; • That there is concern with the retaining wall that is being proposed. Chairman Telesio thanked the speakers for their cooperation. For the speakers, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that state law requires one form of notification; that the City of Temecula does three forms of notification: an add is put in the paper, notices are mailed to every homeowner within 600 feet of the boundary, and the proposed site is posted and noting that the title company provides the City with labels and certifies that those are the correct homeowners within 600 feet. Mr. Larry Markham clarified the following: • That the applicant would concur to the suggestion of realigning Preece Road with Rancho Vista Road to create a new four-way intersection, as designed in the CIP; • That the applicant would be willing to accept a condition to provide cash in lieu of; RAMinutesPC\040704 7 • That the only trees that would be removed are those at the base of the hill on the applicant's property; and that some are diseased and some are healthy; • That the houses on Camino del Sol Road are ranging from 14' to 25' pad to pad that the maximum cut is about 5 to 6 feet at the top; that the new homes will see completely over the new development; and there they will not be an impact from the difference in pad elevations; • That standard noticing was applied; • That the Rancho Highland Community Association was noticed; • That the applicant has worked very hard to accommodate the concerns of staff; • That the applicant met with the Lake Village Association; that the request from them was to change the definition of the easement to an equestrian size pedestrian easement; • That if there were no solution between the applicant and the association, the applicant will not be building the fence across the easement, pursuant to the condition that Mr. Long has provided. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that this would be the only time that staff can condition the developer to pay for the cost of widening the road to meet General Plan designations; that it would not be the intent to block the left -turn motion until such time an alternate route to in and egress that site; that staff would explore the option of lining up Rancho Vista with Preece; that there are several options and staff does not want to block the residents' of ingress and egress; however, with the General Plan build out, and as more cars access Ynez Road, this will become an unsafe turning motion and there will be more accidents due to the facts that there is no median; and that medians are installed to avoid accidents not cause them. Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he would be of the opinion that the most viable option heard would be the realigning of Rancho Vista Road and Preece Road; and that an arborist should make the decision whether or not the Eucalyptus trees should be removed. Commissioner Mathewson noted that the raised median on Ynez is vital and ultimately will need to be installed in; that it is a safety issue with traffic on Ynez; that the solutions that were offered with respect to the realignment of the intersection would be positive approach. Chairman Telesio noted that the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee will be exploring the circulation element on Ynez Road. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public Works Department will explore other alternatives for the circulation element on Ynez Road. Commissioner Olhasso thanked the developer for lowering the density of the homes. RAMinutesPC\040704 8 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Resolution No. 2004-016 per staff's recommendation with changes to Condition of Approval Nos. 7 and 30 per staff's recommendation; that the City hold the applicant to the equestrian/pedestrian easement blockage; that the applicant work with the Rancho Highland Homeowners Association (HOA) to explore the possibility of realignment; and that the City propose cash in lieu of for the installation of the median. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0321, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31344 SUBDIVIDING 3.2 ACRES INTO TEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.944-092-024 Planning Application No PA02-0717 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: • That Cingular Wireless has been experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed facility; • That the proposed location would be the only candidate site that would meet technical, zoning, and landowner requirements; • That the project site will consists of a lease area of 532 square feet within a 3.16 acre residential parcel that contains an existing single-family home; • . That the telecommunications facilities and antennas ordinance requires that such facilities be located no closer then 75 feet from any residential dwelling unit; • That the proposed facility will be situated approximately 85 feet from the nearest residential unit which is the home located on the project site; • That access to the site will be obtained from an existing 19 foot 3 inch wide dirt driveway; • That the proposed monopalm will be designed to resemble existing and proposed living Mexican Fan Palms located on the project site; RAMinutesPC\040704 9 • That the exterior surface of the monopalm will be a brown rubber cladding material that simulates a palm tree trunk; • That the monopalm will feature three antenna panels placed inside the bulb portion of the monopalm so that the antennas will not be visible; • That a 310 square foot screened equipment area consisting of a six foot split -face block wall and a wooden access gate will screen the four proposed outdoor equipment cabinets; • That a five -gallon silver -berry shrubs will sound the equipment screen wall to soften its appearance and the addition of two 35 foot Mexican Fan Palms at the Southside of the equipment screen wall; That the antennas will be within the bulb portion of the monopalm; • That the proposed height of the monopalm is 56 feet as measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower to the top of the simulated palm fronds; • That it was determined by the applicant's engineer that 56 feet is the minimum height needed to achieve the applicant's technical coverage objectives; • That the height as proposed will permit the monopalm to achieve the objective of sending and receiving cellular telephone transmissions to provide coverage along and between Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Medusa; • That staff if the opinion that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic impacts; • That staff determined that the proposed monopalm will meet the intent of the general requirements for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance; • That staff will make the required findings necessary to approve a 56 foot high unmanned wireless telecommunication facility at the proposed location; • That an initial study prepared indicated that the project could impact palenontological or archeological resources unless mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval; therefore, staff would recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. At this time, by way of a PowerPoint presentation, photo simulations were presented. Mr. Fisk noted that he received two letters from neighbors who expressed concern with radio frequency and visual impacts. For the record, Mr. Fisk relayed that the 1996 Telecommunications Act dictated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who oversees radio frequency emissions stated that the City does not have the ability to approve or deny these types of projects based on radio RAMinutesPM040704 10 frequency emissions; and noted that the proposed project will have to comply with FCC regulations and will be reviewed by the FCC. Staff noted that based on the photo simulations and material samples that were presented to staff there would not be severe visual impacts; that the proposed project will be consistent with all applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies; and that the project would be compatible with the surrounding developments in terms of design and quality and staff would recommend approval. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would be of the opinion, therefore, that the intent of the ordinance would be to keep these types of projects out of residential areas. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fisk relayed that the attachments in staff's report included zoning consistency and justification and that he did not have a list of landowners that were contacted. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Gil Gonzales, 150 Palareno Avenue, representative from Cingular Wireless relayed the following: • That Cingular Wireless cannot make any decisions based on health effects, per the Telecommunications Act; • That the results from a radio frequency study performed by an outside consultant objective firm revealed that the proposed facility would be at one and a half percent below the safety standard, at a worse case scenario; • That Cingular Wireless is not aware of any illegal grading; • That the proposed facility will be designed to mimic a palm tree and that currently there is a line of existing palm trees on the property; • That Cingular Wireless facility operates at aline of technology in which you must be able to see what you are trying to cover; that installing trees at the same height would cause interference; • That in addition to the existing palm trees Cingular Wireless will be also planting two live palm trees at 35 feet; • That the proposed unit will be 300 to 400 feet to the south property line and 400 to 500 feet to the nearest residence to the south; that there is an existing unit on this property; however, it meets the 75 foot setback requirement and that it is on the other side of the property; • That the proposed height is the minimum required for the facility to properly propagate the signal; • That the site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements needed by the Radio Frequency Engineer; RAMinutesPC\040704 11 • That the operating characteristics of the proposed telecommunications facility will create no impact on circulation system will generate no noise, odor, or smoke; and will not create any adverse impact that are detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity; • That Cingular Wireless would concur with the Conditions of Approval. For the Commission, Mr. Gil noted the following: • That there will be four (4) BTS cabinets at four (4) feet in height that will be enclosed within a block to mitigate visibility; • That the power source will be 200 watts from an onsite source; • That there will be an enclosure with a gate for maintenance; • That there will be no alarm installed; that they are designed to be outdoor units; and that each equipment cabinet will have a lock; • That if the proposed 50 foot high artificial palm tree were lowered, Cingular's coverage in the area would shrink and would, in effect, raise the need for another facility. Assistant City Attorney Curley reiterated to the Commission that the item before the Commission is for the consideration a CUP in residential area; that the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) oversees radio frequency emissions; and that the City does no have the ability to approve or deny these types of projects based on radio frequency emissions. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Gonzales noted that he will provide a list of the property owners that were contacted. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: Ms. Roma Stromberg 40384 Windsor Road Ms. Cecilia Ticsay 40372 Windsor Road • That the proposed project will result insignificant visual impacts to nearby residents; • That there was no view shield analysis or line site analysis completed; • That the public was not given on opportunity to review the material on which the City Planning staff made their finding; • That it is the opinion of several neighbors that the proposed facility is not consistent with existing residential land uses and would not be in character with the existing community, resulting in significant land use impact; • That there are no other above ground facilities in the neighborhood; R NinutesM040704 12 • That the residents are of the opinion that there is inadequate information to support that there will be no detrimental effects to the health and welfare of the community. For the Commission, Mr. Gonzales noted that it would not be the intent of Cingular Wireless to install a generator on any of the facilities; that the intent would be to achieve permanent power; that Cingular Wireless would only install a generator if a site were to completely shut down due to some natural disaster in the area; that the facilities will be maintained once every two months; and that if it were the will of the Commission, more live palm trees could be planted. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern with the height of the monopalm and suggested that that the applicant submit verification that 56 feet is the absolute minimum requirement. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Commissioner Mathewson and also expressed concern with security of the facility. For the Commission, Mr. Gonzales relayed that the 56 feet is to accommodate for the palm fronds; that the antenna tip height is 50 feet; and that he would be willing to come back with a study demonstrating the facility at 45 feet to show the difference. For Mr. Gil, Commissioner Matheson also requested that he also provide a list of the property owners that were contacted. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue Item No. 6 to April 21, 2004. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY- SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM THREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LAND, APPROXIMATELY 3200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LAND (APN 957-170- 012) internet use including internet gaming located at 40820 Winchester Road Suite 1040 Per the request of the Planning Director, Item No. 7 was continued off calendar. RAMinutesPC\040704 13 PC RESOLUTION NO.2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0679 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A 1,670 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY RENTING COMPUTER TIME FOR THE USE OF WORK PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND FOR INTERNET USE, INCLUDING INTERNET GAMING, WITHIN THE PROMENADE MALL LOCATED AT 40820 WINCHESTER ROAD, SUITE 1040, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910420-005. Principal Planner Hazen presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: • That staff primarily focused on the consistency with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (SP) and the overall site design and building architecture; • That the site is located at the southeast corner of Margarita Road and Pauba Road; • That the site plan shows two, two-story office buildings being constructed at the corner, with a courtyard between the two buildings and that there will be interior parking and a single access driveway off Pauba Road and Margarita Road; • That the proposed use will be consistent with the uses listed in Planning Area 34 of the Paloma del Sol (SP); that offices are a permitted use in the Planning Area; that it will meet all Development requirements; and that the project will be within the maximum height limit of the 50 feet in this Planning Area; • That the proposed- "Spanish Eclectic' architecture is referenced in the Paloma del Sol (SP) and that staff is of the opinion that it will be compatible with the residences to the east as well as the character of the nearby neighborhoods; • That the Paloma del Sol (SP) depicts a landscape transition buffer immediately east to the site on a 50 foot wide strip of land that is controlled by the Homeowners Association (HOA); that in order to be consistent, a dense row of a deciduous and ever green trees as well as low -and -median height shrubbery will be planted to buffer the impact that the project would be creating to the residents to the east; • That currently, the land is not vegetated but will need to be in order to be consistent; that it is an off -site buffer intended to mitigate the impacts the project will be creating on the adjacent residences; RAMinutesPC\040704 14 • That in the 50 foot wide strip of land, in order to be consistent, there would need to be a dense row of deciduous and median -height shrubbery to help buffer the impact that the project would be creating to the residents to the east; • That the distance of the buildings would be 200 feet from the tract; • That the proposed site design does not show the required landscaped transition buffer, as per the SP to the east on Homeowners Association (HOA) property and that the purpose of the buffer would be to provide a visual buffer between the office site and the residences to the east; • That the area requiring a buffer is 50-foot wide and should include a pedestrian path as well; that if the HOA would not consent to providing a buffer, the applicant will have to modify his site plan to show the buffer on his site in order for the Commission to find that the application will be consistent with the Specific Plan (SP); • That the SP does not specify a minimum width of the buffer if not constructed in the HOA area (which is 50 feet wide), but a width of 25 feet should be adequate if the buffer were to be required on the subject site; • That staff received two e-mail correspondences that expressed the need for the landscape buffer; • That staff will be adding a condition under General Requirements that states the project be subject to the mitigation measures required in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, EIR, as a formality to find that the project will be consistent with the EIR provided the mitigation measures are met. Commissioner Olhasso queried why the City did not condition the developer to reserve funds to install a buffer. