The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About032205 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 (951) 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 II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE MARCH 22, 2005 - 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. 6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 with respect to labor negotiations. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and California Teamsters Local 911. City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, Jim O'Grady, and Grant Yates. 2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property negotiation located at the following locations:. 1) APN 922-044-022 (Perkins) -located at 41934 Main Street; 2) APN922-044-004 (Berger) -located at 41950 Main Street; and 3) APN 922-044- 01.9 (Keen) -located at 41910 MaInStreel The negotiating parties are the City of TemeculalR.edevelopmentAgency and Fred Perkins, Helga. Berger, .and Peter Keen. . Undernegotiationa.re the price and. terms of .payment ofreai property Interests. The City/Agency negotiators are Shawn. Nelson,James O'Grady, and John Meyer. 3. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a} with respect to .two matters of existing Utigation involving the City. Thefollowingcases will be discussed: 1. City oHemecula vs. First and Front,et al.; 2. City ofTemecula v. County of Riverside (RCIP litigation - Riverside County Superior Court Case No. 402766). 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. 2005-05 Resolution: No. 2005-29 R:\Agenda1032205 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Chaparral Chamber Choir Invocation: Father Sean Cox of 51. Thomas Episcopal Church Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts ROLL CALL: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. David Micheal 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. 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 approvina List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Agenda1032205 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 Records Destruction RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. 4 Purchase of New Voicemail Svstem RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Authorize the purchase of the Cisco Unity Messaging System from Nexus Integration Services for the total amount of $63,135.97, including applicable sales tax; 4.2 Appropriate $63,135.97 from Information Systems Internal Service Fund reserves to fund the purchase. 5 Police Department Homeland Securitv Grant Funds Transfer RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DONATING A PORTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 6 Resolution chanaina the time of Plannina Commission Meetinas RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION R:\Agenda1032205 3 7 Resolution in Support of retainina March Air Reserve Base (MARB). support continuation of Air Attack Resources at Hemet-Rvan Airport. and approval of $5.000 to assist in retention efforts RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RETENTION EFFORT TO PRESERVE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE (MARB) 7.2 Approve the Agreement for Contribution to March Air Reserve Base Retention Efforts with March Joint Powers Authority and approve $5,000 to assist the March Air Reserve Base retention efforts. 8 Second Amendment to an aareement for Contract Inspection Services for P&D Consultants RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve a Second Amendment for consulting services with P&D in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for a total contract amount of $125,800 and to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2005. 9 Intention to vacate all Interior Streets and certain Drainaae Easements within Tract Map No. 26941 (Crowne Hill- The Reserve) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE LOT A (WOLFE STREET), LOT B (SUSAN GRACE COURT), AND LOT C (MUSILEK PLACE), AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT MAP NO. 26941 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION 10 Intention to vacate a portion of an unnamed allev (located between Second Street and Third Street. east of Old Town Front Street as shown on Block 18 of the Town Site of Temecula Old Town) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Agenda1032205 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND THIRD STREET, EAST OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION 11 Tract Map No. 29305 (located south of Wolf Valley Road and east of Pechanaa Parkway) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29305 in conformance with the conditions of approval. 12 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract - John Warner Road Assessment District Improvement - Proiect No. PW02-07 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the project - John Warner Road Assessment District Improvements - Project No. PW02-07 - as complete; 12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 13 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation and Replacement Proiect - Proiect No. PW02-18 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation and Replacement Project - Project No. PW02-18. 14 Award a Construction Contract for Traffic Sianallnstallation at the Pechanaa Parkwav and Muirfield Drive Intersection - Proiect No. PW99-11TS RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Award a construction contract for Traffic Signal Installations at the Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive Intersection - Project No. PW99-11TS - to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $117,205 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 14.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $11,720.50 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. R:\Agenda1032205 5 15 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Phase II Project No. PW02-26 - Award of a Construction Contract RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - PHASE II PROJECT 15.2 Award a construction contract for the Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II Project - Project No. PW02-26 to R.J. Noble Company and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract (amount of contract will be presented at the Council meeting). 15.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed a contingency of 10% of the contract amount. 16 Cable Franchise Aareement Extension of Time RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECEMBER 31, 2005, TO FACILITATE THE CITY'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CABLE OPERATOR REGARDING RENEWAL OF THAT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT 17 Acceptance of Grant Deed - Harveston Lake Park RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Authorize acceptance of the Grant Deed for Harveston Lake Park, located in the Harveston development and direct staff to proceed with the necessary actions to cause the deed to be recorded. 18 Second Readina of Ordinance No. 05-04 (Wolf Creek Project) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: R:\Agenda1032205 6 ORDINANCE NO. 05-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WOLF CREEK PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0027) ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY *********** R:\Agenda1032205 7 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2005-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2005-10 CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, 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 March 8, 2005. 2 Ratification of Election Results - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Agenda1032205 8 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON MARCH 14, 2005, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW 3 Pool Eauipment Room Renovation at the Temecula Elementarv School RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award a contract to Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California for $60,914 for the installation of pool equipment at the Temecula Elementary School (T.E.S.); 3.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $6,091.40; 3.3 Authorize the purchase of equipment from Knorr Systems, Inc. for $43,888.00. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda1032205 9 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2005-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2005-02 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Edwards, Comerchero, Naggar, Washington, Roberts 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 March 8, 2005. 2 Status Update of the Temecula Education Center RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file. R:\Agenda1032205 10 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 12, 2005, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda1032205 11 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. 19 General Plan Update - Circulation Element RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report related to the Circulation Element; 19.2 Continue the Public Hearing on the other Elements of the General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the other Elements to April 12, 2005; 19.3 Close the Public Hearing on the Draft Circulation Element and Draft Environmental Impact Report relating to the Draft Circulation Element; 19.4 Discuss the Draft Circulation Element and the Draft Environmental Impact Report relating to the Draft Circulation Element and provide comments to staff for inclusion in to the Final Circulation Element and Final Environmental Impact Report. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda1032205 12 PROCLAMA TIONS AND PRESENTATIONS =: .~ ~ ,..,. . ~ ~ t) e ~ E ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ .0 a C L-- .~ 1: ~ Q) ..s::: ...... "'0 :: e<:l o =-=....- U e<:l ::- g ~ U Q) o~ ..... ~ u<.,...; Q) 0 -Bo <.,...; ..... oU <.,...; Q) ca-B ..s:::<.,...; Q) 0 ..0 rn :: :: o Q) "'0 .S:: (J) .t:: e U Q) rn Q) ... ~ ....-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,.... ;. ~ ~ ] ~].S 1l ~ t::..... tr.l s:: S::<21;;t::t:: .;:; ","0 ~ <2 'f""""l "tj Q.) '" d Od'S -.- M QJ Q.).~ ~ ""@:5 ~ 8 d 0.01:"--- 0.] ~ ~ ~b~"'d..o~ ...... > "0 r= ~ ~ o s:: ~ '" s::"O ~..<::..<:: Il) (l:jQJ'"O~rar:S "0 U Il) S Il) ... QJQJ>QJ..s::::QJ :>-.:::::l ~ V,) U > (I:j 0 Md'''''' 0 o..~gfe~t:: _ ~ QJ...... ~ 0 i3 .Q]"" P.. ..s::::: . M i-I ~ C. UcaQ.)M .~ '''''''C C. 0 QJ tr.l ~ 0 0""''0"0 . S s..1l..<:: ~ -8 ~ !::,~ ~ ~ "'" "'" Il) s:: ~ ::l .---en ~ o.o~ ~ Cd e(/.)O .- 't:: ~ Il) ~ i:'"O OMSM+->QJ S~~S::S"O 1l)~:~0~ ~ 1l)'0) on U s:: '", .s .s !;' 1;; i3 ~ 1il1il ~ ~ g M fJ'}..c: tI:l 0 QJI-l.....r=M"'tj o~]~g~ :> ,..., l-l OJ .......... -::l ~ ::l > "0 <l) t.r.I QJ..o 0 ~.t:: c:::> ... """ ~S::1l)",0P.. u s."O s::.- "0 ;a blI s:: ~ U s:: Il) . ~ S ... ~ "0"00 ::l. ;>-. ~ l:l U'J- o..:s ] ~g;g~~ s:: s:: U Il) is S QJQJ"O QJ Il):::i"<:: s:: 0 E-< o:S~~(l:jO~ s:: 19 ::l Il) s:: 0 o ..... ~.~ rn 0 ..1<"0 blI C; s::._ "'S::::lIl)~U o cd 0 rn...... OJ ~ ~..E.~.t::..s::::: o.......cu+-> "2 S sg-Eln] '0 cd 0 Cd ............. ....... s:: s..!:l g:::i 5 o +-> M Cd "0 .- .8 Q)..c: tJ ...... 8 i:'> E-< S ~ ;a~S"";OIl) Il)~O~"O" "0 OJ ~.- QJ $:; U VI b QJ '.jj t+-; QJ r= d ~ I o s:: 0 '" Il) gf en r='P Q)..s::::: 0 aOCd~"""'- o .- t: ~ 0.0 QJ _ ~ en"'oo d > - d'- r='-'- en._ ~ Cd e; t :E'E """'tQJ Cd l-;O"Ov~'"d <288>s..~ Il) ..<:: ~ ... <2 ~. - ::l u Il) S Il) E-< '- o o o Il) ..<:: ~ o ~ '" s:: o .- ~ ::l on 't:: 1:: o u S ~ S '" :E ... <2 Il) "0 B . '.0 (I:j ~- 6hG Il) Il) ... S Il) Il) gE-< .- '- ~ 0 ::lo 0,_ ~u Il) Il) .....<:: P..~ >< 0 Il) ~ o s:: ~ 0 o'c .- 0 s:: > E~ 0"0 P..1l) P..::l o s:: ",'- .- d .s 0 Il) U ..I< '" ~.- ~..<:: 0"0 ~ s:: Il) ~ ~ tn - ... "0 ~ _ Il) ::l >> Oll') ~- Il)~ ~g. o >- 1::.a ::l~ Il) " "'N 1jN OJ'~ >..c "' ~ ..c';;j .... OJ '" ~...~ 0'0 ~~ ~] ",O:lI') ~~8 Z ;"N Eo< S if ~"E~ :>:E~ .. '" 0 .... o ;" "' ::E 2" Il) ..c ~ Il) S o U l::: OJ ...., ~ OJ o e- O '" OJ 0: o ...., ;s: 0: '" '" ::l rn ITEM 1 ITEM 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ 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 $4,796,247.70. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of March, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos 2005/Resos 05- 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. 05-_ was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 22nd day of March, 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2005/Resos 05- 2 03103105 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03110/05 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03110/05 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS $ 3,492,397.07 942,8S2.S3 360,998.10 $ 4,796,247.70 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 03/22105 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 210 271 280 300 320 330 340 460 001 165 190 192 193 194 280 300 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA DEV.LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND CFD 01.2 HARVESTON IMPRV FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.CIP INSURANCE FUND IN FORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES CFD 88.12 DEBT SVC FUND GENERAL FUND RDA.LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES PREPARED BY JADA YONKER, ACCOUNTING SPEC "'-LIST TOTAL BY FUND: I GENIE ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER $ 2,573,742.85 6,402.85 231,006.00 88.93 119,010.68 795.33 1,003,989.60 1,557.50 6,383.33 106,755.70 33,397.10 2,760.90 24,210.S0 325,148.33 $ 4,435,249.60 $ 254,380.44 5,371.58 60,594.77 114.01 5,061.55 819.35 2,663.25 1,135.58 21,201.74 2.983.91 6,671.92 360,998.10 $ 4,796,247.70 . HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. I 03103/05 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03110/05 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03110/05 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS $ 3,492,397.07 942,852.53 360,998.10 $ TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 03/22/05 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 210 271 280 300 320 330 340 460 I 001 16S 190 192 193 194 280 300 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND CFD 01-2 HARVESTON IMPRV FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES CFD 88-12 DEBT SVC FUND GENERAL FUND RDA.LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: IPREP~7!=ER$aEC~LIST I G~1fo'JlR OF FINANCE SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER I 4,796,247.70 $ 2,573,742.85 6,402.85 231,006.00 88.93 119,010.68 795.33 1,003,989.60 1,557.50 6,383.33 106,755.70 33,397.10 2,760.90 24.210.50 325,148.33 $ 4,435,249.60 $ 254,380.44 5,371.58 60,594.n 114.01 5,061.55 819.35 2,663.25 1,135.58 21,201.74 2,983.91 6,671.92 360,998.10 $ 4,796,247.70 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 03110/2005 12:23:01 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 467 03/10/2005 000245 PERS. HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM PEAS Health Admin Cost Payment 60,754.17 Blue Shield HMO: Payment 0.00 Blue Shield HMO: Payment 0.00 60,754.17 468 03/10/2005 000389 US_C. M. ,^,~~T_ '9~~)'._._ OBAA - Project Retirement Payment 2,213.86 2,213.86 469 03110/2005 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PEAS EA Paid Member Contr Payment 91,712.33 91,712.33 470 03/10/2005 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 20,133.98 20,133.98 471 03/10/2005 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Child Care Reimbursement Payment 7,723.29 Child Care Reimbursement: Payment 0.00 Child Care Reimbursement: Payment 0.00 7,723.29 472 03110/2005 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 17,476.28 17,476.28 473 03/10/2005 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 67,642.64 67,642.64 98133 03110/2005 004594 2 HOT ACTIVEWEAR 88 Jacket Awards:Stadium Pizza 554.59 554.59 98134 03110/2005 003552 AFLAC AFLAC Cancer Payment 1,943.50 1,943.50 98135 03110/2005 005288 ADAMS, GREG Reimb:Fire House Wrld Cf:212-4 382.24 382.24 98136 03110/2005 005068 ADKISSON, CANDICE Reimb:Supplies for Father/Daughter Date 84.47 84.47 98137 03/10/2005 004240 AMERICAN FORENSiC NURSES Mar our nurse stand by fee 500.00 Feb DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 285.00 Feb OUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 275.60 1,060.60 98138 03/10/2005 008595 AMERICAN INTL GROUP INC WORKER'S COMP 02105 168,392.00 168,392.00 98139 03110/2005 008279 AMERICOMP INFOSYSTEMS INC 3-MS Office Prof. '03 Edition:Police Dept 1,018.24 1,018.24 98140 03110/2005 004316 AN WIL BAG COMPANY Asphalt cold mix for PW patch crew 1,538.67 1,538.67 98141 03110/2005 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE Jan '05 Animal control services 8,750.00 8,750.00 98142 03/10/2005 008616 APARICIO, RICHARD Refund: Security Depst TCC 150.00 150.00 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 03110/2005 12:23:01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98143 03110/2005 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp help PPE 2/19 Kasparian 648.00 Temp help PPE 2/26 Kasparian 518.40 Temp help PPE 2/26 Plascencia 237.60 1,404.00 98144 03/10/2005 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled wtr servs @ City Hall 399.55 Bottled wtr servs @ Mntc Fac 273.39 Bottled wtr servs @ CRC 119.44 Bottled wtr servs @ C.Museum 59.83 Bottled wtr servs @ City Hall 39.86 Bottled wtr servs @ T.Museum 26.49 Bottled wtr servs @ Skate Park. 17.02 Bottled wtr servs @ TES Pool 9.69 Bottled wtr servs @ TCC 3.01 948.28 98145 03/10/2005 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN Membership: John Zuna 98647260 45.00 45.00 98146 03110/2005 004855 BABER, GABRIELE TCSD instructor earnings 341.04 TCSD instructor earnings 175.88 516.92 98147 03110/2005 002381 BEAUDOIN, LINDA Retirement Medical Payment 598.10 598.10 98148 03110/2005 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS Heavy rains repairs:J.Warner Rd 5,265.55 Heavy rains repairs: DePortola Rd 1,330.85 I}~avy rains repairs:WalcoVCalie 1,238.05 Heavy rains repairs:3rd SVI-15 1,123.35 Heavy rains repairs: Rancho Vista 1,097.40 10,055.20 98149 03110/2005 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES Jan DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 825.72 JanlFeb DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 185.99 1,011.71 98150 03110/2005 005716 BIRTH CHOICE OF TEMECULA Refund: Security Depst CRe 314105 100.00 100.00 98161 03110/2005 008617 BLANCO, ROZEE Refund: Security Depst MPSe 400.00 400.00 98152 03110/2005 008556 BRADY, LEROY T. Black history presentation/readings 375.00 375.00 98153 03110/2005 000128 BROWN & BROWN OF CALIF INC Commercial Prop. Insurance renewal 39,251.00 Earthquake Insurance policy renewal 38,606.15 Earthquake Insurance policy renewal 16,289.00 Earthquake Insurance policy renewal 4,072.00 Bond renewal: Susan Jones 350.00 98,568.15 98154 03110/2005 005055 BROWN, STEVE Reirnb:refreshments for Team Bldg 80.53 80.53 98155 03/10/2005 006908 C C & COMPANY INC 4 Bunny Costumes rentals 323.25 323.25 Page2 apChkLst 03110/2005 12:23:01 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total Check # Date Vendor 98156 03/10/2005 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials PW patch truck materials PW patch truck materials 428.47 143.66 55.13 627.26 98157 03110/2005 005384 CALIF BAGEL BAKERY & DELI Refreshments: Council Closed Mtg 193.30 193.30 98158 03/10/2005 008613 CALIF BANK & TRUST Rei Retention Esrw 2160075819 Wolf Crk 66,000.00 66,000.00 98159 03110/2005 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE- Fingerprinting ID Svcs:Police/HR Mar 04 DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 1,872.00 105.00 1,977.00 98160 03/10/2005 008608 CALIF GANG INVESTIGATORS Nat'l Gang Violence Cf:7/19-22:CGJRD 490.00 490.00 98161 03110/2005 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD 26.84 26.84 98162 03110/2005 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC Feb 05 Claim adjuster services 183.68 183.68 98163 03110/2005 001410 CITIZENS SCHOLARSHIP FY 04-05 Comm Svc Funding.CHS 5,000.00 5,000.00 98164 03110/2005 001410 CITIZENS SCHOLARSHIP FY 04-05 Comm Svc Funding-TVHS 5,000.00 5,000.00 98165 03/10/2005 008594 COMMUNITY BANK ReI/Escrow 280000256: Win.Widening 3,437.50 3,437.50 98166 03110/2005 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 147.00 147.00 98167 03110/2005 001193 COMPUSAINC 10-0igita1200 GB drives:Police Projector lamp replacements:JS MS Publisher for Citizen Corp nwslttrs 1,482.03 1,095.62 185.69 2,763.34 98168 03110/2005 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Repair horn strobe @ CRC 161.20 161.20 98169 03110/2005 004524 CRAFCO INC-ABSOLUTE Asphalt for Pot Hole repairs:P\N Mntc 962.86 962.86 98170 03/10/2005 006954 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBiNG & HVAC CRC restroom plumbing repairs 306.25 306.25 98171 03110/2005 001393 DATA TICKET INC Jan prkg citation processing 467.68 467.68 Page3 apChkLst 03110/2005 12:23:01 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98172 03/10/2005 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Portable restroom: Vail Ranch Prk Portable restroom: Veterans Park Portable restroom: Lg Cnyn Prk Portable restroom: Riverton Park Credit: Stolen portable restroom fee 692.48 57.48 57.48 57.48 -635.00 229.92 98173 03/10/2005 003610 DOMENOE, JIM Reimb:MS Visio Prof. software 144.00 144.00 98174 03/10/2005 008618 DORAN, JO-ANN Refund: Security Deps! CRC 2/27/05 100.00 100.00 98175 03/10/2005 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for city vehicles: PW Mntc Fuel for city vehicles: Ld dev/CIP Fuel for city vehicles: TCSD Fuel for city vehicles: B&S Fuel for city vehicles: Planning/Police Fuel for city vehicles: Traffic Fuel for city vehicles: C1P Fuel for city vehicles: City Van Fuel for city vehicles:Code Enforce 810.69 695.14 606.n 474.28 330.09 146.60 144.36 115.75 88.46 3,412.14 98176 03110/2005 008620 ESTHETIQUES COSMETOLOGY Refund: Security Oepst CRC 2/27/05 100.00 100.00 98177 03110/2005 000478 FAST SIGNS Lettering for TCSD GMC van 54.29 54.29 98178 03110/2005 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 98.62 98.62 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 03110/2005 12:23:01 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98179 03/10/2005 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER CALIF PARKS & RECREATION HP RegistCPRS Annl CF:3110-12:Staff 3,398.00 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS AE RegistCALBO tmg:217-10:Staff 650.00 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES HP Air:CPRS Annl CF:3110-12:Slaff 581.40 HYATT RR HtI:SCAG Lobbying:2115-17:RR 524.42 TEA (THEMED ENTERTAINMENT HP 2-Thea Gala Tickets:CM/HP 450.00 HYATT GY HtI:CA Cities CM Mtg:212'4:AA1GY 383.36 WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN AID HP Air Purifier for City Hall 255.74 HYATT RR Htl:SCAG Mtg in LA2/2:RR 226.86 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AE Air:Guest Speaker:Nat'l Sun Room 204.90 SOUTHWEST AiRLINES GY Air.CA Crties CM Mtg:212-4:AA1GY 180.00 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN AE RegistPriority Sem:Harold:l/12 135.00 DOLLAR RENT A CAR GY Car:CA Crties CM Mtg:212-4:GY 133.61 INTL CODE COUNCIL AE Book:CA Fire Codes Manual 123.63 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS GY Sr. Bldg Inspector Advertising 120.00 GOVERNMENT FINANCE GR Book:GAAFR '05 Edrtion 119.00 - -~- ---- WHARFSIDE RESTAURANT GY Meal:CA Crties CM Mtg:212-4:AA1GY 63.66 GUADALAJARA MEXiCAN GRILL GR Refreshments:lnterview Panel 57.09 RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AE "Bits & Pieces. Subscrp:Exp 5/06 51.14 ONTARIO AIRPORT RR Prkg:SCAG Lobbying:2115-17:RR 45.00 STADIUM PIZZA GY Refrshmnts:Mntc Staff Recognition 32.40 ONTARIO AIRPORT GY Pkg:CA Crties CM Mtg:212-4:GY 30.00 M C I CENTER RR Prkg:SCAG Mtg in LA:212:RR 22.80 UNION 76 GY Fuel:CA Cities CM Mtg:212-4:GY 20.00 CALIF PIZZA KITCHEN GY Meal:CA Cities eM Mtg:212-4:AAlGY 19.13 7,827.14 98180 03110/2005 004239 FISHER SEHGAL YANEZ INC Reimbursable for Comm. Theater 83.42 83.42 98181 03/tO/2005 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Support Payment Case # 452379267 75.00 75.00 98182 03/tO/2005 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC Computer printer toner supplies:Citywide 646.69 Drum kit for HP8550 printer 196.11 842.80 PageS apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 03/10/2005 12:23:01PM CITY DF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98183 03/10/2005 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT OJ for Harveston Prk dedication 250.00 250.00 98184 03/10/2005 007279 GAil MATERiALS INC Rancho Gal Sports ParklRV Fields 1 & 2 2,132.91 2,132.91 98185 03/10/2005 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE GAAFR review for 511/05.4/30/06 50.00 50.00 ---.--- - 98186 03/10/2005 007736 GRIFFITH COMPANY Rei Stop notice: Robertson's 25,092.03 25,092.03 98187 03/10/2005 005311 H20 CERTIFIED POOL WATER CRCfTES pool mntc & supplies 2,406.46 2,406.46 98188 03/10/2005 007300 HAERR, DENISE Nakayama exchg student sponsorship 1,800.00 1,800.00 98189 03/10/2005 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies:Parks 1,454.19 Hardware supplies:Stn 84 & 92 642.81 Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 401.31 Hardware supplies:C.MuseumlPrks 141.68 Hardware supplies:T.Museum 139.19 Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 127.27 Hardware supplies: Sr Center 65.90 Hardware supplies: TCe 34.88 3,007.23 98190 03/10/2005 000366 HARRINGTON, KEVIN Reimb:refrshmnts for mtg w/county reps 50.78 50.78 98191 03/10/2005 004188 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES Jan CFD 01-02 Acquisition Audit Sves 1,557.50 1,557.50 98192 03/10/2005 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD 4.HP Dsktp eomputers/1-printer:Police 5,809.72 2-HP Dsktp computer/1-printer:Police 2,785.34 MS Office & misc equip:Poliee 338.33 8,933.39 98193 03/10/2005 002107 HIGH MARK INC Voluntary Supp life Insurance Payment 622.70 622.70 98194 03/10/2005 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Support Payment 17.54 17.54 98195 03/10/2005 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE Repair materials for Stn 84 BOO 186.82 186.82 98196 03/10/2005 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 9,344.51 9,344.51 98197 03/10/2005 002424 KEllEY DISPLAY INC Hot Air Balioon banners clean & store 325.61 Western Days banners clean & store 215.20 540.81 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 03110/2005 12:23:01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98198 03/10/2005 008619 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS Refund: Security DepstlRoom Rental 593.00 593.00 98199 03/10/2005 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC repair ProLaser handle assy:Police 236.48 236.48 98200 03110/2005 004051 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Compressive strength testPechanga Pk'NY 2,145.00 2,145.00 98201 03/10/2005 007188 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORP. Supplies for Paramedic squad 215.50 215.50 98202 03110/2005 008614 LARSON, KAY Refund: Does not meet event requirements 150.00 150.00 98203 03110/2005 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Supplies for Paramedic squad 861.87 Supplies for Paramedic squad 129.88 991.75 98204 03110/2005 004174 LIGHT IMPRESSIONS T.Museum exhibit supplies 99.80 99.80 98205 03110/2005 006897 LORY, SUSAN, J. TCSD instructor earnings 312.55 TCSD instructor earnings 259.35 TCSD instructor earnings 256.03 TCSD instructor earnings 232.75 TCSD instructor earnings 219.45 TCSD instructor earnings 219.45 TCSD instructor earnings 139.65 TCSD instructor earnings 139.65 TCSD instructor earnings 139.65 1,918.53 98206 03/10/2005 008612 MAGUiRE PROP.-PLAZA LAS HtI:Plnr's Inst. Cf 4/13.15/05 1,282.40 1,282.40 98207 03110/2005 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS park rules signs for var park sites 960.05 hardware/supplies for signs: PW 379.82 1,339.87 98208 03110/2005 004141 MAINTEX INC custodial supplies: CRC 274.00 274.00 98209 03110/2005 004068 MANALllI, AILEEN TCSD Instructor Eamings 182.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 63.00 245.00 98210 03110/2005 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY temp help wle 02120 HooflDankworth 1,162.40 1,162.40 98211 03110/2005 002693 MATROS, ANDREA TCSD Instructor Earnings 126.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 84.00 210.00 98212 03110/2005 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS Marketing Svcs: Bluegrass Festival '05 1,500.00 reirnb expenses: Bluegrass Festival 29.97 1,529.97 Page:7 apChkLst 03110/2005 12:23:01 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Cheek Total 98213 03/10/2005 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MetLife Dental Insurance Payment 7,999.88 7,999.88 98214 03110/2005 008091 MILLMORE'S Wt>:X CREW vehicle mainVdetail for PW CIP DiY 50.00 50.00 98215 03110/2005 001384 MiNUTEMAN PRESS business cards: L. Wytrykus business cards: M. Horton 43.37 43.37 86.74 98216 03/10/2005 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING emerg work due to heavy rains: Low Flow emerg work due to heavy rains:Vallejo emerg work due to heavy rains:Diaz Rd 13,509.00 1,922.00 1,505.00 16,936.00 98217 03110/2005 004490 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC 11/04-11/05 control link svc:TVHS light p~t 400.00 400.00 98218 03/10/2005 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Mar .0n-holdM phone music: City Hall 120.86 120.86 98219 03110/2005 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES 3/2510S.3124/06 subscr: 199638 3/28/05-3/27/06 subscr: 165222 106.80 106.80 213.60 98220 03110/2005 002292 OASIS VENDING Feb cofleelkitchen supplies: Maint Fae 51.72 51.72 98221 03110/2005 006721 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY mise offiee supplies: Finance 482.24 482.24 98222 03110/2005 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 284.00 284.00 59.43 55.00 31.34 713.77 98223 0311012005 008548 ORANGE COUNTY PERFORMING MLetters to Harriet Tubman":T. Museum 550.00 550.00 98224 03110/2005 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Parent and Me Supplies 124.42 124.42 98225 03/1012005 002256 P & 0 CONSULTANTS INC Jan temp help.-bldg inspector: Henderson 7,800.00 7,800.00 98226 0311012005 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC Helmets/Communication Kits: Police 2,490.77 2,490.77 98227 0311012005 008240 PABLlTOS SPANISH ACADEMY TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 490.00 280.00 210.00 140.00 70.00 1,190.00 Page:8 apChkLst 03110/2005 12:23:01 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98228 03110/2005 002099 PASCOE MANAGEMENT LLP Mar lease:Old Town restroom 826.00 826.00 98229 03110/2005 007480 PATTERSON, GLENN Reimb:Fire House World Conf 0212-4/05 472.84 472.84 98230 03/10/2005 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPANY Mule rental lor special events:Code Enl. 134.40 134.40 98231 03110/2005 003218 PELA Feb plan check svcs: Planning Feb plan ck svcs: TCSD Jan Ldscp plan cklinspection: Win. Rd 11,8S0.00 2,600.00 180.00 14,660.00 98232 03110/2005 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 288.55 288.55 98233 03110/2005 005820 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC PrePaid Legal Services Payment 359.75 359.75 98234 03110/2005 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY ceremony to rename Sports Park ad Jan public ntc: PA04-0134/0136 Jan public ntc: PA04-0359 325.50 146.90 128.70 601.10 98235 03110/2005 003155 PRICE CHOPPER INC Public Swim wristbands for Aquatics 290.00 290.00 98236 03110/2005 003697 PROJECT DESIGN 12/06-01/09/05 svcs:Murr Crk Bridge 12/6-01/09/05 svcs: SR79 Medians 2,871.30 1,287.50 3,958.80 98237 03110/2005 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS INC signs lor R. Reagan Sports Park 6,583.53 6,583.53 98238 03110/2005 004075 R & R PAPER & PACKAGING INC craft paper for T. Museum 53.37 53.37 98239 03110/2005 004863 R M S FOUNDATION INC Deposit: Senior Excursion 4/19/05 140.00 140.00 98240 03110/2005 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PRK ASSN Apr-Jun Bus.Prk Assn dues: Diaz Rd Apr-Jun Bus.Prk Assn dues: City Hall Apr-Jun Bus.Prk Assn dues: propadj/C.H. 1,948.77 1,417.29 1,169.26 4,535.32 98241 03110/2005 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Various Water Meters Feb 01-06-84353-0 Gateway Ldscp Feb 01-06-84650-2 Gateway Idscp Feb 01-06-65006-0 O.T. Comm. Thtr 1,676.46 446.55 73.04 16.08 14.07 11.93 2,238.13 Various Water Meters Various Water Meters 98242 03110/2005 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS dup blueprints for B&S Dept dup blueprints: Soundwall Ldscp Imprv dup blueprints: Soundwall Ldscp Imprv 56.89 46.55 38.79 142.23 Page:9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 03110/2005 12:23:01PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CAliFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98243 03110/2005 004584 REGENCY liGHTiNG electrical supplies: C. Museum 77.58 77.58 98244 03/10/2005 002110 RENTAL SERVICE rental equip for PW Maint Div 174.18 174.18 - - -- - - .-.-. 98245 03110/2005 006483 RICHARDS, TYREASHA I. TeSO Instructor Earnings 378.00 TeSD Instructor Earnings 122.50 500.50 98246 03110/2005 000352 RIVERSIDE CO ASSESSOR Feb assessor maps for B&S Oept 24.00 24.00 98247 03110/2005 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & Filing fee: Pavement Rehab PW04~12 64.00 64.00 -------- 98248 03110/2005 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION Prgs Pmt #2: Win. Rd Widening PWOO27 30,937.50 30,937.50 98249 03110/2005 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF 3/26/05-3125/06 penn it for CRG 446.00 446.00 96250 03110/2005 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF onsile constr. evaluation: Harveston Prk 133.00 133.00 98251 03110/2005 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC demo old signs @ Sports Park 4,800.00 4,800.00 98252 03110/2005 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Tiny Tots Program Supplies 365.17 365.17 98253 03110/2005 004598 S T K ARCHITECTURE INC Jan dsgn svcs: Wolf Creek Fire Sin 41,641.27 41,641.27 98254 03110/2005 008615 SABLAN, MARIA Refund: Sec. Deposit: CRG 02127/05 100.00 100.00 98255 03110/2005 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment 978.93 SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment 0.00 978.93 98256 03110/2005 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment Case # DF09911 8 25.00 25.00 98257 03110/2005 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment Account # 581095025 12.50 12.50 98258 03110/2005 004814 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING INC Jan dsgn svcs: Main St Bridge 6,609.45 6,609.45 Page:10 apChkLst 03110/2005 12:23:01PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Amount Paid Check Total Check # Date Vendor Description 98259 03110/2005 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Feb 2..02-502-8077 Maint Fac Jan 2-19-683-3263 various mtrs Mar 2-20-798-3248 C. Museum Jan 2-00-397-5067 various mtrs Mar 2-10-331-2153 TCC Feb 2-22-575-0876 various mtrs Feb 2-18-528-9980 Santiago Rd 1,386.73 1,049.53 1,005.74 923.05 669.07 280.11 48.45 5,362.68 98260 03110/2005 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Feb 091.085-1632.0 T.ES. Pool 14.79 14.79 98261 03110/2005 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL pest control svcs: Fire Stn 84 pest control svcs: Fire Stn 92 pest control svcs: C. Museum 80.00 42.00 36.00 158.00 98262 03110/2005 007762 STANDARD OF OREGON Mandatory Life Insurance Payment 2,502.50 2,502.50 98263 03110/2005 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS Feb transcription srvcs:Police 2,940.32 2,940.32 98264 03110/2005 000305 TARGET STORE mise supplies for TCSD special events TCC Rec Supplies 133.14 111.50 244.64 98265 03110/2005 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Union Dues Payment 3,841.00 3,841.00 98266 03110/2005 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Sunshine Fund 70.04 70.04 98267 03110/2005 005412 TEMECULA GARDEN & POWER repair/maint of small equip:PW Maint 20.00 20.00 98268 03110/2005 006896 TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY INC TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 12.25 12.25 24.50 98269 03/10/2005 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY Plaques for holiday parade 2004 F/D & MIS Date Night Supplies 869.67 87.28 956.95 98270 03110/2005 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY City Hall locksmith sves 42.09 42.09 98271 03110/2005 006192 TRISTAFF GROUP temp help w/e 02120 Long 374.40 374.40 98272 03110/2005 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 295.65 295.65 98273 03110/2005 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA Long Tenn Disability Payment 7,087.10 7.087.10 98274 03110/2005 004261 VERIZON Feb various City phone lines Feb xxx-9897 general usage 337.07 90.55 427.62 Page:11 apChkLsI 03110/2005 12:23:01PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98275 03110/2005 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Feb access-CRG/G.Mus. phone line Credit: Feb access-C. Mus. phone line 708.48 -56.68 651.80 98276 03110/2005 008431 VICTORY COMMUNICATIONS INC City ad in Disneyland 50 USA Today 14,450.00 14,450.00 98277 03110/2005 003191 WEDEKING, BRUCE Reimb: HtI accommodations: AFO Cert. 141.63 141.63 98278 03110/2005 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 2/1-15105 Citywide tree maint svcs 5,190.00 5,190.00 98279 03110/2005 000339 WEST PUBLISHING CORP Feb Coy Hall Judicial Updates 88.34 88.34 98280 03110/2005 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY board/local permittee wrkshp: 3/31-411 43.00 43.00 98281 03110/2005 008316 WESTSIDE SELF STORAGE Off Site Records Storage unit A 1000 1,000.00 1,000.00 98282 03110/2005 002109 WHITE CAP INDUSTRIES INC misc. tools & equipment for Land Dev 45.38 45.38 98283 03110/2005 000348 ZiGLER, GAil Team Pace SI Pat ricks Day Raffle 300.00 300.00 98284 03110/2005 000348 ZIGLER, GAil reimb: rfrshmnts/suppJies:park openings 142.38 142.38 G,and lolallo' UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 942,852.53 Page:12 apChkLst 03/0312005 2:S9:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Pate Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 466 02128/2005 005460 US BANK CFD 88-12 Debt Svc Pmt 322,570.36 322,570.36 97974 02125/2005 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS computer purchase prgm: J. Simpson 1,687.51 1,687.51 97975 02125/2005 007999 S F M CONSTRUCTORS INC Veteran's Memorial Constr. Contract 101,938.90 101,938.90 97976 03/03/2005 004594 2 HOT ACTIVEWEAR Official Uniforms for Traffic Officers 763.35 763.35 97977 03/03/2005 008598 A TO Z MANAGEMENT Refund: admin citation #1054 250.00 250.00 97978 03/03/2005 004064 ADELPHIA Feb-Mar high speed intemet srvcs 40.95 40.95 97979 03/03/2005 002877 AL T A LOMA CHARTER LINES bus srvcs:getty center excursion 636.57 636.57 97980 03/03/2005 000936 AMERICAN REP CROSS Lifeguard Train Manuals:Aquatic Jr Lneguard Prep Kits: Aquatic 1,740.00 225.00 1,965.00 97981 03/03/2005 008279 AMERICOMP iNFOSYSTEMS I Computer supplies:lnfo Systems 70.04 70.04 97982 03/03/2005 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp help ppe 2112 Kasparian Temp Help Ppe 2112 Buchanan S Temp help ppe 2119 plascencia/wheel Temp Help Ppe 2112 Piascencia B Temp Help Ppe 2119 Gardner L 648.00 536.63 429.98 356.40 141.75 2,112.76 97963 03/03/2005 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA Membership:Mark Levis 80925362 45.00 45.00 97984 03/03/2005 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materiais PW patch truck materials 74.32 55.46 129.80 97985 03/03/2005 008597 CALPERON, CARL Fire training reimb:C Calderon 400.00 400.00 97986 03/03/2005 000924 CALIF ASSOC OF PUBLIC Mbrshp:CAPPO Vollmuth 3/05.2106 110.00 110.00 97987 03/03/2005 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE-ACCT May Drug & Alcohol Analysis:Police 35.00 35.00 97988 03/03/2005 000398 CALIF MUNI TREASURERS ASS CMTA mmbrshp:Landfried-Grance 120.00 120.00 97989 03/03/2005 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATiON S CPRS mbrshp:Ruse P #002219 125.00 125.00 Page:l apChkLst 0310312005 2:59:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank: unIon UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 97990 03103/2005 004228 CAMERON WELPING SUPPLY Maint supplies:TCC 19.29 19.29 97991 03/0312005 008523 CAMPBELL, CHARLENE Refund: Practical Yoga 10.75 10.75 97992 0310312005 008331 CAPEL, SANDRA Refund: watercolor 3112.102 Refund: Practical Yoga 79.00 10.75 89.75 97993 0310312005 008439 CARPIAC SCIENCE INC Bi-Iingual AEP's:paramedic pgnn 5,681.95 S,681.95 97994 0310312005 004006 CARROLL, JOSEPH Group photos:2005 City Council. 635.67 635.67 97995 0310312005 002534 CATERERS CAFE rirshmnts:City Attorney meeting 2/22 Snacks:Congrsmn Issa Mtg Lunch:Jan City Attomey Meet 97996 03/0312005 008594 COMMUNITY BANK ReVEscrow 280000256:Win.Widening 68.74 42.66 22.00 133.40 17,451.86 17,451.86 97997 0310312005 002945 CONSOLlDATEP ELECTRICAL Elec Supplies:Tms Field Lights Elec supplies:parks 696.50 117.82 814.32 97998 0310312005 004123 0 L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Mar Lease & Cam:Police Storefro 2,141.58 2,141.58 97999 0310312005 004569 DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATE Jan Spacl Tax Consuit: Roripaug 312.67 312.67 98000 0310312005 003625 PAVIS, JOHN TCSD instructor eamings 402.50 402.50 98001 0310312005 001669 DUNN EPWARPS CORPORATI Old Twn Light Pole repair supplies 37.41 37.41 98002 03/0312005 000395 ECONOMIC PEVELOPMENT CO EDC mtg:C Washington 2/10/05 30.00 30.00 98003 03103/2005 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE PW back hoe repairs Vehicle repair:PW front loader 355.00 355.00 710.00 98004 03103/2005 008487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD rirshmnts:City Council mtg 2/22 246.84 246.84 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 0310312005 2:59:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98005 03/03/2005 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Feb Ldscp Maint:Sports PkslSchool 40,986.00 Jan Ldcsp Maint:Sports Park/School 40,986.00 Feb landscape maintsouth slopes 31,093.00 Jan landscape maintsouth slopes 31,093.00 Feb landscape maintnorth slopes 23,071.00 Jan landscape maint:north slopes 23,071.00 Feb landscape maintmedlans 8,398.00 Jan landscape maintmedians 8,398.00 Feb landscape maintfacilities 6,886.00 Jan landscape maintfacilities 6,886.00 Landscape srvcs:slopes job 8523 1,016.22 Landscape Srvcs:Top Soil #2 R 875.00 Landscape maint:slopes job 8528 787.13 Ldscp Srvcs:Repair Main Line 8 394.30 223,940.65 98006 0310312005 000165 FEPERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail srvcs:PW ,Plan. HR t74.50 174.50 98007 0310312005 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Lot book reports:RPA 75.00 75.00 98008 0310312005 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 008604 VALLEE P' BRUME DU refreshments planning comm mtg 200.00 007029 BLACK ANGUS PU Planning wkshp mtg 2/1 30.29 230.29 98009 0310312005 004239 FISHER SEHGAL YANEZ INC const admin pmttheater 1/05 7,343.25 7,343.25 98010 0310312005 008602 GILMAN, LESSA Refund: tumble jungle tumbling tots 101.00 101.00 98011 03103/2005 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PROPUCTS Office supplies:Fire Prev/Stns/Medics 2,310.80 2,310.90 98012 03/0312005 005947 GOLPEN STATE OVERNIGHT Express Mail Srvc:Fire Prevention 33.82 33.82 98013 03/0312005 007736 GRiFFITH COMPANY Prog Pmt 4: Jefferson Pave Ash 310,517.62 Stp notice:jefferson pave rehab -25,092.03 285,425.59 98014 03103/2005 004053 HABITAT WEST INC Jan MaintLong Cyn Detention Ba 450.00 450.00 99015 0310312005 006250 HAZ MAT TRANS INC Hazmat SIVeS rda:mainlmercedes/3rd 55,162.00 66,162.00 98016 03103/2005 003106 HERITAGE SECURITY SERVIC Security Officer svcs: City Events 286.00 286.00 98017 03103/2005 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD Computer supplies: Info Systems 4,902.63 HP Notebook Computer: Police Dept 2,916.63 7,819.26 Page:3 apChkLst 0310312005 2:59:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Pate Vendor Description Amount Patd Check Totat 98018 03/03/2005 008259 HOUSTON, CINPY LEA TCSD instructor earnings 168.00 168.00 98019 03/03/2005 001060 HYATT htl:CPRS Cf Parker/Edwards 3/9-13 1 ,293.28 1 ,293.28 98020 03/03/2005 001060 HYATT hotel:CPRS conI McCarthy 3/9-3/13 646.64 646.64 98021 03/03/2005 001 060 HYATT hotel:CPRS conI Gilliland 3/9-3/13 646.64 646.64 98022 03/03/2005 001060 HYATT hotel:CPRS conI Lawrence 3/9-3/13 646.64 646.64 98023 03/03/2005 001060 HYATT hotel:CPRS conI Munoz 3/9-3/11 323.32 323.32 98024 03/03/2005 001060 HYATT hotel:CPRS conf Serven 3/9-3/11 323.32 323.32 98025 03/03/2005 001060 HYATT hotel:CPRS conf Munoz/Serven 3/8 280.38 280.38 98026 03/03/2005 004406 IGOE & COMPANY INC Feb flex benefit plan pmt 561.70 561.70 98027 03/03/2005 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing supplies Pool Santizing Chemicals Pool Sanitizing Supplies 317.86 152.57 127.15 597.58 98028 03/03/2005 004179 INTL E-Z UP, INC shade tent: aquatics prgm 859.93 859.93 98029 03/03/2005 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSP instructor eamings 1 ,524.60 1,524.60 98030 03/03/2005 000206 KINKOS INC Copier supplies:Copy Center 25.75 25.75 98031 03/03/2005 004051 LOR GEOTECHNiCAL GROUP Jan Pmt: Wolf Valley Channel 80.00 80.00 98032 03/03/2005 001719 L P A INC Jan Design SlVCs:Library Proj 387.50 387.50 98033 03/03/2005 005981 LAKE ARROWHEAD RESORT Mgmt training retreat:3/17/05 1,523.68 1,523.68 98034 03/03/2005 005701 LAVIN, JOHN Refund: practical yoga 11.25 11.25 98035 03/03/2005 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES '05 Planners Inst:4113-4115 1,840.00 1,640.00 Page:4 apChkLst 0310312005 2:59:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98036 0310312005 004412 LEAN PER, KERRY P. TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 185.50 169.75 63.88 42.00 461.13 98037 03103/2005 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHiTMOR Jan HR legal svcs for TE060-00001 936.00 936.00 98038 0310312005 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Paramedic supplies 390.29 390.29 98039 0310312005 008801 MACALUSO, SAM refund: F/P Pate Night 20.00 20.00 98040 0310312005 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS VariOUS Street Signs: PW Maint Div 2,493.07 2,493.07 98041 0310312005 004141 MAINTEX INC custodial supplies: MPSC custodial supplies: T. Museum custodial supplies: TCC custodial supplies: Tee custodial supplies: C. Museum custodial supplies: TCC custodial supplies: MPSC 247.62 238.90 161.89 128.14 123.27 107.22 11.31 1,018.35 98042 0310312005 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER Temp help w/e 02/13 HooflPankworth 1,162.40 1,162.40 98043 03103/2005 008514 MARCH FiELP MUSEUM MPSC Excursion 03122/05 91.00 91.00 98044 03103/2005 008599 MCGOVERN-WHITE, JOAN Refund: Practical Yoga 10.75 10.75 98045 03103/2005 001905 MEYERS, PAVID WILLIAM TCSO Instructor Earnings 210.00 210.00 98046 0310312005 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 2000 envelopes for Planning Dept. 1000 envelopes for B&S Pept 2000 generic Police Dept business ea business cards: Job Hotline 199.42 178.38 104.64 86.31 568.75 98047 03103/2005 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES Mar EOC Stn Satellite Phone Svcs 71.17 71.17 98048 03/0312005 007011 MORRIS MEYERS MAINTENAN Jan maint svcs:park r.r.lpicnlc shelters 4,578.00 4,578.00 98049 03103/2005 008541 MOTA, JUANA Refund: room rental 200.00 200.00 98050 03/03/2005 006146 MT SAN JACINTO COMMUNiTY City EE's Outlook Training 2/15-1 1,871.00 1,871.00 PageS apChkLsI 03103/2005 2:59:38PM (Continued) Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Dale Vendor Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Description Check Tolal Amount Paid 98051 03/03/2005 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS parts/supplies for equip: PW Maint Fire Prey vehicle parts/supplies credit: item returned 12.15 10.96 -3.65 19.46 98052 03/03/2005 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 5/05.4/06 Fire Codes subser: #2101143 . 727.32 727.32 98053 03103/2005 006087 NATURE WATCH Family Fun Night Supplies 83.54 83.54 98054 03/0312005 001599 NORTH COUNTY BASKETBALL Aug-Oct Sprt League Assignment Fees 98055 03/0312005 002292 OASIS VENPING 46.00 46.00 City Hall coffeelkitchen supplies 365.S4 365.54 98056 03103/2005 003954 OFFICE PEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies: P.P. O.T. SIn Office Supplies for Planning 275.41 211.41 486.82 980S7 0310312005 006721 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE Misc office supplies:Finance 98058 0310312005 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 190.65 190.65 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Sves City Vehicle Repair/Maint Bves City Vehicle Repair/Main! Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint BVC5 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Sves City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Sves City Vehicle Repair/Maint Sves City Vehicle Repair/Maint SVC5 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Sves City Vehicle Repair/Maint Sves 608.43 544.34 256.22 198.85 170.71 134.95 114.17 82.90 42.19 9.00 5.82 4.71 1.56 2,173.85 98059 03/03/2005 007042 ORANGE CO SHERIFF'S PEPT Narcotics Basic Tm: 4/04-15/05 204.00 204.00 98060 03/0312005 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Teen Program supplies 98061 03/0312005 004389 OUT OF THE OR PI NARY 98062 03/03/2005 003218 PELA 98063 03/0312005 002498 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC 98064 03/03/2005 000249 PETTY CASH 103.00 103.00 City Mgr/H.R.Team Building 4/28/05 450.00 450.00 Jan Inspection Svcs:Soundwall 585.00 585.00 Jan Geotech Testing: W.C. Sprts C 7,283.65 7,283.65 Petty Cash Reimbursement 431.01 431.01 Page:6 apChkLst 03/0312005 2:59:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98065 03/03/2005 001999 PITNEY BOWES Apr-Jun Postage Meter Reset 269.11 269.11 98066 03/03/2005 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COM PAN 1 yr subscrp: C.M. Dapt. #9298672 160.16 160.16 98067 03/03/2005 004457 RJ NOBLE COMPANY Prgs Pmt#11:R.C.RdWidening 34,324.49 34,324.49 98068 03/03/2005 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Various Water Meters Feb 01-08-38009-0 Fire Stn 92 461.37 42.98 504.35 98069 03/03/2005 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Pup Blueprtnts:Vrms B-Ball Ct L 57.70 57.70 98070 03/03/2005 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING electrical supplies: MPSC 173.78 173.78 96071 03/03/2005 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF 'CEQA" training 4/14-15/05 H. Bales 295.00 295.00 98072 03/03/2005 008559 RENAISSANCE HOTEL ASSOCI Htl:APA Conf:J. Telesio 3/19-23/05 670.80 670.80 98073 03/03/2005 004498 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC Jan on-call traffic signal maint SVCS 837.25 837.25 98074 03/03/2005 007402 RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATE Jan Dsgn Svcs: Maint Fac Field 44,674.00 44,674.00 98075 03/03/2005 002412 RICHARPS WATSON & Dee 2004 legal services 77,710.56 77,710.56 98076 03/03/2005 006124 RIVERSIPE BLUEPRINT engineering copier toner for map room 578.92 578.92 98077 03/03/2005 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE Jul-Sept Fire Services 977,598.65 977,598.65 98078 03/03/2005 000411 RIVERSIPE CO FLOOP microfiche copiesfTract 3833 maps:PW 361.75 361.75 98079 03/03/2005 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO Jan emerg. radio rentals: Police 627.00 627.00 98080 03/03/2005 002940 RiVERSIPE CO OF (GIS SYSTE FY 04/05 GIS Data Annual Fee 5,000.00 5,000.00 98081 03/03/2005 000406 RiVERSIPE CO SHERIFFS DEP 12109/04-01l05/05:lawenforcement 837,815.71 837,815.71 98082 03/03/2005 000406 RIVERSIPE CO SHERIFFS PEP Jan 05 Booking Fees 10,267.20 10,267.20 Page:? apChkLst 0310312005 2:59:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98083 03/0312005 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. reimb: D.C. SCAG lobbying 02/15-17 reimb: THEA Awards 2/5/05 36.20 20.00 56.20 98084 0310312005 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS I NC Parent & Me Program Supplies Family Fun Night Supplies 140.37 50.74 191.11 98085 03103/2005 004562 SCHiRMER ENGINEERING COR Jan plan check srvcs:Fire Prevention 3,440.00 3,440.00 98086 0310312005 007342 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGE Jan legal services pmt 84.00 84.00 98087 03103/2005 000751 SKILLPATH INC Women's Cont: 5/19/05 H. Bales 149.00 149.00 98088 0310312005 000645 SMART & FINAL INC High Hopes Supplies TCC Rec Supplies 246.50 196.57 443.07 98089 0310312005 000537 SO CALIF EPISON Feb 2-00-397-5042 City Hall Feb 2-02-351-4946 MPSC Feb 2-18-937-3152 T. Museum Feb 2-23-365-5992 Fire Sin 92 Feb 2-22-891-0550 various mtrs Feb 2-11-007-0455 6th Street Feb 2.20-817-9929 P.O. O.T. Stn Feb 2-21-911-7892 O.T. Prk Lot Feb 2-19.171.8568 Wedding Chpl Feb 2.21-981.4720 Hwy 79 Feb 2-14-204-1615 Front St Radio 5,556.54 753.91 533.90 324.48 310.28 280.35 203.39 154.53 101.11 61.25 28.78 8,308.52 98090 0310312005 000926 SO CALIF EDISON Tral Sgnllnstall Electrical Svc 4,158.67 4,158.67 98091 03103/2005 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Feb City Facilities gas meters Feb 095-167-7907-2 Fire Stn 84 4,380.45 258.48 4,638.93 98092 0310312005 007341 SOUTH COAST WINERY, INC. Peposit:Rental/Catering Svcs:I2/03/05 2,500.00 2,500.00 98093 03/0312005 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST pest controi svcs: CRC pest control svcs: City Hall pest control svcs: Tee 90.00 56.00 36.00 182.00 98094 03/0312005 007851 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR Maint Fac HVAC repair svcs Credit: labor for Mnte Fac repairs 282.26 -70.00 212.26 98095 03/03/2005 005786 SPRINT 11/15-12/14/04 City ceilular chrgs phone for new Council member phona tor Land Pev NPDES Eng. 12/15-01/14/05 cellular phone chrgs 10/15~11/14/04 City cellular chrgs 6,302.74 538.74 140.06 -54.53 -345.51 6,581.50 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 0310312005 2:59:38PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98096 03103/2005 005786 SPRINT Credits previously taken 668.71 11/15.12114/04 City cellular chrgs -2.47 10/15.11/14/04 City cellular chrgs -592.80 73.44 98097 03/03/2005 000293 STADIUM PIZZA Rfrshmnts: Teen Council 1/21/05 152.16 152.16 98098 0310312005 002224 SYNPISTAR INC Fire Prey public education handouts 2,236.00 2,236.00 98099 0310312005 003599 T Y UN INTERNATIONAL Jan Reimb Expenses: Roripaugh 17.01 17.01 98100 0310312005 000305 TARGET STORE mise supplies for leSO special events 84.85 mise supplies for leSO special events 49.17 MPSC Rec Supplies 22.03 156.05 98101 0310312005 008465 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR Medic Squad vehicle repair/maint 168.01 add'l sales tax 4.83 172.84 98102 0310312005 001919 TEMECULA SENIOR CTR & FO Community Bve Funding Award 5,000.00 5,000.00 98103 0310312005 004260 TEMECULA STAMP & GRAPHIC plan check stamps for Fire Prey 417.73 Plan Check Stamps For Fire Prey 208.86 626.59 98104 0310312005 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER Jan-Mar '05 Funding 37,000.00 Chamber website/software funding 19,500.00 56,500.00 98105 03/03/2005 004190 TEMECULA V ALLEY FILM FEST FY 04/05 Film/Music Festival Spnrshp 30,000.00 30,000.00 98106 03103/2005 003074 TEMECULA VALLEY ROSE SOC Community Sve Funding Award 2,000.00 2,000.00 98107 03/0312005 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON TCSD Instructor Earnings 64.00 leSD Instructor Earnings 63.00 147.00 98108 0310312005 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIEP S Jan City vehicles fuel usage 1,025.52 1,025.52 98109 03/03/2005 000319 TOMARK SPORTS INC leSD sports equipment 61.32 61.32 98110 03/03/2005 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTIO prgs Pmt #11: Community Theater 190,684.99 stop notice:S.R.M.:Community Theate -2,492.S3 188,172.46 98111 03/03/2005 005873 TRI AD ACTUARIES INC Feb Administration Fees 365.50 Credit: 41 participants for Feb .17.00 348.50 98112 03/0312005 006192 TRISTAFF GROUP Temp help w/e 02113 Long 847.40 847.40 Page:9 apChkLst 0310312005 2:59:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98113 03/03/2005 004981 UNISOURCE SCREENING & 02/1-15/05 bckgmd screening svc 222.00 222.00 98114 03/03/2005 000325 UNITED WAY Key EE giving campaign: 8 City staff 150.00 150.00 98115 03/03/2005 008603 USF BESlWAY TRANSPORTATI Shipping Chrgs: PW Traf Piv 44.00 44.00 98116 03/03/2005 004368 VAll COOPER & ASSOCIATES I Jan temp inspection svc:AguilarlWilson 20,982.00 20,982.00 98117 03/03/2005 006807 VANIRCONSTRUCTION Pec Constr MgmtSvcs: Comm. Theater 32,494.64 32,494.64 98118 03/03/2005 008800 VARGAS, ROSALIE Refund: Intro to Taekwondo 17.50 17.50 98119 03/0312005 004261 VERIZON Feb xxx.2016 Reverse 911 Feb xxx.3526 Fire Alann Feb xxx-2676 general usage 109.16 85.54 28.51 223.21 98120 03/03/2005 004789 VERIZON ONLINE lntemel svcs: xx7411 72.83 72.83 98121 03/03/2005 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Inlemel svcs: xx0544 72.83 72.83 98122 03/03/2005 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Inlemel svcs: P.P. O.T. Stn 42.83 42.83 98123 03/03/2005 007695 VIDO SAMARZICH INC Prgs Pmt #4: Pablo Apis Park 24,600.00 24,800.00 98124 03/03/2005 001890 VORTEX POORS remove/install doors @ City Hall 2,437.49 2,437.49 98125 03/03/2005 006612 WEATHERPROOFING TECH, I Tcc Roof Prev Maint Svcs T. Museum Roof Prey Maint Svc Wedding Chpl Roof Prev Maint 600.00 370.00 150.00 1,120.00 98126 03/03/2005 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 01/16-31/05 Citywide tree maint svcs 7,787.50 7,787.50 98127 03/03/2005 008402 WESTERN RiVERSIDE COUNT WRCRCA Permittee Wkshp:PU 3/31 25.00 25.00 98128 03/03/2005 005995 WESlWAYS & JOURNEY PUBL Mar-Apr Display ad: Econ Dev 4,250.00 4,250.00 98129 03/03/2005 006290 WOODCREST VEHICLE CENT install Eyewitness Camera Sys/radar 843.18 843.18 Page:10 apChkLst 0310312005 2:S9:38PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 98130 0310312005 008418 WooPSIPE WOLF CREEK 121 I Refund: decrease in pennit fees Refund: decrease in pennit fees 34.41 34.40 68.81 98131 0310312005 003540 YASINOSKY, BERYL Computer purchase prgm 1,468.11 1,468.11 98132 03103/2005 003776 ZOLL MEPICAL CORPORATION Paramedic tools/supplies Paramedic tools/supplies Paramedics medical supplies 485.95 485.95 53.01 1,024.91 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 3,492,397.07 Page:l1 ITEM 3 , APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: ~usan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk March 22, 2005 DATE: SUBJECT: Records Destruction Approval PREPARED BY:~wyn R. Flores, Sr. Records Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. BACKGROUND: On March 8, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution No. 05-27 which authorizes the destruction of certain City records which have become outdated, obsolete or are excess documents, in compliance with State of California Government Code, Sections 34090 through 34090.7. Attached Exhibit A, lists records from the Building & Safety Department in which certain documents have been imaged and identified within Records Series 805-07 & 805-08 of the Records Retention Schedule. The imaging of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. Attached Exhibit B, lists records from the City Clerk Department in which certain documents have been imaged and identified within various Records Series (list attached) of the Records Retention Schedule. The imaging of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has signed the Exhibits, as provided for in Resolution No. 05-27. ATTACHMENTS: Destruction of Records Request, Building & Safety Department Exhibit A, List of Records recommended for destruction Destruction of Records Request, City Clerk Department Exhibit B, List of Records recommended for destruction FROM: Gwyn R. Flores, Sr. Records Coordinator TO: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Destruction of Records Attached "Exhibit A" is a listing of records maintained in the City's Building and Safety Department. These documents have been identified in Record Series 805-07 & 805-08 (list attached) and has been imaged into the City's LaserFiche Imaging System and are eligible for destruction in accordance with the City of Temecula's approved Retention Policy as outlined in Resolution No. 05-27. The imaging of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The undersigned have reviewed and approved this destruction request. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5, I hereby give my consent to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the City of Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy. APPROVED: City Attorney: ~ petej??lbr- D~ f R:\forms\destruct.rqs EXHIBIT "Au CITY OF TEMECULA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT DESTRUCTION FILE REPORT Document Date Item Brief File Reference# Storage Media Reference Reference Description Security Class Storage Location 162 Various Building Building Plans 805-08 LaserFiche Plans (See Attached List) T1's-N/A 162 Various Boxes 77.91 Residential & 805-07 LaserFiche Commercial Building Permits (See Attached List) 03/22/05 BS Destruction Page 1 of 1 41925 3RD ST 41868 4TH ST 41888 4TH ST 41910 6TH ST 42161 6TH ST 42191 6TH ST 42220 6TH ST 42221 6TH ST 42234 6TH ST 42248 6TH ST 42291 6TH ST 42297 6TH ST 43003 6TH ST MISC ADLEPHIA PEDESTALS 31707 AHERN PL 43682 ALCOBA DR 31283 ASHMILL CT 31345 ASHMILL CT 31988 AURORA CT 31977 AURORA CT 33298 AVE BICICLETA 29982 AVE CIMA DEL SOL 41681 AVE DE LA REINA 31638 AVE DEL REPOSO 43135 AVE DE SAN PAS QUAL 43135 AVE DE SAN PASQUAL 31928 AVE ENRIQUE 31939 AVE ENRIQUE 31949 AVE ENRIQUE 31989 AVE ENRIQUE 31976 AVE MALLARI 41895 AVE SONOMA 41085 ANVENIDA VERDE 41 090 AVE VERDE 41981 AVE VERDE 42067 AVE VISTA LADERA 41090 AVEINDA VERDE 44730 AVITA CR 31907 AZUCENA CT 44886 BANANAL WY 40250 BENWOOD WY 32439 BERGAMO CT 27447 BOSTIK CT 29037 BRIDGEHAMPTON RD 43014 BRIGHTON RIDGE LN 28884 BRISTOL RD 28896 BRISTOL RD 28905 BRISTOL RD 28908 BRISTOL RD 28917 BRISTOL RD Box 77 28929 BRISTOL RD 28956 BRISTOL RD 28980 BRISTOL RD 28992 BRISTOL RD 28968 BRISTOL RD 31460 BRITTON CR 31460 BRITTON CR 31492 BRITTON CR 44675 BROOKVAIL CT 43240 BROOKWAY DR 43247 BROOKWAY DR 43271 BROOKWAY DR 31917 CAMINO RABAGO 31929 CAMINO RABAGO 31941 CAMINO RABAGO 31953 CAMINO RABAGO 31965 CAMINO RABAGO 31977 CAMINO RABAGO 31989 CAMINO RABAGO 32001 CAMINO RABAGO 32004 CAMINO RABAGO 32015 CAMINO RABAGO 32052 CAMINO RBAGO 32124 CAMINO RABAGO 42173 CAMINO ROMO 32158 CAMINO SENECO 31141 CAMINO VERDE 27548 CAMPANA CR 32511 CAMPO DR 32523 CAMPO DR 32571 CAMPO DR 32662 CAMPO DR 32772 CAMPO DR 32772 CAMPO DR 32441 CAMPO DDR 30827 CANTERFIELD DR 30251 CAPRICE CT 29487 CARA WY 29529 CARA WY 40884 CARLENA LN 41809 CARLETON WY 43883 CARENTAN DR 43883 CARENTAN DR 41853 CARLENTON WY 40355 CARMELlTA CR 40410 CARMELlTA CR 40898 CARLENA LN 43164 CORTE CALANDA 43176 CORTE CALANDA 41809 CORTE CAMARA 32073 CORTE CANAL 30006 CORTE CANTERA 30018 CORTE CANTERA 30173 CORTE CANTERA 44647 CORTE CAPISTRANO 44656 CORTE CAPISTRANO 31732 CORTE CARDENAS 31918 CORTE CARDOZA 31938 CORTE CARDOZA 31958 CORTE CARDOZA 32109 CORTE CARMELA 32145 CORTE CARMONA 45015 CORTE CAROLINA 30077 CORTE CARRIZO 30152 CORTE CARRIZO 44997 CORTE CHRISTINA 31964 CORTE CYNTHIA 32206 CORTE DEL CERRO 32218 CORTE DEL CERRO 32219 CORTE DEL CERRO 43465 CORTE DURAZO 43480 CORTE DURAZO 31731 CORTE ENCINAS 33495 CORTE FIGUEROA 33505 CORTE FIGUEROA 33517 CORTE FIGUEROA 32154 CORTE FLORECITA 42004 DAHLIA WY 42004 DAHLIA WY 42036 DAHLIA WY 42089 DAHLIA WY 31664 DANE CT 31704 DANE CT 31932 DANIEL WY 28915 DAVENPORT CT 28927 DAVENPORT CT 28939 DAVENPORT CT 28951 DAVENPORT CT 29802 DAWNCREST CR 30300 DE PORTOLA RD 30370 DE PORTOLA RD 29378 DEAL CT 30245 DEER MEADOW RD 42057 DELMONTE ST 29723 DEL REY RD 29850 DEL REY RD 29850 DEL REY RD 29880 DEL REY RD 29905 DEL REY RD 30011 DEL REY RD Box 77 Page 1 of 2 30130 DEL REY RD 30213 DEL REY RD 30355 DEL REY RD 30385 DEL REY RD 30430 DEL REY RD 30688 DEL REY RD 30745 DEL REY RD 30773 DEL REY RD 30927 DEL REY RD 30959 DEL REY RD 31055 DEL REY RD 31188 DEL REY RD 30942 EAGLE CT 41506 EAGLE POINT WY 41571 EAGLE POINTWY 41507 EAGLE POINTWY 41515 EAGLE POINTWY 51523 EAGLE POINT WY 41531 EAGLE POINTWY 41531 EAGLE POINTWY 41534 EAGLE POINTWY 41539 EAGLE POINTWY 41539 EAGLE POINTWY 41542 EAGLE POINTWY 41547 EAGLE POINTWY 41550 EAGLE POINTWY 41555 EAGLE POINTWY 41558 EAGLE POINT WY 41571 EAGLE POINTWY 41571 EAGLE POINTWY 41571 EAGLE POINTWY 41574 EAGLE POINT WY 41577 EAGLE POINT WY 41582 EAGLE POINTWY 41596 EAGLE POINT WY 41597 EAGLE POINT WY 41597 EAGLE POINTWY 41603 EAGLE POINTWY 41609 EAGLE POINT WY 44681 EAGLEVAIL PASS 30860 EASTGATE PKWY TR 23143-8 MISC. RET.wALLS LENNAR MISC TEMP POWERlIRRIG TR 29928-2 & 29929 MISC WALLS 31932 DANIEL WY Box 77 Box 77 Page 2 of 2 30171 NICOLAS RD 30173 NICOLAS RD 32848 NORTHSHIRE CR 32856 NORTHSHIRE CR 32864 NORTHSHIRE CR 32872 NORTHSHIRE CR 32880 NORTHSHIRE CR 32881 NORTHSHIRE CR 32888 NORTHSHIRE CR 32889 NORTHSHIRE CR 32896 NORTHSHIRE CR 32897 NORTHSHIRE CR 32904 NORTHSHIRE CR 32905 NORTHSHIRE CR 32912 NORTHSHIRE CR 32913 NORTHSHIRE CR 32967 NORTHSHIRE CR 39760 OAK CLIFF DR 40128 ODESSA DR 40335 ODESSA DR 40348 ODESSA DR 33000 OLD KENT RD 32453 PALACIO ST 33004 PAOLI CT 33005 PAOLI CT 33014 PAOLI CT 33015 PAOLI CT 33024 PAOLI CT 33025 PAOLI CT 33034 PAOLI CT 33035 PAOLI CT 27542 PARKS IDE DR 45911 PARSIPPANCY CT 40320 PASEO DEL CIELO 40447 PASEO DEL CIELO 31705 PASEO GOLETA 31990 PASOS PLAZA 31993 PASOS PLAZA 32897 PATERNO ST 32905 PATERNO ST 32944 PATERNO ST 30965 PAUBA RD 31089 PAUBA RD 31931 PAUBA RD 31931 PAUBA RD 32991 PAUBA RD 33405 PAUBA RD 30372 PECHANGA DR 30277 PECHANGA DR 43712 PIASANO PLAZA Box 78 41322 PLACER LAFITE 40989 PROMEN CHARDONNAY 41081 PROMEN CHARDONNAY 41316 PROMEN CHARDONNAY 29051 PROVIDENCE RD 29063 PROVIDENCE RD 29075 PROVIDENCE RD 29243 PROVIDENCE RD 29258 PROVIDENCE RD 29267 PROVIDENCE RD 29279 PROVIDENCE RD 29282 PROVIDENCE RD 29291 PROVIDENCE RD 29294 PROVIDENCE RD TR21067 PECHANGA SOUND WALL 43035 PUDDING CT 28426 PUJOL ST 28434 PUJOL ST 28200 PUJOL ST 32475 ROSA CT 31519 ROYAL OAKS DR 31551 ROYAL OAKS DR 31557 ROYAL OAKS DR 31050 RUIDOSA ST 42065 RUB ICON CR 42079 RUBICON CR 42191 RUBICON CR 41387 RUE JADOT 31089 RUIDOSA ST 41805 RYCREST DR 30151 SANTIAGO RD 31286 SANTIAGO RD 31286 SANTIAGO RD 28858 SARASOTA LN 30341 SENELA PLAZA 27530 SENNA CT 27530 SENNA CT 32933 SOTELO DR 33080 SOTELO DR 27601 STANFORD DR 27609 STANFORD DR 40128 STOWE RD 40140 STOWE RD 40134 STOWE RD 40146 STOWE RD 40152 STOWE RD 39864 SWEET BRIER 40240 TANGER CR 44778 TEHACHAPI PASS 33122 TERRACE DR 44666 THATCHER CT 32839 TIEMPO CR 43651 TIRANO DR 33006 TOPEKA CT TR23143-1 MISC RET WALL US HOMES MISC BLOCK WALLS 33007 TOPEKA CT 33016 TOPEKA CT 33017 TOPEKA CT 33026 TOPEKA CT 33027 TOPEKA CT 33036 TOPEKA CT 32919 TRESTLE LN 32808 TRINI CT 32809 TRINI CT 32818 TRINI CT 32819 TRINI CT 32828 TRINI CT 32829 TRINI CT 32838 TRINI CT 32848 TRINI CT 32839 TRINI CT 32849 TRINI CT 43393 TYLMAN ST 32565 VAIL CREEK DR 40143 VALERIANA 29765 VALLE VERDE 42521 VERDADERO PL 33195 VERMONT RD 43247 VIA ANGELES 32184 VIA BEJARANO 30306 VIA BRISA 42340 VIA CONSUELO CT 42720 VIA DEL CAMPO 43082 VIA JUMILLA 44616 VIA LUCIDO 43931 VIA MONTALBAN 43940 VIA MONTALBAN 43941 VIA MONT ALBAN 28753 VIA NORTE 30066 VIA NORTE 40413 WGASA PLAZA 39807 WELLSLEY CT 39810 WELLSLEY CT 39819 WELLSLEY CT 39822 WELLSLEY CT 39834 WELLSLEY CT 42585 WHISTLE CT 30870 WHITE ROCKS CR 40335 WINDSOR RD Box 78 Page 1 of 2 29741 WINDWOOD CR 41421 WINGED FOOT ST 41750 WINCHESTER RD MISC STOP WORK NOTICES CIRCUS VARGAS CALCULATIONS 41694 MARGARITA RD 42301 lEVO DR 27536 YNEl RD 26550 YNEl RD 29385 RANCHO CALIF RD 40620 A WINCHESTER RD Box 78 Box 78 Page 2 of 2 42620 HUSSAR CT 41899 HUBER DR 28786 LEXINGTON RD 33001 HILL ST 33002 HILL ST 33002 HILL ST 33012 HILL ST 33022 HILL ST 33025 HILL ST 33035 HILL ST 33045 HILL ST 32656 HISLOP WY 32720 HISLOP WY 32720 HISLOP WY 40070 HOLDEN CR 40213 HOLDEN CR 39961 HUDSON CT 45890 HOPACTONG ST 41755 HUMBER DR 41899 HUMBER DR 31038 HUMBOLDT CT 32511 HUPA DR 32836 HUPA DR 32436 HUPP DR 31337 HURON ST 42600 HUSSAR CT 42610 HUSSAR CT 42611 HUSSAR CT 42621 HUSSAR CT 42630 HUSSAR CT 42631 HUSSAR CT 42640 HUSSAR CT 42641 HUSSAR CT 42650 HUSSAR CT 42651 HUSSAR CT 42660 HUSSAR CT 42661 HUSSAR CT 42670 HUSSAR CT 42671 HUSSAR CT 42672 HUSSAR CT 42680 HUSSAR CT 42681 HUSSAR CT 42692 HUSSAR CT 31458 INVERNESS CT 31465 INVERNESS CT 43132 JAMARA CT 43155 JAMARA CT 44604 JAMIN CR 30820 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 31099 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD Box 79 43140 JOHN WARNER RD 42548 JOLENE CT 42588 JOLENE CT 42700 JOLLE CT 42710 JOLLE CT 42085 KAFFIRBOOM CT 45685 KIMO ST 40521 LA CADENA CT 40625 LA COLIMA RD 30156 LA PRIMAVERA ST 28840 LAKE FRONT RD 28846 LAKE FRONT RD 28852 LAKE FRONT RD 28858 LAKE FRONT RD 28864 LAKE FRONT RD 28870 LAKE FRONT RD 28876 LAKE FRONT RD 28882 LAKE FRONT RD 28888 LAKE FRONT RD 28894 LAKE FRONT RD 28900 LAKE FRONT RD 29005 LAKE FRONT RD 31539 LAKERIDGE CT 28751 LAKEVIEW RD 32563 LAMA CT 43925 LARINO CT 42706 LARRY LEE LN 42706 LARRY LEE LN 42825 LARRY LEE LN 42886 LARRY LEE LN 42721 LAS VIOLETTAS CT 31800 LEIGH LN 28726 LEXINGTON RD 28759 LEXINGTON RD 28762 LEXINGTON RD 28774 LEXINGTON RD 28858 LEXINGTON RD 39120 LIEFER RD 39622 LIEFER RD 30696 E. LOMA LINDA RD 30857 LOMA LINDA RD 30889 LOMA LINDA RD 31661 LOMA LINDA RD 30984 LOLITA RD 30889 LOMA LINDA RD 31661 LOMA LINDA RD 39515 LONG RIDGE DR 39556 LOND RIDGE DR 29960 LOS NOGALES RD 29960 LOS NOGALES RD 31959 LUZON ST 42145 L YNDIE LN 44880 MACHON RD 44880 MACHON RD 27249 MADISON AV 27290 MADISON AV 42061 MAJESTIC CT 42062 MAJESTIC CT 42071 MAJESTIC CT 42072 MAJESTIC CT 42081 MAJESTIC CT 42082 MAJESTIC CT 42091 MAJESTIC CT 42092 MAJESTIC CT 42101 MAJESTIC CT 42102 MAJESTIC CT 42111 MAJESTIC CT 42112 MAJESTIC CT 43051 MAIDSTONE CT 43060 MAIDSTONE CT 42081 MAIN ST 42506 MAIN ST 43017 MANCHESTER CT 33521 MAPLEWOOD CT 39815 MARGARITA RD 30047 MANZANITA CT 43664 MANZANO DR 31107 MARIPOSA PL 30892 MASHIE WY 42363 MASKUAZ CT 45477 MASTERS DR 42572 MEADE CR 42573 MEADE CR 32025 MEADOWS PKWY 30824 MEDINAH WY 30824 MEDINAH WY 30839 MEDINAH WY 43363 MESSINA ST 30027 MILANO RD 30498 MILKY WAY DR 30657 MILKY WAY DR 28421 MIMSY WY 28433 MIMSY WY 28445 MIMSY WY 40175 MIMULUS WY 30209 MIREA LOMA DR 43481 MODENA DR 31816 MONIQUE CR 33122 MONROY CR 43441 MONTE CT Box 79 Page 1 of2 43464 MONTE CT 43456 MONTE CT 29760 MONTE VERDE RD 41656 MONTEREY PL 30378 MOONLIGHT CT 30378 MOONLIGHT CT 30392 MOONLIGHT CT 41941 MORENO RD 41895 MOTOR CAR PKWY 44064 MOUNTAIN VIEW 44064 MOUNTAIN VIEW 44084 MOUNTAIN VIEW 44984 MUIRFIELD DR 31120 NASSAU CT 27535 NELLIE CT 39992 NEW HAVEN RD 40016 NEW HAVEN RD 28898 NEWPORT RD 28910 NEWPORT RD 28922 NEWPORT RD 28934 NEWPORT RD 28940 NEWPORT RD 28946 NEWPORT RD 28952 NEWPORT RD 28958 NEWPORT RD 28964 NEWPORT RD 28970 NEWPORT RD 28976 NEWPORT RD 28982 NEWPORT RD 39941 NEW HAVEN RD 32840 NORTHSHIRE CR 32841 NORTHSHIRE CR 32849 NORTHSHIRE CR 32857 NORTHSHIRE CR 32865 NORTHSHIRE CR 32873 NORTHSHIRE CR 39755 OAK CLIFF DR 45505 OLYMPIC WY 29760 ORCHID CT 40897 OVERLAND DR 31990 PASOS PL 32865 PATERNO ST 30216 PECHANGA DR 31935 & 31935 PAUBA RD 27108 QUAIL CREEK CT 47771 RAINBOW CANYON RD 42015 ROANOAKE ST 42110 ROICK DR 32959 ROMERO DR 32437 ROSADO CT Box 79 32437 ROSADO CT 39656 RUSTIC GLEN DR 39727 RUSTIC GLEN DR 33001 SAGE CT 33015 SAGE CT 33029 SAGE CT 33043 SAGE CT 33057 SAGE CT 33071 SAGE CT 33085 SAGE CT 33099 SAGE CT 30241 SANTA CECILIA DR 30261 SANTA CECILIA DR 30336 SANTA CECILIA DR 43567 SAVONA ST 39544 SERAPHINA RD 45383 SILVERADO LN 41687 TEMEKU DR 30514 SOUTHERN CROSS RD 32868 STONEFIELD LN 32869 STONEFIELD LN 32878 STONEFIELD LN 32879 STONEFIELD LN 32888 STONEFIELD LN 32889 STONEFIELD LN 32898 STONEFIELD LN 32899 STONEFIELD LN 32847 TIEMPO CR 29238 TOWNSHIP RD 30360 TRADEWATER CT ONE RIDGEGATE 2ND FLOOR RORIPAUGH BLOCK WALL Box 79 Page 2 of 2 Box 80 30937 EAGLE CT 29272 EASTON PL 42102 ELGIN CT 42119 ELGIN CT 33350 ELIZABETH RD 43978 EL LUCERO 33300 ELIZABETH RD 33309 ELIZABETH RD 33320 ELIZABETH RD 31202 ENFIELD LN 31331 ENFIELD LN 31547 ENFIELD LN 31575 ENFIELD LN 31575 ENFIELD LN 32418 ENRIOUETA CR 32433 ENRIOUETA CR 32463 ENRIOUETA CR 27478 ESMERADO CT 45295 ESMERADO CT 33008 ESSER CT 33009 ESSER CT 33018 ESSER CT 33021 ESSER CT 33028 ESSER CT 33039 ESSER CT 42110 FABER CT 42211 FABER CT 42214 FABER CT 42220 FABER CT 42221 FABER CT 42231 FABER CT 42238 FABER CT 42240 FABER CT 42241 FABER CT 42250 FABER CT 42251 FABER CT 42262 FABER CT 42267 FABER CT 42274 FABER CT 42251 FABER CT 42262 FABER CT 42267 FABER CT 42274 FABER CT 42275 FABER CT 42283 FABER CT 42286 FABER CT 42291 FABER CT 42298 FABER CT 42299 FABER CT 33057 FOX RD 33057 FOX RD 33062 FOX RD 43065 FOX RD 33163 FOX RD 33438 FOX RD 32728 FREESIA WY 32776 FREESIA WY 32875 FREESIA WY 32875 FREESIA WY 32899 FREESIA WY 32595 GABBIANO DR 32411 GALATINAST 32411 GALATINAST 32415 GALATINA ST 32484 GALATINA ST 32523 GALATINA ST 33055 GAROLl PASS 43912 GATEWOOD WY 43912 GATEWOOD WY 29657 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 39801 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 39836 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 39840 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 39867 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 39879 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 39823 N GENERAL KEARNY RD 44274 GEORGE CUSHMAN CT 44274 GEORGE CUSHMAN CT 44274 GEORGE CUSHMAN CT 44274 GEORGE CUSHMAN CT 44274 GEORGE CUSHMAN CT 29426 GEORGETOWN LN 29492 GEORGETOWN LN 29538 GEORGETOWN LN TR23143 GARDEN WALLS 31175 GLENEAGLES DR 45585 GLENEAGLES CT 44817 GRADO CR TR23143-6/23143-10 WALLS TR23143-6 WALLS TR23143-9 WALLS 30554 GREENWY CR 30385 GUADALUPE CT 33039 HARMONY LN TR30667-1 WALLS HARVESTON IRR WALLS 40408 HARVESTON DR 20002 HARVESTON WY 39886 HARVESTON DR 40002 HARVESTON WY 42201 HARWICK LN 42202 HARWICK LN 42211 HARWICK LN 42221 HARWICK LN 42222 HARWICK LN 42231 HARWICK LN 42231 HARWICK LN 42232 HARWICK LN 42242 HARWICK LN 42251 HARWICK LN 42252 HARWICK LN 42252 HARWICK LN 42261 HARWICK LN 42262 HARWICK LN 42271 HARWICK LN 42272 HARWICK LN 42281 HARWICK LN 42282 HARWICK LN 42282 HARWICK LN 42291 HARWICK LN 42292 HARWICK LN 42302 HARWICK LN 42302 HARWICK LN 42302 HARWICK LN 42311 HARWICK LN 42312 HARWICK LN 42321 HARWICK LN 42322 HARWICK LN 42331 HARWICK LN 42341 HARWICK LN 42351 HARWICK LN 42631 HARWICK LN 42371 HARWICK LN 42381 HARWICK LN 42391 HARWICK LN 42401 HARWICK LN 31421 HEITZ LN 31486 HEITZ LN 32836 PARAGUAY DR 32846 PARAGUAY DR 32847 PARAGUAY DR 32856 PARAGUAY DR 32857 PARAGUAY DR 32867 PARAGUAY DR 32877 PARAGUAY DR 32887 PARAGUAY DR 32907 PARAGUAY DR 32910 PARAGUAY DR 32917 PARAGUAY DR 32920 PARAGUAY DR Box 80 Page 1 of2 29781 PASADA RD 42053 PINE NEEDLE ST 42065 PINE NEEDLE ST 29207 PROVIDENCE RD 29255 PROVIDENCE RD 28500 PUJOL ST 28500 PUJOL ST TR25055 GARDEN WALLS 29377 RANCHO CALIF 29385 RANCHO CALIF 42655 RIO NEDO 42655 RIO NEDO 42660 RIO NEDO 42660 RIO NEDO 42685 RIO NEDO 41987 ROANOAKE 31057 RUIDOSA ST 33113SAGECT 33127 SAGE CT 33141 SAGE CT 33155 SAGE CT 33169 SAGE CT 27631 SANDERLING WY 31195 SAHO CT 27530 SENNA CT 28780 SINGLE OAK DR 33096 SOTELO DR 28294 TIERRA VISTA RD 44666 THATCHER CT 28296 TIERRA VISTA 33036 TOPEKA CT 29720 VALLE VERDE 29765 VALLE VERDE 32759 VALENTINO WY 42095 VANDAMERE CT 42126 VANDAMERE CT 33075 VERMONT RD 33132 VERMONT RD 43398 VIA CANELEDA 41176 VIA CIELlTO 32484 VIA DESTELLO 27525 VIA INDUSTRIA 43900 VIA MONT ALBAN 43901 VIA MONTALBAN 43910 VIA MONT ALBAN 43911 VIA MONTALBAN 43920 VIA MONT ALBAN 43921 VIA MONTALBAN 43930 VIA MONTALBAN 30132 VIA NORTE Box 80 30215 VIA NORTE Box 80 Page 2 of 2 43061 AGENA ST 29624 AMWOOD WY 31340 ARABASACA CR 42387 AVENIDA ALVARADO 41681 AVENIDA DE LA REINA 44653 A VENIDA DE MISSIONES 31110 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO 31968 AVENIDA ENRIQUE 31999 AVENIDA ENRIQUE 31965 AVENIDA MALLARI 41125 AVENIDA VERDE 41910 AVENIDA VISTA LADERA 42041 AVENIDA VISTA LADERA 31907 AZUCENA CT 31915 AZUCENA CT 40774 BACCARAT RD 40823 BACCARAT RD 40250 BENWOOD CT 29052 BRIGEHAMPTON RD 28836 BRISTOL RD 43725 BUCKEYE RD 41437 BUECKING DR 41915 BUSINESS PARK DR 41915 BUSINESS PARK DR 43085 BUSINESS PARK DR 43176 BUSINESS PARK DR 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR 43210 BUSINESS PARK DR 43218 BUSINESS PARK DR 43210 BUSINESS PARK DR 43218 BUSINESS PARK DR 43264 BUSINESS PARK DR 43300 BUSINESS PARK DR 43385 BUSINESS PARK DR 43385 BUSINESS PARK DR 43385 BUSINESS PARK DR 43391 BUSINESS PARK DR 43391 BUSINESS PARK DR 43425 BUSINESS PARK DR 43425 BUSINESS PARK DR 43475 BUSINESS PARK DR 43475 BUSINESS PARK DR 43858 BUTTERNUT DR 43880 BUTTERNUT DR 39707 CAMBRIDGE PL 39710 CAMBRIDGE PL 39722 CAMBRIDGE PL Box 81 39731 CAMBRIDGE PL 39743 CAMBRIDGE PL 39767 CAMBRIDGE PL 39779 CAMBRIDGE PL 39782 CAMBRIDGE PL 39794 CAMBRIDGE PL 39806 CAMBRIDGE PL 39818 CAMBRIDGE PL 39833 CAMBRIDGE PL 39858 CAMDEN CT 39870 CAMDEN CT 39879 CAMDEN CT 39882 CAMDEN CT 39894 CAMDEN CT 39891 CAMDEN CT 39903 CAMDEN CT 42434 CAMELOT RD 42506 CAMELOT RD 42560 CAMELOT RD 42616 CAMELOT RD 42630 CAMELOT RD 42644 CAMELOT RD 32189 CAMINO CAllARI 32219 CAMINO CAllARI 32230 CAMINO CAllARI 32240 CAMiNO CAllARI 43216 CAMINO CARUNA 43264 CAMINO CARUNA 32030 CAMINO HERENCIA 32090 CAMINO HERENCIA 43260 CAMINO MERANO 32015 CAMINO MOLNAR 32052 CAMINO RABAGO 32127 CAMINO RABAGO 32502 CAMPO DR 40800 CARLENA LN 40801 CARLENA LN 40813 CARLENA LN 40814 CARLENA LN 40827 CARLENA LN 40828 CARLENA LN 40841 CARLENA LN 40842 CARLENA LN 40855 CARLENA LN 40856 CARLENA LN 30149 CORTE CANTERA 32048 CORTE CARDOZA 31934 CORTE CYNTHIA 33450 CORTE FIGUEROA 43012 CORTE FRESCA 43019 CORTE FRESCA 43028 CORTE FRESCA 43090 CORTE FRESCA 43098 CORTE FRESCA 43122 CORTE FRESCA 43123 CORTE FRESCA 43123 CORTE FRESCA 33084 CORTE GANSO 32192 CORTE GARDANO 44734 CORTE GUTIERREZ 44816 CORTE GUTIERRE 31993 CORTE LA PUENTA 43085 CORTE LAND ERAS 32366 CORTE LAS CRUCES 32366 CORTE LAS CRUCES 32366 CORTE LAS CRUCES 32381 CORTE LAS CRUCES 32137 CORTE LLAMAS 43455 CORTE LOGRONO 31401 CORTE MADERA 28234 CORTE MALBINO 31470 CORTE MALLORCA 33482 CORTE MANGARINO 31817 CORTE MENDOZA 41792 CORTE MONTIA 31377 CORTE MONTIEL 28345 CORTE OCASO 29926 CORTE TOLANO 31760 CORTE TORTOSA 31344 CORTE TUNAS 31396 CORTE TUNAS 32175 CORTE UTNEHMER 32178 CORTE UTNEHMER 32198 CORTE UTNEHMER 32215 CORTE UTNEHMER 32225 CORTE UTNEHMER 32228 CORTE UTNEHMER 41812 CORTE VALENTINE 45096 CORTE VALLE 43098 CORTE VILLA 43780 CORTE VILLENA 43788 CORTE VILLENA 43747 CORTE VILLENA 43748 CORTE VILLENA 43756 CORTE VILLENA 43764 CORTE VILLENA 43780 CORTE VILLENA 43788 CORTE VILLENA 43798 CORTE VILLENA 42220 CORTE VILLOSA Box 81 Page 1 of 2 42387 CORTE VILLOSA 42353 COSMIC DR 41093 COUNTY CENTER DR 41151 CROOKED STICK DR 44795 CUPA LN 30294 CUPENO LN 27533 DANDELION CT 27591 DANDELION CT 28903 DAVENPORT CT 28912 DAVENPORT CT 28924 DAVENPORT CT 28948 DAVENPORT CT 29744 DAWNCREST CR 30927 DEL REY RD 30867 DEL REY RD 31195 DEL REY RD 42145 DELMONTE ST 42161 DELMONTE ST 42170 DELMONTE ST 42184 DELMONTE ST 32503 DEVANT CR 42515 DEVANT CR 42516 DEVANT CR 42525 DEVANT CR 42526 DEVANT CR 42535 DEVANT CR 42536 DEVANT CR 42545 DEVANT CR 42546 DEVANT CR 42565 DEVANT CR 42575 DEVANT CR 42555 DEVANT CR 42556 DEVANT CR 42566 DEVANT CR 42576 DEVANT CR 42585 DEVANT CR 42586 DEVANT CR 42587 DEVANT CR 26879 DIAZ RD 26879 DIAZ RD 27265 DIAZ RD 27565 DIAZ RD 27635 DIAZ RD 27711 DIAZ RD 27711 DIAZ RD 28065 DIAZ RD 28075 DIAZ RD 39559 DIEGO DR 40229 DONOMORE CT 42504 DRENNON CT Box 81 42577 DRENNON CT 40045 VILLAGE RD Box 81 Page 2 of 2 42251 HARWICK LN 30808 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31062 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31067 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31701 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31701 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31717 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31717 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31717 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31741 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31754 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31754 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31754 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31757 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31757 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31757 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31757 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31757 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31765 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31765 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31765 HIGHWAY 79 SO 31773 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32823 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32825 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32831 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32839 HIGHWAY 79 SO 33175 HIGHWAY 79 SO 33195 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32839 HIGHWAY 79 SO 3261 g HISLOP WY 42062 HUMBER DR 31465 INVERNESS CT 33141 JANDA CT 27309 JEFFERSON AV 27309 JEFFERSON AV 27309 JEFFERSON A V 27314 JEFFERSON AV 27315 JEFFERSON A V 27315 JEFFERSON AV 27365 JEFFERSON AV 27371 JEFFERSON AV 27375 JEFFERSON AV 27443 JEFFERSON AV 27470 JEFFERSON AV 27470 JEFFERSON AV 27470 JEFFERSON AV 27470 JEFFERSON AV 27535 JEFFERSON AV 27624 JEFFERSON AV 27624 JEFFERSON AV Box 82 27645 JEFFERSON AV 27645 JEFFERSON AV 27713 JEFFERSON AV 27713 JEFFERSON AV 27720 JEFFERSON AV 27725 JEFFERSON AV 27727 JEFFERSON AV 27727 JEFFERSON AV 27825 JEFFERSON A V 27941 JEFFERSON AV 27941 JEFFERSON AV 28061 JEFFERSON AV 2921 g PROVIDENCE RD 28061 JEFFERSON AV 28093 JEFFERSON AV 27290 MADISON AV 27290 MADISON AV 43070 MANCHESTER CT 31107 MARIPOSA PL 40499 MARGARITA RD 40531 MARGARITA RD 40533 MARGARITA RD 40575 MARGARITA RD 40850 MARGARITA RD 41238 MARGARITA RD 41238 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41258 MARGARITA RD 41258 MARGARITA RD 41269 MARGARITA RD 41269 MARGARITA RD 41269 MARGARITA RD 41269 MARGARITA RD 41619 MARGARITA RD 41623 MARGARITA RD 41623 MARGARITA RD 43053 MARGARITA RD 43121 MARGARITA RD 44900 MARGE PL 30824 MEDINAH WY 30537 MILKY WAY DR 43252 MODENA DR 31816 MONIOUE CR 31885 MONIOUE CR 28910 NEWPORT RD 39980 NEW HAVEN RD 33351 NICHOLAS COMMON 29700 NIGHTCREST CR 29700 NIGHTCREST CR 29700 NIGHTCREST CR 40552 NOB CT 32800 NORTHSHIRE CR 32808 NORTHSHIRE CR 32809 NORTHSHIRE CR 32816 NORTHSHIRE CR 32817 NORTHSHIRE CR 32824 NORTHSHIRE CR 32825 NORHTSHIRE CR 32832 NORTHSHIRE CR 32833 NORTHSHIRE CR 32920 NORTHSHIRE CR 32936 NORTHSHIRE CR 32960 NORTHSHIRE CR 32982 NOVARA CT 29720 RANCHO CALIFORNIA 29746 RANCHO CALIFORNIA 29750 RANCHO CALIFORNIA 30640 RANCHO CALIFORNIA 30650 RANCHO CALIFORNIA 30151 RANCHO VISTA RD 30151 RANCHO VISTA RD 43084 RANCHO WY 43191 RANCHO WY 43191 RANCHO WY 29610 RANCHO CALIF 29760 RANCHO CALIF 29762 RANCHO CALIF 30610 RANCHO CALIF 30650 RANCHO CALIF 31352 RANCHO COMM WY 30875 RANCHO VISTA 30431 RED RIVER CR 44260 REDHAWK PARKWAY 42301 REGENTS HILL CR 32964 REGINA DR 44874 REIN CT 41906 REMINGTON AV 42164 REMINGTON AV 42164 REMINGTON AV 42170 REMINGTON AV 42182 REMINGTON AV 42184 REMINGTON AV 42206 REMINGTON AV 42222 REMINGTON AV 32467 ROSADO CT Box 82 Page 1 of 2 33041 RUDY CT 33050 RUDY CT 33051 RUDY CT 33060 RUDY CT 39761 RUSTIC GLEN DR 41865 ST THOMAS CT 41869 ST THOMAS CT 41873 ST THOMAS CT 41877 ST THOMAS CT 41881 ST THOMAS CT 41885 ST THOMAS CT 32813 SAN JOSE CT 32544 SAN MARCO DR 29879 SANTIAGO RD 29962 SANTIAGO RD 30465 SHENANDOAH CT 30494 SIERRA MADRE 27425 STANFORD DR 31130 SUNNINGDALE DR 27449 STANFORD DR 32909 TRESTLE LN 32929 TRESTLE LN 32959 TRESTLE LN 32939 VALENTINO WY 33165 VERMONT RD 42976 VIA ALHAMA 43155 VIA ANGELES 43175 VIA ANGELES 30318 VIA BRISA 32203 VIA FLORE 43860 VIA MONT ALBAN 43861 VIA MONTALBAN 43870 VIA MONTALBAN 43871 VIA MONTALBAN 43880 VIA MONT ALBAN 43881 VIA MONTALBAN 43890 VIA MONT ALBAN 43891 VIA MONTALBAN 30975 VIA NORTE 41998 VIA RENATE 31881 VIA RIO 31883 VIA RIO 43240 VIA SABINO 40400 WGASA PL 40541 WGASA PL 30880 WHITE ROCKS 40212 WINCHESTER RD 40212 WINCHESTER RD 40390 WINCHESTER RD 40437 WINCHESTER RD Box 82 40438 WINCHESTER RD 40438 WINCHESTER RD 40438 WINCHESTER RD 40450 WINCHESTER RD 40620 WINCHESTER RD 40620 WINCHESTER RD 40695 WINCHESTER RD 40758 WINCHESTER RD 40820 WINCHESTER RD 40820 WINCHESTER RD Box 82 Page 2 of 2 Box 83 TR 23143-8 WALLS AT CARLYLE 31382 ROYAL OAKS DR 30234 VIA CORSICA 31789 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 31813 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 32140 HIGHWAY 79 SO #201 32140 HIGHWAY 79 SO #203 31773 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32140 HIGHWAY 79 SO #205 32140 HIGHWAY 79 SO # 203 32170 HIGHWAY 79 SO #C 32170 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32180 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32200 HIGHWAY 79 SO #102 32200 HIGHWAY 79 SO #105 32200 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32200 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32240 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32240 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32240 HIGHWAY 79 SO # 100 32240 HIGHWAY 79 SO # 104 32240 HIGHWAY 79 SO # 108 32607 HIGHWAY 79 SO 32815 HIGHWAY 79 SO B #2 30779 HILLCREST DR 30793 HILLCREST DR 30807 HILLCREST DR 42680 HUSSAR CT 42700 HUSSAR CT 42710 HUSSAR CT 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28964 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 44987 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28964 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 29115 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 43500 RIDGEPARK DR 43500 RIDGEPARK DR 43516 RIDGEPARK DR 43516 RIDGEPARK DR 43518 RIDGEPARK DR 43574 RIDGEPARK DR 41830 RIO GRANDE DR 42327 RIO NEDO 42355 RIO NEDO 42381 RIO NEDO 42480 RIO NEDO 42540 RIO NEDO 42600 RIO NEDO 42620 RIO NEDO 33015 ROMERO DR 33623 ROSEWOOD CR 39727 RUSTIC