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Hazen relayed that at the time the tract map was approved, it was not a condition of approval; that the current proposed project will be creating the impact; that up to this point, it has been a vacant site and there has not been need for a buffer; that it is time for the HOA to step forward and add the buffer; and that per the Specific Plan (SP), it is a requirement. For the Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks requested that the following Conditions of Approval be added: 21b Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards — 110' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. RAMinutesPC\040704 15 • The developer shall reimburse the City for the construction of half width of the raised landscaped median at a rate not to exceed $50.00 per lineal foot; • Access along Margarita Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out only; • The bike lane striping shall be modified to allow a right -turn access into the site; 21c The Developer shall reimburse the City for its fair share of the cost of the existing median built by Zonos along Margarita Road; that the Developer will only be responsible for the frontage along their property; that the frontage belonging to Paloma del Sol Homeowner's Association will not be included. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Hogan noted that the plot is undeveloped and that there is service drive for Metropolitan Water District. Assistant City attorney Curley noted that there was never an obligation imposed either on the original developer when they were the declarant or when it was transitioned into the HOAs ownership; that from a development standpoint, staff has been unable to identify an obligation that the intent of the Specific Plan was clearly to ensure mitigation; that it could be the Commissions purview to state that because it is HOA land — if the HOA decides to buffer their residents, okay and if not, then okay and not impose the buffer obligation; and leave that decision up to the HOA. Commissioner Olhasso expressed concern leaving the HOA to its own devices and suggested that the developer purchase the property. For Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the developer could purchase the HOA property. For the Commission, Mr. Hazen relayed that he would be of the opinion that the applicant and the HOA should be working together to custom design a landscaped buffer that would best suit the project. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she would be skeptical of the HOA providing a visual buffer between the office site and the residences to the east and would be of the opinion that the HOA would not have an incentive to comply. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera, representing the applicant, noted the following: • That staff has worked very hard to get to this point and the applicant is appreciative; RAMtnu[esPC\040704 16 That the applicant would be amenable to working with the City and the HOA to resolve the buffer concern; that the intent has shown under the ownership of the property that it is an HOA ownership; • That the MWD easement on that property could create some complication; and that uses are limited; That the applicant does understand the importance of buffering and screening from the residents and would be willing to contribute resources in terms of time, trees, and shrubbery. For the Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the portion of the raised median that is not built would be payment in lieu fees at $50 a linear foot and for the portion that was built would be reimbursed for its fair share. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fagan noted that the closest distance from the parking lot to the nearest property line would be 80 feet to a side property line. Mr. Vince Dedonado, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, landscape architect, relayed the following: • That the Pepper trees proposed will give a consistent buffer between the residents and the proposed project; • That the proposed shrubs will grow 5 to 6 feet tall which will give a solid hedge appearance; • That the homeowners currently have some landscaping to their walls and fences; • That MWD will not allow any trees within 25 feet of its pipes; • That decomposed granite could be placed on the MWD easement to soften the appearance; • That five (5) gallon Escalonia will be planted as well. Mr. Rick Raciot, 31320 Corte Rimolda, Paloma del Sol resident, relayed the following: • That the proposed area has been aesthetically unpleasing for a long time; • That the speed limit is currently marked at 50 mph and should be reduced to 30 mph; • That the driveway entrance on Pauba Road will be a serious problem, due to accidents; • That the current traffic between the school hours and business hours will be a problem; That there are concerns with parking lot standards; That the Pepper trees being proposed should be pine or fir to ensure consistency with the median and the box size should be a minimum 36' box; R:\MinutesPC\040704 17 • That the quality of the architect, the landscape layout, the breaking up of the massing of the architecture, and breaking up of the parking lot is very pleasing; • That the level of detail that is being proposed must be consistent to the end of construction; • Parking lot lights should go to bollards along the edge, increase the size of the box trees along the buffer zone, and force the homeowners association to comply. • That HOA meeting minutes indicate the association would landscape and maintain that area once the proposed project was approved; • That staff not allow decomposed granite to be installed; • That the two ends of access should be closed off and that a concrete meandering path and a mowable lawn be installed. Mr. Al Ogle, 43053 Margarita Road, presenting Plaza del Sol Center, relayed the following: • That the Plaza del Sol Center would be in favor of the proposed project; • That there is a need for office space in the area and that it will be a good asset to the community. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project for the following reasons: Mr. Paul Schantz 31355 Cala Carasco Ms. Michelle Baldwin 31280 Cala Carraso • That it would be ludicrous to make a decision tonight without the involvement of the HOA; • That traffic is a major concern for residents in the area; • That ingress and egress into the proposed site would be a concern. Mr. Fagan requested that the Commission reconsider Condition of Approval No. 11 to make it more equitable for the applicant and that adding Condition No. 21 would be acceptable. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she would be of the opinion that staff should be involved in all negotiations between developer and the HOA and that Mr. Raciot find the minutes that he previously discussed; that the proposed project is great; that staff has done a great job working with the developer; that the architecture is desirable; and that Code Enforcement contact EMD requesting that the area be mowed. Commissioner Guerriero relayed the following: • That the architecture is esthetically pleasing; • That the buffer situation should be handled between the developer and the HOA; R:\MinutesPC\040704 18 • That the landscape requirements meet City standards. Commissioner Mathewson expressed his support of the proposed architecture; that bollards would solve the lighting standard problem; and that 36' boxes will be sufficient. For Mr. Hazen, the Commission suggested monumentation for signage. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend this meeting to 10:30 pm. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if she were to have any concerns with any of the proposed signage, she would refer it to the Planning Commission. Chairman Telesio commended the developer on the project and encouraged the residents of Paloma del Sol to find the minutes that state that they would be responsible for the buffer. Assistant City Attorney Curley recommended that the Commission approve the site plan as presented in regards to the development of the site and reconfigure Condition of Approval No. 11 to require that the applicant and the HOA meet and confer in good faith to find a solution; that the City not be involved in the initial discussion; and that the City could bring in Code Enforcement to compel them to make it palatable. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the School District is currently working on a project to widen Pauba Road within its frontage; that a parking lot will be installed that at that point, the access issue will be improved; and that Linfield School was conditioned to completely widen their frontage as well. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt Resolution No. 2004-017 as presented with the 10 foot buffer along the easement, modifying Condition of Approval No. 11, adding Condition of Approval No. 21 for their involvement with the median on Margarita Road. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0677, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE TWO, TWO-STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 37,520 SQUARE FEET ON 3.2 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 955-150-027 R:\MhutesPC\040704 19 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Chairman Telesio relayed that the Commissioners will be receiving name badges and requested wallet sized cards with telephone numbers of the Commissioners and Council Members. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that there will be two new confirmed employees starting soon and that policies for the Chaparral has been reviewed by the General Plan Advisory Committee and will be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future. ADJOURNMENT At 10:11 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday. April 21, 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning RAMinutesPC\040704 20 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MINUTES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OF APRIL 21, 2004 R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 21, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 3, 2004. 3 Director's Hearing Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March 2004. RAMinulesPC\042104 1 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar and requested to move Item No. 7 after No. 5. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Recommend City Council Approval of the Chaparral Interim Policy Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: • That in developing the proposed policy, staff had discussions with an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee as well as the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC); That both groups were of the opinion that development proposals that protect sensitive open space areas and provide local trail connections are desirable and have the highest potential for community wide benefits; That the proposed interim policy is as follows: o Limit the gross density in the Chaparral area to one dwelling unit per acre, except for the tier of lots adjacent to Ynez Road where a density of two dwelling units per acre would be more appropriate; o That a one unit per acre density allow half -acre sized lots to help preserve sensitive open space and habitat areas; o That all future developments provide trail dedications for the Citywide trail network when possible; That the City Council reviewed the policy direction received from the Subcommittee and the Commission Advisory Commission (CAC) and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. For the Commission, Mr. Hogan relayed that the land uses that are currently in the General Plan uses are currently in the General Plan interim policy; and that what is being proposed is to allow 1/2 acre lots in what is currently a one -acre zoning district; that there are two different situations being proposed, one would be for the 1/2 acre lots and the other project area is for the one -acre density with the ability to go down to an 1/2 lots if the remaining is set is some form of open space. RAMinutesPC\042104 2 Mr. Hogan also relayed that for City -owned trails, proper maintenance would include: regular inspections, repairs and resurfacing as needed, weed control, safety signage, and stripping (if hard surfaced); that when the City trail facilities are constructed in easement areas, City liability for the trail is still covered through the General Plan Liability Policy; however, non -trail related liability will still remain the responsibility of the underlying property owners. Mr. Hogan further clarified that the proposed project is designed for large parcels; that it is a voluntary policy; that it would not apply to a person who would desire to build a home on their own lot; and that it would only apply if one were to have subdivisions of land. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, 41045 Enterprise Circle relayed that he is in favor of the project and noted that the proposed project would cut the density in half for the vast majority of the area with the exception of the parcels that are immediately adjacent to Ynez; and that it would allow flexibility on how to site the parcels with regard to clustering. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was the consensus of the Commission to combine Item No. 5 and 7. 5 Public Necessity and Convenience Findings 29676 Rancho California Road, Target Retail Building RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Approve Findings of Public Convenience Per the request of Commissioner Guerriero, Item No. 7 will be reviewed after Item No. 5 Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That the proposed project is for a minor CUP that includes the Public Necessity and Findings for Target to sell beer and wine on site; That the separation of criteria in the Development Code requires 500 feet separation from any schools, parks, hospitals, or religious institution; That staff was able to make the findings and recommends the approval for a minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as well as the findings for convenience; SAMinutesPC\042104 3 • That at this time, Target does not sell any alcohol or liquor; and that this is its first proposal. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Ms. Beth Aboulafia, 260 Calitornia Street, representing Target, relayed the following: • That Target started selling wine at its stores in California two years ago; • That currently there are 40 stores in Northern California that are licenses and have been selling wine; • That due to its success, Target started expanding the program to its stores in Southern California; • That Target has not had any problems or violations with selling to minors at any of the stores that have already been licensed in California; • That the application is for a Type 20 off site beer and wine license; • That there will be no consumption on the premises; • That although its a beer and wine license, Target will only be selling wine; • That all Target Stores have only been selling wine; • That the sales of wine will only represent 3% of sales; but that it would be a complement to the food and beverage products that Target currently has in its market section and will be a convenience to Target's customers; • That Target employees will be provided a training program relating to alcohol and beverage sales that is specific to the laws and regulations to California; • That there have been no objections from the few neighboring residents; • That there have been no objections from the Police Department; • That wine bottles will be located in the market section of Target; At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero is of the opinion that there is no need or convenience to approve a Type 20 beer and wine license. For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that currently there are no plans for redevelopment in the Target Center. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern with approving another license for beer and wine sales in the area. RAMinutesPC\042104 4 For Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that when the state turned the jurisdiction over to the Cities, they did not give any criteria; and that the City Attorney developed the criteria for staff that is fairly consistent with other jurisdictions across the state. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with denying the proposed item stating that the census tract boundary is arbitrary and that if the City is going to allow establishments to sell alcohol in commercial zones (which is established in the zoning ordinance), that the City should be consistent and; therefore, either allow more establishments to sell alcohol, or that if the Commission is of the opinion that there is over -concentration of Type 20 licenses, then the zoning ordinance should be changed; and that it would be inequitable to allow some stores to sell and others to not sell. Chairman Telesio is of the opinion that staff should be reviewing the zoning ordinance; that he finds it difficult to approve these findings of convenience for large box type stores and deny sales to smaller outlets. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that changing the zoning ordinance to not permit alcohol sales in commercial zones would be a huge detriment to economic development. Assistant City Attorney Curly relayed that the Commission has the ability on each discretionary land use decision to look at the specific criteria. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the findings of Public Convenience. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion voice vote reflected denial with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted yes. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to deny PC Resolution No. 2002-019 due to the fact that the nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community because the census tract is over -saturated with liquor licenses at this time. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. Commissioner Chiniaeff requested that staff have the City Council evaluate their commercial uses as related to alcohol permits. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA NO. 03-0726, A REQUEST FOR MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TYPE 20 (OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE) ALCOHOL LICENSE FOR TARGET LOCATED AT 29676 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-320-053. RAMinutesPC\042104 Continued from April 7, 2004 6 Planning Application No. PA02-0717 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 square foot block screen wall enclosure, located at 315754 Enfield Lane Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report relaying that at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant prepared additional propagation maps via overhead displaying the following: • Coverage without the proposed antenna facility; • Coverage with an antenna at 39 feet at the proposed site; • Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet at the proposed site; • Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located at Riverton Park; • Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located at San Diego Aqueduct vents; • Coverage with antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located on residential property east of Butterfield Stage Road; • That the applicant prepared new photo simulations which include two additional live palm trees planted near the proposed monopalm; and that this would be a total of four (4) new live palm trees. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Gil Gonzales, 150 Paularino Avenue, representing Cingular Wireless, noted the following: • That with an antenna at 39 feet at the proposed site would include a 45 foot monopalm and that this would include holes in coverage and would not allow connection to the site to the north/west and does not extend as much coverage to the west as desired. At this time, Mr. Gil distributed additional pictures of alternative sites that were considered by Cingular Wireless, which also included a list of the properties that were investigated. Mr. Mashesh Kolush, 150 Paularino Avenue, Radio Frequency Engineer for Cingular Wireless, further clarified line of site technology and RF emissions. For the record, Chairman Telesio noted that the Commission understands the concerns of the resident's; but that Federal Law precludes the Commission from making decisions in regard to radiation emissions. The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: Mr. Leonard Cole 40360 Windsor Road RAMinutesPC\042104 6 Mr. Kenneth Peterson Ms. Kathleen Gerber Mr. Brian Gerber Ms. Valesta Ayer Ms. Roma Stromberg 40396 Windsor Road 40433 Windsor Road 40433 Windsor Road 40325 Windsor Road 40384 Windsor Road • That the proposed project is a commercial venture at the expense of the neighborhood; • That the proposed property has been excavated; that the property is not stable; and that there have been mud slides with heavy rains; • That the released emissions from the cell tower could be noisy and dangerous; • That it does not appear to be a strategically planned effort; • That property values could potentially diminish due to the proposed project; • That the proposed project will be unsightly to look at every day; • That there are a significant amounts of cell towers and that there is no real need for anymore; • That there has not been a visual impact study, view shed analysis, or line of site analysis performed; • That the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's "Procedures for Cell Tower Impact Analysis". Mr. Gonzales relayed the following in response to residents' concerns: • That Cingular Wireless investigated the entire area and it was determined that the proposed area is in the center of the search ring; that the height has also been determined with RF propagation maps and what Cingular Wireless is trying to cover; and that Cingular Wireless is trying to provide coverage for the 300 tract homes to the south; • That a generator would only be used if the power were to completely fail; • That the noise that would be heard would be similar to a computer tan; • That Cingular Wireless hired areal estate consultant firm to evaluate the property values of homes that are within 1/2 mile radius of Cingular Wireless Cell Sites; and that it was determined that property values did not decrease; • That the proposed project would emit the same amount of EMF radiation as a baby monitor; and that one would be exposed to more EMF radiation by standing too close to the television; RAMinutesPC\042104 7 • That Cingular Wireless will be complying with the California Public Utilities Commission; • That there will be SCE permanent service to the site; and that a generator would only be used if all the power were to go down by some type of disaster or unknown reason; and that there would not be a generator running fulltime; • That the proposed monopalm will have a security lock and a sensor that will alert Cingular Wireless 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fisk noted that this Item No. was noticed through the newspaper and that individual agencies were sent notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it would be his opinion that the issues of concern that were raised by residents in regard to aesthetics, noise, and property values is not significant, but that in regard to screening efforts, would request that the proposed project be lowered to 39 feet; and that this would allow the proposed monopalm to blend in better with the surrounding palms. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments including the height from 50 feet to 39 feet. Commissioner Olhasso echoed the previous comments. Commissioner Chiniaeff agreed that the height could be lowered to 39 feet and suggested that staff work with the landscape architect to add a variety of palms. Chairman Telesio agreed with all of the above comments. Mr. Fisk noted that the distribution date for the Negative Declaration was December 11, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the condition that the palm be lowered from 50 feet to 39 feet; that there be a variety of palm trees planted, and that the number of trees that are being added around the wall be increased from two to four and be of the same type or variety that the pole is proposed to be. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO.2004-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE AND FOUR RAMinutesPC\042104 OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LAND, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012). At this time, the Commission took a ten minute break. New Items This item was addressed on pages 3, 4, and 5. 7 California Road Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: • That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of business park and zoning designation of the Light Industrial; • That the building meets the minimum setback requirements of the Development Code and the proposed lot coverage of 28.5 percent (based on the overall lot acreage of 5.69 acres) is well below the maximum allowed lot coverage of 40 percent; • That staff determined that 98 parking spaces are required to serve the proposed building while 99 spaces will be provided; • That access to the site will be provided from two existing drive aisles off county center drive; • That a new drive aisle behind the proposed building will provide a connection between the two existing drive aisles for a loop drive around the proposed building; • That the Public Works Department determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the General Plan ElR; • That the Fire Department determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site; RAMinutesPC\042104 9 • That the proposed office building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines, and is compatible with the industrial and office buildings in the surrounding area; • That the landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines; • That an initial study was prepared and indicated that the project could have potentially significant environmental impacts related to archeological and palentological resources unless mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval; • That staff is recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fisk relayed that if anything is found during the excavation of the project the City would be notified. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Mc Ardle, architect representing The Garrett Group, relayed that the concrete will be tilted -up and the paint will be a topey-tan color. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO.2004-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0443, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 29,526 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 5.69 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EAST OF YNEZ ROAD (APN 910-110-045). Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of record), relaying the following: That the applicant has provided various features encouraged in the Design Guidelines such as a variation in garage locations and Porte Cocheres; That Plan One (1) includes a trellis on the East Coast Traditional as well as a recessed garage; • That Plan Two (2) includes a mid -deep recessed garage and a Porte Cocheres; RAMinulesPC\042104 10 • That Plan Three (3) does not include a deep recessed garage; however, that between the three plans, staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient variety; • That in regard to single -story product, staff listened to the previous minutes of the City Council which adopted the Design Guidelines and Specific Plan (SP), and it was determined that there is no specific language requiring single story products; however, it did state that it be determined by staff and/or the market; • That the proposed project is not proposing a single -story product; however, staff is of the opinion that there are various single -story elements within Plan One (1) and Plan Two (2), that meet the intent of the Design Guidelines; • That the Design Guidelines require corner lots to create "two front elevations'; that staff is of the opinion that the side elevations do not appear as a second front elevation on any of the corner lots; • That staff is of the opinion that the Monterey and Spanish Revival offer too many similarities; that staff recommended that the applicant use alternative materials to offer more variation; however, the applicant has not proposed any additional materials; • That Plan one (1) and Plan two (2) do not include a significant amounts of variation; • That staff is of the opinion that none of the projects include a strong focal point; and that all the garage doors proposed do not include a significant amount of variety. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Stephen Albert, 3635 Hayden Avenue, representing the applicant, noted the following: • Clarified how the Spanish Revival and the Monterey are different and do provide enough variation between the two; • That the in regard to roofing, the applicant is of the opinion that there is enough variation and that the applicant is satisfied with the proposed project; • That the material of the front doors will be of wood material; • That although the garage doors to not appear to be astoundingly different, there is some variation; and that the garage doors are segmented rollup windows. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that staff and the applicant explore options to enhance the garage doors, preferably a barn type style door. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern in regard to massing in Plan Two (2). Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the Spanish Revival and the Monterey had too many similarities and also relayed that the elevations of the residences that front the street need to be addressed, especially Plan three (3). RAMinutesPC\042104 11 At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Todd Brazen of Cast Group Architects, made the following comments: • That the Spanish Revival gives a rustic appearance; • That the Monterey style will have soft curves on the eaves, stucco detailing; that there will be curves on the second -story overhand on Plan Two (2); and that it will also have a different shutter and window design; • That the roof tile on the Monterey could be altered; and that there is a "S" the on the Spanish Revival; • That in regard to massing, from the street one will be able to see a variety of shades and shadows. Ms. Paula Lombardi, vice-president of development with Davidson Communities, relayed the following: • That she was disappointed that the color boards were not available to the Commission for review; • That the applicant is of the opinion that the requirements have been met in regard to the garage doors, elevations and differentials in the residences. Commissioner Olhasso offered the following comments: • That mixing up the proposed product on Brush Creek would help to diminish the canyon - like affect; • That changing the roof coloring on the Spanish Revival and/or the Monterey would help to diminish similarity on the two homes. Commissioner Guerriero offered the following Comments: • That he is in concurrence with staff in regard to Conditions of Approval No. 12, 15, 17, 19, 20. Commissioner Mathewson offered the following comments: • Reducing the massing on Plan Two (2) by eliminating the second -story over the front portion of the residence; • That the applicant address window spacing and windows with single shutters as well as the width of the entry doors; • That the Monterey Plan Three (3) first -story windows need more architectural treatments. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested the following: RAMinutesPC\042104 12 • That Plan One (1) and Plan Two (2) corner lots needs enhancement; • That the applicant provide additional shingle siding on the sides of the East Coast Traditional elevation; • That variation in roof material and color on the Spanish and Monterey elevations be changed; • That variation in garage door design be provided. Ms. Lombardi relayed that she would be implementing the following: • Reduce the number of Plan Three (3) on Brush Creek; • Change the .roof materials and color on the Spanish Revival and Monterey elevations and "S" tiles to flat tiles; • That the applicant will be providing a variation in garage door design; • That the applicant will consider implementing Conditions Nos. 12,15, 17, 19, and 20; that these conditions require arched focal points on the Spanish and Monterey elevations, varied foot planes for each floor plan, decorative garage doors, and additional materials on the Spanish or Monterey elevations to better distinguish between the styles and wrap siding around to the sides; • That reducing the massing on Plan Two (2) by eliminating the second -story at this time, would be a major rework of the whole second -story; • That the applicant will explore the option of minimizing the number of Plan Two (2) and Three (3) adjacent to one another; • That the applicant will explore the option of revising corner lots to have them appear as a second front elevation, such as materials, arched focal points, courtyards, and patios. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission requested that Mr. Long provide the landscape plans, streetscape plans and colors board for the next meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to May 19, 2004 for redesign. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. RAMinutesPC\042104 13 PC RESOLUTION NO.2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS, KNOW AS TRACT MAP 29661-2. 10 Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: • That the applicant is proposing a product review for 113 detached single-family residences with the Roripaugh Specific Plan (SP); • That staff worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed; and that the project does not meet the intent of the design guidelines; • That the applicant has not provided consistent plans showing that the products meet all of the development standards, primarily setbacks; • That staff would request that the Commission provide direction in regard to the rear yard setbacks along Planning Area seven (7); that Planning Area seven (7) is the open space lot on the southern portion of the panhandle; and that the SP require 25 foot setback for lots abutting Planning Area seven (7); • That the following is a list of staff's concerns that have not been addressed: o Four sided architecture; o Detail and/or variation between each style; o Two front elevations on corner lots; o Minimum setbacks standards (inconsistent dimensions); o Variation in the placement of garages has not bee provided; o Stucco finish is not consistent with the Design Guidelines; o Fencing at exposed corners is not consistent with the development standards, and silhouettes/roof do not provide significant variation; That staff has concluded that the proposed project cannot be found consistent with the Design Guidelines and or development standards with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP) and recommends continuance for redesign. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. RAMinutesPC\042104 14 Mr. M. J. Knitter, 20151 Birch Street, architect for Knitter and Associates, commenting on the following: • That the applicant has made an effort to revise and/or enhance the proposed project; • That the applicant chose three styles on the exterior that the applicant found to be the most popular and most sought after in Temecula; • That the applicant has provided enhanced sides and rears on 67 residences; • That the applicant is willing to make changes, comments, or revisions that staff may have; • That the applicant is of the opinion that the intent of the Design Guidelines have been met; • That the applicant has a wide section of roof tiles; and that the applicant could add colors if it is the will of the Commission. Mr. Stephen M. Albert, 3635 Hayden Avenue, relayed the following: • That the Plan One (1), Praire has an arch focal point which is made of brick and veneer on a brown coat of stucco. Mr. Kevin Everett, 3553 Hayberry Drive representing ASHBY, USA, noted that there are only a selective number of lots that provide a setback of 25 feet. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Olhasso expressed concern with Plan Two (2), stating that it appears to be outdated. Commissioner Guerriero suggested that the applicant enhance the sides and rears of all plans. Commissioner Mathewson suggested providing additional windows on side elevations. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to May 19, 2004 for redesign. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked Ms. Ubnoske for the phone cards but that they are a few wrong numbers on them. Commissioner Olhasso requested a Planning Commission application for the next term. Chairman Telesio suggested that the Commissioners use the request to speak buttons. RAMinutesPC\042104 15 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday. May 5. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning RAMinutesPM042104 16 ATTACHMENT NO.6 AGENDA PACKET FOR THE APRIL 21, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING R:\Appeals\PA02-0717 - Enfield Cell Site\Council Staff Report - Long Version.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner DATE: April 21, 2004 Item continued from April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing (PA02-0717) SUBJECT: Cingular Wireless Cell Site at Enfield Lane BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 7, 2004 and approved a motion to continue the project to the April 21, 2004 hearing. The purpose of this continuance was to allow the applicant to collect information requested by the Planning Commission in regards to the propagation maps prepared for the site and information regarding property owners who had rejected Cingular's request to pursue a facility on their property. l At the time this memo was written staff had not received the additional propagation maps or / property owner information from the applicant and therefore is not able to provide an analysis of the additional information in this memo. Staff will provide an analysis of the additional information at the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission hearing. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineer will be present at the hearing to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 2004-_ — Blue Page 2 Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval 2. April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report — Blue Page 3 RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC SR memo 4-21-04.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO.2004- RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC SR memo 4-21-04.doc 2 PC RESOLUTION NO.2004-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012) WHEREAS, Doug Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0717, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0717 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA02-0717 on April 21, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA02-0717 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas mounted within the bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Very Low Density Residential zoning district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF) above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (17.05.01OF) F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingulu Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 2 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with all applicable requirements of state law. G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore property planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high -unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed fifty-six foot high artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21" ay of April 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingulm Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21$` day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cinguln Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 4 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.dm 5 0 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA02-0717 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 square foot block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane. DIF Category: Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: 957-170-012 Approval Date: April 21, 2004 Expiration Date: April 21, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty -Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of'the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify RAC O P\2002W-0717 Cingular Wirelm Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.dm 6 both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. All conditions. shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. 4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA02-0717. 5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 6. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 7. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits G (Site Plan), H (Enlarged Site Plan), J (Elevations), K (Landscape Plan) and L (Color and Materials) contained on file with the Planning Department.,. 9. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingulu Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COAAM 7 11. Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving associated with construction in areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic resources per the recommendations contained in the Paleontological Resources Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment, Proposed "Foley Land", Cingufar Wireless Facility Number SB 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003. Condition of approval No. 11 is also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning Director. The agreement shall comply with all provisions set forth in Section 17.40.210 of the Ordinance. 16. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F', or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. C. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). e. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. RAC U A2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COAAM 8 Prior to Release of Power ) 17. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Department to insure that the monopalm and antennas were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 18. . Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the abovementioned landscape plans (see Condition of Approval No. 15 above). The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests and the irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one year from the date of the release of power or first occupancy permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. If Applicable. 22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 24. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,1998) 25. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 27. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 28. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence. RAC U N2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono Palrn\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.dm 9 %1 Monday -Friday 6:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. t. l Saturday 7:00 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays FIRE DEPARTMENT 29. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 30. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 31. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 32. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 33. During construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall maintain approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 34. During construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance specifications. 35. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 36. Provide a 2A: 10BC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the site. 37. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 38. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.dm 10 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 39. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 40. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 2, 2003 from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 41. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated February 24, 2003 from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 42. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 16, 2003 from the Rancho California Water District. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature Date RAC U P2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.dw 11 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Ma er-Chief Engineer �Mrr VAT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planningg Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589.9033 Attention: R w- r e PR E f S E a—D Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREE' RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX 51180.1 (2(�m!� Ili MAR 4 2002 I�I By ----- Re: FA 02. — 07 f 7 s for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated use rases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or imentstrecommendations for such cases are normally limited District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood ad a logical cornponent or extension of a master plan system, figation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: yG This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 considered regional in nature and/or a logical ex Master Drainage Plan. The District would conic of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Di be required for District acceptance.. Plan check, This project is located within the Drainage Plan for which drainage check or money order only to the whichever comes first. Fees to be permit. GENERAL INFORMATION or other facilities that could be This project may re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approva( should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) pnor to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 40.1 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer c: Date: 3 -Z'-3 5KN 11 MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Executive Office February 24, 2003 Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Preisendanz: FEB 24 2003 U ) Your Case No. PA02-0717 MWD San Diego Pipeline No. 3 Sta. 1332+00 to 1344+00 MWD San Diego Pipeline No. 4 Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00 MWD San Diego Pipeline No. 5 Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00 R/W Parcels SDA-P-3-13, 142-3-1 (Fee) and -4 Substr. Job No. 2029-03-001 Enfield Lane — Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility We received your project transmittal notice on January 22, 2003, and prints of the plans (T-1, A-0 through A-3, C-1 and C-2) for the proposed Cingular Wireless Telecommunications facility improvement project (Case No, PA02-0717) located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane and north of Humbolt Court, in the city of Temecula. The location of Metropolitan's partially delineated 50-foot-wide slope easement within the subject property, as shown on Sheets A-0, A-1, C-1 and C-2, is generally in agreement with our records. Metropolitan's 70-foot-wide fee prop- erty and San Diego Pipelines 3, 4 and 5 are adjacent to the subject property, abutting and paralleling the eastern boundary. There appear to be no conflicts with our facilities and rights -of -way since Metropolitan's pipelines and rights -of -way are located outside the construction 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 900112 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 • Telephone (213) 217-6000 7HE Mf rROPOUrAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALMNIA Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz Page 2 February 24, 2003 limits of the project, and should not be affected by the proposed telecommuni- cations facilities. However, we request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications to notify Mr. John Martinez of our Water System Operations Group, telephone (909) 776-2616, at least two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of our facilities. We are returning prints of Sheet T-1, stamped "REVIEWED — CORRECTIONS NOTED — NO RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED," and Sheets A-0, A-1, C-1 and C-2, stamped "REVIEWED — NO CORRECTIONS NOTED." For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional informa- tion, please contact Mr. Ken Chung, telephone (213) 217-7670. Very truly yours, Susan M. Walters Engineering Technician III Substructures Team KC:ly DOC#: 2029-03-00 t Enclosures (5) I' l eoo7 L T NVF �( January 16, 2003 Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner City of Temecula B„rdofD;raM. Planning Department Lsa D. Her , 43200 Business Park Drive Preardeat Post Office Box 9033 Jeffrey I-bu u.r Sr. V`"Pmaident Temecula, CA 92589-9033 84phen J. Corova Ba1ph H. may SUBJECT: CINGULAR WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY Des R. Drake PARCEL NO.2 OF PARCEL MAP 13530 Jahn L Hoagland C.ab. F. Ho APN 957-170-012 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717 offi�, FOLEY SITE — ENFIELD LANE John F. Hewdg.r Ce..1 Manager Dear Mr. Preisendanz: Mud, L. Forbea DirecWr of Fiaaate- Treasurer Please be advised that the above -referenced project is located within the _ F_P.'Bob'I.emoos Director of F.ngin«rieg boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). RCWD - o h C. o<at operates an existing two-way radio system in the immediate vicinity of this rof Operatioru Direcbr Di k Mainten.am site. The District requests that the developer assure RCWD that there will C.wU �°"`' be interference between the and the District's not any proposed project IJnd. M. F,.go.. operation of its equipment. District Se rvt. /Administrative Service. Manager C. Mich -al ee..tt If you should have any questions, please contact us. Beat Beat J: Krieger rLP Geaerd Couruel Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT .ICI (,Gu.t_� �•zvt�.-w-- Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 03\SB:at0121F012-T I\FCF c: Craig Elitharp, Water Operations Manager Paul Gonzalez, General Services Manager Rancho C.tlforofa Water District 42135 Winchaater Road • Poet Offiu Box 9017 . Temecula, C.lifomia 92589-9017 • (909) 2W6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APRIL 7, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RAG U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\PC SR memo 4-21-04.doc 3 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: April 7, 2004 Prepared by: Stuart Fisk Title: Assistant Planner File Number PA02-0717 Application Type: Conditional Use Permit Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 56-foot high artificial palm tree with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of the tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 square foot block screen wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane (APN 957-170-012). Recommendation: ® Approve with Conditions (Check One) ❑ Deny ❑ Continue for Redesign ❑ Continue to: ❑ Recommend Approval with Conditions ❑ Recommend Denial CEQA: ❑ Categorically Exempt (Class) (Check One) ❑ Negative Declaration ® Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan ❑ EIR R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingulu Wireless MonaPalm\STAFF REPORTAm PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Cingular Wireless Completion Date: August 25, 2003 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: April 7, 2004 General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential (VL) Zoning Designation: Very Low Density Residential (VL) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Residential North: South: East: West: Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio 3.16 acres Landscape Area/Coverage 320 square feet Parking Required/Provided N/A BACKGROUND SUMMARY ® 1.. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ® 2. Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City- wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block screen wall enclosure. Cingular Wireless has been experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed facility, requiring the proposed facility to provide seamless coverage within the network. The properties reviewed prior to the selection of the proposed project site were not selected due to the irregular topography and elevation changes of the search ring area and site location problems. The proposed location is the only candidate site that meets technical, zoning and landowner requirements. The following properties were not chosen because of the site location issues listed below: (71 RAC U M2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalnMTAFF REPORTAoe 2 1. Riverton Park — The elevation of the property is not high enough to provide for proper signal propagation of the Monopalm at a height of 55 feet or lower. Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineer determined that for proper signal penetration the minimum height required at this location is 75 feet or greater. 2. San Diego Aqueduct Vents — The venting stacks for the San Diego Aqueduct were located outside of the search ring. The site would not meet the coverage objectives of providing service on La Serena Way. 3. Residential Properties east of Butterfield Stage Road — The Site Acquisition Specialist made numerous attempts to find a willing landowner and property for a location east of Butterfield Stage Road. There were no interested property owners. The project site selected by Cingular Wireless is located at 31575 Enfield Lane, generally located on the south side on Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane. The project site consists of a lease area of 532 square feet within a 3.16 acre residential parcel that contains an existing single-family home. Section 17.40.110 of the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance requires that telecommunications facilities and antennas shall be located no closer than 75 feet from any residential dwelling unit. The proposed facility is situated approximately 85 feet from the nearest residential unit, which is the single-family home located on the project site. The site would be leased from the property owner, Julie Foley. Access to the site will be obtained from an existing 19 foot 3 inch wide dirt driveway off Enfield Lane. The proposed monopalm will be designed to resemble existing and proposed living Mexican Fan palms located on the project site. The exterior surface of the monopalm will be a brown rubber .? cladding material that simulates a palm tree trunk. The monopalm will feature three antenna panels placed inside the bulb portion of the monopalm so that the antennas will not be visible. The fronds of the monopalm will be a medium -green colored plastic material shaped to simulate the fronds of a live palm tree. A 310 square foot screened equipment area consisting of a 6 foot split face block wall and a wooden access gate will screen the four proposed outdoor equipment cabinets. Five -gallon Silverberry shrubs will surround the equipment screen wall to soften its appearance and to minimize its visibility. The addition of two 35 foot high Mexican Fan palms at the south side of the equipment screen wall is also proposed to help to tie the proposed monopalm to the existing palm tress located on the project site. Condition no. 16 requires that staff field inspect the final antenna facility design for compliance with the approved plans prior to final Building Department inspection. The elevation of the project site is approximately 1,319 feet above sea level, which is below the ridgeline elevation limit of 1,350 for new telecommunication facilities as described in Section 17.40.110 of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The proposed height of the monopalm is fifty-six feet as measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower to the top of the simulated palm fronds. It has been determined by the applicant's engineer that fifty-six feet is the minimum height to achieve the technical coverage necessary to send and receive signals from and to mobile telephones. The site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements of the Cingular Wireless Radio Frequency Engineer. The height as proposed will permit the monopalm to achieve the objective of sending and receiving cellular telephone transmissions to provide coverage along and between Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Medusa, toward the northern City boundary. Staff does not believe that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic impacts. RAC U Px2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF REPORTAw 3 Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm meets the intent of the general requirements ) for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve a fifty-six foot high -unmanned wireless telecommunication facility at the proposed location. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ® 1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. 1. Directly or indirectly destroy any palentological or archaeological resources. 2. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION earthmoving associated with construction in areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic resources per the recommendations contained in the Paleontologic Resource Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed "Foley Land", Cingular Wireless Facility Number SB216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated Staff has determined that the project is consistent with all applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality, and staff is recommending approval. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (17.04.01oE) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono Palm\STAFF RRPORTAm 4 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas mounted within the bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. 3. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Very Low Density Residential zoning district. 4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 1 Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and .antennas are not known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF) above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. 5. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (17.05.01 OF) The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with all applicable requirements of state law. RAC U N2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF RBPORTAm 5 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. (71 The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high -unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions — Blue Page 7 2. PC Resolution — Blue Page 8 Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval 3. Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program — Blue Page 9 RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingulm Wireless Mmn PaMMTAFF REPORTAm 6 ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mmn Pahn\STAFF REPORTAo 7 Ea* Proposed Cell Site Submitted to: CITY OF TEMECULA Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589 Submitted by: SBA Network Services, Inc. 160 Paularino Avenue, Ste. A-166 Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Project: SB-216-01 Foley Land 31575 Enfield Lane Temecula, California 92592 APN: 957-170-012 Submitted: February 25, 2004 Case Number: PA02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit) I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. VICINITY MAP 2. PROJECT PROPOSAL 3. RADIO FREQUENCY PROPAGATION MAPS ' 1 4. RADIO FREQUENCY STUDY 5. PHOTO SIMULATIONS 6. PROJECT PLANS 15 79 IMMOMMIA Proposal for a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility SB-216-01: 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula, California 92592 Zone., Ve-y Low Density Resdenhaq�� APN: 957-170-012 Project Description Cingular Wireless is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility at the rear of 31575 Enfield Lane. The un-staffed facility will consist of three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of the proposed 55-foot artificial palm tree. Two .live palms will be planted, in addition there are 12 palms existing. The proposed and existing palms will create a grove effect. The proposed equipment shelter will be located adjacent to the proposed monopalm, and will be set .into the hillside to reduce the profile. The shelter will mimic the style of the existing house. Cingular Wireless is experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed facility, requiring this facility to provide seamless coverage within the network. Zoning Consistency & Justification The properties reviewed prior to the selection of Foley Land were not selected due to the irregular topography and elevation changes of the search ring area and site location problems. (Please refer to attached Search Ring Map) The proposed location is the only candidate that meets the technical, zoning and landowner requirements. Furthermore the proposed location is approximately a half -mile outside of the area originally requested by the Radio Frequency Engineer. The following properties were not chosen because of the site location issues listed below: 1. Riverton Park- The elevation of the property is not high enough to provide for proper signal propagation of the Monopalm at a height of 55 feet or lower. Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineer determined that for proper signal penetration the minimum height required at this location is 75 feet or greater. 2. San Diego Aqueduct Vents- The venting stacks for the San Diego Aqueduct were located outside of the search ring. The site would not meet the coverage objectives of providing service on La Serena Way. 3. Residential Properties east of ButterField Stage Road- The Site Acquisition Specialist made numerous attempts to find a willing landowner and property for a location east of ButterField Stage Road. There were no interested f property owners. Justification for the Proposed Facility at Enfield Lane • The site is suitable and adequate for the proposed use. The antennas will be housed within the bulb portion of the trunk of the artificial palm, which completely mitigates any visual impacts to the surrounding residences. In addition, the height of the proposed facility is comparable with the height of live palms in the area. • The proposed facility will have no impact on traffic circulation or the street system. • The proposed telecommunications facility will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and the general welfare. The facility will operate in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC, FAA, and CPUC as governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, • The proposed height is the minimum required for the facility to propagate the signal properly. The site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements needed by the Radio Frequency Engineer. (Please refer to drive test results). Two facilities at a lower height are not feasible due to the hilly topography of the area and adjacent operational facilities. Proximity to other Cingular facilities can cause radio interference. (Please refer to Radio Frequency Propagation Map) • Per the recommendation of the DRC staff, the site has been relocated to the rear of the property. The proposed facility is now more than 75 feet away from any residential structure. • The adjacent neighbor has provided a letter stating they are not opposed to the proposed monopalm. (Please refer to attached letter) • The operating characteristics of the proposed telecommunications facility will create no impact on circulation systems; generate no noise, odor or smoke. Furthermore, the facility will not create any adverse impacts that are detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity. • The equipment associated with the facility operates virtually noise -free, does not emit fumes, smoke, dust, or odors. The proposed facility will be in operation 24 hours per day; 7 days a week and will only require routine maintenance only every 4 to 6 weeks. Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan the location of wireless telecommunication facilities is based on technical requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, alignment with surrounding sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Consequently, wireless telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc. proving to be compatible in all locations. 3 • Wireless telecommunication networks enhance the general welfare of communities by providing a resilient communications system in the event of emergencies (earthquakes, fires, traffic accidents, etc.) whereas landline communications systems are often disrupted during and after a major incident. In addition, wireless telecommunication networks add an additional layer of communications infrastructure with little to no construction disruption to the community. Network Design The proposed communications facility will transmit at a frequency range of between 1850 MHz and 1990 MHz. A typical PCS facility operates at 200 wafts. Depending on the unique characteristics of the site, the actual power requirements may vary. When operational, the radio signals from the site will consist of non -ionizing waves generated at less than 1 uW/cm2, which is significantly lower than the maximum allowable public exposure of 1,000 microwatts as set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). The distance between antenna sites will normally range from '/z mile to 9 miles, depending on the population density, consumer usage, existing vertical elements, and the geographical terrain. In order to have a clear line -of -site; antennas must be mounted t / high enough to overcome challenges posed by local topography and development. Telephone"calls can originate or be received from a wireless facility because antennas share a fixed number of frequencies across the network grid. As the caller is traveling through the network the call is continuously being handed —off between wireless facilities to provide an uninterrupted telephone conversation. The following are some of the basic types of cell sites: Coverage sites serve to expand coverage in large areas or in areas with difficult terrain and to enhance coverage for portable systems. Coverage sites allow users to make and maintain calls as they travel between cells. Capacity sites serve to increase the capacity when surrounding sites have reached their practical channel limits. As the years pass, the number or subscribers increases exponentially creating a strain on the existing network. In order to alleviate this strain, capacity sites are implemented into the systems network to accommodate the increase in customer demand. n Zq FAY 40-11 D , E , , Aw VA . A t K. IN 118 % IN, valaw - �,-, � --;, Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01) 31575 Enfield Lane • Temecula, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers C ) The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingular Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SB-216-01) proposed to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC') evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP'). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply, \ for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Freauency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS') 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line -of -sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward thc. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS CGO216579 ...... ..: SAN FRANCISCO Page I of 3 Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01) 31675 Enfield Lane • Temecula, California horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method s The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to ` Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near -field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Cingular, including drawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc., dated August 20, 2003, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model DR8517-02DPL2Q directional panel antennas on a new 56-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 48 feet above ground and would be oriented at 120' spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 3,200 watts, representing sixteen channels operating simultaneously at 200 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the Cingular operation is calculated to be 0.0036 mW/cm2, which is 0.36% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level at the second floor elevation of the nearby home is 1.5% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several `worst -case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Cingular will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. HAMMETr & EDISON, INC. OONSUL'nNG ENGINEERS CG0216579 SAN FRANCISCO Page 2 of 3 CingularWreless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01) 31575 Enfield Lane • Temecula, California Conclusion i Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Cingular Wireless at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. December 23, 2003 HAmmETT & EDISON, INC. CG0216579 CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO _ Page 3 of 3 1C FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, `Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mw/cm) 0.3 — 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34 — 3.0 614 823.81f 1.63 2.191f 100 18011 3.0 — 30 1842/ f 823.81f 4.89/ f 2. I91 f 900/ f 18011 30— 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300— 1,500 3.54ff 1.59ff ff/106 -Tf/238 f/300 f11500 1,500 — 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 I 8 >' E 3 0h3 ILA E Ito 1 1 100 10 1 0.1 / Occupational Exposure ` f PCs FM Cell Public EExxDosure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines - - SAN FRANCISCO Figure 1 I RFR.CALCTm Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is the distance from an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns have formed; the near field is assumed to be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have been met: 2 1) D > 23 2) D > 5h 3) D > 1.6k where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and X = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 0.1 x P power density S= 180 n x n x D xh in mW/�2 where OBw = half -power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: mW/cm power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP in , 2 4x nx D2 where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology _ SAN FRANCISCO Figure 2 Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01) { 31575 Enfield Lane • Temecula, California \ J Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingular Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SB-216-01) proposed to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRY). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services'are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Appmx Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line -of -sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the HAmmETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENCINE,ERS CG0216579 SAN FRANCISCO Page 1 of 3 Cingular Wireless - Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01) 31575 Enfield Lane - Temecula, California horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power o(_ such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near -field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Cingular, including drawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc., dated August 20, 2003, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model DR8517-02DPL2Q directional panel antennas on a new 56-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 48 feet( above ground and would be oriented at 120' spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 3,200 watts, representing sixteen channels operating simultaneously at 200 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the Cingular operation is calculated to be 0.0036 mW/cm2, which is 0.36% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level at the second floor elevation of the nearby home is 1.5% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst -case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Cingular will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work iti required near the antennas themselves. HAmmETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CG0216579 _.._... r SAN F ANCISCO Page 2 of 3 Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01) 31575 Enfield Lane • Temecula, California I�Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Cingular Wireless at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. December 23, 2003 -` HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CG0216579 9 SAN FRANCISCO Page 3 of 3 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC' to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 96, `Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (NIHz) 0.3 — 1.34 1.34— 3.0 3.0 — 30 30 — 300 300— 1,500 1,500 — 100,000 1000 100 w 10 c Ii 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freauenev of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (v/m) (A/m) (mw/cm) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.81f 1.63 2.191f 100 18011 1842/f 823.81f 4.89/f 2.191f 900/e 1801f 61.4. 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 354-4 1.59ff Nrf/106 ff1238 f/300 f11500 1 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Occupational Exposure ♦ `/ PCs ♦ FM Cell Public Exposure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven; terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. . -' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. _ - CONSULTING ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines SAN FRANCISCO Figure I RFRCALCT" Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is the distance from an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns have formed; the near field is assumed to be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have been met: 2 1) D > 2) D > 5h 3) D > 1.6% where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and k = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: \� power density S = 180 x 0.1 x Pnet in mW�2 BBW— 7rx Dx h ' where 0Bw = half -power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Poet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP in mW/CM2 4x nx D2 where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETr & EDISON, INC. CONSULUNG ENGINEERS Methodology .,. _..._.- SANPRANCISCO Figure N } W J 0 tL r•- 0 N m fy 9 V x N 0 Z Q J } W J 0 LL 7fj 0 Z W U X �1 X - � / fit' i l ff y: ...w .:.. Iv.v. oW Z'3AMQ INMO.ff1Y0 '3NNM1 . �w�e �ri� .µ m C F ow 3111i5 3AIL0 N0f13H0111 SYCf b�1a ° ° ss�aainn I • ,! A aeln�ui� x b'8 d�Ar U LU w 2 f X b 9b4 P$ iiE7777774gpCFggq- S YiYYIYY A i3 i N f R� oil 00 � �l �ggFS5P „aPII t8 111411 Hill g T 1116rad 311rf8 0 n ! q# c L1gra 3AINO HOSM1'O '3NVM tTV R � OOl 311f15 3�Itl4 NOSl3HO111 Sfff SS3'138IM ' � � q T all p 20 \ \ --a R•NrVno ,m 1gy1,dt uszo VWWAWa '�wnm 8! mi ws']MO no817n01n crtt �^' i ,"J b C 2 Y y 6 t �" 8 E E SS3l3HIM w'wr.n � r.a enn 1 � i ! & aejnbuio X b9 Q �o U Z 6 0 C Z 7 W 8R R J _ ! W ___.... ..."_. �.fF Z) (/1 n ZT' ♦INNolm '3"" 001 31105 '3Ntl0 N0513NOIW Me hrww� a y ssaiaalM 0 {{_ • { aejnbuio X. QQQaQ V o z w 9 a ina w1 ars . n/svw wool ppp� 0 9Ca�3 EVEN C ji" F � r rc a V rc SFG(G( $$ 2 Q���lo C� g5#S9a x ww w a o R ovaG mmo3nvo wiuni VWU WZ "3AV sn3mm use SS3l3NIM SeInbuio X 1 aul eeaWeS Y,w.IeN �0 3&Y. QQQQQH 11eb1Y11 � pN3WS dm � , � a 3 • 8 esva�GiiHB � � $� ee a ti py bit, fg n >s 10111 ap6g ! ,111115111 a6a ' cxe•e3��gai 00310 Ivv -- -- .. r�ON003S — J � < / � f Ld t a Ae e�€` yly!a121 fie i a GB �! y 9 w Y Y i o � t ■ SBLZB YINN°311YJ 'NLLSILL HOO'U P°Z '3AY 3n3H31A IZSZ ss3iiawl aelnf)uiC) X wum ww wG'iii'xi H+er.1.N �vw�.�. N k' SS$ [ pq B § e P a �� raga QQQQa b'9� F7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I' 0 n < 0 0 cn co -i n LLI Cf) 0 D- o cc -1 ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTIONS NO.2004 - RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF REPORTAoe 8 (� PC RESOLUTION NO.2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012) WHEREAS, Doug Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0717, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0717 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manher prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA02-0717 on April 7, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify . either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA02-0717 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA .DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.17 of the Temecula Municipal Code: Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Pa1m\STAFF REPORTAm 9 monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. B. The proposed conditional use, is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas mounted within the bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Very Low Density Residential zoning district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF) above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission- E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (17.05.01 OF) F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, . and RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\STAF'F REPORTAm 10 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with all applicable requirements of state law. G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high -unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed fifty-six foot high artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a -block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of April 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske,, Secretary [SEAL] RAC U P12002\02- 717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Pand�STAFF REPORTAm 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the r day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PaIaMTAFF REPORTAx 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Ciugular Wireless Mwn Palm\STAFF REPORTAm 13 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA02-0717 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 square foot block wall enclosure at 31576 Enfield Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane. DIF Category: Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: 957-170-012 Approval Date: April 7, 2004 Expiration Date: April 7, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty -Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicanttdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify RAC U P\2002\024717 Cingulu Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF REPORTAw 14 both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. 4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA02-0717. 5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 6. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 7. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits G (Site Plan), H (Enlarged Site Plan), J (Elevations), K (Landscape Plan) and L (Color and Materials) contained on file with the Planning Department. 9. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaUcultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF REPORT.doc 15 11. Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving associated with construction in areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic resources per the recommendations contained in the Paleontological Resources Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed "Foley Land", Cingular Wireless Facility Number SB 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003. Condition of approval No. 11 is also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning Director. The agreement shall comply with all provisions set forth in Section 17.40.210 of the Ordinance. 16. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. C. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). e. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\,STAFF REPORTAm 17 Prior to Release of Power 17. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Department to insure that the monopaim and antennas were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 18. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the abovementioned landscape plans (see Condition of Approval No. 15 above). The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests and the irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one year from the date of the release of power or first occupancy permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. If Applicable. 22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 24. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,1998) 25. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 27. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 28. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingaln Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFF REPORT.doe 17 Monday -Friday 6:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays FIRE DEPARTMENT 29. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 30. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 31. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 32. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, 'Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) . 33. During construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall maintain approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 34. During construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance specifications. 35. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 36. Provide a 2A: 10BC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the site. 37. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 38. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix Il-E) RAC U P2002\02-0717 Cingulu Wireless Mono-Palm\STAFP REPORTAm 18 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 39. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 40. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 2, 2003 from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 41. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated February 24, 2003 from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 42. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 16, 2003 from the Rancho California Water District. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Printed Name Applicant's Signature Date RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingulu Wireless MonaPalm\STAFF REPORTAo 19 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Ma er-Chief Engineer 0 o`�oeIvrr nods y` `O r' a� 'n�p�rrYIT10 e` 1995 MARKET STREE RIVERSIDE, CA 9250', 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL II 0 � � � 0 T AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: R I)I_ P r PR - f S e N tD A N Z Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: _ PA 0 2- — 016 [AAR 4 2002 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distnct comments/r000mmendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, informaflon of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail acid the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, stone drains 36 considered regional in nature and/or a logical ex Master Drainage Plan. The District would consik of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Di be required for District acceptance.. Plan check, This project is located within the Drainage Plan for which drainage check or money order only to the whichever comes first. Fees to be permit. GENERAL INFORMATION or other facilities that could be This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESpermit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval'should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should -- require the applicant to provide all studies calculations, plans and er Information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this prole j the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the pro1ject is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. c: �5 KH. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: 3 MWD- 1 I' METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OFSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEB2 4 2003 U � } ICY Executive Office —' Your Case No. PA02-0717 MWD San Diego Pipeline No. 3 Sta. 1332+00 to 1344+00 MWD San Diego Pipeline No. 4 Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00 MWD San Diego Pipeline No. 5 Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00 R/W Parcels SDA-P-3-13, 142-3-1 (Fee) and -4 Substr. Job No. 2029-03-001 February 24, 2003 Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Preisendanz: Enfield Lane — Cinaular Wireless Telecommunications Facility We received your project transmittal notice on January 22, 2003, and prints of the plans (T-1, A-0 through A-3, C-1 and C-2) for the proposed Cingular Wireless Telecommunications facility improvement project (Case No. PA02-0717) located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane and north of Humbolt Court, in the city of Temecula. The location of Metropolitan's partially delineated 50-foot-wide slope easement within the subject property, as shown on Sheets A-0, A-1, C-1 and C-2, is generally in agreement with our records. Metropolitan's 70-foot-wide fee prop- erty and San Diego Pipelines 3, 4 and 5 are adjacent to the subject property, abutting and paralleling the eastern boundary. There appear to be no conflicts with our facilities and rights -of -way since Metropolitan's pipelines and rights -of -way are located outside the construction 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, Califomia 90054-0153 • Telephone (213) 217-6000 THE METROPOUTAN WATER DISTRICT Of SOUTHERN CAUEORNIA Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz Page 2 February 24, 2003 limits of the project, and should not be affected by the proposed telecommuni- cations facilities. However, we request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications to notify Mr. John Martinez of our Water System Operations Group, telephone (909) 776-2616, at least two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of our facilities. We are returning prints of Sheet T-1, stamped "REVIEWED — CORRECTIONS NOTED —NO RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED," and Sheets A-0, A-1, C-1 and C-2, stamped "REVIEWED — NO CORRECTIONS NOTED." For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand comer of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional informa- tion, please contact Mr. Ken Chung, telephone (213) 217-7670. Very truly yours, Susan M. Walters Engineering Technician III Substructures Team KC1y DOC#: 2029-03-001 Enclosures (5) January 16, 2003 Rob W& Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner City of Temecula Board or Directors Planning Department Lt.. D. Reeneaa 43200 Business Park Drive President J y4lifinkle Post Office Box 9033 Scvrrepreddent Temecula, CA 92589-9033 StephenJ. Corona Ralph H. Day SUBJECT: CINGULAR WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY Bea R. Drake John R. Hoagland PARCEL NO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP 13530 Caaha F. Be APN 957-170-012 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717 ote«r c FOLEY SITE — ENFIELD LANE John F. Heanigar -` Phillip 1MForbr Dear Mr. Preisendanz: PhWip L Forbes DuecWr of Fiamce- Treasurer R.P."Roh•L... Please be advised that the above -referenced project is located within the Directarof Eng!nemm boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). RCWD KeunDirr torofOpDerctians operates an existing two-way radio system in the immediate vicinity of this &Maiateaanm site. The District requests that the developer assure RCWD that there will Perry lll `°a`k not be any interference between the proposed project and the District's Linda M. Fregoso operation of its equipment. District Secretary/Adnumatrative Services Manager C. Miehaet Cowett If you should have any questions, please contact us. Rest Feat & Krieger LLP General Counsel Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager OMS&W 12T012-T1\FCF c: Craig Elitharp, Water Operations Manager Paul Gonzalez, General Services Manager Rancho Cambrnia Water Dlariet ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATION PROGRAM RAC U M002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless blouo-Palm\STAFF REPORTAoe 9 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Planning Application No. PA02-0717 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner 909 694-6400 Project Location Located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane and north of Humbolt Lane A.P.N. 957-170=012 Project Sponsor's Name and Address Mark Rivera Cingular Wireless 2521 Michelle Drive 2"d Floor Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation Very Low VL Zoning Very Low Density Residential VL Description of Project A Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, establish and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block wall enclosure. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is located on a 3.17 acre residential site that contains a single-family custom home. The property is generally surrounded by similar larger acreage residential -rural property, with some Low Medium (LM) zoned residential property (minimum 7,200 square foot lots) located south of the site. The project site is separated from homes in the area by no less than approximately 300 feet. Other public agencies whose approval The project will require a building permit from the Building and Safety is required De artment. RAC U P\2002W2-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmUnMal Study.doc Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one Impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Noise Air Quality Population/Housing Biological Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geology/Soils Transportation/Traffic Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities/Service Systems Hydrology#Yater Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance Land Use/Planning None 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 on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will nr>t, X be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to bj� 1 the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required i find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.__ Printed name I Date For FINC U P%2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVnitial Study.doc 1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: PAr" p sl Glass lssuasendSu 1i "afioaSourae I `aa '�d OW Jim ��ci a. Physically divide an established communi ? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted X for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation Ian? X Comments: i.a. The project site consists of 532 square feet within a 3.17-acre residential parcel that contains an existing single-family custom home. The proposed project would add a wireless telecommunications facility to the site. The facility would be an un-staffed facility consisting of three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block wall enclosure. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project since locating the proposed telecommunication facility on a single-family lot, developed with a single family home, would not divide an established community. b. The proposed project is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, Programs and Policies of the General Plan and meets the requirements of Chapters 17.06 (Residential Districts) and 17.40 (Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance) of the Development Code. Because the proposed facility is consistent with Chapters 17.06 and 17.40 of the Development Code, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I.C. The proposed project Will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site has been graded for the construction of the existing single- family home and is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension X of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere? X RAC U P\2002102-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmUnitlal Sludy.doc Comments: 2.a. The project involves the installation and operation of an un-staffed wireless telecommunications la l which is not anticipated to induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The pr I ,, is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations of Very Low (VL) and Very Low Density Residential (VL) and Chapter 17.40 of the Zoning Ordinance (Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b, c. The project, which involves the addition of a wireless telecommunications facility to a residential lot with an existing single-family home, will not displace any people or existing housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Re *ryioa sWN6Fa:: sill Unlesa . IssUasa .S- _,-2tbn,Soarges-._'._ I a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death X involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 10 1 Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, X and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial X risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Comments: 3.a.i. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone area nor is their substantial evidence of a known fault on or in the vicinity of the project site (Source 1, Figure 7-1, page 7-6 and Source 4, Section 3.3, page 3-2). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.a.ii. There maybe a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or expand ` soils. Although there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located in Southern California, which is an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform RAC U P\2002U12-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVnitial Study.doc Building Code standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project (Source 4, Section 3.3, page 3-2). O.a.iii. The project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard (Source 1, Figure 7-2, page 7-8). Because of the lack of shallow groundwater and relatively dense soils, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered low (Source 4, Section 4.2, page 4-1). Furthermore, any potentially significant impacts associated with the development of this site will be mitigated during building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform Building Code standards. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.a.iv. Based on the relatively flat topography of the specific location for the wireless telecommunications facility within the subject property and based on the nature of the facilities to be installed, the potential for landslides related to the project is considered low. The project will be conditioned to follow the recommendations described in Section 4 of the geotechnical report prepared for the project (Source 4, Section 4, pages 4-1 to 4-8) to mitigate for any potential impacts involving landslides. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 31. Based on the topography and soils of the specific location for the wireless telecommunications facility, and based on the nature of the facilities to be installed, the potential for substantial soil erosion is considered low. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.c. There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or expansive soils. Although the project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard (Source 1, Figure 7-2, page 7-8) and there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located in Southern California, which is an area that is seismically active. As wireless telecommunications facilities are generally located at elevated sites, the project site is situated on a hilltop. While slopes do surround the project site, the project site itself is situated on a relatively flat f ) area, so the risk of an on- or off -site landslide is considered low. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform Building Code standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project (Source 4, Section 3.3, page 3-2). 3.d. There is a potential for impacts from expansive soils unless mitigation is incorporated. The project will be conditioned to follow the recommendations described in the geotechnical report prepared for the project (Source 4, Section 4, pages 4-1 to 4-8) to mitigate for any potential impacts involving landslides. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project as the project application involves the construction, operation, establishment and maintenance of an un-staffed wireless telecommunications facility. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RAC U P12002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmUnitiai Study.doc 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: tt79# lass as Sbn111can1 - No .-.: 3i4uab antlS -alYe Svd .1 • . J d 4117040 a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate X of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of - polluted runoff? i I. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 4.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Development will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying With the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b, f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the lj groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of grotnnt waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVniHal Study.doc excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. n(� 4.c, d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on -site or off -site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of the wireless telecommunication facility. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.e. The project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of development of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned and designed so that drainage will not impact surrounding properties. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.g-i. The project will not place people, housing, or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway and the dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4 J. The project site will not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudf low as these events are not known to occur in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. - RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVnidal Study.doc 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the follow determinations. Would the project: Ppt@r{aeiJl �-4Cei?kanY Ucdijsa 1O�,S�;<("�Ry� a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualityIan? X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existingor projected air qualityviolation? X C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Comments: 5.a-c. The project, which proposes an un-staffed wireless telecommunications facility consisting of an artificial palm tree, three (3) antennas and four (4) equipment panels, will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project will be within the threshold for potentiru i significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management Districii, ) depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The development of a wireless telecommunications facility may create minor pollutants during the construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not anticipated to generate pollutants. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project. 5.e. The proposed Wireless telecommunications facility is not anticipated to create objectionable odors. However, some objectionable odors may be produced during the construction of the proposed facilities. These potential impacts, however, are anticipated to be of short duration and would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project. RAG U P12002102-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PaimUnidal Study.doc J 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: .. -'- QC�ad Nact :. :Issues.end-S .1.. t>on6ourcres:. - r"40 Inro P`"aa ,I a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or hi hwa s? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses e.., farm equipment)? e. Resuit in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bicycle racks? �omments: 6.a, b. Development of a wireless telecommunications facility will create a slight increase traffic in the vicinity of the project during construction of the facility. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Once construction of the facility is complete, only occasional traffic for maintenance vehicles will result from this project. Because the project would generate very few vehicle trips and because the existing roadways have been developed consistent with the City's General Plan, no further traffic studies were required. No significant impacts are anticipated. 6.c Development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. As stated by Keith Downs of the Airport Land Use Commission in an April 17, 2003 response to a request for comments on the project, this site is outside of the French Valley Airport's Area of Influence. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City and building code standards and does not propose any hazards. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access and will not interfere with access to nearby uses. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The proposed project will not impact parking for the existing home on site and will only require a parking area for a maintenance vehicle, which can be accommodated within the existing private on -site turn around area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. r.g. As an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility, alternative transportation is not applicable to the project. The project will not interfere with designed adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Morro-PalmNnitial Study.doc 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: F1olea:WY a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in X local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? Comments: 7.a-d. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded for construction of the existing single family home on the property. There is currently no indication that any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants on the site. Therefore, the proposed wireless telecommunication facility is not anticipated to reduce the number of species. The site has been developed with a single-family home and the addition of an artificial palm tree and four equipment cabinets will not create a significant barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, there are no locally designated species on site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 71 The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are anticipati as a result of this project. RAC U P\2002W2-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVnitial Study.doc 10 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: r Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use Ian? Comments: 8.a, b. The project will not result in the loss of available known mineral resources nor in the loss of an available locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) to identify statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of the deposits and accessibility. Within the City of Temecula the zoning classification of MRZ-3a has been applied by the state. The MRZ-3 areas contain areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RAC U P12002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm\ln111al Study.doc 11 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Patehpagy �10r1t t te§s 'ayon Le9ailiryn Slg pl Sint 1k ,d'ss ands- arfk+Ime6isnCSoar�ae3. ] ' att_ I red .] d' a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Crate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste Within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is Included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X workino in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation Ian? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X Midlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 9.a. The proposed wireless communication facility will not create a hazard to the public through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed facility will operate in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC, FAA and CPUC as governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. Since the proposed wireless communication facility is not intended to utilize hazardous materials, it is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. This site is not located within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no imp,' are anticipated. RAC U P,2002V2-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono•PalmUnitial Study.doe 12 9A. The project site is not located near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 09.e, f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. Furthermore, as stated by Keith Downs of the Airport Land Use Commission in an April 17, 2003 response to a request for comments on the project, this site is outside of the French Valley Airport's Area of Influence. Therefore, no impacts upon airport uses are anticipated as a result of the project. 9.g. The proposed un-staffed wireless telecommunication facility would take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.h. This project site is not adjacent to wildlands and is not susceptible to wildland fire danger. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RAO U P\2002102-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmUnitiai Study.doc 13 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: 9r919ss ... 'ac1. a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive roundbome vibration or roundbome noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the X ro'ect area to excessive noise levels? Comments: r j 10.a-d. The equipment associated with the proposed wireless communication facility operates virtually vibration and noise -free. Increases to noise levels will likely occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Upon completion of construction of the future wireless telecommunication facility, it is not anticipated that the facility would result insignificant increases to noise levels. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to result from this project. 