DR 33156 SAGE CT 33166 SAGE CT 33176 SAGE CT 33186 SAGE CT 33197 SAGE CT 28858 SARASOTA LN 28866 SARASOTA LN 28874 SARASOTA LN 28882 SARASOTA LN 30255 SILVER RIDGE CT 32829 STONEFIELD LN 32839 STONEFIELD LN 32849 STONEFIELD LN 32859 STONEFIELD LN 31370 SUNNINGDALE DR 44666 THATCHER CT 32919 TRESTLE LN 32940 VALENCE CT 29835 VALLEJO AVE 43510 VERDE DR 43135 VIA ANGELES 31760 VIA CORDOBA 31940 VIA CORDOBA 40820 VIA LOS ALTOS 28720 VIA MONTEZUMA 41989 VIA RENATE 43388 VIA SABINO 43402 VIA SABINO 28510 VIA SERRITO 29813 VIA SEVILLA 41824 VIA VASQUEZ 30047 VILLA AL TURAS 29886 VILLA AL TURAS DR 40049 VILLA VENECIA 41087 VINTAGE CR 42594 WHISTLE CT 39763 WINCHESTER CT 40820 WINCHESTER RD #1130 40820 WINCHESTER RD #2240 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2750 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2760 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2380 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2610 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2630 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 1130 40820 WINCHESTER RD TENT 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 1020 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 1030 40820 WINCHESTER RD #1460 40820 WINCHESTER RD #1060 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2000 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 1070 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2250 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2297 40820 WINCHESTER RD 41669 WINCHESTER RD # 106 41720 WINCHESTER RD 40212 WINCHESTER RD 42020 WINCHESTER RD 42020 WINCHESTER RD 42044 WINCHESTER RD 42309 WINCHESTER RD # D 42309 WINCHESTER RD # B 42309 WINCHESTER RD TENT GEN 40487 YARDLEY CT 40489 YARDLEY CT 26810 YNEZ CT # B 26042 YNEZ RD 26090 YNEZ RD 26113 YNEZ RD 26201 YNEZ RD # 140 26459 YNEZ RD # F 26459 YNEZ RD # F 26531 YNEZ RD #A 26531 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD #A 26531 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD 26550 YNEZ RD 26550 YNEZ RD 26550 YNEZ RD # C 26610 YNEZ RD 26631 YNEZ RD 26755 YNEZ RD 26780 YNEZ CT 27411 YNEZ RD 27411YNEZRD 27450 YNEZ RD 27493 YNEZ RD 27517 YNEZ RD 27536 YNEZ RD 27536 YNEZ RD 27540 YNEZ RD #J7 27548 YNEZ RD 27555 YNEZ RD #110 27555 YNEZ RD #110 27636 YNEZ RD # F9 Box 83 Page 1 of 2 27691 YNEZ RD 42069 ZEVO DR 42093 ZEVO DR 42210 ZEVO DR 42301 ZEVO DR 42376 ZEVO DR 41600 ZINFANDEL AV 41600 ZINFANDEL AV 41613 ZINFANDEL AV 45331 ZUMA DR 45343 ZUMA DR 31767 VIA TELESIO CT 28845 SARASOTA LN 28837 SARASOTA LN 28829 SARASOTA LN 43135 AVENIDA DE SAN PASQUAL 33185 SAGE CT 33173 SAGE CT 32980 PARAGUAY DR 32970 PARAGUAY DR 32960 PARAGUAY DR 32950 PARAGUAY DR 32930 PARAGUAY DR 32399 CASTLE CT 42244 REMINGTON AV 42266 REMINGTON AV 42206 REMINGTON AV 42164 REMINGTON AV 42182 REMINGTON AV 42222 REMINGTON AV 42092 MAJESTIC CT 31478 SUNNINGDALE DR 41750 RIDER WY Box 83 Box 83 Page 2 of 2 42061 MAJESTIC CT 40497 MARGARITA RD 40290 MARGARITA RD 41273 MARGARITA RD BLDG E 41276 MARGARITA RD 41278 MARGARITA RD #101 41278 MARGARITA RD #102 41278 MARGARITA RD #103 41278 MARGARITA RD #201 41278 MARGARITA RD #202 41278 MARGARITA RD #202 41294 MARGARITA RD 41296 MARGARITA RD 41301 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 43895 CALLE SANDOR 31982 CALLE TIARA 40545 CALLE TORCIDA 40566 CALLE TORCIDA 40655 CALLE TORCIDA 31930 CALLE VIMIANZO 43141 CAMINATA DR 44801 CAMINO ALAMOSA 44937 CAMINO ALAMOSA 44846 CAMINO ALAMOSA 44846 CAMINO ALAMOSA 44950 CAMINO ALAMOSA 44953 CAMINO ALAMOSA 32110 CAMINO CAllARI 43740 CAMINO GALLEGOS 31977 CAMINO RABAGO 32064 CAMINO RABAGO 30801 CANTERFIELD DR 29579 CARA WY 29608 CARA WY 41802 CARLETON WY 40410 CARMELlTA CR 32499 CASTLE COURT 32449 CASTLE COURT 32469 CASTLE COURT 32479 CASTLE COURT Box 84 32489 CASTLE COURT 40660 CHANTEMAR WY 32924 CHARMES CT 41730 CHENIN BLANC CT 30340 CHURCHILL CT 45951 CLASSIC WY 30466 COLINA VERDE 27470 COLT CT 42940 CORTE ABANILLA 42955 CORTE ABANILLA 31089 CORTE ARROYO VISTA 32035 CORTE BACARRO 33571 CORTE BONILLA 43220 CORTE CABRERA 29972 CORTE CANT ERA 31684 CORTE CARDENAS 32228 CORTE CARMELA 30975 CORTE DE LOS SANTOS 43043 CORTE FRESCA 32378 CORTE LAS CRUCES 31829 CORTE MENDOZA 31489 CORTE PACHECO 31379 CORTE SONORA 31446 CORTE SONORA 43089 CORTE TOLOSA 32209 COUR MEYNEY 39749 CREATIVE DR 39819 CREATIVE DR 41624 EAGLE POINTWY 27431 W ENTERPRISE CR 45302 ESPLENDOR CT 30655 FEATHER CT 30700 FEATHER CT 31228 FELECITA RD 28464 FELIX VALDEZ RD 28464 FELIX VALDEZ RD 28464 FELIX VALDEZ RD 28464 FELIX VALDEZ RD 28545 FELIX VALDEZ RD 32823 FERMO CT 32866 FERMO CT 32872 FERMO CT 44854 FERN CR 44015 FESTIVO ST 44085 FESTIVO ST 42425 FIJI WY 42251 HARWICK LN 31781 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 31833 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 31950 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 32140 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 32140 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 42230 6TH ST 42471 AGENA ST 44260 APIS RD 31340 ARABASCA CR 40299 ATMORE CT 31978 AURORA CT 30865 AVENIDA BUENA SUERTE 31999 AVENIDA ENRIQUE 43064 BLACKDEER LOOP 32887 BONITA MESA ST 41304 BRAVOS CT 43459 BREWSTE CT 29028 BRIDGEHAMPTON RD 28884 BRISTOL RD 32013 CALLE BALAREZA 32218 CALLE BALAREZA 32223 CALLE BALAREZA 43797 CALLE BALMEZ 43814 CALLE BALMEZ 31906 CALLE BALLENTINE 44745 CALLE BANUELOS 31971 CALLE CABALLOS 31981 CALLE CABALLOS 43025 CALLE CAMELLIA 43060 CALLE CAMELLIA 43073 CALLE CAMELLIA 43080 CALLE CAMELLIA 43190 CALLE CAMELLIA 31760 CALLE CATALDO 41995 CALLE CEDRAL 43523 CALLE DE VELARDO 43525 CALLE DE VELARDO 43961 CALLE DE VELARDO 31958 CALLE ELENITA 31982 CALLE ELENITA 31988 CALLE ELENITA 31994 CALLE ELENITA 31970 CALLE ESPINOSA 31994 CALLE ESPINOSA 32005 CALLE ESPINOSA 40575 CALLE FIESTA 40625 CALLE FIESTA 30979 CALLE FUENTE 30979 CALLE FUENTE 31950 CALLE GALARZA 30365 CALLE HAL CON 40446 YARDLEY CT 41549 WILLOW RUN RD Box 84 Page 1 of 2 Box 84 30975 VIA NORTE 29961 VIA NORTE 32619 VIA DESTELLO 32844 TULLEY RANCH RD 32978 TERRACE DR 40145 TANGER CR 40093 STARLING ST 41496 ROYAL DORNOCH CT 42108 ROICK DR 30903 RIVIERTON LN 28801 PUJOL ST 44123 PARCELA CT 44700 PALA RD 40348 ODESSA DR 32976 NORTHSHIRE CR 41619 MARGARITA RD 27290 MADISON AVE 27290 MADISON AVE 44880 MACHON RD 30835 LOLITA RD 44512 LA PAZ ST 45769 JERONIMO ST 28145 JEFFERSON AV 42215 HUMBER DR 32240 HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH 42924 CORTE CABELLO 45065 CORTE BRAVO 41565 CORTE AMALIA 30554 COLINA VERDE 32054 CALLE BALAREZA 43679 CALABRO ST 31999 AVENIDA ENRIQUE 31999 AVENIDA ENRIQUE 29624 AMWOOD WY 40321 CALLE TORCIDA 43064 BLACKDEER LOOP 43961 CALLE DE VELARDO 41221 MARGARITA RD Box 84 Page 2 of 2 30650 PAUBA RD 26610 YNEZ RD 40859 OVERLAND DR 30650 PAUBA RD 29610 RANCHO CALIF RD 31379 SEMINOLE ST 27439 BOSTIC CT 26610 YNEZ RD 26610 YNEZ RD 26610 YNEZ RD 32841 FERMO CT 32488 GUEVARA DR 32396 MAGENTA CT LOT 61 43601 MANZANO DR 43285 MODENA DR 32850 PATERNO ST 32400 SAN MARCO DR LOT 30 30655 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 30655 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 43300 BUSINESS PARK DR STE. 102/108 26201 YNEZ RD 40925 COUNTY CTR DR#100 28751 RANCHO CALIF RD 26879 DiAl RD 32020 HIGHWAY 79 SO 27480 COLT CT 241861 MAP LOT 60,93,30 43393 TYLMAN ST LOT 65 44385 & 44380 MEADOWS PKWY 43471 MODENA 32452 SAN MARCO DR 32741 ASTI WY 241861 MAP LOT 129,128,127,125,124 27460 BOSTIK CT 43151 CAMINO CARUNA 39835 CANTRELL RD 31462 CONGRESSIONAL DR 27711 DiAl RD 27711 DiAl RD 27711 DiAl RD 32565 FAVARA DR Lot 4 32555 FAVARA DR Lot 3 25510 YNEZ RD 32052 HIGHWAY 79 SO 28855 SARASOTO LN 40820 WINCHESTER RD #2000 40390 WINCHESTER RD 40390 WINCHESTER RD 40575 WINCHESTER RD 42315 WINCHESTER RD Box 85 Box 85 Page 1 of 1 39756 NANTUCKET RD 39768 NANTUCKET RD 39780 NANTUCKET RD 39753 NANTUCKET RD 39854 CAMBRIDGE PLAZA 40620 WINCHESTER RD 41646 AVENIDA DE LA REINA 42456 SWOBODA COURT 32379 CASTLE COURT 40525 WGASA PLAZA 32379 CASTLE COURT 39647 PARKVIEW DRIVE 40820 WINCHESTER RD 33187WAKEEN CR 33177 WAKEEN CR 33167 WAKE EN CR 30360 SENELA CT 31377 CHEMIN CHEVALIER 27409 STANFORD DR 31166 SUNNING DALE DR 32476 ROSADO CT 39755 CAMBRIDGE PLAZA 40971 BURGESS CT 42282 GATESHEAD CT 42272 GATESHEAD CT 42262 GATESHEAD CT 42252 GATESHEAD CT 42242 GATESHEAD CT 42850 JOLLE CT 42840 JOLLE CT 42830 JOLLE CT 42820 JOLLE CT 42810 JOLLE CT 44120 QUIET MEADOW RD 41291 RUE JADOT 32905 PATERNO STREET 42271 REGENTS HILL CR 43413 FASSANO CT 44778 TEHACHAPI PASS 32240 HIGHWY 79 SOUTH 32947 PARAGUAY DR 32947 PARAGUAY DR 31969 CORTE LA PUENTA 43471 CORTE RIAL TO 40573 MARGARITA RD 42244 RENINGTON AV 30631 OPEN CT 33170 WAKE EN CR 33180 WAKEEN CR 33190 WAKEEN CR Box 86 31307 SANTIAGO RD 41909 SKYWOOD DR 32362 CORTE SAN VINCENTE 33124 GAROLl PASS 43100 CALLE CAMELLIA 40470 BRIXTON COVE 40240 TANAGER CR 30470 PAUBA RD 28758 LAKEVIEW RD 40502 CALLE MEDUSA 32937 PARAGUAY DR 32957 PARAGUAY DR 32927 PARAGUAY DR 33323 SHAYNNA CR 31044 CHALDON CR 31932 WOLF VALLEY RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41377 MARGARITA RD 41413 MARGARITA RD 41413 MARGARITA RD 41413 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41615 MARGARITA RD 29725 DAWNCREST CR 43053 MARGARITA RD 40496 CALLE MEDUSA 44860 MACHON RD 32015 CAMINO RABAGO 41141 CHEMINCOUTET 32848 STOENFIELD LN 32838 STONEFIELD LN 32828 STONEFIELD LN 32419 CASTLE CT 32670 WILLOWVAIL CR 42931 VIA ALHAMA 41347 RUE JADOT 31173 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO 42931 CORTE ABANILLA 30271 SILVER RIDGE CT 45720 PALMETTO WY 31335 PASEO DE LAS OLAS 43670 PIASANO PLAZA 31625 PIO PICO RD 32240 PLACER BELAIR 40099 PORTSMOUTH RD POWER CENTER H 29004 PUJOL STREET 27065 RAINBOW CREEK DR 32908 LEVI CT 32967 LEVI CT 32967 LEVI CT 39633 LIEFER RD 30815 LOMA LINDA 30800 E. LOMA LINDA RD 30835 LOLITA RD 29007 LAKEHOUSE RD 31836 LEIGH LN 30099 LAURIE RAE LN 39318 KIMBERLY LN 40756 LA COLIMA RD 42750 JOLLE CT 42760 JOLLE CT 42770 JOLLE CT 42780 JOLLE CT 42790 JOLLE CT 42800 JOLLE CT 31294 JURA CT 42547 JOLENE CT 28190 JEFFERSON AV 28192 JEFFERSON AV 28190 JEFFERSON AV 28145 JEFFERSON AV 39686 MEADOW VIEW CR 30069 MILANO RD 45656 MUIRFIELD DR 31810 CORTE SAGUNTO 31845 CORTE ALGETE 45007 CORTE ALEGRA 31191 CORTE ALHAMBRA 43430 CORTE ALMERIA 43138 CORTE ALMONTE 43114 CORTE ARGENTO 43245 CORTE ARGENTO 33436 CORTE EBANO 43012 CORTE FRESCA 31935 CORTE POSITAS 32350 CORTE PALACIO 32130 CORTE PARADO 32141 CORTE PARADO 32254 COUR POMEROL 31947 CORTE POSITAS 31864 CORTE PRIEGO Box 86 Page 1 012 Box 86 43455 CORTE RIAL TO 27035 RAINBOW CREEK 44891 CORTE RODRIGUEZ 32271 CALLE BALAREZA 31920 DANIEL WY 31929 DANIEL WY 31930 DANIEL WY 31937 DANIEL WY 31940 DANIEL WY 31945 DANIEL WY 31950 DANIEL WY 31953 DANIEL WY 31961 DANIEL WY 31969 DANIEL WY 31977 DANIEL WY 31985 DANIEL WY 31993 DANIEL WY 29723 DEL REY RD 31195 DEL REY RD 29248 EASTON PLAZA 26260 EASTON PLAZA 31121 EL TORITO CT 41695 S. ENTERPRISE CR 42105 FABER CT 42117 FABER CT 42129 FABER CT 42141 FABER CT 42141 FABER CT 42153 FABER CT 42154 FABER CT 42165 FABER CT 42166 FABER CT 42178 FABER CT 42190 FABER CT 42202 FABER CT 43417 FASSANO CT 43455 FASSANO CT 32369 FAVARA DR 42422 FIJI WY 42425 FIJI WY 42432 FIJI WY 42435 FIJI WY 42435 FIJI WY 42442 FIJI WY 42445 FIJI WY 29645 RANCHO CALIFORNIA 42206 REMINGTON AV 32940 PARAGUAY DR 32977 PARAGUAY DR 32987 PARAGUAY DR 42292 HARWICK LN 31640 LOMA LINDA RD Box 86 Page 2 of 2 42231 GATESHEAD CT 39842 CAMBRIDGE PL 31941 CAMINO RABAGO 43741 CALABRO ST 41915 MOTOR CAR 32967 PARAGUAY DR 42232 GATEHEAD CT 42222 GATESHEAD CT 30891 CORTE ARROYO VISTA 32380 CASTLE CT 40104 STOWE RD 41141 CHEMIN COUTET 30891 CORTE ARROYO VISTA 31950 PAUBA RD 27270 MADISON AV 32679 GABBIANO DR 39892 CHALON CT 40235 BENWOOD CT 32083 CORTE BACARRO 31145 NICOLAS RD 33096 SOTELO DR 44761 CORTE SANCHEZ 43516 CORTE BENISA 27573 W. ENTERPRISE CR 45331 ZUMA DR 29612 AMWOOD WY 32016 CAMINO RABAGO 43200 BUSINESS PARK DR 44995 VIA LUCIA 31856 VIA BARRAZA 32788 TULLEY RANCH RD 39744 NANTUCKET RD 41913 5TH ST 42270 AGENA ST 42270 AGENA ST 40048 ALEXANDRIA DR 40012 AMBERLEY CR 29580 AMWOOD WY 42387 AVE ALVARADO #110 43140 AVE DE SAN PASQUAL 31495 AVE DEL REPOSO 31956 AVE MALLARI 41070 AVE VERDE 40774 BACCARAT RD 40814 BACCARAT RD 45554 BAYBERRY PL 44520 BEDFORD CT 43001 BIGH CT 43020 BIGH CT 43021 BIGH CT Box 87 43114 BLACKDEER LOOP 42872 CAMELOT RD 29037 BRIDGEHAMPTON RD 42884 CAMELOT RD 43300 BUSINESS PARK STE 102 42898 CAMELOT RD 43858 BUTTERNUT DR 31635 CALA CARRAASCO 32198 CALA TORRENTE 32102 CALLE BALAREZA 32182 CALLE BALAREZA 32115 CALLE BASLLENTINE 43829 CALLE BALMEZ 31968 CALLE CABALLOS 32041 CALLE CABALLOS 43100 CALLE CAMELLIA 33384 CALLE CANTU 41852 CALLE CEREZO 43583 CALLE DE VELARDO 43877 CALLE DE VELARDO 30365 CALLE HAL CON 44707 CALLE HILARIO 40358 CALLE KATERINE 42961 CALLE LONDE 31518 CALLE LOS PADRES 40640 CALLE MADERO 43193 CALLE MATARO 40045 CALLE MEDUSA 40446 CALLE MEDUSA 33156 CALLE MIRA COPA 32060 CALLE RESACA 32156 CALLE RESACA 32265 CALLE RESACA 43883 CALLE SANDOR 40425 CALLE TORCIDA 43002 CALLE VENTURA 43033 CALLE VENTURA 43061 CALLE VENTURA 43152 CALLE VENTURA 43152 CALLE VENTURA 43182 CALLE VENTURA 42532 CAMELOT RD 42658 CAMELOT RD 42674 CAMELOT RD 42688 CAMELOT RD 42730 CAMELOT RD 42744 CAMELOT RD 42758 CAMELOT RD 42772 CAMELOT RD 42786 CAMELOT RD 42800 CAMELOT RD 42856 CAMELOT RD 42870 CAMELOT RD 42814 CAMELOT RD 42828 CAMELOT RD 42842 CAMELOT RD 43153 CAMINATA DR 44873 CAMINO ALAMOSA 32199 CAMINO CAllARI 43800 CAMINO GALLEGOS 43805 CAMINO GALLEGOS 43817 CAMINO GALLEGOS 43829 CAMINO GALLEGOS 31992 CAMINO MOLNAR 32045 CAMINO NUNEZ 32070 CAMINO NUNEZ 44486 CAYENNE TRAIL 40913 CEBU DR 40932 CEBU DR 40937 CEBU DR 40949 CEBU DR 40973 CEBU DR 31839 CERCLE CHAMBERTIN 40549 CHANTEMAR WY 40561 CHANTEMAR WY 40442 CHAUNCEY WY 40471 CHAUNCEYWY 41137 CHEMIN LA TACHE 28818 CHEVERL Y CT 28826 CHEVERL Y CT 43377 CHICO DR 42962 CINNAMON LN 32661 CLEARVAIL DR 45402 CLUBHOUSE DR 45335 CLUBHOUSE DR 41196 COG HILL DR 41226 COG HILL DR 30758 DEL REY RD 27973 DiAl RD 28071 DiAl RD 42537 DRENNON CT 32819 DUPONT ST 41555 EAGLE POINTWY 41558 EAGLE POINT WY 31203 ENFIELD LN 32840 FERMO CT 31226 FIRESTONE ST 31268 FIRESTONE ST 43930 FLORES DR 43908 FONDI CT Box 87 Page 1 of 2 32820 FOX RD 32897 FOX RD 32433 GALATINA ST 42241 GATES HEAD CT 42251 GATES HEAD CT 42261 GATESHEAD CT 42271 GATESHEAD CT 42281 GATESHEAD CT 42291 GATESHEAD CT 31225 GLENEAGLES DR 45515 GLENEAGLES CT 44817 GRADO CIRCLE 39935 HUDSON CT 39947 HUDSON CT 39950 HUDSON CT 39959 HUDSON CT 39962 HUDSON CT 39971 HUDSON CT 39983 HUDSON CT 39995 HUDSON CT 40007 HUDSON CT 40019 HUDSON CT 42745 JOLLE CT 42755 JOLLE CT 42775 JOLLE CT 42795 JOLLE CT 42805 JOLLE CT 42815 JOLLE CT 42818 JOLLE CT 42860 JOLLE CT 39549 JUNE RD 31091 KAHWEA RD 31164 KAHWEA RD 44090 KARlE WY 44747 KIT CT 30099 LA PRIMAVERA ST 44650 LA PAZ ST 43178 LA PRIMAVERA DR 32520 LAMA CT 42731 LARRY LEE LN 42731 LARRY LEE LN 32908 LEVI CT 28738 LEXINGTON RD 28867 LEXINGTON RD 40330 LOGAN CT 40346 LOGAN CT 40362 LOGAN CT 31715 LOMA LINDA RD 39464 LONG RIDGE DR 39556 LONG RIDGE DR Box 87 43445 LOS CABALEROS WY 42227 L YNDIE LN 39862 WORTHINGTON PL 39874 WORTHINGTON PL 39877 WORTHINGTON PL 39886 WORTHINGTON PL 39889 WORTHINGTON PL 39898 WORTHINGTON PL 39908 WORTHINGTON PL 39910 WORTHINGTON PL 39946 WORTHINGTON PL 39922 WORTHINGTON PL 39934 WORTHINGTON PL 39958 WORTHINGTON PL 42145 WYANDOTTE ST 42155 WYANDOTTE ST 42165 WYANDOTTE ST 42175 WYANDOTTE ST 42175 WYANDOTTE 8T 42182 WYANDOTTE ST 42195 WYANDOTTE ST 42205 WYANDOTTE ST 42115 WYANDOTTE ST 42125 WYANDOTTE ST 42135 WYANDOTTE ST 42227 WYANDOTTE ST Box 87 Page 2 of 2 TR 23143-8 33040 ADELANTE ST 31984 AHERN LN 31994 AHERN LN 43632 AL TAMURA CT 32472 ANGELO DR 31301 ASHMILL CT 41526 AVENIDA DE LA REINA 31958 AVENIDA ENRIQUE 31935 AVENIDA MALLARI 31907 AZUCENA CT 41591 AVENIDA DE LA REINA 40053 BALBOA DR 40061 BALBOA DR 40069 BALBOA DR 40077 BALBOA DR 40085 BALBOA DR 40093 BALBOA DR 40101 BALBOA DR 40117 BALBOA DR 31566 BENTLEY CT 42990 BIGH CT 43000 BIGH CT 43010 BIGH CT 32817 BONITA MESA 30150 CABRILLO AV 30460 CABRILLO AV 43700 CALABRO ST 31687 CALLE BARCALDO 31980 CALLE CABALLOS 32091 CALLE CABALLOS 33256 CALLE CANTU 40643 CALLE FIESTA 40629 CALLE FIESTA 40045 CALLE MEDUSA 42257 CAMINO MERANO 32086 CAMINO SENECO 27548 CAMPANA CR 32428 CAMPO DR 30822 CANTERFIELD DR 39865 CANTRELL RD 43796 CARE NT AN DR 40870 CARLENA LN 40926 CARLENA LN 40410 CARMELlTA CR 32390 CASTLE CT 32390 CASTLE CT 32429 CASTLE CT 32489 CASTLE CT 32499 CASTLE CT Box 88 40709 CEBU DR 31428 CORTE SAN LEANDRO 40874 CEBU DR 32362 CORTE SAN VINCENTE 40901 CEBU DR 41588 CORTE SEDA 28812 CHATHAM LN 32003 CORTE SPARKMAN 28836 CHATHAM LN 31570 CORTE T AQUIT A 28844 CHATHAM LN 43072 CORTE TOLOSA 28852 CHATHAM LN 41227 COG HILL DR 28860 CHATHAM LN 43119 CORTE ALMONTE 28863 CHATHAM LN 43125 CORTE ALMONTE 28868 CHATHAM LN 41570 CORTE AMALIA 28871 CHATHAM LN 31039 CORTE ARROYO VISTA 28876 CHATHAM LN 32218 CORTE UTNEHMER 28879 CHATHAM LN 32339 COSMIC DR 28884 CHATHAM LN 44625 CRESTWOOD CR 28887 CHATHAM LN 41221 CROOKED STICK DR 41497 CHENIN BLANC CT 31413 CULBERTSON LN 32233 CHEMIN LAURENT 30163 CUPENO LN 31489 CORTE PACHECO 27564 DANDELION CT 27469 COLT CT 41731 S. ENTERPRISE CR #401 27470 COLT CT 43408 FASSANO CT 27496 COMMERCE CENTER DR 42432 FIJI WY 27590 COMMERCE CENTER DR 43901 FONDI CT 27630 COMMERCE CENTER DR 33062 FOX RD 27685 COMMERCE CENTER DR 29426 GEORGETOWH LN 27685 COMMERCE CENTER DR 31582 GOLDEN LION DR 31225 COMOTILO CT 40224 HOLDEN CR 31250 COMOTILO CT 39923 HUDSON CT 31485 CONGRESSIONAL DR 39926 HUDSON CT 31485 CONGRESSIONAL DR 39938 HUDSON CT 31485 CONGRESSIONAL DR 40043 HUDSON CT 43801 CORONADO DR 40055 HUDSON CT 31052 CORTE ALAMAR 42690 HUSSAR CT 31102 CORTE ALA MAR 42691 HUSSAR CT 43108 CORTE ALMONTE 30175 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 43330 CORTE BARBASTE 43140 JOHN WARNER RD 33620 CORTE BONILLA 42825 JOLLE CT 43001 CORTE CABRERA 42835 JOLLE CT 30237 CORTE CANTANIA 42845 JOLLE CT 32155 CORTE CARMELA 40936 JULO WY 32353 CORTE CHATADA 40966 JULO WY 32071 CORTE ESCOBAR 40976 JULO WY 43020 CORTE FRESCA 3931 0 KIMBERLY LN 31404 CORTE MALLORCA 44650 LA PAZ ST 41795 CORTE MONTIA 28870 LAKE FRONT RD 42970 CORTE SALAMANCA 29005 LAKE HOUSE RD 42980 CORTE SALAMANCA 30061 LAURIE RAE LN 31472 CORTE SALINAS 30099 LAURIE RAE LN 31561 CORTE SALINAS 31907 LEIGH LN 31586 CORTE SALINAS 39633 LIEFER RD 31389 CORTE SAN LEANDRO 40301 LOGAN CT Box 88 Page 1 of 2 Box 88 40317 LOGAN CT 40317 LOGAN CT 40325 LOGAN CT 40333 LOGAN CT 40338 LOGAN CT 40341 LOGAN CT 40349 LOGAN CT 40354 LOGAN CT 40357 LOGAN CT 40370 LOGAN CT 42111 MAJECTIC CT 44803 MARZI CT 30500 MILANO RD 32058 MERLOT CT 29820 MIRA LOMA DR 30054 MIRA LOMA DR 30436 MOONLIGHT CT 41963 MORENO RD 33330 NICHOLAS 33340 NICHOLAS 42811 NORTH STAR CT 29760 NORTE VERDE RD 32897 NORTHSHIRE CR 39700 OAK CLIFF DR 45438 OLIVE CT 43224 ORMSBY RD 32997 PARAGUAY DR 33107 PARAGUAY DR 33027 PARAGUAY DR 33037 PARAGUAY DR 33047 PARAGUAY DR 39600 PARKVIEW DR 39601 PARKVIEW DR 39614 PARKVIEW DR 39615 PARKVIEW DR 39621 PARKVIEW DR 39628 PARKVIEW DR 39635 PARKVIEW DR 33162 PAROWN DR Box 88 Page 2 of 2 HARVESTON WY & MARGARITA B04-1305 40000 PASADENA DR 40024 PASADENA DR 40040 PASADENA DR 40048 PASADENA DR 40056 PASADENA DR 40064 PASADENA DR 40250 PASEO DEL CIELO 32873 PATERNO ST 32881 PATERNO ST 30105 PECHANGA DR 31462 PENNANT CT 43627 PIASONO PLAZA 31749 POOLE CT 40099 PORTSMOUTH RD 29147 PROVIDENCE RD 33648 ROSEWOOD CR 31057 RUIDOSA ST 31195 SAHO CT 32812 SAN JOSE CT 27598 SANDERLING WY 41841 ST. THOMAS CT 41866 ST. THOMAS CT 41850 SHOREWOOD CT 32808 STONEFIELD LN 32819 STONEFIELD LN 32778 STONEFIELD LN 32788 STONEFIELD LN 32798 STONEFIELD LN TR-23143-1 45366 TESIBEN CT 33102 T1VOLl ST 44956 TROTSDALE DR 29738 VALLE VERDE 31958 VALONE CT 41776 VIA BALDERAMA 32233 VIA BANDE 32205 VIA BANDE 31826 VIA BARRAZA 32052 VIA BONILLA 43491 VIA CANELEDA 30115 VIA DE LA MESA 30375 VIA EL DELORA 30420 VIA EL DELORA 43841 VIA MONTALBAN 43850 VIA MONTALBAN 43851 VIA MONTALBAN 43941 VIA MONT ALBAN 29755 VIA NORTE 30668 VIA NORTE Box 89 45166 VIA QUIVERA 31883 VIA RIO 40045 VILLAGE RD 40135 VILLAGE RD 40150 VILLAGE RD 28381 VINCENT MORAGA RD 31016 WELLINGTON CR 39742 WESTCHESTER CT 40440 WGASA PLAZA 40501 WGASA PLAZA 40509 WGASA PLAZA 42585 WHISTLE CT 40390 WINCHESTER RD 40435 WINCHESTER RD 42215 WYANDOTTE ST 42225 WYANDOTTE ST 42235 WYANDOTTE ST 42245 WYANDOTTE ST 42255 WYANDOTTE ST 42265 WYANDOTTE ST 42429 WYANDOTTE ST 42439 WYANDOTTE ST 41613 ZINFANDEL AVE Box 89 Page 1 of 1 42123 ACACIA WY 42456 AGENA ST 42850 AGENA ST 31944 AHERN LN 31954 AHERN LN 41423 ASHBURN RD 40834 BACCARART RD 40109 BALBOA DR 40133 BALBOA DR 40141 BALBOA DR 40149 BALBOA DR 40157 BALBOA DR 40165 BALBOA DR 40173 BALBOA DR 45547 BASSWOOD CT 45555 BASSWOOD CT 45563 BASSWOOD CT 45571 BASSWOOD CT 30150 CABRILLO AVENUE 32063 CALLE BALAREZA 32064 CALLE BALEREZA 32070 CALLE BALAREZA 32073 CALLE BALAREZA 32076 CALLE BALAREZA 32082 CALLE BALAREZA 32083 CALLE BALAREZA 32088 CALLE BALAREZA 32278 CALLE BALAREZA TR24136-3 32025 CALLE BALLENTINE 43813 CALLE BALMEZ 33256 CALLE CANTU 40435 CALLE FIESTA 31506 CALLE LOS PADRES 30762 CALLE PINA COLADA 40460 CALLE TIARA 40545 CALLE TORCIDO 42432 CAMELOT RD 31975 CAMINO MOLNAR 32015 CAMINO MOLNAR 33243 CARMINO PIEDRA 32612 CAMPO DR 40050 CANNES CT 39865 CANTRELL RD 41896 CARLETON WY 40337 CARMELlTA CR 40657 CARMELlTA CR 32020 CAST AN DR 32369 CASTLE CT 32409 CASTLE CT Box 90 28823 CHATHAM LN 28831 CHATHAM LN 28839 CHATHAM LN 28847 CHATHAM LN 28855 CHATHAM LN 28895 CHATHAM LN 28840 CHEVERL Y CT 43257 CORTE ARGENTO 31039 CORTE ARROYO 43030 CORTE SALAMANCA 32015 CORTE SPARKMAN 42304 CORTE VILLOSA 44672 CORTE SAN GABRIEL 40980 COUNTY CTR DR #200 42306 CROWNE HILL DR 28912 DAVENPORT CT 30405 DEL REY RD 27973 DIAZ RD 39504 DIEGO DR 41582 EAGLEPOINTWY 41600 EAGLEPOINTWY 30708 EASTGATE PKWY 30713 EASTGATE PKWY 30718 EASTGATE PKWY 30723 EASTGATE PKWY 30728 EASTGATE PKWY 30738 EASTGATE PKWY 30747 EASTGATE PKWY 30748 EASTGATE PKWY 30757 EASTGATE PKWY 30758 EASTGATE PKWY 30763 EASTGATE PKWY 30768 EASTGATE PKWY 30773 EASTGATE PKWY 30778 EASTGATE PKWY 30779 EASTGATE PKWY 30787 EASTGATE PKWY 30788 EASTGATE PKWY 30799 EASTGATE PKWY 30810 EASTGATE PKWY 30811 EASTGATE PKWY 30820 EASTGATE PKWY 30825 EASTGATE PKWY 30830 EASTGATE PKWY 30839 EASTGATE PKWY 30840 EASTGATE PKWY 30849 EASTGATE PKWY 30850 EASTGATE PKWY 30859 EASTGATE PKWY 28694 EDENTON WY 28702 EDENTON WY 28710 EDENTONWY 28718 EDENTON WY 28726 EDENTON WY 28734 EDENTON WY 38737 EDENTON WY 28745 EDENTON WY 28753 EDENTON WY 33016 TOPEKA CT 33017 TOPEKA CT 29250 TOWNSHIP RD 32948 TRESTLE LN 44931 TROUTSDALE DR 42797 TWILIGHT CT 30367 VIA CANADA 32198 VIA CORDARA 31705 VIA CORDOBA 40899 VIA LOS ALTOS 29930 VIA NORTE 40501 WGASA PLAZA 39727 WESTCHESTER CT 40720 WINCHESTER RD 40820 WINCHESTER RD #1460 40820 WINCHESTER RD #2750 40820 WINCHESTER RD 40820 WINCHESTER RD # 2580 40820 WINCHESTER RD #1000 40820 WINCHESTER RD #1005 41593 WINCHESTER RD 41669 WINCHESTER RD #106 41735 WINCHESTER RD 42189 WINCHESTER RD 42189 WINCHESTER RD 40528 WINDSOR RD 32211 WOLF VALLEY RD 32820 WOLF STORE RD 32820 WOLF STORE RD 32824 WOLF STORE RD 32828 WOLF STORE RD 32832 WOLF STORE RD 32836 WOLF STORE RD 31934 WOLF VALLEY RD 39889 WORTHINGTON PLAZA 39972 WORTHINGTON PLAZA 42210 WYANDOTTE ST 42220 WYANDOTTE ST 42250 WYANDOTTE ST 42260 WYANDOTTE ST 42270 WYANDOTTE ST 42280 WYANDOTTE ST Box 90 Page 1 of 2 42290 WYANDOTTE ST 42300 WYANDOTTE ST 4231 0 WYANDOTTE ST 42311 WYANDOTTE ST 42319 WYANDOTTE ST 42327 WYANDOTTE ST 42335 WYANDOTTE ST 42343 WYANDOTTE ST 42351 WYANDOTTE ST 30863 SONIA LN 40180 STARLING ST 42070 TEATREE CT 32831 T1EMPO CR 30264 VIA NORTE 42261 ZEVO DR 42261 ZEVO DR 39933 WILLIAMSBURG PLAZA 42592 REMORA ST 30620 OPEN CT 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT 40263 ODESSA DR 30799 MEDINAH WY 30561 HOLL YBERRY LN 45117 CORTE BELLA DONNA 31102 CORTE ALAMAR 43528 CALLE DE VELARDO 31911 CALLE CABALLOS 29073 BRIDGEHAMPTON RD 43878 BUTTERNUT DR 43829 CALLE BALMEZ 32028 CALLE CABALLOS 28977 BRIDGE HAMPTON RD 40032 PASADENA DR 26479 YNEZ RD SUITE H 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT #203A 27711 DiAl RD 41892 MOTOR CAR PRWY 41892 MOTOR CAR PRWY 30676 SKY TERRACE DR 30927 WELLINGTON CR Box 90 Box 90 Page 2 of 2 32876 ABANA CT 40774 BACCARAT RD 40021 BALBOA DR 40029 BALBOA DR 40037 BALBOA DR 27447 BOSTIK CT 29040 BRIDGEHAMPTON RD 28872 BRISTOL RD 43713 BUCKEYE RD 30285 CABRILLO AVE 32093 CALLE BALAREZA 32094 CALLE BALAREZA 32100 CALLE BALAREZA 32110 CALLE BALAREZA 32122 CALLE BALAREZA 32134 CALLE BALAREZA 32148 CALLE BALAREZA 32163 CALLE BALAREZA 43750 CALLE BALMEZ 31936 CALLE ELENITA 31922 CALLE ELENITA 31930 CALLE ELENITA 31942 CALLE ELENITA 43359 CALLE NACIDO 32229 CAMINO CAllARI 32239 CAMINO CAllARI 43776 CAMINO GALLEGOS 40086 CANNES CT 42900 CINNAMON LN 42904 CINNAMON LN 42907 CINNAMON LN 42914 CINNAMON LN 42917 CINNAMON LN 42924 CINNAMON LN 42927 CINNAMON LN 42934 CINNAMON LN 42937 CINNAMON LN 42944 CINNAMON LN 42947 CINNAMON LN 30021 SANTA CECILIA DR 42954 CINNAMON LN 42964 CINNAMON LN 42974 CINNAMON LN 42984 CINNAMON LN 31658 CORTE ENCINAS 32009 CORTE SPARKMAN 42327 COSMIC DR 27565 DiAl RD 32835 DUPONT ST 28697 EDENTON WY Box 91 28705 EDENTON WY 28721 EDENTON WY 27535 W. ENTERPRISE CR 41890 S. ENTERPRISE CR 45371 ESCALANTE CT 33211 FOX RD 32401 GALATINA ST 42259 GATESHEAD CT 43951 GATEWOOD WY 44817 GRADO CR 27179 GREENSTONE ST 33047 HARMONY LN TR29928 IRR PEDS 39880 HARVESTON DR 42252 HARWICK LN 32544 HISLOP WY 32720 HISLOP WY 32831 HIGHWAY 79S #B 30561 HOll YBERRY IN 40012 HUDSON CT 40034 HUDSON CT 41875 HUMBER DR 33139 JANDA CT 33149 JANDA CT 33159 JANDA CT 33160 JANDA CT 33169 JANDA CT 33170 JANDA CT 31097 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 27309 JEFFERSON AVE 27315 JEFFERSON AVE 40959 JULO WY 40969 JULO WY 40989 JULO WY 40986 JULO WY 40996 JUlO WY 40999 JULO WY 31107 KAHWEA RD 29003 lAKE HOUSE RD 29005 LAKE HOUSE RD 30847 LOMA LINDA RD 31652 LOMA LINDA RD 44701 LORRAINE DR 31846 MACAWS CT 31858 MACAWS CT 31870 MACAWS CT 31894 MACAWS CT 31894 MACAWS CT 42091 MAJESTiC CT 27250 MADISON AVE 31107 MARIPOSA PLAZA 42582 MEADE CR 40294 MIMULUS WY 41963 MORENO RD 43510 NANTES CT 27500 NELLIE CT 29828 NEWPORT RD 41707 NIBLICK RD 32865 NORTHSHIRE CR 27290 MADISON AVE 27290 MADISON AVE 27290 MADISON AVE 42012 MAIN ST 39311 OAK CLIFF DR 33000 OLD KENT RD 40573 MARGARITA RD 40531 MARGARITA RD 40573 MARGARITA RD 40573 MARGARITA RD 41257 MARGARITA RD 41269 MARGARITA RD 41278 MARGARITA RD 41278 MARGARITA RD 41278 MARGARITA RD 41278 MARGARITA RD 41301 MARGARITA RD 41301 MARGARITA RD 41301 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41493 MARGARITA RD 41577 MARGARITA RD 41607 MARGARITA RD 41607 MARGARITA RD 41619 MARGARITA RD 41619 MARGARITA RD 41619 MARGARITA RD 41619 MARGARITA RD 41754 MARGARITA RD 41955 MARGARITA RD 28250 OLD TOWN RD 28286 OLD TOWN RD 28286 OLD TOWN RD 28410 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28459 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28461 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28500 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28636 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28500 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28656 OLD TOWN FRONT ST Box 91 Pagelof2 Box 91 31639 VIA SAN CARLOS 40410 WGASA PLAZA 40440 WGASA PLAZA 40620 WINCHESTER RD 40620 WINCHESTER RD 40640 WINCHESTER RD 40820 WINCHESTER RD TR29798 WOLF CREEK 31659 WOLF VALLEY RD 26111 YNEZRD 26201 YNEZ RD 26447 YNEZ RD 26480 YNEZ RD 26491 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD 26531 YNEZ RD 28659 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28697 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28718 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28860 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28924 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28964 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28964 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 28999 OLD TOWN FRONT ST 455005 OLYMPIC WY 43224 ORMSBY RD 45825 PALMETTO WY 33025 PAOLI CT 39992 PASADENA DR 40088 PASADENA DR 40096 PASADENA DR 31532 PASEO DE LAS OLAS 40396 PASEO DEL CIELO 32399 PENSADOR ST 41337 PLACER LAFITE 43102 PRIMAVERA DR 29530 RANCHO CALIF 29588 RANCHO CALIF 29746 RANCHO CALIF 29746 RANCHO CALIF 30650 RANCHO CALIF 31352 RANCHO COMMUNITYWY 30875 RANCHO VISTA RD 33005 REGINA DR 42244 REMINGTON AVE 42600 RIO NEDO 33050 ROMERO DR 32821 SAN JUAN CT 32485 SAN MARCO DR 42794 SANTA SUZANNE PLAZA 43821 SASSARI ST 43861 SASSARI ST 28831 SPRINGFIELD PLAZA 27530 SENNA CT TR23143-1 MODEL HOME CONVERSIONS 31883 VIA RIO 30298 VIA VAL VERDE Box 91 Page 2 012 Box 80 42301 Zevo Dr 40900 Winchester Rd 42000 Zevo Dr 42180 Zevo Dr 26531 Ynez Rd 26810 Ynez Rd 40900 Winchester Rd 40486 Winchester Rd 36531 Ynez Rd 26531 Ynez Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #1430 40820 Winchester Rd #2282 Tr22916-1 Tr24182-1 Box 82 43025 Business Park Dr 43195 Business Park Dr 41915 Business Park Dr 40640 Winchester Rd 26770 Ynez Ct 40820 Winchester Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #2430 40480 Winchester Rd 40480 Winchester Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #1060 40820 Winchester Rd #2430 40758 Winchester Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #2300 40820 Winchester Rd #1410 40820 Winchester Rd #2200 40820 Winchester Rd #2170 40820 Winchester Rd #2165 40820 Winchester Rd #2460 40820 Winchester Rd #1160 Tr23371-5 Tr25004-1 Box 83 43505 San Fermin 41493 Margarita-Bldg G, H, I 40513 Winchester Rd 26631 Ynez Rd Tr24132 31806 Corte Mendosa 30170 La Primavera St 41930 Margarita Rd Tr23371-15 28499 Pujoi St 40788 Winchester Rd 41750 Bradeis Dr 40820 Winchester Rd #2280 40820 Winchester Rd #2420 40820 Winchester Rd #1100 40820 Winchester Rd #FCB 40820 Winchester Rd #2350 40820 Winchester Rd #K1 40820 Winchester Rd #2120 Building Plans 40820 Winchester Rd #2170 Tr24188-1 Tr22761 & 22762 Tr23371-1 Tr23371-14 Tr24186-F Tr28553-E Box 84 31172 Kahwea Rd 44501 Rainbow Canyon 27649 Commerce Center Dr 40515 Calle Fiesta 32240 Highway 79 So 40758 Winchester Rd 44274 George Cushman 41377 Margarita Rd #F108 40820 Winchester Rd #2240 42301 Zevo Dr Tr25004-1 31350 Rancho Vista Rd Tr22716-2 40435 Winchester Rd Tr23101-2,4,5 Tr23371-3 28900 Rancho California Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #1610 Tr23371-3 40820 Winchester Rd #1307 40820 Winchester Rd #1450 40820 Winchester Rd #1170 40868 Winchester Rd 44140 La Paz Tr14936 Tr19872 Box 85 44535 Bedford 27443 Jefferson Ave 32060 Merlot Crest 30586 Colina Verde 44520 Bedford Ct 27555 Ynez Rd 39779 Knollridge Dr 43234 Business Park Dr 43460 Ridge Park Dr 41840 N Enterprise Cr 43460 Ridge Park Dr #1 00 28381 Vincent Moraga Dr 30984 Lolita Rd 42051 Rubicon Cr 40820 Winchester Rd 32020 Highway 79 So 27270 Madison Ave 40390 Winchester Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #1360 27562 Commerce Center Dr 44274 George Cushman 111 31952 Pauba Rd 27525 Via Industria 43525 Calle De Velardo 26677 Ynez Rd Tr21067 41915 Business Park Dr 27740 Jefferson Ave 28030 Del Rio Rd Comer of Hwy 79/Meadows Pkwy 26443 Ynez Rd 30100 Rancho California Rd 29089 Pujol SI. Box 86 27635 Jefferson Ave 27420 Ynez Rd 29172 & 29176 Vallejo Ave 42380 Zevo Dr 31307 Santiago Rd 41397 Bueking Dr 31228 Felicita 31717 Highway 79 So 28190 Jefferson Ave 43583 Calle De Velardo 40820 Winchester Rd #2330 41269 Margarita Rd #104 1 Ridgegate Dr 40620 Winchester Rd #A 40820 Winchester Rd #2630 32170 Hwy 79 So 42081 Main St Box 87 27412 W Enterprise Cr 32757 Rancho Califomia 30727 Loma Linda Rd 31720 Hwy 79 So #200/201 41301 Margarita Rd #J 40135 Village Rd 31350 Rancho Vista Rd 30820 Jedediah Smith 41619 Margarita Rd 28500 Pujol St 30151 Santiago Rd 43195 Corte Almeria Box 88 40930 Via Media 27658 Ynez Rd 29851 Santiago Rd 29851 Santiago Rd 27471 Ynez Rd 42000 Zevo Dr T r22627-1 Tr21760 Box 91 31618 Avenida Del Reposo 43180 Business Park Dr 30215 Via Norte 32240 Highway 79 So 41915 Business Park Dr Page 1 of 3 31813 Highway 79 So Box 92 27665 Jefferson Ave 29540 Rancho Califomia Rd 40438 Winchester Rd 30975 Via Norte 41607 Margarita Rd 31756 Highway 79 So 40410 Carrnelita Rd 40497 Margarita Rd 27580 Ynez Rd Tr24131-2 31126 Granviile Ct 43475-43455 Business Park Tr231 00-1 Tr24131-2 Tr24135-1 Box 94 39859 Creative Dr 31045 Pescado Dr 30670 Avenida Buena Suerte 41963 Moreno Rd 26201 Ynez Rd #102 30360 Trade Water Ct 26531 Ynez Rd. 41715 N. Enterprise Cr 32682 Leena Wy 26531 Ynez Rd 27740 Jefferson Ave #260 28900 Rancho Califomia Rd 40335 Winchester Rd #2J/K 40705 Winchester Rd #A5 Box 95 26040 Ynez Rd 41915 Business Park Dr 41970 Moreno Rd 41457 Sanborn 26730 Ynez Rd 26770 Ynez Rd 27565 Diaz Rd 40935 County Center Dr 29105 Front St 31465 Via Cordoba 27230 Madison-Ste B & C 39950 Margarita Rd 41915 Business Park Dr 29715 Valle Verde 41915 Business Park Dr Box 95 40550 La Colima Rd 42000 Zevo Dr 43930 Flores Dr 42000 Zevo Dr 27495 W Enterprise 27699 Jefferson Ave 26531 Ynez Rd 42660 Rio Nedo 26531 Ynez Rd Building Plans 26845 Ynez Rd 40435 Calle Madero 28721 Front St 31845 Highway 79 So 30368 Red River Cr 27555 Ynez Rd 27450 Ynez Rd 26531 Ynez Rd 26201 Ynez Rd 30026 Santiago 42301 Zevo Dr 27561 Commerce Ctr 26631 Ynez Rd 26090 Ynez Rd 26090 Ynez Rd 27450 Ynez Rd 42125 Sweet Shade 30875 Rancho Vista 31727 Klarer Ln 30647 Calle Pina Colada 27533 Jefferson Ave 29715 Valle Verde 27645 Jefferson Ave 27468 Ynez Rd 31040 Via Norte 31040 Via Norte 26531 Ynez Rd 40860 Via Media 41687 Temeku Dr 31685 Highway 79 So 28822 Old Town Front St 39055 Liefer Rd 30530 Rancho Calif Rd 27644 Ynez Rd 27450 Ynez Rd 31940 Hwy 79 So 31389 Ashmill Ct 27644 Ynez Rd 29821 Camino Del Sol Dr 26531 Ynez Rd 41754 Margarita Rd 27580 Ynez Rd 27350 Diaz Rd 41971 Main St 26040 Ynez Rd 27452 Jefferson Ave 26090 Ynez Rd 31940 Hwy 79 So 27660 Jefferson Ave 30453 De Portola Dr 41593 Laurel Valley Cr 32704 Caserta Dr 26423 Ynez Rd 42301 Zevo Dr 31950 Highway 79 So 40665 Winchester Rd 30994 Del Rey Rd 32210 Via Cesario 27740 Jefferson Ave 27636 L 1 Ynez Rd 31950 Highway 79 So 40335 Winchester Rd 42440 Winchester Rd 40335 Winchester Rd 40695 Winchester Rd Box 97 41910 Sixth St 31950 Pauba Rd 42130 Lyndie Ln 43525 Ridge Park Dr 29105 Front St 27495 W Enterprise Cr 29760 Rancho Calif Rd 26531 Ynez Rd 31829 Highway 79 So 27941 Diaz Rd-Suite #A 41687 Temeku Dr 42200 Moraga Rd 31940 Highway 79 So 41687 Temeku Dr 42145 Lynie Ln-Ste 208 39624 Long Ridge Dr 42685 Rio Nedo 41971 Main St 41930 Margarita Rd 42000 Zevo Dr 40355 Winchester Rd 32682 Leena Wy 43500 Ridge Park Dr 27660 Jefferson Ave 41754 Margarita Rd 40820 Winchester Rd 43505 San Fermin PI 40705 A7 Winchester Rd 42660 Rio Nedo 30275 Jedediah Smith 31275 Pescado Dr. 27471 Ynez Rd 44080 Jeramie 26040 Ynez Rd 41971 Main St 27471 Ynez Rd 31950 Hwy 79 So 27315 Jefferson Ave 30887 Corte De Los Santos 28061 Front St Unit 8 28751 Rancho Calif Rd 41920 Sixth St 43370 San Fermin Pi 42145 Lyndie Ln Ste 106 Box 98 41975 41h St 31950 Highway 79 So-Ste B9 26895 Ynez Rd 44870 Corte Sevrina 27450 Ynez Rd #307 40880 County Ctr Dr Ste R 26531 Ynez Rd 29275 Santiago Rd 41754 Margarita Rd. 41125 Winchester Rd Ste B9 27525 Ynez Rd Page 2 of 3 29738 Rancho Calif Rd Ste B 27450 Ynez Rd #128 Box 99 31767 Via T elesio 39777 Nantucket Rd Tr29928-2, 3 Tr29928-2, 3 T r29928-1 Tr29928-1 Tr23143-7 29005 Lake House Rd 29746 Rancho Califomia Rd Tr23143-8 31765 Highway 79 So #G 30163 Cupeno Lane 40045 Village Rd 43135 Ave De San Pasqual 32156 Calle Resaca 43445 Los Caballeros 41593 Winchester Rd #110 26531 Ynez Rd Bldg A 40620 Winchester Rd A-1 40820 Winchester Rd #2750 40573 Margarita Rd 30470 Pauba Rd 42189 Winchester Rd 40573 Margarita Rd B-3 43780 Carentan Dr 27548 Ynez Rd 1-5 40820 Winchester Rd #K10 Box 100 28410 Front St 27533 Jefferson Ave 28007 Front St 31950 Hwy 79 So 27476 Ynez Rd 28011 Front St 29560 Rancho Califomia Rd 27450 Ynez Rd #100 27497 Ynez Rd 29560 Rancho Califomia Rd 41735 Winchester Rd 28636 Old Town Front St #102 27309 Jefferson Ave #101 Box 101 41413 Margarita Rd 30099 La Primavera Tr23143-8 28071 Diaz Rd 342 Calle Torcida 42931 Via Aihama 42012 Main St 30150 Cabrillo Ave 40820 Winchester Rd #1060 43300 Business Park Dr 27685 Commerce Center Dr 33162 Parowan Dr 31352 Rancho Community Building Plans 27290 Madison Ave 31225 Felicita Rd 42164 Remington Ave Ste 6A 31773 Highway 79 So 29930 Via Norte Box 102 39310 Kimberly Ln 30105 Pechanga Dr 29005 Lake House Dr 29005 Lake House Dr 31079 Jedediah Smith Rd 41623 Margarita Rd 40045 Village Rd 40573 Margarita Rd 32203 Via Flore 43224 Ormsby Rd 30420 Via El Delora 31039 Corte Arroyo Vista 41619 Margarita Rd #102 44486 Cayenne T r 28500 Pujol St 26531 Ynez Rd 40820 Winchester Rd #1460 44520 Bedford Ct 40820 Winchester Rd #1410 40573 Margarita Rd 32820 Wolf Store Rd 30470 Pauba Rd 40573 Margarita Rd Ste A 31352/68 Rancho Comm Wy Box 103 40435 Winchester Rd 42585 Whistle Ct 40573 Margarita Rd Ste A 1 32233 Via Bande 26531 Ynez Rd 42794 Santa Suzanne PI 42070 Teatree Ct 32832 Wolf Store Rd 40531 Margarita Rd 26531 Ynez Rd 42600 Rio Nedo 40335 Winchester Rd Ste H 26479 Ynez Rd Ste H Box 104 Tr24182-1 42189 Winchester Rd Tr29928-2 & 3 Tr23413-7 Tr23413-8 Tr23143-1,11 Page 3 of 3 FROM: Gwyn R. Flores, Records Coordinator TO: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Destruction of Records Attached "Exhibit B" is a listing of records maintained in the City's City Clerk Department. These documents have been identified in various Retention Groups (list attached) and the agendas have been imaged into the City's LaserFiche Imaging System and are eligible for destruction in accordance with the City of Temecula's approved Retention Policy as outlined in City Council Resolution 05-27. The imaging of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The undersigned have reviewed and approved this destruction request. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5, I hereby give my consent to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the City of Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy. APPROVED: APPROVED: City Attomey: R:\fonns\destnlct.rqs EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF TEMECULA CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT DESTRUCTION FILE REPORT Document Date Item Brief File Reference# Storage Media Reference Reference Description Security Class Storage Location 120 1999-2000 601-03 Bid Files Unsuccessful 4 yrs N/A 120 2000-2001 701-02 AQendas: Permanent LaserFiche -City Council -Planning Commission -Community Services Commission .Public Traffic Safety 1997-1999 -Director's Heanng Agendas 120 2000-2001 401-13 List of Demands 4 Years AA N/A 120 2001-2002 402-02 Daily Cash Receipts 4 Years AA N/A 120 2001 703-01 Records Requests 3 Years N/A 120 1991-2000 601-15 RFP's/RFQ's 3 Years Succ N/A 2 Years Unsucc 120 1996-1997 704-13 Claims Against City 3 Years AS N/A 03/22/05 CC Destruction Page 1 of 1 CITY OF TEMECULA Records for Destruction City Council Aaendas (701-02) January 11, 2000 January 18, 2000 January 25, 2000 February 8, 2000 February 22, 2000 February 29, 2000 March 21, 2000 March 28, 2000 April 11, 2000 April 25, 2000 April 27, 2000 May 9, 2000 May 23, 2000 June 1, 2000 June 13, 2000 / June 27, 2000 July 11, 2000 July 18, 2000 July 25, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 8, 2000 August 22, 2000 September 12, 2000 September 26, 2000 October 10, 2000 October 17, 2000 October 24, 2000 October 25, 2000 November 14, 2000 November 28, 2000 December 12, 2000 December 19, 2000 January 9, 2001 January 16, 2001 January 23, 2001 February 13, 2001 February 27, 2001 March 6, 2001 March 27, 2001 April 10, 2001 April 17, 2001 April 24, 2001 May 15, 2001 May 22, 2001 June 12, 2001 June 26, 2001 July 10, 2001 July 17, 2001 July 24, 2001 August 14, 2001 August 28, 2001 September 11, 2001 September 25, 2001 October 9, 2001 October 23, 2001 November 13, 2001 November 27, 2001 December 11, 2001 December 17, 2001 Plannina Commission Aaendas (701-02) January 5, 2000 January 19, 2000 February 2, 2000 February 16, 2000 March 15, 2000 April 19, 2000 May 3, 2000 May 17, 2000 June 7, 2000 June 21 , 2000 July 5, 2000 July 19, 2000 August 2, 2000 August 16, 2000 September 6, 2000 September 20, 2000 October 4, 2000 October 18, 2000 November 1 , 2000 November 15, 2000 December 6, 2000 December 20, 2000 January 3, 2001 January 17, 2001 January 31, 2001 February 7,2001 February 21, 2001 March 7, 2001 March 28, 2001 April 4, 2001 April 18, 2001 May 2, 2001 May 16, 2001 June 6, 2001 June 20, 2001 June 27, 2001 July 11, 2001 July 12, 2001 July 18, 2001 September 5, 2001 October 3, 2001 October 17, 2001 November 7,2001 November 28, 2001 December 5, 2001 Community Services Commission Aaendas (701-02) January 10, 2000 January 14, 2000 February 14, 2000 April 10, 2000 May 8, 2000 June 12, 2000 July 10, 2000 September 11, 2000 October 10, 2000 November 13, 2000 December 11, 2000 January 8, 2001 January 19, 2001 February 12, 2001 March 12,2001 April 9, 2001 May 14, 2001 June 11, 2001 July 9, 2001 August 13, 2001 September 10, 2001 October 8, 2001 November 5, 2001 December 10, 2001 Records Destruction'Memo - March 2005 Public Traffic Safetv Commission Aaendas (701-02) January 13, 2000 March 9, 2000 May 11, 2000 July 13, 2000 September 28, 2000 November 16, 2000 February 22, 2001 May 24, 2001 October 25, 2001 January 27,2000 March 23, 2000 May 25, 2000 July 27,2000 October 12, 2000 December 14, 2000 March 22, 2001 July 26, 2001 December 13, 2001 Director's Hearina Aaendas (701-02) January 27, 1997 February 27,1997 September 11, 1997 January 27,1998 February 26, 1998 April 30, 1998 May 28, 1998 June 25, 1998 September 10,1998 October 8, 1998 November 5, 1998 February 4, 1999 April 22, 1999 August 5, 1999 October 14, 1999 November 4, 1999 December 2, 1999 List of Demands (401-13) 2000-2001 February 6, 1997 March 6, 1997 October 9, 1997 February 12, 1997 March 19, 1998 May7,1998 June 11, 1998 August 20, 1998 September 17,1998 October 22, 1998 November 12, 1998 April 8, 1999 June 24, 1999 August 12, 1999 October 21, 1999 November 18, 1999 December 9, 1999 Daily Cash Receipts (402-02) - Duplicate Copies 2001-2002 Reauest for Records (703-01) 2001 RFP's/RFQ's (601-15) 1991-2000 Records Destruction Memo - March 2005 2 February 10, 2000 April 13, 2000 June 8, 2000 September 14, 2000 October 26, 2000 January 11, 2001 April 26, 2001 September 27, 2001 February 12, 1997 March 13, 1997 December 4, 1997 February 19, 1998 April 2, 1998 May 14,1998 June 18, 1998 August 27, 1998 October 1, 1998 October 29, 1998 November 19, 1998 April 15, 1999 July 29, 1999 August 19, 1999 October 28, 1999 November 24, 1999 December 23, 1999 City of Temecula List of Bid Files for Destruction (601-03) 1999 BID FILES 99-01 Pala Road Bridae - PW97-15 99-02 Rotarv Park Improvement Proiect - PW98-09 99-03 Maintenance Facilitv, Second Floor Remodel Project, Phase II 99-04 Traffic Signal Installation MargaritalPauba-PW98-13 MaraaritalPio Pico PW98-12 99-05 Project No. PW99-04 Street Sealina Proiect FY98-99 99-06 Maintenance Facilitv Tenant Improvements 99-07 Proiect No. PW98-18 Street Name Sign Replacement 99-08 Santa Gertrudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossina PW97-25CSD 99-09 PW98-99-35 Old Town Boardwalk Maintenance 99-10 Butterfield Staae Park Improvements (PW98-01 CSDl 99-11 1-15 Southbound Auxiliarv Lane at Rancho California Road (PW98-08\ 99-12 1-15 Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Winchester Road (PW98-07\ 99-13 Traffic Signal and Median Modification Rancho California Road at Town Center Drive (PW99-09) 99-14 FY98-99 Pavement Management System (PW99-07) 99-15 PW95-12 Rancho California Road, 115 Ramp Improvements(PW98-0B\ 99-16 PW99-02 Bike Lane Signing & Striping 99-17 Traffic Signal Controller Uparade Quote (PW99-13\ 99-18 Puiol Street Sidewalk Improvements (PW98-17) 99-19 Informal Bid-Margarita Road Interim Paving Southbound Lanes-Dartolo to De Portola Roads 99-20 First Street Extension (PW95-081 99-21 Margarita Communitv Park Liahtina & Fencina Proiect (PW99-20CSDl 99-22 Pavement Management System Winchester Rd. Pavement Rehabilitation (STIP Fundina) PW99-16 2000 BID FILES 2000-01 Pal a Road Bridae Improvements Environmental Mitiaation PW97-15 2000-02 Rancho California Soorts Park Tot Lot ADA Uparade PWOO-04CSD 2000-03 Calle Aragon Park Drainage Structures PW99-21 CSD 2000-04 Ynez Road I Maraarita Road Interim Improvements PWOO-06 Bid File Records Destruction - March 2005 2000-05 FY99-2000 - Slurrv Seal Proiect PWOO-13 2000-06 Pavement Manaoement System PWOO-14, Various Streets 2000-07 Rancho California Sports Park Parkina Lot Rehabilitation PWOO-05CSD 2000-08 Citywide P.C.C. Repair Proaram FYOO-01 Proiect No. PWOO-17 2000-09 Old Town Southside Parking Lot PW98-16 2000-1 0 Maintenance Facilitv Modifications Phase III Proiect No, PWOO-16 2000-11 Pala Road Bridae Median and Parkway ImDrovements PW97-15 2000-12 Pala Road Soundwall PW97-15SW 2000-13 Rancho California Sports Park Desiltation Proiect PWOO-01 CSD 2000-14 Rancho California Sports Park Field Liahtina PWOO-19CSD 2000-15 Quote #00-00-1214 - Santiaao & Ynez Roads Bid File Records Destruction - March 2005 2 City of Temecula List of Claims for Destruction (704-13) 90-01 Nicholas Harrison 90-02 David Cuevas 90-03 Mayra Cuevas 90-04 Jose Marquez 90-05 Paul Stuart 90-06 Colleen Farrell 90-07 Billy Bell, Sr. 90-08 Jeff Millikin 90-09 Brian Millikin 96-167 William Segovia 96-168 Bette Grove 96-169 Old Vail Partners 96-170 Greg & Lisa Gav 96-171 Richard & Sheila Baddon 96-172 Kirstie Blasco 96-173 Diana Blasco 96-174 Cody Clayton Miller 96-175 Madonna White 96-176 Rick Beazlev 96-177 Michael Gomez 96-178 Cornelius L. Braxton 96-179 Craig Corona 96-180 Gabrielle Finley 96-181 Tacv Lacibal & Mark Anthonv Jenninas 96-182 Kristine Ann Fitzpatrick 96-183 Heidi & Alan Darling 96-184 Mike & George Pesacreta, Marilyn Rutherford, Jean Smith Carolann Haves,Dianne Nichols and Estates of Josephine Pesacreta Records Storage - Claims Destruction March 2005 96-185 Lisa M. Petch c/o Keleher & Spata Anderson 96-186 Brian Wear 96-187 Ralph Radovich 96-188 Hydrascope Enaineerinq - Michael Machado 96-189 Bryan Barnes 96-190 Chad W. Power 96-191 Foods for Less Store #319 96-192 Yolanda Puerto Luna & Victoriana Puerto 96-193 Preston T. Gruwell, Edward John Varela & Danna Gass 96-194 Joseph Doherty 96-195 Miquel A. Aquilera 96-196 Joan B. Brutus 96-197 Todd C. Brandel 96-198 William Wolf 96-199 Brandon Butcher 96-200 Ben Esparza 96-201 Ronald Owens 97-202 Craig Heiserman & Ryan C. Heiserman 97-203 Marilvn C. Sawver 97-204 Jason M. Isham 97-205 No Claim Given 97-206 Danford Manning Green vs State of Calif 97-207 No Claim Given 97-208 Cooper & Vochelli 97-209 Katy Ann Burrow 97-210 Scott Leonhardt 97-211 Allan M. LeFore for Fully Persuaded Church 97-212 Robert B, Woods 97-213 Richard W. Barrera 97-214 Michael Estrada 97-215 Alpharetta R. Wiemer 97-216 Kathy E, Williams 97-217 William Kouvelis Records Storage - Claims Destruction March 2005 2 97-218 Craig, Stephanie & Wvatt Alder 97-219 Sharp Health Care Murrieta 97-220 Industrial Fire Sprinkler Co. Inc. 97-221 Jeff Wayne Clark, Tyler Ian Clark, Jeff Wavne Clark, Cambria Rose Clark 97-222 Hollv Wilson 97-223 Stanley B. Ford 97-224 Outdoor Media Group, Inc. 97-225 Ronald P. Benzango 97-226 Acceptance Insurance Companies (Julia Hansen) 97-227 Skvline Jechnical Construction Services, Inc, dba Skvtec 97-228 Stephanie Barnes 97-229 Aimee Veloop 97-230 Philip Starks 97-231 Timothy Harper 97-232 Henry Ramirez 97-233 Cory Rose (Minor) Michael Rose (Father) 97-234 Ruben Ramos 97-235 Kenneth Behnke 97-236 Julia Burns 97-237 Eileen Wesselink 97-238 Janet Kuehl Records Storage - Claims Destruction March 2005 3 ITEM 4 CITY DIR. CITY APPROVAL I r},,~,~ ATTORNEY: I"V'VV OF FINANCE ~ ~ MANAGER {" 7 J " CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Tim Thorson, Director of Information Systems DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Purchase of New Voicemail System RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Authorize the purchase of the Cisco Unity Messaging System from Nexus Integration Services for the total amount of$63, 135.97, including applicable sales tax. 2. Appropriate $63,135.97 from Information Systems Intemal Service Fund reserves to fund the purchase. DISCUSSION: Eight years ago, the City moved into the current City Hall Building and purchased the existing suite of voice communications systems. The current system supports over 300 employees and 6 remote sites. The City's growing reliance on the voice mail module is used on 35 different hotlines that provide a variety of different information on everything from current jobs to the condition of sports fields. The current system has redundant disc drives and voice messaging features that support system recovery and prevents failure of the voice mail system. However, due to the age of this system, the number of system failures increased and has resulted in the loss of recorded greetings and voice messages. If left in place, these conditions could result on an overall system failure. The recommended replacement for this system is the Cisco Unified Messaging System. Unified messaging is an IP-based solution that provides subscribers the ability to receive voice mail, and email messages in a single mailbox that may be accessed via the phone or from a desktop browser or email client. A user will have access to any message, any time, anywhere and on virtually any device. The Cisco Unity Messaging System is available on GSA Schedule Contract #GS-35F-4389. The competitively, quoted price is provided by an authorized GSA contractor. Under this agreement, it would be within the City's discretion to take advantage of the pricing on another governmental entity contract. The contract is made available for use by State of California agencies and any city, county or local governmental agency empowered to expend public funds. Therefore, this purchase would be exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Staffs research has detemnined that the GSA price is the most competitive. Also, it has been determined that the GSA program is consistent with the City's procurement policies and regulations and that it is used by many cities as an industry standard. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are appropriated from available reserve funds in the 2004-05 Fiscal Year Information Services Operating Budget. Attachments: Purchase Agreement Terms and Conditions N E ~~.~o~r~~. PRODUCT & SERVICE PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Product & Service Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") is by and between Nexus IS, a Delaware corporation located at 27202 West Tumberry Lane, Valencia CA 91355 (herein after referred to as "Nexus IS"), and Cltv of Temet:ula. (herein after referred to as "Client"), This Agreement covers Products and Services for use only in the United States in the ordinary course of Client's business, and not fOT the purpose of res ate by Client. The parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement will govern the Client's purchase and/or license of equipment, software, and associated wire and cable, ("Products") and installation, maintenance and other related services ("Services") described in this Agreement No other terms and conditions will apply to Client's Order, nor control over this Agreement. If Client submits its Order on Client's own Purchase Order form ("PO"), then the terms and conditions on Client's PO are expressly excluded. If applicable, this Agreement also consists of one or more of the following documents: t81 Schedule A - Schedule of Materials and Services o Schedule M - Maintenance Services Offerings Summary 181 Scbedule C - Statement of Work o Installation Services, 0 Professional Services o Exhibit C - Manufacturer's Software License Agreement(s) o Scbedule E - Agency Agreement 1. CONTRACT PERIOD A. This Agreement is subject to the final approval of an officer of Nexus IS of Purchaser's credit worthiness at Nexus IS' sole discretion. This includes any purchase order from a financial institution on Purchaser's behalf Delays caused by Purchaser's credit may impact the System Installation Date. Purchaser grants Nexus IS a continuing security interest in the SYSTEM until all payments are made to Nexus IS. Invoices which are not paid when due will be subject to a service charge of 1.5% per month or the maximum rate allowed by law until the due payment is received by Nexus IS. B. This Agreement shall be effective from the date of execution by authorized representatives of both parties and shall remain in effect until tenninated as set forth in this Agreement. C. If Client orders Maintenance Service; it will commence as set forth on the applicable Order Summary Form or in the Services Offerings Summary for the tenn stated on the Order Summary Fonn. Upon expiration of the initial tenn, Maintenance shall automatically renew for successive one year terms at the monthly charges and under the terms and conditions in effect at the time of renewal unless either party gives the other written notice of its intent not to renew some or all Maintenance at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial or any renewal term. 2. PAYMENT TERMS As shown in the Schedule A referenced above and attached hereto, the total contract amount is: $63.135.97. This amount shall be due and payable as Progress Payments as defined below:: a) $ 31.567.99.50% upon DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT. b) $ 25.254.39. 40% upon SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION I IN-SERVICE DATE (whereas the system has been placed in Substantial Operation, and Use by the Purchaser, OR Delivery of, or Availability for Delivery of the Equipment in the event Purchaser delays Implementation). c) $ 6.313.59. 10% upon Completion and acceptance of the system implementation. If this Agreement is funded by a Leaseffenn Payment Plan, Purchaser shall execute the necessary documentation to cause the funding financial institution to pay Nexus IS the progress payments as described above. 3. ORDERS A. Nexus IS' acceptance of Client's Order is subject to credit approval and to Client's remittance of the initial payment as set forth on the Order Summary Form andlorthe Scope of Work. B. Change initiated and/or approved by the Purchaser, including materials, installation labor hours, and installation milestone dates, will result in Change Orders that will be charged/credited as quoted or at Nexus IS' Prevailing Rates. C. When applicable, the parties will mutually agree upon a Scope of Work that describes the responsibilities of each party with respect to installation or other Services to be provided. The Scope of Work shall be made part of the applicable Order when signed by both parties. Client's failure to perfonn its responsibilities on the dates specified in the Scope of Work may result in a delay of the Order, or may result in an increase in the prices stated on the applicable Order Summary Form or Scope of Work. D. Change initiated and/or approved by the Purchaser, including materials, installation labor hours, and installation milestone dates, will result in Change Orders that will be charged/credited as quoted or at Nexus IS' Prevailing Rates. 4. MAINTENANCE SERVICES A. Maintenance Services include all labor and replacement parts and/or Products required by Nexus IS to provide remedial repair of Products covered by an Order for post-warranty maintenance Service ("Maintenance 5o",ice"). PARTS AND PRODUCTS REPLACED UNDER MAINTENANCE SERVICE MAYBE NEW, REMANUFACTURED OR REFURBISHED. Any replaced parts and/or Products will become the property of Nexus IS. B. Maintenance Service coverage will be in accordance with the option(s) described in Service Offerings Summary (Schedule M). C. Any additions made by Client to Products installed at the Client's location, or any additions electronically identified pursuant to Section 3D above shall be automatically Rev 060104tl added to Maintenance Service coverage for the remainder of the tenn of the Maintenance Service coverage. 5. WARRANTIES AND EXCLUSIONS A. Except as provided in 5.C below, Nexus IS warrants that during the warranty period the Products will operate in accordance with the Specifications in all material respects. The warranty period shall be specified on the Order Summary and shaB begin on the In-Service Date for Products installed by Nexus IS and on the Delivery Date for all other Products. B. Nexus IS, at Purchaser's request, will provide warranty repairs to the System at no additional charge during Nexus IS' normal working hours, excluding recognized holidays. Nexus IS nonnal working hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Labor associated with all service calls requested by the Purchaser outside normal working hours will be billed at overtime rates, 3 hours minimum. C. Except as warranted in 5.A above, Nexus IS warrants that Services will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and any applicable industry standards and government regulations. If Nexus IS fails to perform the Services as warranted, and Client reports such failure within thirty (30) clays of the perfonnance of the Service, Nexus IS will re-perform such Services. D. For Products receiving warranty and Maintenance Service directly from the manufacturer, Nexus IS will supply Client with the contact infonnation for registration and service requests during the warranty period. If a Product does not operate in accordance with the manufacturer's warranty during the manufacturer's warranty period, Client will call the manufacturer's Technical Assistance Center and the manufacturer will perform all required warranty work in accordance with the tenns of its warranty. NEXUS IS' OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT TO ITS WARRANTIES AND CLIENT'S SOLE REMEDY IS LIMITED TO THE REMEDIES STATED IN THIS SECTION 5. CLIENT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT EXCEPT FOR THE FOREGOING, NO OTHER WARRANTIES, WRITTEN OR ORAL, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE APPLY. NEXUS IS' OBLIGATION UNDER THE WARRANTY, IF ANY, AND THE CLIENT'S SOLE REMEDY, IS CONTINGENT UPON NEXUS IS RECEIVING WRITIEN NOTICE FROM CLIENT OF ANY DEFECT WITHIN THE WARRANTY PERIOD. E. The Nexus IS warranties provided in this Section 5 are limited to the normal and usual use and operation of the Products by Client in accordance with the manufacturer's standard operating instructions. Nexus IS' warranties and Maintenance Services do not cover and specifically exclude all claims resulting from the following: (1) abuse or misuse of Products; (2) Client's failure to follow the manufacturer's installation, operation or maintenance instructions; (3) environmental and force majeure conditions listed in Section 14; (4) failure of network carriers or transmission errors experienced over Internet or other facilities; (5) attachment of equipment to Products unless approved by the manufacturer and then only if through standard interfaces; or (6) actions of non-Nexus IS personnel including, without limitation loading of software onto Products or any other modification to Products except as approved in writing by Nexus IS. F. Nexus IS does not warrant uninterrupted or error free operation of the Products. In addition, although Products are designed to be reasonably secure, Nexus IS makes no express or implied warranty that Products are immune from or prevent fraudulent intrusion, unauthorized use or disclosure or loss of proprietary information. Certain features if purchased, and when enabled, could be improperly used in violation of privacy laws. By ordering Products with these features or separately ordering such features, Client assumes all responsibility for assuring their proper and lawful use. G. Nexus IS shall have no liability for the delay in or failure to perform any Services to the extent that such failure or delay results from the following: (I) delay by Client, any agent or representative of Client; (2) Client's failure to provide adequate environmental conditions, proper make ready or access to the location where the work is to be perfonned, including without limitation remote access to Products, entrance to buildings, rooms, or sites; network facilities, or any information or other resources which may be set forth in a Scope of Work for installation Services; (3) Client's failure to make payments when they are due; (4) Force majeure conditions as set forth in Section 14. H. The decision to acquire or use hardware, software (in any fonn), networks, supplies, facilities or services from parties other than Nexus IS ("Third Party Products") is Client's, even if Nexus IS helps Client identify, evaluate or select them. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO IN WRITING, NEXUS IS IS NOT RESPONSffiLE FOR, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR, PERFORMANCE OR QUALITY OF THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS OR THEIR SUPPLIERS, AND THEIR FAILURE TO MEET CLIENT'S EXPECTATIONS WILL NOT AFFECT CLIENT'S OBLIGATIONS TO NEXUS IS. 6. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. In addition to Client's responsibilities set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, Client is responsible for notifying Nexus IS of the presence of any hazardous material (e.g., asbestos) on Client's premises prior to the commencement of any Services and during the term of this Agreement. Client is also responsible for removal of any such hazardous material or correction of any other hazardous condition that affects Nexus IS' performance of Services. Services will be delayed without any penalty to Nexus IS until Client removes or corrects any hazardous condition. Client also agrees to notify Nexus IS prior to moving a Product under warranty or Maintenance Page 1 of2 N E i~.~.~r~~' PRODUCT & SERVICE PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Services. Additional charges may apply if Nexus IS incurs additional costs in providing Maintenance Services as a result of a move of a Product. B. If the Product supports Telephony over Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (Tep/IP) facilities; Client may experience certain compromises in performance. reliability and security, even when the Product performs as warranted. These compromises may become more acute if Purchaser fails to follow Nexus IS' recommendations for configuration, operation and use of the Product. CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS AWARE OF THESE RISKS AND THAT IT HAS DETERMINED THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR ITS APPLICATION OF THE PRODUCT. C. CLIENT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN ANOTHER AGREEMENT, CLIENT IS SOLELY RESPONSffiLE FOR (1) ENSURING THAT ITS NETWORKS AND SYSTEMS ARE ADEQUATELY SECURED AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED INTRUSION, AND (2) BACKING UP ITS DATA AND FILES. 7. PRICE AND PAYMENT A. Client agrees to make the initial payment for Products and Services indicated on the Order Summary Fonn. Nexus IS will invoice Client for the balance, adjusted to reflect all advance payments and any Change Orders, on the Delivery Date or the In-Service Date, whichever is applicable. Client agrees to pay invoices upon receipt. Any invoices not paid within thirty (30) days after the date on the invoice are subject to a late payment fee of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month or portion thereof, or the maximum amount allowed by law, whichever is lower, on the unpaid balance. Restrictive endorsements or other statements on checks will not apply. B. Client agrees to reimburse Nexus IS' attorneys' fees and related costs associated with collecting delinquent payments. Late fees or attorneys fees shall not apply to balances in dispute resolved in the Client's favor. C. Unless Client provides Nexus IS with a tax exemption certificate, Client is solely responsible for paying all legally required taxes, including without limitation any sales, excise or other taxes and fees which may be levied upon the sale, transfer of ownership, license, installation or use of the Products, except for any income tax assessed upon Nexus IS. Client will pay all shipping, handling, rigging and other destination charges relating to the shipment and delivery ofthe Products to the location specified on the applicable Order. 8. TITLElRISK OF LOSS Risk of loss for Products shall pass to Client on the Delivery Date. Title to Nexus IS-installed hardware will pass to Client on the In-Service Date. Title to all other hardware will pass to Client on the Delivery Date. Title to software will remain solely with Nexus IS and its licensors. 9. SECURITY INTEREST In the event that title shall be deemed to have passed, Nexus IS reserves the right to file a security interest in the Products until the purchase price and any installation charges are paid in full. Ifrequired, Client hereby appoints Nexus IS as its agent to sign and file a financing statement to perfect Nexus IS security interest. 10. SOFTWARE LICENSE Client shall receive the right to use software provided under this Agreement pursuant to the Software License Agreement in Schedule 0 or to any shrink-wrapped licenses. II. EXCLUS[VE REMEDIES AND LIMITATIONS OF LlAB[LlTY A. THIS WARRANTY IS EXPRESSLY MADE TO EXCLUDE ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE AND PURPOSE AND ANY OTHER W ARRANTLES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. NEXUS [S AND PURCHASER AGREE THAT PURCHASER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH OF ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR SOFTWARE AT NEXUS [S EXPENSE. THE LIABILITY OF NEXUS [S FOR CLAIMS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIMITED TO THOSE SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NOR SHALL NEXUS [S BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOSS OF PROFITS OR LOSS OF USE. IN NO EVENT SHALL NEXUS IS BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE Each of the parties has caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date written below its signature. CltyorTemenla (Authorized Signature) JeffComerchero (Printed Name) Mayor (Title) (Date) Rev 060104t1 PURCHASE PRICE OF THE DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT OR PART THEREOF. NEXUS [S LIABILITY SHALL CEASE AND TERMINATE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES EXCEPT AS SET FORTH ABOVE. 12. FORCE MAJEURE Nexus IS shall have no liability for delays, failure in performance, or damages due to: fire, explosion, power failures, pest damage, lightning or power surges (except as provided in 5.B), strikes, or labor disputes, water, acts of God, the elements, war, civil disturbances, acts of civil or military authorities or the public enemy, manufacturer caused equipment or part shortages, transportation facilities, fuel or energy shortages, performance or availability of communications services or network facilities, unauthorized use of the Products, or other causes beyond Nexus IS' control whether or not similar to the foregoing. 13. ASSIGNMENT Neither Client nor Nexus IS may assign all or part of this Agreement without the express written consent of the other. This consent may not be unreasonably withheld Nexus IS may, however, assign this Agreement without Client's consent to a present or future parent, related companies, subsidiary, affiliate, or successor, and Nexus IS may also assign Nexus IS' right to receive payment under this Agreement. Client acknowledges that Nexus IS' consent to any assignment by Client does not waive assignee's obligation to pay any applicable license fees for associated software. 14. SUBCONTRACTING Nexus IS may subcontract all or part of the Services to be performed under this Agreement, but will retain responsibility for the work to the extent of the warranties provided in Section 5. 15. NON-SOLICIT A TIQN - Neither party shall solicit for employment any personnel of the other party who has performed work for or received Services from the other party under this Agreement during or within twelve (12) months of the performance of such Services. 16. GENERAL A. Any supplement, modification or waiver of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of both Client and Nexus IS. B. If either Client or Nexus IS fails to enforce any particular right or remedy available under this Agreement, that failure will not be considered to be a waiver of any other right or remedy available under this Agreement. C. All notices and other communications pertaining to this Agreement must be in writing, and will be considered to have been given on the date of receipt if personally delivered with a signed receipt, bye-mail or facsimile with written confirmation of receipt, or on the fifth business day after mailing if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or on the next business day if sent by a reputable overnight carrier, charges prepaid, at the addresses identified in the Scope of Work. D. This Agreement and the party's obligations shall comply with all applicable federa~ state, and local1aws, rules, regulations, coun orders, and governmental or regulatory agency orders. E. THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES AND ATIACHED HERETO OR REFERENCING THIS AGREEMENT, IS THE PRODUCT OF BOTH OF THE PARTIES HERETO, AND CONSTITIJTES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUCH PARTIES PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT MATIER HEREOF, AND MERGES ALL PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS AND DRAFTS OF THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREIN. ANY AND ALL OTHER WRlTIEN OR ORAL AGREEMENTS EXISTING BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO REGARDING SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE EXPRESSLY CANCELED. F. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed, shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. NEXUS IS: (Authorized Signature) (Printed Name) (Title) (Date) Page 2 of2 E ~ ~ "'I!) 2'0\ 1;1 '5.~ ::i col'Q:"l:t' E '"5 ~ Ll. cu u ~ Lt\ .w QJ <. fW\ .... ~ ::."d., cu" ~..... r.: d!~'-~ ::i ....:5.!! E c"-6 ~ ,",v", Ii O~~ ~~ :::0 ... '" "5 '" ... . ... < t1)~ ;:)~ ~~~ W Z 8 'C .. j;( ::J gggg g..-i""..-i .,.,2::&::::! ...; .,..; M ~ o ~ 8 ~ is '$."$.'$.'$. l">lNNN ..................M 8 'C .. ~ 'c :::> Ot:g;::RJ t"i"";OIrl "'<")0\00 ~_o ~ -.E 8 'C .. 'll " o ~ .. "<t1O....0- 0'1 Ct--N \"i,.)o.,..; ""......0'100 ~ _0 ~ <:t'" 0....\"'-10..,.<:<10\ 0000""""""0 a;.nN~r-:oO'Ci ~~S;8.S.0\~ ~ -- 0'<1"......\0..,.000- OOf'-"""''<:tO o..:o<rioeC--:cxi..o "''<1"00000\'"'1 "'."'......0._. 0- ." -............. ~ '" '" '" ::; W ~ !:< "' W ~ ~ g; ~ g i:i _ ~ ~!;;;:~ N " s: '" il ~ l:: __ c:l 0..:::: 00 "s ~ ~~:I: '9 8 u .~.t~:2~ a .s ~ O1'=p::l...H'::: N ] u<5~::;;:i~ g "5 sl-~~-o:: ...... ~ .. ~!(._ 0","'::;:> .9 ~__2:?:;..Jr.n~>5<><o:;l -~ 'O:g t::Vl><OM~WO::....!._~ Zoo-IIl.....CI. ....JQu...:> .';; U..... Q., ""'" Q O:l VI CL. 9;;> ] '5i:1~~2!t:z~~o::co<8 ..c:: '5i ~~ ~ t 0:1 ; 9, c:l " ~ ~ 0", o "- l:: .... ..... .. ;;; "0 ""'" <( :J .... N U.l "'E eoUl -.. 8 - "I:: j;, >< t:l ..J 8 .... O:l >- ~ Jl .!: .!"- ~ ~ ~ 0"" 1..:) Q., N 8l ::: 0:: c u ">0....... I. ~Q.,'7"1'~UJ 'i! ..."- ...... !'il <E 110>0 -<,..J N \0 U.l Vl Z ;30{l.,g",_t:: ...ooo..ou.....E-<g Q s::: uVl::lU....., """"'0 N CI......._ o~ ~~s...OCl..~.~~~N......--a~ ..... '-'..... CllOO....:::I ..........;:Jo:l UN al ~Vl ~MO;:J o::r=E-<;:J~t:l rFJVl CI. U.l S "':i""':!-< e "'z~o-<'<t~ ~ .ii8~>~~~1~2;~~gQ ~€EEEEE~~~..~6~~~<~z O~55555~o~=~~~~~B~ ~ -------- -'<tN---- "' "' ~ ~:d~t;lt;lVJ.,.-H- _~x<ffiffi5~~S2 a:lOchch::~q~go 1;2 0;>::'il~";'C,(~~ <C!::~~>>$:>>> .. ~~~~~~~~ VlO\NVlO\Ol""l Ml""lr"-Vl_OO_ r"-'<t'<tr"-Or"-M VlO\O\ VlVlVl_ 00\0\ 0.... 0 l""l UlOOOOUlr"-Ul'<t ~~ WM "";-0 ~- '<t.'<t. "'''' D "- .. " 0 .~ ~ :5~ t; ~ _ c o. ~ ~ o~ 0", ,!; 0 Cl ~ ~8 x'" ><~ W "'j;' Ii!:> ~;~ c::E.. ...~~ ~;::;:: :E~~ VJlG i3 Q -g-g .~u u u.= .= ~ . . -=~~ -5~5 .s u u ~.~ .~ .~ ~ ~ t~~ VJ ~ ~ c>> er;)r;) ng fa~~ . . . , c , . " , . u U zzz ~'7 ~:E ...~ ~~ Q~ ~:;; , " ~~ 'i' 0 "-~ X' "'~ .. ~-NM'<tVl~r"-OOO\S=~~~~~~~~~N~ :l ,,~'" ~~- o'o'aci ~O\~ OW~ ,,~~ "";""';-0 "'''''' W"~ ":<<iM" 8 8 c c :::.00.00 a:l=JiJi .~ ~ >. >. t 4.> ~ ~ ~-:!! 1o..~..2..2 j.5'o~~ :!Jie:e: O":'<t -;;r;N ~t~ <:zz z"'"' OJ>> f;;VJVJ r"-OO 0'1 0 ___N ~~"'M ""0 va. .~ ~~ a)....,....N ~<<J~ roo; ~ -~ !~ .. ~~o~ u'~:g~ o'EaI i~ ~_:c..: Ulftl._ c ~c .... ,,"".2"'.... EC=.5~ e-~o! t= ::111I0-- "'!u:ili.:! ~ M .... .. iii '" .. ",' .. ~ i ~ ~ J " o ~ .: o .. .!! o o '" .!! ~ .5 ;;; 'C B ~ c ~ ~ " ~ 'll .5 8 'C .. ~ ~ iii g~ NO g-i .c" li~ :::E:; _0 ~.;; ~ ~ ,,~ ;;;c ~~ .!!l\lI B' gfa "'~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ E~ ~~ ~~ -~ ~ .a ~ o .. Vi 'il ~ i .. o 'll ;f .. o ... o o " .. IE ~ ~ @ '" " o " C ~ il o ;;: S ~ ~ ~ .l.! ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii: II " ~ .. ~ o ~ IE ~ ~ @ '" " o " o ~ a J ~ ~ e ~ ,; E z ., I > - ~ . ~ . , ~ N o , > " ~ .. . , ~ .. " N E !;.~.~r~~. PRODUCT & SERVICE PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Product & Service Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") is by and between Nexus IS, a Delaware corporation located at 27202 West Turnberry Lane, Valencia CA 91355 (herein after referred to as "Nexus IS"), and Citv of Temec:ula (herein after referred to as "Client"), This Agreement covers Products and Services for use only in the United States in the ordinary course of Client's business, and not for the pwpose of resale by Client. The parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement will govern the Client's purchase and/or license of equipment, software, and associated wire and cable. ("Products") and installation. maintenance and other related services ("Services") described in this Agreement No other tenns and conditions will apply to Client's Order, nor control over this Agreement. If Client submits its Order on Client's own Purchase Order form ("PO"), then the terms and conditions on Client's PO are expressly excluded. If applicable, this Agreement also consists of one or more of the following documents: 181 Scbedule A - Schedule of Materials and Services o Scbedule M - Maintenance Services Offerings Summary 181 Scbedule C - Statement of Work o Installation Services, 0 Professional Services o Exhibit C - Manufacturer's Software License Agreement(s) o Scbedule E - Agency Agreement 1. CONTRACT PERIOD A. This Agreement is subject to the final approval of an officer of Nexus IS of Purchaser's credit worthiness at Nexus IS' sole discretion. This includes any purchase order from a financial institution on Purchaser's behalf. Delays caused by Purchaser's credit may impact the System Installation Date. Purchaser grants Nexus IS a continuing security interest in the SYSTEM until all payments are made to Nexus IS. Invoices which are not paid when due will be subject to a service charge of 1.5% per month or the maximum rate allowed by law until the due payment is received by Nexus IS. B. This Agreement shall be effective from the date of execution by authorized representatives of both parties and shall remain in effect until terminated as set forth in this Agreement. C. If Client orders Maintenance Service; it will commence as set forth on the applicable Order Summary Form or in the Services Offerings Summary for the term stated on the Order Summary Form. Upon expiration of the initial term, Maintenance shall automatically renew for successive one year terms at the monthly charges and under the terms and conditions in effect at the time of renewal unless either party gives the other written notice of its intent not to renew some or a\l Maintenance at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial or any renewal term. 2. PAYMENT TERMS As shown in the Schedule A referenced above and attached hereto, the total contract amount is: $63.135.97. This amount shall be due and payable as Progress Payments as defined below:: a) $ 31.567.99.50% upon DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT. b) $ 25.254.39. 40% upon SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION I IN-SERVICE DATE (whereas the system has been placed in Substantial Operation, and Use by the Purchaser, OR Delivery of, or Availability for Delivery of the Equipment in the event Purchaser delays Implementation). c) $ 6.313,59.10% upon Completion and acceptance of the system implementation. If this Agreement is funded by a Leasefferm Payment Plan, Purchaser shall execute the necessary documentation to cause the funding financial institution to pay Nexus IS the progress payments as descnbed above. 3. ORDERS A. Nexus IS' acceptance of Client's Order is subject to credit approval and to Client's remittance of the initial payment as set forth on the Order Summary Form andlorthe Scope of Work. B. Change initiated andlor approved by the Purchaser, including materials, installation labor hours, and installation milestone dates, will result in Change Orders that will be charged/credited as quoted or at Nexus IS' Prevailing Rates. C. When applicable, the parties will mutually agree upon a Scope of Work that describes the responsibilities of each party with respect to installation or other Services to be provided. The Scope of Work shall be made part of the applicable Order when signed by both parties. Client's failure to perform its responsibilities on the dates specified in the Scope of Work may result in a delay of the Order, or may result in an increase in the prices stated on the applicable Order Summary Form or Scope of Work. D. Change initiated and/or approved by the Purchaser, including materials, installation labor hours, and installation milestone dates, will result in Change Orders that will be charged/credited as quoted or at Nexus IS' Prevailing Rates. 4. MAINTENANCE SERVICES A. Maintenance Services include all labor and replacement parts and/or Products required by Nexus IS to provide remedial repair of Products covered by an Order for post-warranty maintenance Service ("Maintenance Service"). PARTS AND PRODUCTS REPLACED UNDER MAINTENANCE SERVICE MAYBE NEW, REMANUFACTURED OR REFURBISHED. Any replaced parts and/or Products will become the property of Nexus IS. B. Maintenance Service coverage will be in accordance with the option(s) described in Service Offerings Summary (Schedule M). C. Any additions made by Client to Products installed at the Client's location, or any additions electronically identified pursuant to Section 3D above shall be automatically Rev 060104tl added to Maintenance Service coverage for the remainder of the term of the Maintenance Service coverage. 5. WARRANTIES AND EXCLUSIONS A. Except as provided in 5.C below, Nexus IS warrants that during the warranty period the Products will operate in accordance with the Specifications in all material respects. The warranty period shall be specified on the Order Summary and shall begin on the In-Service Date for Products installed by Nexus IS and on the Delivery Date for all other Products. B. Nexus IS. at Purchaser's request, will provide warranty repairs to the System at no additional charge during Nexus IS' normal working hours, excluding recognized holidays. Nexus IS normal working hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Labor associated with all service calls requested by the Purchaser outside normal working hours will be billed at overtime rates, 3 hours minimum. C. Except as warranted in 5.A above, Nexus IS warrants that Services will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and any applicable industry standards and government regulations. If Nexus IS fails to perform the Services as warranted, and Client reports such failure within thirty (30) days of the performance of the Service, Nexus IS will re-perform such Services. D. For Products receiving warranty and Maintenance Service directly from the manufacturer, Nexus IS will supply Client with the contact information for registration and service requests during the warranty period. If a Product does not operate in accordance with the manufacturer's warranty during the manufacturer's warranty period, Client will call the manufacturer's Technical Assistance Center and the manufacturer will perform all required warranty work in accordance with the terms of its warranty. NEXUS IS' OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT TO ITS WARRANTIES AND CLIENT'S SOLE REMEDY IS LIMITED TO THE REMEDIES STATED IN THIS SECTION 5. CLIENT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT EXCEPT FOR THE FOREGOING, NO OTHER WARRANTIES, WRITTEN OR ORAL, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE APPLY. NEXUS IS' OBLIGATION UNDER THE WARRANTY, IF ANY, AND THE CLIENT'S SOLE REMEDY, IS CONTINGENT UPON NEXUS IS RECENING WRITTEN NOTICE FROM CLIENT OF ANY DEFECT WITHIN THE WARRANTY PERIOD. E. The Nexus IS warranties provided in this Section 5 are limited to the normal and usual use and operation of the Products by Client in accordance with the manufacturer's standard operating instructions. Nexus IS' warranties and Maintenance Services do not cover and specifically exclude all claims resulting from the following: (I) abuse or misuse of Products; (2) Client's failure to follow the manufacturer's installation, operation or maintenance instructions; (3) environmental and force majeure conditions listed in Section 14; (4) failure of network carriers or transmission errors experienced over Internet or other facilities; (5) attachment of equipment to Products unless approved by the manufacturer and then only if through standard interfaces; or (6) actions of non-Nexus IS personnel including, without limitation loading of software onto Products or any other modification to Products except as approved in writing by Nexus IS. F. Nexus IS does not warrant uninterrupted or error free operation of the Products. In addition, although Products are designed to be reasonably secure, Nexus IS makes no express or implied warranty that Products are immune from or prevent fraudulent intrusion, unauthorized use or disclosure or loss of proprietary information. Certain features if purchased, and when enabled, could be improperly used in violation of privacy laws. By ordering Products with these features or separately ordering such features, Client assumes all responsibility for assuring their proper and lawful use. G. Nexus IS shall have no liability for the delay in or failure to perform any Services to the extent that such failure or delay results from the following: (I) delay by Client, any agent or representative of Client; (2) Client's failure to provide adequate environmental conditions, proper make ready or access to the location where the work is to be performed, including without limitation remote access to Products, entrance to buildings, rooms, or sites; network facilities, or any information or other resources which may be set forth in a Scope of Work for installation Services; (3) Client's failure to make payments when they are due; (4) Force majeure conditions as set forth in Section 14. H. The decision to acquire or use hardware, software (in any form), networks, supplies, facilities or services from parties other than Nexus IS ("Third Party Products") is Client's, even if Nexus IS helps Client identify, evaluate or select them. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO IN WRITING, NEXUS IS IS NOT RESPONSffiLE FOR, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR, PERFORMANCE OR QUALITY OF THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS OR THEIR SUPPLIERS, AND THEIR FAILURE TO MEET CLIENT'S EXPECTATIONS WILL NOT AFFECT CLIENT'S OBLIGATIONS TO NEXUS IS. 6. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. In addition to Client's responsibilities set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, Client is responsible for notifying Nexus IS of the presence of any hazardous material (e.g., asbestos) on Client's premises prior to the commencement of any Services and during the term of this Agreement. Client is also responsible for removal of any such hazardous material or correction of any other hazardous condition that affects Nexus IS' performance of Services. Services will be delayed without any penalty to Nexus IS until Client removes or corrects any hazardous condition. Client also agrees to notify Nexus IS prior to moving a Product under warranty or Maintenance Pagelof2 N E ,;.~o~,~~.. PRODUCT & SERVICE PURCHASE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Services. Additional charges may apply if Nex.us IS incurs additional costs in providing Maintenance Services as a result of a move of a Product. B. If the Product supports Telephony over Transmission Control ProtocoVIntemet Protocol (TCPIIP) facilities; Client may experience certain compromises in performance, reliability and security, even when the Product performs as warranted These compromises may become more acute if Purchaser fails to follow Nexus IS' recommendations for configuration, operation and use of the Product. CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS AWARE OF THESE RISKS AND THAT IT HAS DETERMINED THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR ITS APPLICATION OF THE PRODUCT. C. CLIENT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN ANOTHER AGREEMENT, CLIENT IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR (I) ENSURING THAT ITS NETWORKS AND SYSTEMS ARE ADEQUATELY SECURED AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED INTRUSION, AND (2) BACKING UP ITS DATA AND FILES. 7. PRICE AND PAYMENT A. Client agrees to make the initial payment for Products and Services indicated on the Order Swnmary Form. Nexus IS will invoice Client for the balance, adjusted to refle<:t all advance payments and any Change Orders, on the Delivery Date or the In~Service Date, whichever is applicable. Client agrees to pay invoices upon receipt. Any invoices not paid within thirty (30) days after the date on the invoice are subject to a late payment fee of one and one~half percent (l ~ 1/2%) per month or portion thereof, or the maximum amount allowed by law, whichever is lower, on the unpaid balance. Restrictive endorsements or other statements on checks will not apply. B. Client agrees to reimburse Nexus IS' attorneys' fees and related costs associated with collecting delinquent payments. Late fees or attorneys fees shall not apply to balances in dispute resolved in the Client's favor. C. Unless Client provides Nexus IS with a tax exemption certificate, Client is solely responsible for paying all legally required taxes, including without limitation any sales, excise or other taxes and fees which may be levied upon the sale, transfer of ownership, license, installation or use of the Products, except for any income tax assessed upon Nexus IS. Client will pay all shipping, handling, rigging and other destination charges relating to the shipment and delivery of the Products to the location specified on the applicable Order. 8. TITLElRISK OF LOSS Risk of loss for Products shall pass to Client on the Delivery Date. Title to Nexus IS~installed hardware will pass to Client on the In~Service Date. Title to all other hardware will pass to Client on the Delivery Date. Title to software will remain solely with Nexus IS and its licensors. 9. SECURITY INTEREST In the event that title shall be deemed to have passed, Nexus IS reserves the right to file a security interest in the Products until the purchase price and any installation charges are paid in full. If required, Client hereby appoints Nexus IS as its agent to sign and file a financing statement to perfect Nexus IS security interest. 10. SOFTWARE LICENSE Client shall receive the right to use software provided under this Agreement pursuant to the Software License Agreement in Schedule D or to any shrink-wrapped licenses. 11. EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY A. THIS WARRANTY IS EXPRESSLY MADE TO EXCLUDE ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE AND PURPOSE AND ANY OTHER WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. NEXUS IS AND PURCHASER AGREE THAT PURCHASER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH OF ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR SOFTWARE AT NEXUS IS EXPENSE. THE LIABILITY OF NEXUS IS FOR CLAIMS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIMITED TO THOSE SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NOR SHALL NEXUS IS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOSS OF PROFITS OR LOSS OF USE. IN NO EVENT SHALL NEXUS IS BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE Each of the parties has caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date written below its signature. City of Teme<:ula NEXUS IS: (Authorized Signature) (Authorized Signature) Jeff Comerebero (Printed Name) (Printed Name) Mayor (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) Rev 060104t1 Page20f2 PURCHASE PRICE OF THE DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT OR PART THEREOF. NEXUS IS LIABILITY SHALL CEASE AND TERMINATE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES EXCEPT AS SET FORTH ABOVE. 12. FORCE MAJEURE Nexus IS shall have no liability for delays, failure in perfonnance, or damages due to: fire, explosion, power failures, pest damage, lightning or power surges (except as provided in 5.B), strikes, or labor disputes, water, acts of God, the elements, war, civil disturbances, acts of civil or military authorities or the public enemy, manufacturer caused equipment or part shortages, transportation facilities, fuel or energy shortages, perfonnance or availability of communications services or network facilities, unauthorized use of the Products, or other causes beyond Nexus IS' control whether or not similar to the foregoing. 13. ASSIGNMENT Neither Client nor Nexus IS may assign all or part of this Agreement without the express written consent of the other. This consent may not be unreasonably withheld. Nexus IS may, however, assign this Agreement without Client's consent to a present or future parent, related companies, subsidiary, affiliate, or successor, and Nexus IS may also assign Nexus IS' right to receive payment under this Agreement. Client acknowledges that Nexus IS' consent to any assignment by Client does not waive assignee's obligation to pay any applicable license fees for associated software. 14. SUBCONTRACTING Nexus IS may subcontract all or part of the Services to be perfonned under this Agreement, but will retain responsibility for the work to the extent of the warranties provided in Section 5. 15. NON-SOLICIT ATION - Neither party shall solicit for employment any personnel of the other party who has performed work for or received Services from the other party under this Agreement during or within twelve (12) months of the perfonnance of such Services. 16. GENERAL A. Any supplement, modification or waiver of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of both Client and Nexus IS. B. If either Client or Nexus IS fails to enforce any particular right or remedy available under this Agreement, that failure will not be considered to be a waiver of any other right or remedy available under this Agreement. C. All notices and other communications pertaining to this Agreement must be in writing, and will be considered to have been given on the date of receipt if personally delivered with a signed receipt, by e~mail or facsimile with written confinnation of receipt, or on the fifth business day after mailing if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or on the next business day if sent by a reputable overnight carrier, charges prepaid, at the addresses identified in the Scope of Work. D. This Agreement and the party's obligations shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, court orders, and governmental or regulatory agency orders. E. THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES AND ATIACHED HERETO OR REFERENCING THIS AGREEMENT, IS THE PRODUCT OF BOTH OF THE PARTIES HERETO, AND CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUCH PARTIES PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF, AND MERGES ALL PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS AND DRAFTS OF THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREIN. ANY AND ALL OTHER WRITIEN OR ORAL AGREEMENTS EXISTING BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO REGARDING SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE EXPRESSLY CANCELED. F. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed, shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. E 1!l ~ "'~ g-", tl '_ co "'''' ::i .!!! ..... E a ~LL ...... B .. ~... :...E ~~ .5.e~ t:: .. It..~~ E 00" ! ""v.. oW .V).c:: u~~ <(~ .S!t:l '" " .. ~ z 0 ~ Ii! b! .. Q ~ . ... . ...... 'i tI)~ ::>t ~~~ w Z ~ 'C .. 1;( :::; 0000 0000 0"";"";'" OO\O\N "'....0\- "i "," M g;;&o~~~8l o..:oriNce:r--"oci"o ~~~8~O-~ on ...."...." O'<tl"'lloOvOOO\ OOl:'-"'""VO o..:o<rice:r--:oci\O 0\<:1"00000\<"'1 ~.:.:.::.::: 0\ ~ "' "' "' i! ~ .... " "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'~o: N ~ 0: ~Cl ~ .~ ~ ~~ 00 8 S NQ::: 'ol( = 0:<:;1 M .s :E t1.~~:I:Vl 0 ~ c5<.~~~~~ ~ "g. ~t:':gJ5;~Z~S ~ ~__U<_Hl.lv>::J >< ':i .; - a a~;.<O"';7L/.l ..!.Q~ I ~.g8~~~~5~@~~~ ,g .c~~~~]=~~~~~<8 '5 ~ ~~ ~ e <<l ~ L/.l <( g cq!:] ~ gJ .- """,- 8-.0 ."8-'8--> ~ J3.sz-.-lt 1;l~~ p..N~~c.::: l::Q.lI:!~-"1. :=J~7'<tii2w ] fa"",,;:Z u_ ~<2 U~~.....lNIoO~t.Il ~=u~~uu~t""og~~_g S1 S uop...:::.=~.....lQM~_~~O ......<.>...C:JjOOc:;;I l"'l':io:l UN If ~ ~ ~ ": e:.J e'i!Z ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl 066~~~~b~~<~~><~O~ <.:0. Q,.:;;> c.""'.- e--C:lN~"R €EEEE~a~~~B~~~ ~z 555555'<tQ~=~~~~t.Ila~ ~~ ~M M~ ~- ~~ 0\ 0\" ~ .. " " ~ ~ ~:g .... . ~ g " . ~ ~ o~ u, J; " Cl ~ ~8 "", ~:E t:i> tilE ~" <<;;: i~~ ....~~ ~>:>= :E~~ rntlrl Q"2] .!iUQ u.s .:: ~ . . 'g ~ e 'ti'Ec .s 8 8 " . .~.~ "E e~~ rn ~ a " . c,.,. EM;:;} H~ ~~~ c , , . . . . " . zzz g~ -~ ~~ I; · 5] 011: ~:;: ~! '1 0 ~'1 "'~ .. ~-NM~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~gN~ ::l ~ c = o ~ Ci '$.'$.i!-'<!. NNNN ................., ~ 'C .. ~ 'S :> ~:g[:~ NMO"'; "'''''0'\00 ~-" ~" o:t" ~ u 'C .. 'll "0 C ~ .. "<1"100....0- O'\Ot-N N..-iO:""; ",,..,0\00 ~-" ~" ""1"" --....----- -"l'N---- "' <<~ e~ClClr.ll"1..Jt: _~><<~~~~~:i ~:tV:lJJge:!NU li<,.~~~'il=?~YC5~ C f-U;l>->->>->.>- .. 7"~""""""1;!:: 5~5~~~55 "'O'IN"'O\O.., MMt--V\....00_ t--'<l''<l't--Ct-M "'0.0-."'","'_ 00\0\0...,0<"1 tJJooootLlr-p.J'<l' ~~'" ~~- O:O-:oci ~O\~ ,,~~ ~~~ l""i"';1Q "'~'" ~~~ -"...."""" " " ~ 8 _.~.5il ~= tl.l ~ .~ ~ ;:... >, :. 0 i::I C I...... 0 0 ~l:ifrfr j .~~ ~ 'lJ!l::o...o... _w__ O""!..". -;;!;N ,:;-["' ~I;:E ~zz "'"'"' >>> ~~~ ['-1;100\0 ---1'1 M,""'" 'g ~~ CO.........N ~ cO l'"'i'" M j!~ t2IlCllo ... u c_ ilHi# o '~rJ i~ ~_:c" rnfadl._ c ~C....)C ~"".5! ClIIfa E; =.5 ~ Q. t: J! t II 6-3l~;Z ~ M .... .. .; '" .. .. '" 'E I c .. ~ "0 C ~ .: o ... .ill C o " .ill ~ ,5 ':i 'C B ~ E ~ ~ "0 = 'll ,5 ~ 'C 0. ~ ~ .; 8~ NO gi ..."0 !i~ %:g _c i!'; =~ "O~ :::c ~~ .!!; BJ g~ O'~ ,~ ~ F~ ~ E~ :Il~ ~8 ~~ , -i ~ s f i c .. Vi ';l ~ ... ~ .. c 'a 'C .. ... o ~ c o ~ .. :E ~ c = ~ ~ o "0 C ~ '3 o ;;: a f = ~ ~ ... ~ E ~ ~ ~ Ii: " ~ ~ .. ~ c ~ :E ~ c = ~ " ~ o "0 C ~ i .. e ~ ". , , z " . > - G . ~ " ~ N o . > i> ~ ~ ! i> U ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim Domenoe, Chief of Police DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Police Department Homeland Security Grant Funds Transfer PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DONATING A PORTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. BACKGROUND: The County of Riverside has been allocated $3,142,332 in grant funding from the Department of Homeland Security to support programs related to terrorism prevention and homeland security. The County has set aside the following funds from the Homeland Security grant for the City of Temecula to support local programs: Amount $26,728.49 $26,728.49 $45,624.72 $39,161.00 The Riverside County Sheriffs Department is asking each contract Police Department to donate its portion of the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program grant to fund the purchase of large scale CBRNE incident response equipment. This equipment would cost significantly more than the City has been granted, and will be available in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high yield explosive situation or incident. FISCAL IMPACT: Allocated fiscal year 2005-06 Homeland Security Program grant revenues for the Temecula Police Department will be reduced by $39,161.00. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 05-_ RESOLUTION NO. 05_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DONATING A PORTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has been allocated $39,161 in Homeland Security grant funds from the County of Riverside to provide Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention. WHEREAS, the Riverside County Sheriffs Department is requesting funds from contract Police Departments to fund the purchase of large scale CBRNE incident response equipment. WHEREAS, combining funds with the Sheriff's Department gives the City of Temecula access to a greater pool of resources in the event of a terrorist incident. The City Council of the City of T emecula does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program portion of the City of Temecula's fiscal year 2005/06 Homeland Security Grant be donated to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Section 2. The County of Riverside Grants Management Section shall be notified to transfer the allocated funds to the Sheriffs Department. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of March, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] C:\Documents and Settings\Michaela.Ballreich\Local Settings\Tentporary Internet Files\OLK6AF\Homesecurityreso.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk for the City of Temecula, Calfiornia, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-19 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of March, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: o COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: o COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: o COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk C:\Documents and Settings\Michaela.Ballreich\Local Settings\Teraporary Internet FHes\OLK6AF\Homesecurityreso.doc ITEM 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: :>vt\ Susan W. Jones \jCity Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Resolution Changing the Time of Planning Commission Meetings RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission has determined that altering its meeting time to begin at 6:30 P.M. and adjourn at 10:00 P.M., would be beneficial to the Commissioners, in allowing them time to arrive at Planning Commission Meetings in a timely manner. With varying work schedules of the Commissioners, the 6:00 P.M. starting time has been problematic. It is requested, therefore, to amend the meeting time to begin at 6:30 P.M FISCAL IMPACT: None Agenda ReportslPlanning Commission Time Change RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: WHEREAS, The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-02, establishing the Temecula Municipal Code on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, Title 2, Section 2.06.080, requires the City Council shall establish meeting schedules for each commission by resolution. WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted its resolution establishing the first and third Wednesdays of each month, from 6:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OCUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA; Section 1. That the Planning Commission has determined, that altering its meeting time to begin at 6:30 PM and adjourn at 10:00 P.M., subject to an adopted motion to extend the meeting, is desirable. The election to shift the meeting time allows Planning Commissioners time to attend the meeting on a timely basis, due to work schedules and travel time. Section 2. Regular meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Wednesday of each month. The meetings shall be held at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Section 3. The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time and location for a meeting. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula on March 22, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] RResos.05- _'Planning Commission Time Change 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. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of March 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RResos. 05- _/Planning Commission Time Change 2 ITEM 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Approve Resolution in Support of Retaining March Air Reserve Base (MARB), Support Continuation of Air Attack Resources at Hemet-Ryan Airport and Approval of $5,000 to Assist in Retention Efforts. PREPARED BY: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council; 1) Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RETENTION EFFORT TO PRESERVE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE (MARB) 2) Approve the "AGREEMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE RETENTION EFFORTS" with March Joint Powers Authority and approve $5,000 to assisting the March Air Reserve Base retention efforts. BACKGROUND: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is an important part of the Department of Defense Transformation Process and as many as twenty-five percent of United States bases may be closed as part of this process. Although the State of California has lost nineteen (19) bases due to past BRAC rounds there are still sixty-one (61) Department of Defense installations, which are more than twice as many as any other state. Thus, California will potentially lose some of its bases in which March Air Reserve Base could be one of the installations targeted for closure or realignment. MARB is a strategic national defense asset and is an important part of our regions' economy. The closure of this base would prove detrimental at the national, state, and local level as indicated in the attached resolution. The Friends of March Field have been working with the County of Riverside, the Cities of Riverside, Perris, Moreno Valley, the Joint Powers Authority for MARB and many other communities and entities to lobby for the preservation of the base. This base has proven to be very significant to the local economy with approximately 300 employees residing in Temecula and Murrieta. In addition, the economic impact to the surrounding communities, including R:\WolnickglAgendareports\March ARB Retention Effort Agenda Rpl.doc salaries and purchases, exceeds $324 million annually. It is significant to note that MARB is scheduled to receive new C-17 aircraft to support its future missions. Over $45,000,000 of military construction spending is anticipated to accompany these aircraft, but that spending will go elsewhere if the base Is closed in this BRAC round. There are good prospects for additional missions and uses for the base, including a Department of Homeland Security Regional Office. All will yield significant additional jobs and other economic benefits to our area, if the base is preserved. The funding that has been identified for the base preservation effort is $400,000. The majority of the funds are being raised from the cities immediately adjacent to MARB, but as the economic benefit of the base is widespread, the Friends of March Field are also soliciting funds from surrounding cities. At this time, the County of Riverside and the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris have all pledged or made loans to the March Joint Powers Authority for $100,000 each. Contributions that have been made in the form of loans will be repaid by the March Joint Powers Authority. Contribution commitments have also been made by the cities of Banning ($7,000), Beaumont ($5,000), San Jacinto ($5,000), Lake Elsinore ($5,000), Hemet ($5,000), and Murrieta ($5,000). In addition, the Southwest California Economic Development Corporation has provided funding of $10,000. This retention effort is ongoing and will continue through September of this year. This effort to retain MARB has been discussed with the Economic Development Subcommittee members consisting of Mayor Jeff Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tem Ron Roberts. The Subcommittee is recommending $5,000 to assist in the lobbying and other efforts related to the MARB retention effort during the upcoming SRAC process. The Economic Development Subcommittee has further requested that the funds shall not be used in any way to move the location of the air attack resources including the air attack, air tankers, and water dropping helicopter from Hemet-Ryan Airport to March Air Reserve Base. The City believes that the response times could be affected and the air attack resources could have an adverse impact to respond to the Southwest portion of the region. The City's resolution reflects our support to keep the air attack resources at Hemet-Ryan Airport. FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of $5,000 is available in the FY 2004/05 Economic Development budget. ATTACHMENT(S): 1) 2) Friends of March Request and Background Information Resolution No. 05-_ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Supporting The Retention Effort To Preserve March Air Reserve Base (MARS) Agreement For Contribution To March Air Reserve Base Retention Efforts 3) R:\Wolnickg\Agendareports\March ARB Retention Effort Agenda Rpt.doc ATTACHMENT 1 FRIENDS OF MARCH REQUEST AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION Z:\WolnickglAgendareports\March ARB Retention Effort Agenda Rptdoc ~ d 'oMk", 4..ff<,~~c?"~A_d~ 1'NJ'6 8'~' U'.-ar f'l!~_ U'492562 /95,;/677-0/77 Kcdic.k$on@JrcriJron.>>ct 22 February 2005 Mr. Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Nelson, For several years I have been a member of the Friends of March Field, a regional volunteer group working to encourage economic development around March Air Reserve Base in a way that will create jobs and not jeopardize the base's long-term viability. Since the latest Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round began our group's efforts have focused on protecting MARB from further downsizing, or worse, closure. The purpose of this letter is to solicit financial support from the City of Temecula for critical efforts to preserve the base as an ongoing economic engine for our area. Friends of March Field has been working with the County of Riverside, the Cities of Riverside, Perris, Moreno Valley, the Joint Powers Authority for MARB and many other communities and entities to lobby for the preservation of the base. The vehicle created expressly for funding our lobbying effort is the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee (GRCC-PAC), and our fund raising need is $400,000. Naturally the bulk of those funds is being raised from the cities immediately adjacent to MARB, but as the economic benefit of the base is widespread, we are also soliciting funds from surrounding cities including Temecula and Murrieta. My objective, and request is to obtain $10,000.00 from both cities. In recent weeks the local media have reported extensively on the economic data involved and it has been a significant story in our communities. At the risk of being repetitious, I will list a few salient facts and attach additional information to make the point of how important the base is to our local economy: o Total MARB employment is about 8,600 personnel o Direct annual payroll is about $154,000,000 o Not counting CA Air National Guard, 653'd ASG or Naval/Marine Reserve members, about 275 employees reside in TemeculalMurrieta o Economic impact to local communities (salaries and local purchases) exceeds $347,000,000 annually o Approximately $57,000,000 of the $347,000,000 is for local small business contract set asides 22 February 2005 Page 2 In addition to the above, it is significant to note that MARB is scheduled to receive new C-17 aircraft to support its future missions. Over $22,000,000 of military construction spending is anticipated to accompany these aircraft, but that spending will obviously go elsewhere ifthe base is closed in this BRAC round. Also, there are good prospects for additional missions and uses for the base, including a Department of Homeland Security Regional Office. All will yield significant additional jobs and other economic benefits to our area, if the base is preserved. For a host of strategic military reasons we can be hopeful that MARB will survive the next BRAC round. However, also for a host of reasons we cannot afford to be complacent: o Demonstrations of local community support for a given military installation will still be a key point of analysis in the military's downsizing decisions. o Although California has lost 19 bases (and multiple billions of dollars) due to past BRAC rounds there are still 61 bases here, more than twice as many as any other state. Current estimates are that as much as 25% of the existing infrastructure in the country is up for elimination. That California will lose some of its bases is all but a forgone conclusion. o Other areas of the state with military bases, have much higher population concentrations and hence greater representation in the U. S. Congress to lobby for retaining their assets. o Efforts at the state level to address the BRAC threat to our state economy have been distressingly small, late and diffused; especially in comparison to the efforts put forth by other regions of the country. In closing let me thank you for your prompt attention to this request. The specialized professional lobbying group retained by the GRCC-PAC remains hard at work, but the time is short to successfully complete our immediate goal of keeping MARB off of the closure list altogether. That decision is due by the Department of Defense in mid-May of this year. MARB has been a wonderful neighbor and the cost/benefit nUl11bers are compelling regarding the potential gain (or prevention of loss) oflocal economic benefit compared to the $10,000 cost of preserving this important economic engine. I am vcry hopeful that Temecula will want to be a full partner in our efforts to preserve the base. If there are any questions that you or members of the Temecula City Counsel may have in this matter I remain eager to have them answered for you if I cannot do so myself at your earliest convenience. Enc!. 2 Very truly yours, c::::V ~ Ai: ~~ C. Dickson March Air Reserve Base A Strategic Asset for the US and Riverside County Base Realignment and Closure (BR.'I(') is un imporlanl pan nl' !)ol) Transformation Process o Process will impact Califomia signillcanlly o March ARB will be evaluated under BRAC rules Depanment of Defense (DoD) is a major business force in Calilor!lla o Payroll activities und contracts exceed $38 billion annuall\' o There are 277,2J. I Defense employees in Cnlifnrnia o Califomia has 61 DoD installa[ions (more than any (J1her Sllil,') !\'Iarch Air Reserve Base (ARB) is a strategic defense asset c Las[ majnr US:\F operationul base in Soulhcm CA o Primary deploYlIlcnt site for Camp Pendleton: 95.000 [rll"I" 1110\e<l Ihrough March AIZB in 2003 o Longest runway (13, I OOtt) in Southern C1\ o Major Air Superiority Alert (ASA) mission for Soulhnn C\ and Southern AZ o US Customs op'crates Air Marine Operations Cenrer providing c'UUlller- drug and Homeland Security surveillanec for enlirc sOlllhem US borde'r c Reserve Component Forces from every Service Irain U\ :vJaJ"':h ARE! !\Iarch ARB is an important economic force in Riverside COllIll\' o Base has 8.629 ':Jllployees; direct payroll 01'$1 54,OOO.O(J0 o Economic impacI to local communilies exceeds $347.(JUO.i)I)') o Over $22,000,000 of Military Construclion undcrway lu SlIl'r'o["\ arrivCl' "~I C-17 aircraft in 2005 o Base community is scheduled 10 grow and has capacitv IClI' lonside!'ahk future expansio!l Jllint-Use wilh Ihe Jllil1! I'owers Au[hori[\' is synergistic and bC'i1c' i"'c'L1 I III [:le L:SAF and local conllllunities o Potential cost J"('duclions for bOlh agencies o AllolVs c\)JlIlIy/c'ollllllunity leaders \0 plan for COlllpaiibk gr,)\Vlh Peter T. Bentlev 19 Aug 2004 I 2()55 Canvonwind Road Ri\erside. CA 92503 Ph (951) 785-6634 . F.mail: f'e\e'rTBenllev~i~l,ol'(i)n) 452nd Air Mobility Wing Demographics Reservist and civilian employees of the 452nd AMW reside in over 2078 different zip code areas. Based on statistical data and a bit of experiential intuition, the following summarizes the distribution of 452nd AMW . personnel in Riverside County municipalities. These are not "budget quality" numbers but are certainly accurate in order of magnitude. Moreno Valley 739 Riverside 621 Perris . 171 Temecula 177 Murrieta 97 Hemet 98 Lake Elsinore 19 Canyon Lake 31 San Bernardino 283 Banning 62 Beaumont 37 This does not include data from the CA Air National Guard, 653rd ASG or the Naval/Marine Reserve components. ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RETENTION EFFORT TO PRESERVE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE (MARB) Z:\Wolnickg\l>.gendareports\March ARB Retention Effort Agenda Rpt.doc RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RETENTION EFFORT TO PRESERVE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE (MARB) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) is an important part of the Department of Defense Transformation Process and they have already announced that they would like to consolidate and close up to 25 percent of US bases during the coming closure round; and WHEREAS, California has more Department of Defense installations than any other State, the Department of Defense is a major business force in California with payroll activities and contracts exceeding $38 billion annually; and WHEREAS, March Air Reserve Base (MARB) is a strategic national defense asset and could be one of many bases targeted for closure, realignment, or more importantly to upgrade with additional military units; and WHEREAS, MARB is the primary deployment site for Camp Pendleton, the last major United States Air Force operational base in Southern California and has one of the longest runways in Southern California; and WHEREAS, the United States Customs operates an Air Marine Operations Center at MARB that provides Homeland Security and counter-drug surveillance for the entire southern United States border; and WHEREAS, Reserve Component forces from every branch of Service train in the MARB community and construction has already begun on a $55 million Reserve Training Center at MARB; and WHEREAS, MARB has proven to be very significant to the local economy with approximately 300 employees residing in Murrieta and Temecula and the economic impact to surrounding communities exceeding $324 million annually; and WHEREAS, the Friends of March Field have been working with the County of Riverside, the cities of Riverside, Perris, Moreno Valley, and the Joint Powers Authority for MARB and many other communities and entities to lobby for the preservation of MARB; and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and cities of Riverside, Perris and Moreno Valley have all pledged or made loans to the March Joint Powers Authority for the base preservation effort with additional contribution commitments being made by the cities of Banning, Beaumont, San Jacinto, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, Murrieta and the Southwest California Economic Development Corporation. WHEREAS, the funding of $5,000 provided by the City of Temecula will be designated to assist in the lobbying and other efforts related to the March Air Reserve Base retention effort during the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure process. Funds shall not be used in any way to move the location of the air attack resources including the air attack, air tankers, and water dropping helicopter from Hemet-Ryan Airport to March Air Reserve Base. Z:\WoJnickg\Agendareports\Tem March AFB Resol.DOC NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby supports retaining March Air Reserve Base at its current capacity and location during the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure process and supports the lobbying and other efforts related to the retention effort. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council further supports maintaining the fire fighting air attack resources, including, but not limited to, the air attack, air tankers, and water dropping helicopter at Hemet-Ryan Airport and does not support their move to March Air Reserve Base. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this _ day of , 2005. Jeff Comerchero, 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. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the _ day of , 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Z:\Wolnickg\Agendareports\Tem March AFB Reso1.DOC ATTACHMENT 3 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE RETENTION EFFORTS Z:\Wolnickg\Agendareports\March ARB Retention Effort Agenda Rptdoc AGREEMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE RETENTION EFFORTS This Agreement shall be dated as of March 22,2005 (this "Agreement") and is entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and March Joint Powers Authority, a public entity ("MJPA"). All or one ofthe parties to this Agreement are referred to herein as "Party", or collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAe) is an important part of the Department of Defense Transformation Process and they have already announced that they would like to consolidate and close up to 25 percent of US bases during the coming closure round; and WHEREAS, California has more Department of Defense installations than any other State, the Department of Defense is a major business force in California with payroll activities and contracts exceeding $38 billion annually; and WHEREAS, March Air Reserve Base (MARB) is a strategic national defense asset and could be one of many bases targeted for closure, realignment, or more importantly upgraded with additional military units; and WHEREAS, MARB is the primary deployment site for Camp Pendleton, the last major United States Air Force operational base in Southern California and has the longest runway in Southern California; and WHEREAS, the United States Customs operates an Air Marine Operations Center at MARB that provides Homeland Security and counter-drug surveillance for the entire southern United States border; and WHEREAS, Reserve Component forces from every branch of Service train in the MARB community and construction has already begun on a $55 million Reserve Training Center at MARB; and WHEREAS, MARB has proven to be very significant to the local economy with approximately 300 employees residing in Murrieta and Temecula and the economic impact to surrounding communities exceeding $324 million annually; and WHEREAS, the Friends of March Field have been working with the County of Riverside, the cities of Riverside, Perris, Moreno Valley, and the Joint Powers Authority for MARB and many other communities and entities to lobby for the preservation of MARB; and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and cities of Riverside, Perris and Moreno Valley have all pledged or made loans to the March Joint Powers Authority for the base preservation effort with additional contribution commitments being made by the cities of Banning, Beaumont, San Jacinto, - 1 - Lake Elsinore, Hemet, Murrieta and the Southwest California Economic Development Corporation. WHEREAS, the funding of $5,000 provided by the City of Temecula will be designated to assist in the lobbying and other efforts related to the March Air Reserve Base retention effort during the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure process. Funds shall not be used in any way to move the location of the air attack resources including the air attack, air tankers, and water dropping helicopter from Hemet-Ryan Airport to March Air Reserve Base. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties hereby agree to the following cost-sharing agreement: I. Maximum Contribution Amount. The City agrees to pay Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) towards MJPA's lobbying and other efforts related to the March Air Reserve Base retention effort during the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure process; provided, however, such funds shall not be used in any way to move the location of the fire fighting air attack resources, including, but not limited to, the air attack, air tankers, and water dropping helicopter from Hemet-Ryan Airport to March Air Reserve Base. Said funds shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this Agreement. 2. Reporting. MJP A shall provide periodic reporting to the City of Temecula on the efforts described in Section I. Reports shall be submitted not less than once each calendar quarter. 3. Indemnification. MJP A agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, elected officials, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, 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 the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of MJP A in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties, and all prior negotiations and understandings, whether oral or written, between the Parties, have been merged herein. /1/1 /1/1 - 2 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As To Form: Peter Thorson City Attorney - 3 - MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: - 4 - ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building & Safety DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Second Amendment to an Agreement for Contract Inspection Services for P&D Consultants RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Second Amendment for Consultant Services with P & D Consultants in the amount not to exceed $15,000 for a total contract amount of $125,800 and to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2005. DISCUSSION: P & D Consultants provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department. The City continues to experience a high level of construction activity and in order to satisfy the inspection services demand P & D Consultants has provided certified building inspectors. Contract and/or temporary employees in such a specialized field are not readily available or practical. These qualified inspectors have augmented City staff during periods of heavy work load so that inspections can be performed in a timely and accurate manner. This second amendment will provide for continued support as needed for the remainder of the fiscal year as work begins to again increase with the stabilization of the weather. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2004-05 Operating Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Contract Amendment R:\PAPAGG\AGENDAS\PD CONSULTANTS MAR2005.DOC 3/16/05 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND P & D CONSULTANTS THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of March 22, 2005 by and between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City" and P & D Consultants, (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 July 1, 2004 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Contract Inspection Services" ("Agreement") for a total amount of $25,000. B. On September 28, 2004 the City amended and increased the agreement amount to $78,000 plus a 10% contingency of $7,800. C. The parties now desire to increase the payment for services in the amount of $15,000 and amend the agreement as set forth in this. 2. Section 1. Term is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall commence on March 22, 2005, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2005, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 4a 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 terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed One hundred and Twenty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred Dollars ($125,800) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement." 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, a II 0 ther terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:IPAPAGGIAGREEMTSIP&D SECOND AMENDMNT P D 3-22-05.DOC 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: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT BY: P & D Consultants R:IPAPAGGIAGREEMTS1P&D SECOND AMENDMNT P D 3-22-05.DOC 2 , .' /,;, EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Perform combination building inspection on an as-needed basis. r:brockmei\agmts\P&D04-DecOS : ~ . .4 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE For and in consideration of the Contractor's services, inspection services shall be provided at the rate of $75.00 per hour, plus $.36 per mile for each mile accumulated while performing inspection services for the City. Should the City provide vehicular transportation for Contractor's use, no fees shall be charge for mileage. r:brockmeil.agmts\P&D04-Dec05 ITEM 9 . .. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: fity Manager/City Council rrJ_jNilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer March 22, 2005 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Intention to Vacate All Interior Streets and Certain Drainage Easements within Tract No. 26941 (Crowne Hill- The Reserve) PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works ~Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE LOT "A" (WOLFE STREET), LOT "B" (SUSAN GRACE COURT) AND LOT "C" (MUSILEK PLACE) AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT NO. 26941 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tract Map No. 26941 on June 24,2003, including acceptance of offers of dedication for street purposes, said offers including Wolfe Street, Susan Grace Court, and Musilek Place along with certain drainage easements within said tract. On August 6, 2003 Tract Map No. 26941 was recorded by the County of Riverside Recorder's Office. Subsequent to recordation of the map, the developer submitted a formal request to the City to vacate all interior streets within the tract in order to develop a gated subdivision with private streets. Two gated entryways would be installed, one each at the east and west ends of Wolfe Street in relative proximity to the intersections of Old Kent Road and Crowne Hill Drive, respectively. Certain public drainage easements within the Tract that collect local street drainage will also be vacated. Three drainage easements will be reserved for City use for the purpose of accessing storm drain pipe outlets originating offsite. Grading for the Tract has been completed and the street, drainage and utility improvements have been installed per City Public Street Standards. Necessary access to public utility, service, and drainage facilities for the purposes of constructing, placing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and removing such underground facilities will be provided by reserving easements for these purposes as provided under Section 8330 of the Streets and Highways Code. The developer shall also reserve easements over the vacated streets for emergency access. R:\AGENDA REPQRT$\2005\032205\TM26941.1ntenl to Vacate.doc " Pursuant to the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, the City may vacate its interests in identified streets if the City finds that such a vacation conforms to the General Plan; that the streets in question are no longer necessary for present or prospective public use due to having minimal affect on the circulation element, and not denying access to any parcels. In addition, pursuant to Chapter 8, Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, it is not needed for non-motorized vehicular facilities. The Planning Commission has considered the General Plan and finds that the vacation of the interior streets for the Tract is consistent with The General Plan. Pursuant to Ordinance 460, Section 3.3, as adopted by the City, private streets may be permitted when it is determined that there is adequate provisions for their construction and continued maintenance, that the welfare of the occupants of the development will be adequately served and that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The Ordinance further allows access control by gating the entrance(s). In vacating the public streets and drainage easements within the Tract, the City would relinquish any responsibility for maintenance or liability of the existing street and drainage improvements. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R's") have been revised to include language that obligates the Homeowners Association to own and maintain the streets and drainage easements. The streets and easements within Tract No. 26941 to be vacated are described and depicted on Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D", which are attached to this report. As a condition of the vacation of streets and drainage easements within Tract 26941, the developer is required to execute an Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of the subject streets and drainage easements in the event that the future homeowners within Tract decide to request for consideration of the streets and drainage easements to be made public again. The executed Irrevocable Offers of Dedication will be recorded concurrently with the Resolution to Vacate. With the adoption of Resolution 05- , the City Council sets a public hearing to be held on April 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Temecula City Hall. At the public hearing, any and all interested persons may present evidence or object to the proposed vacation. In addition, the adoption of the resolution directs the Director of Public Works to cause to be posted conspicuously along the three streets and easements proposed to be vacated, at least 14 days before the date set for hearing, notices of the proposed vacations, and the time and place of the public hearing. Such notices shall be posted no more than 300 feet apart and at least three such notices shall be posted in the manner set forth in Streets & Highways Code Section 8323. Staff recommends that the City Council find that the streets and drainage easements in question are no longer necessary for present or prospective public use, or bicycle or pedestrian use. The General Plan designates sufficient other streets and right-of-way in the area. No property would be "landlocked" by this proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution 05-- with Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D" Vicinity Map R,IAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\TM26941.1"¡,,,¡¡o y""".", RESOLUTION NO. 05"- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE LOT "A" (WOLFE STREET), LOT "B" (SUSAN GRACE COURT) AND LOT "C" (MUSILEK PLACE) AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT NO. 26941 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOllOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare in response to petition by the underlying fee owners, its intention pursuant to Chapter 3, Part 3, Division 9, commencing at Section 8300 of the Streets and Highways Code to vacate all interior streets and certain designated drainage easements within recorded Tract Map No. 26941. The streets to be vacated are described as lot "A" (Wolfe Street), lot "B" (Susan Grace Court), and lot "C" (Musilek Place) within said tract and depicted on Exhibits "A" and "8". The drainage easements to be vacated are all easements described as Access and Drainage Easement 'A' within said tract and depicted on Exhibits "C", and "D", all said Exhibits which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; Section 2. Necessary access to public utility, service, and drainage facilities for the purposes of constructing, placing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and removing such aerial and underground facilities will be provided by reserving easements and excepting from the proposed vacation of said alley for these purposes as provided under Section 8330 of the Streets and Highways Code. The developer shall also reserve easements over the vacated streets for emergency access. Section 3, The Planning Commission has considered the General Plan and finds that the vacation of the interior streets and certain drainage easements for the Tract is consistent with The General Plan adopted by the City of Temecula on November 9th, 1993. Section 4. The City Council hereby sets a public hearing on the vacation of the street and drainage easements for April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon hereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, for the purpose of hearing evidence from interested person on the proposed vacation. The date of the public hearing shall not be less than 15 days from the date of this Resolution. Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a "Notice of Public Hearing" in a newspaper of general circulation within the City ofTemecula shall be published twice in two (2) successive weeks prior to the hearing pursuant to Section 8322 of the Streets & Highways Code. The notice of public hearing shall contain the information set forth in the text of the Resolution. Section 6, No less than 14 days prior to the public hearing on the vacation, the Director of Public Works shall post conspicuously notices of the public hearing on the vacation of the Street along the line of the Street proposed to be vacated. The notices shall be posted not more than 300 feet apart, but a least three notices shall be posted. The notices posted shall contain the information set forth in the text of this resolution. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R,IAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\TM2694 1 .Ioteot to V,oate.do, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe CityofTemecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 2005 by the following vote: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCllMEMBERS: COUNCllMEMBERS: COUNCllMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk .,IAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\TM26941.loleol 10 V"",le.'" EXHIBIT "A" Lots A, B, and C of Tract No. 26941 as shown by map on file in Book 340 of Maps, Pages I through II, inclusive thereof, Records of Riverside, County, State of California. Said Lots also being in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made apart thereof. Date ./ IW Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3544 Universitv Ave. - Riverside. CA 92501 - Ph: (909) 687-2929 - Fox. (909\ 687-2999 - www.iwceicom '<>4' ~ ;: b i -. .-..... iiiiiHii.ii.. 2~2nnn22Vn- ! ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ i1~ i1'~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~i1~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,,~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i1i1~~~ i1~~~ ¡,~ g i IV R¡§f¡ 1 a õ ~ ~~§~ft~ Ii~ Ili~ I !E~ Ii R ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ RR Ii 1il1i~! ø, ~I! ¡ ~i!!~ í! ai! R! ¡R 5 g g~, I ~ õ "III IAlliN ¡;¡¡~R ~~g~liIIIIIIII1111~1~I~gllllliilllllllllllllllllllllil1llllllllllllililllllii~1 pn 'íle ~ ¡¡ ~ i;~...\jI!¡¡~!i~m~¡¡¡¡~~~~ÎI~.~~mm~~~~~~s~m~~~~~m¡¡¡¡!im~~mm~~\jmmm~ÌI~ i ~~'a;"'~~ÌI~¡¡~ÌI~~ÌI~ÍI~'RR!¡'¡¡ÌI~"";~Rj¡i;R~j¡"iI~iJi;R."'ÌI"ÌlilÌl8RR'a";;";;;;j¡Ìl8R~ ÌI'aR; '";'8Ì1R";;8~~ i ~¡¡ ¡ ~i ~ i ~~mWm~, ~ 'Ai i ~ ~ i ¡ill ¡¡vi ¡ mm ii i i~ ~¡ ii i nit i i ~i Ii ~ ~ ~ i t ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ mi; i I r- ;~Ir ð ..;:- !i~!lI: b (J) 'I ~ I!! <.0 ~~)! ~ N !~d ~ !i~il ~ a ~~tii ~:I fi ~ z i~mlt ~ < bit;; ¡ I- Il.iag ~ U !i~!il~ b « ! ¡" I: ~. d ü 0::: il~~~ ~ I- ;a~i~ ! ii~bb~ ~ ~ ~ "c U .II I~ ! ~~ I ~i ~ / ~~ ~¡ ¡~ '" ,.. :., ,,- ,., ':' ';' ;~ :~ m ,- I ~¡; I ~ f ~ .... = ~ ~ ¡ ~I i~ !i "ï i. ~~ II.~ ~h iii. ~S¡ EXHIBIT "c" Access and drainage easements designated as "A" and located within Lots 1,3,6,8,12,14, 15, 18, 19,21,24,25 and 27 of Tract No. 26941 in the City of Temecula, all as shown by map on file in Book 340 of Maps pages 1 through 11, inclusive, thereof, Records of Riverside, County, State of California. Excepting those portions of Lots 24 and 25 of Tract 26941 more particularly described as follows and as shown on Exhibit D attached; PARCEL 1 A strip ofIand 20.00 feet in width, lying 10.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the southeasterly comer of said Lot 24, said point also being the northeasterly comer of said Lot 25 and on the right of way of Susan Grace Court as shown on said Map. Said point also being in a curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 48.00 feet, ¡¡-om which the radius point bears North 88°49'46" East; Thence northwesterly along said right of way and said curve, to the right, through a central angle of 19°50'57", an arc distance of 16.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 83°03'03" West, a distance of36.03 feet to the beginning ofa non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 170.00 feet and ¡¡-om which the radius point bears South 0°25'34" East; Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of28°19'14", an arc distance of 84.03 feet; Thence South 61 °15'12" West, a distance of 79.77 feet to the beginning ofa non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of290.00 feet, from which the radius point bears South 44°53'50" East; Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of 12°02'33", an arc distance of60.95 feet; Thence South 33°03'37" West, a distance of 18.25 feet to the beginning ofa non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 675.36 feet, from which the radius point bears South 43°47'09" East; Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of 1°15'04", an arc distance of14.75 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 102.50 feet, from which the radius point bears South 32°58'10" East; Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of 19°37'33", an arc length 005.11 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve having a radius of 73.50 feet; Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the right, through a central angle of24°56'10", an arc distance 001.99 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve having a radius of 126.50 feet; Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angel 001 °43'46", an arc distance of70.05 feet; IW Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3544 University Ave. - Riverside, CA 92501 - Ph: (909) 687-2929 - Fax: (909) 687-2999 - www.;wcei.com Thence South 30°36'41" West, a distance of 10.77 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "A" and the end thereof. At the beginning of said centerline description, the side lines of said strip of land shall be extended or shortened to intersect the right of way of Susan Grace Court. PARCEL 2 A strip ofland 46.00 feet in width, lying 23.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at Point "A" hereinabove referred to; Thence South 30°36'41" West, a distance of21.00 feet to a point hereinafterreferred to as Point "B" and the end thereof. PARCEL 3 Beginning at Point "B" hereinabove referred to; Thence North 59°23'19" West, a distance of24.00 feet; Thence South 30°18'30" West, a distance of83.90 feet; to a point on the south line of said Lot 25; Thence South 62°01'40" East along said south line, a distance of22.73 feet; to an angle point therein; Thence South 60°22'10" East continuing along said south line, a distance of7.29 feet; Thence North 30°27'01" East, a distance of 82.73 feet; Thence North 59°23'19" West, a distance of6.21 feet to the point of beginning. Exhibit "D" attached hereto and by this reference made apart thereof. Jeffre M. Barnes, PLS 7663, Exp. 12-31-0 IW Consulting Eugiueers, Inc. 3544 University Ave. . Rivecside. CA 92501 - Ph. (909) 687-2929 - Fox. (909) 687-2999 - www.iwcei.com LOT 23 P/L N 6175'12" E 79.77' LOT 24 N 3JV3'37" E 18.25' R=73.S0' L=31.99' "=24'56'10" T=16.2S' LOT 25 N 30'36'41- E 10.77' 26 I I ...... ...... 19 18 '--I 17 I 15 I I I VICINITY MAP NOT Tf) SCALE . IW Consulting Engineers, Inc. EXHIBIT "n" w.o. 170.004 I. Civil Engineering BY: F./. . Surveying TRACT NO, 26941 - LOT 24 & 25 OAIE' 3/23/04 . land Planning DRAINAGE ACCESS EASEMENT PLA T SCAl£: I" = 100' ;s.~~~~;~~ty9~;~nue F~; ;;:::;¡;¡; IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 2 OF 2 Dcao"..- G.- \ f70. 004 \FM\Exh,õ;t,\aIENT\RCCORO\PLA f\ 170004-EXH_ESMTS.do. Lasl Sa",d.- Fri Au. 06, 2004 - 1.-58pm La,1 Plall,d.- F,; M. 06. 2004 - 1.-Sgpm ~ I TO SAN DIEGO VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE HWY. .' PROJECT SITE ITEM 1 0 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: ~City Manager/City Council I}J-i IWilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer March 22, 2005 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Intention to Vacate a Portion of an Unnamed Alley located between Second Street and Third Street east of Old Town Front Street as shown on Block 18 of the Town Site of Temecula (Old Town) PREPARED BY: if Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works 'itßteve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULAOF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND THIRD STREET EAST OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2005 the City of Temecula Planning Commission approved Planning Application PA04-023, a Development Plan to redevelop the Butterfield Square commercial site. The proposed redevelopment includes a commercial shopping center consisting of seven buildings totaling approximately 9,400 square feet. The site is located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street, known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 922-043-005, 922-043- 006, and 922-043-007. Condition of Approval No. 22 of said Planning Application PA 04-023 requires that the public alley located along the southern project boundary shall be vacated prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff has received property owner authorization to vacate said portion of unnamed alley as depicted on Exhibits "A" and "B". Necessary access to public utility, service, and drainage facilities for the purposes of constructing, placing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and removing such aerial and underground facilities will be provided by reserving easements for these purposes as provided under Section 8330 of the Streets and Highways Code. Pursuant to the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, the City may vacate its interests in identified public right of way if the City finds that such a vacation conforms to the General Plan; that the streets in question are no longer necessary for present or prospective public use due to having minimal affect on the circulation element, and not denying access to any parcels. The Planning RIAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\B"ttemeld S"",eJ"le" to Vaoale.'" Commission has considered the General Plan and finds that the vacation of the alley is consistent with the General Plan in that the existing grid street pattern surrounding the site provides adequate circulation without the alley. The unnamed alley to be vacated is described and depicted on Exhibits "A" and "B" which are attached to this report. With the adoption of Resolution 05- , the City Council sets a public hearing to be held on April 12, 2005, at7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Temecula City Hall. At the public hearing, any and all interested persons may present evidence or object to the proposed vacation. In addition, the adoption of the resolution directs the Director of Public Works to cause to be posted conspicuously at the alley proposed to be vacated, atleast 14 days before the date selfor hearing, notices of the proposed vacation, and the time and place of the public hearing. Such notices shall be posted in the manner set forth in Streets & Highways Code Section 8323. Staff recommends that the City Council find that the alley in question is no longer necessary for present or prospective public use, or bicycle or pedestrian use. The General Plan designates sufficient other streets and right-of-way in the area. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Resolution 05-- with Exhibits "A" and "B" RIAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\B"tteñ>e1d Sq"'",""""" '0 Vaæ\e.doo RESOLUTION NO. OS-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND THIRD STREET EAST OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOllOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare in response to petition by the underlying fee owners, its intention pursuant to Chapter 3, Part 3, Division 9, commencing at Section 8300 of the Streets and Highways Code to vacate a portion of public alley located between Second Street and Third Street east of Old Town Front Street more specifically described as Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B", all said Exhibits which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; Section 2. Necessary access to public utility, service, and drainage facilities for the purposes of constructing, placing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and removing such aerial and underground facilities will be provided by reserving easements and excepting from the proposed vacation of said alley for these purposes as provided under Section 8330 of the Streets and Highways Code. Section 3. The Planning Commission has considered the General Plan and finds thatthe vacation of said alley is consistent with The General Plan adopted by the City of Temecula on November 9th, 1993. Section 4. The City Council hereby sets a public hearing on the vacation of the said alley for April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., oras soon hereafter as the matter maybe heard, atthe City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, for the purpose of hearing evidence from interested person on the proposed vacation. The date of the public hearing shall not be less than 15 days from the date of this Resolution. Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a "Notice of Public Hearing" in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Temecula shall be published twice in two (2) successive weeks prior to the hearing pursuant to Section 8322 of the Streets & Highways Code. The notice of public hearing shall contain the information set forth in the text of this Resolution. Section 6. No less than 14 days prior to the public hearing on the vacation, the Director of Public Works shall post conspicuously notices of the public hearing on the vacation of the Street along the line of the Street proposed to be vacated. The notices shall be posted not more than 300 feet apart, but a least three notices shall be posted. The notices posted shall contain the information set forth in the text of this Resolution. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 2005 by the following vote: R,IAGENDA REPORTSI2005\O32205\B"ttemeld Sq"ace.I"le,,1 10 Y,oate.doc Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City ofTemecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCllMEMBERS: COUNCllMEMBERS: COUNCllMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R,IAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\B"tI""", 5<""..1°"", to Va""'.d" EXHIBIT "A" VACATION BEING A STRIP OF LAND IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, AS SHOWN ON BLOCK 18, OF THE TOWN SITE OF TEMECULA MAP, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15, PAGE 726, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 16 AS SHOWN ON SAID BLOCK 18, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MERCEDES STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 44°28'19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 250.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID MAP: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 44°28'19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF FRONT STREET AS IT NOW EXISTS; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 45°29'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID LINE OF FRONT STREET: THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, NORTH 44°28'19" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 160.18 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 45°31'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PORTION OF LAND CONTAINS 0.19 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO MADE A PART HERE OF. IOF! EXHIBIT "B" VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ~ ~~ '?JQ~Q '~ ,,~ " <J>.;., ~ ..p~ ~~.;., ~o ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 60 ft. Di II DENNIS JANDA,INC. eI, MAPPINGISURVEYING SERVICES 41934 MAIN STREET, #206 PH: (951) 676-7720 TEMECULA, CA 92590 FAX: (951) 699-5912 EMAlL: dennls.landa@verlzon.net -- w.o, # SM-O3-074 SHEET 1 OF 1 DRAWN BY ~ VACATION EXHIBIT ITEM 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: J City Manager/City Council rvJ.AWilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer March 22, 2005 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Tract Map No. 29305, located South of Wolf Valley Road and East of Pechanga Parkway PREPARED BY: fj Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Chris White, Assistant Engineer - land Development RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve: 1. Tract Map No. 29305 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 29305 is a twenty-nine lot (29) lot subdivision, located south of Wolf Valley Road and east of Pechanga Parkway. The survey monuments are required to be set. On January 23, 2001, the Temecu1a City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 29305, with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and subsequently on October 11,2001, the Planning Director of the City of Temecu1a approved the Phasing Map for Tentative Tract Map 29305, Planning Application No. 01-0271, which consists of two phases, Tentative Tract Map 29305-1 and Tentative Tract Map 29305, with the appropriate Conditions of Approval. This final map is in confonnance with the approved tentative map. The approval of a final subdivision map, which substantially complies with the previously approved tentative map is a mandatory ministerial act under State law. It should be noted the Development Impact Fees (DIF) will be due and payable at the time of issuance of the Building Permits. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Fees & Securities Report Project Vicinity Map Tract Map No. 29305 r:lagdrpt\2003\ 1216\tm29305-1.map CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO, TM 29305 Staff reviewed the following fees relative to their applicability to this project. FEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL N/A Flood Control (ADP) Development Impact Fee Not Paid r:\agdrpt\2003\1216\tm29305-1.map CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT TRACT MAP 29305 DATE: March 8, 2005 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & lABOR SECURITY SECURITY Street and Drainage $ 1,893,922.00 $ 946,961.00 Water $ 159,500.00 $ 79,750.00 Sewer $ 44,000.00 $ 22,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,097,422.00 $ 1,048,711.00 Monumentation $ 14,000.00 - DEVELOPMENT FEES Development Impact Fee $ 0.00 $ N/A $ Not Paid $ 128.00 $ 2,590.00 $ 700.00 $ 8.00 $ 3,426.00 $ 0 City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFCD (ADP) Fee SERVICE FEES Planning Fee Plan Check Fee Monument Inspection Fee Comprehensive Transportation Plan Fees Paid to Date Balance of Fees Due r:\agdrpt\2003\1216\tm29305-1.map TRACT No. 29305 WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN ~TY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE <I) t;j ~ <I) ..., ~ f- ~I!l ' z " !¡¡ ~ !!, ;~ ~ 'I! '\~ ~ l ~ .~. ~ ;J :t~m t;j ~ <I) « ~~~ z ~"Z 0: ~.~ e ~.~ :J .~. « "'" u "~> 0 "- ~'h ¡;¡ 0 I.[) ~~~§ ~ ~ a ~ð~o ;¡ :;; C") ê~~~ :!j ~ (j) ~~~~ iQNßM ~ . ~~~~ ~ Zo ¡m 1:: g~~: ~ I- §~~~ 8 §~§~. . () oa<:1 " ~ <C ;~§. ". ~ ~:~i ~ ::> f'V' "~~> '" !! u... "'~' \š "- I- g~~~ ~ 0 ~~~~ ::! 1:: ~§~. ~ ü z~8~ !¡! ~.~~ f- ~.~~ ;0; ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~.~ ! ~ .~ êÓ ¡. '! ,. ., . h . i~ " ., ,; ¡~ §! f- Z !¡¡ "' " 0 ~ < I « ê >- 0 0: ^, f'" " ~ a, l ! ! ¡ J~ ¡ ~ ¡ . " ;!U ~m .1. i ,,3 !¡;; i .!-~.: "-0' "! :~,., ,~~w ,¡¡~; ;¡¡.'. !§§! ~ ¡óH , ¡I!! t ¡¡II ê ~:~i ;â I;: ~ ¡I~¡ :; ~~è .<1) ¡~;: i§ ~~i 15 ~~¡~ ~~ §;¡ ¡¡¡ ""'0 '. <.' 0 "" " <g;; ! 50 ¡~ ~ !; !I §,g ~ ¡, ¡; ì¡i! i; !!, ",! " ',' 1:1 § ,3 ;11 :~, ¡ ~~ ii' g~¡" .: '" ,il i '. !!¡ ~;¡! i~Î in :!¡ ¡ :~! ~~~ I;, ¡, ~~I '§! :¡! !3 :1; :,~ i,! Ii I:i li~ ", " '" ,,' 00 500 <:¡: ",~Si ø~g 0"':;: ~B~~ ø~¡:¡~ 09<'" :'~~~ 005'" ffiffi~~ !Ji!Ji¡:!,.. =>=>00 zz,..,.. , i¡~!;i m!!¡ m;~~ f- ,",,'< ~ '¡,n: ::> ,,':,< !! ¡~!.~¡ f'" ~i¡~:~ <I) ~;",~ ~ :!'g~í "' ;.~,;!¡ ;0; ,.,-"'. ~ ¡;~i~!¡ 5 m;m ~ ;1 , ;ii~ mi !z "' ::> t;J " ~ < I « ï i< 5, f"'l " 0 ,. z a¡ ! ¡ i ï , ' Jill! >1" ~. Ii ¡! ~i ¡i :~ }, " ~: 11 ¡ '! I' ,0 'I !, n ð¡ .. "@ " II Ì! ¡, ¡¡ ¡; :~ d~ ~ d~ ¡¡¡ ~;; z ~.o :¡j ~,~ , ;, , ,~¡, ê i "¡' , " ~~,¡ ¡,,~ ~I¡~ i!~~ hi! ~~!: "g< ,.gß "" 'O¡< ,.,ê ,¡", f- a:.¡ §~¡¡~ ~ í~~§ !:¡h !! ¡~ê§ ~,~~a f'" ~;i! ~~¡;! <I) ~¡'I "§~h~ ~ :d= !~!!¡ § gí~! I:¡!! u § ..".- """,' 1:: ~i¡U II!!! ü "!,, 'os,, J ! " , -8 I I' , ,I ! , . , 8 . J! ; ¡; ~ ! II ! il: f- Z "' ::> "' " " ~ < I « ¡ >- ~ 0: 0, g ;¡ z "" ,. .¡ >1 ~ , . H ¡I: '55 ~ " 1i z 0 F U ~ I ~ ! !"~ * '" m. I~ ! . , ¡ I! " ! ¡~ ; ,'1 ï ¡;¡ . ii, JI ! ¡ jt 0 « ; !; ~ !B - i iI: ~ ~ 8, ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ 80 0 , §, ~ . ~h .~ ~ ~ ~~ ffi~i ffi~'~ ~h ê ~§ ;~ ~ ~ i!~~~ ~o ~ffi ~ ffi¡ .~~ ~~~~ ~r~ ~ 8' t~ ~ ::J ~"w ",,~;; ~ ~o ~ 0 ~o 0 ~§:;' ~ . w~ Vi ~~~~ ~¡ &; " .~ ~i~ :;,~~. b ~ gg ~~ § "ow" 0,," " ~ ~o; ... õ~". o~ ~ . ,,~ " ::? ;;w~. ~~ ~~ " - ~O, ~o~~ ~z8 ~ ~~ o~ ~ u. .;'.~ F: ~~ !i ~~ ~~:;,. 0 q~ o~~ "~~ d\ ~ ~. ~. 0." J, '0« ow~ .~~~ ,-. ¡¡ ~o ~< æ 0 >reo" ,,> F. .. o~ H. ~~.. ~~~ " "~ci '~ " N ~~~" "1 o~ 2~ ~J, ~~§ m¡;~" ~aæ ~ ~.. ji. ~ I- ~.;; ~~ ~~ 3 ~"". .~~ o~~* ~:¡~ ~ ~~~ ~§ Ii ::J ",E~~~ '" ~~. ~~ ,"~ ~~ê ~~; ~~~~ ~¡~ ~ ~~~ .~~ . Vi §1§ji,~. I" m~ê ~-;' ~ffi ~~~ ~':'æ ~.1iæ .ß"~ ~ oBi ~~z ~ W~~~ ~ ~:~ ~~ ~~ ~1~ ~~~ ~M ~U~ 'I ~~; b~ t "'~~'¡~~ iQ .~~ ~~ci ~g ~g~ ~~~ ~m ~~~o ~'i~ ,,;;' "~ \5 ~~g§~ ~ ~~F ~~~ ~~ ,reo ;"" ¡¡- g ~>~ 00' ~~~re,.~~,o~o::;..- .. """- ;:¡;;~g~w ~. OZ-9/'" Wd (.'~"-~':.....-- - - - - -M:lOH "330 mm .~ ~ ff /§ . " " ~ æ ~~ ~g . ~¡¡ ~ 5$~ ~ ~i~ i5 <"to ~ "' ~~~1 ;:¡~ ,0 Og~~. d ~~ ~ ~~~§ ~ ~~~~ ;: §,~" ~E~~" ~~'8t: ~"'a~. z"".~ !¡! !6a~~ ~~"~" '" ~Z.. ""~_w ::: ~~,~ i5 ,",. '" <0 hh h - . hh J, .g ~ ~ .> ~ ~: ~~ ¡¡ ~~ ~~ .< ~. t 5~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ " g~ '.~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~i5 ~i! ~.~ ~~ ~. ~~ I~ ~~ ~~ g ~~ffi ~; ~~~ ¡; ¡;~ gã gã ~~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~. ~~~ .~ .~ ,,~ ,,~.~ <~ i5 ~~" ~. ii!~< ~~ ~, ~5 ~5 -, ~""'o ~., ~, e~. "' ";), ~~ ~~ g. ~'8 ~~ .~ e~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~§~ ~~ ð~O '~ ~-. ~ffi c' ~< ~.~ -I' "z ~, ~.~ ~S .~S.I' .. ~~ ~!~~. g~g ~~ S;!'u ~~> ~~~ ~~ g~~.. ~Z~ ~~ ~d. ~~ §~§ I".~ ~~. ~. ~. e~ -oe ~~ "o.s <~ "~" ~~~ m 5~ ~~ ~ìi. ~~~ ~; ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~.ffi ~~~ ~~ .~ "~~ §~, §~ §~:< §~~ ~~~ ~ i~~ ~~~ ~.. ~~ ~~~ ~g! ~~ ~i§~~ ~g~ 3~~~ <0< <.0 <e ",0< ',,- ,. 'e " "0 < ~ffiffi ~~~ ~~ ~iì ~g~ ~~i: ~~ gg ~~. ~~«' ~..~u~e~11 11 iJ11 3303 -~i--, -- - - -+ L',..""., OV~" M,?1l0"--" ~ê . ~ 00 ~. '" ~z ~, ~ <QY' ~~ V1 "'§ o. n :5" ¡<" ~ ~ ¡!I!! V1 ~ ~~ ~U " ïJ. 8¡:-~ \ u; ~i~ ~ ':J":U ~ j¡o 7\--' t I ~ , e \ z ~@¡. " t , " 0 > " " §~8 ~'O ~ ~.; ê5 ~~~ ~ ~~~.. u ~~h g "- "008 " ~ L() ~~i~ ~ "" a .oe> z iñ cry ~~~. " c.j ~ ~..i 9 '.N 8~"" :Q N ~,,~~ '5! ¡¡¡I'~z ~ 0 ~~~~ ~ Z §~~~ I-- ze~~ 5 I- ~~i!~ 0 ,,~u ~ () ;~~~ ~ '5 « ~~~~ :¡ ~ g~.. ¡¡¡ " a::: ."~. ~ ¡;J :i!~~ e "- I- ~~I'~ .. 0 ~=,g ~ 1: .Of~ '" ü ~~¡¡~ '" ~.~~ ~ ~~§~ ~ m~ gO" ~~i ~;â m ~ ~"~ .. '~'i. "" e ~ ~"o~ .uzi!~ i!m ~g~~á nm ~ ~ ~ ~~ U1 ~ ~O I- ¡¡: ~ ~ iOffi ~ ~ 8v ~~ ::: _8 ~ ~ ~ 0 , . ... ~ I- ~ ~ b ~ ¡¡¡ " ,.., l- e ...J ~ "" ~ 'Ià - -:J ~~-=:T=~-==~--- n~~ ~; f" l ~, ~ ~~~; ~ ~<O ;: N ~ Ö ...J :;:: "- 0 '" ~ w w :r: (f) " ~~~ z ~w. e ~~~ ~ ~~~ 8"0 .. t5 :~~g ~ i=' l!) ~~:§ 1< " a .~~~ '" ~ ('I') ;5~; ~ ~ (j) d~~ :Q N ~"~~ ~ ~~:;;~ " . ,~~~ t5 0 ~!ii~~ ~ Z g~~' z .~~~ 15 I- ~.~~ u ,sua <i U ~§';~ d --' « ~~§z z (3 ~~~;;;; !:I f'V' 9~~~ ;:¡ i=' u.. ~,,;~~ ~ "- I- ;;§~~ i< 0 ~~.~ .. ~ ~§~~ ~ u ~~~~ or ~ i~:~ ;; :~~~ u:~ r-- ~ w w :r: (f t:J (f) '" ~ 0 --' '" N ~ g %, = -= ~- ~ --- ~- = =-~r -- = -~ =:J.~~~~~' <:Jg~ ~,,~ '" w' ", ~ w w :r: (f) w w (f) .:i a <D": N~ ~íi g~ " f- ~ ".""-,,.,'-"" " siii ~~ "w Ò " ~~~b~ N C;¡" z 0 -- °ð 1 b~:Ó 'z¡~ :~~m~ . .J z -'. ¡¡~~~~~~ .00W; 0_".'«"- . --> -"~, _..,-". .~. .. 1 ='" ~ .,.;."'" c- . .,C)- -.. -- C C ;, ~"""oJ----~-~_~_~'2n."."."" .~' IW"-'" . - - .' '-'~ -..".--------- -. --- ~WJJJ" --~- - - - -- avo!! À311V^ 310M~: Z- ,oi~~;~gr,:~l/- "" . " . I~o\( -: L:~ -- -- l\i(~oo~r , -. ' ~~ "'00"""" ,-"", , I ,~I !/' r'\ L \~\é\ 9~LOl c Z , b'" ¡ "-,"",, ~ 'w" " 1"1 ~, . .J 0 ~ ... ~ w - * b .J ~ ~ ~ '" '" :I: <f) ~ ... a "' >- '" '" :I: <f) " z.~ ~;~ ~ ~~§ a .~" ... .,. ~ ~~; ~ u ~<~I' :;: ~ ~~~§ ~ i'! L!) ~c'c < < a ~~ê~ ~ Ii; ('f) ßð5~ ~ ~m~m 1Q N ~,,~~ '5! 8"~~ õ: . h~.§ ... 0 ~~~" ~ z ~~~: f- .~"" ~ I- ~~§~ ~ () :~g~ ~ :::0 ~ "".~ ~ ~ ;~:¡ ò\ ê ~1i¡¡~ ~ ... I- ;~~~ .. 0 .~.g::l", 5 ~u~ ~ t;j "' '" ~~¡;¡~ ~ N F!' ~~~~ ~ ö ¡¡; <~~~ tX-' ~~:~ ~ .,; ~ê <0 Wz ~I ~ó:\ ~~ N~ ~ gg ~~ ww U g w w - ~ ~ ~ '- ~ <§~ ,,§~~ e~~~~ 5~~§~ ~~~:~ ~t~~á ~~ffi~~~ ;ê~i;e §~~~.5 " ,.,~ 8" f- " ~8 S ~ - .8 < ~l fi ~ ~~ " " "'" """Od><OO"" '\'æ ~~ »t~t>-".o"" ~ ¡:¡ , "":1,'::$;' ~ §! ".""", ""CO ., Qt' N f- a -' """".".".'" :¡ 0 .. v"; f- " 0< -'g! < f- '" Z " ~ þ .',","M.".,"", :¡ 0 ~~ i~ L 133H5 335 01 133H5 335 «) >- '" ~ <f) '" '" '" ~ '" f- '" '" :I: '" '" '" <f) Q <D f- a -' < ~ f- S 5 :mmm O' '00' "",' 300. '00' ----"'" I IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEEf7 OF 13 SHEETS ,R. 29305-.' LO, .14 "c-".".". ',:~,"¡~~'~') '" ~ ,R. 29305-1 ~ LOor 15 :¡; '" ro " 'MO" , '" ""n,^~,, OW","'"""-0"" """" ~" '.'oo'^,'",'~"rn'"o 'OOH"""~'a"~o"oo "~""oOO"'."'~",^"""" ¡ ,... e> '" a: ,... ~ . \ \\ I "í""< "'.00. "'c,,, """'" ~,I . F: 'c""".1 0"' ;;¡m.~~. ~: il z, il il {j :: Ii ii ii :LM Ii ",' ii ." LÆ Ii po' Ii ." Ii I- a ...J I- W W ;¡: V) w w V) .0 , p LOT 25 NET AREA~14.14 Ac. m m ",."",.w",.,,'..., "",. ""';¡';; ~~;ë'."o, ""."',,., SEE SHEET 13 """.Ww'oo.,,' '" r- ::J I '" ~ ::s "' r- w w I '" ~o ~ §~~ ~ ~.~ i'i ~~~ 0 ;h ~ §~= ~ U "<~" ~ ::s ~~~§ ~ I" I.() ~S~~ :> ;0 a ê~~~ ~ '" CV) ~~uffi ~ m ~~~¡ [Q N ~g:~ ~ . ~~~o ~ 0 ~~~~ 0 Z ~5~~ /: §~~~ ~ ~ ~~§~ ': U ~~g; ~ :3 « ~o~;; z a §M~ !;! 0::: ~""~ lš I" -~o~ ~ ::s ~ ~~~~ ~ >- ~~T;; ~ Õ ~.~~ w ~~~~ ¡¡;: ~~~~ ;; ~~g~ ~~.~ ~ '" ~~ ~z ~g ~§ ~~ ~~ Nn gg ~~ u V ~ ~ ~ ~" " ';' g~ """ ~~ / / / / / 0/ ;¡/ '/ -{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u. \--",ß~ '!¡ \ ~æ~ \ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~\ ~ ...;;' \ ~-;h\ ~ ~. u \ ..~ \ ~.~ \ 'i '% \ ~ \ \ \ ",~;'iir<- ~ ",g: ",.,2. ro'" g ¡:¡ ". : ~ :~ r-" u. ~:~ ':~~ e:::; ~\ 133H5 335 ;: ~ I- 0 ...J '" I- W W I '" W W '" :J. "' '" ",<ri 1-'iI g~ " r- ~ <D I- 0 oJ t 101 9 133H5 335 "' f- 0 ...J VJ f- W W :I: VJ n . §".2;~"-~~~'!~ ~B~~~~~~~",:!iio ~~m~mUm ~~~~~"...""N.. II 133H5 335 :\~ Sió ~; -i}¡~ N ø r-t5w a"-w ...J'?é" "- a ~ ~i!! ~~ ~ffi ~~ ~~ H N~ r- w !J! VJ gg ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ '" r- w w :I: VJ W W VJ ~~8 ffi>o ~ ~~. '" M ¡;> "". ~ i~t 8 "- ." Z N a lC) ~~~~ ~ 'iì\ ~ A i!~~~ ¡¡ --q-ì" r- "'^ ê'5~~ " ';1.' VJ ~.~ o~~ <'--- ui Q') gi!~i " - :¡¡ N ~~B~ Ö ", ~ ~~:~ ...J ~ om~ ~ z ~~~: r- ffiO~- ~ I- ~~U ~ U ;~g: ~ 5 « ~~~~ :¡ ~ a::: ~:~~ ~ ~ I- ;;~~~ e "- ~~.~ .. a ~;.g ::I ¡: ~~1~ ~ ¡; ~S;¡~ ß~." ~ ~~~; ;;; :g"~ U:i '" r- w w :I: VJ W W VJ ~ / ~ ~ ~ '- ~ ~ II 133H5 335 := f- 0 ...J 0> f- 0 ...J '" f- 0 ...J '" f- 0 ...J 3 i " \~ ~" t~ ~\\ ~~ z iz:¡, I £~ I i 1\ I ",. i ";1",>'1.- I :;"." /. I~~ 1~2 i~- " "' ói ~ <ON f-íi 0< ...Ji;! < t;j z f- 0 ...J ~ 9 133H5 335"" 3_",""" t lOl f- 0 ...J ~ r- w !J! VJ w w VJ '00' '00' JOO' "",' " I- ::J :¡: VJ W W VJ ~ "' "' :r: I/) '" "- 0 :: r- "' "' :r: I/) oe-glvg~ we 3--=-- ~~~ ~ I~~ e !1~~ ;¡! ~~~ u ~~~< g ::; LO ~~~§ ~ Þ' A ~~~~ ~ ;ó ~~~. :¡; I/) ('i') ~~~~ ~ ¡.¡ 0) §~~! ¡Q N ~~~~ ~ . ~~~§ ::; 0 ~~~~ ~ Z ~~~~ z L- ~~~~ is r- .~§~ u () ~§~. . « ~~§, ~ 13 « ~~~~ ~ !>j tY: ¡;~~~ ~ Þ' L- -@O" ... ::; .-- ~~.. " ~;,~ ~ ~ ~u, . or ¡:¡ ~..~ .~~~ ~ h~~ ;;; <¡¡t;~ g"\Ò" ~~~~ . ';"gj 00' ~~ g ~ ~. ~'gj ~~ ~ §i ~~ ~~~n ~;§~~ s' N~~ §, ~~. ~8~~~ ~§~¡jg E~!1~§ :i "- 0 :::<ri f-" 0" -'Ii! " r- ~ ~ r- "' "' :r: I/) "' "' I/) ;{$'.,¡;. II "M .'"." I '°.J ",',,/ llf' / -/ , / 7'MÜ[¡;'<,¡¡ / / I ~ ¡g. ~~ ~~ ~i/ ~~ H N~ gg r-r- ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ f- u~ 0 ~; -' f- 0 -' ~ ê ~ '- ~ 9 133H5 335 6 133H5 335 ~.:oi. "'0 "'N t5~ """ ~~~ f-Wf- O~W ~ nm- -' :_~n(,~~;,~,-.~;~~:mm::L______-----____-;,_n <I) f- '" UJ I <I) ~ ;;1~ ~>' ~~ ¡¡¡~ ~;S êê N~ "- 0 ~ f- UJ UJ I <I) gg f-f- / ::J::J iiiiii U :: " Ie' ~~¡¡ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ffi ~¡¡5 "" ~~~ ~ g;~ 8 [; i~§ ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~~ ¡¡ ::s ~~~ ~ ~I.{)§~!; ;õO::. (I)(V)~~.. ~(j)~.~ iQN8~~ ~ .M 0: O~~a ::sZ~~~ Ç: g~~ §I- ~;;¡. 0 f5~ ~Ui5¡;~ ~ "" ~"- -'«.~g z OJ """ '" f¡JtV~§~ ¡;¡ ~u...~~~ ~ "-I- g~§ .. ~ ~~~ ~ f- ;;;~~" 13 ~¡¡~ ~ ~§; 0 <:; ~~~:- !~~ ~ <~~ <I) ~~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~iJ¡ f-i:] o~ -'° 0> f- UJ UJ I <I) UJ UJ <I) t ~ b ê ~ ~ ~" ;~5 ~r'.~.'" ".".or.", . . ""."."'tN ""JÁ- <i'~ f-t w' '" ~l 133HS 33S '".or""M."'W') ;:: 0 -' -' 0 :r: t ~ ;; '" ~ §~~~i ~!~:~ ~' ".~ §, ~5. ~~i5~~ ~8~~g E~~S§ ~ i ~ .~ ci N ~~ ;., .~ ).> § ~ ...: .» w " :5 iQ 3 ~ UJ 0: ::¡ ~ ::s ::s Ç: ~ ~ " " \ " < §~~ ~ ~.' e ~i\~ :;¡; ~"~ () ¡¡P... ~ ~~~~ ~ I!! LO ~~~§ ~ >' a .g~~ ;'§ (f) ,..,... ê~~~ ~ . ~. ~ 80~ ~ ~ 0') ~5~~ ¡Q N ~..§ '!;! "<~~ ¡¡: . ~;~~ ~ 0 ~~~§ ~ Z d:~ z z~~O b 8 I- ~iâ~ ~:;~ .. () ~a~~ ==Àc 2 5 .A' ~~§% ¡¡ - =~ () 'I." ~~~~ ;; - ~ tV g~~~ < I!! u.. ~4~ ~ "- I- g§~~ e 0 .-0' .. ç ~;.~ oj ¡:¡ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~g. <~i¡~ ~§g~ ~N~~ , >- \ I~ \ ,'" I~ ZZ \ ',-, .9.9 g \I~ ~~ ß \I '" 0: ~ d~"" gj "- '"w zo: , "" V'" J:z 0< , æ~ I I I ~ !llli Ii H~§~ ~z ~ ITEM 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN E CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Manager/City Council (',;.J-1Í William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer March 22, 2005 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract John Warner Road Assessment District Improvement Project No. PW02-07 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the project, John Warner Road Assessment District Improvements, Project No. PW02-07, as complete; and 2. File a Notice of Completion, release the performance Bond; and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; and 3. Release the Materials and labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On August 12, 2003 the City Council awarded the construction contract to Mclaughlin Engineering and Mining, Inc. in the amount of $1,059,569.50 for the referenced project and authorized the City Manager to approve change orders that are within the 10% contingency. This project consisted of the installation of storm drain facilities, catch basins, a desilting basin, and the construction of new paved roads. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is included in the City's Capital Improvement Program, and is funded with Capital Project Reserves and Assessment District bond proceeds, Account No. 210- 165-727-5804. The total cost of the project including authorized contract change orders and quantity adjustments was $1 ,620,184.20, including costs associated with relocating existing Rancho California Water District (RCWD) facilities and extending a RCWD waterline. RIAGEN DA REPORTS\2005\O32205\PWO2-07NotlceofCompletion .doc Final field measured quantities resulted in a net cost increase of $101,525.36. Contract Change Orders 1 through 11 were approved in the amount of $459,089.34; see attached summary. The City and RCWD entered into a reimbursement agreement for costs associated with an extended existing RCWD waterline; this will result in the City recovering roughly $154,000 of the contract change order work. RCWD disagrees with the City's position that RCWD is responsible for the costs associated with relocating their existing waterlines and appurtenances that conflicted with the planned improvements. The City is proceeding with litigation to recover all costs associated with of the relocation of RCWD's facilities. ATTACHMENT: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release 4. Contract Change Order and Quantity Overrun Summary R IAGEN DA REPORTSI2005\O32205\PWO2-O7NoliceofCompletion .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: John Warner Road Assessment District Improvements. 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 McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc., 41934 Main Street, #107, Temecula, CA 92590-2701 to perform the following work of improvement: John Warner Road Assessment District Improvements Project No. PW02-07 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 March 22, 2005. That upon said contract the Travelers Casualtv and Suretv Companvof America 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: John Warner Road between Cabrillo Ave, and Santiago Rd, 6. The location of said property is: Temecula, California Dated at Temecula, California, this 22nd dav of March 2005. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) Susan W. Jones CMC, City Cierk I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City ofT emecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE 0 F 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 22nd dav of March 2005. Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk RIA G EN OAR EPO RT S \200 5\0 3220 5\PW 02-07 Noli ceotCom plalion. d oc EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE BOND #72BCSAB3887-A PREMIUM INCLUDED IN PERFORMANCE BOND CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND PROJECT NO, PW02-07 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING & MINING INC., 41934 MAIN ST #107, TEMECULA CA 92590 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S a CORPORATION (fill in wheltJer e Corporation, Partnorship or individual) , hereinafter called Principal, and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ONE POINT DRIVE, BREA CA 92821 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FTF'I'V-STX --------------------- DOllAAS and NINETY-FIVE ------- --- --- CENTS ($105.956.95 ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of Which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 12TH day of AUGUST, 2003, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PW02- 07, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 03.()4 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of Q!lê. (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 - ,2003, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approyal 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 terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished 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 the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. MAINTENANCE BOND Mot A:\CIP\PROJECTS'I'WO2\PWcrz-Q7 JoI1n WamCiISpeCS'mO7spocsR I.do< The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no c"ange, extension of time, alleration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the wor1< to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its 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 this 26TH day of AUGUST ,2003. (Seal) B' INGRI ERIKA CROSBY (Na~~ORNEY-IN-FACT (TlUe) APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: (Name) Pelor M. 11101501\. City Altomey (TIlle) ~ ¡ MAINTENANCE BONO M.2 R:'CIP\PROJECTSlPWQ2IPW02-4J7 John WBmallSpecs'l!207t¡>et CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Caiifornia County of Riverside } ss. On Aug, 26, 2003 personally appeared Jerry Dalrymple before me, Carol M. Schlitz, Notary Public NO_""'"",dOllu"o.g."OM Doo.-. P"'<l Do" """"1015""'1 KI personally known 10 me KI proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence -='~~6-~ NoIary PublIc - CaUlomia ~ ~County - ~~~~_~2~2~7t 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 signature(s) on the instrument the person(s). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Wè;~7d~;~ ' SO""," N".. Po.. ~ OPTIONAL Though the In!onnetion below Is not required by taw, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent !raudulent removal and reattachment 01 this lonn to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Maintenance Bond/John Warner Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Jerry Dalrymple Top 01 thornb h", :~: ,. ~'> " 0 Individual KI Corporate Officer - Title(s): President/See/Treasurer 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attomey-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: Signer Is Representing: McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc, ,'~ .'. .,', . C""N"""'_"""""'""03SODoSoIoA... PD. B,,24"'Cho"~",. "'01""2402'_""",-.", Prod. No. ,g,n Roo"",c."T.'.F,~ \.'00<"."" CALIFORNIA ALL.pURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of SAN DIEGO On 26 AUGUST 2003 DATE before me, WENDY H. DOWNS, NOTARY PUBLIC NAME. TIllE OF OFFICER. E.G., 'JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared INGRID ERIKA CROSBY NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) ~ personally known to me - OR - 0 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 ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, exe<;uted the instrument. ~" 0001. . WBNDYH,OOWNS ~=Ñ'r:=8J My eo.:= =-. M~. 2007 OPTIO AL Though the data below Is not required by law, " may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this fonn. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER 0 INDMDUAL 0 CORPORATEOFACER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Œ:I ATTORNEY-IN-FACT 0 TRUSTEE(S) 0 GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR 0 OTHER: TT1I..E{S) 0 LIMITED 0 GENERAL TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT 0 PARTNER(S) NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) SURETY SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 0 or",., V".... . .".... "h>VI'I-\I~I"t;. I"UIVIr'I-\I~ I Hartford, Connecticut POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all men by thos. Pros.nls, ThaI HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPmv. a COfporaüon duty Of¡anized under the laws 01 \he Slale 01 Conncdicut, and having ils principalollIce in the City or Hartford, Counly of Hartford. State 01 Conne<;t;art, does hereby make, corsütule and appoint Larry D. ÛJgdill, Ingrid Erika Crosby, Brook Lafrenz, Wendy H. Down.s, Michael W. Thomas of San Diego, CA its true and lawful AttorneY(sHn.faGt, with rut! power and authorily to eadl 01 said AItomeY(sHn.faGt, in their separate capadly ~ more than one ~ named above, to .;gn, ex8<:UIe and acl<nowtedgo any and aD bonds and undertakings and - writings obligatory In the nalure thereof on behan 01 the Company In its busil18$s of guaranteeing !he fidelity of peroons holding places of public 0< private trus1; gu3l'ønleeing the peffonnanœ of conlnlcts - than Insurance poIideo; guaranteeing the pertol1T13nœ 01 insuran", conll3cts where surety bonds a", accepted by ;tates and municipalitios, and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or pennilled in aU actions or proceeding< or by law aOowed. and to bind HARTfORD FIRE INSURANCE COIJPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as n ...'" bonds and undertakings and other writings ebrogalooy in !he nalUre \hereol were signed by an E=rtive Officer of HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPmy and seated and allested by one oIher of such Offoce", and hereby raüroes ,nd conlinns ,lIlhal its said At1omey(s)-in.fad may do in ¡><I""anœ hereof. This P"*,,, 01 AIIomey Is granted under and by authority or !he Byuws of HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ('the Company") as amended by the Board of Oirectoro al a moeting duty called and held on May 13"1999. as follows: ARTiClE N ~. The President 0< any V... P",sldent 0< AssIs1ant V... Pr_~ acting with any Sea...1)' or Assistant s.c...1ary shaD haw power and aulhorily to sign and e- and alia'" the aeaI of the Company 10 bonds and undertakings. -""noes, conlnlds 0I1ndemnI1y and other writings obligalory in !he nalure Ihefeol, and such InstnIments SO signed and executed, with or - the common seal, shall be valid and binding upon the Company. ~. The President 0< any Voce PresIdent or any Assistant Voce Pn!