10.e, f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. Therefore, people working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. RAC U P\2002W2-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono•PalmUnitial Study.doo 14 C 11. PUBUC SERVICES: Would the proposal have a substantial adverse physical Impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Q�QA� � ;'.I §u@s�ltJd`S 1nlottniilion? ' .r.... 1tiGif 0. tdA ,{'Aio' a. Fireprotection? X b. Policeprotection? X c Schools? X d. Parks? X e Other public facilities? X Comments: Me, b, e. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. While the need for such services are not anticipated, the addition of a wireless communication facility at the site does have the potential to increase the need for these services. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. 11.c, d. The proposed unmanned wireless telecommunication facility itself is not creating residential use and �1 therefore will have no impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities, nor will it �. result in impacts to parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. R:\C U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVni0al Study.doc 15 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: rife $ etd IswessndS " { ahunsttaa�s;. 1 c� _ . .1nao � .�. ; "Irn a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant X environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant X environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X new or expanded entitlements needed? G. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected X demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? I. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the roject's solid waste disposal needs? X g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X;, l Comments: 12.a-g. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will not impact water, wastewater, landfill or solid waste facilities as the facility only consists of an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility composed of a three (3) antennas housed within an artificial palm tree and four (4) equipment cabinets. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. RAG U P\2002\02.0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmUnitial Study.doc 16 I 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building X within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X area? Comments: 13.a, c. Any potential impacts to scenic vistas created by the proposed wireless communication facility will be mitigated through the use of building materials to make the equipment enclosure complimentary to the existing single-family home. Additionally, the proposed artificial palm tree will be of a similar size and type as the palm trees existing on site and additional live palm trees will be incorporated into the project site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.b. The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway as the project is not located in the vicinity of a state scenic highway. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 13.d. Since outdoor lighting is not proposed for the project, the project is not anticipated to increase the potential for significant impacts from light and glare. However, since all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory, the project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVnitial Study.doc 17 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Ratatlt?n1 sl0i[gJltess &G ..I f , ..::J •, . 1 :• a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5? X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5. X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Comments: 14.a, b. The project site is located in a developed/disturbed area that is not located in an area of archaeological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure 5-6). A records search performed by Michael Brandman Associates (Source 5, pages 1 & 2) indicated that there are no recorded cultural properties (prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, objects, or districts) Within 0.25 miles of the project site and that the historical sensitivity of the project area is considered to be low". No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 14.c, d. As discussed in a Paleontological Resource Assessment prepared for the project (Source 6, page 1 records search (by the Division of Geological Sciences located at the San Bernardino County Muset� of geological maps and the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPLI) for the project area showed that there are numerous fossil localities within 0-4 miles from the project site. A survey of the project site conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (Source 6, page 2) indicated that the project site has been recently impacted as a result of housing construction and that most of the topsoil near the house and in the drive area (leading to the project site) consist of freshly turned earth. While no paleontological resources were observed during the survey, this finding does not preclude the possibility that resources will be uncovered at depth once construction begins. The site is located in an area that has high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure 5-7). Therefore, the project will be conditioned to follow the recommendations of the Paleontologic Resource Assessment, which includes monitoring of excavation areas by a qualified paleontological monitor. This mitigation measure will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. With mitigation measures in place the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level of impact. RAC U P\2002V02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmVnitial Study.doc 10 15. RECREATION. Would the project: ;Issues anFS di' Siurck33 1 a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilitv would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the X Comments: 15.a, b. The proposed un-staffed wireless telecommunication facility will have no impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, nor will it effect existing recreational opportunities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: RI a. Convert. Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 16.a, b. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and is not known to have been used for agricultural purposes in the past. Furthermore, this property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, will be no impacts as a result of this project. RAG U P\2002\92-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Pelm\lnitlal Study.doo 19 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. r+o Ali' &p�p�tn aTe%s l�ss>•h3n" 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 X a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history orprehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current roiects, and the effects of probable futureprojects? C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? Comments: 17.a. This site has been developed with a single family home and the surrounding area consists of props zoned Very Low (VL) and Low Medium (LM) that do not contain significantly viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project site is not located in an area designated by the General Plan as sensitive' habitat (Source 1; Figure 5-3). It is not anticipated that the addition of an artificial mono palm and equipment cabinets for the wireless telecommunication facility, or the proposed live palm trees, would 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 or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.b. It is not anticipated that the addition an artificial mono palm and equipment cabinets for the unmanned wireless telecommunication facility, or the proposed live palm trees, would have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 17.c. Wireless telecommunication facilities are subject to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules for compliance with Radio Frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from certain transmitting devices and states that "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". This facility will be reviewed by the FCC for compliance with their regulations and, according to the FCC, compliance with their regulations concerning limits for RF exposure will result in human exposure that is well within safety margins. Therefore, based on FCC rules, no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 RAC U P\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PairriVnilial Study.doc 20 r 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, - or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or egative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department located at 43200 Business Park Drive. 18.b. There were earlier impacts, which affected this project, however it was difficult to assess whether they were adequately addressed as mitigation measures. 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. A geotechnical report titled Cingular Wireless Proposed Communications Facility; Foly Land Site No. SB-216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula, California by URS Corporation dated January 30, 2003. 5. Cultural Resource Assessment, Proposed "Foley Land", Cingular Wireless Facility Number SB 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated April 21, 2003. 6. Paleontological Resource Assessment, Proposed "Foley Land", Cingular Wireless Facility Number SB 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003. RAC U P\2002t02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PahMnitial Study.doc 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit) CULTURAL RESOURCES General Impact: 1. Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. 2. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation Measure: Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving associated with construction in areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic resources per the recommendations contained in the Paleontologic Resource Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment, Proposed "Foley Land'; Cingular Wireless Facility Number SB 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7, 2003. Specific Process: Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if palentological resources are encountered during excavation, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified paleontologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during the grading process. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and Public Works Departments l RAG U P12002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PalmWlitigation Monitoring Program.doo 1 ITEM 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR.OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City �Court FROM: Debbie UbnosKite, Director of Planning DATE: October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Weed Abatement Liens for FY 2003-04 PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BACKGROUND: Weed abatement activity for the 2003-04 season has been completed and part of this process results in the City performing forced abatement of noncompliant parcels. The owners of these parcels are billed for the actual abatement costs plus an administrative fee. If the owners do not respond to the billing, the City is required to place a lien on the property to recover the costs. The lien process requires that a public hearing be held before the City Council to hear comments from the property owners with respect to the costs proposed to be assessed against their properties and to confirm those costs. Following the public hearing, the Council must adopt a resolution for the fiscal year which: Confirms the costs incurred by the City in performing the weed abatement work. Provides that the actual abatement costs will become a lien upon the properties and upon recordation, in the amount of the costs. Provides that the resolution will be transmitted to the Riverside County Treasurer -Tax Collector so the amounts of the assessments would be entered upon the parcels as they appear on the on the assessment rolls and the costs will be collected on the property tax bill. RABROWNS\Code\weed abatemet\weed abatement lien CC stafrpt 2003-04.doc 1 After the City Council adopts the resolution it will be transmitted to the Treasurer -Tax Collector of the County of Riverside and the Recorder for recordation. FISCAL IMPACT: The recording of these assessments will enable the City to recover abatement costs through property tax collection. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 04-_ Exhibit "A' Abatement Charges, Fiscal Year 2003-04 RABROWNS\Code\weed abatemet\weed abatement lien CC stafrpt 2003-04.doc 2 Resolution No. 04- Exhibit "A' Abatement Charges, Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Resolution No. 04- Exhibit "A" City of Temecula, Abatement Charges, Fiscal Year 2003-04 Assessor Pa(cel No. Owners i alnformation ill Amount 921-211-001 Charles J Fiacco $235.00 910-271-005 Ynez Acres $300.00 910-271-006 Ynez Acres $300.00 910-271-007 Ynez Acres $300.00 910-271-008 Ynez Acres $265.00 919-161-002 Yn 'in and Fun an Wan $235.00 921-060-047 Jefferson Ranch Ventures $285.00 921-211-001 Charles J Fiacco $235.00 921-730-005 North Plaza $435.00 921-730-006 North Plaza $435.00 921-730-007 North Plaza $745.00 921-730-008 North Plaza $235.00 921-730-009 North Plaza $235.00 921-730-015 North Plaza $1 170.00 921-480-079 Oceanside Associates $235.00 921-730-023 North Plaza $335.00 922-062-003 Ron and Patti Shoffeit $230.00 922-062-010 Antonio & Aida Muniz $230.00 922-160-012 Alexandra Ricks $300.00 944-330-001 Rancho Hi hlandsll $915.00 944-330-003 Rancho Highlands 11 $915.00 944-330-004 Rancho Highlands 1 $435.00 944-330-005 Rancho Highlands 1 $435.00 944-330-017 Rancho Highlands 11 $575.00 945-030-015 Jerry Lessel $335.00 945-090-007 Investment Dev Pro 1 $335.00 945-160-006 Wayne S Wuralnick $385.00 945-180-012 Kenneth Smith $385.00 957-120-005 Mulholland Land Co $895.00 957-130-016 Joseph Tur eon $370.00 957-130-020 Thomas and Janet Gro $300.00 957-140-007 Islamic Center of Temecula Valley $265.00 957-140-011 Islamic Center of Temecula Valley $265.00 957-170-037 J & L Pro $435.00 959-010-007 Robert & Ann Connors $335.00 TOTAL $14,320.00 Osan3WsemVd .ChingNBATEMENT FY 03-0ResoMm- Aalemen Liens 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Whereas, following a public hearing held on April 23, 1991, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Ordinance No. 91-18 which became effective on June 28, 1991 and which provides for expedited abatement of hazardous vegetation from vacant lots and parcels, and; Whereas, said abatement of hazardous vegetation has been completed for each of the parcels as described in the attached list of parcels (Exhibit "A" ), at a cost equal to the costs of abatement and removal of hazardous vegetation on each parcel, and; Whereas, public hearings were held concerning the cost of abatement of these parcels and the Council heard all objections of property owners liable to be assessed for the cost of abatement, and; Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. All of the recitals herein set forth are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines. Section 2. The list of parcels and costs of abatement and removal of hazardous vegetation for each parcel is hereby reconfirmed and said costs shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land, and are a lien of said land in the amount of the respective assessments. Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the Treasurer -Tax Collector who shall enter the amounts of the respective assessments against the respective parcels of land as they appear in the current assessment roll, and shall collect said assessments at the same time in the same manner as ordinary municipal ad valorem taxes as provided in Section 39577 of the Government Code. R1BR0WNS\Code\weed abatemet\weed abatement 03-04\Weed Abatement Reso FY 03-04.dw 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12 day of October, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12 day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\BROWNS\Code\weed abatemet\weed abatement 03-04\Weed Abatement Reso FY 03-04.dm 2 REQUESTS TO SPEAK REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 1 b 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Su Name: Add re: For Against lKf11,( FitVA-'r. A A UA—i Ci If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: —7—v t Frn-F The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date For Subject: ,nv6LIC I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Against Name: /��tJ/Vf� c��j(��ii/ Phone: Address: City/State/Zip: / Me?- -,I UAut-=-S rhv 5 �v/yj If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: ��jAk Z) y�iLGS, 1). /�1 vSEyrYj The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date OCT Q , Z D 6 4 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For / Against j Subject: m o. `ok�, A 0k(j W D o K l� r l Name: (2 ) TO u &Y O %j Phone: ( / City/State/Zip: T?' m C � O � Ca . Z 7 / � If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 10-4a — O Y I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For 1Z Against 4-Vur Address: '/ Citv/State/Zio:APFCcdo. CA 9a,i?/ If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against_ Subject: Name: UX% k A er Phone: �// Address: City/State/Zip: %e/"J'e C (/w 94 F1 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: 0,P49e (lC4-Yri--- The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. c. Date 0 � 2- 0 I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against_ Subject: ��.G 2.0l71 -7 Name: 'I�OMA LS} r 0A4 / Phone: Address: City/State/Zip: CA 9 2SS 9 / If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date ( D I L J I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: lniP 2 Name: L-?,o, jn-,- C C, L-e-, Phone: `1 V Zip: �- 4 t ✓ 4- CA If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record.