$Îdent acüng with any SecretaI)' 0< Assistant Se<:retal)'. shall have power and aulhority to appoint, for purposes onty oIexec:uting and attesting bonds and undertakings and - writings obligatory in the nal"'" thereof, one or more _, Voce Presidents, resident AssisIant Seaetalios and A!Iomeys4>.faeland at any time 10 remove any such ""'dent Voce Pre.ident, resident Assistant Se<:retal)', or AIIomey<n.facland revoke !he power and authority gõven to him. Resolved, Ihat !he signat..... 01 such Oft'oce" and !he seat 01 !he Company may be alfuœd to any such powe< of attorney 0< 10 any certifICate relating !hereto by facsirrule, and any such """'" oIoUo<ney.. œ<tificaIe bearing such facsimile signature< or facsimile seal shaft be valid and binding upon \he Company and any such power so executed and certified by facsimi1e signatu... and facsimile seal shall be valid and bôncfing upon \he Company In \he futu", - resped 10 any bond or undertaking to which ~ ~ attached. In Witnoss Whereof, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMpmV has caused these presents to be ~gned by its Assistanl VoCe Presidcnl and its cor¡>Orate sea' to be hereto aflixed, duly allested by its Assistant Se<:retary, this 14\h day 01 May, 1999. Attest HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPmv. ~J Ct. ~ /v!r Paul A. BetgenhoItz, Assistant Secretary Robert L. PosL Assistant Voce President STATE OF CONNECTlaJT} ss. COUIIlY OF HARTFORD Hartford On \his 14#1 day of May, AD. 1999, before me personally came Robert L Post. 10 me known, who being by me dLly SW<>m, did depose and say. \hat he resides In the County of HaI1Iord, State 01 Connedicut: Ihat he Is the Assistant Voce Pn>sIiIent 01 HARTfORD FIRE INSURANCE COW'ANY, \he corporation described In and which exe<:uIed \he at>ov. miniment; that he knows the seat 01 !he said corporation; Ihat the seatoflixed to \he said InsWment Is such corporate sear; that k was so affixed by order of !he Boanj 01 Diredoro of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto by Ii1œ order. ~.....,. '!~t ~ o"uln.f:. CERTIFICATE ~c/ ~:::.~ ç-- NouryPublic My Co""""ion E'I'Ù<' I.... 30, 2004 I, \he undersigned, Assistant Voce President 01 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Conne<;t;cu! Corporaüon. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that !he foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force and has not been revoked; and furthermore, that Miele N, Seclions 7 and 8 or \he Byuws of HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, set forth in the Power or Attorney, are now in forte. Signed and sealed at the City of Har\lon. Dated the 26TH day of AUGUST 20 03 ~,¡ß~ ,C J. Dennis 13ne, Assistant VICe President Form S-4054.2 Printed in U.SA -. ¿ Insured's Name McLaughlin Engineering & Mining Inc. Insured's Mailing Address 41934 Main Street #107 Temecula, CA 92590 /Policy Number 72BCSAB3887 IMPORTANT NOTICE TO OBLIGEES/POLICYHOLDERS - TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002 You are hereby notified that, under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, effective November 26, 2002, we must make terrorism coverage available in your bond/policy. However, the actual coverage provided by your bond/policy for acts of terrorism, as is true for all coverages, is limited by the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits, other provisions of your bond/policy, any endorsements to the bond/policy and generally applicable rules of law. Any terrorism coverage provided by this bond/policy is partially reinsured by the United States of America under a formula established by Federal Law. Under this formula, the United States will pay 90% of covered terrorism losses exceeding a statutorily-established deductible paid by sureties/insurers until such time as insured losses under the prograrn reach $100 billion. If that occurs, Congress will determine the procedures for, and the source of, any payments for losses in excess of $100 billion. The premium charge that has been established for terrorism coverage under this bond/policy is either shown on this form or elsewhere in the bond/policy. If there is no premium shown for terrorism on this form or elsewhere in the bond/policy, there is no premium for the coverage. I Terrorism premium: I $0 Form 8-3333-0 @ 2002, The Hartford Page 1 of 1 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW02-07 ASSESSMENT DISTR/CT 03-04 (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN /MPROVEMENT PROJECT McLaughlin Engineering This is to certify that & Mining, Inc, , (hereinafter 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 CONTRACTOR's 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. PW02-07, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (JOHN WARNER ROAD) STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: John Warner Road Street & Storm Drain Improvements, Temecula, CA 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: N/A Description N/A 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. Dated: 3/9/05 CONTRAO'I'~ '-- ~ By: Signature Fred Perkins, Director Prinl Name and Title AElEASE A.I A:\CIP\PAOJECTSIPW02IPWO2-07 John Warn.~Sp.cs'IJ207specsAI_doc Page 1 of 2 Change Order Summary/Contingency Balance John Warner AD PW02-Q7 <, l;'J¡çM RESP : };,¡øe$CRIPTION;. ';.~, ¡::< .;t,.,~,... TOTAL:: Iii eeO1 1.1 R 12" CML&C Relocation $ 36,641.05 C R Prime Mark-up $ 2,082.06 $ 38,723.11 eeO2 2.1 R Relocate RCWD Water Service La" $ 31,072.04 2.2 R Repair Unmarked RCWD line $ 2,283.87 $ 33,355.91 eeO3 3.1 C Redesign storm drain segment $ 1,395.55 3.2 C Construct redesigned storm drain $ 7,275.00 3.3 C Additional survey staking $ 3,850.00 $ 12,520.55 eeO4 4.1 JW Remove Trees & Masonry W /I ROIJI $ 3,327.37 4.2 JW Install Add'i SD on JW $ 3,892.23 4.3 RL Install Temp H2O service $ 6,902.19 4.4 C SD Revisiosn JW & Cabrillo $ 6,507.74 $ 20,629.53 eeos 5.1 C Pothole RCWD Main on Lolita $ 1,051.66 5.2 JW Colver Ct SD Adds $ 9,776.28 5.3 JW Turner Driveway SD $ 1,105.92 $ 11,933.86 eeO6 C Resolve Delay Claims $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000.00 eeO7 7.1 JW Removal for Ryenold Dvwy Fix $ 781.80 7.2 R Relocate Airvac & WM John Warnel $ 2,995.30 7.3 JW A'ddl PCC Remove London Dvwy $ 695.11 $ 4,472.21 eeos 8.1 JW Survey & Restake Lolita Redesign $ 4,632.54 8.2 JW Relocate Airvac, WM & FH Lolita R $ 5,955.49 8.3 JW Redesign Roadwork Lolita $ 28,252.24 $ 38,840.27 eeO9 RL La Presa H2O extension $ 145,000.00 $ 145,000.00 eeo 10 10.1 JW Add'i Hydro Seed & Irrig. $ 2,017,73 8.2 JW FG for RD on La Presa & Lolita $ 3,089.77 8.3 RL Relocate La Presa WM $ 2,006.40 $ 7,113.90 eeo 11 JW Add" SWPPP Measures $ 11,500.00 $ 11,500.00 Page2of2 Change Order Summary/Contingency Balance John Warner AD PW02~7 ~~_j¡:mal~~~~q,~ '. ~m£~~&íî~'.~~~ ~"1i'Æ!~'-:~~~ Total Chan e Orders Contract Item Overage/underage Unclassified Ex Crushed AB AC Pavement Concrete Driveway AC Dike Roadside Signs Relocate Street Name Sign Relocate Mailbox Relocate Security Pad Relocate Water Meter Adjust Valve Cover Relocate Fence 18" RCP 36" RCP 42" RCP 21' Catch Basin Inlet Type X 1/2 Ton RSP Cutoff Wall Relocate ARV Relocate 8" CML&C Drainage Ditch $ 459,089,34 3,228 @ $10.00 123.39 @ $18.00 177.16@$41.00 4,664 @$2.30 6,087 @ $4.50 2 @ $450.00 1 @ $350.00 1 @ $300.00 1 @ $700.00 5 @ $950.00 1 @ $150.00 256 @ $30.00 1 @ $50.00 3 @ $67.00 7.2 @ $104.00 2 @ $6,500.00 1 @ $3,100.00 82.84 @ $56.00 34 @ $350.00 1 @ $870.00 402 @ $56.00 24 @ $60.00 $32,280.00 ($2,221.02) ($7,263.56) $10,727.20 $27,391.50 ($900.00) $350.00 ($300.00) ($700.00) $4,750.00 ($150.00) $7,680.00 $50.00 ($201.00) ($748.80) $13,000.00 $3,100.00 $4,639.04 ($11,900.00) $870.00 $22,512.00 ($1,440.00) $ $ $ $ $ 540,000.00 645,956.95 459,089.34 101,525.36 85,342.25 ITEM 13 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Manager/City Council 1J1{¡villiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer TO: DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation & Re lacement Project - Project No. PW02-18 PREPARED BY: mer Attar, Principal Engineer Avlin R. Odviar, Associate Enginee~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation & Replacement Project, Project No. PW02-18. BACKGROUND: The City has completed the plans and specifications for the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation & Replacement Project. The Project is identified in the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. Rainbow Canyon Road is classified as a "major" roadway under the General Plan. As a typical hillside road, it is characterized by reversing curves with grades varying up to 6%. Approximately 1,880 feet of metal beam guard rail (MBGR) was installed along various portions of east side of Rainbow Canyon Road prior to annexation by the City. The MBGR does not cover many of the areas and does not meet current standards. The project proposes to remove all existing MBGR and place 5,000 feet of new MBGR between the southerly City limit and the Temecula Creek Golf Course. The plans and specifications have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $290,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation & Replacement Project is identified in the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and is funded through the federal Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program. Adequate funds are available in the project Administration Account No. 210-165-619-5801 and Construction Account No. 210-165-619-5804 to cover the Engineer's estimated construction costs. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. Project location Project Description RIAGENDA REPORTSI2005\O32205\PWO2-18 AUTH TO BID.DOC ~ ~ Þ: ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ v PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT PRIORITY: Project Type: Description: Circulation Upgrade and install new guardrails along Rainbow Canyon Road on the northbound side, Department: Scope of Project: Public Works-Account No. 210.165.619 PW02-18 Upgrade and install new guardrails along Rainbow Canyon Road, north from the City boundary to the Temecula Creek Golf Course entrance, Benefit: Total Project Cost: Project will improve traffic safety and circulation. $ 358,000 Administration Construction Design Totals Actuals to Date 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 $ 10,000 $ 45,600 $ 282,400 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 348,000 Future Years Cost To Complete $ 45,600 $ 282,400 $ 20,000 $ 348,000 Futnre O&M Costs: Source of Fnnds: $ 1,000 Annually Hazard Elimination Safety (lIES) Program Total Funding: $ 358,000 $ 358,000 52 ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council q.J~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract for Traffic Signal Installation at the Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive Intersection Project No. PW99-11TS }\mer Attar, Principal Engineer Steven Beswick, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a construction contract for Traffic Signal Installations at the Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive Intersection, Project No. PW99-11TS to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $117,205.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 2. Authorize the City Manger to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $11,720.50, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On October 12, 2004 the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the subject project and authorized the Public Work department to solicit construction bids. The traffic signal installation at the intersection of Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive is included in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and part of the approved Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2005-2009. In addition, this traffic signal installation will eliminate the need for a traffic signal at Clubhouse Drive as agreed to by the Rainbow Canyon Homeowners Association. 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 II Street Improvements (Project No. PW99- 11) are constructed, the traffic signal at Pechanga Parkway and Muirfield Drive will be modified to align with the urban arterial highway (6 lanes) design condition. Four bids were received and publicly opened on Monday, March 7, 2005. The results were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. DBX, Inc. Oak Engineering, Inc. HMS Construction, Inc. Moore Electric Contracting $117,205.00 $118,250.00 $128,200.00 $137,853.00 R,IAGENDA REPORTS\2005\O32205\PWGG-11TS Aw"d.OOC Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found DBX, Inc. of Temecula, California to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. DBX, Inc. has recently completed similar work for the City and for other agencies satisfactorily. The specifications allow twenty-five working days for the completion of this project, plus the time necessary to procure the needed traffic signal equipment. The traffic signal poles were ordered by the City at an earlier date and were delivered to the jobsite for use by the contractor. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineering estimate was $100,000.00. The bids for the project came in slightly higher than the engineer's estimate due to recent increases in material costs for construction projects. 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 Account No. 210-165-668-5804. The total construction cost is $128,925.50, which includes the contract amount of $117,205.00, plus a 10% contingency of $11,720.50. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. Project location Project Description Contract RIAGENDA REPORTS\20051O32205\PWgg.11TS AwocdDOC = ! ~ . fIJ ~ I ; ~ ~ ~ ~ t:: U ~ ...:¡ Qj t¡ ~ ~ ij "'" 'E' ~ t ~IÞ "" "" z~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: PECHANGA P ARKW A Y IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE n Project Type: Description: Department: Scope of Project: Benefit: Total Project Cost: Administration Acquisition Construction Construction Engineering Design Environmental Landscaping Totals Future O&M Costs: Source of Funds: PRIORITY: Circulation Design and construct full-width street improvements ofPechanga Parkway from south ofPechanga Parkway Bridge to Via Eduardo (Wolf Valley Road). Full width is 134' from south ofPechanga Parkway Bridge to Via Gilberto and 110' from Via Gilberto to Via Eduardo. Public Works-Account No. 210.165.668 PW99-11 Project will include the design, acquisition, environmental studies, mitigation and construction of road improvements to include curb, gutters, sound wall and storm drain facilities from Deer Hollow Way to Temecula Creek. Project will improve traffic circulation. $ 21,569,899 Actuals to Date $ 330,130 $ 3,019,570 $ 769,200 $ 248,730 Future Years Cost To Complete $ 551,270 $ 782,000 $ 14,934,829 $ 416,000 $ 166,800 $ 231,370 $ 120,000 $ 17,202,269 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 $ 200,000 2004-05 $ 351,270 $ 782,000 $ 14,934,829 $ 308,000 $ 166,800 $ 231,370 $ 120,000 $ 4,367,630 $ 16,894,269 $ 3,000 Annually Development hnpact Fees - Street hnprovements Reimbursement/Other - Pechanga Indian Tribe Contribution Reimbursement/Other - Dear Hollow Way Assessment District 159 Public Land Highways Grant Community Facilities District - Wolf Creek Total Funding: $ 108,000 308,000 $ $ 1,258,100 $ 4,400,000 $ 2,455,521 $ 4,721,121 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,735,157 $ 21,569,899 78 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW99-11TS PECHANGA PARKWA Y & MUIRFIELD DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 22nd day of March, 2005, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and DBX, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO, PW99- 11TS, PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications for Construction of local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW99-11TS, PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine SI. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW99-11TS, PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise CONTRACT C-1 R:\CIP\PROJECTSIPW99\99-11TS Pechan9a Pkwy-Muirfield DrlBid Docs & Specs\Contract.dotContract CONTRACT specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO, PW99-11TS, PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS and NO CENTS ($117,205.00), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed Twenty Five (25) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS A. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. B. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be C.2 R:\CiP\PROJECTSIPW99\99-11TS Pechanga Pkwy-Muirfieid Dr\Bid Docs & SpecslContractdotContract 7. 8. 9. CONTRACT paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is dernanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relation's Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the C-3 R:ICiPIPROJECTSIPW99199-11TS Pechanga Pkwy-Muimeid DIIBid Docs & SpecslContract.dotContract 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. CONTRACT adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the surn of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful rnisconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payrnents or final payments due to the CITY. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims 0 r items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. NOTICE TO CITY OF lABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. C4 R:\CIP\PROJECTSIPW99199.11TS Pechanga Pkwy.Muirfie~ DrlBid Ooes & Specs\Contract.dotContract 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. CONTRACT INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING lAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of t he City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than t he City of T emecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public law 101- 336, as amended. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 C.5 R:\CIPIPROJECTSIPW99199.11TS Pechanga Pkwy.Muirtield Dr\Bid Docs & SpecslContract.dotContract IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR DBX, Inc. 42066 Avendia Alvardo, #C Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 296-9909 Jim Perry, President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA Jeff Comerchero, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT C-õ R:\CiP\PROJECTSIPW99\99-11TS Pechanga Pkwy-Muirfieid DrlBid Docs & SpecslContract.dotContract ITEM 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II, PW02-26 Award of a Construction Contract PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Mayra De la Torre, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 05-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PHASE II PROJECT 2. Award a construction contract for the Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II Project, Project No. PW02-26 to R. J. Noble Company and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract (amount of contract will be presented at the Council meeting). 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed a contingency of 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On May 25,2004, the City Council awarded a construction contract for Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, Phase II Project to Griffith Company in the amount of $1,997,758.95. The project includes complete pavement reconstruction, lowering the crown of the roadway within the project limits, replacement of problematic driveways and broken curb & gutter, utility relocations, signing & striping and traffic control. Griffith Company began construction on July 06, 2004 and completed rnost of one of three phases of the project. Significant delays have occurred since early October, 2004 due to weather conditions and performance issues with the contractor. On March 08, 2005, the City Council approved terminating Griffith's contract as a matter of convenience. The completion of Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project is critical for public safety and the convenience to adjacent businesses. Accordingly, it is imperative that the City award a new construction contract to re-start and complete construction as soon as possible in order to improve public safety and prevent further inconvenience to the business owners. R. J. Noble Company is 1 R:\AGENOA REPORTSI2005\O32205\PWO2-26- Awa,d Jeffeesen New CentractDOC staffs recommended contractor to complete this work. RJ. Noble Company has extensive experience in road construction projects and has successfully completed numerous similar projects for the City. Going through the competitive bid process would require that the plans and specifications be modified and updated. This process may take 4 to 6 months by the time a new contractor is chosen and the work is restarted. In addition, due to the continuing increase of construction material costs, staff does not anticipate a substantial cost savings in a competitive bid process compared to a negotiated contract with R J. Noble. Soliciting a bid from a single proven contractor such as R J. Noble will ensure that the project is done in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. The City has a good working relationship with RJ. Noble. They have demonstrated exemplary attributes in getting the jobs done with professional, proactive, and cost-effective measures. Staff requested a construction bid for the remainder of the work from R J. Noble Company to complete this project. The Director of Public Works will present to the City Council under a separate cover the bid received from RJ. Nobie at the Council meeting for their review and approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II, js a Capital Improvement Program Project, which is funded with Measure A and Capital Project Reserves. The majority of funds for this project are still available in Account No. 210-165-621-5804. However, we anticipate that the costs associated with the project will increase due to material cost increases (since the time this project was originally bid). The Director of Public Works will present the financial impacts of this project to the City Council under a separate cover at the City Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 05-- 2. Agreement Between the City of Temecula and RJ. Noble Companyforthe Construction of the Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project - Phase II, Project No. PW 02-26 2 R:IAGENDA REPORTS120051032205IPWO2.26. Award Jefferson New Contract.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 05-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, PHASE II PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and a. The Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Phase II contract was awarded to Griffith Company in May 2004 with work scheduled to be completed in September 2004. b. Various delays in commencing work and delays in completing the work have resulted in the City and Griffith Company agreeing to a mutual termination of the construction contract for the Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, Phase II Project. c. Jefferson A venue has been in various stages of construction since July 2004. Additionally, the severe rains from November 2004 to the present have combined with the extended construction delays to create many potholes and other abnormalities in the Jefferson Avenue pavement, for which the City has been incurring additional expenses to provide temporary repairs for such damage. d. The City has diligently maintained legally required access for the businesses along Jefferson Avenue. Despite such access being maintained, the businesses have complained of the disruption to their businesses by the extended delays. e. The contractor proposed to complete the work bid on the original project and its bid to complete the Project is consistent with the bids originally received and with other current bids for sirnilar work. f. The City of Temecula further finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth above, full compliance with the otherwise applicable requirements of the Public Contracts Code would be unavailing, would not produce an advantage for the City, and would thus be undesirable, impractical, and impossible. The City's authority to proceed with the embankment work in this manner was well established in Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency et al. (1980) 104 Cal. App. 2nd 631 and the cases cited therein. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the construction agreement between the City of Temecula and R. J. Noble Company for the completion of the rehabilitation of Jefferson Avenue. (Project PW02-26) and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement in substantially the form submitted to the Council. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 813600.1 March 14, 2005 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22"d day of March, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECUlA ) )SS ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22" day of March, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCllMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCllMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCllMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCllMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk 813600.1 March 14,2005 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PWO2-26 JEFFERSON A VENUE PA VEMENT REHABILITA TION - PHASE /I FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD DRAFT DRAF' THIS CONTRACT, rnade and entered into the 22nd day of March, 2005, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and R. J. Noble Company, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO, PW02- 26, JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Pians and Specifications for Construction of local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO, PW02-26, JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Buiiding News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine SI. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW02-26, J EFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. RolClP\PROJECTSIPWO2'l'W02.26 J,ffA" R'hMhlAAgre"","",Coo"",,ooIRJ Nobl, Co""""," Co"""", C.1 Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherWise' specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW02-26 JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: DOLLARS and - CENTS ($ ), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed - U working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS A. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. R.'CIPlPROJECTSlPWO2\PWQ2-26 J,ff.A" R'h'>PhIAA"""""""'",,",""IRJ No", "'""""'" c,""<tO,, Co2 B. 7. 8. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the. Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. RICIP~ROJECTS~WO""Wi)2-26 J<ff.A" R,h,"hll\'.9""","",Co""""""'RJ Nobl, Co""""" Co"'actd", C-3 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relations's Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's ernployees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CITY. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. R.ICIP\PROJECTSlPWO2IPW02.26 Joff.A", R,hob-PhlllAo"",""lCoo,""'ooIRJ No", ""'""""" """""cd,, C-4 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. NOTICE TO CITY OF lABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING lAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of t he City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than t he City of T emecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public law 101- 336, as amended. R\C,P\PROJECTSWWO2\PW02.16 J,'.A~ R,h,"h,""""",,"","'","""'"'RJ No", "'"""",'" ",""""", C-5 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 RICIP1PROJECTSIPWO2IPW02-26 J<ff.A", R,h,~Phl"^g""",""C,"""","\RJ "obi, Co""""," Coo"""" C-6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR RJ. Noble Company P.O. 620 Orange, CA 92865 (714) 637-1550 Stan Hilton, Secretary Michael J. Carver, President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA Jeff Comerchero, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R,'CIPIPROJECTSIPWO2\PW02-26 "'.A~ R,h,~PhIAAg","","",C,""_"'RJ Nobl, Co"""",," Co",""doc c-? ITEM 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~-: - CITY MANAGER Zf) ( ., CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council Herman Parker, Director of Community serviceW March 22, 2005 DATE: SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Agreement Extension of Time PREPARED BY: ~ Ç-- Phyllis l. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECEMBER 31, 2005, TO FACILITIATE THE CITY'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CABLE OPERATOR REGARDING RENEWAL OF THAT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DISCUSSION: Adelphia Cable Communications provides cable services within the City of Temecula under a non-exclusive cable franchise agreement. The County of Riverside originally approved this franchise agreement prior to incorporation of the City. The original term of the agreement expired on January 9, 2004, and was extended by Resolution through March 31, 2005, to facilitate renewal negotiations. This action extends the franchise agreement for a nine month period. Staff completed a community survey of residents and businesses in Temecula to assess the community's views of current cable services and to ascertain additional desired services. Staff has also worked with Assistant City Attomey Bill Rudell to create a draft franchise agreement that addresses the City's cable needs and expectations. Adelphia has had an opportunity to review and comment on the documents. A negotiation team including Jeff Comerchero, as the Council sub-committee, and staff has meet on several occasions with representatives from Adelphia. During the course of negotiations, the bankruptcy court approved a stockholders' request to explore the viability of selling all or part of the Adelphia systems to other cable operators. At this time, it is unknown if any or all of the system will be sold to another provider or providers. It is uncertain which company may ultimately provide service within the City of Temecula. The negotiation team determined that it would be in the City's best interest to defer negotiations until the ultimate provider is known and to negotiate directly with R:IRUSEP\AGENDASlcable franchise time extension 12-31-05.doc that entity. Extension of the franchise term will facilitate Adelphia's continued operation of its cable system and the City's continued collection of franchise fees. The extension will also allow the City an opportunity to determine who the ultimate provider of service will be and to negotiate directly with that company. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the extension of the cable franchise agreement. R:IRUSEPIAGENDASlcable franchise time extension 12-31-05.doc RESOLUTION NO, 05-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECEMBER 31, 2005, TO FACILITATE THE CITY'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CABLE OPERATOR REGARDING RENEWAL OF THAT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: Section 1. This resolution is adopted in recognition of the following facts and circumstances: A. Century-TCI California, loP., dba Adelphia Cable Communications ("Adelphia"), is the authorized assignee of a cable television franchise agreement that was originally scheduled to terminate on January 9, 2004. B. The City and Adelphia agreed to extend the term of the cable television franchise agreement for an additional six (6) month period through June 30, 2004, and again extended the term through March 31,2005, to facilitate franchise renewal negotiations. C. Adelphia, through its bankruptcy proceedings, is exploring the potential of selling all or part of its cable systems to other qualified cable providers. D. The City and Adelphia desire to extend the term of the existing franchise agreement an additional nine (9) months through December 31,2005, in order determine what entity may ultimately provide service within the City and to continue the negotiation process when that determination has been made. Section 2. An extension of the cable television franchise agreement through and including December 31,2005, is hereby authorized, and the City Manager is authorized to continue negotiations with Adelphia's representatives for the renewal of the cable television franchise agreement on terms that are mutually acceptable to both parties. Section 3. This resolution will become effective on the date that an authorized representative of Adelphia executes the form of acceptance and acknowledgement that is set forth at the end of this resolution. 756526-1 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this - day of March 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk The undersigned, who is an authorized representative of Adelphia Cable Communications, acknowledges and accepts the extension of the cable television franchise agreement that is authorized by this resolution. CENTURY-TCI CALIFORNIA, loP., dba ADElPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS By Title Dated 756526-1 ITEM 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~ CITY MANAGER r¡t CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grant Deed- Harveston lake Park PREPARED BY: Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator / RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize acceptance of the Grant Deed for Harveston lake Park, located in the Harveston development and direct staff to proceed with the necessary actions to cause the deed to be recorded. BACKGROUND: Harveston is a large Specific Plan development located at the northern boundary of the City east of Interstate 15. The Harveston lake and lake Park Development and Transfer Agreement was approved by the Council on February 22, 2005. This park includes an 8.4 acre lake surrounded by an 8.7 acre park. Facilities include an informal grass amphitheater; gazebo; two restrooms; a boat dock; storage facility; age appropriate play areas; benches and a ten (10) foot walkway. As per the Development and Transfer Agreement, the transfer of this park site is scheduled to occur March 29, 2005. There are some construction items that must be remedied to meet City and State Code requirements. The developer is aware of these and is working to correct them. Through bond and other agreements with the developer, City staff and the City Attorney are satisfied that safeguards are in place that will ensure the work will by completed properly. A policy of title insurance will be provided by the developer to accompany the transfer of title to the City. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost for maintaining Harveston lake Park for the remaining portion of this fiscal year has been estimated at $65,000 and is included in the Temecula Community Service District current budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Grant Deed 2) Vicinity Map RIMoC,rthCIA",d, R'po",\H,~,"oo L," Poc' - Gco", O..d.doo EXEMPT RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Temecula PER GOV'T CODE § 27383 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Office of the City Clerk City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula CA 92589-9033 EXEMPT RECORDING SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT DEED The undersigned grantor declares: FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Harveston, llC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company hereby grants to the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, the following described real property in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto, Executed on ,2005, at , California. Signature Tom Banks Vice President Harveston, llC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company Notary's Form City of Temecula Office of the City Clerk 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the grand deed dated date signed on deed from Harveston, llC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company to the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by order of the Temecula City Council made on March 22, 2005 and the grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. March 22, 2005 CITY OF TEMECULA By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 1:1 City 7\l Highways œ [:J ~:~n. - Haovestonla..parl<.shp Th,__m",.by""'C'~"'T~'.Googrnph'" ""-""S"'~..Tho_',d.",,dfrom....d"'" """""" by "'" """,dO c"m~ -, Dopartmon, .""""'T_""""Umd_---'Ago"'Y o,""",id.""'orty.ThoC","'T~~',__oo ~orty""ogot"""",1b"'~""""""""""'",=,.,.... """"'m"".D""'.""""""""""""""""""""""",,, '~'"_to"pdot..""mod.",Ion. Tho_"""" 'o""""""S"",.""-""",,, ""," """,,;""""'" mœ',"m""'"'~,tl",. Th"""',""'f,,,~prl"""'~'" ",""....",""M,"" 16, 2005 "~',\ko""""".w"n>jo""~~""""""""".,,,,, ITEM 18 ORDINANCE NO. OS-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WOLF CREEK PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION PAOS-G027) THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: Section 1. declare that: A. Wolf Creek Development llC, filed Planning Application No. PA05-0027, Development Agreement Amendment for the property consisting of approximately 557 acres generally located south of loma Linda Road, west of Pechanga Parkway, north of Deer Hollow Way and west of the Redhawk Community, generally known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 ("Project"); The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, detemnine and B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on March 2, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; D. Following consideration of the entire record of infomnation received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-09 recommending the City Council approve of a Development Agreement Amendment; E. On March 8, 2005 and March 22, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On March 22, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Development Agreement Amendment for the Project when it approved Ordinance No. 05-04. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the First Amendment to the Wolf Creek Development Agreement as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3, Severability. 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 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 4, Notice of AdoDtion. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R/Ords 2005l0rds 05-04 Section 5. 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. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of March, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 05-04 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of March, 2005 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCllMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCllMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCllMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCllMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R/Ords 2005/Qrds 05-04 EXHIBIT A WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT G:lPlanning\2005\P AOS-OO27 Wolf Creek TCSD, DA AmendmentlPlanninglDraft CC Ord.doc 4 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attn: City Clerk Exempt from recor<ling fees pursuant to Gov!. Code Section 27383 (Space above for recorder's use) ~TAMENDMENTTODEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT. LLC (WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12) This First Amendment to Development Agreement (the "First Amendment") is made and entered into as of March _,2005, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owner"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Pursuant to said authority and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this First Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following purposes and facts which the parties agree to be true and correct: A. The City and Sop Murdy, LLC entered into that certain Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement"), dated February 13, 2001, and recorded on October 3, 2001, as Instrument No, 2001-481217 with respect to the Property, On December 15, 2003, the City, Owner, and Sop Murdy entered into that certain "First Operating Memorandum" to clarify certain tenns of the Development 808514.1 March 1, 2005 Agreement. Capitalized tenus that are used herein without definition and that are defined in the Development Agreement are used herein as so defined. B. The real property which is the subject of the Development Agreement and this First Amendment is located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of Cali fomi a and is generally known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No, 12 (the "Property"), The Property is more specifically described on Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. C. On or about July 2,2003, Owner purchased a portion of the Property (northerly of Wolf Valley Road and exclusive of the commercial portion) (the "Northerly Property") ftom Sop Murdy, and has entered into an option agreement with S- P Murdy for the purchase of the remainder of the Property (southerly of Wolf Valley Road and exclusive of the commercial portion) (the "Southerly Property"). In connection with the July 2, 2003 purchase and sale and pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement dated as of July 2,2003, Sop Murdy assigned to Owner all of its right, title and interest in and to the Development Agreement to the extent that such right, title and interest in the Development Agreement related to the Northerly Property acquired by Owner, and Sop Murdy delegated to Owner, and Owner assumed, certain obligations arising under the Development Agreement. D. On or about September 23, 2004, Owner purchased the Southerly Property ftom Sop Murdy. In connection with the September 23, 2004 purchase and sale and pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement dated as of September 23, 2004, Sop Murdy assigned to Owner all of its right, title and interest in and to the Development Agreement to the extent that such right, title and interest in the Development Agreement related to the Southerly Property acquired by Owner, and Sop Murdy delegated to Owner, and Owner assumed, certain obligations arising under the Development Agreement. E. Owner has conveyed portions of the Northerly Property to the following merchant builders: William Lyons Homes and D,R. Horton (the "Merchant Builders"), Owner did not assign to the Merchant Builders, and the Merchant Builders did not assume, any of Owner's obligations under the Development Agreement to construct the On-site and Off-site Improvements, F. The Development Agreement incorporates by reference certain development approvals and grants to Owner a vested right to construct in accordance with those development approvals subject to the tenus of the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement also recognizes the necessity for future development approvals which would become part of the rights and obligations of the Development Agreement when approved, G, On January 23,2001, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 ("Original Map") and other land use entitlements with certain conditions of approval which conditions must be satisfied prior 808514.1 March 1, 2005 2 to the recordation of a final map for the Property ("Original Map Conditions of Approval"), On October II, 2001, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the Phasing Map for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 ("Phasing Map") with certain conditions of approval that must be satisfied prior to the recordation of a final map for the Property (the "Phasing Map Conditions of Approval"). H, As Owner has implemented the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Project and constructed the On-site and Off-site Improvements, the City and Owner have recognized the need to adjust the sequence of construction for some of the park improvements and to provide for the Owner's design and construction of additional park facilities for the City, I. Concurrently herewith, the City and Owner have entered into that certain Agreement to Defer Completion of Conditions of Approval Until After Recordation of Final Map for Tract No. 29305-F (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12), dated as of February 22,2005. J. Owner and the City now desire to amend the Development Agreement as set forth below. 2. Modification of Section 4.2.5(iv) of Development Al!reement Concerninl! Park Fee Component (Neil!hborhood and Linear Parks). Section 4.2.5(iv) of the Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: "(iv) Park Fee Component (Neighborhood and Linear Parks). Provided OWNER has improved, as required by the Development Plan, and has offered and the CITY has accepted a grant deed to the six (6) acre Neighborhood Park and the six and seven tenths (6,7) acre Linear Park, as described in the Development Plan, the CITY shall credit to OWNER the total sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000,00) against the total Park Fee Component of Three Million Six Hundred Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty-seven Dollars ($3,614,127.00). The credit shall be allocated as follows: "Six Hundred Thousand Dollars for the Neighborhood Park; and "One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars for the Linear Park. "OWNER agrees that any design and construction costs in excess of the respective DIF credits for the improvement of the Neighborhood and Linear Parks will be the sole responsibility of the OWNER." 3. Amendment of Section 4.4,3(iii) and (iv) Relatinl! to the Time for 808514.1 March 1, 2005 3 ConstructiB!! Park ImDrovements, Subsections (iii) and (iv) of Section 4.4.3 of the Development Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced as follows: U(iii) Owner agrees to convey fee title to the CITY after the improvement, and the lapse of the ninety (90) day maintenance period, 6 acres in Planning Area I 1 ofthe Specific Plan for the Neighborhood Park. The six-acre Neighborhood Park shall be improved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Services, the ninety (90) day maintenance period shall have lapsed and the conveyance shall have occurred on or before the issuance of the 700th building permit within the Project. U(iv) Owner agrees to convey fee title to the CITY and improve, per the conditions in the Development Plan, 6.7 acres for Linear Park and the Activity Nodes. The first phase north of Wolf Valley Road shall be completed and the ninety (90) day maintenance period shall have lapsed prior to the issuance of the 600th building permit within the Project. The second phase, comprised of the area south of Wolf Valley Road, shall be improved and the ninety (90) day maintenance period shall have lapsed prior to the issuance of the 1400th building permit in the Project." 4. All conditions of Approval in the Development Plan are modified to comply with these modifications, 5. Except as specifically modified in this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left B/ank] 808514.1 March I, 2005 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Covenant as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation JeffComerchero Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved A1J to Fonn: Peter M, Thorson City Attorney OWNER WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a CaIüomla limited liability company By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: [Two signatures of corporate officers required for execution by corporation.] MERCHANT BUILDERS 808514,1 March 1, 2005 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MARCH 8, 2005 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:41 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, 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 February 22, 2005. 2 Award a Construction Contract for Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Liahtina Proiect No. PW04-06CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Award a construction contract for Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting - Project No. PW04-06CSD - to R & M Electrical Contracting in the amount of $102,696 and authorize the President to execute the contract; 2.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $10,269.60 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 3 Reiection of the Construction Bid for Proiect No. PW04-15CSD - Erie Stanlev Gardner Exhibit RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Reject the construction bid for Project No. PW04-15CSD - Erie Stanley Gardner Exhibit; 3.2 Authorize the Public Works Department to readvertise and solicit construction bids for Project No. PW04-15CSD - Erie Stanley Gardner Exhibit. R:lMinutes.csdIO30BO5 MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Director Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4 Tract MaD No. 25004 Service level B. Droposed residential street lighting. Service level C. Derimeter landscaDina and sloDe maintenance and Service level D. refuse and recycling collection services rates and charges RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 05-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 3,2005, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL BAND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 25004 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL BAND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 4.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots; 4.2 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. Community Services Director Parker provided the staff report (as per agenda material). At this time, President Washington opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Tract MaD No. 29133 - Service level B, DroDosed residential street lighting. Service level C. Derimeter landscaDing and sloDe maintenance and Service level D. refuse and recvclinq collection services rates and charges RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R\Minutes.csdIO30605 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 05-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 3,2005, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL BAND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29133 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL BAND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 5.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots; 5.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. Community Services Director Parker provided the staff report (as per agenda material). At this time, President Washington opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT Community Services Director Parker thanked the public for its attendance at the Pablo Apis Park Dedication. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT Referencing the Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting Project, General Manager Nelson commented on the community benefits through the City's and the School District joint use ventures. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS Advising that it was an exciting event, Director Comerchero commented on the renaming ceremony of the Temecula Sports Park after Ronald Reagan and noted that efforts are underway to raise funds for the construction of a park monument. R:\Minutes.csdIO30805 ADJOURNMENT At 7:46 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes.csdIO30805 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors Shawn D. Nelson, General Manager FROM: ~~usan W. Jones \"yity Clerk/Director of Support Services DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Ratification of Election Results - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 PREPARED BY: Cheryl Domenoe, Administrative Assistant CO RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 05-- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON MARCH 14,2005 DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW BACKGROUND: At the meeting of January 25, 2005, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. CSD 05-04, which called for a Special Election to be held among the property owners of the parcels within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12. The purpose of this election was to establish Service level B, Service level C, and Service level D, rates and charges for street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope landscaping maintenance, and refuse and recycling collection services per residential parcel beginning FY 2005-06 This election was conducted by mail with a final date for acceptance of ballots to be no later than 8:30 a.m. on March 14,2005. At 8:30 a.m. on that date, the City Clerk acting in her capacity as the City's Election Official and as the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District declared the receipt period for receiving ballots closed. At 9:00 a.m., the Elections Canvassing Board duly appointed and consisting of City Clerk Susan Jones, Deputy City Clerk Michaela Ballreich, and Administrative Assistant Cheryl Domenoe conducted the canvass of the results. The results of the votes cast, returned within the time allowed and publicly counted, are included within the body of the proposed resolution. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution ratifying the results of this election. Agenda RepartslElectian CSD Waif Creek FISCAL IMPACT: election results. ATTACHMENTS: There is no direct fiscal impact as a consequence of the ratification of the Resolution No, CSD 05-- Official Tally of the Votes Vicinity Map Agenda ReportslElection CSD Wolf Creek 2 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 05-- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON MARCH 14, 2005 DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, a Special Mail-in Ballot Election was held and conducted in the City of Temecula, California, on March 14,2005, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that the special election was for the purpose of obtaining approval by property owners within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, for establishment of the annuallevyofTCSD Rates and Charges for each affected parcel as follows: Service level B $25.68 for Residential Street Lighting, Service Level C $129.00 Rates and Charges for Perimeter landscaping and Slope Maintenance, and Service level D $179.86 for Refuse and Recycling Collection Services per residential parcel beginning FY 2005-06 was properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. CSD 05-04, adopted January 25,2005, the ballots were returned to the office of the City Clerk/Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District; the results were received, canvassed in public and are herein set forth in Section 2. NOW THEREFORE, THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the whole number of ballots cast in the homeowners election was four (4) and the whole number of provisional ballots cast in the election was none (0). Section 2. That the whole number of ballots cast for establishment of the annual levy for Service level B rates and charges for Residential Street Lighting per residential parcel beginning FY 2005-06, Service level C for Perimeter and Slope landscape Maintenance per residential parcel beginning FY 2005-06, and Service level D for Refuse/Cycling Collection Services per occupied parcel beginning FY 2005-06 on the ballot were as follows: I:~ I:' I :",ompæ" Section 3. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District does declare and determine that as a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on the measure relating to the establishment of Service level B, Service level C, and Service Level D Rates and Charges beginning Fiscal Year 2005-06 pursuant to Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution, did vote in favor of the measure and that the measure was carried, and shall be deemed adopted and ratified. R:CSD Resos 2005\CSD 05- Section 4. The City Clerk/Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) shall enter in the minutes of the TCSD Board of Directors, a statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots cast in the City; (2) The votes in favor, (3) The votes in opposition and (4) Those received incomplete. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of March, 2005. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECUlA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk/District Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 05-- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District on the 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following roll call vote. AYES: DISTRICT MEMBERS: NOES: DISTRICT MEMBERS: ABSENT: DISTRICT MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: DISTRICT MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary R:CSD Rasas 2005\CSD 05. OFFICIAL TALLY OFTHE VOTES FOR TCSD LEVY/SPECIAL TAX WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO.12 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SERVICE LEVEL B FOR RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING, SERVICE LEVEL C FOR PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND SLOPE MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICE LEVEL D FOR REFUSE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES RATES AND CHARGES Yes ':¡:-"co,...p\~k No II \ 0 :t=--- c . '"f ~ -k TOTAL~ TOTAL~ \ò+--- \ ELECTION BOARD ~ Michaela A, Ballreich, Election Officer Ch~' ~ Assistant Election Officer ElectionNote Telly Rale. & Charge. -'- Wolf Creek VI CINITY MAP Legend N Highways (j) & Centertlne HCIty , I Pechanga Reservation r' . I.. 1000 ,.........., 1000 2000 Feet :::"~'?;:":.d-=,,'::-"" -""'-"""",,-..n- ""'-"""-- d_"""""."""""dT__", =.;~-;:;¡~~== ..-..-...- Tho- ==.. ~ "";:. ; = =-"":'" .... --' """'" 13, .... -""""---"- ITEM 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: Boards of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community service~ March 22, 2005 DATE: SUBJECT: Pool Equipment Room Renovation at the Temecula Elementary School PREPARED BY: Jerzy Kanigowski, Facility Maintenance Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1) Award contract to Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California, for $60,914.00 for the installation of pool equipment at the Temecula Elementary School (T.E.S.). 2) Approve 10% contingency in the amount of $6,091.40 3) Authorize the purchase of equipment from Knorr Systems, Inc., for $43,888.00 BACKGROUND: The T.E.S. pool is over 30 years old and because of its age and deterioration it has become very difficult to manage the water quality. The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) entered into a contract with Aquatic Design Group, to prepare drawings and specifications for the renovation of the pool mechanical equipment which included a new filtration system, automated water chemistry management system, and bulk chemical storage tanks, at the Temecula Elementary School Pool. Proposals were sent to six (6) qualified pool equipment installation contractors, to provide proposals based on these plans and specifications. Two (2) contractors have responded and their prices are listed below: Equipment Purchase & Installation Installation Only 1. 2. Horizon Mechanical Mission Pools $107,472.00 $124,890.00 $60,914.00 N/A The TCSD staff negotiated with Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California, (low bidder) to determine if any additional savings could be achieved. Horizon Mechanical offered to the City a discount; if the City agrees to purchase the pool equipment directly from the supplier. Purchasing the equipment directly from Knorr Systems, Inc. will save the City $2,670.00. Horizon Mechanical is the lowest qualified bidder and has successfully completed a previous project for the City. 1 RlKANlGOWJlAgenda Report\Horizon Mechanical TES Pool Renovation 03 04 2005 "'.doc FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of the equipment installation contract is $60,914.00 plus an additional ten percent (10%) contingency of $6,091.40. The equipment purchase amount is $43,887.99. Sufficient funds have been included in the TCSD C.I.P. budgetforfiscal year 2004-05. ATTACHMENT: 1. Contract 2 RlKANIGOWJlAgenda ReportlHorizon Mechanical TES Pool Renovation 03 04 2005 #1.doc CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 POOL EQUIPMENT ROOM RENOVATION THIS MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT made and entered into as of March 22, 2005 by and between the Temecula Community Services District, ("City") and HORIZON MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS of CALIFORNIA ("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM,This Agreement shall commence on March 22, 2005 and shall remain and continue in effect until December 31, 2005 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor shall perfonm all of the work described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. ("Work") and shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the Work. All of said Work to be performed and materials to be furnished for the Work shall be in strict accordance with the specifications set forth in the Scope of Work. 3. PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen dollars ($60,914.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment or change order is approved as provided in this Agreement. a. Contractor shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed detailing the work perfonmed in a fonm acceptable to the Director of Finance. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non- disputed fees. If the City disputes any of contractor's fees it shall give written notice to Contractor within 30 days of receipt of invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 4. CHANGE ORDERS. The City Manager may approve additional payment up to ten (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Change orders exceeding these limits shall be approved by the City Council. 5, PERFORMANCE. Contractor shall at all time faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, performs all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. R:IKANIGOWJ\Contractor agreementlANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc 6. CITY APPROVAL, All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed subject to the approval of the City or its authorized representatives. 7. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making final request for payment under Paragraph 3., above, Contractor shall submit to City, in writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this contract; the acceptance by Contractor of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against the City under or arising out of this Contract except those previously made in writing and request for payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release and indemnify agreement with each claim for payment. 8. PREVAILING WAGES, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. Contractor shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 9. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City 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 City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 3. 10. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR. a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his dele9ate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In R:IKANIGOW]IContractor agreementlANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORJZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pooLdoc the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City 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. 11. INDEMNIFICATION, The Contractor 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, 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 Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 12. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Contractor 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 Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum ScoDe of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) (2) (3) b. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1 ) (2) (3) 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 projecUlocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. c. AcceDtabilitv of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current AM. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. d. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. e. Contractor, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: R:\KANIGOWJ\Contractor agreement\ANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc "I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workman's Compensation or undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract." 13, TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this Contract. 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither the City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor 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 City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against the City, or bind City in any manner. a. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, the City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 15. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES, The Contractor shall keep itself informed of State and Federal 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 Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this section. 16. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter exist or of conditions of difficulties that may be encountered in the execution of the work under this Contract, as a result of failure to make the necessary independent examinations and investigations, and no plea of reliance on initial investigations or reports prepared by the City for purposes of letting this Contract out to proposal will be accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Contractor to fulfill in every detail all requirements of this Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as a basis for any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension of time. 1/1// R:\KANIGOWJIContractor agreementlANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc 17. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT, After the completion of the Work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager his affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors on the Work have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 19. 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 party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 20. BOOKS AND RECORDS. Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City. 21. UTILITY LOCATION. The City acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215. 22, REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS. Contractor agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in accordance with Government Code Section 4215. 23, DISCRIMINATION, Contractor represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 24. WRITTEN NOTICE. 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 (i) 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: 1111// R:\KANIGOWl\Contractor agreemenrlANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc To City: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Contractor: Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California P.O. Box 661461 Arcadia, CA 91066 (661) 510-2981 Contact Person John Gordon 25. ASSIGNMENT. The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 26. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 27. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal City court with jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. 28. 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 party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 29. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 1/1/ //11/ R:IKANIGOWJ\Contractor agreementlANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. III lIlt TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Chuck Washington, President Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California Contact Name: John Gordon P.O. Box 661461 Arcadia, CA 91066 Phone (661) 510-2981 Fax (661) 297-2397 By: Name: Title: By: Name Title: (Two Signatures Required for Corporations) R,IKANIGOWJIContractor agreementlANNUAL AGREEMENTSIHORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK Basic Scope of Work: The Contractor will be responsible to retrofit the existing pool equipment mechanical room located at 41951 Moraga Road, Temecula, California as indicated per Aquatic Design Group plans tilted Mechanical Room Renovation Plan dated February 4, 2005 and Specification titled Temecula Elementary School Project Manual dated January 2005, Aquatic Design Group plans include the following pages: Drawing No: MR-I Drawing No: MR-2 Drawing No: MR-3 Drawing No: MR-4 The scope of work for this agreement will include, but not limited to the following: The Contractor will be responsible for: Remove and legally dispose of the existing pool equipment. . Cleaning of surge tame Plumbing required for new mechanical system per plans . Equipment for mechanical system per plans Electrical as indicated for new equipment to existing power supply . replace valve in surge tank New ladder rungs installed at surge tank . Chemical signs required by code . Start up and balancing of system, Alternate Scope of Work: The additive alternate provides for Horizon Mechanical is to relocate the pool water heater which includes all labor, material, and parts. Location to be detenninate by Horizon Mechanical and the City representative, R:\KANIGOWIlContractor agreementlANNUAL AGREEMENTS\HORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pooLdoc EXHIBIT B. PAYMENT Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. The base price for installation of pool equipment is $57,304.00 Alternate price for relocate the pool water heater is 3,610.00 The total fix price to retrofit pool equipment is $60,914,00 R:\KANIGOWJ\Contractor agreememlANNUAL AGREEMENTS\HORIZON MECHANICAL 03 22 2005 pool.doc TCSD DEPARTMENTAL RE PO RT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF F~ CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services ~ March 22, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gail l. Zigler, Administrative Secretary :f.6 The conceptual Master Plan for the Wolf Creek Sports Complex is complete. The 43 acre park will offer parking, restroom/concession buildings, maintenance building, four lighted basketball courts, four lighted soccer and four lighted softball/baseball fields, tot play equipment, picnic areas and walkways. This project has been bid and a contract has been awarded, and the grading portion of the project has begun. The Temecula Public Library project is currently out to bid. Bids will be opened on April 7, 2005. We anticipate an award of a construction contract in April. The Community Services Department accepted two (2) State awards from the California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) at the annual CPRS Conference Banquet held in Sacramento on March 12, 2005. Staff accepted both an Award of Excellence for facility design for the Imagination Workshop, Temecula Childrens Museum and also an Award of Excellence for youth development programs for the Childrens Museum. A bid opening was held for the Vail Ranch Middle School lighting project and a construction bid was awarded at the March 8, 2005 City Council meeting. Construction will begin on this project as soon as school closes for summer break. A renaming ceremony for the Ronald Reagan Sports Park was held on March 3, 2005. Approximately 100 people were in attendance. A re-opening ceremony for Pablo Apis Park, located in the Vail Ranch community, was held on March 8, 2005. The park site was merely a grass parcel void of any play equipment or picnic facilities when the City acquired the park upon annexation of Vail Ranch. The park site now has tot lots with shaded play structures, meandering walkways, drinking fountains and a large picnic shelter. Approximately 200 people were in attendance for this event. R: IZI GLERGIXD EPTRPlì03 05. doc The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable television services and assessment administration. The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of all City parks and facilities, and assist in all aspects of Citywide special events. The Recreation Division staff is currently preparing for the upcoming Spring Egg Hunt Event to be held on March 26th at various park sites throughout the community. The annual volunteer recognition event was held on March 16,2005 at the Community Recreation Center. Approximately 130 community volunteers will recognized at this event. In addition to the special events, staff is busy registering participants for classes, activities and excursions, and planning and programming future special events. R: \Z[ GLERGIXD EPTRP1\O3 0 5. doc REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MARCH 8, 2005 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:46 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, and Roberts None Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of February 22, 2005. MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No.1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. R:\Minutes.rdaIO30805 ADJOURNMENT At 7:47 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 22, 2005 in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes.rdaIO30805 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT FROM: Executive Director/Agency Members" '\)I)\Å John Meyer, Redevelopment Director FY \ March 22, 2005 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Status Update on the Temecula Education Center RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND: On March 16, 2004 the Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the AGK Group, llC to develop the Temecula Education Complex. On December 7, 2004 the Agency Board approved the Second Amendment to the DDA increasing the financial contribution and extending the schedule of performance six months. DISCUSSION: Entitlement Timeline The developer's project team made its formal Planning Department Submittal on January 31, and followed up with additional information on February 2, 2005. During this period, staff has requested additional information be submitted in order for the various departments to write the conditions of approval. The applicant and staff have been working through these items. Staff and the design team met the afternoon of March 16, 2005 and determined that staff would be able to issue conditions of approval in time for the May 4, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Once the conditions of approval are issued, the development team will begin preparing improvement and construction drawings while staff is preparing the noticing and reports for the May 4th Planning Commission meeting. The Development Agreement will also go to the Planning Commission at this time. Soil Remediation/License Agreement The I icense agreement and a mendment have been d rafted by the City Attorney's office and distributed for review. The developer's engineer is having additional test borings performed to better analyze the condition of the soil to fine tune the method of remediation and foundation design. This testing has been delayed by the rains. R\Ed""tioooompl,~C,",,;¡ Upd", Mol" 22. 2O05.do' Staff is continuing to work with the development team in order to move the agreement forward once the scope of work and cost estimate is completed. This will allow the Developer to begin the grading work sooner for the project. CONCLUSION: Staff believes the developer remains committed to moving the project forward as quickly as possible. He has spent considerable resources on project design and special studies. Further, he has done a credible job in working with the projects Educational Partners. We look forward to the on-going cooperation and development of the Temecula Education Center. R\Ed""Uoooomp"'\C,",," Upd't, M..", 22, 2O05.do' RDA DEPARTMENTAL RE PO RT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR Irlf..-!-- CITY MANAGER tfltJl TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members FROM: John Meyer, Redevelopment Director DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of March 22, 2005 for the Redevelopment Department. First Time Homebuvers Program Funding in the amount of $100,000 is available for FY 04 -05. Residential Improvement Programs The program budget for FY 04-05 is $250,000, with $118,500 funded on 40 units. Habitat for Humanity Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Habitat for Humanity to develop a home-ownership project within the Pujol Neighborhood. The project located on the northwest corner of Pujol and First Streets, will consist of 5 new single-family detached homes. The houses are arranged along Pujol Street and a private lane. Habitat has resubmitted final grading plans, street improvements and final map to Public Works for review. Old Town Community Theater Council awarded the construction contract to Tovey/Shultz Construction, Inc. at the February 10, 2004 City Council meeting in the amount of $7,168,000. Construction has begun and should be completed in the summer of 2005. R:\SYERSK\MONTHLL YlFebO5.doc Campus Proiect The Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with AGK Group, llC, on March 16, 2004 to develop, construct and operate an educational facility. The facility will consist of mixed-income apartments, retail facilities, parking and participating college universities. The project should be completed in Fall of 2006. Facade Improvement/Non-Conforming Sign Program The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been completed: Hitching Post Sign Program - Completed . Texas Lil's Sign Program . Old Town Coffee House Sign Program Old Town Promotions/Marketing OLD TOWN TEMECULA BLUEGRASS FESTIVAL The 5th Annual Old Town Temecula Bluegrass Festival was held in Old Town Temecula March 19 & 20, 2005. Bluegrass and acoustic music fans marked their calendars a year in advance for the best Bluegrass Festival on the west coast. Old Town Temecula's Bluegrass Festival March 19 and 20, was unique as it featured nationally known performers in free concerts. This year's line up included master fiddler Byron Berline and his band, Sidesaddle, Donner Mountain Bluegrass Band, Silverado Bluegrass Band, Andy Rau Band, High Hills, Burnett Family, Suzy Glaze and the 8-hand string band and Antonio Pontarelli and the Nugrass Band. Pickers found a place to jam anywhere along the rustic streets of Old Town Temecula. Scheduled workshops on the mandolin, fiddle, guitar and banjo were held each day and were also free. Organized jam sessions with host bands were also part of the event. Bluegrass originated in the Appalachian Mountain states and is characterized by high harmony singing and virtuoso banjo or mandolin playing. Bill Monroe is said to be the father and founder of this American folk music genre. His band, "The Blue Grass Boys" which formed in 1938, included legendary guitarist lester Flatt and banjo player Earl Scruggs. Yet, bluegrass roots stem much deeper and are derived from European, Irish and Celtic Folk Songs. It was Scruggs who contributed the three-finger five-string banjo technique, which has become a Bluegrass standard. Groups such as the Kentucky Headhunters and Charlie Daniels Band help popularize the Bluegrass style and brought the fiddler player to the forefront. Sponsored by the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Tricopolis Records, the Old Town Bluegrass Festival is just part of the entertainment scheduled for Old Town Temecula in 2005. April features a Painted Parasol Music Festival on April 16. Old R:\SYERSK\MONTHLL YlFebO5.doc 2 West gunfighters and costumed characters fill the streets May 14 and 15 for Western Days and in June the streets come alive with color for the 5th annual Street Painting Festival. Hot Summer Nights in July and August features local bands and entertainment every Friday evening. R\SYERSKIMONTHLL Y\FebO5.doc 3 ITEM 19 AP~ROV L CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Circulation Element PREPARED BY: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report related to the Circulation Element; 2. Continue the Public Hearing on the other Elernents of the General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the other Elements to April 12, 2005; 3. Close the Public Hearing on the Draft Circulation Element and Draft Environmental Impact Report relating to the Draft Circulation Element; and 4. Discuss the Draft Circulation Element and the Draft Environmental Impact Report relating to the Draft Circulation Element and provide comments to Staff for inclusion in to the Final Circulation Element and Final Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2001, the City hired Cotton/Bridges Associates to assist in updating the General Plan. Since this process began, the Council appointed the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to work with the staff and the consultant. The CAC completed its work efforts in mid-2004. Their recommended Plan was then presented to the City Council and Planning Commission at a joint workshop on August 10, 2004, where additional direction was provided. This public review draft of the updated General Plan incorporates the supplemental direction provided by the Commission and Council at the August 10th Workshop. The draft updated General Plan was also presented to the Community Services and Traffic Safety Commissions for their review and comment. The public review draft of the updated General Plan incorporates all previous comments on the earlier versions of the document. Copies of the public hearing draft of the updated General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report were provided to the Planning Commission in early January, 2005. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC1.doc Introduction The original City General Plan was adopted in November, 1993. This updated General Plan continues the overall policy direction identified in the City's original 1993 General Plan. While most of the changes in the updated Plan represent shifts in format and minor text clean-ups, there are several important issues that are noted in the staff report. The most common clean-up items include: the incorporation of changed facts and circumstances, a more careful delineation of goal and policy statements and implementation measures, and updating the implementation program for each element. As a result, the staff report will focus on the changes to each Element. The Traffic Safety Commission considered the Circulation Element on September 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005. The Planning Commission considered the Circulation Element of the General Plan on February 2, 2005. The other Elements of the General Plan are scheduled for consideration on March 16, 2005. To facilitate the consideration of the General Plan, only the Circulation Element will be discussed at tonight's City Council meeting. The other Elements of the General Plan, as well as certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report are scheduled for the April 12, 2005 City Council meeting. Circulation Element The primary changes to the policy direction in the Circulation Element are provisions to allow for additional street dedication (beyond the standardized rights-of-way) around higher volume key intersections and a discussion on re-opening closed connecting streets to improve citywide circulation. letters providing more general comments on the Circulation Element are contained in Attachment No.3. Roadwav Cross-Sections In an effort to fine tune the road network in some of the less urban portions of the City, two new roadway cross sections are being proposed. Both of the new cross sections are based upon the standard 88-foot Secondary Arterial right-of-way. The first is the Modified Secondary Arterial, initially assigned to De Portola and Ynez Roads through los Ranchitos, which would have two divided lanes in each direction with no curb, gutter or sidewalk to maintain the rural character of the area. The locations of the left turn lanes would be identified when the road is being designed. Where additional right-of-way is available, a separated trail will also be incorporated into the ultimate design. The proposed standard roadway cross sections are contained in Attachment No.2. The second is the Limited Secondary Arterial which would have one lane in each direction, with a left turn lane and a separated trail. This cross section would be used in areas where lower traffic volumes are expected and where the separation of equestrian and pedestrian traffic is important. This is proposed for portions of Nicolas Road and Santiago Road. This cross section is also proposed in the event the extension of North General Kearny is added. To better match the County Circulation Plan, a Rural Highway standard is also being proposed. Rural Highways generally have one lane in each direction with left turn pockets, though in some areas two lanes may be needed. The intent of this cross section is to protect future rights-of- way while maintaining the present rural characters. The Rural Highway roadway would be primarily applied in the Rural Preservation Areas and is consistent with the equivalent Riverside County standard. R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 2 Another change in the Circulation Element included combining the previous Arterial and Major Arterial Roadway categories into a single roadway designation. This was done because there was very little difference between the Arterial and Major Arterial cross section and functionality. As a result, the traffic consultant felt that there was no need for two nearly identical cross sections. Circulation Map/Roadway Plan While the majority of the streets shown on the Roadway Plan are not being changed, there are some changes being proposed. Only one new General Plan roadway is being proposed within the City; the loma Linda/Avenida de Missiones connection between Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79S. A copy of the proposed Roadway Plan is contained in Attachment No.1. The updated Roadway Plan also incorporates new arterial roadways identified in the recently approved Riverside County Integrated Plan. In the Planning Area, there are two new roadways identified on the Circulation Map. These two new arterial roadways are: . The proposed Eastern Bypass - consisting of Anza Road, Deer Hollow Way, and a connection (referred to as the Southern Bypass) to Interstate 15 via a new interchange. This is consistent with the proposed County Circulation Plan. Sky Canyon Road/Briggs Road - a parallel route along Winchester Road past the future bottleneck area by French Valley Airport. In addition, the following roadways are proposed to be expanded in size to meet projected circulation needs: . Winchester Road from Jefferson Road to Hunter Road - 6-lane Urban Arterial to an 8-lane Urban Arterial. Rancho California Road from Old Town Front Street to Ynez Road - 6-lane Urban Arterial to an 8-lane Urban Arterial. Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road - Arterial (4-lane) to a 6-lane Urban Arterial. . Ynez Road from Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road - Arterial (4-lane) to a 6- lane Urban Arterial. . Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to the City Limits - Arterial (4-lane) to a 6-lane Urban Arterial. . Western Bypass Road - Secondary Arterial to a Major Arterial. Both these cross sections have four lane configurations. Staff has received several letters from residents in the Rainbow Canyon area requesting that Rainbow Canyon Road be downgraded to have its lane capacity reduced. The primary concern of the residents in this area is future size of Rainbow Canyon Road. The roadway is currently constructed as a collector street with a 66-foot right-of-way. The current General Plan and the proposed Updated General Plan designate Rainbow Canyon Road as a Secondary Arterial with an 88-foot right-of-way. R:IGeneral PianlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 3 At this time, staff recommends that the future roadway designation remain as a Secondary Arterial. Once the Southern Bypass is completed, the City will have an opportunity to re- examine the designation of this roadway. These letters are included in Attachment No.4. In addition to the proposed Update of the Circulation Element, the Community Advisory Committee also recommended the connection of North General Kearny between Nicolas and Margarita Roads as a Limited Secondary Arterial to provide a route to Day Middle School and for local residents to get around some of the congestion along Winchester Road. This proposed roadway segment is not included on the proposed Roadway Plan. However, this alternate route is included as a project alternative in the Environmental Impact Report if the Council decides to add North General Kearny to the Roadway Plan. During the hearing process, Staff received many letters on this item. These letters are included in Attachment No.5. While preparing the responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the need for a minor change to the Circulation Element was identified. The proposed modification is to identify that, according to an agreement between Caltrans and the County of Riverside, the right-of-way for Winchester Road between Hunter and Keller Roads should be 184 feet. The text of this recommended change is located in Attachment No.6. Traffic Safetv Commission Recommendation The Draft Circulation Element was considered by the Traffic Safety Commission on September 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005. At the September 28, 2004 meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed Element, except for the North General Kearny recommendation. The North General Kearny Road recommendation was considered separately at the January 27, 2005 meeting. At the September 28th meeting, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended that the non-North General Kearny components of the Circulation Element be approved. However, the Traffic Safety Commission was divided on the subject of North General Kearny with a 2 for and 2 against vote. One member of the Commission had a potential conflict of interest. In the end the four participating Commissioners requested that their comments be provided to the City Council without a Traffic Safety Commission recommendation. Comments from the Commissioners who supported the extension of North General Kearny . Traffic affects everyone and closing a street adversely affects others. Good circulation needs alternative routes like North General Kearny Road. Everyone should share in the solutions and benefits of improved circulation. The principle of equitability requires that all streets be open to public use. . The need for emergency access and improved response times are compelling reasons to open up the road. Comments from the Commissioners who oDDosed the extension of North General Kearnv North General Kearny isn't really needed to improve circulation. . When completed, Butterfield Stage Road and the Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station will solve the emergency access issues in the northern part of the City. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC1.doc 4 Planning Commission Recommendation At their February 2, 2005 meeting, the Commission received public testimony on the proposed Circulation Element. However, because of a potential conflict of interest with Chairman Matthewson, the CAC's recommendation to connect the two ends of North General Kearny Road was considered separately from the rest of the Circulation Element. Following the consultant's presentation and public testimony on every1hing except the recommendation to extend North General Kearny, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the draft Circulation Element with no additional changes to the document. Following this action, Chairman Matthewson recused himself from further participation on the Circulation Element. Following the public testimony and a short staff presentation on the proposed extension of North General Kearny, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the addition of the extension of North General Kearny to the Roadway Plan with the requirement that a detailed circulation study be performed prior to approving the construction of the extension. During the Planning Commission's discussion, the Comrnissioners felt that the extension of North General Kearny could have a positive benefit on local circulation but also felt that a detailed traffic study was necessary to ensure that the extension of North General Kearny would produce the expected benefits. A copy of the Commission's recommendation is contained in Attachment No.7. Future Meeting Topics The remaining Elements of the General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report will be presented to the City Council at the April 12, 2005 meeting. The staff report for the April 12th meeting will include not only the discussion of the other Elements, but also the resolutions of approval and the Final Environmental Impact Report. The City's Response to Comments on the Draft EIR are contained in Attachment No.8. FISCAL IMPACT: impacts. Approval of the General Plan will have not any additional fiscal ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. Proposed Roadway Plan Proposed Roadway Cross Sections 3. 4. Circulation Element Comment letters - General Comments Circulation Element Comment letters - Rainbow Canyon Road Circulation Element Comment letters - North General Kearny Road 5. 6. Additional Recommended Modifications to the Circulation Element 7. 8. Planning Commission Recommendation on North General Kearny Road Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 9. Draft Environmental Impact Report (provided under separate cover) R:IGeneral PianlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO, 1 PROPOSED ROADWAY PLAN R:\General PlanlComp Pian UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO.2 PROPOSED STANDARD ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 7 Figure C-1 Roadway Cross Sections CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN S~'œ,^".'.Fo"t^.rod",.,I",. '~~..>-~,.c'~"--'<~':'-,j "--"'-"~~-~--.c.""-"""--"_c--.. .' '."..."~~ ~ L RAISED MEDIAN I URBAN ARTERIAL (6-10 LANES DIVIDED) I ~ L RAISED MEDIAN ¡PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (6 LANES DIVIDED)! , - , . ,. , ," '. i " ..,' . >-'-L..:" .' "--,- ~c>';~--~"~j ~-~~ '~ L RAISED MEDIAN IMAlaR ARTERIAL (4 LANES DIVIDED)! . Additional right-of-way should be provided for bicycle lanes on urban and principal arterials when feasible C IT" Y 01 TFMLCUI/\ C'il CINFRAL I' l. i\ N M~, c [ R C U L i\ 'r [ 0 N ~"\ ~" c: I R. C U L A T I 0 N Figure C-1 Roadway Cross Sections CITY OF TEMECUIA GENERAL PIAN Soo'œ,^","~fo",'^"""",,,'"C '-. (-C{~':---'P'~~"""'\_'--~-'\c...Zê.i-'--'------ ') '¡W DO' Mön;mum x.~-'¡W ~ ¡SECONDARY ARTERIAL (4 LANES UNDIVIDED) '¡W MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (4 LANES SEPARATED) '¡W DO' 40' 10' LIMITED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (2 LANES DIVIDED) I c Ir y 0 F rEM E CUI. ;\ Ci2 C ENE R ;\ L PLAN Figure C-1 Roadway Cross Sections CITY OF lfMECULA GENERAL PLAN 'o~^",..f,",t""""~.I= I COLLECTOR (2 LANES UNDIVIDED) I ,'1_" (". ...'....,.,,'..' '->/~~ (--'---"--'~,\.".........".""."~"."""-" ~-~~ ~-- --'~~~ ~- " I" ~+rl i RURAL HIGHWAY (2 LANES UNDIVIDED) I C I r y 0 I TEMECULI\ Cen CENER..-\L P L 1\ N /l¿¿ç¿ ¿~ /~~\~ C I It C U L A T I 0 N ATTACHMENT NO.3 CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMENT LETTERS - GENERAL COMMENTS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 8 RORIPAUGH HIUS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O The Avalon Management Group, Inc. 29379 Rancho Califonùa Road, Suite 206, Temecula, Califonùa 92591 (951) 699-2918 Fax (951) 699-0522 Email: temecula@avalon1.com August 16,2004 ¡;~ -" ""\"-'-:~ City of Temecula \~~LL,ß~C-:.r'.::l-;~.:.M.' ~ \~¡ i1 \'~\ 43174 Business Park Drive Ü\J' f iG 2004 Temecula, California 92590 'I '-. .- "'cc--:::::-- Dear Members ofTemecula City Council ß' -értiecu~~~~:~~~,~SSiOn. The Roripaugh Hills Homeowners Association (RHHA) represents 439 families, This letter forwards our fonnal opposition to the opening of Sanderling Way, as proposed in the General Pla1i Amendment Preliminary Draft, Page C38.C- 7, as presented at the joint meeting on August 10, 2004. . cc: B. Hughes G. Thornhill Four years ago the homeowners of Roripaugh Hills petitioned the Temecu1a Planning Commission and the Temecula City Council to gate both residential streets at the perimeter of RHHA properties, The City Council agreed that opening these streets would give drivers an unsafe "cut through" avoiding Margarita and Winchester Roads to reach the Promenade Mall, Chaparral High School, and James L. Day Middle School. The City Council concluded that this would create an unsafe situation, as Sanderling and Starling are local residential streets, not designed to carry through-traffic speeds and high numbers of vehicles. In the four years since the City Council made that wise decision to gate these residential routes, the only change has been the vastly increased numbers of vehicles on Nicolas, Winchester, and Margarita Roads, These vehicles' drivers are a11looking for an expedient short-cut: Roripaugh Road already provides that unfortunate and unanticipated expedient. The City of Temecula mould not accept the potential dangers of opening two additional streets. The liabilities such action would pose and the risks to human lives and residential neighborhoods are not acceptable. Opening our residential streets to "cut through" drivers will endanger unnecessarily our children, our selves, our property, and will adversely impact our overall quality of life in Roripaugh Hills. Do not approve the proposal to open the gates at Sanderling Way and Starling Street We urge you to help us keep our residential neighborhood safe. Sincerely, ers Association, by the Board of Directors; cc: Shawn Nelson, City of Temecula ..-- ALBERT S. PRATI "Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Emai1: sampratt@yahoo,com) (951) 699-8689 California Registration: Civil Engin_No. 7697 StnlcturaI Engin- No. 650 Thursday, November 4, 2004 Temecula General Plan Workshop Temecula City Hall Temecula, CA Subject: Comments on the Circulation Element of the Temecula Final Draft of the General Plan. Reference and comments: . Government Code Section 65088 (a) "Although California's economy is critically dependent upon transportation, its current transportation system relies primarily upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far fewer vehicles than are currently using the system." This statute is known as the Congestion Management Program (CMP) . California Environmental Quality Act Statutes (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000(d) "The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the sate and take all coordinated actions necessarv to orevent such thresholds beina reached." . California Environmental Quality Act Statutes (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000(e) "Every citizen has a responsibility to the preservation and enhancement of the environment". . Project: An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21065. . CEQA Statue 21168, Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, applies to the changes in conditions in the Circulation Element proposed in the final Draft of the City of Temecula General Plan. The current Circulation Element of Temecula General Plan of January 1993 has been downgraded as to the control of traffic congestion and requires a CEQA Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. . Oath of office taken by Temecula permanent staff and elected officials: I do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of 1 /" / / ALBERT S. PRATT "Since 1919" 40470 BriXton Cove Temecu1a, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@yahoo,com) Califumi. Regis1ration: CivitEngineerNo.7697 Structural Engineer No. 650 (951) 699-8689 the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter." . Government Code 65089.6. Failure to complete or implement a congestion management program shall not give rise to a cause of action against a city or county for failing to conform with its general plan, unless the city or county incorporates the congestion management program into the circulation element of its general plan. The final draft of the Circulation Element of the General Plan is a project under CEQA and has been unlawfully gutted with the elimination of the Circulation, Element E. Local Congestion Management Program in our present General Plan, a changed condition under CEQA. This is non-feasance, failure to what ought to be done, an attempt to avoid any action that may be brought against the City by disregarding Government Code Section 65089.6. Effective implementation of the State Congestion Management Program is the tool to maximize the safe use of our current and future roads and streets. It is impossible for me to comprehend why the City Staff and City Council during the past fourteen years continued to ignore the full implementation of a Congestion Management Program in the General Plan to protect the physical safety of the citizen and our economy. 2 Denise Caravelli Administrative Assistant Planning Department (951) 694-6400 -----Original Message-_m From: Bill Herrmann [mailto:billherrmann@earthlink,net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:43 AM To: Denise Caravelli Subject: Kahwea Road To all concerned, As a Meadowview resident, I am troubled by the thoughts of opening up the Kahwea Road to general traffic from other communities. I do realize that I have a vested interest since I live on the street. My reasons that the road should not be opened are as follows: * Please come to our street. We have numerous cars that drive to the top to drop offpeople. The trip back is downhill. These cars speed past at 50-60 mph. * Our street is not designed for speed. The street does not allow for the flow of cars in both directions with parked cars. * The Meadowview community was built with roads that would manage the traffic specifically of its citizens. The streets do not support high use, * Please come and walk our circle of Del Rey and Via Norte. There are no sidewalks to use. The car traffic today makes it dangerous to use for walking or bikes without the addition of more cars from surrounding neighborhoods. * How many sections are flat for 100 yards or more? None, making the control of your speed difficult. * How many sections have a straightaway of 100 yards or more? None, making visibility of walkers, bikers and traffic difficult if not impossible, * How many feet of sidewalk exists? None, placing the children who need to walk to school in a more dangerous position than they are currently in, * The opening of Kahwea has been proposed before, The basic reason given, when the truth is known, is for the convenience of the other coinmunities. They would like to get to school faster or get to the mall quicker. We all must take responsibility for our choices, We move to various communities for a variety of reasons, We make choices knowing that there are positives and negatives to any decision, The people who want the road opened moved to an area that was not convenient to the mall or possibly the schools. The extra couple of miles that they must drive were known at the time they moved to these communities, Making the Meadowview community more dangerous for their convenience is not right. ------. -----_.-. + The city has met before. The reason that was once used to open Kahwea was for the fire department. The fire department has stated publicly that they do not need to use this road nor would they. Please make sure that this road remains closed, It is not fair to the citizens of Meadowview to make their lives more dangerous and change the quality of our lives by deliberately destroying the lifestyle that we purchased, William and Denise Herrmann 31196 Kahwea Road Temecula, California 92591 951.676,6515 951.676,6923 fax --- Bill Herrmann --- billherrmann@eartWink,net -oo EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Rea11ntemet. Planning Commission Mta February 2,2005 Date: 1/31/05 Honorable Members: I am aware that the Planning Commission has been asked to yisit the Kahwea Road Closure issue. The current traffic problems in the city are causing some to suggest solutions they feel might improve traffic flow, regardless of the real effect and problems the suggested solution might cause. Since moving to Temecula in 1993 and building on Kahwea Road, this issue has now come up for the fourth time. All previous times, it came before the PublicfTraffic Safety Commission and after hearing from concerned residences, the fire and police departments, the commission voted to keep Kahwea closed. In fact the last time they recommended that a permanent barrier such as a brick planter be built at the Kahwea road eastern Meadowview boundary, replacing the current wrought iron fence. Though the PubliclTraffic Safety Commission's recommendation was on the City Council's agenda twice (1994 & 1998), decisions were postponed, For the following reasons, (the same as given in previous meetings) I request that the commission recommend permanent closure of Kahwea Road at the eastern boundary of Meadowview. A physical inspection of the 0.3 mi Kahwea Rd. segment shows that the road transcends a significant hill, the crest of which is located at the Meadowview boundary. According to the Traffic Engineer, the line of sight, as the crest of the hill is approached, dictates a 30 mph speed limit. On limited occasions in the past, when the temporary fence closure was removed (illegally), vehicles were observed to travel this segment of the road in excess of 50 mph (as we know speed limits have no effect), much to fast to ensure visual safety over the crest and to negotiate the "S" curve at the bottom of the Kahwea hill, Combine speed and terrain with the narrow street (36 ft), vehicle parking on both sides of the street, no sidewalks, no street lights, no curb markings, and you have a dangerous situation for residents, children, pedestrians, equestrians and moving vehicles, Needless to say this creates a significant SAFETY HAZARD for cars accessing the road from property that front on Kahwea, the numerous school children going to and from school, equestrian traffic, and pedestrians walking or jogging for exercise. Since the same road conditions as described above, also exist on Via Norte and Del Rey, any additional traffic resulting from opening Kahwea Rd. would multiply the SAFETY HAZARDS on these roads. Presently, near the Del Rey/Ave Del Reposo intersection on a curve and at the top of a large hill is a drop off point for children going to and from Rancho Elementary School located below on La Serena Way. A sidewalk going down the hill connects pedestrians between Del Rey and La Serena Way, In the morning and afternoon this area is congested with cars and children as they are dropped off or picked up from school. An already dangerous situation would be aggravated by any additional traffic resulting from opening Kahwea. As stated before, the roads within Meadowview, including Kahwea, are substandard by today's definition, (they were planned in the 70's) and as a result are marginal in their ability to handle existing Meadowview residence traffic in a safe and proper manner. If Kahwea were to be opened, it is obvious that traffic from the subdivisions east of Meadowview would be using Kahwea Road, Del Rey and Via Norte as a short cut access to the James Day Middle School, Freeway, Mall, and Old Town. In conclusion, the solution to the eastern Temecula area traffic problem is not opening up Kahwea Road, rather to provide new alternate circular routes to move traffic from the ever continuing developments to the East, for access to the Mall, freeway, schools and other businesses located along Ynez, Thank for you consideration. Norman P Clark 31199 Kahwea Road Temecula, California 92591 676-7654 np3lark@adelphia,net file name: city planning commission Itr ATTACHMENT NO.4 CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMENT LETTERS - RAINBOW CANYON ROAD R:IGeneral PianlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 9 MAX AND AGNES BOSETTI 08-10-04AO7:32 RCVD FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO, T emecula City Council/Planning Commission FROM- Max C. and Agnes M. Bosetti 45155 Putting Green Ct COMPANY, DATE. 8/9/04 FAX NUMBHR, 951-694-1999 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER' 1 PHONE NUMBER. 951-694-4444 SENDER'S RJ!FERJ!NCR NUMBER. RJ!. YOUR RJ!FERJ!NCE NUMBER Rainbow Canyon Rd. Widening 0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS. Planning Commission members: We object to the plan which would make Rainbow Cyn. Rd. a four lane highway. Growth is inevitable. However, why does it have to be at the expense of homeowners who bought these properties manyyears ago? We support a plan (Limited Secondary Arterial) which: 1. Increases road traflic capacity 2. Allows Limited future growth in the area south ofPechanga Creek. 3. Preserves the beauty of the existing road We do not support the fOur lane plan which uproot fåmilies, decrease the values of homes in the area and invites more tmflic. . When will this unbridled growth be put under control? Please show us that citizens have at least as much power as developers. 'Thank you, .. Max C. and Agnes M. Bosetti Jeff and Shiela Noble 30552 Btidgeview Circle, Temecula, CA 92592 951-506-2534 August 10,2004 Fax: 951-694-1999 Attn: Michaela Ballreich RE: Rainbow Canyon Road We travel Rainbow Canyon Road four to six times daily and the only congestion appears at the intersection of Pechanga Road at evening rush hour. Widen that final 200 feet and the problem would be solved. The entire stretch of road ftom the IS/Rainbow exit to Pechanga Road is fast moving except when behind the occasional slow driver. Why destroy the beauty of a rural road with an unnecessary paving of nature? Keep development maintained. R~ )ßs~- Jeffand Shiela Noble Charles L. Hodge 731 LaCross PI. Escondido, Ca. 92025 Mr, Dave Hogan Temecula City Planning Dept. 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca, 92592 Re:: Future widening of Rainbow Canyon Road Dear Mr, Hogan: On August 10, 2004 1 attended the joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop held at City Hall, I wanted to speak, but was not aware that it was necessarky for me to sign up for that privilege, My view was partially expressed, but I would like to elaborate on the issue of turning Rainbow Canyon road into a four lane road. I own two properties in the Rainbow Canyon Villages sub" one located at 45644 Rainbow Canyon Road which would be directly affected, and one located at 45500 Clubhouse Drive which would be indirectly affected. I would like to express my view that turning Rainbow Canyon Road into four lanes and promoting high density building projects would exaserbate an already critical traffic conjestion problem where Rainbow Canyon Road intersects with Pechanga Parkway. I think we can learn from the extreme problems on Winchester Road and Rancho California Road that foresight needs to be used when planning for the future. As you are aware, Temecula is fast changing from a quaint rural town into a metropolitan city, The reason that I purchased where I did is because of the beautiful surroundings near the mountains on the south side of town that seemed to protect that area from the overgrowth and subsequent problems, Le, traffic, etc, I was favorably impressed with the planning commission when there was concern expressed for advanced planning for future development. I would ask you to also reserve some areas so as to reflect the rural nature of Temecula which is a major attraction to the area. Possibly restricting the area of the foothills in south Tem- ecula to one acre single family homes, thus allowing growth while at the same time maintaining the natural beauty of the area wouldbe a viable option. As to the issue of Rainbow Canyon Road, I amsure that you noticed, as did I, that the overwhelming feeling at the meeting was to use a more conservative approach by designating Rainbow Canyon Road a "limited secondary arterial (two lanes, divided with a center lane for turning movements), This would allow for 20,000 vehicles, would drastically reduce construction costs, would facilitate reasonable growth while at the same time preserving the rural atmosphere of this area. It would also protect the homes directly affected by widening Rainbow Canyon Rd. This would also somewhat limit the conjestion at Pechanga Parkway, hopefully preventing the traffic problems found at other major thoroughfares in the City. I understand that you have a MAJOR project on your hands with many views to consider. I hope that you will put special emphasis on the views of those most directly affected by your decisions, Thanking you in advance for taking the time to consider this letter, I am Sincerely, -!/J----Ld4 CharlesL Hodge cc: Mayor Mike Naggar RAINBOW CANYON VILLAGES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/o Renea' Broderick 45501 QubhoDse Dr. TemecuJa. CA 92592 (951)529-7271 ¥u (951) 506-1886 e-mail r.broderick(Q)verizon.net January 27, 2005 City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92592 Subject: February 2"" General Plan Public Hearing The Rainbow Canyon Vùlage Homeowners Association, representing 429 homes in Southern Temecula, bas the following concerns and suggested changes to the General Plan during the current update process 1. Land Use Element. Preserving RnnI Areas (LU-33) Rural Preservation Area #4, Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch (Table LU-1) is identified as "South ofPechanga Parkway, and east of Rainbow Canyon Road, adjacent to Pecbanga Entertainment Center and BLM preservation areas". The Rainbow Canyon Vùlages HOA Board urges the City to also include the land west of Rainbow Canyon Road in Rural Preservation Area #4. This vacant land is currently zoned Medium Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. The existing zoning does not fit this rural area. This area in Rainbow Canyon is SUITounded by Open Space (Recreation Commercial Overlay), Vineyards/Agricultural, and Tribal Trust Lands zoning designations. (Proposed Land Use Policy Map, Figure LU-2) We urge the City to make the necessary zoning changes that will incorporate the Objectives of Rural PreservatIDn Area #4 to all of Rainbow Canyon. 2. Circulaôon Elemeut Rainbow Canyon Road The Rainbow Canyon Villages HOA Board strongly urges the City to re-designate Rainbow Canyon Road as a 2-lane Collector Road. When the City adopted their first General Plan in 1993, Rainbow Canyon Road was re-desígnated as a Mane Secondary Arterial. Rainbow Canyon Road was planned and constructed as a 2-lane Collector Road by Riverside County before Temecula incorporated in 1989. This road is 44 feet wide, the minimum width of a Collector Road. It is bordered by homes ftom the Rainbow Canyon Villages community, and the Homes By The Green gated community. To improve this road to the minimum width of a Secondary Arterial requires acquiring an additional 24 feet along Rainbow Canyon Road. This would result in the 10 to 12 homes located along Rainbow Canyon Road, in the Rainbow Canyon Villages community, being taken by eminent domain. Additionally, Rainbow Canyon road would only be improved, widened and straightened, to the city limits. As it oootinues into the steep grades and tight turns of Rainbow Canyon in San Diego County, Rainbow Canyon Road remains a 2-lane road. It appears the main reason for widening Rainbow Canyon Road is to provide the needed circulation for a future Medium Density residential project in Rainbow Canyon, as well as TemecuJa Creek lDn's plans 10 add residential units around their greens and construct time-share condos. These actions would resuh in the destmcûon of Rainbow Canyon's aesthetics and rural charm, and significantly impact our community. The Land Use Element charges the City to preserve residential neighborhoods. (Preserving residential Neighborhoods, LU-35) "Temecula is composed largely of single- family residential neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are the building blocks upon which the quality oflife enjoyed by all Temecula residents is based. Preserving the desirable characteristics of quiet, calm, safe, family-oriented neighborhoods is a high priority for the City." We strongly urge the City to uphold this charge. Change the designation of Rainbow Canyon Road back to a 2-lane Collector, and preserve Rainbow Canyon. CIP Project: Tem.eada Creek Crossiæ!. Access to State Route 79 South The Rainbow Canyon Villages HOA Board strongly urges the City to reprioritize this CIP Project, and seek the necessary funding. Southern Temecula residents have been vocal about the cumulative circulation impacts future developments will have on this area. The Pechanga Entertainment Center has gone through two extensive expansions creating a significant ÍOC£ease in traffic on Pecbanga Parkway. The Wolf Creek development, with over 2,000 future homes, is under construction and projected to add an additional 42,000 daily vehicle trips, and a future large Medium Density residential project is scheduled for Loma Linda Road. Pechanga Parkway is being widened to a 6-lane Principal Arterial. During the Wolf Creek planning process, city officials claimed that when Pecbanga parkway is widened, it will accommodate all the existing and future traffic. However, this was a controversial issue that was approved by a slim 3 to 2 vote. In an AprilS, 200 I Californian Article, then Mayor Jeff Comeichero said he was optimistic that planned improvements to Pala Road (Pechanga Parkway) will eliminate traffic congestion in the area. "The traffic in the southern end of town will be tree-flowing, virtually forever, when the road work is done. Our citizens who live there certainly deserve it. They've been living through a nightmare through no fault of their own." Unfortunately, widening Pechanga Parkway will not solve the bottleneck point at the intersections on Pechanga Parkway and SR 79 South and Rainbow Canyon Road. Existing traffic backs up for blocks as vehicles funnel into one lane to access the left turn lanes on Pechanga Parkway. This is the main route out of this area to get to the I-IS freeway. Future traffic will only exacerbate this bottleneck point. The Wolf Creek development was conditioned to provide $17 million in road improvements and inftastructure. EventuaIly, the Pechanga Indian tribe contributed $4.4 million dollars to expedite the widening ofPecbanga Parkway before their expansion grand opening. This reduced the amount Wolf Creek would contnDute to $12.6 million. In comparison, the Harveston development of approximately 2,000 homes, is contributing $33 million, and the Roripaugh development is contributing $40 million towards inftastructure. It appears that the residents of Southern Temeœla have been short changed. Will TemecuIa residents have to cover the $9 million estimated cost to construct the CIP project: Temecula Creek Crossing, Access to State Route 79 South? Additionally, we urge the City to align this new roadway Corridor on the Roadway Plan, Figure C-2; trom Avenida De Missiones to Loma Linda Road at the new Redwood Way intersection. This will direct arterial traffic away from the Earl Stanley Gardner Middle School and Bridlevale residential neighborhood. Ji'tdure 1-15 Intel'C'h.a- lsoath of SR 79 South) and Bvoass Corridor City officials now forecast complete gridlock for State Route 79 South, indicating that a new interchange and bypass corridor is absolutely necessary. The Rainbow Canyon Villages HOA Board has serious concerns regarding this new interchange and bypass corridor along the side of the Rainbow Canyon. This new route would certainly create significant noise, air, light and aesthetic impacts on our development. We are concerned that these impacts cannot be mitigated. However, if the City proceeds with this new interchange, we are absolutely opposed to any access to, or ftom, Rainbow Canyon Road. ~~'{¿ ð // Renea' Br~ - Rainbow Cany:n ~ ~, Vice President Rainbow Canyon Villages, HOA ;:II~ Rainbow Canyon Villages, HOA . adine Br eri Secretary I¥nbow Canyon Villages, HOA I~~ Karen Locklin, Member at Large Rainbow Canyon Villages, HOA RAINBOW CANYON ROAD H_'"' "", " - I , I FROM PECHANGA PARKWAY (SOUTH) RAINBOW CYN VILLAGES HOMES (LEFT SIDE) , / I ., -_._, .' ., . ,--' INGRESS I EGRESS TO HOMES BY THE GREEN FROM BA YHILL DRIVE (SOUTH) FROM PECHANGA CREEK (SOUTH) RAINBOW CANYON ROAD TEMECULA CREEK INN / GOLF COURSE TEMECULA CREEK INN / GOLF COURSE - --. =.. TJEMECULA CREEK INN I GOLF COURSE TEMECULA CREEK INN / GOLF COURSE RAINBOW CANYON ROAD ROAD WINDING THROUGH RAINBOW CYN VIEW OF RAINBOW CANYON ~"'¥<l ~t(,\Q+\-cat\1V éi) ~0fI ^(f\~d. ~f"I't~~ ATTACHMENT NO, 5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMENT LETTERS - NORTH GENERAL KEARNY R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan Update\Staff Report CC1.doc 10 Æe~ Meadowview Community Association . August 9, 2004 City of Temecula City Council/Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92591 Re: Proposed extension of North General Kearney Rd. through Meadowview Dear Council and Committee members: Members ofMeadowview Association are greatly distressed to learn that the City of Temecula is once again considering extending North General Kearney Rd. through our community, As you are aware, the City Council, in 1993, assured Meadowview's homeowners that this road extension would be removed from the City's general plan. Meadowview Community Association represents 896 property owners. As one of the oldest established communities in the City of Temecula, it is unconscionable to even consider dividing our community in order to mitigate traffic problems created by later developments, Extending North General Kearney through our community would do exactly that. This proposed extension would effectively isolate some of our owners from the majority of the community, curtail their access to many of our equestrian and hiking trails and as an added insult, they would literally have a thoroughfare in their back yard. Additionally, their property values would decline along with their quality of life while the noise factor would increase. The impact on our community would be devastating to our way of life. As Board of Directors of Meadowview Community Association, we urge you to uphold the promise made to Meadowview in 1993. Remove this road extension from the General Plan and uphold the values that Temecula is know for. Values like maintaining a safe, clean, healthy and orderly community; preserving natural resources and maintaining a balanced and environmentally sensitive community, Very truly yours, Board of Directors, Meadowview Community Association 41050 Avenida Verde. Temecula, CA 92591 . (909) 676-4429. Fax (909) 695-2409 StELLAR! FARifis Liz and Nick Serrano 40920 Via Los Altos Temecula, CA 92591 951-695-0414 serran0206@msn,com October 18,2004 TO: Temecula City Council Members FR: Liz and Nick Serrano RE: N. General Kearney Road My husband and I are Meadowview residents who are opposed to bringing North General Kearney through our neighborhood, As a professional equestrian for the past decade, I can assure you that busy roads and horses don't mix welL By diverting traffic through an equestrian emphasized community you will be compromising the safety of our residents and the thousands of people planning on using our roads to commute, Many Meadowview residents ride from their backyards to the main arena and to meet up with other riders on our various trails. Roads have to be crossed, which greatly elevates the chances of a negative encounter with cars, The busier the streets, the more chances of an accident Currently most Meadowview residents respect and understand the needs of their equestrian neighbors and are courteous about yielding to the horseback riders. I can assure you this will not be the case with the rushing commuters finding the quickest route home through our neighborhood, or the teenage drivers heading to and from school. My husband and I paid a premium price to live in Meadowview because of the tranquil setting, equestrian trails and facility, and the close proximity to downtown Temecula. Meadowview offers us a peaceful environment to jog our dog, ride our horses, and be in one of the last remaining low-density areas in the city, I cannot fathom why anyone would entertain the idea of wrecking that lifestyle to ease the flow of city traffic. Why should poor city planning and overdevelopment of tract areas be our burden to bear? Shouldn't an ideally planned community established years before the current traffic problems have any seniority or significance? I am very aware that extending North General Kearney through our community is most likely the cheapest option for the city, but sacrificing the safety of thousands and' desecrating an.' established community wouldn't be worth the price, Best Regards, ~~ ~ Nick Serrano -- II October 23, 2004 Dear Councilmember, Meadowview is one of the few low-density housing areas in Temecula and at this point," the only one with established, maintained and accessible riding trails. Meadowview provides a unique way of life that is seldom seen in growing cities and we should protect that. We are against extending North General Keamy through our rural, equestrian neighborhood. It would completely change the atmosphere here and our ability to ride safely, We need your support. Safety must come first at all times. Cars and horses just don't mix. Currently, neighborhood drivers expect to share the roads with horses and yet we encounter problems: loud noises, speeding, right-of-way issues, Intersections where we cross have "blind spots" and are already risky. Horses spook fur a variety of reasons including cars, sudden movement and loud noises, Children ride unsupervised throughout Meadowview and would be in grave danger, Meadowview drivers are knowledgeable about horse/car etiquette and safety; city traffic would not be. Don't endanger our lives. In addition, many residents would be physically cut off Fom the trails and other amenities, which they pay fur through Association dues. Current homeowners and their horses could not live so close to such a busy road; we would be unable to sell our property as "equestrian" in the future for no one will buy.ahome with this type of city traffic. Placing our lives in danger for the convenience of escaping traffic lights is deadly and shortsighted! Nada Lane is currently used by thirty homes and traffic would increase to 1,000 car trips per hour? Don't support a "pIan" that moves problems wm one place to another, destroying a residential asset in the process. Knowingly and intentionally placing citizens in danger is not an option to alleviate traffic concerns, . Protect Meadowviewand the unique atmosphere it provides to a fast-growing city such as ours, Thank you, /1'9 {/'-- >("11,0" C(k~;5m~&"¡;N Meadowview Resident Janwuy 18,2005 Mr. Mike Naggar Councilmember City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 ReCIE"'f:@ J4ft! 2 1 2005 C/7"(MA OF/!,~gE:R'S Dear Councilmember Naggar, At the Traffic/Safety Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, Janwuy 27 at 6:00 an agenda item concerning North General Kearny will be discussed. As members of Meadowview, we will be in attendance to express our concerns about an idea which will destroy, separate and create numerous safety issues in our community and for other citizens. Meadowview is THE LAST REMAINING EQUESTRIAN HOUSING AREA in Temecula proper that provides maintained and established trails for horses and their owners. Other low-density, equestrian areas have lost their trails due to development of and fencing of properties, thus blocking trails previously available to riders. City traffic cutting through residential communities (especially low density ones) is !lID an idea supported by current urban planning theories, not even to save several seconds at stop lights. Equestrians ability to safely ride, cross streets and access the arena will be compromised and could result in accidents and fatalities. Enclosed please find signed letters from our equestrian community detailing their legitimate and rational position concerning this road, Placing lives in danger for the convenience of escaping traffic lights (or shortening their stoppage duration during peak traffic hours) is deadly and shortsighted. Knowingly and intentionally placing citizens in danger is not an option to alleviate traffic concerns, We expect the support of the Traffic/Safety Commission on Thursday; we hope we have . yours. Sincerely, ~~ Diana Lovett-Webb Meadowview Resident Dear Council Member, Hello, I'm a resident in Meadowview and horse owner. I would like to start out by stating some of my FAVORITE reasons to liye here in Meadowview, there is enough room on the backyards to own horses, there are beautiful horse trails on which to ride on, there are few busy streets passing through Meadowview thus enabling horse riders to feel safe at most times, there is only a small percentage of traffic (if any) at most times of the day, luxurious properties and homes, thus making it the 'oasis' of Temecula. Some this, however, I dislike Meadowview is because it's in the middle of Temecula, I know no one can physically change this but people use rneadowview to get to one place to the next, usually getting lost. They speed on the small roads and on my street alone there have been several accidents in the past couple of years. There is a good amount of vandalism, for exarnple, in the past 3 rnonths my horne and my friend's horne was T.P.'d plus my neighbor's home was TP.'d twice. We knew it couldn't have been anyone in meadowview, because we don't have any enemies here. Besides rnost of our neighbors are at least over 40 and the only homes that are usually T.P.'d are teenager's hornes. This leads us to believe they were just teens that knew that Meadowview was a good spot to just run around and vandalize. Plus our mailboxes along our streets, as well as almost EVERY other has been broken and knocked down. This has lead our family, and many neighbors, to want meadowview to become a gated community, it's very important that we keep vandalizing and speeding people out of our neighborhoods. Along with speeding, I have been in several situations were my live as well as my horses was at stake. I was walking my horse down general Kearny to the arena when a car sped by men and swerved towards us. My horse, of course, spooked and ran whilst I was in front of her with the rope in my hand; shealrnost trampled me and bolted. Luckily she only got half way to the arena before she came back to me. If I hadn't of been able to jump out of the way in time I probably would be severally injured and possibly dead along with my horse. I didn't recognize the driver as a resident, so I believe them to have been using rneadowview as a transportation device. I say NO to putting general Kearny through for the purpose, I fear for the horses, others, and mine safety. I realize this letter is confusing but I hope you get the message! Thank you Katherine Fisher f. tf-d .J- 8 - .;z IJ CJ Y . ~ k,'. ßŒN~V~~~"~~ .J~~~,Þ . BY/~-= ,~~.~CA-'~'J~ ' ~,.~,~~~.~ ,~\~ .tb~ ~.~'~~ ~, ',' I / ,~~"'~~~~,' .~~ ~~'~~,~~'j;;J. ~~2~Þt6lce. ~"~' ~,~,~~,~'~."'~"~-~ 5~~., ' , ~.~.~.~ ~.~.~.~~~ "~4..;klu'ð~;~ûk~-~{ ~ ~~þ ~', , T~~.~..~~~.~ ~~'~"~,'("" "','"",,, ...'~ "':;' '~'th-~~ t!-J-~, ' "I ',' ~.4\~~-~., ,\: ' , ,,~.,~,,~,~~.~,~~ ~c~,,'~ .-ft' -D,' ;:f'~ ' ;ít t7,~ -' ýI " , ' '~() , I v-- ~ ~ c;.... ~,,',~~'~' RECEIVED, " ' NOV 0 1 2004 CITY OFTEMECUv. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - , I 2-' , ~~~~'~~, SfØ-~/¡'~,~'~ ~', ' ~'~'~~~~",', ~~'~',;d:MiL!"~, -" ~~ ~ þ~. ," ' ',.~~~~~V-,~~ ' ~~~,~~,~~ ~,~,~'~ AX ~u~ ~~ ~~~~~þ ~~, ~,~-w-,', ' þ~~/ ~ ~ ,~'" .', ,~)~'cLö~,,~ c.-... ,~ aLl ;;t.Lc., ~ , ~ ~~u~~~9~~ ~~~,~~~,~~, ~~~~~ - .. ~ ~u ' .#ri? <c{~, ~' 306:.4'£ -- ~ M " ~,~ =- - ¡n"îI'-;" i' , JAN 2 1 2005 j I:.."..: Sherry Redon~ 40175 Paseo ~o= Temecula, CA 92591 January 17,2005 Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Committee Members, Because of a scheduling conflict I am unable to attending the public hearing scheduled for February 2, 2005 regarding connecting the two ends of North General Kearny. I would, however, like to voice my strong objection to this. Meadowview is an old community and the roads are not made to handle the amount of traffic you would subject it to by connecting the two ends. For the safety of our children and to eliminate a potential future liability for city should the two ends be connected, I respectfully request the roads not be connected. I feel that connecting the two roads given Meadowviews inability to safely handle the additional traffic could result in an accident and a subsequent lawsuit against the city. /7 ¡ .' CCI ~L~.{r Sherry Redondo -----Original Message-no- From: Joanie Hollingsworth Sent: Tuesday, January 25,20054:15 PM To: Mike Naggar; Jeff Comerchero; Ron Roberts; Maryann Edwards; Chuck Washington Cc: Denise Caravelli; Anita Pyle Subject: Re: Kahwea & North General Kearney To all Council Members: I just want to express my concern that this topic is being revisited again. In the past twelve years, we have been to both Traffic and Safety Commission meetings, and City Council Meetings numerous times, I can remember at least three occasions when the Public Traffic and Safety Commission voted to keep Kahwea Road closed, I urge this council to abide by the earlier decisions and permanently close the road as was promised, You can't possibly think it is a good idea to allow more traffic in Meadowview. If you are not familiar with the roads then I would encourage you to drive through Meadowview at night. Via Norte and Del Rey connect and are both narrow and winding roads. In addition, there are no street lights and many houses are extremely close to the road making it unfeasible for the road to be widened. Talk about an accident waiting to happen. It's not even really safe in the daytime, This is a rural community and it needs to stay that way. Adding more cars on unsafe roads is ludicrous. I really would like to think that you Council Members would have more sense, and not bow to pressure by making an unsound decision which could have repercussions for years to come. I urge you to seriously consider not allowing any more traffic into Meadowview, I am a parent too and understand that it sometimes inconvenient to get around this town, but opening up Meadowview will solve nothing. People don't need a short cut across town. We all have to go out of our way to get where we have to be in this city. Safety needs to come first!! I implore you to think about this and vote to keep the roads closed! Thank you for your attention to this matter. City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589 29 January 2005 Attention: Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner Subject: Extension of North General Kearny - Meadowview Reference: Community Advisory Committee Presentation, Thursday 27-Januàry 2005 Dear Mr. Hogan, We, along with 175 other Meadowview residents attended the above referenced presentation to voice our opposition to the proposed extension of North General Kearny through our.community. This extension is not a viable solution to the overall traffic ,problem surrounding Temecula, and in fact, will only aggrevate a SAFETY situation that most Meadowview residents, especially our children face each day. We believe that SAFETY should be the overriding consideration and thats where your proposal lacks understanding and foresight. Have you and your constituency been "here" at the prime hours to personally observe the "daily events" that take place in öur community and particularly the area of the proposed "cut thru"??? We urge all who have an input or a vote for or against this issue to take the time to come and witness the concerns that many of Thursday nites speakers were trying to convey. Specifically, we request you all consider the following safety issues before proceeding any further-with-this proposal.-- 1. James Day Middle School attendees start arriving on foot, bicycle and skateboards between 7:30 and 8:00. The peak turmoil occurs near 8:00 when the majority of the students arrive by family autos. Only about 10% ride school busses. Again, arround 2:40 the "pick-up" ritual starts and absolute grid¡ock prevails on General Kearny and the adjoining streets by the school. Cars line both sides of the streets making it most difficult for others to pass thru. You will observe people making "U Turns", kids darting across the street to get their rides and many others trying to walk or ride their bikes up the street since there are no sidewalks up to the Meadows. One of the speakers had several photos documenting this situation but time constraints prohibited his showing them all. We personally observe these events from our kitchen window and we are horrified at the sight. We were aghast to hear that the School Principal favors opening General Kearney up to more traffic! Please, we beg you all to come and see it in person and then ask yourselves - HOW IS ADDING ANOTHER 10,000 OR MORE TRIPS PER DAY GOING TO MAKE THIS SITUATION BETTER???? / 2. The stretch of General Kearny between Margarita and the proposed "cut thru" has two churches, a Middle School and a Community Park/Playground which is located diagonally across from the school. Both the park and the- school grounds are utilized in the evenings and weekends for soccer practice and games as well as other sports activities. Since parking is limited at both facilities we ovserve children and parents scurrying back and forth across General Kearny. Its very unsafe but it happens all the time. Come out and observe these events and then ask' , yourselves - HOW IS ADDING ANOTHER 10,000 OR MORE TRIPSPER'DAY GOING TO MAKE THIS SITUATION BETTER???? 3. In Meadowview we have traffic safety problems right now and we don't believe your traffic records accurately reflect all of the events since many are "hit and split" and we are left with the expense of mending our own fences, literally!' Our streets are narrow and winding, there are no street lights or sidewalks and there are no traffic signals to slow or stop the traffic. We are constantly being passed by speeders and-they rarely ever observe the few stop signs we do have. Our streets serve as paths for walking, cycling, and have many trail-heads and horse crossings. Come out some evening and obvserve the community activities and then ask yourselves -HOW IS ADDING ANOTH~R 10,000 OR MORE TRIPS PER DAY GOING TO MAKE THIS SITUATION BETTER???? 4. We observe many activities on the trail behind our home. In addition to the children going to and from school there are many others walking, jogging, bicycling and horseback riding. The Chapparel High Cross Country Team regularly practice on our trails. We also have an abundance of wildlife such as Egrets, Blue Heron, Burrowing Owls and other game and birds. Your proposal to pave thru this area represents a total disruption to all of these activities. Are you proposing to incorporate over and underpasses, reduced speed limits and traffic signals to control this mixture of traffic? These all represent a lot of expense to the taxpayers not to mention the cost of acquiring the land from the Meadowview Homeowners. We feel that our "other traffic" enjoys greater safety today than would be afforded by your proposal. In summary, with so many valid points of concern expressed by the many speakers at the referenced meeting we ask that you all,:take the time to come and see us as we really are and not how it appears on paper. We all believe this proposal has been offered without benefit of an honest evaluation of the "real situation"., Please do not "butcher up" our community and above al1' don't, subject our residents, especially the children to greater safety hazzards. Thank you for your _consideration_in this matter. Respectfully yours J1-:M-. a)A~"~-4wv Mrs J~YRenkvish-ponn 40733 Carmelita Circle Temecula CC: City Council Members Planning Commission Advisory Committee School Board President Meadowview Action Committee I " CoundI III-. NtI8on Jim 0'Gr8dy G8Iy Thornhill GrIn! Y8lea BIg Hughes DebbIe Ubnoeke Ray Ouellette 30587 Calle Pina Colada Temecula, CA 92591 January 27, 2005 Jeff Comerchero, Mayor City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Additional Comments Calle Pina Colada Traffic Problems Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Ir.. Ii., .:,!( ~AN 3 ¡ 1005 08 iKf /-:ilf-O,; RECEIVED JAN 28 2005 CITY MANAGER'S OFFIce Please add the following comments to my original letter dated January 23rd, 2005. Attached please find a map of the Meadowview Community which consists of 896 lots and some 2,000 plus residents. Please note that approximately three fourths of the community has no exit requiring motorist to travel up to an additional 2 miles around the circle in order to exit via Calle Pina Colada or North General Kearny. It does not seem reasonable that the Kahwea exit should be blocked because it could provide safer and shorter travel for the majority of the Meadowview residents residing in the Eastern portion of the community. Additionally, High School students could exit via Kahwea thereby relieving some of the congestion at major intersections such as Margarita and Winchester. The opening ofKahwea may also reduce emergency response time by emergency vehicles when sometimes just one minute may make the difference between life and death. Thanks again for your time and consideration, A~Si~~ u:- .i Ra u~tA . 9 -699-2567 cc: Traffic Safety Commission Traffic City Engineer Meadowview Community Association ~,-. ..~ t ~ F- ~~ ..... \II ,;= . )- I f-¡ ~...... -t t 'K~ ~/v ~ ~ . l J:; ;- ':j£ ) ""'". : I ,; '¿V "~'L>-~ ~ÿJ -= . ...,"\ './' I -jK))!.y l\, . ... ... j. J - "'],,,,-'1 J.--;1.'¡;¡ : i" . ~ I ,~ ,11;' ::FIJj n- o 'h:~Çr\ " ~17j, ;f'\\~"¡' , r..:::i1."\\1 , !r '-1 D 'J..' r 'W;O:-""F;:. . "',' ,,]\/'" ÇlP' -:;;;;-< ..i , \ H' \' ,«/ I" \ ;- ,; \ 'Ë\--,~:Ji )1 I ;.~ I '- -- t-oc---- d 1 ~ ~"",:j n "-1 , ,;;;;¡:/) \ . <-: , \. .\,<" 'j ~ - ~~~.~.\'. .ø. if ~. ~§ilt~ r:) ,. ~'h~~ : " ,,(~;¿3 t . . ";?¡~~NJAS. ,: ,~ -;: ~~ ~. : "'~"- «1'u"'f - - :r:iJ='E.~'A.J<::r.~ f il'~ --:{H ", i i ;'-'-'" -. ~ ô , .. V~~~. f] ?M~~~~ I' .' t f..¡,~y K " V'iI" "-' v~ ~ :~ j :~.. -.~'<2Ä- ~.. "",' . ~.,J~'1'~ '\Y'A>ciJ ~~K'~";~ t¡¡¡S ~ ~. ' c '" n:íJ.- L-' 7 (,ij)" ... ~ ,. -=;!!'/ ,--,",\: ~ I ¡". ~::~ . Nrr1 V", ~l ,. '.". rh \J'~ '\ Tí'!:[)- H".-: ~T~"," .~~~~ '" . cc: S. Nelson B. Hughes G. Thornhill ttacEIVED F'fB 0 2 2005 .::/Ty MMJAGER'~ OFFIce" January 29, 2005 Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attn: Mayor Comerchero and Councilman's Naggar, Roberts, Pratt, & Edwards and Commissioner's Jacobs, Lanier, Ramos, Youmans & Arbagast Re: Request for Traffic Controls Dear Mayor, Councilmen & Commissioners: My name is Sharon Carpenter, I live on Calle Pina Colada. I have been a resident of Temecula for almost 16 years. Our many traffic issues, which affect all of the residents of Temecula and the concern we have that cause so many to speak out, are worth repeating. I realize that you have heard many redundant viewpoints regarding our residential streets and our unhappiness with what has and has not been done to insure our safety, home values and peace of mind. To my mind though, redundancy requires no apology until solutions are accomplished. Nevertheless, I will attempt to refrain fÌ'om bringing every line item back to your attention. Despite our many growth issues, unfavorably inappropriate and/or mandated policies, recommendations and otherwise politically beneficial sanctions that may have and are taking place, (if not negligent) ways in which our paid officials have allowed the Temecula population to evolve, I still embrace the opportunities and life style that this community affords to myself and my family. However, for the record, I do wish you to acknowledge that I am opposed to and fmd offensive the following: 1). I find it unacceptable that the City ofTemecuia has not fulfilled an obligation to their Meadowview residents to follow through with the proposed 1999 Meadowview Circulation Study. Furthennore, I have heard countless data that has not been quantified in any way. Many statements by some of you, are not only inaccurate and or arbitrary, they are presented as factual. 2). I believe that the misappropriation and sanctions by city planners to allow ongoing and countless developments, both of commercial and residential usage, that continue to multiply in areas that are inadequately able to support street traffic, should not be the responsibility of residential citizens nor their residential streets so that YOU can alleviate and/or detour the arterial traffic that results fÌ'om the City's mistakes. 2 3). Calle Pina Colada needs to be and should be closed to through traffic. Period! Specifically, we are not a "collector" street, nor were we originally designated as such. Calle Pina Colada is called and used as a collector street It is my understanding that our residential street should not have to be subjected to any more than 2,000 cars a day. By your own admission of current drive through traffic, we are currently exceeding this number by approximately 30% with 2800 cars per day, Furthennore, these numbers were gathered during a holiday period rather than peak times and therefore do not accurately reflect the amount of cars speeding back and forth between schools and errand seekers trying to avoid main artery traffic. Weare victims of the City's long history of continual denial to allow us to close off our street to through traffic. Other and later developed streets, are allowed to remain closed to avoid a duplication of consequences suffered by our residents. The constant pounding increases and grows worse every day with the growing population statistics. Why is this? Is it possible that it is because they are graced with more prominent City residents, who receive special dispensation while Calle Pina Colada suffers unjust bias? Why are certain streets allowed and able to sidestep the impending implications ofleaving their streets open to cut through traffic? 4). When ingress, egress of my own driveway is prohibited because of the multitude of reckless, speeding "mow down", unabiding, inconsiderate, rude drive through traffic motorists - and, that this very same example is paled because I am also reluctant to pennit my 5 year old grandson to open my front door WI1HOUT holding onto him tightly because I'm literally terrified that one of these unthinking drivers will drive up onto my property, run the stop sign, speed out of control, or the unthinkable - actually drive into my unsuspecting grandson, myself, a neighbor or one of theirs, TIffiN, I have serious issues with this city and all of the paid personnel who facilitate what takes place here. Most common place are the too many motorists (whether speeding or not) who think that it is reasonable to pass us on the right as we attempt to make a left into our driveways. This very often results in them skidding or jumping up onto the curb of the adjacent side of the street. About a year ago I witnessed one of these drivers narrowly miss hitting a child across the street that had stepped from his grass area to the sidewalk. The driver was moving with such speed, that I was unable to reverse back out of my driveway quickly enough to follow after them and identifY who this lunatic driver might be. PLEASE TRY TO IMAGINE HAVING TO LIVE LIKE THIS! My tax bills are sent to us with regularity. My husband and myself are timely in payment of our "fair share". We, along with our neighbors, as most homeowners do, have invested many hard earned dollars in the maintenance and improvement of our properties. Our personal hopes, dreams, security and preservation are all woven into these properties. / . . 3 My husband and I believe and credit our selves in viewing the grand picture and greater scheme of things. We understand that with growth comes pros and cons. We accept that our community is changing and is of a different profile than we had originally perceived. We sincerely want what is good and equitable for ALL of the Temecula residents. We do not believe that since Calle Pina Colada suffers that ALL should suffer. No, we believe that Calle Pina Colada is being treated unfairly. Why are we burdened because of mistakes or miscalculations made by the City Planners? It is abundantly clear that my taxes count in the overall plan of this City. Conversely, it would not be in keeping with the esteem and pride that I feel for this community, ifI as a caring and supporting citizen of Temecula, that my presence, my thoughts and my concerns were not taken seriously. Worse, that my voice fall on deaf ears - most specifically, of those of whom I helped to elect. On a personal basis, I frequently remind myself that for every problem there exists a solution. Why am I expected to sit back and accept that just because our traffic problems are challenging, that those in charge of remedy are not charged with accountability because it's too difficult? If you fall short on your assigned tasks, then shame on you. Step down and allow someone else with greater vision and detennination to step up to the plate, . Never more clear to me than on January 27 at the Temecula City Hall Meeting, was the overriding majority attitude of Commissioners and moreover, Public Works "employees" who appeared to feel exempt to conscientiously pursue with any fervor a resolution. Granted, the hour was late and the agenda long with so many expressing their concerns. Still, it was not so late as it would be late if we didn't prevent a fatality. Normally I think I am more gracious than the thoughts to follow, however; when I witness with my own eyes that Public Works, Bill Hughes sits pompously assured that all he must do is merely "tolemte" and endure this exceedingly high turnout meeting, that he and some of his associates actually snickered to one another throughout, while slouched lazily in inattention in their seats, again - I question my loyalty to the integrity of my city. While my concerns for safety, property values and fair play in general are earnest, I do not believe that my senior years should be spent seeking and implementing resolutions that you are trained and paid to come up with. DO YOUR JOB! Let me and mine enjoy the life we have chosen, paid for and deserve here on our beautiful street, in our beautiful city. CLOSE OFF CALLE PINA COLADA TO THROUGH TRAFFIC!!! STOP TURNING MEADOWVIEW INTO A BUTCHERED ABORTION. Look at ALL ofTemecula; find real solutions not temporary and hazardous stopgaps. Think outside the box. Install electronically closed gates that would not impede emergency response vehicles, build an overpass, build a monorail, stop further housing development, increase law enforcement personnel, install electronic traffic citation cameras. Sit in my driveway I . 4 for one high volume traffic hour and witness for yourself the absurd and ftightening driving behavior of drivers on this street. Easily, I could go on for yet another 90 pages or more with the complaints and issues that face us, not only on Calle Pina Colada, but also in much ofTemecula. I will save that for any further letters of malcontent. Thank you for your attention and time. Sharon Carpenter 30787 Calle Pine Colada Temecul8, CA 92591 Cc: Temecula Police Dept. Temecula Fire Dept. Press Enterprise The Californian Calle Pina Colada and adjacent street neighbors Denise Caravelli Administrative Assistant Planning Department (951) 694-6400 --Original Message----- From: Pat Comerchero On Behalf Of Web Master Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 3: 17 PM To: Denise Caravelli; Anita Pyle; Sue Steffen Subject: FW: City of Temecula Feedback ----Original Message---- From: Web Master Sent: Monday, January 31, 20052:10 PM To: Web Master Subject: City of Temecula Feedback ............................................................................... Feedback: Feedback Username: Mike Kuhn UserEmail: dkscribe@dslextreme.com UserTel: (951) 694-8205 ContactRequested: ContactRequested Remote Name: 63.251.200.14 Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: Monday, January 31, 2005 Time: 02:09 PM Comments: Dear Commision Members, This e-mail is in support of the plans to open all blocked streets on the north part of the city. Also in support of the connection of the existing parts of North General Keary. This is a important step in improving traffic flow through the city .---.-.------.-----------------------.-----..-- . DeniSe Caravelli Administrative Assistant Planning Department (951) 694-6400 --Original Message----- From: Pat Comerchero On Behalf Of Web Master Sent: Monday, January 31,20059:51 AM To: Anita Pyle; Denise Caravelli; Sue Steffen Subject: FW: City of T emecula Feedback -----Original Message---- From: Web Master Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:37 AM To: Web Master Subject: City of Temecula Feedback ............................................................................... Feedback: Feedback Username: Paul Knowles UserEmail: pdk.wlk@adelphia.net UserTel: 951 676-2653 ContactRequested: Remote Name: 67.20.77.170 Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) Date: Monday, January 31, 2005 Time: 09:36 AM Comments: Item 3 On Tuesday's Agenda- I'm in TOTAL agreement that the northern streets of N. G. Kearney, Kahwea,Starling and Sanderling NEED to be OPENED for through traffic. To leave them closed is discriminatory! Denise Caravelli Administrative Assistant Planning Department (951) 694-6400 ----Original Message----- From: Pat Comerchero On Behalf Of Web Master Sent: Monday, January 31, 20059:51 AM To: Anita Pyle; Denise Caravelli; Sue Steffen Subject: FW: City of Temecula Feedback -----Original Message---- From: Web Master Sent: Monday, January 31,20059:42 AM To: Web Master Subject: City of Temecula Feedback ............................................................................... Feedback: Username: UserEmail: UserTel: ContactRequested: Remote Name: 67.20.77.170 Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) Date: Monday, January 31,2005 Time: 09:41 AM Feedback Wanda Knowles pdk.wlk@adelphia.net Comments: Please act responsably on Item 3 of Wednesday's (2/2)Agenda by Opening North side city streets of Noth General Kearney, Sanderling, Starling and Kahwea. Denise Caravelli Administrative Assistant Planning Department (951) 694-6400 -----Original Message----- From: Pat Comerchero Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:52 AM To: Denise caravelli; Sue Steffen; Anita Pyle Subject: FW: item 3 (open road) From: Annaandjohn2004@aol,com [mailto:Annaandjohn2004@aol,com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:46 AM To: Department - Planning Subject: item 3 (open road) Hello, I want to support the opening of North General Kearney - it is obvious that the road was to be a through street and it needs to belli Thank you!! Anna Begg 39571 Sarah Dr. Temecula CA 92591 For week of: January 31. 2005 to February 4. 2005 2005 -CITY COUNCIL HOTLINE CALLS CC: Debbie Ubnoske for Planning Commission DISTRIBUTION: Cltv Council. Shawn Nelson. Jim O'Gradv. and Grant Yates Individual calls alven to Aaron Adams for reSDonse on dav of call Planning Planning Planning January 31, 2005,10:13 a.m.. My name is Esio Grassi. I live at 40108 Alexandria Drive, in Temecula, I want to voice my opinion speaking on that item 3 of the February 2 agenda, and I would like to have the City open up the special North General Kearney, Kahwea, and Sanderling, and Starling, so we can have easier or better access during heavy peak traffic hours. Traffic is getting to be ridiculous and it needs to be addressed. You need to do something about this. We need this to bleed off a lot of this excess traffice on Winchster and Margarita. It would I'm sure there are thousands of other people who would like to do the same thing. I'm speaking on item 3. Please open these roads. Thank you very much. My number is 694- 8568 January 31, 2005, 2:22 p.m. Hello, my name is Betsy Alnspac. My address is 40088 Adian Court in Temecula. I'm calling to voice opposition to the proposed opening of North General Kearney Road. The light that they put at the intersection of Nichols and North. General Kearney has already caused a sharp increase in speeders coming down Milano Drive through our neighborhood. I believe that opening North General Kearney up through the mall will cause increase from just our children in the neighborhood to the erratic and excessive driving habits of the local residents who don't seem to respect speed limits or any other attempts at controlling traffic and the dan er that they ose to neighborhoods. January 31,2005, 2:58 p.m. . My name is Mrs. Leslie. My address 40334 Calle Katerine in Temecula. I'm speaking to item #3 on the February agenda about the blocked streets in and around north Temecula. You know we have a traffic problem and if all the streets were open it would relieve all of the traffic problems because the traffic would be divided up amongst all the roads instead of being directed strictly to a few. It is ridiculous that those roads are closed. We pay taxes for the streets we all have the right to use all the streets. I understand that there are Councilmembers that live in Meadowview and perhaps that's the reason they want the streets kept quiet, but we all appreciate it and would like quiet streets, or a little traffic relief. So therefore I feel since our taxes are paying for all the roads, all the roads should be 0 en for ever bod. Thank you. Pogo' of 2 City of Temecula-City Council 43200 Business Park Drive P. O. Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92590 RECEIVED FEe 1 1 200.5 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Re: Meadowview Gentlemen: My wife, Nikki and I are recent (2003) residents in Meadowview, residing at 29850 Del Rey Road. We had spent all of2003 seeking an area where smog was not a problem for Nikki who has a lung decease that has caused her to lose approximately fifty percent of her lung capacities. Fortunately we found a site where smog is practically nonexistent, plus giving us an area ftee ftom constant car noises, almost. We can enjoy the peace and tranquility of the relaxed area of the country side- Meadowview. Our streets are narrow and winding with no sidewalks dominate the yards of the homes. We have the best ofIiving: The charm of the association's meadows and trails, and the closeness of the shops and stores and that, today are necessary for the 10.000 occupants of our city-Temecula. As a family öftwo, who are retiring tills year, My wife Nikki, age 63 and myself78 look forward to a quiet, peaceful life on Meadowview, undisturbed by the potentially thousands of cars traveling thru the Meadowvie\vnarrow-Wio lane roads. As the proposed traffic patterns would essentially destroy our ability to safely walk on the existing streets, Del Rey and Via Norte, we selfisWy object to the contemplated General Kearny plan. Sincerely, \~W George and Nikki Neal FEB-14-2005 05.34 PM ,~. TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL 9096764495 P.01 . ::2//'1105 . r1A1\/. tÆt /J... . . .'" .~_._-~._---_cc.~. S. Nelson 11/11'1'-. ~ 1n~..,.ŒG~~l !¡....Œi.n~.,.G'Thornhill U9 M ,rJ..VV1~~ I ¡liB. Hughes - 0 I" ,r""" ¡II! FEB 1 7 ZO05 ¡ ~ I City Clerk - Uu lJ IflJhA b.,. .,./ «n."_AIIl~.... By_----- N_';/~J~ 'f'1<-.'¡" ¿¿- ~ Gð~<h ~~~ ~~'fD ~~. ~:k- ~'~a~'.A-4 .J..f~. ~- '. ..o-1J~ . ~~ ~ <47-~ ~ /' ---. ~ .A-U'1~--" ~ ~r~J~ ~ v~70-~- ð:...v~:dÅ ~4/~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~. ~</II_/~'~~-'=~J ..; II tLI.J-. ¿../Î- ~ . 0 /}IV. ~ dA-I- ~ ~ ~~~'/U"'~IJ. ' . . r--:-~ ~ v..~ f; -~ d h2d.L ~~ ~.~ -~~~ :;;:;.~ ~ ~ -'1 Þ?1 9'k.. ~. ~ ~ ~~ I/fG -11':1} ~ ~ ~ hu ~~ ~ ~1?i,¡J~~~~A. /)f)I1Þt~ ~ ~. '1þh~ ~~ vd;r~~-~u"ød. ~~ 'wv UJ.)J ~I '7'Ju4 !u.:~ (,() ~ft4d. ~ ,~ [)...t./ t ~ M,U. II r:-;:::!, -~ ~ ~tJ..d- oJJ..L t P J..uA¿ ~ ~ ~ "- ~ .J/.J- . ~h~,.~. 'F.-ð-in- ~V~~. fJtd/1ULLl.J.Æ~ . :3DJqS ~ ~ 0 ~ CbJd 92!59 I CIS I {pqC¡"3~¥2 I ' [~l-, Ii:, ' MAR 1 0 200~ !,- Meadowview Community Associati6n defu March 8, 2005 City of Temecula City Council/Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92591 Re: Proposed extension of North General Kearney Rd. /Nada Lane & proposed opening of Kahwea Road. Dear Council and Committee members: In August, 2004, Meadowview Community Association corresponded with you regarding our distress at learning that the City of Temecula is once again considering extending North General Kearney Rd. through our community; and possibly opening Kahwea Rd. to through traffic as well. We have been advised that over 200 of our members have personally approached the City in opposition to this proposal; however to date, our members feel they have not received an appropriate response /Tom you. As you are aware, the City Council, in 1993, assured Meadowview's homeowners that the North General Kearney extension would be removed /Tom the City's general plan. Our members relied upon this assurance. We are equally concerned at the possibility of the City opening Kahwea Road to through traffic, as we had been led to believe that this road would also remain closed. Meadowview Community Association represents 896 property owners. As one of the oldest established communities in the City of Temecula, it is unconscionable to even consider dividing our community in order to mitigate traffic problems created by later developments. Extending North General Kearney through our community would do exactly that. This proposed extension would effectively isolate some of our owners from the majority of the community, curtail their access to many of our equestrian and hiking 1rails and as an added insult, they would literally have a thoroughfare in their back yard. Additionally, their property values would decline along with their quality of life while the noise factor would increase. The impact on our community would be devastating to our way of life. As Board of Directors of Meadowview Community Association, we urge you to uphold the promises made to Meadowview in 1993. Remove this road extension /Tom the General Plan and continue to uphold the values that Temecula is known for. Values like maintaining a safe, clean, environmentally sensitive and orderly community while preserving natural resources. Very truÍy yours, Board ofDireciors, Meadowview Community Association 41050 Avenida Verde. Temecula, CA 92591 . (951) 676-4429. Fax (951) 695-2409 ATTACHMENT NO.6 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT R:\General Plan\Comp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 10 Circulation Element 1. Page C-11, add the following to the first paragraph under the Principal Arterial Section: "An exception to the standard cross section is found in the French Valley area. According to an agreement between Caltrans and the County of Riverside, the right-of- way for Winchester Road, between Hunter and Keller Roads, needs to be 184 feet wide." R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 11 - ------ ------- ATTACHMENT NO.7 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC1.doc 12 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD RECOMMENDATIONS Circulation Element - North General Kearny Recommendations B. Add North General Kearny to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) as a Limited Secondary Arterial between Nicolas Road and end of the existing segment of North General Kearny. Also, put a "*" next to the Limited Secondary Arterial portion of the roadway. Add a note on Figure C-2 that states: "* Prior to an approval to construct any part of the Limited Secondary Arterial segment of North General Kearny, a traffic study described in Implementation Measure C-20 shall be completed and approved by the City Council." A. C. Add Implementation Measure C-20 to read as follows: "C-20 North General Kearny Circulation Study To ensure that the circulation system benefits for the implementation of the Limited Secondary Arterial segment of North General Kearny, the City shall complete a detailed traffic analysis. The Study shall, at a minimum, analyze the traffic impacts on the perimeter and connecting streets for the area surrounded by the following roadways: Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Calle Medusa. la Serena Way, and Margarita Road. The study will analyze current and future roadway conditions both with and without the construction of proposed segment of North General Kearny Road. This study may be performed in conjunction with studies related the possible opening of previously closed street in this area. Agency/Department: City Manager, Public Works, Planning Related Policy: 3.7 and 3.8" R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC1.doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO.8 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT R:IGeneral PianlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC1.doc 15 8.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to written comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) extending from December 17, 2004 through March 12, 2005. Revisions and clarifications to the EIR in response to comments and information received on the Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (DEIR ¡oct reffiO\ ed) or underline (text added to the Final EIR). Corrections of typographical errors have been made throughout the document and are not indicated by 5tfikeeHt or underline text. Each letter has been assigned a number code, and individual comments in each letter have been coded as well to facilitate responses. For example, the letter from the Rancho California Water District is identified as letter 4, with comments noted as 4-1, 4-2, etc. Comments Received that Address Environmental Issues The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals: la. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 1, 2005. 1 b. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 5, 2005. 2. David Cohen, Associate Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. December 29, 2004. 3. Andrew L. Webster, P.E., Rancho California Water District. December 29, 2004. 4. Michael McCoy, Senior Planner, Riverside Transit Agency. january 12, 2005. 5. john H. Robertus, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. january 18, 2005. 6. Karen Hackett, Environmental Compliance Analyst, Eastern Municipal Water District. january 25, 2005. 7. laura j. Simonek, Manager, Environmental Planning Team, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. january 26, 2005. 8. Gail Acheson, Field Manager, Bureau of land Management, Palm Springs - South Coast Field Office. january 27, 2005. 9. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. January 31, 2005. 10. Robert C. johnson, Planning Director, County of Riverside, Planning Department. January 31, 2005. 11. George A. Johnson, Director of Transportation, County of Riverside, Transportation Department. january 31, 2005. 12. Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission. january 31, 2005. CITY OF TEMECUlA Sol ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Orah fiR 13. Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services, T emecula Valley Unified School District. February 2, 2005. 14. Mark Macarro, Chairman, Pechanga Indian Reservation. February 2, 200S. 15. Lynn Harris, Manager of Community Development, Planning and Policy Department, Southern California Association of Governments. February 2, 2005. 16. Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Intergovernmental Review, Southern California Association of Governments. January 10, 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-2 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 8 Amah! _eo- Gov_, '-'STAT.õ OF CALIFORNIA '-' Governor'S Office of Planning and Research . State Clearinghouse and Planning UnIt (~ '~!lÞ' J..1!ó<1 Acdng """"'" FebrLUlty 1.1(J{)5 ~')i:;;7;;~77 ". L 11~)'èl~;'\¡!W[R.r.!.¡ì ~ j.C\. ¡UU FEB. 0.8. 2005 UJ¡ ~.- - ..' Oavid Hos~' City "rTemècul. 43200 Bu,"'" 'Par, o.i" Ten!eCUlo, CA 92590 Sub)"" City ofTe"","", ac-n",' Plan lipda" SC)!#, 200106<04] """Davidlln"", TheS"', Cli"ic¡;bo",osubmitle<l the.bovenam<dO",ßE!R 10 "l""d."" ',<l\Çi.. ro, review. On the ",closed Pni:""",mDe"iI. Reportple"eoote!hatl'" Ckari11gho\l$ebas listed"" "". agenci"th" ,"vi""d yourdoom""n!. Tho n:vi.,..,poriodcl".d on January 31.200', acd tbe co=n" from Ibe "'pondi". '1O""y(IO8) i, (an:) enclosed. Ifthi, 'ornrrnont po'kÍlg' i, nO' I!lorcier, pI".. notify Ibe Sta" Clcacillßhou", h"""dintely. Pltaserefer to d" project'. """¡;gilSIa'eClearin,ghouse Dumber in Ihtole ,o""'pond""e '° llult we may re,pond pro"'Pdy. . PI",e nule d'" Seeri"" 211<14(') oflbe C"¡ilonri. Pobli, R"..."", C.:odc- "",,!halo , ,,-I "^ tc~pon'ibl' <n other public 'g'UC)' ;h,ll "nly make ,"¡"'nnliveoo""",n~ reç,"¡;ng those ,"ivili" ,"volved In npioj"t which are witJrin..,.re. ofexpcrtise ofth"g,~cyor",iÜ,h.n: mqul"d to be rmlcd oUlor apprmd by!h..""ey. Tho", """",elll' ,h"¡l be ,,'pportodby 'pci;lIic doc"""n..,lo.." The" 00="',", ac, forwarded fo, ",e m pro"",in, yo<u fine! ",vim"""",,] documon!. ShoWd you ne"" more info,,",lIoO '" d"if;,."nn orthe enclosed cornmen~.~. "commend thaI you ""'tit" lb. con"ne"';'~ 'B""y di""Úy. Thi, Io",rndmmvlodg" ij"ly""h;J.e """PH,d with tl" SrateCleoringbom,e revi"" "'1,,;"n,,"', fi"dG>ß env;,ollinenial doc"nlents, p"""anl '" the CaIif"nria Envim_1 Qw!Iity Ac!. PI.." ,on"" the State a",ó"gHo,.e a' (916) 44¡.06'3 iryou have ""y quo"'on' ",."ding h, ",virom1ic"'" revi.,.., p""". Si"",d}. ~~ TCtryRobei!r D;""", Stile CIc-arjIl8ho~,~ En""""" : 'co, 1<.""""'.' Ag""y 1400 TENTH STREET r.o.BOX 3044 ,^CRAM£N10.CAlJFORNIA ""'-J044 . 1'BL19"),,...6I3 PAXI9")'2.>-"" "".e".~...' CITY OF TEMECUlA 8-3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Document Deta"s Report State Clearingho.s. Data Bas. SCH# 20030.'041 Pro),"' TIde Ci~ of rsmeeu~ Generei P~n UPd'" Cood Agency Tom"".; City 0' Typ' EIR. D"hEIR D.s"'o"on Th' (;¡~ 0' Temeeula h., ",mpl,"d , ,"mpreh",,',e update program ,..."" General Plan, The updalsd General P~n e""""'"", "'e "".n Stalo ""nd,ts<! Gene,.' P,," .~men", e, well e, 0"'..- ""0' "'ot e,. important 'o"'e communlly. including g""^,,h management, e",nom;' d"",'opmon', air quallly, end communlly de,,"n. The Ho"'in9 Elo..entwa. ",",n'y u,deted In 2002, end "'us Ie not being com,rohe",',,1y upda'ad a. ,anof"'~ p'""..m. Lead Agency Contact "'mo O",'d Hogen Agcn'y City 0' Tamecula Phono ('St) .94.6400 ,rn,U . Add"... 4320~.Bus!n", Parl< Dri'e OIlY T.m;,,'o - ."" CA Zip g2590 Project Location: Co,nty R.e"ide city Tnmo"l. ""9'on Cm" ."".. NIA P."" No. NIA. Town.hlo . Rang. '"Uon Be.. Proximity to: HI"hwa". SR.;', l,t5. 1-215 AI'P°'" r,ench Ve"" .,",port Rill/wow "coe W.",we,s Teme",", Mume". T,,""1a Creek, and Sanle Me'1Jertls RNor School, All TVUSD SChool. Land Vee Veri., Pro)..' ¡"uo, A,,"'elleNi...I; A9""It"," La,,: '" Ou,IIJy; M"'a"'OQk-H""',¡e: Cumulative Effects: Dco","eI"'O<'pI~n; Flood Po'roIFloodi",,: Fa"" LandIFi,a ""'erd: Gaolagio/S.,;,ml': "'ow:!> Indu'ing; I.;on'""" Mine".: Nol,a: 0""""'0": Popul.lionJHpu~"" B'~n"'; Pub'" S."'I", Re"¡"IIonIPa,I<o: SChool",U.""""e,, Sa"". S"""" Sow", Ca,odly; Sail Ero'~nIComp"t¡onlG"d¡",,; So'" WIISW; 10,)0I"0",douo; T"ffl<lCI,çulaUon; Vegal,'on: Wete, O",lily: W.", S"""" Watland/RIparian. Wi"'", Reviewi", Resou"" ""eney: Reg,onol W.." Ouall~ C'""" Bo"". Re,"n 9; D,par'm.." of PalK' and Ag,nc'.. R"",eatlon: N,II" American Heritaga Co..miss",,: Office of Ema'gency ServIces: Oe_", of Fish an' Game, Raglan 6: De,anmantofW"" Reoource" CaI'omla HlghwayP.',",: Ca",,",,01"""': eal"""" DI'i,ion e{ "ronsu'" D."R...iv,d 12lt7/20O4 S"rtofRovlew 1211712004 EndofRavlaw 0113',1200. NoI"; Blank, Ie 'ata ..Ida '",till 'rom I",um'.n' lmo,,",,"oo pro~ded by I..d '0""'. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.4 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR la. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 1, 2005. Response la-l The comment states that the State Clearinghouse received the Draft EIR and forwarded it to relevant state agencies for comment, and further states thatthe project has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The comment is acknowledged, and no further response is required. Note: The following comment letter was attached to the State Clearinghouse letter and is included as Letter # 5 in this section of the Final EIR. John H. Robertus, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. /anuary 18, 2005. CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR STATE OF CALIFORNIA --,-¡~ Governor', Of,fioe of Planning an.d R..e~"~,i~,,,.;¡¡e. ii' -¡{F ~ \\; ~':!'",',,' .J Stale Clearinghouse and Plan.lng Uniti , ,', P i¡:l~ FEB 102005 . n.¿ [-'I! "'"'1°""'" F,hru,'Y 7. 2oos 6..-".,7.',,7 ,~c- "1 ArnOld ""'........." Gom" D'vidHoy';' City ofT,m",u', 43200 Bo,in~' Puk Drive Te"",ul., ÓA 925911 L f:n'e1l 1 b Subjec' Ciiy orT,""c"ia Gen"",1 plom OpJa" SCHU, 20IlJII6]O41 D~"D"¡dli~~.n; Tho ondo"d ,"",moot(,) 00 yo",D,oJ! EIR wos (",,) ""iv,d by,,", State Ck."o.oowe ,lie, th, ond orth, .tate "view pedod, whi,h d""d uo"",,"y", 2005. Woo '" f"",""iOS tho" """"'0"" 10 you b""u'" tncy !"ovid, informan.. or "i" t.sues thar should be ad""",d io)'Out finsI.ovironmontal do,""~m, 1b.1. Th' C.litbniJa Enyti."""nta' Quulily Act do" nor "qui" L"dAge.des to ,..pcad 10 t.te oommoJl!s, How"",. wè e"on"age you 10 ;ocmp""" th", ,dd;tioo.1 "",neo" in.. your fito¡' onvin"""et>W docomoa!"j¿ 10 cortSkierthom 1"'" 10 "kin¡: rtrutl "tioooo the """"""dproject. P'~"wol"Cl u~ '"" Cle""",h"",,", (916) 445-0613 ifyouhm onyq""tJ.oo "oc,mingth, ,"vUo=~lt"iew pro"". Ify<ru b". n qu",,, "."dio. tit<; .bovn-lWUOd proj"'~ pI.... "rOT 10 "" lco.d;.""." CttadogJt"",e on"h" (2O03061ü41) "¡",, oo."ctlag thi, omoo, Sincerely, ~~ T"'Y Roberts Soni" pi".". Sm" """,'.."ha,", Eodu""", , " R"","'" Agency J<OOTENTH:mŒIIT P.O. BOX ".... SACrw.œmo,CAUFORNIA "'\2-3044 rnL(9IO)44'-t16" ""'<"""'-"" ~.""=... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PIAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUIA 8-6 Responses to Comments on the Orah fiR 1b. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 1,2005. Response 1 b-1 The comment states that the Native American Heritage Commission comment letter, dated January 31, 2005, was received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the initial review period. This comment letter was also sent to the City Planning Department and was received prior to the end of the review period. Note: The following comment letter was attached to the State Clearinghouse letter and is included as Letter # 12 in this section of the Final EIR. Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission. January 31,2005. 8-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on me Draft fiR """""CAt""'""...."""",, """"",,TATIDN AND """"""°"'0' Dfl:PARTMENT OF TRANSi'ORTA TTON DIVISION OFAERONAUTICS M.s..... II:W N81'RBET. ROOM 3¡OO ' P.O. BOX 942m ' SACIIAMBNTO. CA 942'73-0001' (9161654-49$9 FAX (916)65>-9531 TI'y t",,).,I'WZ¡ December29,2OO4 Mr. David Hogarl CityoITemecuhi 43200 B"sincss Park Drive Temccula, CA 9i590 Dear Mr, Hogan:: Re: City of Teinecnla General Plan Update SCH#2004121O41 AINO1.D>:B\V~r.- L.E,,-a.'2. Thank you for in<luding the Caiifornia Department of Transponation (Caltrans), Division of Aeroflantics in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project We reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated December 2004, with re.pect to airport land "se èompatibility planning issues p"fSllaI1i to the California Environmental Qnalily Act (CEQA). The Division of Aeronautics has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, aviation system planning, and ai<port land "se compatibility, planning. We are a funding agency for airport development plans and projects, and we have permit authority for public and special use airports. We offer the following comments for yolit considerntion. I. The project is ,the comprehensive update to the City of Temecula General Plan, except for ÙlC Housing Element !hat W8$ updated in 2002. French VnIley Airport is located adjacent to the northern boundaries of dIe City of Temeéula. The role of regional comprehensive planning and the ai<port land use commission i. heightened if an airport is locaied in one city, and may have noise an.d safety impacts on another. 2. In accordance with the Public Utilities Code (PUe) 21676 et ,reg., local Generd! Plan, and any amendments must be consistent with the adopted airport land use compatibility plans developed by ALVCs. The Riverside Connty Airport Land Use Commission.', consistency review will be' required of the City of Temecula's' proposed general plan update. This requirement iB necessary to ensure that Genera] Plan policie' , and recommendations for noise impact assessment and land use densities are appropriate, given the nature of airport operatioos. .c"_-""""""',m',=C.,.."",- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-8 ~ -'~'"wrl H.~"""Jþ- 2.-1 t -1. CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR )I1r. David Hogan' Deccmber 29,2004 Page 2 3. As mentionod in Stare Law, the pue Section 21676 ef 'eq., Caltrans reviews and comments on:the specific fimlings a local government intend< to use when proposing to ovelTUle aJ\ ALue. C.ltrans specifically looks at Ihc proposed findings to gauge their relationship to the oveITUk. The findings should show evidence that the city is "minimizing ihe public's exposure to excessive noise and safetyhazards widún areas around publit airports to the. extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible u"e,," 1-~ 4. General Plaos and their elements must clearly demonstrate the intent to adhere to ALUe policies to ensUTe compliance with compatibility critcria. Any direct cooflicts between mapped land use designations in a General Plan and the ALUC criteria JIiUSt be resolved. À General Plan need$ to include policies cottlJlÙtting the city to adopt compatibility 'criterin essential to ensuring that such conflicts will be avoided, The criteria do n~t necé8sarily need to be spelled out in a General Plan. There are a number of ways for the city to address the airport consistency issue, including: 2.-4 . lnco1]JOrating airport compatibility policies into the update . Adopting an airport combining zone ordinance . Adopting "n A vi.'lion Blomenl into the General Plan . Adopting ihe Airport Compatibility Plan as a "stand-alone" document or as a specific pIOn j. The General J>\IJD mu,t ackßowledge that until ALUC compatibility criteria are incorporated huo the General Plan, proposals within the airport influence area must be submitted to tile ALUC for review. These provisions must be included in the General Plan at a miiùmum for it to be considered consistent with the airport land use compatibility piau. 6. In accordaucc:\vith CEQA, Pnblic Resourees Code 21096, the Caltrans Airport Land uSe Plauning Handbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in the. preparation of environmental documents for projects within the boundaries of an airport land use compatibility plan, or if such a piau has not been adopted, within two nautical mi1es of tUJ. airpon. The Handbook provides a "General Plan Consistency (""ockjs~' in Table SA, and "AirPort Combining Zone Components" in Table 5B. For your reference, our:Handbook is published on.line at http://www.dot.ca.govlhq/planningi aeronaut!hrmlfilellanduse. php. 11~r 2-<' 7. The planned height of building" antennas, and other structures should be checked j relative to the'Federal Aviation Regulation (PAR) Part 77 criteria if development is %,-'1 close to thc airport, particul3rly if situated within the runway approach canido.... "CaU~""""""-""~""'""""",,",' CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Mr, David Hogan , December 29, 2004 Page 3 ' Oen",al ~ must include policies restricting the height of structures to protect navigable aif$pace, To ensure compliance with FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Nfspace," the tiling of a Notice of PropoSed Construction or Alteration (Fortn 7460.- 1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required. For further techUicaJ information, please refer to the FAN. web site at .httoJlwwwl.faa..ov/ats/atal ATA400/0.....,html. 8. The Educatiq" Code, Section 17215 requires a school silO investigation by the Division of Noronautics prior to acquisition of land for a proposed school site withm two miles of:in airport runway. The Division'. recommendatioos ere submitted to the State De¡>a1'mlcm of Education for use in deretmining the acceplability of the sileo This should ¡,¡, a cQMideration prior to dasignating residential uses in the vicinityo! an airport. . 9. The Section 11010 of the Buoine.. and Professions Code. and Soctions 1102.6, 1103.4, an<lli353 of the Civil Code (httr>:lIwww,lecinfo.ca.£ov/caiaw.html) address buyer noUficaí:ion requirements for lands arQund airports. Any person who intends to offer land for sale or le..e within an airport influence area is requjred to disclose tItat fact 10 the ~n buying the property. lO.Land use pra¿Uces that aUr",,' or sustain hazardous wildlife popuJations on or near . ah'ports can slgnillcantly increase the potentìal for wildlife-aircraft collisiona. The FAA recomniends that lno¡fills. wastewater treannont facilities, surface mining, wetlands, omd \'ther uses that have the potential to'attraet wildlife, be restricted in the vicinity of an airport. Tho FAA's Advisory Circular (AC 150f52OQ.33) entitled "Hazardous Wildlife Attractauts On or Nem: Airports" and AC 15015200-34 entitled "Com;truetion: or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports" address these' issues. These 'advisory cirealars can be accessed at htto:llwwwl faa..ov/awl. For further techoioal information, pJet!$c refer to the FAA's web site at htlD:llwildlife- mittieation.tc.faa.20v/public htmJ/indexlllml. You may also wish 10 COntact the U.S. Depsrtment ofAgricuhure, Wildlife Services a' (916) 979-2675. II. Aviation play; an important role in California', transportation system. This role in¡;Judos the movement of people and goods within and beyond our S1ate's network of over 250 airports, Aviation eontribntes nearly 9% of both toW State empJoyment (1.7 mil1ion jobs) and total State output ($110.7 billion) iumuaUy. These benefits were identified in a'recent study, "Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life," available on-line at htto:/lwww.dotclLRovlh<ofolanninllfaeronaut Among other tlúngs, aviation improves mobility, genemtes tax revenue, saves lives through emergi,ncy response, medical and fire fighting services, annually transports 'Co""""i"p"""","""'Y"""'c.J1Iò-' '-""7 GOtti. 2.-9 2-" 1.-/0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PlAN UPDATE 8-10 CITY OF TEMECUlA Mr. David Ho¡an December 29, 2004 Pago 4 Responses to Comments on rhe Draft fiR air cargo val,*", at over $170 billion and generotes over $14 billion in tourist dollars, which in turn Improves Our economy and quality of life. 12, The protection of airports from tile encroachment of incompatible land uses is vital to the .afety .of airport operations, lhe well bein,g of the communities sunounding airports, and to California's economic future. Frencb Valley Ajrport is an economic asset that should be protected lI1mugh effective airport land use compatibility planning and ~wareness. Coll8idcration given to the i.sue of compatible land uses in the vicinity o(an airport should help relieve future conflicts between airport. and their neighbors. . . 1-10 "'Nt', These commen1$ reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of Aeronautics. We' advise you to contact Mo. Rosa Clark in Our District 08 office a\ (909) 383.6908 regarding surface transportation issues. We appreciate Ù1~ opportunity to review and comment on tl1is project. If you have any questions, please Call me at (916) 654,.5253. Sincerely, 1:>. c.. <-- DAVID COHEN ~ Associate EnvirorimentaJ Planner 0: Slate Clearinghouse French VaI!ey Airport Riverside County ALUC "CaI""",imp_"""'Üity~M"""'i¡òrni4' CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 2. David Cohen, Associate Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. December 29, 2004. Response 2-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response 2-2 The comment is noted. The City has referred the Draft General Plan to the Riverside County Airport land Use Commission (AlUC) for review and a consistency determination with the French Valley Airport land Use Compatibility Plan in accord with Public Utilities Code Section 21676 et seq. At the time of preparation of this Final EIR, the AlUC had not completed its review. Response 2-3 The comment is noted. Please refer to Response 2-2 regarding AlUC review of the Draft General Plan. The City of Temecula does not intend to overrule the County AlUc. As required by State law, the City intends for the Draft General Plan to be consistent with the French Valley Airport land Use Compatibility Plan and will work with the AlUC to achieve consistency. Response 2-4 The Draft General Plan land Use Element includes the following goal, policy, and implementation program as a demonstration of the City's intent to adhere to AlUC policies to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria: Goal 8: A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns. Policy 8.3 Participate with the Airport land Use Commission in the implementation of the Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (AlUCP) for the French Valley Airport, to the extent feasible. Implementation Program LU-24 Work with the Riverside County Airport land Use Commission to review development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence, and participate in any future updates to the Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (AlUCP) and Master Plan for the Airport. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-12 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Response 2-5 Please refer to Response 2-2 regarding ALUC review of the Draft General Plan and Response 2-4 concerning Land Use Element goals, policies, and implementation programs addressing airport land use compatibility. Policy 8.3 and Implementation Program LU-24 (referenced in Response 2-4) address provisions for ALUC review of proposed projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence. Response 2-6 The comment is noted. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was used as a basis for completing the land use compatibility analysis in Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR. The ALUCP utilizes the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, dated January 2002, as guidance for policies, consistency determination criteria, and preparation of airport compatibility maps. Response 2-7 The comment summarizes the planned height of buildings, antennas, and other structures relative to the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 criteria for development close to an airport. As described on pages 5.9-3 and 5.9-11 of the Draft EIR, the maximum permitted height of buildings/structures within compatibility Zones D and E, which cover properties within Temecula, is 70 feet for Zone D and 100 feet for Zone E. Development proposals pursuant to implementation of the General Plan that exceed these maximum allowable heights will require airspace review. Response 2-8 This comment does not raise a question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the ErR. The comment summarizes procedures for school development within two miles of an airport runway and disclosure requirements for property sales or leases within an airport infiuence area. As described on pages 5.9-10 through 5.9-12 of the Draft EIR, construction of schools is generally not permitted in ALUCP Zone D unless no feasible alternative is available. Additionally, as stated on Page 5.9-10 of the Draft EIR, all properties within Zone D are required to have recorded deeds reflecting these restrictions to alert potential property owners of the restrictions. Furthermore, the Draft General Plan includes the following implementation program to improve awareness of the airport throughout the infiuence area: Implementation Program LU-24 Obtain aviation easements as required by the ALUCP for the French Valley Airport to ensure that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft. Response 2-9 The comment is noted. As stated on page 5.9-6 of the Draft EIR, projects that may potentially attract birds or other wildlife hazardous to aircraft operations within the French Valley Airport area of influence are subject to ALUC advisory review. CITY Of TEMECULA 8.13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Response 2-10 This comment does not address an environmental issue nor raise any question regarding the analysis ar conclusions in the ElK Na response is required. ENVlRaNMENTAllMPACT REPaRT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-14 @ Iadø later ( ,....,-. ,,=..., """',0. ,,~.-.~ -"C- -.,'.,. ".R-"'" LI..D,""" .....,,-.. """""""'" r".."""". """'O'_"""'"' :;;""";";;"", .~.R-""" """","""",, =.,-- Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Decemher 30, 2004 D ~ [íP, r~,n W,' 'I¡:~" Iñì,~ JAN ~ 82005 W) , --',"=-,-",occ""""d LeiTe'- 3 David Hogan, Principal Planner City ofTemeeuia Planniog Departmcot 43200 Business Park Drive ,¡'emeouJ.. CA 92560 SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW OF DKAFT GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Pear Mr. Ho¡¡an' Rmtehu c.alifurnia Water District (RCWD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for the Public Review of tho Drqfl City of 1'<."""'ulo OenemJ Plan and the &aft Environmental Impact Report (EIH.), RCWD', comments arc as follows: -, Water Re..~rees The fir" .entenee of tho ,.eond paragraph on page 08-12 of the Drqfl General Pian is misleoding, since pollution of the onderground aquifer is nut limIted to ,oniy ind..,lrial .Ites. """"""'" =:'=:.".A"'"",,~" The third and fourth .entco"" oftl>e second P'I"8"'pb on puge OS-12 of the ~.."""""'., Drq// General Plan should be updated as follows: =-~:.:."-~ CITY OF TEMECULA 31.. "One grmmdwat""1"'oduction well was conlanlinoted by a MTBE plu,lI", butsllb.equent aquifer remedial elellIlllp activities has uIlowed this facility to be placed back into ,ervice. Furthermore, other grouildwator production wells were ncarly contaminal<d by a 'eporate MrnE plume but ,ubsequonl aquifer romcdial cleanup activities b.. allowed the,.. facilities to rem,in in operation." , W.stewater'Sorvlce As previou,ly ooted in RCWD', <ommcol' 10 the Notice of Preparnlion, a pi/rtioo of the City ofTemccula (primarily the W..,.lliide Business Ccntre area) is within RCWD's wastewater service area and these w-""tewilter flows"", 'reorted at'RCWD', Sanm Rosa Water Reclamation Facility, Pages OM.9 and GM,I4 or the Drq// Gen",uI Plan as weil as tho EIR should bc revised accordingly. J3 ...........-...w"'""" ~,"'W"'""~...... h.~._."". --"""'-""""~U' ,~".......,....""- 8-15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR David H_wCUy -<T.m",ul. D.....ber", 'O()4 . Pag. ""'0 If you ,hould ha~< any quostions or ueed additioca] inform_tion, please call "" at this of1ice at (951)296-6900. Sincerely, RANi?; ;ø::TER DlSOOC~ AnfÆ:: Web,t«. P.E. Pianning & OIpiW Pro]""" Managcr D4IAW,."",,,," E. Po "Bob" Lema"" O¡ro"muflJngi""dng Mike Meyeq>eter. Oe"wpm"'" Engineering Maiuoger &'10"'" @ . ,~"'"._~~~=~~~" . ,..,,""~,~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.16 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 3. Andrew L. Webster, PoE., Rancho California Water District. December 30, 2004. Response 3-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Rancho California Water District's comments on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. Response 3-2 This comment requests a technical clarification within the Open Space/Conservation Element of the Draft General Plan and does not raise any environmental issues regarding the Draft EIR. Recommended technical changes to the Draft General Plan will be considered by the City for inclusion in the Final General Plan. Response 3-3 In response to this comment, a new sentence under the "Wastewater Environmental Setting" subheading on page 5.14-4 of the Final EIR has been added as follows: A portion of the Citv of Temecula (primarilv the Westside Business Centre area) is within the RCWD's wastewater service area, and these wastewater flows are treated at RCWD's Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facilitv. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Similar technical changes recommended for the Draft General Plan will be considered by the City for inclusion in the final General Plan. CITY OF TEMECUlA 8-17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR ;~ .. -"'do_A...., January 12, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REviEW Le-rre~ 4- To: An.ne Palallno, Director of Pianning Mlèheel McCoy, Senior Planne~ Dr~ft EIR for Tomoeula Genoral Plan Updatu .- RT A Comments Bui! route. effected: 23. 24, 79, 202. 206, 206 ano future additional rout.. From: Subject Summary; The ÇiIy of Temeeula Community oevolopmenl Dept haolasued the Draft Environmonlal lI\1pactReport (OEIR) for ita yoor2025 Generel Plan updete. This OEIR will be one of the mo.t Important polley documonts guiding land use and ""velopm...t decl.lon. In Temecula over the next 20 yeara, RTA staff røvlew~d the Plan's Noll.. of Preparetiòn in end thelnilial Swdy In 2003 and suggested additional attention 10 lraneit allernatives be fòrthcòmlng In the General Plan, . The orafi ElR now fully addres.e. tran.llin needy all Its aspeots, from conveniently pia cod bus ,top. to transit-friendly develòpmenl practIces, RT A believe. tho document now .onds a IllrOng, pro-activa 'welcome' to transit a. one of the vIable remedies for tho congo.Oon and pollution that plague. the Inland Countlo., RT A staff makeo the following oboaNation. about the Draft ElR: . Summa,yof Impacts and Mitigallon Me..ures affecting tranoi!, PP 1-8 to 1-15; 0 MOB,"rn T -3 underscores the City'. ..,.".;ot commllmont to tran,~ racm"..; 0 PrO.trenslt me..ure T,S requ'" dovelcpmen'" to incorporate trans~-frendly d..ign reaiures....h eo bus turnouts, ehll..", and pedes'~n connecti>ily to residential....s; 0 ",,",sure T-11 encourages nde share, pari<"",d-ride and lrano. oaols features; a AirQuali1y me...... AQ-7, AQ-ð. AQ.14 and AQ-17 voice a strong commitment to ex<ieUence in transit planning, ..p~aUy In reg'rds to trensa-frandly davalopmant proctlces, lhe Trip Reduction Ordinance, and now pari< and nda Ioomtles, transn co~ido"', 'Mn" .0'" end .ther strategl" to reduce v.hlcle 'ip' and lower mobile ~ amlsslons of unhe.lthful pollutants. . Implioetiøns lha Roadway Pion would have on future tranoi~ pp 3-11; 0 ThIS msp Is en e"""lIem tool for tran,. plannmg. It help. detarmln. future bus routeo: 0 ,.,. tronelt service Improv.. k1 Soulhwe8t Rlv...Kje County over tho coming yea", the 'dens.v" .f routs. will increase ~om the current two local routes 10 .ayerm roUIB8; 0 All ofth. fir1It 3 rood _gorias ¡UrtJanArtorial, PrincipaiArtor~l, and MojorAllenel) or. . IIkeiycandldates ¡Of future bu.,ou'" in Temeeu'.. Thes. "" route, ,long which RTA Plahnlng will ,ecommend future I",ns. amenities. "'ample: Bt1IIerf~1d Stage Rd; 0 A .;.IalivoJy smaJler porfjon of SecondOI)' Menala wm also be seleclad fOf oos ,eNloe. So'¡'ealr.adycorryanRTAroule. Exampla; PeubeRd; 0 so'¡'e cone""', s.em In hlgh-denolly, special de,ign Of in,tllullooal-use ere.. may cony tran~t. exam...; Old Town Front $1. . The Growìf1 Vlsiònln9 prlnclploa, pp 5-9.20 & 21 are &Irong polley staloment. in favor òf ti,ensn aUernellv.. where posaible and practical; F,""Ia"'~,,","k.MlW"""" Ro"..\T"""""'OO~""""'R - G'" "."'~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-18 +-1 4-2. CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR . The ProWsed Land Use Policy Map, pp 3-5, will help transit plannora corrolato futuro deVolopmont patterns with potential transit routes; . The desC!1pllon ofTemecula's RTA.../Vices on pp 5.13-210 entirely accurate; . In tho Exf¡¡tlng T",fflc Conditions portion, on pp 5-13.18, thaloxt accuratoly describe. ongoing cooperation batwoen Ihe C"y and public and prlvalolranslt. Tho Ioxt continues by omphsslzlng ksy City policies that ancourago transit u.e and trans1t-frlendly davelopment proctic.s; Overall, the Draft EIR Is one of tho most supportive G<onoral Plane In Rlvarslde County that RTA staff h'. revlowod In regards to a general upgrading of and oncouragomont for new trano1t facllttle.. The entira Oeneral Plan team Is to be oommendad for thio vision. Tho Plan's appr~ach also underscores Tomeoula'. acolalmad transition from a small rural noda to a mora maturo urban anvironment known for its squldlstant satellite center sl81\1$ relatlw tq Los Angeles, San Diego and Rlvel'$lde. Most plann&rs bellava a s1rong commitment to ti'8nslt st thio paint In tha planning pro...sls a hallmark oftha laadlng clUes of the future and will provide a significant "livable communities" payback. Indeed, this strong commitmont 10 transit alternatlvae d..../Ve. to Þelncorporatad into tho Projoct ObJeCtive. nst on page 1-2. parhapsll1e words '1ranslt-mendly community" could belncorpòrated In eome fonn into tho Þullot oboul tho local clroulatlon system. Rocont Irtfonnatii.. developod by RT A Indicates tho foderal govornmont has .el aside fundslowsrds establishment of a full.fooluro Temocula Transit Center. Ma Palatlno, tho RTA Dlroctor of Planning Is now working wlll1 Tomecula Planning .- to dolonnlno tho besl_Ito for this'trans" contor, mo consensus, so far, Is for a Cent... loca1Ion some- whe... clos. to t~.lnters1at015 corridor and at or noar any proposed commutor or hlgh- speed rail stollon. However, slnoo tho station may bo 100 for in the Mure to bo.locatod with cortainty, ... Interim silo. should b. .oloeled as part of the Gonoral Plan pro...s. Idontificotion of tho Trane" Center site would be a distinct benellt to planners, develop- ars and the overall community mobility. When the Center location I- detormlned and It publishing o.hodules perrall, tho lite should be dosoribad and mopped in tho final Oonoral Plan document.. Also, at this ,RTA støffwanto to commend the City ofTemooula's eloctød and appointed their supporting staff lor Ihelr growing cooperation with then.. sllagenoy 0 severo' years, Temoculo was one 01 tho first of lho15/urisdlo, tlons ounly to partnor with RTA on roulino development review for transit amonlllo$ and was One of tho first .to bogln Incorporating tho ogenoy's Dosign Guldelln.s for Ttansit-Friendly Development Into theplannlng procosa. In summary, RTA atrongly supporte tho Draft EIR and encouragos tho City of Tomocula to go forward with.adoptlon and Implomentation of tho General Plan lor 2025. INITiAL REVIEW INFORMATiON - Revlewoompieted date: January 12,2005. Doouments received at RTA: Decembor 20,2004; Repiy-by Date: January.30, 2005: City COuncil Agonda Date: Unknown at present or N/A; Thoma. Guide Map pago and: Not applicable: F'_"",""""'lkoMl!N.."'~ "','.\Tom",",~OO""""'R. ."', Pion""" 40.\. (,ðtJf. +-3 4-+ 8-19 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Casa Numbe...: $tate Clearinghouse Numbo' 10 unknown; Contact Pianner:' Principal Plannar David Hogan. (951) 694-6477; Applicant: City cj Tamacula, CA Applicant's Consùltant: Cotton Brtdges As9OClstes Of Pasadena CA RTA PlANNING FOLLOW.UP: ¡; standerd 'Accaptabl.'letter to jurisdlclion without comments Standard :Acœplable'/atlar to íurisdictlon 'with compiimanls or ""siti"" advisories Letter with ocJvisori.. re transit I""",, Letter sent: Dole: ~ SECOND REViEf'/: Review materials ,Placed In ard1lve me" 001<>: -- F'.""\PI~I"'-W"""""R"'..\T""""'\20_".R'G"'PIo".dOO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-20 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses ta Comments on the Draft fiR 4. Michael McCoy, Senior Planner, Riverside Transit Agency. January 12, 2004. Response 4-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) comments on the General Plan Update Draft EIR. Response 4-2 The opinions stated are acknowledged. The comment commends transportation mitigation measures T-3, T-5, and T-ll and air quality mitigation measures AQ-7, AQ-8, AQ-14, and AQ-17, the Roadway Plan, the SCAG Growth Visioning Principles on pages 5.9-20 and 5.9-21 of the Draft EIR, the land Use Policy Map, the description of RT A services on page 5.13-2 of the Draft EIR, and the existing traffic conditions on page 5-13.18 of the Draft EIR. The comment does not present new information or raise any specific environmental question or issue. No response is required. Response 4-3 The opinion stated is acknowledged. The comment addresses the General Plan Vision and Draft EIR Project Objectives, as well as the desirability of identifying the Transit Center site in the final General Plan document. When the site is determined, appropriate changes will be made to the General Plan. The comment does not raise any environmental issue associated with the Draft EIR. Response 4-4 The comment is noted. This comment provides a closing statement to RTA's comments on the Draft EIR. The City recognizes RTA's support of the Draft General Plan. 8.21 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR ~CaIifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board \,i;íI San Diego Region -c.U""¡;PbJJ. ; """'Y""""""""......o..,.............,,c...... ""-1<" ....."".........-........""""-.,........,..."'... """-"'" . Pm",""" . '1"81<","""CooO,"'. 100,"""'" "'-"123""" ",,)"'-m2""U'~$11"'2 h"'J/"",.w""",,,,~,,"'di... Am>IdSdJ- "-~ L.e:rre.a, s: Janwiry 18, 2~5 j';.'\è; .-" " n I" "')- 11~r- [ '.,C if 1'I "' I 1f1:IJÜ .J. AN.¡. 47005 ~. n top ""etto: WPN: .. 700S.02:mnrrb -. By_. --~-..,=.:: -"-- Mr, David Hogan, Principal Planoer PI.nning Division CityOfTemecuJa 43206 BU8i...s Park DIce Temecola, Cnl!fomia 92590 De~ S~t 2003061041 C1TY OF 'fEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE We "pp"",iate Ìhe opportunity to comment on the Droit Environmental Tmpoct RepOrt (EIR) far the C;ity of Te"""'uJa's Oene",1 Plan Update. The City', projected growth rnte meJ;cs lJú.acnticaJ lim, far the City to include appropriate water quality and.wattIshed protection principles and policies in itS General Plan. Ai. discossed on pago S.ß.-S'ofthé report, cons~tion of new hon,ing units and commercial and indulltrial proj- will inc""", the aniount or impervious surfaces throughnut the Planning I\re;t, multing in a potentiel change. to local stream hydrology. In _lion to Ib, poten6a1 nuisance flooding I"'pact described in Ibo dnú't EIR, Ibe.. change, to stTeam hydrology ecoId result In edverse impac'" to water quaJity and the beneficial uses af water in Ule Santa MMgmita RiverWatorshed. f.., The qualityofitttfaccand groundwater in dtewateJ>lwddepends on voriou' f""'",,, including Ibe interaction of diffeR""' physical and bialogical proce...., each of which i. strongly innuetiœd by the d<:groc af imperviou., cnver present in Ibe watershed. In many <eaes, chang" in bydrology can nave more si¡¡nilicant impacts on receiving waters than those anribnuble to the contanrinants found in starm woterdJ"hargea.' Tho.. hydrologically !elated impacts include .!ream bankern,ion, henlhic habitat degradation, IInd decreased diveraity of macroinvertebrntes. By limiting the ~discu"íon of impacts from increased impervious surfaces ta polontial nooding witho,;, in<Joiling tho water quality, tho draft ErR ovetlooks the benefi'" of 0 low- S"'L ~.3 'U""'S""'WA 1999Panu.4ucI'RP""..I22.I23.,nð124.N"io",IPallu""'Dlscb"", BlimJnalioa System - ",ul,liaas rOt Revisiaa af Ibe WRl" PoIt""Un Ca",",' Progma Ad""'." StOtm WaterDl"hargcsFFiaa'RuJe. Fed","'."'". W"blaS'oao.C. 'CaliforniaEnvironmeDlal hotechon Agency e>-""""" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF tEMECULA 8-22 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Mr. David Hogan SCHI/2003061041 -2- January 18. 200S S"."! (.O!olt'. Ç-"i CITY OF TEMECUlA ill1Pact development approach to stonnwater management. Instead, the draft EiR focuse. on a conventional sIormwater approach requiring new devclopment projects to e..Ule thot adequate flood control capacity is available by providing on-site drainage and paying fees foi expansion of the storm drain system, In contrast to conventional stoonwater management aPprooch, the low~mpsct development approach is 10 manage runoff at the source in dJscretc units throughout the sire 10 emulate tho predevelOpmenl hydrologic regime. Low-Impact development rochnology utilizes o""ite D1II!UIgement pooces including bionitcntion facilities, dry wella, filter or buff... sirips and other multifunctlon,, IJU1d$e¡jpe,"""" swsJes, bioretention swaJes, and wet swales as part!>f development design. In adopting ort!er No. R9-21JO4.OO1 (the MS4 waste discharge noquirementS), the SDRWQCB aèknowledgèd tho importance of local general pI... as part of a comprehensive municipsJ storm water program. Specifies11y. Provision P.I ""1uin:s the City 10 include'watorquality and w.,en;hed pmttttion principles in its General Plan that wm dim:! tand-use decisions and requito implementation of consistent water quality protection measures for development projects. This Provision is consistent with Government Code Section 65302(d) that iw.ntifies the "prevention and control of the pollution of slltams and other waters" and thç "¡nub:ction of watersheds" as Items to con.ider a. part of the General Plan's con""...tion clement Examples of the principles and policies lisÌcd in Provi.ion F.I that are consistent with a ]ow-impsct deve]opmool approach and should he considered by the City Incluw.: .. Mll1imIte Ibe amount of Impervloua surf.... and dim:t1y connected impervious surfaœoi In are.. of development and, when: fc:aaihle, slow runoff and maximize on- site infiltratioo of runoff. b. ImpJemi>nr polludon prevendon, meth~ supplemented by so""", control and ttca~t control aMP.. U50 small collection stTatcgies located st. or as close as pòssl5ltto;1hë sôüìtó""{¡;e.. the point where wl1l:et InitiaJly meets the ground) to minimiie tlle transport of url>ßO runoff and pollutants oft'site and into an MM. c. i'n:serve, and where possible, croaIO or reston: areas thst provide important wl1l:et quality beni:fits, such as riparian conidors, wetlands, and buffer zones. EncouI1lge land acquisition of such areas. d, Ilmit di¡¡1urbances of natW'ai water bodies and natunù drainage systems caused by development including roads, highways, and bridges, e, Prior to¡niiking land use tJeclsion., utilize methods available to estimate in""""", in pollu",,* loads and flows rejujäng from projected future developmtllt. Roq- i""o!)Olanon of appropriate BMPs to mitigme the projected increases in pollutant loads wid flows. Cdifomia Environmental Protection Agency 9><"""'" 8-23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Dra~ fiR Mr. David Hog.,. SCIH/2003061041 .3- January 18, 200S f. Avoid development of areas that are plUticularly susceptible to erosion and se<lirnent I.,..; 0( es!abl¡"h developm<nt guidance that identifies these areas and protecta them from erosion and sediment 1008. g. Reducti pollutants associated with velùcles and increasing fnlffic resuJting from development. h. Post-dOvelopment runoff from a site shail not contain pollutant loads that cause or contn1Ji¡te to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives and which have ootbeèniiOlucedtofheMm'. ... ..-_...-.-. ...-. We urge tho qty to review the above examples of water quality andwaternJu:d principJes and policies and to include In the General Plan and/or Imt .. mitigation measnre(s) In the Hydrology and:Watet Quality 8<'Ction of the Em tit""" IICdoos that are applicable in the City of Temecul.. We noted that the JDitigaijon m...ures listed for Biological ReSQurces already conUli~ some c:1cmenta of alow,impact development approach, Por exomple, the City will requii<: the establishment of open sPace are.. tltat contain significant wa1C1'coorses. Wildlife corridors, and h.bitata for rare orendsngered plant and animal apecies (Mitigátion Measure B-2) and require appropriate ....ourcepmtectinn measnres to be prepared in conjunction with spe<:ífie plana and subseQuent development propooai8 (Mitigation Mdasuri: B-3)- MItigation Measure B-IOcontains . keystatement rehued to water quality protection. It states "Proposéd deveJopmanlS in proxImity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incoiporate meàsUIO$. including measwes requfted through the National Pollutant Discbarge RHnjjnatioo System (NPDES) require¡nents to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged iJI not altered ¡nan- adverse way when "'ODlpared to exi,ting conditions." We ","ommand that this statement be modified as follows: - --.---.----- "Proposed developments ¡" pro,,;"';t) t. }ISRCP .en.."oIi.. ....,J!i!!!i!J..th£. plmming atœ of the Citv of Temecul. shall iocorporato measures, including mea8lU'O8 required bvithe CiN uUt'SlJant 10 """"t\I>--te National Pollutant Disebarge Elimination. Systcm(NPDES) Permil No. CASOJO8766. ~ to ens= that the quantity and quality IJf runoff dischLUEed docs not cause or contribute to the violadon of water oualitv siandards (desÍJmated honeflct.1 ",<0, and water Quality obiectives necessary to omtec! thotÎe beneficial use,) and is not altered in an adverse way when compared to exlsling cOJ!ditions-" In cenolusion, "'" report Sllltes on P8&e 5.8.6 that all development proposals must prepare. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impaots,during project operation. To be effective in reducing poUutantsln url>an CIJ/ifomÛl Environmentøl ProtedWn Agency .,"'...., 5-4t GO"",, ~..~ ~-b S"-¡ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-24 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY OF TEMECULA Mr. David HoglIII SCIIiI200306104! Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR .4- JIIIIUary 18. 2ooS I'lll1Oft to the ni.,imum extenl pJ'",",dcable, the.. projecl specific WQMPs must address City J\1quimnØnIB thai are based upon BOUnd Utban RlDoft managomenl policies IIIId principles IIIId ¡, conurritmenl by the City to enforce these requiremonls in accordance with Order No. R9'2004-001. Please cÍúI Mr JRobert Monis aI (858) 467-2962 ;"'~ma;rat bmOlyjs@warerl>oardR.ca_.ov if yoo have IIIIY questions ..garding Ws matter- Respectfully. ~ Executive QffiÇe¡- RegIonal WatotQua1ityConttol Boon! JHR:mpm:rwni -- -----.... .---- -----------.--..--.---. c,,/ifornill Environmenl4l Proledion Age1lCJ' ð>""'P"'- S~"1 ~. 8-25 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 5. John H. Robertus, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. January 18, 2005. Response 5-1 This comment provides an introduction to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SDRWQCB) comments on the Draft ElK The comment stresses the importance of appropriate water quality and watershed protection principles and policies in the General Plan and reiterates the hydrology and water quality impacts described on page 5.8-5 of the Draft ElK No response is required. Response 5-2 In response to the comment, under the "Surface Water" subheading on pages 5.8-5 and 5.8-6 of the Final EIR, a second paragraph has been added to the EIR as follows: The qualitv of surface and groundwater within the Planning Area depends on various factors. including the interaction of different phvsical and biological processes which can be influenced bv the degree of impervious cover present. In manv cases, changes in hvdrologv can have more significant impacts on receiving waters than those attributable to the contaminants found in storm water discharges. These hvdrologicallv related impacts include stream bank erosion, benthic habitat degradation, and decreased diversitv of microinvertebrates. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 5-3 The City acknowledges the comment regarding the benefits of a low-impact development approach to stormwater management. The City encourages development designs that manage runoff at the source through practices including bioretention facilities, dry wells, filter or buffer strips, and swales. Biological Resources mitigation measure B-10 recommends the use of the low-impact development methods mentioned by the SDRWQCB with regard to proposed development in the Multi-Speices Habitat Conservation Plan conservation areas. The comment does not raise an environmental issue that results in a significant impact to hydrology or water quality. Therefore, no additional analysis or mitigation is required in the Final EIR. Response 5-4 The comment states that the City must incorporate into the General Plan the water quality and watershed protection principles identified in the SDRWQCB-adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit (Order No. R9-2004-001 ).. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure consistent implementation of the MS4 permit within the Planning Area since the City is a co- permittee of this permit. The SDRQCB MS4 permit (Order No. R9-2004-001) was adopted on July 14, 2004 for the Santa Margarita River (SMR) Watershed permittees in Riverside County. The SMR permittees include the cities of Temecula and Murrieta, the County of Riverside, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The new MS4 permit requires the City of Temecula to designate minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) to specified facilities. These BMPs will focus on preventing non-stormwater discharges, and eliminating, controlling, and/or treating pollutants in stormwater runoff. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-26 Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR All new development projects and significant redevelopment projects (e.g., parking lot expansions, building expansions) will be subject to Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements. SUSMP requirements consist of structural source control and treatment control BMPs to be maintained by facility owners, operators, property managers, homeowners associations, etc. The City of Temecula continues to support environmental quality issues that are important to maintaining the quality of life and health of its residents. As a result, many of these issues are addressed in the General Plan. However, the list of suggested principles (items a through h) are not written in General Plan-appropriate terminology and cannot be directly incorporated into the updated General Plan. However, the General Plan does incorporate equivalent policy direction in several elements, including the land Use and the Open Space/Conservation Elements. Open Space and Conservation Element Policies 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 and 3.7, as well as Implementation Measures 05-5, 05-6, 05-11, 05-14, and 05-34, address these principles. land Use Element Policies 6.2 and 6.3, as well as Implementation Measure lU-20, appropriately addresses these issues. As stated in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the Draft General Plan, the City requires the use of BMPs consistent with NPDES permit requirements. The Draft General Plan fully addresses the new MS4 permit and Provision F.1 in the updated Open Space/Conservation Element through incorporation of the following goals, policies, and implementation programs: Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board. Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of grading permits. Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and construction. 8-27 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY Of TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Implementation Program 05-5 Require all development projects to implement best management practices. Work with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board and other State and federal agencies to identify other opportunities and techniques for maintaining or improving water quality. Implementation Program 05-6 Review individual development projects to ensure that adequate stormwater detention or treatment methods are provided to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the project, and where needed, incorporate detention of stormwater run-off at the point of origin. Additionally, this EIR requires the execution and monitoring of General Plan implementation program OS-6 through mitigation measures in the Hydrology and Water Quality section. The City will comply with implementation of the new MS4 permit and any other NPDES permit. Response 5-5 The mitigation measures in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this EIR and the Draft General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs referenced in Response 5-4 adequately address the MS4 wastewater discharge requirements. Response 5-6 In response to this comment, the following mitigation measure, HW-7, was added to Section 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality on page 5.8-7 of the Final EIR. This measure is not required to address any new impact; rather, the measure clarifies existing policies and options for compliance with NPDES requirements. HW-7 Pro Dosed develoDments shall incofDorate measures, including measures required bv the Citv Dursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem iNPDES) Permit. to ensure that the Quantitv and Qualitv of runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of water Qualitv standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from develoDed and Daved areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to Drevent the release of toxins, chemicals, Detroleum Droducts. exotic Dlant materials, or other elements. This can be accomDlished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical traDDing or treatment devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective oDerations of runoff control svstems (General Pian ImDlementation Program 05-5). With regard to removing references to the MSHCP, the City continues to actively support the MSHCP process and does not believe that removing references to MSHCP is appropriate. Response 5-7 The comment is noted. The significance of impacts to hydrology and water quality resulting from specific future development projects will be determined on a project-by-project basis. If project- level impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures will be required per CEQA. The City recommends that Water Quality Management Plans from new development proposals address City requirements for urban runoff policies and principles. The City is committed to enforcing these requirements in accordance with the MS4 waste discharge requirements (Order No. R9-2004-001). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.28 '~nl,IDInoM' -,., ""' A """'Ú Y~"nld"" 0.." I. SI.... ~¡cl,,"'Rß,JI ¡¡,,~~~.. ","",'N"'V, "'.on',V.""",," .""""M"".." .'.hooyJ. "'" ."""".1'" ."....,,- W.N' .""""18. C,¡if, """'A.""",' 1>a...n '->h ,. """h,, ÇrA "",¡C~." R.",r...., "".'" JaMry 25. 2005 . Mr: DavIa Hogan, Principal P"M6I' CKyofTemaaJla 43200 Buslne" Park Drive . -,- ~i):IEo<:u.,SA 92690 Dtaft envllOnmenlallmpact Report (DEIR) City af TemeCUla GenII",1 Plan U¡><Iete Deer Mr. Hogan; RE: Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 1.£t't'£1t.~ EOSIem Municipai Water D'st~ct (EMWO) appreciates the opportun~y to review the,Draft Envlrnnmenta'.impact Reportfor1l\e CityofTemoClJia'a Gen....' Plan Update, EMWO offe'" the following commanto. G.-I """" 5.1402. TaDlo 8.14-2 EMWD Cumnt and Proleclad Water Suooll.. Th<t FuIP,¡re (2020) PUrchased Water figure of 11,012 ialncoJTQO. Tho correct fig~", 1.110,012, . Page 6.14-4 Waìltewater enWlronmentol Setting The correcI tarm fOr emuon! pumpea from tho Tomooul. fecilily 10 reoyclea water. ThIi third aentençeof tillS paragraph sl1oula be revised to road.."Because the Temecula facility Is the """'"ost 01 EMWD'S1Ive recJamatio" plants, some ~Ied waler is """'1*1 frOm the Temecula faciity ton <nUe. north to 0 450- million-gallon storage facility In WInchester'. &..1. (;-3 Thánk you for the opportunity to rowow the DEIR. PI...e fOlWØ!d eny sul:ì&equent aocuments regeraing tile project to my attention at tha mailing addn!8. below. Thank you. Sincerely, . IfatA.lI~ Karen Hackett Em;lronmernal Compllonce Ane'yst .""","""",.._-_._~ ""'4\' M,W." Add",.",.. p",lOm" R", 8300 P.,.,;,. C^ 91572.8JtJ(1 T,I"ho"" (~51) 928-3177 F", (95J) 928-6i 77 I.nca;'o", 1170 T"""hl, Rood p,.,¡" C^ 92570 11""",,, www,emwd,org CITY OF TEMECULA 8.29 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 6. Karen Hackett, Environmental Compliance Analyst, Eastern Municipal Water District. January 25, 2005. Response 6-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) comments on the Draft EIR. Response 6-2 In response to the comment, the typographical error in Table 5.14-2 on page 5.14-2 of the Final EIR has been revised to read as follows: Table 5.14-2 Eastern Municipal Water District Current and Projected Water Supplies (Acre-Feet per Year) Source Present 2000 Future (2020) Purchased Water 67,390 llQ,012 Groundwater 17218 17280 Transfers NA 4,500 Recycled Water 25,000 39,000 Desalination NjA 12,000 Total 109,608 182,792 Source: Eastern Municipai Water District, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the ElK Response 6-3 In response to the comment, the following sentence from the "Wastewater Environmental Setting" subheading on pages 5.14-4 and 5.14-5 of the Final EIR has been revised: Because the Temecula facility is the smallest of EMWD's five reclamation plants, some waste recycled water is pumped from the Temecula facility ten miles north to a 450-million-gallon storage facility in Winchester. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 6-4 Prior correspondence with EMWD requires clarifications and revisions to be incorporated into the Final EIR since distribution of the Draft EIR precluded the incorporation of the changes. In an email communication dated December 17, 2004, Mr. Jeff Wall, Senior Civil Engineer, from EMWD stated that the ultimate planned expansion of 54 mgd of the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility was incorrect and from an outdated report. Additionally, Mr. Wall stated that the most recent EMWD study indicates EMWD only needs 35 mgd of treatment capacity for the Temecula ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-30 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR service area. EMWD's projections are based upon its observed and measured generation factors. The recalculation of the projected wastewater generation using the EMWD standard of 2,000 gallons per day per acre for commercial development and the correct acreage of 831 acres results in a projection of 36 mgd of wastewater generation within the Planning Area, or a projected flow in excess of planned treatment capacity, as EMWD plans a 35 mgd expansion. Given that future demand is based upon a very long-term buildout horizon, the 1 mgd difference is not considered significant, although additional mitigation is included in the EIR to provide for continued monitoring and potentially an update of EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections. The following 'Wastewater" section from the Final EIR on pages 5.14-5 and 5.14-6 is provided below to document the clarifications and revisions as a result of the correspondence with EMWD. Environmental Impact Implementation of the General Plan will result in up to 77,504 net new residents, 25,005 net new dwelling units, and 36.2 million net new square feet of non-residential construction over the 20-year horizon of the General Plan within the Planning Area. The increase in population and development will require additional wastewater treatment capabilities. EMWD uses generation factors of 300 gallons per day per person for residential development and ~LOOO gallons per day per acre of commercial development to estimate sewage generation. Residential development will be the major generator of wastewater, with a maximum additional population of 77,504 persons generating an additional 23.2 mgd. New commercial projects within the Planning Area constructed pursuant to the General Plan will result in development of up to an additional ~831 acres and will generate approximately ~1.2 mgd. Combined with existing wastewater generation within the Planning Area (11.1 mgd), future wastewater generation under the proposed General Plan will be approximately 3-7+36 mgd. TRC ultimatc planncd eJ<pansion of ['4',;/D's Temecula Valley Regional '."Iater Reclamation Facility is projected provide a capacity of 51 mgd.H EMWD's most recent studv calculates a future treatment capacitY of 35 mgd for the Temecula Vallev Regional Water Reclamation Facilitv service area." Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support the project is witAffi1 mgd greater than the €*i5#Rg-~ capacity of District facilities currently serving Temecula;-itft€l rcpreseRts roughl\ 69 percent of the capacity of the planned eJ'pansion of the Temecula Valle'" Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Given that future demand is based upon a very long-term buildout horizon, the 1 mgd difference is not considered significant, although additional mitigation is included in the EIR to provide for continued monitoring and potentially an update of EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections. Mitigation Measures Impact \\ill be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. USS-5 The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of updating its water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8). level of Impact after Mitigation Impact is iess than significant. 8-31 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERALPLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR H [astem ""Aici~all"vter Distri£!. Temec"!a "v He; Re{eAa! '.'/ate. Qee'a'11at'eA <ae;I:!;. loca!eB at Au.:" .£R1 B.orglAe s liASigA!S 'iAeigAI, teffieŒia..df. Þio eff1~er 8, 2001. "Wali left Senior Civil Engineer. Eastern MuniciDal Water District. Email Communication. December 17 2004. Sections 1.0 Executive Summary and 10.0 References have been updated to reflect the changes described above. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.32 Responses to Comments on the Orah EIR . ~~ÙTAN WATER DISTRICT 01 SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA ExecutlVoOlli;e January 26, 2005 Mr. David Hogan,: Principal Planner City of'fe""",uÙi. 43200 Business Párk Drive TlOITle"w., CA 92590 t..é. 't"'r'æ 7 D= Mr. lIogan: Draft Environmental Imoaet Reno!'! for the City ofTemeeHl. General Plan Undate The Mc1ropolitan Wa"" Di.bict of Southern California (Metropolitan) Ju¡,¡ nwiew<:d a copy of the Draft Environmental Imp""t Report (Draft EIR) for the City ofTemecula General Plan Update. The City ofTem«.iJJa (City). "Ihe California Environmenral QuaJity Act lead agency, propose> 10 adopt and implement the City's Ge"",.I Plan Update. The update<! GcD.ra! Plan will addro" tbe seven Slate-mandated general plan elemenl. (lund u."" houain¡¡, ¿¡"...Iation, saFety, open space, conservation, a"d~oiS6), as well.. other issues that are importanl to Ibe community. including growth management, economic development. oir quality, and community design. The HoWilng Element was recen!ly updated in 2002, und thus is not being comprehensively updated as part uf Ihi, pTOject. The upd.ted General Plan, establlshe. un overall development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, aod serves .. a policy guide for deiennining physicaJ development and character through the yoar 2025. This IcttcrC<1nlaÍna Melropolittm'arespons. to Ibe Initial Stody and NOP as both o:potentially affected agency and responsible agency. Metropolitan staff bas reviewed the Draft ErR ond determined that Our existing San Diego P¡!",Jine 00< 1,2, t ~. and 5 ".oed '" he e(,.,HiM '" p',hJie 1."utnj;".naIF.a<'iliJies (1'1) on Pig"", 3-2. Additionally. Metropolitan's F""ililk" arc within bulb pemwnent easement alld fue-<)wnod property wilbin th.;boondaries of the Gener.rl Plan Updato area. and Metropolitan also owns piopertyto tbß west of Lake SkImter, aporuanofv.l>ich is located outside of the eity limits, but wilhin the PlatllÚng Arca for this document. This property is part of the aperuûóns ar03 for Lake SkImter and serves 10 accommodat. releases from Lake Skinner. Metropolitan r.quests lbat the ErR note that neither privata nor public developers have any entitlements to b,úld 0""," our f«- owned rights-of-way or properties and there arc limitedanowanees on our )<.'rtIlanent easements for private or publi' improvements. If the City do,snoÚ",,1 that the Piland use designation is appropriate, MotTopolitanreques[s that our facilities and property be given a land,.", designaûonsimilor to the Çjty's public foe'ilities (e.g., roadways). This land use designation should set forth lbat development in and around Metropolitan', fs.¡¡¡ties shall b. eonsistent with the expro" use of our pipclin.... public 700" ~"""" S,.... ""Ar9>"^, C""mi.9OO12 -"""'!lAd""", Box 54103, losAng""'. C<õ~mi.90054-1J153. T,"phone("') 2"-6000 CITY OF TEMECULA 1..\ 7..1. '7-,3 8.33 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PIAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR THE ME1ROPOLrrAN liiA"'" D/S_TOFSWfHBJWCALIFORNIA Mr. David Hogan, Principal PlanneT Page 2 January 26, 200S , fac;¡aie,. Me1rop<ilitan roque.sts this designation bosed on the land uses shown On Figure 3-2 of the DruftElR, wbkb indicates "Open Spoce" across Metropolitan', San Diego Pipeline Nos. I through 5 in numeious locatiOJlS. In addition, Figure 3-2 aJ.o identifies Metropolitan's property we5tofLake Skin~er.. Open Space. TheseJand, are not intended fur openspace,use uorshould they be implied as,sucl1. Metropolitan requiJ<:s unobstructed acces, to our pipelines and property for routine and em¡.rgency maintenance and operations, and !he possible installation of additional pipelines and above-ground facilities including but not limited to water treatment facilities, therefore, any dasiilnation other than "Public Facilities" is inac<:urate. We appreçiote1læ bpport1JJ¡j¡ywproVide Ì1IpUt to yoúfplafujjjjgpioCeSs àiiáweiöoli forward tò ' receiving t\¡ture eI\vironmental documentation, ¡ocluding a copy of the Final ElR, for this projceL Ifwc can be off\lrther I18SÌStanoé, pleas.. contact Mr. John Vrsalovich at (213)211-6066. Verytrulyyoors, ' L~:n1 D1~ Manager, Enviroruhentul Planning Team LlMlrdl . (I'o"~rvl""",,,ul1at"¡'~JM-IJ5A-""-O"'"-) - ------ 1-3 cOtJ't . -"" . '-"--- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERALPLAN UPDATE 8.34 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the D,aft fIR 7. laura J. Simonek, Manager, Environmental Planning Team, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. January 26, 2005. Response 7-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (MWD) comments on the Draft EIR. Response 7-2 The commenter's opinion is acknowledged. The comment addresses areas of MWD pipeline on the Proposed land Use Policy Map in the Draft EIR, requests changes to the map, and notes changes within the EIR regarding future use of Metropolitan's permanent easements. This comment does not raise or address any specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. Concerns regarding the Proposed General Plan land Use Policy Map and other technical changes to the General Plan will be considered by the City. The designation of property on the General Plan land Use Policy Map does not affect the ownership of property. The City of Temecula recognizes that property owned by the Metropolitan Water District cannot be used without the approval of MWD. Response 7-3 The commenter's opinion is acknowledged. The comment addresses areas of MWD facilities on the Proposed land Use Policy Map in the Draft EIR and requests a change to the Open Space designation for MWD property to Public Facilities. This comment does not raise address any specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. Concerns regarding the Proposed General Plan land Use Policy Map will be considered by the City. Desired changes to the map should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearings scheduled for adoption of the General Plan. The designation of property on the General Plan land Use Policy Map does not affect the ownership of property. The City of Temecula recognizes that property owned by the Metropolitan Water District cannot be used without the approval of MWD. CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.35 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR United Slates Departmcnt.of the Interior BUREAU OFLAND MANAO&\!ENT Folm S¡nj1~'-S- Coo., Rcld Offi"" . 690 W",O_,AV<4Iu, p.o.""" 581260 . Nortb P.I~ -.., CA 92258-1200 1711<1) 251-4800 !'n (760)251"'" 1610 (CA.66Q.03) Mr. David Hogan PrincipJe Planner CityofTemecula 43200 Bus;n.., Park Drive Temeoula, Ca¡¡forni~ 92592 VI,"", "'M""'""", w~."_bIm8..vp.¡..prl'8' JAN ~ 7 2IJ(¡ ruŒuowæ~ W JAN J82DD5 æJ L£n's-. r Dear Mr. Hogan, :::. i~o~ ;::~gc~ ~;;:;:u~~=a~:~~~:~y~ ~~~u:d":."':,-:er the! fol1owhlg cummeo" on [hi, document. f-I This draJì BJR iodioa¡'" that public lands mana¡;<:d by the BLM are included wi"'ln the projcc< plannmg area (Spheré ofInfluenccBoood1ry). Howcver, Ibe document makes littleo¡nomen~on or !he", hUlds, orpossib!e imp""'" 10 the lOSourceson these public landS. TheonlyreferencetoBLM land. is onder 3.0 Project Description, Pagc 3.), Regional Setting, '11Ie CIty is bordered by Ibe unlncol]>orated De LUz iU~s to the we't, ...snd the PechangalndianResCJ'Vation, Boreau orland Managemenl lands. a¡¡d tmincorporntcd portions of San Diego County (0 the south." Tho BLM lands, thollgb not identified,' are shown in various maps, such as Pi~ 3.2, PropoS«! Land Use Policy Map, as 'Open space." . g.1,. Two ßLM managed ¡i_Is are local<:d wilhin the project boundary;pareel # 219.29), approximately 911 aclOS, 8I1dpam:1 * 21&-231, I!j!proKimately 300 acre.g. Parcel #2IB-231 is also within the Santa Margarita River Ecológical Reserve and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). These pnblic lands "'~ managru under the ßLM', South eoast Resource M8I1agcmcnt Plan (RMP), adopted in 1994, and are considered co,. habitat under the Western Riveœido County Multiple Species Habitat Con,ervstion Plan (MSHCP), Some of the ,esource condition O¡,CCtiV08 for theselanu. under the . SQuib Coati! RMP am'to emphasize protcc[ôon and enhancement of ...'itive speCIe, habitats and open 'pace vnJues, provide i-ocreatíon Opporturutie.q wmch 81~ comparibJe with sensitive species managementobjectiv~ and protect NntiveAmcri""" valoes and coltw'al resou",,",. In additiun, liIII<!.! ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-36 g-3 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR within the Santa Ma,.garitaACEC (parce' # 2J8-23i) "'" unavwlable for rnineJ'a!mnLeriaJ sales and lìv""toc. sr,¡ziog, aie a right-of-way avoidance B[e~ and arc closed tu motorized vehicle u.o. The BIM wnuld likb to see th,. EIR incl\1dC. brief description, such "" above. of lhe public lauds within 1he planning ,"CR, and identify the BIM land, in thc appropriate land use maps. Since public lands contain a variety of important =0=", impactS to these ...sources ,",uld be di",,",sed in the sections on Ac.<th<:tics, Biological Res<,urce" Cultural Rwourc.., and Publìc Serviœs!Reoreation. Cumulativc and loni-lOrn' cff- to th..c !<SOUrces fiom increased pupulati()J¡ and urbani..t.ìon could also be discUAsed. Soma ""ampl"" of potontial impacts might include domestic cats and dogs wbich may stray onto publi~ 1and3 and kill bird and reptile specie, resulting in "habitat sinko", night lighting of natura! are.. wrueh u!'Sets the diurnal påUem of 'pacies, and uncontrolled off-higbway vehiclo use from new residents rlwng on adjacent public Jands.. Another concern, resulting from recent wildfires, is tbe potential consiruction by now homeown... of fire break> on public Ian,!> instead of clelUipg veption ('in tbeir þiJvate property. Thc BIM encourages community planning for "",reation uaoa ,m public lands such as luldng, horseback riding, naíure study and other activities compatible with the Western Riverside. County MSHCP. Our offiœ'would welcome tbe opportunity to work with thc City of Temocula to establish . coopemtive rccrcaúoin and ""Iura! resource mlulIlgemenl ,trlitCgy to rnaxhuize the benefitS oflivlng near.nàtuta! areas, protect natural resources, and minimizellm,ats to life and property from wildfires. We appreciate the o¡ip.munity to eommont on tbis EIR and Genera! Plnn Vpdatc. jf you would like more information on111M IIDIIlIIged pubHe landa, our]¡¡nd... managemant p!on, or tho resources on these Innd., please cóntnot Greg Hill, Planning and Environm""tal Coordinator at (760) 251-4840. Smœrcly, ÇÞ~ Gall Ach""OIl Field Manager I 8-~ """" . ß'-~ ~-'" CITY OF TEMECULA 8.37 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 8. Gail Acheson, Field Manager, Bureau of land Management, Palm Springs - South Coast Field Office. January 27, 2005. Response 8-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Bureau of land Management's (BLM) comments on the Draft EIR. Response 8-2 This comment requests changes to the Proposed Land Use Policy Map of the General Plan Update but does not raise any environmental issue associated with the Draft EIR. The BLM-recommended change to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map will be considered by the City for inclusion in the Final General Plan. Please refer to Response 8-3 regarding the clarifications to public lands managed by the BLM. Response 8-3 In response to comments 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4, the following clarification has been added to the Project Description in the Final EIR on page 3-1: Two BLM managed parcels are located within the proiect boundary, parcel #219-291- approximately 911 acres, and parcel #218-231, which total approximately 300 acres. Parcel #218-231 is also within the Santa Margarita River Ecological Reserve and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECt These public lands are managed under the BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMPt adopted in 1994 and are considered core habitat under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Some of the resource condition obiectives for these lands under the South Coast RMP are to emphasize protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitats and ODen SDace values, provide recreation opportunities which are compatible with sensitive species management obiectives, and protect Native American values and cultural resources. In addition, lands within the Santa Margarita ACEC (parcel # 218-231) are unavailable for mineral material sales and livestock grazing. are a right-of-way avoidance area, and are closed to motorized vehicle use. Response 8-4 Refer to Response 8-3 for a description of BLM lands within the Planning Area and to Response 8-2 addressing the request for identification of BLM land on the Proposed Land Use Policy Map. The proposed General Plan Update does not propose development on BLM lands. As this is a first- tier Program EIR, CEQA analysis regarding impacts to BLM land is beyond the scope of the current analysis. Impacts associated with individual development projects will be assessed on a project-by- project basis in accordance with CEQA provisions. Further, such development would likely require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Response 8-5 The comment is noted. The comment does not address the content of the EIR. No response is required. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-38 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR WAJU!ENII.IYI!.LIAMS Oo!croJ"'---""IoIEn'¡'- @ 1995 MARIœT maET . JUVW])B,e... t¡50] 9S195S.UOO );!].73t.PHJF.-\X RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 'IIIu1lj'31,20OS /..e.~ 'I FAXIID THIS D~'I'E TO 951.694.6477 Mr.Dlll'id Hop¡;, Principal PIaonor City ofTo...cuJ. , Post Offi.,. iI... 9093 rom...... CA 92$89-9033 Car Mr, Hop", Noli.. ofCompletion/Avail<bility of ,Draft &vlro'""""taJ Imp.ot Report!br Ibo city ofT.",...!- Otneral PIAn U",",," 11\1. 1- b writtejl in ....pons. to tile N- of Completion/Availability of. Draft Enviro=ta) Impac, Ropol1(Dß1R} ror lb. CityofT"""""'1a _Plan U",",,", Th. proposed pro)." oonsiils of"" adoption and implewntAtioQ of tho City 01 r....ouIA G- PIAn opdate. Th. O...,.¡ Plan .pdaœ add""... Ibo ,""eo State m""d~ ßO"C"II plan 01...- (WId u... iIoIJ.i., airoulatlo.. safoty, op.a -.. ........110" sod ¡"'¡..), os won.. 01hor b.... tho! ... i..poJ1an 10 1be <0=1'1', ludwlins ¡powIt1 m- --o..~ devOI~"1, -Ir qIIalliy, md co......nJty ðosIp. Tho,..;cot p1annlng .... ...a.,pU'" approxlm.oy 62 $11'8 mil.. (39,610 """oJ ODd ..osl.. of ,.opetti.. "",hi.ed within tho City'. colJ'o"'" limit> IIIdsphere ofinf!=aln '-"'I!ðm ]ijvarsI4. COum;y. Ro: . . The Ri"",,"", Co1D\tY PIon. Coo.!rol and W...r Con=vation District h..lÌ1. followin8 comme.ts/con"""" 1b0l ,houJd boo~sed In the DEIR: . : P- . R¡¡f"."o.. .... ..,do ",.oemln8 tII. Dlmlort )",!:diadon .f 1'09"" flood I "",ire] _b sod storm drain Pip 5.14-6 InooltOClly...... ihoL tho Distria ,"nn drain In"" or Pipes 10" tbOII 42 I."",; in di>motor.' Por ..øriflC>ltion, bo Dlstrl<l doe. un! maIm&in, anti In most ""'.. do.. nol have jurls<üoIioll over, "')I'm drain inletaorplpea los,thIlli36Inchesl.ndJamOlOl', Page, 5.8-3.'S.8-S. Md S.t'.7 ,I' Is ....d thallho stonnwalor ia 'j<mcoul,l, "¡ovome<J" by tlIo Di...1ct 'lDd !hat 'all proposed devolopmeol ¡>T~"" withìD tho PIAnnÞ1g ..... ... ..vio"'o4" by 111, District prior to Approval bytbò City ofT...,ouJa ar !!Iv",¡"" County. 2. It .hould be P¡atl!\$d In tho DmR thai, while mongl¡llOcommon4olf, tho Distñ.r. <ovi.... of fut.... d...10!""",,' With'" th. _t'limits .Itho City ofT........., ¡, not, m¡uil'Omonl lOt approv.1 ODd 1. _dueled at the "'IUOll ofll1. Oily. Addidol\Olly, il sbouJd be noted in tbø Dm Ihallha Planning r&f1\&8ll Plan (MDP) for tho Mum... Crook 'UIL Wile" provide flood proleoti.,., rellave th... ...... wîtllin m. pIAn . . d WIll provIde .deq\l'" drainage auO"'. The Dlmk!t'. MnP &oiJity: mAp' can bo viOllVO. OIIlinul wwwfloodoon1roloo.rlvonld.....uslmdn..... To cbtaio furtnci îllformarJon on 1bo MDP IIId 1bo """",sod Di1triol 1Î>OIUtioa, oonlllol Art Diaz of 11>, Dlml""PJ"'¡'¡IISSooj!on &t951.9SS.134S. 'I-I 1-2. tt-3 8.39 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Mz. David Hopo ¡ , Ro: Notice of c.,,;plotioJliAvai1abi1it)' ora Draft !invlronm_l/m¡w:t !\eportfor!h.CI1yofTemeoula 0.....1 PI", TJpclaJe .-2. ]"""1'31.2005 p.... 1-6 $13-19 - TIuo DistriCt shÞÐld b,lisæd.. eo "S"""Y!hot maY un ftI,Oenoral Piau _menr I for IPI"""'! offimJro flood colltrOl faoIHrlos, Pig. 1-31. ,Table 1.1 . "appcm !h. 'Sf.........,.,. Ðralnagl" 'eoI!on under 'Utiliti.. IJId Service I 8y....." ¡'m¡'Iab.Jed lJIdabouJdread 'in"!:!,,, F.1uIo COOJieol!oos or - facilities e_d for nOw .....,10""".. to ..;.ân8 DllItlot faciliti.. 'hould bo Iaoludcd"'¡ cvoIuolOd u part oflht OVetaD projool in !he CBQA _oval_. Au¡> work iþat ¡'VOMs Dlotriot r1¡¡IIt of way. ...""""" or fooillti" wlR requ!.. .. .lIOIOIIO1unaot pemÙt &om tho DIØI<:I. '!'h. ....lrU<:t!on of fsclli~.. wltl1ln road ri¡hl of way 1hat - imo..t Di,triCt - dr,i.. should oIso bo ooordm.tod with.., To nbtal. fw1Iur infi>....1ioII on oooroaohmonl ponnitB or OJÓotÎII¡ fscililios. coo,.., 2d Lorz DC III, DJotrioCs EnCl1!lCl1mont Permit _ooot951.955.1266, . ThBl1kycu forthe~ rolOVioWtheNoti,. ofComplotioIV^,lIilabilityandDBJI<. PI,... eorw&rd...y .,bsequent oo,¡ro!im'.1>Ù do-CDts mprdbl, III. pro)... .. my -on AI thfl of1\co, koy f\¡rt!>.. qu"~"'oo......uisllli' I_may be retorrod to ""01951.955.1233 or Muo M"mIz.t 951.955,4641. 3, 4. 5,' Vcrytrulyyours. ~~ e: ateaNeal ArtDiat Bob Cl¡U.. 2dLotz MAMiCW PC\!m!16 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-40 1-" , .s- '-61 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 9. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. January 31, 2005. Response 9-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's (RCFCWCD) comments on the Draft EIR. Response 9-2 In response to the comment, the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 5.14-6 of the Final EIR has been revised to read as follows: "In most cases, RCFCWCD does not maintain or have jurisdiction over storm drain inlets or pipes less than 4;! 36 inches in diameter." The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 9-3 In response to the comment, under the "Surface Water" subheading on page 5.8-6 of the Final EIR, the first sentence of the third paragraph has been revised to read as follows: To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control District. at the request of the Citv. prior to approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County. In response to the comment, on page 5.14-70f the Final EIR, the first sentence of the second full paragraph has been revised to read as follows: To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the District. at the request of the Citv, prior to approval by the City of T emecula or Riverside County. In response to the comment, under the "Stormwater Drainage, Environmental Setting" subheading on page 5.14-6 of the Final EIR, the second paragraph has been revised to read as foliows: The RCFCWCD is also responsible for construction of new facilities called for in its adopted Master Drainage Plan (MDP). The Planning Area is located within the MDP for the Murrieta Creek area. The Murrieta Creek Area Master Drainage Plan, implemented by the RFCWCD, requires collection of drainage fees for developments. Fee revenues are used to support infrastructure improvements and expansion within the City of Temecula. When fullv implemented, the MDP facilities will provide flood protection to relieve those areas within the plan of the most serious flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.41 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PlAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Response 9-4 In response to the comment, the agency lists on pages 1-7 and 3-19 of the Final EIR have been updated to include the RCFCWCD, as indicated below: The following lead, responsible, and trustee agencies may use this Program EIR in the adoption of the General Plan and approval of subsequent implementation activities. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following: City of Temecula Temecula Redevelopment Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Conservation California Department of Housing and Community Development California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State lands Commission California Water Resources Control Board Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) South Coast Air Quality Management District County of Riverside Metropolitan Water District of Southern California San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Temecula Valley Unified School District Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Airport land Use Commission Riverside County local Agency Formation Commission Riverside Countv Flood Control and Water Conservation District Response 9-5 On page 1-37 of the Final EIR the Utilities and Service Systems subheading was revised to correct the typographical error and reads as follows: "StorFRwatcr DraiAagc Energv". Response 9-6 The comment is noted. The comment addresses the CEQA approval process for the Draft General Plan and encroachment permits for work in a RCFCWCD right-of-way, easement, or facility. Encroachment permits and facility construction within roadway rights-of-way pursuant to implementation of the Draft General Pian will be coordinated with the District on a project-by- project basis. No further response is required. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PlAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA 8-42 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY r.""c.,,'m """,cyDWct",, Planning Department January 31, 2005 LETTU I 0 City of Temecula A TTN: Mr. David Hogan, PrincIpal Planner 43200 Busina.. Perk Drive . Temecula. èA 92592 RE: NOTICE OF COMP~ETlON/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF TEM!CULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Mr. Hogan; Thank you for providing the Rlve"'ide County Planning Department the opportunity to review the draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the City Of Tomecula General Plan Update (hereafter 'ProJect"), As I~dio:ated In the PEIR. subsequent actMtles which may be consIdered withJn the scope of this PEIR may Include: revisions to the City's Development Code; rezoning for consistency wllh the updated land Use Policy Map; approval of spaclfic plans, development plans, development agreements, facUlty and service master plans, public improvement projects and resource management piano; acquisi~on of property by purchase or eminent domain; I.suance of municipal bond. and parmits for publlo and private development projects as well as other permits n.""..ary fo.- Impl.mente~on of the General Plan. This letter provides eounty .staffs comments on. tho dre~ PEIR, and the County reserves the right to provide further comments on the City's Goneral Pian and any other subsequent implementation actlvlUes. The PEIR tndlcates thai the Project Planning Area consists of approximately 62 square miles (or 3.9,680 gross acres), of which approximately 26 square m'es (or 17.955 gross acres) lie within the city limits of the CIty of Temarol.. Tha' remaining 34 square miles or planning area are located In the unincorporated areas of Rlversida County and Includes approXImately 24 square miles (or 15,360 gross acres) of properties located wlthln.the CIty's sphere of influence and approximately 10 square miles (or 6,400 gro.s acres) of properties located outside Its sphere of Influence. Tha Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has no current proposal to change the. CIty'S spherv of Influence, but Is overseeing the preparation Of Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) as part of a reasse.sment of spheres of influence. Under Population and Housing, tho PEIR Indicates that approximately 77,460 persons resided In 24,9S4 resldenUal 4nfts withIn the corporate CIty fimlts In 2004. Future devaiopmenl oVf¡r the nexl 20 yea"" or to 2025, pursuant to thaproposed Genaral Plan may result in an addl~onal 25.005 hew resldanflai unils (Includes detached single-family residential. an.ched single-family 10-1 /\MISt!. omoo. 4O8G IAmo1I ""\ 9th Floor P.O. Box 14119. iuvemd<. ColJJòml,125G1. "09 !95/)9SJ-3200'P", (PSJ)9ss.m7 ¡,dloOffioo'S!-67SHwyIlI.1odPioor Room 209, Ind~, C>llfomi' mGl (76G)863.1277'F" (16Q)863.mS Mu~i."Offi". 3!)4P3!.oJ AJam.. Rood Mum... C.lfoml, 9256> (951)6GI).6I7G'F'" ('51)6()~145 CITY OF TEMECULA 8.43 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR City 01 Ternecu.. Draft erR - city of Temeaula General Plan Update P8g82 018 res"'ential ana mulu-ramlly reslaOl11lal) and 36.2 Millon square feet of net new nonresldenllal dovelópment, resulting in up 10 54.687 total resldenllal un~s and 78.3 mllUor, square feet Of nonresidential development and provide for a Iotal population capacity of 169.154 pe..ons within !he Planning Area, County Planning stat! olfe.. the following comments for your consideration and incorporatIon Into tl)e draft PEIR: 1. Approximately 34 squall! miles of the Planning Atea lie outside the city limits. within the - unincorporated area of RIverside County. The City's proPOsed land usa designations do not reflect existing County land usa approvals wUhln tl)e unincorporated areas. For e""mple, the sUe of an approved high-density .en"" housing project Is proposed for tt¡e City's Rural d"19naUon (ma><lmum ¡"Ic""ity 0.2 dwelDng unlta per acre). (50. the dlscussloo under item 15 belOW.) Failure to reflect existing County land use and land division approve/s may be expected to lead to an underestimate of overall, cumulative Impacts on traffic. air pollutant emissions. noI$e, wetsr supply, and nonrenewable resource oonsumption. 2. The Alternatlws anelysls shouid InClude consideration of an aUemative that utilizes the City'$ proposed land use designations within its existing jurisdictional bound<orlos and the County's land use designations within its exIsting junsdlctlonal boundaries. This stUdy Is merited In that it would provide an anaiysl$of-potentlal devølopment in the event that the City we... to adopt Its propoeed General Plan, but not ennex any additional land. The portion of the Planning Area outside city limits Includes approximately 10 square mIles of unincorporated araas not currently located within the City's sphere of influence. . The Project DesClJption of the draft PEIR shOUld CIte under whet euthority the City Ie InclUding the 10 square mDes of area outside its spharo of Influence 'as pM of its Planning Area end whether Ihe City inlcnds to file a proposal to expand its sphere of Influence alld anne. this area. 3. 4. There are inconslstendes throughout the draft PEIR when discussing population. dwelling units. and nonresidential square footage within the City limits and Planning Ares. For a""rnple. the E""cutivø Summary discussion of the land Use Eiement ldentifles tolal nonresidential development pu..uant to the proposed General Plan as 78.3 minion square feet (page 1-3), whllatt¡e Projact Description on page 3-8 identifies total nonresidential development as 75.4 million square - teet (page 3-8). Such dlsaepancles need to be resolved. 5. The environmental document utilizes Southern Califomla Association of Governments (SCAG) 2000-2025 growth forecasts, build-out capacity of the proposed General Plan within the City lImits and within the Pianning Area, the C~y of Temecula 2004 Population Proflie for ClUes of Temecula (for ereas within Clly limits only), MUrrieta end Western Riverside County, and the 20O4-State Depertment of I'Inanoo City/County Population and Housing Estimates (for areas within City limits only). Ple.se Include. comparison table for these differenl facio.. In the Executive Summary or Project Description Section of the drelt PEIR so that the revtewer can clearly Unde..tand the reiationship between these faclors and whether 1hey support the anaiyses and findings In various parts of !he draftPEIR. 10-1 (.:».It. Ii)-~ /0-3 10-4 IO-~ lO-G:, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8.44 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR """CIty"afT_ole DraftElR -city of Temecule Generel Plen Updete Pege3ofB paga 4-1, unaer EnYlronmental Selling, Idenlffies the unincorporated pol1ions of !he Planning Atee as baing comprised of 16,4110 acres (or 26 square miles). Please provide 1"-" an explanation or why this number is Inconsistent with !he Project Characteristics discussion In the ExecutfYe Summary of the PEIR. On Page 5-1, under EnYlronmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, the draft PEIR states that mitigation, in addition to measures that tho lead agency will implement can also includa measures that .... within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency pursuant 10 CEOA Guldalines Section 15091{a)(2). To elle the applicable CEOA section; " e. 7" 'No public agency shell approve Dr carry aut a project for Which an EIR has bean oor1ifled which Identifies one ... more significant anvlronmemal -cts of the project unless !he public agency makes ana Dr more wrillan findings for aach of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief <»<planation of tha rationale for each finding." . It is a violation of CEOA to derer mitigation. This section c¡earty does not exoG$e"the lead agency from Idantlf\'fng all feasible mitigation and considering a reasonable range of allemativO$ to reduce significant Impacts resulling from tha lead agency's authority to use its discretionery powers. 8. Under SectIon 5.2 Agricultural Resou","". the draft PEIR slales thai the project Will "'suit In e la.. Ihan significant Impact with regard to Wliliamsoo Act conlfact lands. as thare are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area, This statement is fncorrect There ere a number or agricullural preseNeS located in the unincorporated areas of the Plan~lng Area. Consequentiy,!here ere nlA'!1erous parcel, located within the boundaries or an agricuttura' presarve, many Dr Iham under active Williamson Act conn¡cts. Easterly of Butterfield Stage Road, there ere several 'arge development projects ourrenUy beIng processed through the County of Riverside. each InvQMng iarge lot residential devalopment and proposing cancellation of !he affacted agricultural preserve conlfacts. 1,)-11 10-'\ 1':>-10 1°-II CITY OF TEMECUlA 9. Please indicate in the disou..lon under Carbon MonoxJda Hot Spots in Section 5.3 Air Quaiity whather all ax/sUng roadways that are currently operating below an acceptable leval of service (LOS D), as well as all future impacted roadways. were monitored and Included In A¡>pendlx B. If all impactad roadways haven' bean evaluated end/OI" It factors used 10 calculate fraflIo Impacts are ravised, this study ShOtJld be revised acoordingly and Included In tha appendix and draft PEIR. 10. The discussion under 5.4 Biological Resources states on page 5.4.17 that ImpiementaUon of the Cily's proposed General Plan \>111 resuit In 'slgnificant end adverse" Impacts on rare, threatened. and endangered spacles. The dlsCIJssion undar 5.9 land Use and Planning states on page 5.9,1 that the General Plan "was round to confiiot with" the adopted Wsstern Riverside County Multiple Spades Habitat Conservation Plan. However. both sections then make the finding of less than significant Impact to biological resources and to an edoptad regional plan \>1th Implemanlation of mitigation measures. One such mitigation measure Is that Mure projects comply with the MSHCP. For axemple. if a future proposed project Is inconsistent with the MSHCP because avoidanca of riperian/riverlne areas or vernal 8-45 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to (omments on the Draft fIR CIty of Temocula Draft EIR-City of Temeeula Genenol Plan Update. Page4of8 11. pOOlS IS unra88lble, a finding or biologically equivalent or aupenor preservation must be I made in accordance with guidelines contained in tho MSHCP. Therefore, a finding of . ,... than significant impact to biological resources cannot be made at this program level . due to the lack off\Jture projects' specifIcity. Section 6.10 Noise uses lavel of service (LOS) C for adjacent roadways to estimate maximum level Mure noiSe Impacts. However, Sections 5.3 AJr Quality and 5,13 Transportation Indicate that several inte...ctIons and rreeway ramps are currentiy operating at LOS E and LOS F. These intersections and ramps wlU be further exacerbated by addkional traffIc resulting from ultimate build-out of tha Planning Area. Future traffic will also impact new areas of the existing roadways by exceeding ecoepteble levels 01 servfce. The analysis In this section of tho PEIR should utíllze a realistic laval of .ervloo In determining project end cvmulsUve noi.e Impecls. Plea.e reVIse Appendix E and 1I1e Noise Section of tho draft PEIR. Under Section 5.13 Trensportatlon, it appears !hat existing traffic conditions were baSed on studies conducted within the City Umlts and not within the proposed Planning Area to orriveat average dally trip (ACT) vólumes. These ACTs wera !hen added to fUture ADT volumes based on residential and nonresidential bulld.out under the proposed General Plan. The traffic enalysis should address existin9 conditions of tha Project Planning Area, Within the City and unincorporated ereas. Please revise the analyses under this sactlon es well as all effectad sections of the draft PEIR (i.e., air quality, noise, ele.). 12. 13. . , Under the Envlronmantal Setting end Section 5.13 Transportation, tho dralt PEIR IdentIfies .everallnleraections and freeway ramps that c<"renlly operote at LOS E and LOS F. Impacts to tho.e same Intersections and freeway remps resulting from Imptementatlon 01 the proposed General Pkln are then delermlned no1 to be significant since unacceptable LOS already exists at thasa roadways and no new Impacts will resuK from the additional ADT volumes. Implemantation of the Project will resull ot e minimum. In doubling existing ACTs. It cannot accurately be steted that the Project will not have direct impacts on existing roadways resulting from i""reased ACT volumes. this Is an inappropriate application of CEOA, \\11.re it slates that the environmental basellno i$ established et the time the Notica of Preperallon Is distributed to the public. this .action of the draft PEIR Is inadequate and fails to My dlsclosa and. analyze exlstl"!1 and Mure traffic impacts. Please revi.e this section as well all effected sections of the draft PEIR O.e., air quality, carbon monoxide hot spots. noise, etc.) and Identify mitigation measures \\11100 will reduce sold impàcts. The draft PEIR Idantifias that Implementation 01 the Project wlil result In significant, unavoidable, projecNeveJ and cumulative impacts to Air Quality and Transportation, but !hat noisa Impacls will be iess than significant with mitigation. However. page 1-44 of the Executive Summary slates that 'inaeasad traffIc noise may have s;gnificanlllT"4'act ... in the lon9 term" and that 'residual impacts wlil remain elgnificant." Please clanfy w(1ether or not noise Impacts will be slgnlflcanl andaclverse and include mil/gatlon measures to reduce .eld Impacts. 14. ,0-11 'OIoJi. 1.)-"1. IC-'~ 10-ICt 10 "IS" The draft PE1R and the City's Land Use Policy and Focus maps should be revised to I roflect the following existing County land usa approvals within tha unincorporated area. 1° -It. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8.46 CITY Of TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR . . . City of Temecula DI'I!ft EIR - City ofTemecula General Plan Update Peg.e5of8 a. An II.S1-acre erea at the southeeo! comer of the InTersection of Rancho Car~omle Road at Rancho VIsta Road (Assessor. Parcel Numbers 951,140-016 through 951.04().{)18) Is tho $It. of a ..nlot hOU$lng and health cars complex approved through Public Use Permit No. 791, aa modified by Substantial Conlcrmanee No, 1. Thi$ property is deslgnaled Very High Density Residential (14,20 dwelling units per acral WIthin the Community Development Foundation Component on the Southwest Area Plan, The Cny proposes a designation of Rural- 0.2 dwelling units per acre on the City's proposed Lilnd Use Map, wllhln Rural Preoerva~on Araa No. 2. This site should be deslgnaled High Density Residential (13-20) on the City Plan. However. whether or not the City chooses \0 ecl<Mwledge this approved project In I1s Land Us. Plan. any cumulative Im3CI anatyses and traffic models need to reflect this project approval. An 84.34-acro area aoutherty of the Morgan Hill development (As.essor's Parcel Numbers 952-25()'{)Oð, -012, and -044 through -Q46) Is the sne of a 143-lot subdivIsIon map approved through Tentative Tract Map No. 29473. Thl. pro¡¡e¡1y Is designated Medium Density Residential (2-5 dweUlng units ¡¡er acre) within the Community Development Foundation Component on the Southwest Area Plan. The City propo... a desl9nation of Vinayards/Agriculturel on the City's proposed land Use Map, within Rurel Proservation Area No.3. Thl. $lte should be designated low Density ResldenUal (0.5-2.9 dwelling untts per ""re) on the City Plan. However, whether or not the City chooses to acknowledge this approved project In Its Lilnd Use Plan. any cumulative Impaet analyses and trafflc modals need to reflect this project approval. /0)-/6" 10-I4.b 15. The boundaries of the Rural Proservation Areas should be modified, at least to the I e>dent neœesary \0 recogill%e exlsUng County approvals pre-<lating the releasa of this 10 - '1 Plan. 10-\1 CITY Of TEMECUlA b. 17. The above specified projects in the Rurel Preservalion Arees rofleet only the major projects that have been approved. There era a number of other projects in process that may need to be addressed In cumulative Impact analysis. Staff offers the foßowlng InfolTllation for your consideraUon: Rural Preservation An¡;I - Temecula Wine Countrv/East Rancho Callromla Consider thearee bounded by De Portela Road on the north, Anza Road on the east, Slate HI9hway Route 79 South on the south, and the Teinecula city limits on the west This area Is desIgnated for Community Development FoundaUon Component uses on the Southwest Area Pian - Medium Dansity Residential (2,5 dwalling units per ecre) and Commeida! Tourist The CIty proposes a designation of VIneyards/Agricultural (0.1 dweUlng uni1s per acre). In this area, the eight westerly parœls are designated Medium Censlly Residential, but are not the site Of any major planning cases. However, the easteny area Is cheracterl%ed by smaller parcels, and those In !he southeriy portion have been the location for a number of planning caseo. These Incillde an approved Imanl Templa on APN 952-170-oo5 located northwesteriy of the Calle Amaz cul-de-sac. The parœllocated at the northwesterly comer of Slate Highway Route 79 South and Anza Road (APN 952-170-007).wes folTllerly approved fore church through Public \Jse PelTll~ No. 764. That polTlllt has since expired, but the County Is processing a change of zona arod conditional use permtt (Change of Zone Case No. 6654 and Conditional Use Permit 8.47 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR City OfT.mecula Draft ElR - City of Temecula General Plan Update PageS of8 No. 3307). to eslabllsh . gas station, rrunl-ms~, and car wash at this location, which Is designated Commercial Toui1s!. Except for the areas southerly of De Po~ola Road and the Public Use Permit she referenced above, the COunty designations within the area Identified by the City as ¡;"st Rencho California or Temecula Wine Countiy fall within tha Rural Community and Agriculture Foundation COmponents. However, there aro a number of differences between the County end City provisions. The County designates properties located westerty of Anza Road. southerly of paulia' Road, and northerly of De Porlola Road as Estato Density. Residential - Rural Community (e'OR-RC: one dwelling unit per two acres). The City proposes to designate this .rea as Rural Residantia' wah . dansity .tandefd of 0.2 dwelling unit per acre, or one unit per flVO acres, with e small area along tne northei1y side of De Portola Road designated VlneyardslAgrlaJlture (0.1 dWelling unit per ecre). However. a review of exIsting 101 siZe patterns indicates that tho prodomlnent lot size In this area, other 1l1an the eres along the noi1horly side of Oe Portola Road, Is In tho 211 - 5 acre range. Thus. use of the density standard of 0.2 dweliing units per acro may rosult In an underestlmate of the actusllntenslty of this area, with consequent impads on the accuracy Of projected levels of trafflc and seCOndary impacts on tho accuracy of noise and elr quality modeling. (The area on the northerly side 01 De Portola Road Is characterized by 'arger lot sizes; however, this area Is also designated EDR-RC on the County's Plan.) It is recommended that this area be designatod and modeled as wllhin the City's Very Low (density) Residentiel, 0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units per acre. Northerly of Peuba Road is a 'arge area designated as Agriculture within the Citrus VIneyard Policy Area on the SWAP. with some exceptions In the area southerly of Rancho CaIIfof\la Road. This Policy Area flanking Rancho CaUFornia Roa~ between BUtierfield Stage Road on the west and AnlJ!J Road on the east differs from most agricultura' areas in the County In Its ellowancelor a five acre minimum lot siZe for tract maps and parœl maps.. In con1Tast, the City's proposed Vineyards/AgrlCIJllure designation provides for a maxImum development Intensity of 0.1 dwelßng units per acre (one dWelling unit per ten acres). While some of tne area depictad as Citrus VIOeyard on the SWAP is proposed as Very Low Resi~ential or Rural Residential on the Çity's Land Use Policy Map, most of this aroa Is proposed as within tho VineyardS/ÀgriaJlture d.signation on the CIty's Map. It Is rocommended that tni. area retain the Vlneyard$/Agrtculture designation, except where the County designation Is for a higher intensity than Agi1cuiture, liut 1het Ihe development intensity for this designation b4i Changed to 0.2 dwelling units per acre. Northerly 01 the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area Is another erea designated Estate Density , Resldentiel- Rural Community on the SWI>J'. The portion of tnis area southwesterly of~ Calle Contento Is proposed for a designation of Rural Residential (0.2 dwellIng unhs per acre) on the City's Plan. It 'S recommended tnat this area be designated as Very Low (density) Residentiai, 0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units per .",e on the City's Pian. Rural PreseM>tion Area - South An.. Road <!I¡ SR-79 Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 referenced In 15b. above affects fiva of the parcels ,within an. area of fIfteen parcels ioeated southeasterly of the Morgan Hili development ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8.48 10-1' ~. CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Orah fiR " CIty,Óf Jemeeula Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 7 ofs and designated Medium Density Reslden~aJ on the SWPJ'. At this time, there Is no urban development within this erea. Howaver, lentaBve tract maps have been filed on five of the o1her ten properti.. (APNs 952-250-005, ODe, 007, 013. and 015), These trect maps (32226, 32227, 32778, and 32988) legether propose 275 lOts on 93,2 acres, These tract maps are presently In the review proœss, although none is ready to be scheduled for hearing as of this wriUng. An additional four parcels established through Parter Map No. 28289 (APNs 952-380-001 through -004) are live acres In gross area. Only one of the fifteen parcels is 10 acres or larger and Is not the subject of a proposed subdivision. Wa recommend that tha area daslgnated Medium Denslt~ RasidenUalon the SWAP be removed from the Rural PreservaUon Area and be deoignated for Low or Low Medium Density Reoldontial developMent on the Clty'e Land U... PoHcy Map. In any cvcn~ consldera~on should ba given 10 tha Cðunty deslgna~ons of this land in cumulative Impact analysis and traffIc modeling. The County does not object 10 the Inclusion of the remainder of the depicted area southerly and easterly of the Morgan Hill development within the Rural PreservaUon Area, as depicted. However, bearlng In mind that the majority of this area Is designated Rural ResidenUaI on the SWAP. the City shoUld either designate the plOperties Rural Residential or ""anga the density WIthin the Vineyards/Agricultural dasignation'to 0.2 dwelling units par acre as recommended above. Tha City's Policy Map and Focus Mep differ with raspect Ie the treatment of the area loeated on the south side 01 State Highway Route 79 South, waste~y of An%a Road. Tha Focus Map depicts this area as being included within the Rural Preservation Area, while tho Land Use Policy Map depicts this areo as being designated for Low Medium and. Low denoity residential development. We re<ommend that the area located southerly of Slote Highway Route 79 South, northerly of Temecuia Creek, and westerly of An%a Road be romoVBd from the Rural Preservation Area. French Vallav Future Growth ~!ya In general, the City's proposed lend use designations for this orea appear to conform to County land use dG$lgnatioM. Give,n the dIfferences In ranges between the City and County deslgnetions, direot comparison for the u"'an denolty areas is, not simple. However. we have Identified one area where there are discrepanCIes. The northeast quarter Of the northwest quarter of Section 4 consists of sixteen parcels. 08"" about 2'h acres In size. This eree Is designated as Estate DenSity Residential within the Rural Community Foundation Cðmponont (ona dwelling unit per two acres) on the SWAP. The City prcpos.. a deslgnotlon of Rural Residential (0.2 dWelling units per acre); however, If a, residence is allowed on each existing lot, this area will build out at a density 01 0.4 dwelling units per acre. This ShOuld be consldared in analy2ing cumulative Impact and traffio anal1$I$. Given the exisllng lot size patlem. we recommend that this orea be designated Vary Low de".lty Residential on the City'. land Uso Policy Map. Tho City may 0100 wish to consider re-designatlon of the southeast quarter of tho southwest quorter of Section 3~ as Very Low density Residential, as this araa is also designated estate Density RasidenUal- Rural Community on the SWAP. '~~If CÞIJI'. 8.49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on Ú1e Draft fiR :Clty of Telllocula Draft Ell!. - City of Teme.ola General Pion Update Paøe 8 of 8 The Draft pelR provides an analysis of ilia potentia' environmental impacts of the CIty's proposed General Plan, As the General Plan is a poncy documen~ many of the mitigation measures Identlfled to mItigate potential Impacts are policies and may not Þ$ effective as mitI9a1;on. Tha draft PEIR should cteÐrIy Identify eollons required by the City to make said policie. viable O.e., resolution, ordinance, etc.). . Thank you for conslderlng our comments and for lIIe opportunity to f$view the draft PEIR for the Cay of Temecula General Plan Update. II you shooid have any quesllons regarding these comments, please contact Kathleen Browne, Urban Reglonei Planner III, at (909) 955-4949. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8.50 10--1-, CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR 10. Robert C. Johnson, Planning Director, County of Riverside, Planning Department. January 31,2005. Response 10-1 This comment provides an introduction to the County of Riverside, Planning Department's comments on the Draft EIR. The introduction summarizes the Project and indicates that the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has no current proposal to change the City's sphere of influence. This comment does not address an environmental issue nor raise any question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the ErR. No response is required. Response 10-2 As stated in the Draft General Plan, under California law, every city must adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide physical development within the incorporated area, as well as to plan for land beyond the municipal boundaries that bears a relationship to the city's planning activities. The City of Temecula believes that the identified Planning Area provides a reasonable measure of the City's present region of interest. The comment further indicates that City land use designations within the unincorporated areas of the Planning Area do not reflect approved County plans and adopted land use designations for the area, and that this inconsistency may underreport and analyze incorrectly cumulative project impacts. The City has purposefully chosen to assign lower intensity land use designations in part of its Sphere of Influence area and other unincorporated areas of the Planning Area than current County plans provide, as these designations are consistent with overall City objectives for outlying areas specified throughout the Draft General Plan. The thrust of the updated General Plan is to concentrate new development as infill within the established City framework, and to apply smart growth principles and reduce greenfields development. Since infill places new development closer to existing services and complementary land uses, this approach has the ability to reduce overall impacts. Response 10-3 The City has previously considered using the County's land use designations within the areas that have been identified for rural preservation. However, this was rejected through the Plan development process because of the greater impact to the environment and the inconsistency with the City's long-term goals. A preliminary study indicated that using the County's more intense land use designations would add an additional 38,000 average daily trips to the City's circulation system. Using the County's designations is also expected to result in greater noise and air quality impacts. These increased impacts are not mitigated by the County General Plan. Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Program ErR examines alternatives which "would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the alternatives." Given that the County's land use designations in some parts of the unincorporated portions of the City's Planning Area allow for higher intensity uses than proposed City policy, and given that such higher intensity may result in greater traffic, air quality, public service, and noise 8-S1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PIAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR impacts than would the Project, such an alternative would not work to reduce significant impacts of the Project. Thus, CEQA guidelines do not support evaluation of such an alternative, and the alternative is not examined in the Draft EIR. This is clarified in Section 7.0 of the Final EIR. Response 10-4 The comment states that the Planning Area includes approximately 10 square miles of unincorporated areas not currently located within the City's sphere of influence and that the City should cite under what authority the City is including these areas outside of the sphere of influence. As per California Government Code §64300, each City is required to prepare and adopt a long-term general plan for physical development of the city, "and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." As stated on page 1-2 of the Draft General Plan, "While properties beyond the City limits are under the jurisdiction of Riverside County agencies, they bear a critical relationship to Temecula's planning activities, and from a visual standpoint, form a significant backdrop to the community. One day, they may become part of the City, and planning for service extensions, integrated infrastructure, and high design quality is timely and prudent." The majority of the area outside the sphere of influence but within the Planning Area consists of vineyards and agricultural uses located east of the City. As noted on pages LU-20 and LU-21 of the Draft General Plan, these locations are designated Vineyards/Agriculture, a designation "intended to promote rural, agricultural, and vineyard uses of properties located to the east of the City within the Planning Area. Continued operation of vineyards and agricultural businesses on these properties is vital to the economic health of the City. Through this designation, they are set aside for these purposes in the future." No specific proposal to annex or pre-zone these areas or to expand the City's sphere of influence is contemplated at this time. However, the City acknowledges that these interim steps would be required prior to full implementation of the General Plan within the identified areas. The City will work with the County and Riverside County LAFCO to achieve these long-range objectives. Response 10-5 In response to the comment the following revision has been included on page 1-3 of the Final EIR: During this time, approximately 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential development is expected to be developed, resulting in just over -7&> 75.4 million square feet of nonresidential development within the Planning Area. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the ElK Response 10-6 As described in the comment, the EIR analysis includes population data and growth forecasts from different sources. The following summary accounts for the population data sources that were utilized in the EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.S2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The General Plan's estimated population increase to 113,421 persons by the year 2025 is based on planned land uses - specifically, new housing units. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts are analyzed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, but the build-out capacity of the proposed General Plan was used to describe the environmental effects of the project due to the following inconsistency with the SCAG growth forecast. SCAG's projections for the region allocate to Riverside County a proportionally greater increase in population in the future, when compared to Temecula. SCAG estimates that the County's population will increase by 76 percent between 2002 and 2025, while Temecula's population will increase by 33 percent. However, historical trends indicate that Temecula has typically experienced a much greater rate of growth than the County. For example, Temecula grew at an average of 3,062 people a year from 1990 to 2000, an increase of 113 percent. Between 1990 and 2000, the County population grew by 32 percent. This is expected to change over the next decade as the City becomes substantially built out. Considering these factors, Temecula's future population appears to be better represented by estimates derived from the land capacity established within the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed General Plan buildout population of 113,421 persons was used for the analysis in Section 5.11, Population and Housing. California Department of Finance (DOF) data were used to describe the existing population since DOF bases population estimates on approved housing units, whereas SCAG data utilizes projections. Thus, the DOF data is better suited to describe existing conditions. The SCAG growth forecast was used in Section 7, Cumulative and Long-Term Effects because the Regional Growth Projections Method is the appropriate methodology for evaluating cumulative impacts for a project such as a General Plan, as it provides general growth projections for the region and considers long-term growth. The SCAG growth forecast data that were used for the cumulative impacts section included the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) region The environmental effects of the project are most reliably predicted using General Plan buildout estimates. As each of the other sources is used for a limited purpose, no comparison table is required. Response 10-7 In response to the comment, the following revision has been made to page 4-1 of the Final EIR: The unincorporated portions of the Planning Area, comprising +6,48G 15,360 acres (;!f> 24 square miles), are more rural and agricultural in character. Response 10-8 The Program EIR for the updated General Plan analyzes the impacts and identifies all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts associated the implementation of the General Plan. Impact mitigation has not been deferred, and a reasonable range of alternatives was considered. 8.53 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Response 10-9 The City acknowledges that numerous parcels within the unincorporated areas of the Planning Area are located within the boundaries of a Williamson Act contract. In response to this comment, the sentence regarding Williamson Act contract lands has been deleted on page 5.2-1 of the Final EIR. The City's proposed General Plan emphasizes the preservation and protection of prime agricultural lands. Many such lands are designated as part of one or more Rural Preservation Areas in the Land Use Element, discouraging their conversion to urban uses. Mitigation measure AG-1 (General Plan Implementation Program 05-28) in the EIR requires the City to recognize existing agriculture preserve contracts and promote additional preservation contracts for prime agricultural land in rural preservation areas. This measure illustrates the City's commitment to agricultural preservation. With mitigation incorporation, implementation of the Draft General Plan will have a less than significant impact on Williamson Act contracts or other agricultural lands within the Planning Area. Response 10-10 As described on page 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR, selection of intersections to be analyzed for carbon monoxide hot spots was limited to those intersections experiencing the worst level of service (LOS) conditions, in combination with proximity to sensitive receptors. The following intersections these criteria and were analyzed within the Draft EIR: Rancho California Road and Old Town Front Street Ynez Road and Rancho California Road Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road SR-79 North and 1-15 No significant impacts from carbon monoxide hot spots were identified. Response 10-11 The Initial Study and the Draft EIR concluded that the Project could conflict with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) since areas of the MSCHP might lie within the City boundary and other portions of the Planning Area. The General Plan is a guide for development and conservation. The MSHCP seeks to conserve flora and fauna species and habitats. As noted on page 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR, Draft General Plan policies require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures to protect sensitive habitats (General Plan Policy 05-3.1). The Draft General Plan also calls for the City to work with nonprofit groups, the County, and other interested parties to set aside and enhance areas containing significant biological resources (General Plan Policy 05-3.2). One of the key features of biological resource protection is the City's inclusion of MSHCP policies and programs within the Draft General Plan. As a signatory agency, the City will continue to work with the County of Riverside and other implementing agencies to ensure that sensitive biological areas throughout the County ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-54 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR are protected from future development and habitat conservation measures are incorporated into the development review process. Additionally, biological resources mitigation measures B-1 through B-11 require the execution and monitoring of MSHCP requirements within the General Plan Planning Area. Thus, given the programmatic nature of the Draft EIR and the long-term time frame for the General Plan, the goals, policies, and implementation programs within the General Plan and the mitigation measures in the EIR serve as effective and appropriate means of addressing any potential impacts. At the programmatic level, impacts associated with the MSHCP will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation, supported by the goals and policies of the General Plan. Significance of impacts to the MSHCP resulting from specific future development projects pursuant to the General Plan will be determined on a project-by-project basis. If project-level impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures will be required per CEQA. Response 10-12 Noise analysis in the Draft EIR is based on roadway traffic volumes rather than level of service (LOS), as indicated by the comment. The existing and future noise contours found in Appendix E of the Draft EIR were calculated using average daily traffic (ADT) volumes per roadway segment. LOS measures are used in the analysis contained in Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 5.13, Transportation. However, the analyses completed for air quality and transportation are independent of the noise analysis found in Section 5. 1O, Noise. The comment appears to refer to noise mitigation measure N-5, and the City's practice of utilizing LOS C to estimate future noise impacts. The LOS is used in this case for noise mitigation since it estimates free-flow roadway conditions and produces the maximum community noise exposure (CNEL). The use of ADT for noise analysis is standard practice; no further analysis or revisions are required. Response 10-13 The comment correctly notes that existing conditions were summarized for roadways within the City limits. However, future conditions were derived from the City's traffic model, which includes all of western Riverside County. Hence, the future ADTs were not derived from any additive process in which existing volumes formed a base. Rather, the future ADTs were actual future modeled volumes for future land uses as defined within the Draft General Plan Land Use Element. The existing peak-hour intersection analysis addresses only those locations identified as Principal Intersections, as described in the Draft Circulation Element. The number and location of Principal Intersections will change over time as local conditions change. All are currently located within the existing City limits. Response 10-14 The comment states that as per CEQA, the baseline is established at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is distributed. In the case of this EIR, the NOP was distributed on June 4, 2003. Therefore, the existing conditions or baseline of the project for traffic conditions is 2003. The traffic data were collected during 2002 for this project and at the time of the baseline traffic analysis, the CITY OF TEMECULA 8-55 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR following three study intersections did not meet the City's performance standard of LOS D, as described on 5.13-6 of the Draft EIR: Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour Nicolas Road at Winchester Road - LOS E at A.M. peak hour Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour Additionally, the following three ramps did not meet Caltrans' performance standard of LOS E (maximum 1.00 VIe), as described on page 5.13-7 of the Draft EIR. SR-79 South Northbound On-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour Winchester Road Southbound Off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hours Rancho California Road Southbound Off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour These three intersections and three freeway ramps are currently deficient. Over time, development pursuant to General Plan land use policy will result in the addition of trips at these currently deficient locations. In recognition of the existing deficiencies and anticipated further deterioration in the absence of any improvements (due to project traffic and regional traffic, as noted on page 5.13-15 of the EIR), the General Plan Circulation Element includes extensive roadway system improvements to address the long-term impact. Table 5.13-9 beginning on page 5.13-20 of the EIR identifies these planned improvements, as they are part of the project. With implementation of the project, the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road will be the only intersection among the three currently deficient intersections that will continue to operate at LOS E in 2025. Implementation of roadway improvements pursuant to the Draft General Plan is anticipated to improve the operation of the intersection from 0.96 ICU in 2002 to 0.91 ICU in 2025. The project does not create a new LOS E condition at this intersection or worsen its operation to LOS F. Impact to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road is therefore less than significant. In the future, the SR-79 northbound on-ramp, Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, and Rancho California Road southbound off-ramp will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. Long-range implementation of the General Plan does not create a new LOS F condition at these ramps, although the project will add traffic and increase the V IC at these locations. However, this impact does not meet the City's criteria for significance. No Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. New roadways and intersection improvements are identified in the proposed Roadway Plan described on pages 5.13-9 through 5.13-11 of the Draft EIR. Table 5.13-5 on page 5.13-13 of the Draft EIR compares the existing and future (2025) Planning Area land use and trip generation. Additionally, Table 5.13-6 on page 5.13-15 of the Draft EIR describes how new roadways and freeway connections proposed in the Roadway Plan will have a key role in expanding system capacity because existing facilities, particularly Winchester Road and Rancho California Road, currently operate near capacity. The Draft EIR provides a comprehensive discussion of existing and future traffic impacts, and no further analysis is required. . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-56 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Response 10-15 In response to the comment the following sentences have been removed from the EIR, as shown on page 1-45 of the Final EIR. The revision is made to be consistent with Section 7, Cumulative and Long-Term Effects. Future de\'elopFAeRt \\ ill geRerate coRstructioR RDise from iRdi. idual de, elopFAeRt projects IAat FAa)' affect adjoiRiRg uses iR tAe sAort tCFFA. IRcreascd traffic Roise mal' Aave significaRt impact 10 residences aRd seADols Rear tAe frce..a)'s iR tAe long term. '.'lAile policies iReluded iR Ihe Draft CeReral PlaR \\ill reduce tAe3e impacts 10 tAe e)(leRt possible, tAe residual impacts .¡ill remaiR signifiCimt. Response 10-lGa This comment requests a technical change to the Draft General Plan land Use Policy Map and does not raise any environmental issues associated with the General Plan EIR. Proposed General Plan land Use Policy Map and other technical changes to the General Plan will be considered by the City. The City recognizes that change should be made to the land Use Policy Map at this location. This recommendation will be made to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearings scheduled for adoption of the General Plan. Response 10-1Gb This comment requests a technical change to the Draft General Plan land Use Policy Map and does not raise any environmental issues associated with the General Plan EIR. Proposed General Plan land Use Policy Map and other technical changes to the General Plan will be considered by the City. The requested change represents a potentially significant increase in average daily trips and is contrary to the goals of the General Plan. See also Response to Comment 10-3. Response 10-17 The opinion stated is acknowledged. The requested boundary changes for Rural Preservation Areas found on the land Use Focus Areas figure in the Draft General Plan do not raise or address any specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. Any concerns regarding the land Use Focus Areas Map in the Draft General Plan should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council al the public hearings scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan. Response 10-18 Please refer to Response 10-17. The City has purposefully chosen to assign lower intensity land use designations within the identified Rural Preservation Areas and other unincorporated areas of the Planning Area than current County plans provide. This approach is consistent with overall City objectives for outlying areas specified throughout the Draft General Plan and mitigates the environmental impacts of unplanned development. Any concerns regarding the Draft land Use Focus Areas Map and the City's planning objectives within the identified areas should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearings scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan. 8.S7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Response 10-19 The Draft EIR contains mitigation measures for all environmental issues areas that are directly related to the City's General Plan Implementation Program, as referenced at the end of each mitigation measure. All of the Draft EIR mitigation measures are General Plan Implementation Programs. The City's General Plan Implementation Program identifies specific actions to achieve the goals, policies, and plans in the General Plan. The mitigation measures in the EIR will be recorded and tracked through the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8.58 Responses to Comments on t e t R COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department ~ ~ """,. A. J.h"",~ ,.. DI"~"ofr,...p"""" Janwuy 31,2005 Mr. David Hogan, P~ncIpaJ Planner CIty of Temecula 43.200 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92590 Len-eR. Il AE: Draft Envtronment.llmpeCI Repon (DEJR) lor the City of Temecula General Plan Upda1e Dear Mr. Hogan, The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the Draft EIA for the CRy of Temecula General Plan Update. We appreciate tho 'opportunity to review and comment on this document In ongoing discuSsions with /he Counly, /he City as been an advocate of developing strategies to addrO$s the Impacts of growth on the regional arter1a1 and freeway system throughout southwest Riverside Co~nty. The City has consfs1ently emphasized the need to plan and Implement a circulation system (regional arterials and freeways) that can accommodate future traffic. AJJ such, the City has challenged the County to develop a perfonnanoe based ciro~lation improvement program to ensure adequate capacity will be prOVided on the artertals and freeways to accommodate growth In the region. The CiIy's Gener¡¡1 Plan does not evaluate freeway capacity or impacls. The proposed General Plan also laoks a performance based inlrastructure Improvement program. Please show uS how the CIty intends to address the freeway and regional arterial Challenges with an adequately funded Infrastructure phasing program. Based upon o~r review of the docum.n~ !he Trensportation Department has the following comments: 11-\ 1. The traffic analysis does .not add.....s trante Impacts to the freeway system. Neither the ExIsting ACT Volumes (Ag~re2.1), nor /he 2025 ADT Volumes (Fl9~re 4-1) indicate any traffio volumes on ei1her 1-15 or 1.215. There. is .no analysis anywhere in the report of impacts to the freeway mainline. The only analysis' of freeway Impacts is limited to Ioæl access Interçhanges. The 11-1 4OBOI.emo. suw. 8"""" Ri....¡do, Colil.... 92501' (9S1)91\-67<O p.O.'" 1090'R1v""", Co,"omIv92\0HQ"" PAX (9.51)95.'.3198 8-59 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR January 31, 20OS Mr, David Hogan, Prinolpal Planner RE: DEIR for CIty of Temecula General Plan Update" Page 2 analysis should be expanded to evaluate and address impacts to the freeway I II- t. system. e,glo:l"\. Land" use assumptions for the unincorporated area of French" Valley are inconsistent with the County's Highway 79 Policy MIa (C 2.7, copy enclosed), which calls for a 9% reduction In residential trip geneJatlon. The plan should be revised to recognize and Implement this trip reduction strategy for the French Valley area. 2. 3. The traffic analysis for the unincorporated portions of the City's plan should alSo be consIstent with the County's poRcy relative to commercial development (LU 23,2, copy enclosed). The policy requires that once 40% of all designated commercial propellies have developed, further oommerclal development must demonstrate a market need, 8$ well 8$ provIde for the full mitigation of traffic Impacts. It is further aSSllmed that the remainder cf the commerclaDy designated properties may need to convert 10 medium density residential. County policies can for a program 10 monitor and Implement such limitation, as should the City's General Plan for the unincorporated ereas. The Draft EtR Summa¡y of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Table 1-1) Indicates that the City will Implement certain procedures and programs to monitor and mitigate impacts to transportation infrastructure, however, there are no policies contained in the General Plan nor In the Draft EIR which would indicate a commitment to implement such procedures and programs. ".~ II-of- II-S' Further. the statement attached to Table 1-1 that mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of Impact Is vague and ambiguous. MItigation measures should be specific and performanC!!-based to link infrastructure improvements to" development Impacts. The Roadway Plan (FIgure 3-3) contains a number of Inconsistencies when compared to the County General Plan Circulation Element (copy enclosed) for the unincorporated areas Included In the Cily's General Plan. II-" ØI. 8-60 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 4. The table further Indicates !hat six interchange locations will operate at LOS F. Additionally, the levels of service reported In Table 1-1 do not coincide with levels of service reported In the traffic study or In other secllons throughout the draft EIR. These Inconsistencies must be reconciled, 5. a, SA 79 (Winchester Road) in Ihe City's Roadway Plan is designated as an 8~ane Urban Arterial within the City, and as as-lane Prlnolpal Arteria/In Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR JanUaJy31,2006 Mr. David Hogan, PrinCipal Planner RE: DEIR for CIty of Temecula General Plan Update Page 3 the County Area. The County ClJrrently has an MOU with CaHrans and the City of Murrieta (copy enclosed), which defines future access, right of way and Imprpvements lor SR 79 between Hunter Road and Domenlgoni Parkway. The MOU calls for a 184' rlw from Hunter Road 10 Keller Road, and a 220' rlw from Keller Road to the Oomengoni Parkway. Both typical cross sections call for 6-I8Oe Improvements thai could be expanded to accommodate B-lanes within the designated right 01 way. The City's plan should be revised to be consistent with this MOU. ' b. The City plan has upgraded th. doaignetion of Ann Road to a e-lane Principal Arterial as the planned roadway approaches the new planned inlert:hange on 1-15 southerly of SR 79 South. We agree with this revision and commend the City lor this cfrCIJlation netWcri( enhancement. However, the City plan designates ArrzA Road In the unincorporated area as a 2- lane Rural Highway, while the County deslgnalas Anza Road as a 4-1ane Major Highway, The remainder of the City pot'tJon carnes a sImIlar 4-lane Major Arterial designation. Anza Road, in combination with or as an aJtemative to Butterfield Stag. Road, could lunctlon as the "Eastem Bypass" which has been the topic of much diScussion between the City and the County. The traffIC analysis assumes that the 2~ane Rural Highway has a capacity of 20,000 vehlcl.. per day. Our analysis and experience with such 2-I8Oe rurel roadways Indicates that thiS Is an overly optimIstic estimate 01 capacity, which is more In the range 01 13,000 vehIcles per day. More over, the 2025 forecast traffic volumes on the northerly reach 01 Anza Road indicate. daily traffic volumes approaching ne8l1y 30,000 vehicles per day. By either standard, the forecast volumes clearly exceed 2~ane capacity. It Is our reoommendetlon 1hat the City adopt a designation that more closely reflects tho County 4-laO6 Major Highway desIgnation. C. Rancho Car~ornia Road In the City Roadway Plan is also designated as 2. lane Rural HIghway. The County designates this tacillty as a Mountain Arterial (110' rlw), which has a nu/11ber 01 opUOnal cross sectIons ranging from two to three to four-lanes, depending upon traffio demand and locàl conditions. At present the road is already 3-lanes, which Includes a centel left turn lane. It Is our recommendatlcn that the City develop a standard to match 'he County's Mountain Arterial designation. 6. tH.... tOtJr. n~b ,,-~ c. The traIflo sttJdy utiliZes the ICU methodology to calculate level 01 selVice ,and I Indicates, on page 2-5, that the ICU values are calcl,Jlated on the basis of Ideal operating conditions, while, suggesting that physical constraints may, II -, prevent ideal conditions from oocurring. The use 01 the ICU methodology t? 861 CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR January 31, 2005 Mr. DavId Hogan, Pl1ncipal Planner RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 4 . calculate level of service is Inconsistent with current transportAtion Industry siandards for traffle impact analysIs and the Cl1y's own guidelines for the praparation of traffic impact studies, The County of Riverside reguires Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies to assess the level of service measurement, We beneve that the use 01 the ICU method produces unreallslloaJly optimistic results at severalloca1ions. For &xaI1l>Ie, the study repode an existing LOS C at the 1-1S NIB ramp$! Winchester Road Intersection. The HCM method for this Same location indlcales LOS E, which Is more consistent with actual observed operatIOns at this intersection. Similarly, the Winchester RoadlMargarfta Road intersoction Is reported 10 operate' at LOS D fo; the existing PM peak hour. The HCMmethod indicates LOS F, again more consistent with actual observed operation. As such. we belIeve that the ICU method has consistently understated traffic impacts for both existing conditions and future year forecasts. In addition, the Draft EIR is internally Inconsistent with respect to lhe methodology used to determIne traffic impacts, as the Noise and Air Quality sections 0/ the Draft EIR have used lhe HCM method and report Cf/flerenl level. of service for the same intersections. We recommend that the level of servIce calculations be revised 10 conslstenUy utilize the HCM melhod throughoulthe document. 7. The traffic analysis only addresses impacts within the City boundaries. while other elemente such as Noise end Air Quality consider the entire Planning Area, Including unincorporated areas adjacent 10 the Cily. Omltling the analysis of lraffle impacts for the unincorporated areas Is inconsistent with the remainder of the draft General Plan. The traffic study needs to be revised and expanded 10 address the whole Planning Area. The baselIne data used 10 establIsh existing conditions Is very outdated I (200012002). Genarally bas, elíne data should be no mom than one year old. . The baseline dala needs 10 be updated to reflect currenl traffic volumes. B. 9. The traffic study forecasts lu!ure vOlume. only to the year 2025. It is typical when analyzing General Plan Impacts to evaluate build' out of the General Plan. While the City, may assume that the entire City area wiil be bulldout by 202S, Ihat Is not a raa~onable assumption fOr the surrouMing area. We recommend that the analysis be revised aM expanded to Include a bulldout scenario.' , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-62 11-1 c~. u-ca II.~ 11-10 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR January 31, 2005 Mr. Davtd Hagan, Principal Planner RE: DEJR for CIIy 01 Temecula General Plan Update Page 5 10. The llalìtc study, page 1-1. Indicates that the traffic 10recasts for the analysis were derived lrom the Cily 01 Temecula TraffiO Model. Wa would like to verity Ihat this model Is consistent wllh the County's RCIP traffic model, particularly with respect to land use and network assumptions for the adjacent County unIncorporated areas, as the future year forecasts do not appear to match with lorecasts obtained lrom the RCIP model. For example, the future year peak hour volumes at the Winchester RoadIMunieta Hot Springs' Road Intersection are very low compared to forecasts which have .used the RCIP model a. a basis. Specifically, the nonhbound left turn movement Is shown to be 0 and the eastbound left tum is shown as 100 vehicles, while recent count data Indicates current volumes 01 187 and 315, respectively. We can see no logical explanation StJCh a drastic reduction in tumlng movements for future year scenarios. An RCIP model output has projected slgniffcanllncreases in volume for future years. We recommend that the traffic analysis be reviewed for consistency with the . RCIP model. We are prepared to work with the City to address these issues and reach a mutual understanding of the traffic Impacts sSsociatedwith the CIty's new General Plan, along with the CIty's approach to policies and programs which the CIIy plans to implemernln ordefto mitigate traffic impacts. Please feel Iree to contact Ed Studer, Administrative Manager, at (951) 955-6767 should you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments further. Sincerely, £:ohnq~ Director of Transpoitation GAJ:ES:es Enclosures 00: : Supervisor Jeff Stone, Third District Tony Carstens, TLMA Dhector Greg Neal, Agency Program Administrator II-' \ 11-11. 8.63 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR I'œ Highway 79 Policy Area D Area Plan Boundary ~"'~=~O' '-"".",-"",W,' ",.."',.."., """'-"»".'" """"--"',.",..."" " ,""", """"""""""-"""" ".".."""_...,.....-"".,,. ..."'.-".""'........".....- w'", ..." --..."",.."..", """.""'."""""..,.,.". "",_.", """"'."."'" ""M_,..""".."..."",",.. '-.'" '--"'~""-- " '" .""."""..,_...",_.."-,,..... """"."""'."'.- F¡",mC.2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHW A Y 79 POLICY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.64 "". PageC.'O CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses 10 Comments on rhe Draft EIR County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element C2.5 The "mulotin ond iudi,,'" ""ffi, i""",~ or dmlopm",' may b, mitigated Woogh the P'Ymont of ..no", '-<, mi,;g,tioo roo. su<h "County Oevelopm"" I"""" Foc" Rood ond Bridge B""til Di~ri"'F..'.ond T"""""",iooUnif=Miti.eriooFoc"oth, oxlcDt that th", p'ognun' pmvido fuDdÙtg "" th, improv,,"on' of fadliti..impa<tedbydmlopment. C2.' A=I_th,oo","""ionor"""'P"rta'ioDiD",,,ltuottnciDth, High"", 79 PoHoy Atu (pi"", C-2). Th, Conoly oilian "'Iuino that oil now devclopmonl pmj""" d_-to """"'" _tion infrt>stntctnre cop""ity to _nun"""', th, ,dded ""ffi, growth. The Cotntly ..,11 ro",woat, with dties odj"'n' to th, potioy orea to "",,10m" tb<u'"hle ",vonDe flow Df e""ting funding pID"""",, thu, n=ring thal_rion infu,tructw< i, iD pl""whon "oded. C2.' ",..bti,h a pmgmn 10 <educe ovomll trip gen"ation in the Highway 79 Potioy A=o (Fig= C-2) by =ting, trip "'P on ",id,nri,' denlopmonl within thi, poHoy .". whkh wonld r..ult in 0,,1 "d""iDn in Dvomll trip .o"rntion of70.ooo vehi,l, trip p" day nom thot wbi,h would be no,;,i..ted nom the O,n",,] P'on Lnnd U""'-,ign.tio","=',]y,,oommended. Th'poti,ywoD'd .on,...11y reqnino.n DOW ",id'Dri"" d"e'opmen" pmposa" within th, Highway 79 PDtioy Mea to """'" trip ."",tion pmponiona1ly. ""'r<qnire"'" ",identi"" proj"'" d'm""""" ""QUn" "m'p","'tion io"",""""'" æp.cily to 'ocommod"', th,.- growth. Chapt.r 4 8.65 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PlAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR m R"""",..., (FARJm- by..""'"""""""""""'" "-by," """"""'""""e Ioo/","_F""",""',. """""'.60.000- b"'dn, (20,000 """'" ""'P"""'! "",2O,ooo"""""""pwœI"", FAR'H' Page LU-58 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE County of Riverside General Plan land Use Elemen! C,mm=wl R'/Dil (CR) - Th, Comm",Üù Rot~1 ","d a"~ d";gnanon ,lIow, rm the dmloponent oroomm",;,1 "toil usos", ndghbochood, wmmunity ond "gin.,'¡ Iml. '" well '" rnrpcof",ionw om" ond touri~-<>ri",1<d oomm,,"'" u"",. Comm",iol Re"n u","will bepemùtt<d b=don their oomp,,'bnitywith """,onding lond =', ",d bosed on Iboomount nr Cnmmer,iol Re"n aere",e o/reody developed witlUn County unine"",nnted "mto",. The omounl ofl",d deslgno"d roc Cnmmer"ol Rolon development wllhintbo Cmmty" lond = pi.. ",,"", thaI omount whieh is ",tieipo"dto be neoo""" to """ Ibe County's populotinn" bu;ld out. Thi, ove""pply will onsure lbo/flexibility is pre"",ed in ,ito "Ie"ion nppo_ties rorfuture retail dmlopmentwitbinlbeCnunty. Floora"a'atlus""'&eft-omO.2100.3S. (In md" to more o"'""tolypr""", the "tu'¡potentiol rmre"n development Mthm the Cnnnty uninoulpOr"ed ""OS, ond the "amo and ","ronmen,,1 imp"" that would =ult ftom it, the ",",neoJ bund OUI proje"inns rOc the GenerelPJm¡ EIRos,unted tbat40%orthe area "",ignat<X! Commoreial Rotan mighlultimatolydevelop oseo"",",,"ol uses. ltw"furtherossumedthattlte cernaini", 60% orlb, a"" desigtU>tedCR wnuld Iik,ly develop " residentiw use, Mtrun tIte Medium Density Residential range.) Co""",~iol Tou",' (Cl) - The Commerciol Tourist land use design'"on ,lIows roc tourist-rel"edoomm","t",os ,neh '" hotel,. golfoou"es,ceo...."on, and om",em",' "'ilities. Cnmm",ial Tourist use, will be pemtiUed bosed on Ibei, oompatibUity willi =roundi.g I",d use,. Floor area noti.. range ftom 0.2 to 0.35. Comm"dol Office (CO) - The Comm",ial Omoe I",d ",e designation "'ows roc a ,..riety of office n..,. meludingfinan,'al institutions, lego] ","vices, in"""",, ,em",. and nib", offioe and _ort "",ioe,. Commercial Office ......, will be po""itt<d ba,ed on Ibei' ou'"P'tibility Mlb suttnunding land uses. flooc area mtins range ft-om 0.35 to 1.0. Poliei.., The following policies ,",ply to oomm"".lIy designated !"oportics witlUn the Community Development tkneml F"," Foundanoo Componant, " furth" depieredontlte a"aplon land uso m'ps. 1023.1 Aœommodatetbedevelopmentofoomm",ialnse,in=", oppropriately designated by tIte Gen,ntl Plan and ..... plan land use maps. (AI 2, 6) Community Desion W 23.2 Oneo 40"10 of the a"" deslgn"ed Comrnerci," Retoil w"wn any Areo Plan is bn/II out, commerei," retail development ,",plieOlionslbat are omposed within that Aces Plan will only be consid,,<X! fm appmval bosed on demonstrnted market need. as well "" demonstrated ,bility to "enmmodale Ibe traffie imO"~ the devetopman! will geoernle. (All) W 23.3 Silo building' ,"ong sidewallŒ. ped"trian ""'. and bioyoie conte, and inolude am",ities IbOl encourage pedostri", o,"vity. (AI 3) Chap'" 3 CITY OF TEMECULA 8-66 CITY Of TEMECULA 8-67 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR " ~ , ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ i i 11 ~ 0 8 0 0 SuBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1\()10\~ FROM: TLMA. Transportation Oept. SUBMITTAL DATE: June 7,2004 SUBJECT: State Route 79 MOU with Caltrans ~ " [¡ ~ § ~ ð RECOMMENDED MOTION: APPROVAL of Memorandum of Understanding with Caitrans for State Route 79 North (Winchester Road) BACKGROUND: The Transportation Department has been involved in on going discussions with Caitrans relative to access and right of way for State Route 79 in the French Vaitey Area. These discussions have iead to a general agreement relative to the ultimate right of w~y configuration ~nd access control along the route. Caltrans previously entered into a similar agreement with the City of Temecula regarding the portion 01 Route 79 within the City from /-1510 Hunter Road. The subject MOV picks up the route at Hunter Road and continues through the French Valley Area to the intersection with the Domenigoni Parkway. The MOV describes the uitimate right of way for the route which is planned to be 184' from Hunter Road northerly to Keller Road. Between Keller Road and Scott Road the ultimate' right of way is planned to transition to a 220' right of way and remain at this width all the way to Domenigoni Parkway. This width is consitent with current planning for the State Route 79 realignment, which is under study at present to the north through the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. The MOV also describes the ultimate access configuration for the route, with access generally limited to minimum half-mile intervals. Some existing access points are planned to be eliminated in the uitimate configuration, as development Occurs in the area. FO.M APPROVED COUNTY tOUNSEL JUN 0 3 2004 "¿" X)..Q. AS"ST", COUNTY COUNSEL EDS;jas ~...- :;:;? dt~ Gee . Johnson/F Director of Transportation (Continued On Attached Page, MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion of Supervisor Venable, seconded by Supervisor Buster and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above matter is approved as recommended, Ayes: Noes: Absent: g g. Date: ~ xc; ! j :r Æ Prevo Agn, Ref. Buster, Tavagiione, Venable, Wilson and Ashley None None Ju e 15.2004 T nsp., Caltrans, Co.Co" HR. """p (.""""03) ""L"'O'.""",.o,,",.,....,,~- 3 18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-68 Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR 'The Honorable Board of Supervisors RE: State Roule 79 MOU with Cattrans May 28, 2004 Page 2 of 2 New access points are planned and several existing access points will be modijied to improve geometries and sight distance; in some cases access will be restricted to right in-right-out only. All planned access points are for public street connections. The MOU prohibits any private driveway connections to tha highway. During the time period that this MOU was under development, the City of Murrieta has annexed a portion of this segment of the route and is now a party to the MOU. The MOU has been e.xecuted by both Ca~rans and the City of Murrieta, The Department recommends the the Board of Supervisors approve the three party MOU to aide us in the review of development proposals adjacent to the highway and provide consistency with respect to access and right of way requirements among the jurisdictions involved with this important artery. CITY OF TEMECUlA B-69 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERALPLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Memorandum of Understanding 08-Riv- 79-PM R6.0/15.8 Hunter Road to Domenigoni Parkway City of Murrieta County of Riverside State of California, Department of Transportation May 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8-70 CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING STATE ROUTE 79, HUNTER RÒAD TO DOMENIGONI PARKWAY This Memorandum of Understanding (MOil) is between the State of California, Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department); the City of Murrieta (hereinafter City); and the Counly of Riverside (hereinafter County). This MOU constitutes a guide to the respective obligations, intentions . and policies of the Cily, County and Department to follow in reviewing, approving and conditioning new development along State Route 79 between Hunt... Road and Domenigoni Parkway. This MOU addresses the existing facility and acknowledges planning efforts for the ultimate construction of State Roule 79 to a 6-lane controlled access expressway by the City, County and Department This MOU does not authorize funding for project effort, nor is it a legally binding contract, but is designed to provide pertinent criteria upon which development review decisions may be based- Development review criteria: 1 UDIlrade of Existing State Route 79 to the Ultimate ConceDt Facility The City, County and Department concur with the ultimate concept facility requirements stipulated in the approved Transportation Concept Report for State Route 79 that designates State Rol1te 79 as a 6-lane divided expressway with partial èontrol of access. The alignment . will generally follow the existing centerline; however. the ultimate facility should be evaluated for a potential new alignment southerly of Keller Road. Existing and future access locations are depicted in Exhibits A and B. II Interim Imoroy.,.en, Proiects Interim improvements to the facility include widening of the facility from two to four lanes aud a two-way left turn lane, and the signalization and widening of local street intersections. Additional spot improvements are anticipated as traffic demand increases. (Exhibits A, B and C). ID. Local Jurisdiction 'a Plana for Existing Alignment of Stare Route 79 The City and County agree to preserve right-of-way along the existing alignment for an ultimate 6-lane expressway: three Imvellanes in each direction. The City and County shall hereafter protect right-of-way for 56.12 meters (184-feet) from Hunter Road 10 Keller Road, per Exlribit D. and 67.2 meters (220-feet) from Keller Road to Domenìgoni Parkway, per Exhibit E, for the 6-lane expressway through development review, and condition development through their land use planning and permit process. CITY OF TEMECUlA 8-71 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Iv. Inlmleveromeotal Re,,¡ewlNational Environmental Protection Acl (JaYNE? Ai/Permits The City and County will actively participate in the project notification process and wiIJ submit new development plans to the Department. The Department will evaluate the impact on, and the mitigation of impacts to state transportation facilities. The Department will ensure that impacts to inlTastructure under its jurisdiction are fully disclosed and that reasonable mitigation is recommended and implemented. v. lmorovements and Acce.J.f Control-Existin" State Route 79 The City and County agree to limit access to State Route 79 in accordance with the Department engineering standards. Any proposed or reuse driveway access will be restricted and any proposed street or local road intersections will be subject to negotiation with the Department (See Exhibit A). VI. lnlentions The following criteria and related intentions have heen identified and agreed upon hy all parties: . The Department, City and County will jointly not approve new access along State Route 19 within the limits of this MOU where access can be gained from a local road. . All existing private driveway access will be eliminated. In the interim, where access driveways cannot he eliminated, due to a lack of existing alternate parcel access, access must be combined to serve multiple. properties, wherever possible, and shall be restricted to rlgbt- turn in and rigbt-turn out onLy. Raised medians, acceleration and deceleration transition lanes will be utilized where appropriate. Implementation of these control measures will be determined on a case-by-case basis. . The City and County will condition developers for dedication of the right-of-way widths (as addressed in Section III above) wi.thin their jurisdictions as adjacent parcels develop along this route segment. . Negntiations will continue between the Department, the County, and the City for the reconstruction and realignment of interim improvements to the slate facility. . Cooperative agreements may be required in the future to accommodate improvement projects unknown or unforeseen at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.72 Responses to Comments on the Orah fiR TIús MOU maybe niOdified at any time bylbe agreenæm oflbeparties hereIo, Attaclunents (Exhibits A, B, C, D, E) ~ ()/i.4l /f1I1úA// ANNE MAYER, Dis~Direclor Department of Transportation District 8 Mayor f\l\"~) Cl Yi" \J ".."" C,;hS'(;)"'i'. ROY WILSON, Chairman Board of Supervisors County of Riverside CITY OF TEMECULA 8.73 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ",m mZ Z< ~ð rZ ~s: I'm ZZ c> ~~ ñið 0 "i ;0 ~ 0 ~ ffi ò b' 3 3 ~ " 0 ~ g. ~ ~ ~ ITEM NAME 1 Hunter Rd./Borel Rd. 2 La Alba! Airport Rd. 3 Auld Rd. 4 Dirt Road Drive' 5 Bn s Rd. Old Benton Rd. 6 Benlon Rd.lFuture Clinton Keith Rd. 7 Din Road Drivewa 8 Thompson ReI.lLeon Rd. .'1: 9 AI rave Rd. .. to Future Jean Nicholas Rd.lSkyvlew ReI. 11 FuturePou Rd. . 12 Pourro Rd. 13 Abella SUPou Rd. North 14 Dirt Road Drivewa ) 15 Dirt Road (Drivewa 16 Keller Rd. 1.7 Dirt Road Drivewa ) 18 Dirt Road {Drivewa 19 Coifax Ln. Exls"n dedication' 20 Seo" Rd./Washin ton Rd. 21 Did Scotl Rd. - -' 22 Ga ani Rd.lNorth Viii age Loop-South SP310 23 24 25 26 2i 26 29 30 3T ,URRENT AND FUTURE ACCESS POINTS TO SR.79 BY TYPES AND LOCATIONS PM KP TYPE EXISTING LOCATION FUTURE R 6,004 R 9.662 Intsrsectlon 4-L R & L \I access, 4-Le, R 6,457 R 10,392 Intersection 4-L R & L 01\ access, 4-L M6,938 M11,165 ,lntsO!eCtion 3--le R aI-Fuliaccess.4-L' M 7,271 . M 11.702 Drivew :>-Le L Inate' M 7,507 M 12.081 Intersection 3-La L Eliminate M 7.63( M 12.279 I"'"",ection 3-Le R Signal-Full access. 4-Le, R 7.822 R 12.589 Drivewa 3-L L Eliminate' R 8.444 R 13.589 Intersection 5--L R & L R8.910 R 14.339 InterSection 3-Le R R 9.546 R 15.363 Intersèction N/A NIA R 9.889 R 15.931 Intersection NIA NlA R10,172 R16.370 Ictersection 4-Le9 R&L R 10,399 R 16.736 Intersection 3-Le R R10,619 R17.099 Drivewa 3-Le L '. RIO. 744 R 17.299 Dnvewa 3--le R R 10,942 R 17.609 Inlersectlon 4-La R & L RI'.600' R18,669 Driveway3-Leg R R 11.729 R 18.876 Driyewa 3-Lag R ....,.Rl1,983. R19.2M Internection N/A R&L R 12.244 R 19,704 4-L' R & L R12.495 R20.1W ,,"Le R R13.123' R2t.119 4-La ".R&L R 13.297 R 21.399 3-La L R13,604 R21.894 '3-La . .R R14.137 R22,751 4-Le'R&L R 14.654 R 23.S83 3- R R 14.845 . R 23:8913-Le L R 15,032 'R24.191 3-Le L. R15.150 'R24.381 4-Le R&L R15,640 --R25.169 3-Le R R15.88.."--R25,569 3-L... R ~ Loop-North ¡SP.310j SP3221. .INe' rtRd. NOTE:Existing access points confirmed in field,.5124/2003. ~I ~I P\ ~ --- ----" ...... ..." 4-1 ~h'ou~ 4-L., 4-Leg ;¡:¡:;- "" ;¡; roaches EXHIBIT A Revised 6/2412003 Responses to Comments on rhe Draft fiR """ .. \I .LIIIIHX3 @ ~ ;;; . :I: W.,; II. ~ - o. Z ~ 0 - G ~ ..; .. a if I I ~ 1-- I ~ I !I! I § 12 I I I *@I * * 9-. ~I~ :5 I J)j ~I ~. "I ... § ~ CITY OF TEMECUlA '" .. 18>~ a.. 1:;:: z~ O~ þo '" ÞO.. C '" II. o. . . . ......@ @~ f ~ ~ ~ . <> :; ;;: x " ... o. UYMIAIIiO aNY 80YOII OI1.AcI Cia80clOl/' @) Il I.LßOII au ~8 @) - m a n III: ~ ~ .. o. III: " 0 ; ~ I .. II iE '" ~ a - III: ~ Z ,..; 0 ~ ¡: .. U 0:: :. ~ ~ ~ .. :': Z '" 0 " U o. v§ i; 110- ~ 0 ~ ~ '" ~ ~ o~ ~ I ~ 'o. 'o. I' 0 @o~ O::@.:; = I ~o ~::: ~::' I';; ~ : ," .. .. if ~ @;; foð ": ," .... :;; ~\o"o o' ~;;: : ð'¡'\ ~-.(' :II o~", ~o .. ,0\0'- cÞ-' @ Itlt @): N 0 '" 0111: ~ 0 ;: Z n C -: ~ ~ 0 " z o. ~ ~ ;; I ~ I'" I ~ ~~I . ,.: I - .~ .. I 0 ~ ¡; ~ 1 :.;, @:i;1 ~ Œ 0--1 f" ~ ; I... ;; '" I ~ ~ iE I e ~ '" @ ~ /~ . 8-75 I ~ ~ I '" ~ d~ I - ~ I; :: I "I ~ ! ~ ~ 0- '" @e" '¡o ~ :¡: I... ~ I ~ ~ I:¡ : 15 ~ I'" n I ~ ; I~ o. 1 ~ ( I:", 0- 1 >0- o~ I ;~@': I !II ~ 0; III! J ... @~ e ~ a ;': 0 I: '" '" II ~ "õ > ~ C ill III: ": . CD m "" <r C iE 1 ~! ....0-'" I ::¡ ~,.. I iJ ~ ----... :;¡ Q! NO]' ]ynlnjl I iiI ¡P ;;1 m ~I !!I ¡¡¡ § ë ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR = Inti 0.801101111 aNY ÐNIUIX!iII III ;u,Y.18 ! 0' '~¡.~s 01 1IY1nJION3dij3d 03NOllY3ij 38 0111* * '1S Y1138'f ONY AOij~11Od 3tllUnJ 01 03NO1l'3If 38 01 * * 'O31YN,nI13 38 01 * 'SJNIOd SS3JJY 03SOdO11d (Ny ~NIJSIX3 03^OIIddY JO SNOI1Y~01 ~ ION3~: ~ @ ~ i! ~ z ~ c ..; := " = ~ : ~ I':", la 13' I~§ I § .. l .; ¡; i 0 ;;; ~ " .. m N @) ~ \ ~ i g !: ~ .. .'> :: ~ @ ~ø ~o ~:'; i~ @Ji ~ -I. .... '" - .. è::: h g ; E@.L; @::. 3:= è~Q: "; ~ II: ::: 'x" II: ::' w.. ~ ~ ¡¡J " " .. 'C", .. I ~ f ~ I :: r -= I ¡; ¡!;'~ ~. I ,!~@;~ I ~8 ;; ~ I!~ w ~ @~ ~ E " .. ~ " ~ ~ ø n .~. " "ó ~ ill ~ \ : s ~ ... .. ~ '. I 1'\ I t . Joo" I 1>;;; 0 .'" I ::¡: 10: ;;¡ ~---- * .~Ñ ¡!; *~ o~ '<031 3.n¡;;:;J ~ è" I;:; Q N I" ... I" 11:; iil ..0 e.;:::I~.~ ~I .. MNlz a- .. ....~... N.:;. .. ~ ~I .. ~lv-5; ~ >,.. ~ I:! II: . :1 : ~ .; ~ I "0," ~ (íñ) ~ '> ENVIRDNMENTAllMPACT REPDRT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.76 t;~ '... . CITY OF TEMECUlA ~ ... § -- ~ - œ ~ ;s .~ r. 8-77 ; : i 0 0 .i~ h".. ~U :~i =~! ¡;¡¡¡~ ~ a 0 If Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR t) ! '" 5 ~ ~ - "'~ :c t) 11 1.1. <! t) ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR ~ ~ "'¡" _. ~ i ~ .~ w. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE rs s 2 5 e" ! =' ~ ~ e;; f ;¡ ~ ¡: ~ e"- ;~ . ":¡ f 8.78 a .. ~ .¡;.. ::; "..z ~~ ~ E~~ Iõ§;: : '" f .. I !; § w æ ð ~ = ... i < \J f CITY OF TEMECULA ! . ~ CITY Of TEMECUlA ~ ... ~--- ii: § 2 at ~. ;~ . ¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ; ---- i ----- ~ ::~ - ~o:- ~.;~ 1:/ ~ ' . ~ ; ~ i 0 ... :H ~!i :~e ==!:! ;=~ ~. :i . 0 C ~ 8-79 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR ã ~ ~ ¡ §~ 1:1 ~ II ~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 11. George A. Johnsonr Director of Transportation, County of Riverside, Transportation Department. January 31, 2005. Response 11-1 The comment is correct that the City's General Plan does not address freeway capacity or impacts. The commentor requests that the City analyze impacts to the freeway. The General Plan establishes a policy framework to guide City land use, circulation, economic development, and related decisions through the year 2025. No new development projects are specifically proposed by the Draft General Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan does not provide for significantly increased planned land use intensities that would negatively impact freeway capacity within the Draft General Plan. As stated on pages 5.13-1 of the Draft EIR: "Temecula's circulation network includes freeways, principal arterials, and a well-developed local road system. Interstate 15 (1-15) bisects the western portion of the Planning Area and provides connections to other regional freeways in Riverside County, San Diego County, San Bernardino County, and beyond. Interstate 215 (1-215), located north of the Planning Area, provides direct access to the communities of Moreno Valley and Riverside." These freeways are beyond the City's jurisdiction. The City recognizes the need to address regional impacts to the freeway network. As a result, the City is participating in an inter- agency process to address and mitigate impacts to local freeways. In addition, the traffic analysis conducted for the Draft EIR evaluates the impact of General Plan land uses upon the freeway through analysis of 15 freeway ramps located within the City, and the General Pian Circulation Element includes the following goal and policies regarding regional traffic impacts: Goal 2 A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community. Policy 2.1 Actively pursue the construction of system improvements outside the City's jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, the Pechanga Band, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve anticipated right-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for needed interchange and regional arterial improvements. Policy 2.3 Actively pursue improvements to current freeway interchanges within the City and construction of new overpasses as required to achieve performance standards. Implementation Program C-10 Work with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Caltrans, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and other regional agencies to coordinate local street improvements with major transportation system improvement projects such as additional access to 1-15 and construction of a bypass route around Temecula. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-80 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR It is the practice of the City of Temecula to apply conditions of approval on projects to construct and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic improvements associated with the proposed project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. As applicable, individual development projects will be required to determine a project-specific impact on freeway facilities and identify specific mitigation measures to reduce such impact as part of the City's standard review process. Project-by-project review, combined with implementation of General Plan policies and programs, will ensure a less than significant impact to freeway facilities. No further analysis is required. Response 11-2 Please refer to Response 11-1. Response 11-3 The County's Highway 79 Policy Area assumptions and procedures differ substantially from the City's purpose and objectives in adopting the Draft General Plan and specifying planned land uses within the French Valley Future Growth Area. The primary reason that the City of Temecula has elected not to incorporate the County's Highway 79 policy into the Temecula General Plan is because the City's land Use and Circulation Elements are internally consistent. This means that land uses and the roadway network serving Temecula have been analyzed under the same assumptions and conditions. The reason the Highway 79 policy was developed for the County General Plan was because the County's land Use and Circulation Elements are substantially inconsistent. As a result, the policy was needed to reduce the disparity between the two elements. The policy is therefore not a necessary component of the City's General Plan. Response 11-4 The County's policy relative to commercial development, as described in the comment, differs substantially from the City's purpose and objectives in adopting the Draft General Plan and specifying planned land uses within the French Valley Future Growth Area. Therefore, the City has purposefully chosen to assign different land use designations within unincorporated areas of the Planning Area than current County plans provide. Furthermore, the City has chosen not to implement the County's policies relative to commercial development, as these are inconsistent with overall City objectives for outlying areas specified throughout the Draft General Plan. Additionally, the City of Temecula has elected not to require a monitoring system for commercial development because the City has created land Use and Circulation Elements that are consistent with one another. As stated in Response to Comment 11-3, the City's systems have been developed to balance each other. The reason the Highway 79 policy was developed for the County General Plan was because the County's land Use and Circulation Elements are substantially inconsistent. As a result, the policy was needed to reduce the disparity between the two elements. The policy is therefore not a necessary component of the City's General Plan. CITY OF TEMECULA 8.81 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Orah fiR Response 11-5 The Draft General Plan Implementation Programs represent commitments of the City to implement policies stated throughout the General Plan. Many of the Draft Implementation Programs are required as mitigation within the EIR and further stress the City's commitment to implement the goals, policies, and plans described in the Draft General Plan. As stated in the Draft EIR on pages 5.13-18 and 1-14, long-range implementation of the General Plan will create new deficiencies at six freeway ramps. Both of these conclusions are consistent with Table 4-2, Peak Hour Ramp Volumes - 2025 on page 4-6 of the December 14, 2004 Circulation Element Traffic Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Typographical errors on pages 5.13-18 and 1-14 of the Final EIR have been revised to read as follows: Winchester Road northbound off-ramp - LOS F at A P.M. peak hour In response to the last paragraph of this comment, the following sentence has been added to the paragraph before Table 1-1 on page 1-7 of the Final EIR. Table 1-1 summarizes the environmental effects associated with the adoption and long-term implementation of the General Plan, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize impact, and the level of impact following mitigation. The mitigation measures will be implemented through various CitY departments or other responsible parties and the CitY will monitor and report on each particular mitigation measure upon certification of the General Plan .E!R. Given the programmatic nature of the EIR and the long-term time frame for the General Plan, the policy statements, Implementation Program, and mitigation measures serve as effective and appropriate means of addressing impacts. In particular, please refer to implementation measures C- 3, C-4, and C-6. Response 11-6a This comment requests changes to the Roadway Plan in the Draft General Plan Circulation Element and does not raise any environmental issue associated with the Draft EIR. The recommended change will be incorporated into the final Circulation Element. Any concerns regarding the Draft Roadway Plan map should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearing scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan. Response 11-Gb This comment addresses designation of portions of Anza Road on the Roadway Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the Draft General Plan. It does not raise any specific environmental issue related to the Draft EIR. The City concurs that the current designation of Anza Road within the unincorporated portions of the Planning Area as a two-lane Rural Highway may be inadequate to handle the future volumes anticipated for that roadway without further clarification. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-82 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR The City will clarify the ultimate function of this roadway segment as a segment of the "Eastern Bypass" and may take steps in the future either to reclassify the roadway as a four-lane Secondary Arterial or to clarify that the Rural Highway designation is an interim designation for the roadway, specifying that at least an 88-foot right-of-way must be provided to enable a future redesignation of the roadway as a segment of the bypass. The Rural Highway designation allows for a right-of-way of 88 to 150 feet, thereby providing future capacity for additional lanes. Any concerns regarding the Draft Roadway Plan map should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearing scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan. Response 11-6c The City's Rural Highway classification, as described in the Draft Circulation Element and on page 5.13-9 of the Draft EIR, accommodates the County's Mountain Arterial designation. The Rural Highway class allows for a right-of-way of 88 to 150 feet, and while typically the roadway is designed as 2 lanes undivided, it has capacity for additional lanes. Response 11-7 Both ICU and HCM methodologies are industry standards for traffic analyses. The HCM is typically used for existing conditions or for short-range impact analyses. The ICU methodology is used for long-range planning where detailed traffic operations parameters are not known. The traffic report recognizes this and on Page 2-5 states the following: "ICU values are calculated on the assumption of ideal operating conditions. Short roadway sections, which cause vehicle queues to block adjacent intersections or inadequate turn pockets, can prevent ideal conditions from occurring. Examples are Winchester Road on both sides of the 1-1 S Freeway interchange and Rancho California Road on both sides of the freeway interchange." For 2025 conditions, the study does not attempt to speculate on signal timing and phasing or signal progression, etc., and uses the ICU methodology which establishes volume/capacity (V/e) ratios and hence shows how much future capacity is being used at the principal intersections. Reporting the amount of delay (e.g., LOS D versus LOS E is 55 seconds versus 57 seconds) may be understandable to traffic practitioners, but is not useful or understandable in a long-range planning context where capacity is the issue. Response 11-8 The traffic study gives future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the entire Planning Area. The existing peak-hour intersection analysis addresses only those locations identified as principal intersections, as described in the Draft Circulation Element. The number and location of principal intersections will change over time. All are currently located within the existing City limits. As areas are annexed into the City, the principal intersections will be expanded and as noted in the Draft Circulation Element, this will be an administrative action rather than a General Plan Amendment. As part of the General Plan's implementing mechanisms, the principal intersections will be monitored over time, and new intersections added to the list as appropriate. CITY OF TEMECULA 8.83 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on me Draft fiR Response 11-9 Per Public Resources Code §15125, Environmental Setting, the baseline for existing conditions are "the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published." The Notice of Preparation for this EIR was published on June 4, 2003. The existing conditions data for traffic for this EIR was collected during 2002 and are acceptable for use as baseline traffic data. Response 11-10 When analyzing General Plans, it is typical to choose a horizon year for which a formal set of demographic or land use forecasts exists for areas outside the City. The traffic forecasts then are used to evaluate a future scenario in which the City is built out in that horizon year and the land use forecasts outside the City are used as background for that analysis. At the time the traffic study was carried out, demographic projections were available for 2025, and since they were the basis for the countywide RCIP traffic forecasts, they were also used in the General Plan Traffic Study. Use of this data provided consistency with the RCIP and ensured that traffic forecasts were set in a regional context of accepted and documented land use projections for the surrounding area. Response 11-11 The City of Temecula Traffic Model, as described in the traffic model documentation, is consistent with the County's RCiP traffic model. It essentially provides a finer-grained derivative of the RCiP traffic model with the ability to provide more detailed forecasts within the primary area. The forecasts do not match exactly with those from the RCIP model for two reasons. First, the City's model employs a more detailed network and zone system. For example, the RCIP does not include some Circulation Element roadways, and the RCiP's large zone system is adequate for regional level forecasts, but not for detailed intersection level analysis. Second, the land use forecast data for the Draft General Plan, as derived from the Draft land Use Element, are not exactly the same as the RCiP data for the primary area. With respect to the Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs intersection, the diagram in the Draft EIR and traffic report inadvertently gave the wrong location for intersection #31. (It is actually at French Valley Road somewhat to the north.) The Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection with Winchester Road is #30, and the 2025 intersection capacity utilization (ICU) data is summarized on the next page. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA B.B4 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 30. Winoh..t." , Hmi.ta 31. ',.noh ,.n., ' 11°""" 2Q IS". e",) 20" '"po,w C¡ro. IB'" c.,,) .. TOtAL CAPACITY UTIUZATION .'1 1.32 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATfOH -'5 1.25 In this regard, it should be noted that the Draft Circulation Element includes an east/west roadway connection between Winchester Road and French Valley Parkway just south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. At one time, French Valley Parkway was planned to intersect with Winchester Road at a point north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. That is no longer feasible because of development approved by the County, and the intersection between Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs will have inadequate capacity in the future, as can be seen from the ICU. Hence, this new roadway link has been added to allow special circulation/operational plans to be developed to address the problem. The intersection forecasts reflect this, and operational configurations using the two roadways will be studied in detail with the City of Murrieta sometime in the future. The ICU calculations displayed on the next page for the four intersections involved show an example of how this might operate, but the concept has yet to be explored in detail. B.B5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 30. W'noh,"" , !!Un'", :"';': ;¡o co,,- .\..""-,, "., TOTAL CAPACITY ,.,ILlZATION .B4 .93 47. Win,h."" , 'm11,1 2025 Pm""", C",. ¡w¡Pm11o¡ Rdl c." ToTAL CAPACITY <lTILlZATION .54 .,S '1. ".n,' vm,y , "m'ot. 2025 P~pmd Cln. 'w/Pmllol Rd) :.C!. "" .c;- . ¡. . -----' TOTAL CAPACITY !JT1LlZATION .74 .79 40. ",no' VaU,y , Pm11" 2025 P~p"od "n. ¡wlPmllo¡ Rd) .J' Tom CAPACm OTILIZATIOU .1B ," For the Draft General Plan, the important component is the new east-west roadway, which will provide options for solving this problem, which was created when the northerly extension of French Valley Parkway was made infeasible by the development approval noted above. Response 11-12 The comment is noted. The City will continue its efforts to work with the County of Riverside Transportation Department, as stated in Draft General Plan policy statements and Implementation Programs, to coordinate transportation improvements within the Planning Area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-86 - Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR """'OfO~IFnR"'" - NATIVE AMJ:RICAN HJ:RITAGE COMMISSION 81. 0APff0L MALl, ROOM'" SACAAMENTO, CA ..." (816)"""" (916)65'1.(1:\90-'" .....- 11- ~ "1..-1 '~-1. 1'1. -.3 January 31. 2005 Mr. DaVid Hogan Cl!yofTemecuia 43200 But;n... Park Drive Temecuta. CA 92590 Ro: Propooe<l CIty ofTemeoula Gen9!aI Plan Update SCHtl2OD3D61041 LeT"T"Ø. Oø'Mr.Hog¡¡n: lhank you for the opporiunl1y 10 commen1 on tho above-men6oned document The Comml..lon I was ebIe 10 conduc;t a Sacred Land. Fßo s..rch for this proecl. Which klen6fte«l no roco!dud olles within the proeçtarea. Tho _co of- sites, on _the SIICI$d Lando F1Ie or tho Staleor NoIIonaI Historic Register, however, does not preçlude the poos;hHity thai unrecorded - may e>dsI on the property. On March 1 of this yeer.looaI Govemmentswiil be requlrecllocomplywlth Senøte Bill 16 (Chapter ØDIi. 2004 Slalulee), Which requires consultalion wIth_oprfale Native American Iribeo ~ on)' amendment to 0 - Plan or SpocIIIc PIon. The Ben"" Plan Guidelines wID be amended to relleot the new low, whic!llnducles a reqLdremont to contact the Native Americon Herltoge commlsslonforthe"""roprlolatribalcon_. Becausethislowwlilbeimplemonlshortly.weencourage you 10 Initiate the conoul-' - now for the Generol Pion Amendmanl CUITefrtIy under consideration. (To read 0 copyofU1e chaptered low. pleas. go to http.mnfo se. ca.~ov/coi- !!ínl¡¡¡>"'QI,erv?hill numhor=<ob 18&:s..""PREV &hou,...B&,ite=scnl Earty consullatlon with f1IbeS In your.... is the best way to avoid unanticlpoled discoveries onco 0 project Is underway. Enclosed" a Iiot Of Native Americans IndMduafs/Qf¡¡anIZations tho! may I1àvo uniQue IcnowIodgo of cultUral resources In the projeot area. The Comml$$lon male"" no recommendation Of a single indMduai or group over onother. By conlaoling allhosa Iistod, your organization wID be beller ablel<> respond to claims of failure 10 consult with the spprop~ate lribe or group. IfyOll hove nol racoIved 0 --- wilttln two ....,... time. we recommend that you !aIIow-<Jp wII1 elelephone coli 10 make sure that tho infonnation was -- LacI< Of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude tho extstenoe of OrcheOloglcalresourœs. leadoaenoles shOuklconslderavoldance ..definod In _'5370 Ofltte CECA Guidelines when sloRificenl culturel ",""",ceo """id bA .1fede<I- Proutoions should also be Included for oooidenta\1y -~ archaologlcal '""""""'" during conslnldian per CaIifOmie E'nviR>nmen1al Quality Act (CEQA). PublIc Resources Code §15Q64.5 (ij. Health and Safely COde §705D.5; end PubrlC liesou","" Code §5097.96 mondate lite process 10 be fo\1aweclln the even! of an .aciden1e1 dlscovory of any human remains In 0 location _than a dedicated cemetery 8!1d should be Included In aØ envfronmen1al daaJments. If you hava any quesIIonS. please contect me 01(916) 653- 6251. ~~.~ progrem =.{) . -- Co: Stele Ctoa~ngh"" CITY OF TEMECULA 8-87 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR NatIVe American Contacts RlversJtIe County Janumy31,2O05 Cupa Cultural Center (Pala Band) Wllfiam J. contreras, Ard1aeology and CUltural Res. P.O. Box 455 Lulseno Pala ' CA 92059 (700) 742-3784 Pala Band of MIssIOn Indians Robert Smith, Chafrperson P.O. Box 60 pale ' CA 92059 (700! 742-3784 (700 742-1411 Fax LuisenO eupeno Peçhanga Band of Mission Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resource Center P.O. Box 2183 Lu1seno Temecula ' CA 92593 (951) 308-9295 (951) 608-9491 Fax _...,...........y.."".""""'.""- =:r.. ~.\.--=..:~: ='~.:l.r="'~ :"Z=:=.: = ~":"..:=.,:,~ ...... ... ~ ~:.::,~ -== .':, ~=t~~ ~ .. ......,., -- ..........,. "".. .- ENVIRDNMENTAllMPACT REPDRT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.88 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 12. Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission. January 31, 2005. Response 12-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Native American Heritage Commission's comments on the Draft EIR. The comment indicates that although there are no recorded sacred sites within the Project area, the possibility of unrecorded sites within the Planning Area exists. The City acknowledges sensitivity to sacred Native American sites and has addressed this issue with mitigation measures included in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, of this ErR. Response 12-2 The comment is acknowledged. Maintaining a good working relationship with the Pechanga Band is important to the City. As a result, the City initiated early consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians regarding the General Plan Update. The City understands that an agreement with any impacted Native American tribe must be obtained for approval of development proposals that impact tribal lands. The Draft Open Space Element recognizes the requirements of Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, 2004 Statues) and addresses consultation with Native American tribes, and in particular the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, through Policy 2.1 and Implementation Program C-11. In addition, as a result of this consultation process, new Implementation Measure OS-39 will be incorporated into the General Plan as follows: 05-39 Tribal Cultural Resources Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property which involve earth- disturbing activities or which are located in areas with previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources: All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by conducting a site records search, and if feasible, a Phase I walk-over survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources. If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians shall be consulted in the identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements, including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries. During on-site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be on-site to monitor grading operations. In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone, grading in the immediate area shall be immediately halted and the site protected, and the County Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians notified. Agency/Department: Related Policy: Planning, Public Works 6.10 CITY OF TEMECULA 8-89 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Drah fiR Response 12-3 The comment states that the EIR should provide provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction. Per Public Resources Code §15064.5(f), Health Safety Code §7050.5, and Public Resource Code §5097.98, Cultural Resources mitigation measure CR-l on pages 5.5-7 and 5.5-8 of the Final EIR addresses this comment and applicable State laws. This mitigation measure, combined with long-term implementation of policies in the Draft General Plan, will avoid or ensure less than significant impacts to cultural resources. Furthermore, the CEQA process required for individual projects will provide for identification of cultural resources and require appropriate project-specific mitigation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-90 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR BOARD or mUCATlON ""'0 a"." .....~"".~. '_OMo"" Feb",al)' 2, 2005 SUÆRINTeND.,.r . ------¡;;;;;¡¡r~ÀJim.."-.- "'"""'"'" ..,,~._~ Mr Da~d Hogàn PI"nn~g DapaItment CityolTemecula P.O. Box 9033 TemeCUIa. CA.92589-9033 Lerra. 13 SUBJlõCT: Tem""ula General Plan Ucdate - Environmental "mpact Aep,," Tim".""" (¡eneral Plan - Pubi~ Aeview D",ft doled December 2004 Dear Mr. Hogan: Tha Tame,ula Valley Unified School Distr~t ha, ,"viewed the Temeoul. Ganora' PIon Ucdate - Environmentallmpact Report end Temacula General Plan - Public Aay;ow Draft dated December :1004 and has the following commento: 1. Pro"",ed Land Use Pollcv Mao (Figure 3-2) The map indicate, low, m,,"iunt and high density "",identia! development in Old Town with a small open space location (apparen'y mirrorii'lg the proposad Villages ot Old Town Specific Pian). With the development anticipated for that area. the Diotrlct will also nead an elementary sit. to servico those studen",. We haw discussed this 89w,.1 times with City staff and provided wri.on roquests ta tho City on soverai occasions ava' tho past three years, and the City (most rocontly Gary Thomhilil has responded that along with thoso propooed zone changes, there would 00 a deslgnaled publ~ institUtional (blue) area of at loast 100acres cenlnilly in that future 'pec"~ plan area. The map do.. not indicate the blue olea and we roque,1 that itb<> updatod to include it Pleaso edvi.o as to how t may assist in getting this deslgn"tad appropriataly. \?i- \ An elementary sito at Auld and POUIToy Aoads. pre~ous.ly identWied as the Mure Crown VaHey Villag. Eiomentary, Is b<>ing eiintinatod from the Oislr1et's master plan and should bo removed from the land uae map. {See atlaChed map}. 2. School Facilkl.. Stud.", Enrollment (T8I>le 5.12-2) (See a.ached updated enrollmont figur.... of Jartuary 2005) . 3. ScI1ool Facllitie. Mao (Figure 5,12-2) (S.. eoITaclad location of Fro""h Valley Elemeotal)' Schoof) 4. Fulure:TVUSC-SchooIB (Figure 5.12.4) (Adiust the order of the schools openings ta reliecyN6. If C",ok-.Elom""tal)' opening in 2006, after tho 2005 opening. of Quinta Do LaPO; Morgan Hill and Crowne Hili Elemental)' Schools) I 13-1- I 11-1 111-~ 3t"ORm,",~",R,"'/7.m~"".CA"""'.<191.76-2"f 8-91 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR ..... ,0 .s ,CJ) à õ"'- o<tl -5~ Cl)õ "t)o Q).c:: Ii::: 0 "ë: CI) -- :::5 I.t') ... ~g :::::~ §~ g ~'" :::¡ ~ E: ~ ~ ... _./'~ f Ifill . .n~¡ ~ JUh ~ mh J , ! I - , j i f j t II i If iJlui trill I d I ~I hfu' HHf ~ II ¡ ¡~~¡ ~!~b~ mil § h i ] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PIAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUIA 8~92 Schools Environmental Setting Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR PuI,"'5m~...,",R~,,"¡o" , ' The T"",ecula Valley Unified School Di"ric' (TVUSD);serve, the City ofTomecula, p,oviding K.12 educational ..",1"", and m",y special education pr9g"m~ TVUSD ,ervlce bound",i., extend north to Jean Nicholas Road In French Valley, south lathe Riverside County,San Diego County ~ne, ea,t to Vail I.ake, and west to the Temecu'a dty limit TVUSD maintains a full spectrum 01 educational f"mties fro", elementary to adult schoo~.s figure 5.12.2 Ulu,uates the locarlon, 01 school fadJj6.., Tahle 5.12.2 identifies the public t!ducaliona' fadlltle, in tlle City and I~" Ihe current (-) onroilm..;t le'e~ 01 each I.dlity. ' .:1"'°5' ' Tobie 5.12-2 School Facil!ti.. Name 'Dcadon '""'" P~dfic Par' b";~' 3992SH",.;e;ionDrive ,'. 36680.Ç,a;ivRoo'¡' .~. 32400CamlnoS,."Jim", ..,. 3%OON.co;,e"IKeMneÝ~9"d 42940V.."""" ' 33125 Regin.a DriY. ~ 3t530"'5...n.W~ :\2Ò45~amlnaSan'i~. 43799 Sun"" ¥c.oo~ "'ive, 32225 Ma I'\C<' Rodd 41951 MOfa.. Roaii'~' 29915 MI" lama Dó" .,. 42240c..';¡iï~.'" Jl ~SO Browning ~óad 40775 C"",lnn Cam "" Venie 45iis Via ~ COr""'da 30600tA....ri',""'d,.. 42075 Mea<!o,'\'!~,. ' JJ340C,n,,"aPi"'¡r,R'a . -"'-- udent Enroft...nt ..of_. , .0"'",2004.iiii. 747 OJ" '~, '~'7 683 '~.;- .~' "029 '1'1 ~ti' 700 8',)- fi24"M>- ,.. -...- ".:J. 646 ?¥ fi20" ,,~ 63977;1' '9&9 ¡II" ~.--r ~~ " 0 en' 2004 '91 .......uR...9?t n, 7e~ , IODD',!>},- t,277 "'1 . ¡j¡;ò 9....... 'O~ofT,m,,"I,w,b<i"'. 'S"'ook" lo"",d"~s¡f"",~"",",.lhom"""IT<,,;<i"",I.IN",dh",, N"."".~r '. 2004 ~tÄA --~,;¡¡^'-"""" GENE"'","U","," 8-93 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR figure 5.12-2 School facilities ,..." @ '[--'~$_I 0 .M""""""'" 0 """""od (!) """",-"", -.- :,_,"""._"", ----. '",..."11"'""""""",,, -."""""""", .' s ""'ONMr"'A,'M"'<T """'T C""",K~'~"^,, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8.94 Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR P"WcSomc"""dR",¡',,'oo To meet rurure ed"""tional needs, TVU$D prepa'es Five-YeOr Fadiily Construction Pians Future school CohstnJ<:Iioh projeds within the current plan "" summad'ed in Tabl.. 5.12-4. The projected opening date of sdJools may change ", a ,esult of changes in >d,ooi em()lIme¡¡~ levels of new home construction, :ilnd Ihe availability o( State funds (0' school construction/renovation. Table 5.12-4 Future TVUSD Schools ,4J'l"' -I..., j.. :i<,_a: With adoption of S~nat. Bill SO ""d Proposition lA in 1998, school distrlclS that meet certain "'quIre",.." now have the option of adopting aiternative school fees, also known" level 2 Fee, and level 3 Fees (Public Resources Code Seclions 65995.5, 65995.6 and 65995.7). In generat, alternative school fees, which ore cafcul.",d fo' each school dlsmct, apply solely to residentia! conslruclion wi"'in a school di,trict. !n 0,*' to ;"pose aftemative schoo! fees OJ new residential con'trucrion within the Di,"ie~ 1VUSD annually prepares and adopts a School Fadliti.. Needs Anaty,is (SFNA) as r.,:qulred by St.:!te law. Additionally. the City work< with develop"" and TVUSD to designate school fadlity locations when new ","denti,1 ptojec" are proposed.' 1VUSD meets 1M educational need$ of i" sludent population through both pennanent and Interlm laciUti.s. Payment 01 altemativ.. schooi fee, wili be "sed to offset the co,1 to 'fYUSD of providing educalion f",ililies to future silldents. The environmental effoclS of ""panslon, conWu<:tlon;an<lQperátion'of additional ,drool f,djities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new sehoois or expansion 'of e<;sllns I,ciiili... S6 50 sl.1tes that for CEQA purposes, payment of fa.. to tho affected school d~trict ,educes school facility impacts to a less than signifICant revel. Mitigatian Mea~ures No mitigation boyond the payment of ",hool feus is reqUired. -'---- 'Te"""," V"",,>, Uoifœd S"'001 0;<1"". """""",,'m lo"t,d"htJ~~11=wi. N"""""..2,2I")< "¡"iiõ;¡;:;¡,¡~,,;¡¡¡r---- O,"""""""",,,,, . s."., -. '----oii'~ CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 13. Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services, Temecula Valley Unified School District. February 2, 2005. Response 13-1 This comment requests technical changes to the land Use Policy Map in the General Plan and does not raise any environmental issues associated with the General Plan EIR. As part of the public hearing process, these recommended technical changes will be considered by the City for inclusion in the Final General Plan. Response 13-2 As requested in the comment, Table 5.12-2 on page 5.12-5 of the Final EIR has been updated as shown below to reflect the updated enrollment figures provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Table 5.12-2 identifies the public educational facilities in the City and lists the current (;!GfJ4 2005) enrollment levels of each facility. Table 5.12-2 School Facilities Student Enrollment Name Location asof~ lanuarv 2005 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-5 Alamos Elementarv' 38200 Pacific Park Drive 593 Barnett Elementarv 39925 Harveston Drive +47387 French Valiev Elementarv' 36680 Cady Road "AU 03 7 Jackson Elementarv 32400 Camino San Dimas 6&>928 Nicolas Valiev Eiementarv' 39600 N. General Kearney Road 00-1-918 Paloma Elementarv 42940 Via Rami 1h!-9789 Pauba Vaiiev Eiementary 33125 Regina Drive tml884 Rancho Eiementary 31530 La Serena Way ;zgq812 Red Hawk Elementary' 32045 Camino San Jose ih!4642 Reinke Eiementary 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive M<> 1 1 22 Sparkman Elementary 32225 Pio Pico Road 646704 Temecula Eiementary 41951 Moraga Road tml792 Vail Eiementary 29915 Mira Loma Drive g.g773 Vintage Hills Elementarv 42240 Camino Ramo %91 069 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6.8) Beiia Vista Middie' 31650 Browning Road 697 Dav Middle 4077S Camino Camoos Verde ~978 Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado Ala 789 Margarita Middle 30600 Margarita Road +,009982 Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkway +;;Y71,349 Vaii Ranch Middie 33340 Camino Piedra Roio ~952 HIGH SCHOOLS 9.12 Chaparral High 27215 Nicoias Road ~2,882 Great Oak Hieh 32555 Deer Hoiiow Way 1253 Temecula Vaiiev High 31555 Rancho Vista Road ~2,868 Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road A/tt 227 ADULT SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA S-96 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Student Enrollment Name Location asof~ lanua~ 2005 Temecula Aduit School 31350 Rancho Vista Road n/a Table 5.12-2 School Facilities 1. Located within sphere of infiuence. Sourceo Temecula Valiey Uni{;ed School District, 2004. Similar technical changes recommended for Table GM-2 on page GM-16 of the Draft General Plan Growth Management and Public Facilities Element will be considered by the City for inclusion in the Final General Plan. The revisions do not affect the analysis or conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 13-3 As requested within the comment, Figure 5.12-2 on page 5.12-6 of the Final EIR and Figure GM-2 on page GM-17 of the Draft General Plan have been updated to identify the correct location of French Valley Elementary School. Response 13-4 As requested by the comment, Table 5.12-4 on page 5.12-8 of the Final EIR has been updated as shown below to reflect the sequential order of the development of future schools in the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Table 5.12-4 Future TVUSD Schools Name I Estimated ComDletion Date ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS nuinta Do LapolFrench Vaiiev\ 2005 '.'¡elf Creei, ;!006 Morgan Hiii 2005 Crowne Hiii 2005 Wolf Creek 2006 OidTown Bevond 2006 Rorinaugh Ranch Bevond 2006 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Rorioaugh Ranch I Bevond 2006 ~iddle 5ch~~) #8 (In Winchester 1800) Beyond 2006 French Vaiie HIGH SCHOOLS High Schooi #4 (French Valley) I Beyond 2006 Sourceo Temecula Valiey Uni{;ed Schooi District, November, 2004. Similar technical changes recommended for Table GM-3 on page GM-18 of the Draft General Plan Growth Management and Public Facilities Element will be considered by the City for inclusion in the Final General Plan. The revisions do not affect the analysis or conclusions contained in the EIR. CITY OF TEMECULA 8.97 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION Temecul" Band of £uts.n, Mlss"n ",dlans -'---- -~tOllk'.~ 1477' 1m""""" Ji.~¡i;9it ;:i ',i' ~T] ~::~'~~:""'" 1òJ,ph,u,'9ò1J67&2"'" "",951!l6$S'1178 !hii ,~:.:;;~..:;,: }' FEB 072005 ,':, An"'~MM"',." ii.." , Dm_Mao1d .! R.,""II -8.",' M"phy ['Lo_:" - , T"hoISK""'». n~lm.MI,."d" Tnlull"","ro"o, M~kM~r" S..t vi. F..slmil. t. (9511 694-6477 ,.,1t,"'T~=. Chr~"'"L""" February 2,2004 Ms, Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Direclòr CityofT"",edu!a P.O. Box 9033 Tcmc:cula, CA 925g9 LE'\"1U..I~ RE: Comments on City ofTeme.ula Ge.eral Piau DEIR Dear Ms. Ubnoskc, We submit theseoomment, as a federally rccosnizcd Indian Tribc and interested party in this CEQA approval proce.. fOt the City's General PI,"" Additionally, the Tnbe has an interest in th.,. proceedings as a landholder of properties that are directly adjacent to the City's jurisdictional boundary, and which appear to be affected by this proposed a.meml Plan. We rcqùesl dlilt the,e comment' be incorporated inlu the ufficia! record of approval ror the G<nenIJ Pian, 14-\ It i,our undecàtanding thai the proposed Geoero! PlaniDEIR contains a propoacd major anerial alignment alternative which passe' through and near the Tribe's external ~sOIVation boundaties. Thi, alignment is depicted in Figure C-2 on page C-21 oflhc proposed General Plan. and appears to bc proposed as an enticoly new .xit from the l-Jj 10 cormcct with Dee>' flollow Way via traversing Tribal land,. II is our understanding that tbis alignment is just one orthe proposed alternatives to addrcas twlle'concems within the City, and that such a major arterial alignment would be legally required to go though a formal approv.l and permitting proce" with the involvement ofoth... interested agencies and parties, indeding the Pedumga Tribe. wnilc Ihc Tribe i, underst!l11ding and supportive of addressing traffic concerns witilin the City, any aligriment through Tribal lands is subject 10 certain legai requirements. inchtding con,ultation with and agreement by the Tribe, includin£ possible Bureau or Indian Affairs 'involvement. iftriballonds are affected. 14-1. It appears thatthe City i..ware oflhe consult.tion requirement, as Policy C.ll un page (-40 stales thai the City wili work with the pechanga Band on these issees. We wonld I~"3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-98 CITY OF TEMECUlA Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR like to reit=tè the necessily ill obtaining the Tribc', agreement and ep¡n-°val on any sueh proposal. that ,imp,",' our Tribal lands, and look forwan:l to working with you on a governrnenHd-govemment basi. (0 address issues that are of shared eoneern 10 the City and the Trihe.' ~~ Marl< MaeSTro Chainnsn Ce: JetfCotnerchero, Mayor Ron RQberts, Mayor Pro Tern Shawn Nelson, City Manager David Hogan, Principal Planner 114"3 'CIt.Jt' . 8.99 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 14. Mark Macarro, Chairman, Pechanga Indian Reservation. February 2, 2005. Response 14-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Pechanga Indian Reservation's comments on the Draft EIR. The comment indicates that the Tribe has an interest in the General Plan since the Tribe is a landowner of properties that are directly adjacent to the City's jurisdictional boundaries. The City acknowledges that the Pechanga Indian Reservation land is adjacent to parcels in the City's jurisdiction. This comment does not address an environmental issue nor raise any question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required. Response 14-2 The comment is acknowledged. The City has initiated early consultation with the Pechanga Band regarding the General Plan Update. The City understands that an agreement with any impacted Native American tribe must be obtained for approval of development proposals that impact tribal lands, including the approval process for the proposed Eastern Bypass. See also Response to Comment 12-2. The Draft Open Space Element recognizes the requirements of Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, 2004 Statues) and addresses consultation with Native American tribes, and in particular the Pechanga Band, through the following policy and implementation program: Policy 2.1 Actively pursue the construction of system improvements outside the City's jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, the Pechanga Band, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve anticipated right-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for needed interchange and regional arterial improvements. Implementation Program C-11. Work with the Pechanga Band, City of Murrieta, RCTC, and Caltrans to create additional access points to 1-15 and 1-215 to ensure that access to the freeways is provided for future bypass routes on both the west and east sides of the City, in a manner that has the least potential impacts on the environment. Response 14-3 The comment is noted. Please refer to Response 14-2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 8-100 so""'". <AUFO'.'A >< ASSOCIATIONo! GOVERNMENTS .,.1, office ','W,aS""" Stl..t "'ÞA,,, """"'",ColI""I' "",."" ,~'~"""" ,~.~",.~" .,- "......., .,....' _.....~. '.. """.' "0" ",."""""..,., to_.. ~'" 0._, , ,"", ""'to' '" "_'N" n'" .,.. ....,.,- ......"" "".,...' ....,....... ,..,...... ""'",.."...' :::,", ;::;:.:, -=:. :.~ ~'1.; _'k""',",,"""", "".!oo".... ::::t=~:'::'.~0:::;:1:~~".; '",,".M"'...""'" ;'::::~,~;:,.~,=";'~':'Z; 1m."'..",."'."""", .,_.......~,. ""."'"~~"""'."'"'" """ ..O~, ... "'.., . ..... ~:~5:~::"'I.~:;' ~'t; ,.. 'S: =~,~~~"':;';'.;.'¡;',r.: ~-"""""...'.""." ::....... "'" .,....',,'" ....".' ...... - "-" ...An.. -....,.- .--."..-.....,... "","_...", Ij) -......- CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Orah fiR February 2, 2005 Mr, David Hogan Principal Planner Oily of Temeoula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive ' P,O, Box 9033 . Temecula, CA 92589-9033 lerŒa.1~ Dear Mr. Hogan: Thank you for submitting the public ~aarln9 Draft 01 the Updated General Plan lor the City 01 Temecule to theSouthem CalKomla Assoctaflon of Governments for reVIeW and comment. A description of the proposed plan was published I~ SCAG'eDecember 16-31, 2004 Intergovemmental Review CleaÌinghouse Report for public review and comment. In addnJon, StAG stafl reviewed and commented on the Draft Envlronman\allmpact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Update under separate cover on January 10, 2005. Each of our reviews is from a regional perspective with an intent to share information, data and adopted plans and programs that set forth regional policy. , It Is Important to note that requests, sOch as yours, to reVIew a local government general plan covertng a 62 square mile planning area in a fast growing county, represent a.slghlficant opportunity to identify where regional policy can be implemented through local action. thereby beneRling your community, s~breglon and region In the tuture, It may, therefore, be beneficial to Include a short section in your Purpose of General Plan section; (pages 1-6 through 1-9) to disouss the regional/subregionaViocaJ planning relationships, We were pleased to note your menUo¡1 of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the R~gional Comprehensive Plan, SCAG's Growth Vision Compass and SCAG's Growth Management Plan throughout the Draft General Plan, We recognize your efforts to support regional goals and policies with the Inclusion of new land use categories for mixed-use development, the linkages with multi-<se trails and future goals tor new transportation opportunities throU¡h the eXtension of Measure A. i """""""" "CD IS' -I {..t. IS-..!. 8.101 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR SOli""'. CAU'O'." >~ ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS MolnOlllce .,.w...,""."".." uthFk", LD"""",""'ml, "",."" ,~,¡)""". f.,~".d', -~~....... _""Ya"'.,"""'- :=":.'1;,::' - ......... .-.-".."..... .............. ...., ~~.::.m.;,':1'.~';::~'r.::"..': ~_.",~~..~...... ....~._.."""_.. ...... .......... m .... . ,,- ..,. -.. . "'. "_"'ft"""""""'" ~""'~."."'.""""" e- . .... e- .... ,-,......- """"..."'.'."""""'" IN.., e,,"~'" "... e..., =r.:.E.'I.~~1.;.= ¡;':"I:; s. ....... .... "" ". I. ..."...", ............... .......""""...'-,.... :'-::'~~i':':::'~'. :::1~:'".J;\,,':.~~o~'::="::.'f'; .-..,.",.."...- =r"'"""."""."""" ....., - ""...Oo ._" --11m. -.....-........... .."..~,..... fiI""'-"'" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Overal~ Temecula's Draft General Pf~n acknowledges and supports Southern California Growth VisIon cdmpass Principles 01: Mobility, Improve MobiIftyfor~1 Residents Livability - Foster Uveb!/J!y In I Communities Prosperity - Enable Proeperlty or All People Suslainability. Promote Bus nabl/ilyfor Future GenereUons The City of Teme<:ula's effort to mai!>1ain cOl1slstency willi regional plans such as, the Regional Compreijensive Plan and Regional TranspoFtaIJon Plan, Is highly comme~dable. We appreciate your commitment to the regional vision a~ look forward to hearing 01 your land useltransportatJon succe s as you realize your local vision through your newly revised Ga "raJ Plan. Thank you again for ihe opportunily tr review this most Important city planning document. sincerely, r~~ L~ Ha;rlS Manager of Community Developrnenl Planning and Polloy Department ' pee..",..., ",co 8.102 1$'-3 c.olJ\". CITY OF TEMECULA Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 15. Lynn Harris, Manger of Community Development, Planning and Policy Department, Southern California Association of Governments. February 2, 2005. Response 15-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Southern California Association of Governments' comments on the Draft General Plan. This comment does not raise or address any specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. No response is required. Response 15-2 The commenter's opinion is acknowledged. This comment does not raise or address any specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. The comment requests additions to the Purpose of the General Plan portion of the Draft General Plan introduction to discuss regional/subregional/local planning relationships. The City will consider this addition. Any concerns regarding the content of the Draft General Plan should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at public hearings scheduled for the adoption of the Draft General Plan. Response 15-3 The comment is noted. The City recognizes the influence and importance of regional planning within the Draft General Plan and strives to maintain consistency with local, subregional, and regional planning efforts. CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.103 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 'OUT.", CAUF'..." ~ ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Mil. Ofke .,..",,' S~",h St." """",, ""'"1,1.. C,Il~"', ""'M'" """"'.00 fl"'¡"""" 0<0'" =¡:::::~;"".. .., ::::~';';;:¡:,::~:::.::::~ -"O~""'H"'" _I......"""."",. ...... ",.,_.",~.... "~"" "~. '"_. , c", ..~~,. '" ""~ ' '0' ......". ""~"~"",.'.""M."".... Z::::',~':":~;'::',~.~"'::: .. "'0" -."'.".."" """""""'~""'.'-"" """"""""'~'"'."'""" M~"'.o~' ..-.".,"'" ."F...."'.""""",", ...".,"'.,~"..',.>.""',, ....... &F ........, ".., '..", ,~,..,..' :~'\'.=~:.".':::'.::::1:.:':'~.: "",.~"",.",,-~... ".... "',00"""'" ,""~ .....,-......""..,... 'om""""',""""". ,-,-- -.....,..,.,"".....,."". Om" '""",, ,.>, ""..' . &.., m,""" "." .'-' .. ,-",. :::;;t:,;,;:;:,-, ,...d '.... * ~.." "'M .", 'w'. ~" -~...,-"".ø~,..""",. 'm",,"~""'~""'." .... ,... T,..., "'" ....,.. ..~~.........._~. ~~~.:.:.!:,";.~;;,,~: M_...""-",""'- =:' - "M'.,," ..."" ----.... ""'-,"" "0._"__.""'." """'-,,.,... lit ""_0,"_,," ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE January10,20Q5 Mr. David Hogan .PtI""lpal Planner ~ltyafTom""ula Planning Dopa,,",ent 432OOBusfnosSPaJf<Drlvo Temocula.CA 92592 Lerre:,~ I " RE: Commen" on the OraD Envlronmentallmpaçt Report fa< tIle City of Yo""""'" Genoral Plan Upda18. SCAG Na. ~0040834 Doar Mr, Hogan: irnank 1"" lor ouoollUin9 tht Draft ,,"vll9ft""'" ~ Ro¡=t fe, tho City of Y"",ecul. General Plan Up""'" to SCAG 10, revlow and comment. As areawide oieannghouae for regionally signnioanl projocta. SCA(' reviews tho o:ons~tencY 0110081 plans, projects. and po-og"""s with 'eglonal plans. Th~ ""tlvlty ~ baSod on SCA(''s responsll>llIes as . regional planning o'!lanlzatlon purs"am TO 8tato and roooral laws and regulations. Guidance provided by tho.. roviows is intended to assist Iooal ago""l.. and proJoct sponsore to taka actions thaI contribu'o '0 the a"ainmen' of regional goals and poI~'es. Ib-I It Is recogniZed tha' tho p'oposed Proj.., considors tho comprehensive "pdato 01 110 City of Tem""ula GsnONlJ Plan, SCAG s1aff has evaJuated the D..ft Envtr""""",taI impact Report fa< tho CIty 01 Temecula General Plan Update fur consi"'ncy with the Reglonol Comprohonsl... Plan and GUide and Regional Transporta"on PlBn. Tho DIOft EIR Includ.. a discussion on tho - Pmjocts' consistency wI'I> SCAG poJ;cl.. and awile-.IG rogIonaI pIons. whk:/¡ wero ~inedln ourSepmmbor2, 2004 lettoroo the Notice of Proparolfoo (NOP) forth" DrnftEIR. 'I:.-'&,. The Draft EIR, i1 Soctlon 5.9: Land Use and Piannln9, cited SCAIJ poloi.. and addJ'll3Sod tho mann'" In which tho proposed Project is consistent with opptloable co", pollclos and ~UpportillTl of appliœblo ancillary po~los. This approach to dlscus8i1g consistency or support 01 SCAG poilCI.. Is _nd- 0!1<1 we approeiela your oIforts. BasOd on Iha informallon providod i1 tho Drall EIR, we have no furthor comments. A d...,;pUon of tltoproposed Project was p"blished ~ Iha December 16-31, 2004 In!ergo-monte! AevM>w Clearinghouse Report for public 'oviow and -ment It you have any Questiona. pfoase contact me al (213) 236.1867, Thank you, ~w~~, 7h ~ .' '~ MITH,AIC~ Sonlor Reg aI Planner IOlorgovommonlal Reviow CITY OF TEMECULA B.1O4 Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR 16. Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Intergovernmental Review, Southern California Association of Governments. lanuary 10,2005. Response 16-1 This comment provides an introduction to a second comment letter received from the Southern California Association of Governments. No response is required. Response 16-2 The comment is noted. This comment indicates that SCAG has reviewed the Draft EIR and does not have any further comments. CITY Of TEMECUlA 8.105 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday, February 2, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Mathewson informed the audience that, as per Fire Code requirements, any individual not seated will need to exit the City Council Chamber to the Main Conference Room which has been opened for overflow seating. Chairman Mathewson also implored the audience to remain courteous to speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 2, 2005 2 A request to rescind Planning Commission Resolution 2004-066 which aDDroved Planning ADDlication No. PA04-0260. a DeveloDment Plan for an additional 20 units at the aDDroved Temecula Ridae ADartments to result in the design. construction and oDeration of a 240- unit. two and three-storv aDartment comDlex with a Dool. clubhouse. workout building and tot lot on aDDroximately 21 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraaa Road. known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 MOTION: Chairman Mathewson moved to approve the Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Chairman Mathewson announced to the audience that the Planning Commission will only be focusing on the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update and that all other elements will R:lMinutesPCIO20205 be considered at another Planning Commission meeting. He also informed those individuals wishing to speak with regard to the Anza Circulation Element should address their issues and concerns with the County. Clarifying the hearing process, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that Chairman Mathewson would be abstaining with regard to issues pertaining to Meadowview, North General Kearney, and Kahwea. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 A General Plan UDdate to comDrehensively uDdate the following elements of the General Plan: land Use Circulation, ODen SDace/Conservation. Grow1h Manaaement/Public Facilities, Public Safety. Noise, Air Quality. Community Desian. and Economic DeveloDment 3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan of land Use, Open Space/Conservation, Grow1h Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments: That the Update to the General Plan process began in 2001 with a Council Appointment of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) representing local citizens, local businesses, and community organizations That the purpose of the Committee was to work with staff and consultants to create a General Plan that would update the existing 1993 General Plan and address issues within the community. At this time, Mr. Hogan introduced Mr. Henderson and Ms. Stetson of Cotton/Bridges and Associates. By way of PowerPoint, Mr. Henderson highlighted the Draft General Plan, noting the following: Status of General Plan Public Comment period for Environmental Report (EIR) will end March 12, 2005 Responses to agency comments to be distributed prior to City Council Hearing scheduled in March 2005 . Airport land Use Commission Determination of Consistency is pending California Geological Survey review of Safety Element completed (recommended changes to Safety Element identified in staff report) R:\MinutesPCIO20205 2 General Plan Elements land Use Circulation Housing (2002 Update) Open Space/Conservation Element Growth Management/Public Facilities Element Public Safety Element Noise Element Air Quality Element Community Design Element Economic Development Element The above mentioned elements are from the previous General Plan and have had some form of update in the current effort. General Plan Changes Overall policy direction will remain consistent Most proposed changes will fit within the framework of the current General Plan Changes primarily affect the land Use and Circulation Elements Technical changes to the Plan are based on: Changed circumstances, facts, and new information Consolidation of similar policies Updated implementation programs for each element New policy directions Encouraging mixed-use development near 1-15 corridor Preserving established rural areas - Nicolas Valley, winery locations, SR 79 South, and Anza Road Land Use Policy Map Several recommended changes reviewed with City Council/Planning Commission Workshop in August 2004 R:\MinutesPCIO20205 3 . Additional property owner requests described in staff report Rural residential . Vineyards/Agriculture Tribal Trust lands Commercial Recreation Overlay Industrial Park Remaining land Uses Changes in French Valley Plan will reflect entitlements granted by the County Preservation of Open Space corridors Consistency with French Valley Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (AlCUP) Circulation Element Primarv Chanaes to Dolicv direction: Provisions that allow for additional street dedication at high-volume intersections CAC recommendation to consider opening closed connecting streets to improve City- wide circulation New roadway cross-sections are introduced such as Modified Secondary Arterial, a Limited Secondary Arterial, and a Rural Highway; that these new roadway designations are not present in the current General Plan and are recommended for the updated General Plan New Roadways are introduced in the roadway plan such as: loma Linda/Avenida de Missiones, Eastern/Southern Bypass, Sky Canyon Drive/Briggs Road Roadway Improvements: within the Rancho California 1-15 corridor Roadwav Plan Residents Concerns Rainbow Canyon Road - Collector or Secondary Arterial R\Minute.PCIO20205 4 CAC Recommendation (not part of the Draft General Plan that is before the Planning Commission) North General Kearny - Limited Secondary, la Colima to Nicolas Roads Chanaes to Other Elements Growth Manaaement/Public Facilities New statement will discourage street closures that may limit or delay access to emergency services Open Space/Conservation Element New discussion of historic and cultural resources Community Desian Element New discussion of mixed-use design concepts Policies and implementation encouraging creation of public spaces and public art Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Draft EIR circulatina for public review and comment 5 comment letters received to date Responses will be in final EIR Sianificant unavoidable impact . Air Quality - short term construction impact . Air Quality - long term emissions exceed standards for particulate matter Transportation - 3 intersections and 6 freeway ramps projected to operate below lOS standards All other impacts found to be less than sianificant Required mitigation measures are incorporated in the General Plan as Implementation Findinas and statement of overridina considerations At this time, Mr. Henderson concluded his PowerPoint Presentation. Principal Planner Hogan presented the Planning Commission with additional changes to the General Plan Update (see staff report) R:\MinutesPCIO20205 5 For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that because the Planning Commission would be acting as an advisory body making recommendations to the City Council, the Commission would not be required to adhere to the closing period for the EIR. In response to the Commissioner's Chiniaeff's query, Principal Planner Hogan stated that the proposed General Plan will be consistent with the current Housing Element. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hogan relayed that although the challenges and efforts of coordinating continual growth with the County will continue, with a newly elected representative on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, improved awareness of the need to manage growth and to match it with resources is present. He noted that staff would be of the opinion that by incorporating and addressing the issues in the General Plan, it will give staff more weight and authority when dealing with the County. Deputy Public Works Director Parks stated that the City has been successful in challenging the County's approval of specific plans for the French Valley area; that staff has required the County to approve to require certain street improvements/infrastructure prior to the County's issuance of building permits; that the City has been proactive in working with the County; and that by including it in the General Plan, it would provide the City additional support. It was reiterated by Chairman Mathewson that all non-Meadowview related circulation matters will be addressed first and that he would be abstaining from any Meadowview-related circulation aspects. Principal Planner Hogan presented a brief staff report regarding Rainbow Canyon Road, highlighting the following: That when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, Rainbow Canyon Road was designated as a secondary arterial 88' right-of-way That during the planning process, the recommendation was to retain it as an 88' right-of- way That staff has received' several letters from residents in the Rainbow Canyon area concerned with retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as a Secondary Arterial That the residents' primary concern would be the difference in the current size of Rainbow Canyon Road (a collector with a 66' right-of-way) as that from the current General Plan designation (Secondary Arterial with an 88' right-of-way) That staff would recommend that the roadway designation for Rainbow Canyon remain as a Secondary Arterial; and that once the Southern Bypass has been completed, the City will have an opportunity to readdress the designation of this roadway. Expanding on Mr. Hogan's comments, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road is as an 88' right-of-way with four lanes; that this designation would be an appropriate classification and should not be downgraded; and that with the new interchange and the Eastern Bypass connecting to the south, larger capacity road would be necessary; and that Rainbow Canyon Road is the only alternate route to the 1-15. R:\MinutesPCIO20205 6 For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hughes stated that, in his opinion, the appropriate right-of-way width was not required when the existing 12 homes were built; that there is a deficient right-of- way width along Rainbow Canyon Road for these 12 home fronting Rainbow Canyon Road; and that staff would be of the opinion that options are available to widen the road without impacting the existing homes, reiterating the need for these four lanes. In response to Chairman Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks stated that the current 66' right-of-way on Rainbow Canyon Road would accommodate for two lanes and an additional 22' would be needed to accommodate for the 88' right-of-way. In response to the Commissioners, Mr. Parks offered the following comments: That the subdivision was approved by the County and built as a County Plan That the County had envisioned Rainbow Canyon Road as a 66' right-of-way/residential collector That the County did not perform a Circulation Element for the City That once the City performed its first General Plan and Circulation Element, the City could foresee the potential need for four-lane road (88' right-of-way) That as development occurs in the area, the City will be making the design to that particular standard. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that General Plan level planning does not create any exposure to any claim against a City, noting it is recognized that it is part of a long-range planning process. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the Rainbow Canyon Road Draft General Plan Update: Mr. David Payne Ms. Renea Broderick Mr. Mark Broderick Ms. Roberta Adkins Ms. Adrian McGregor Ms. Kathleen Montaldo Mr. Bernie Thomas The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to widening Rainbow Canyon Road for the following reasons: Potential destructions of the 12 existing homes Significant noise, air, light, and aesthetic impacts the future 1-15 interchange and Bypass will create Significant impacts with regard to air quality and transportation R\MinutesPCIO20205 7 Traffic impacts Property depreciation for the existing 12 homes that front Rainbow Canyon Road Speaking in support of the proposed General Plan, Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula resident, noted that every community in the City should be considered as a whole and that the entire City would benefit from the Draft General Plan. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Addressing the above-mentioned concerns, Public Works Director Hughes stated the following: . That the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road as a four-lane, secondary arterial has existed since 1988 That the impacted residents would be compensated at fair market value That with regard to the Eastern Bypass and the new interchange, staff does realize the challenges with coordinating the connection work; that the 1-15/SR 79 Interchange will be upgraded whether or not the Eastern Bypass Interchange is completed; and that although the road widening will create impacts, the City will be required to mitigate them That the City has plan on improving the operations near SR 79 South/I-15 That staff is not aware of any legislation, guaranteeing transmission lines along any route that would connect with a freeway. Mr. Hughes clarified projects that are currently funded for the SR 79 South: Upgrade SR 79 Southll-15 to be completed in the next five to seven years Upon City control of SR 79 South, the existing lanes will be restripped to eight lanes between Pechanga Parkway and the freeway northbound ramps; that a median will be installed from 1-15 to Butterfield Stage Road to assist with capacity and constricting turning movements Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Olhasso, stated that the City should be planning to create parkways that have limited access and would allow traffic flow without impacting and accessing local streets. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that Rainbow Canyon Road should be retained as an 88' right-of- way; that the interchange is necessary and should be included in the Draft General Plan; and that Anza between SR 79 South, near Auld Road, should be upgraded to a four-lane secondary road. Although expressing her support of the SR 79 Southll-15 Interchange, Commissioner Olhasso expressed concern with the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road (88' right-of-way). R:\MinutesPCIO20205 8 For Commissioner Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the proposed upgrades for loma Linda Road will not impact Pechanga Parkway or SR 79 S. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Hughes relayed that there are plans for development on Pechanga Parkway, including a golf course; that staff has had on-going conversations with the Tribal Council regarding secondary access to the casino; that while there is no firm commitment at this particular time, the Tribal Council does understand the traffic impacts; that the City has discussed the possibility of reserving corridors that such roadways but that the Tribal Council has made no commitment. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the Draft General Plan Update as presented by staff, including retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as an 88' right-of-way and upgrading SR 79 South to a secondary arterial with limited access as determined by traffic studies. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Removing himself from the dais, Chairman Mathewson abstained from the following discussion. At 8:03 P.M., a short recess was called and at 8:10 P.M. the Commission reconvened. Vice-Chairman Guerriero thanked the audience for their patience and stated the following issues to be discussed would be the North General Kearny Kahwea elements. Vice Chairman Guerriero informed the public that additional seating was available in the downstairs lobby area. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the extension of North General Kearny Road: Ms. Lisa Stute Kardouce Mr. Nicolas Kardouche Ms. Maria Hetzner Mr. Richard Moriki Mr. Norman Clark Ms. Lisa Weinmann Mr. Williams Herrmann Ms. Diana lovett-Webb Mr. Terry Stute Ms. Cheryl Huber Mr. Brett Saunders Mr. Bernie Thomas Ms. lori Nelson Mr. Jon Andrews Mr. Joseph Wasek, Jr. Mr. Steve Gossett Ms. Linda Gossett Ms. Jennie Strutz Mr. Robert Johnston Mr. John Austin Ms. Nancy Ray Ms. Ellen Ellish Ms. Adrian Mc Gregor Mr. Peter Francheschina Mr. Jerry Throckmorton Ms. Teri Biancardi Ms. Jessica Christopher The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition for the following reasons: That building a road through Meadowview to even traffic flow will not be a solution That the citizens of Temecula should not have to be impacted as a result of City actions R:\MinutesPCIO20205 9 That solutions must be explored - especially ones that will not continue to destroy the neighborhoods and the City That Meadowview was created long before the traffic congestion That no more construction permits should be granted That extending North General Kearny Road would directly overlap with the use of the trails (bikers, horseback rides, walkers, and daily joggers) That the City has a long and colorful history associated with the horse from Native American to the famous Vail and Roripaugh Ranches, the Stage Coach, and Pony Express; that horses have always been here; and that the City has a unique history for suburban area and horses have always been a part of it That Meadowview is zoned as low-density residential with open space That horse ownership is inherent in this zoning designation That a General Plan goals is to preserve rural communities within Temecula and to preserve the quality and value of a single family neighborhood That drivers tend to ignore horse crossing signs That by opening Kahwea Road, the risk of horse/car accidents would increase That by extending North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads, the City would not be adhering to the goal to preserve rural areas and that the extension would not complement the zoning designation for Meadowview That extending North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads would create a safety concern for the Meadowview residents That there currently are existing traffic problems on residential streets such as Calle Pina Colada, Via Norte, Del Rey, and Avenida de Barca That by opening another road into the Meadowview, the traffic congestion will significantly worsen That Meadowview roads such as Del Rey and Via Norte were designed for low-density traffic usage; that drivers, not familiar with the Meadowview area, will not be accustomed to driving on streets with no sidewalks, streets with trails, and no lights That the Meadowview area has numerous housing densities (two churches, a school, a public park, a doctor's office, and an equestrian center), which contribute to congestion. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed Draft General plan: Ms. Evelyn Buchanan Mr. Brian Harrold Mr. Mike Kuhn R:\MinutesPCIO20205 10 Ms. Susan Zychovich Ms. Diana Broderick Ms. Jessica Christopher The above-mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the extension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads for the following reasons: That the City of Temecula must take responsibility of opening roads and planned roads in the City, including North General Kearny Road That Meadowview residents should have equal access to emergency services That opening roads will help balance the traffic flow in other congested areas That the removal of fences/barriers would assist local residents with daily driving routes That the Meadowview residents should have equal access to traffic circulation That the closed roads in Meadowview were planned to accommodate local traffic That Meadowview is within the City; that the streets are paid for and maintained by City services, funded by tax dollars; that the Meadowview streets are not private; that they are public streets and should be utilized as such; that maps show North General Kearny Road and Kahwea Roads as through streets That Meadowview may choose to be a private gated community, privately funding all required services and closing its streets to public access That opening North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads will not add more trips to City streets; that it will decrease traffic on Calle Medusa, Calle Pina Colada, Winchester, and Margarita Roads; and that residents of Calle Medusa and Calle Pina Colada should not have to bear the burden of daily local traffic That by providing alternate traveling routes, traffic congestion on heavily burdened streets will decrease That in an effort to create proper circulation, alternative routes are necessary; that all residents should share in the solution and benefits of improved circulation. Although always dependent on the location of the emergency, Fire Marshal McBride noted that road closures will negatively impact response times. Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments: That there would be one lane in each direction with space for a left-turn lane That in an attempt to design a road to minimize conflicts, the cross-section would have a separated trail from the roadway; that this would be an attempt to separate pedestrians and equestrians from the road surface; and that this cross-section is not currently in the existing General Plan but would be a proposed addition R:\MinutesPCIO20205 11 That when the Public Traffic Safety Commission reviewed this item, it was difficult for the Commission to achieve a recommendation with regard to the extension; that the Commissioners who opposed the extension were of the opinion that the extension would not be necessary to improve circulation efforts; that the Commissioners who were in favor of the extension were of the opinion that it was necessary to improve emergency access and response times; and that it was also noted by a Commissioner that traffic affects all residents and that a street closure would adversely impact all residents. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the City has a traffic problem that must be resolved and that the extension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads should be reflected in the General Plan for studying. Deputy Director Thornhill offered the following comments: That the City has made limited General Plan changes That City has constructed the Overland Bridge, provided improvements around the perimeter of the Promenade Mall, and installed signals near the Promenade Mall - totaling over $ 35 million That the Promenade Mall generates $4 million a year in retail sales tax - monies which are then utilized for new road construction and Capital Improvement Projects That the Roripaugh project at pourroy and Nicholas Roads was preapproved by the County under development agreements prior to City incorporation That the City inherited 10 to 11 thousand homes that were preapproved by the County under development agreements which the City was obligated to process and approve; that in addition, the City has had three Specific Plans that were transferred cases in 1990 from the County such as Wolf Creek, Harveston, and Roripaugh That the City has been very judicial in its review and approval of projects. At this time, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to extend the meeting another 20 minutes. At this time, the public hearing was closed. For the Planning Commission, Mr. Thornhill stated that Kahwea Road is not a General Plan element; that the Planning Commission would be dealing with a policy regarding the opening of closed streets; and that no separate action regarding Kahwea Road would be necessary. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commenting on the importance of preserving the City's rural areas, Commissioner Olhasso advised that she could not support the opening of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads. Although stating that the extension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads should be reflected in the General Plan, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, recommended that, at this time, no funding be proposed until a complete and comprehensive study of the area has been performed. R\MinutesPCIO20205 12 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the Planning Commission's meeting another 20 minutes. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to recommend to the City Council that the extension of North General Kearny Road be reflected in the General Plan but that no funding be proposed until a comprehensive study has been completed. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who voted !!.Q and Chairman Mathewson who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to support the policy of opening roads. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who abstained. It was the consensus of Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, and Guerriero to start future Planning Commission meetings at 6:30 p.m. versus 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT No reports. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report ADJOURNMENT At 11 :45 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesdav. Februarv 16. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dave Mathewson Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPCIO20205 13 DEPARTMENTAL RE PO RTS APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN~7W CITY MANAGER~ .~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Council/City Manager Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building & safet~ March 22, 2005 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Departmental Report February 2005 PREPARED BY: Carol Brockmeier, Administrative Assistant The month of February 2005 showed a slight slowing of construction activity as compared to previous months. The following is an overview of permit and inspection activity for February. Sinale Familv Development - Tracts The City currently has a slight decrease of 378 single family homes under construction. An additional 234 building permits were issued in February. However, these single family homes under construction are primarily located in the Harveston Development where 184 homes are under construction, however, the Crown Hill Development continues to be active with currently 12 homes under construction. Wolf Creek is now underway and currently has 73 homes under construction. Richmond American and Rilington Homes has 28 homes under construction. Continental Homes has 46 units under construction. Custom Sinale Familv Homes For the month of February there was 1 new custom home permit issued for a total of 33 custom homes under construction. Multi-Familv Development During the month of February 0 buildings were issued. There are currently 55 buildings housing 416 units under construction. These projects lie on both the south and northern ends of the city. The Fountains Senior Apartment is currently in the framing stages; In the south, Temecula Creek Apartments are moving along and are at the stage of occupancy release, the Temecula Ridge Apartments on Rancho California Rd. and Moraga Rd are in the building process and now Cape May Apartments are added to the mix. Commercial Development During February only one new commercial permit was issued and it was for Millgard at 26879 Diaz Rd Total Permit and Inspection Activity During the month of February 282 permits were issued representing a construction valuation of $16,938,607. Total fees collected in the month of February was $217,508 During the month of February inspection staff performed 3,528 inspections. APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT FROM: City Manager/City Council Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Plannin~r-- TO: DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department for the month of February. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 74 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations and 13 applications for public hearings during the month of January. The new public hearing cases are as follows: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS HOME PRODUCT REVIEW MINOR MODIFICATION TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3 4 2 2 1 1 Status of Maior Proiects New Projects Temecula Creek Plaza Sign Program -A Comprehensive Sign Program for seven commercial /office/retail buildings at the southeast corner of Jedediah Smith Road and Hwy 79 South. The application was submitted on February 9, 2005. This item is tentatively scheduled to be presented at the March 30, 2005. Planning Commission meeting. (PA05-0040 - PAPPI Old Adobe Plaza - A Minor Modification to an existing Development Plan was submitted on February 14,2005 to modify the exteriorentryways and add an ATM to an existing 3,850 square foot suite located at 27645 Jefferson Avenue. (PA05-0046 BALES) R\MONTHL Y.RP1ì200512-2005 Report.doc O'Hern Wall Sign Program - A Sign Program for an 18,870 square foot multi-tenant industrial building located at 42108 Roick Drive. Submitted on February 28,2005. Staff is currently reviewing (relates to PA02-0551). (PA05-0061 - KITZEROW) Wolf Creek Motorcourts - A Home product Review and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 14.1 acres into 6 common lots with 113 residential units in a motor court design. The application was submitted February 7,2005. A DRC meeting is scheduled for March 10,2005. (PA05-0034- PETERS) la Vasani TPM - A Tentative parcel Map to subdivide 4.96 acres into 2 parcels located at 30854 lolita Road. This project was submitted on February 23,2005. A DRC is scheduled for March 17, 2005. (PA05-0025 - DAMKO) Temecula House of Wine - A request for a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity for Temecula House of Wine to establish a 2,108 square foot outdoor tasting room plus 459 square foot retail sales area for wine at the Palomar Inn Hotel, located at 28522 Old Town Front Street. This application was submitted on February 7, 2005. A DRC meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2005 with the applicant. (PAO5-0032 - KITZEROW) Temecula Corporate Center - Tentative Parcel Map to create two common lots consisting of 6.24 and 9.13 acres with 17 condominium units on the north and south side of Via Industria, and a Development Plan to construct 17 office, flex-tech, and industrial buildings totaling approximately 250,440 square feet. The application was submitted February 8, 2005 and a DRC meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2005. (PA05-0036, PA05-0037 - PETERS) Cassatt Academy - A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct an administration building and three classroom buildings totaling 5,760 square feet on 2.93 acres, located at the northeast corner of Calle Girasol and Aussie Ave. The application was submitted February 24, 2005. A DRC meeting is scheduled for March 24, 2005. (PA05-0060 - PETERS) Harveston Aberdeen - A home product review for the architectural design and placement of 92 single-family residences within the Harveston Specific Plan area. The project site is located east of Ynez Road and south of Date Street. The project was submitted on February 11, 2005. A DRC meeting will be scheduled for March 17, 2005. (PA05-0045 HARRIS) Harveston Charleston - A home product review for the architectural design and placement of 106 single-family residences within the Harveston Specific Plan area. The site is located east of Ynez Road and south of Date Street. The project was submitted on February 11, 2005. A DRC meeting will be scheduled for March 17, 2005. (PA05-0044 - HARRIS) Krieger's Façade and Porch - A Minor Modification to a Development Plan to paint an existing building and to construct a 528 square foot covered porch along the west side of the building. The application was submitted on February 22, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the application. (PA05-0055 - FISK) . Penfold Cattle Co - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of beer, and wine and spirits from a restaurant to be located at 42072 5th Street, within the new Penfold Plaza building. The application was submitted on February 23, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the application. (PA05-0056 - FISK) R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report.doc Rancho Temecula Town Center-A comprehensive sign program for Rancho Temecula Town Center submitted on February 17, 2005, The subject property is located at the corner of Winchester and Nicolas. A DRC letter was sent on March 7, 2005. Staff is currently waiting for revisions, (PA05-0052 - LONG) legacy Corporate Center - A Development Plan to construct, establish, and operate two industrial buildings totaling 84,006 square feet and one office building totaling 32,500 square feet. The applicant submitted plans February 17, 2005. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Diaz Road and Remington Ave, This project is scheduled for a Pre-DRC March 15, 2005, (PA05-0053 - HARRIS) Industrial Condos of Temecula -A Pre-Application for three industrial condo buildings totaling 85,917 square feet on 5,5 acres was submitted on February 1,2005, The project site is located on the north side of Remington Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of Diaz Road, A DRC meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2005. (PR05-004 - FISK) Margarita Crossings - A Sign Program for the proposed Margarita Crossings Shopping Center located at the southwest corner of Margarita Road and Overland Drive. The application was submitted on March 1, 2005, Staff is currently reviewing the application, (PA05-0064 - FISK) Recentlv ADD roved Proiects Park Place Office - A Development Plan to construct a 20,416 square foot office building located at the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Winchester Road, The applicant submitted plans on July 14, 2004. A Pre-DRC meeting was held on August 10, 2004, A DRC letter was mailed to the applicant on August 12, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on September 21, 2004. On December 15, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve the project. The project was approved by City Council on February 8, 2005, (PA04-0134- KITZEROW) Old Town Coffee House - An Administrative Development Plan was submitted on January 25, 2005 for a façade improvement for this new restaurant located in the building that was previously occupied by Rhythm and Brews. This project was reviewed by the Old Town local Review Board on February 14, 2005, The project was approved on February 24, 2005. (PA05- 0020 - DAMKO) Butterfield Square - A Development Plan to redevelop Butterfield Square in Old Town, resulting in four two-story buildings totaling 22,048 square feet on 0.56 acres located on the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street. The Applicant submitted plans on March 31, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on June 10, 2004. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on July 13, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on September 29, 2004, The project was presented to the Old Town local Review Board on November 8, 2004. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2005, (PA04-0231 - FISK) Penfold Plaza - A Major Modification to a Development Plan to add a 1,900 sq. ft. dining area and a 1,148 sq, ft. patio to the third story of an approved 18,000 sq, ft, building on 0.44 acres located at 42072 Fifth Street. The application was submitted on December 1, 2004. The project was recommended for approval by the Old Town local Review Board on January 10, 2005. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2005. (PA04-0592 - FISK) R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report,doc . America's Tire Co. -An Administrative Development Plan for the construction ofa tire sales and installation store located on pad 9 in the Creekside Plaza on Highway 79 South and Pechanga Parkway. The project was submitted on November 30, 2004, and a DRC meeting was held on January 6, 2005. A DRC letter was sent on January 10, 2005. Applicant resubmitted on January 28, 2005. This project received administrative approval on February 14, 2005 and approval letter was mailed. (PA04-0591 - DAMKO) Proiects Under Review Commercial Star World Center-A Development Plan to construct a 13,709 square foot commercial building on 1.4 acres located on the west side of Old Town Front Street, approximately 800 feet south of Santiago Road. The application was submitted on November 22, 2004. A DRC meeting was held with the applicant on January 6, 2005. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on January 6, 2005 and staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PA04-0584 - FISK) Elite's Plaza - A Development Plan to construct two office buildings and one retail building totaling 74,056 square feet on 4.6 acres located on the east side of Jefferson Avenue approximately 500 feet north of Rancho California Road. The application was submitted December 22, 2004. A DRC meeting was held February 24, 2005. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on February 28, 2005 and staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PAO4-0623 - PETERS) Palomar Plaza - A Development Plan to construct a 5,999 square foot dental office on 1.06 acres, located at 43980 Margarita Road. The project was submitted on December 14, 2004. Comments were due on January 5, 2005. A Pre-DRC was held on January 11, 2005, and a DRC was held on January 20, 2005. Staff sent comment letter on January 20, 2005. The applicant submitted revised plans on March 8, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the revised plans. (PA04-0612 - LONG) Tall Tree Mall Expansion -A Development Plan to construct a 3,000 square foot addition to an existing 3,600 square foot commercial office building on .18 acres, located at 41964 Main Street in Old Town. The project was submitted on December 21,2004. A DRC was held on February 17, 2005. A DRC letter was sent on February 18, 2005. Staff is currently waiting for revised plans. (PAO4-0622 - LONG) County Center Drive Cingular Wireless - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to construct a rooftop wireless antenna facility located at 40940 Country Center Drive. This project was submitted December 6, 2004. A Pre-DRC was held on January 4, 2005. Staff has sent a letter outlining concerns and requesting information. As of March 8, 2005 staff is still waiting for revised plans. (PA04-0600 - LONG) Crawford Suites Hotel- A Pre-Application for a Development Plan to construct a 96 unit, 4 story hotel at the southeast corner of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road, was submitted on December 27, 2004. A Pre-DRC meeting was held on January 18, 2005. The applicant provided additional information to be forwarded to out Architectural consultant. Architectural review comments were sent to the applicant on March 7, 2005. (PR04-0020 - PAPP) Boys & Girls Club - A Development Plan to construct a 5,500 square foot commercial building on a portion of the 9.12 acre Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park located at 31465 Via Cordoba. The application was submitted on December 20, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on January R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\200S\2-200S Report.doc 20, 2005 and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on January 20, 2005. Staff anticipates scheduling the project for a March Director's Hearing. (PA04-0605 -FISK) Temecula Town Center Modifications - A Major Modification and Modified Sign Program to construct various façade renovations and parking lot modifications and modify existing sign program within the Temecula Town Center, located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The application was submitted on September 23, 2004. Staff requested sign program modifications the first week in February 2005. The project architect indicates that revisions will be submitted the week of March 14, 2005. (PAO4-0530 - HARRIS) SI. Thomas Episcopal Church - A Development Plan ¡Conditional Use Permit for a 16,983 square foot sanctuary and a 12,768 square foot parish hall with day care on 3.74 acres, located at 29132 Avendia de Missiones. This application was submitted on June 4,2004. A DRC meeting was held on August 12, 2004. The applicant has been discussing revised Concept plans with staff since August 12, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on December 8, 2004. The project is scheduled for the March 30,2005 Planning Commission hearing. (PA04-0394- FISK) In-N-Out Burger - An Administrative Development Plan for a 3,220 square foot fast food restaurant located on the south side of Highway 79 South. The project was submitted on December 22, 2004. DRC was held on January 27,2005. Applicant resubmitted on March 3, 2005. Comments are due March 16,2005. (PA04-0624 - DAMKO) Butterfield Ranch - A Development Plan to construct five commercial buildings totaling 42,385 square feet and creating two pads for future commercial buildings totaling 13,300 square feet on 6.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Highway 79 South and Butterfield Stage Road. The application was submitted on December 20, 2004. DRC was held on January 27, 2005. Applicant resubmitted on March 2, 2005. Comments from the various departments are due March 24, 2005. (PA04-0621 - DAMKO) Moreno Road Office Building -A Development Plan to construct a two-story 7,000 square foot office building on .76 acres, located at41919 Moreno Road. The application was submitted on July 12, 2004. Staff provided a DRC comment letter to the applicant on August 23, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on February 22, 2005. Department comments are due March 9, 2005. (PAO4-0470 - HARRIS) Pauba Road Offices - A Development Plan to construct 2 two story office buildings totaling 18,237 square feet located at Pauba Road and Margarita Road. The applicant submitted on July 19, 2004. The office buildings will be used for retail and office space. A DRC meeting was held on October 7,2004. A DRC letter was sent October 12, 2004. A Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for March 30, 2005 regarding this project. (PA04-0476 - DAMKO) Temecula Corporate Center - A Pre-Application for a mixed-use business park was submitted on October 5,2004, consisting of 17 office, "flextech", and industrial buildings on two parcels (6.19 and 6.23 acres) on the east and west sides of Via Industria. A DRC meeting was held November 4, 2004. Staff is waiting for the formal submittal of a Development Plan application. (PR04-0017 - PETERS) Calle Cortez - A Development Plan application was submitted on October 1,2004 to construct two concrete tilt-up service commercial buildings. Building 1 is 16,954 square feet and building 2 is 15,432 square feet. The project is located on the north side of Calle Cortez, just west of R\MONTHL Y.RPTì2005\2-2005 Report.doc Jefferson. DRC was held on November 18, 2004. Staff is waiting for applicant response. (PA04-0544 - DAMKO) EI Torito-A Development Plan to construct and operate a 7,380 square foot restaurant on 0.42 acres located at 40517 Margarita Road (Power Center II). The application was submitted on October 25, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on December 2, 2004 and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on December 2, 2004. Meetings were scheduled with the applicant and Director of Planning to discuss the proposed architecture on January 11, and 20, 2005. Staff sent a correction letter to the applicant on March 2, 2005 and is awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PA04-0561 - FISK) Margarita Crossing - A Development Plan to construct a 37,173 square foot mixed use retail restaurant center on 5.56 acres located at the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Nicole lane. The application was submitted on October 28, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on December 9, 2004. Staff has sent a DRC letter to the applicant and recently received comments from a third party review of the plans. Staff met with the applicant on February 14, and 22, 2005 to discuss site plan and architectural issues. The applicant has indicated a desire to be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing without having addressed staffs comments. Staff is currently awaiting a response to comment letter from the applicant and final plans sets for the Planning Commission hearing. (PA04-0563 - FISK) Orchard Christian Fellowship - A Minor Modification to a 7,832 square foot assembly building to change windows and doors on two sides of the building and add new steps and landscape planter. The application was submitted on October 18, 2004. A DRC meeting was held November 18, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on February 14, 2005, and staff is awaiting comments. (APN 921-310-004) (PA04-0552 - PETERS) Temecula Education Complex-A Development Plan and PDOforthe construction ofa 144,000 sq. ft. education complex, a 10,000 sq. ft. Research and Development and conference center, 16,000 sq. ft. day care facility, 48,000 sq. ft. of retail space, a two story parking structure and 288 apartment units on 40 acres located at the northwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The application was submitted on November 17, 2004. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on December 27, 2004 and revised plans were submitted on February 2, 2005. A DRC meeting was held again on February 16, 2005. The applicant resubmitted some plans on February 22, 2005 and some on March 1, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the revised plans. (PA04-0582 - FISK) Temecula Creek Plaza - A Development Plan to construct 69,120 square feet of commercial/office/retail space in 8 buildings on 6.88 acres located at the southeast corner of Highway 79 South and Jedediah Smith Road. The application was submitted on September 29, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on November 4, 2004. The applicant resubmitted an incomplete package on January 6, 2005. This project was forwarded to our contracting architect on February 2, 2005. Comments were received on February 8, 2005. A second DRC meeting has been scheduled for March 10, 2005. This item is tentatively scheduled for the March 30, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (PA04-0537 - PAPP) la Quinta Inn & Suites - A Pre-Application was submitted on November 17, 2004 for a 98 unit facility used for lodging located on Highway 79 South, east of la Paz Road. Staff is currently working with the applicant on a redesign for the building. (PR04-0019 - DAMKO) Walker Wood Products-An Administrative Development Plan to construct a 1,730 square foot addition to an existing 145,061 square foot facility located at 43195 Business Park Drive. The application was submitted on December 15, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on January 20, R:\MONTHL Y.RPn2005\2-2005 Report.doc 2005. The applicant resubmitted on February 4, 2005. Staff is currently reviewing the revised plans. (PA04-0614 - BALES) General Kearney Reservoir Wireless Facility - A Conditional Use permit to replace an existing non-disguised unmanned wireless monopole with a new 65-foot tall unmanned wireless monopine with 12 antennas, four-foot diameter microwave dish and associated 336 square foot equipment shelter and a back-up generator. The subject property is located east of Placer lafite and south of Chemin Coutel. The application was submitted on March 1, 2205. Review comments are due March 22, 2005. (PA05-0063 - Harris) Creekside Centre Sign Program - To establish and implement a sign program for the Creekside Centre Shopping plaza. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Overland Drive and Nicole lane. The application was submitted on March 1, 2005. Comments are due on March 22, 2005. (PA05-0062 - HARRIS) Subdivisions Seraphina Tract Map 32346 - A request to subdivide 28.6 acres into 67 lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet located on the north side of Nicolas Road. The project was submitted on March 16, 2004. The DRC letter was sent on April 20, 2004. The applicant submitted a draft Development Plan via email for staff's review on June 2, 2004. Staff reviewed draft Development Plan and sent comments via email on June 15, 2004. Staff met with applicant regarding additional issues in August, 2004. The applicant resubmitted on September 20, 2004. Staff sent fifth iteration letter on January 5, 2005. This project is scheduled for the March 16, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. (PA04-0178 - DAMKO) PM 28049 EOT - A fourth Extension of Time for Parcel Map 28049 (A proposed multi-family residential development. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Pujol Street and Calle Cerrillo. The application was submitted on September 30,2004. Staff continues to await an environmental study to address MSHCP requirements as of March 8, 2005. (PA04- 0539 - HARRIS) Selby Parcel Map - A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 21.22 acres into 6 parcels located at the east side of Ynez Road north of Rancho California Road and south of Solana Way. This project was submitted on January 6, 2005. Comments are due January 28, 2005 and a Pre- DRC has been scheduled for February 1, 2005. A DRC was held February 10, 2005. A DRC letter was sent on February. (PA05-0004 - LONG) Industrial Temecula Industrial Park - A Development Plan to constructthirteen single-story office buildings totaling 56,900 square feet on 4.83 acres located on the west side of Business Park Drive, between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of Rancho California Road. Scott Barone (lot 11 BPD llC) submitted the application on December 23, 2003. A DRC Meeting with the applicant was held on January 29, 2004. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on February 2, 2004. The applicant submitted revised site plans on March 29, 2004, and again on April 28, 2004. A DRC was held July 15, 2004. A second DRC meeting was held September 30, 2004. Revised plans were submitted November 12, 2004. This project is scheduled for the March 30, 2005 Planning Commission. (PA03-0728 - PETERS) R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report.doc . Alvarez Del Rio Building - A Development Plan to construct, establish and operate a 17, 378 square foot office/warehouse building on 1.43 acres. The subject property is located on the east side of Del Rio Road, south of Calle Cortez. A DRC meeting was held on November 18, 2004. Staff continues to await revised plans as of March 8, 2005. (PA04-0543 - HARRIS) Roick Drive Business Condo-A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a building into 20 units. The project was submitted on November 24,2004. The project is located on the northeast corner of Via Industria & Roick Drive. Director's Hearing is scheduled for March 10, 2005. (PA04.0588- DAMKO) Madison lot 6 - A Pre-Application for a Development Plan submitted on January 25, 2005 to construct a 17,000 square foot office building located on 1.4 acres at the southeast corner of Buecking and Madison Avenue. A DRC meeting was held on February 2,2005. A DRC letter was mailed on February 7,2005. Staff is waiting for a formal submittal. (PR05-0002 DAMKO) Madison lot 13 - A Pre-Application for a Development Plan submitted on January 25, 2005 to construct a 14,750 square foot building located on the southwest corner of Madison and Buecking on 1.3 acres. A DRC meeting was held on February 10, 2005. A DRC letter was mailed on February 7,2005 and staff is waiting for a formal submittal. (PR05-0001 - DAMKO) Marble Express Building - A Development Plan to construct, establish and operate a 17,421 square foot industrial building on a 1.1 acre site located at 42068 Winchester Road. The applicant submitted plans on January 24, 2005. A DRC meeting was held with the applicant on February 24th, 2005 Staff is awaiting revised plans. (PA05-0016 - HARRIS) Mixed Use Residential Naron Pacific Tentative Tract Map 30434 - A proposal for a zone change from l-1 to l-2 on 31.93 acres and Tentative Tract Map to create 30 residential lots and 4 open space lots in the Chaparral area. The application was originally submitted on April 18, 2002. The CAD has made a recommendation on policy for the Chaparral Area allowing %-acre lots if it does not increase the "net" density. A PDO was submitted on March 25, 2004. Staff met with applicant in April to discuss grading issues and begin preparation of an Initial Study. An environmental constraint map was submitted on February 9, 2005. Staff will meet with the applicant on March 22, 2005 to discuss grading impacts. (PAO2-0204 - PAPP) Tierra Vista Condominiums - An Administrative Development Plan to construct 23 residential condominiums on 1.5 acres. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Tierra Vista Road and Ynez Road. The application was submitted on September 30, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on November 6, 2003. Revised plans were submitted on July 7, 2004. A second DRC letter was provided on September 10, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on February 7,2005. A second DRC Meeting will be scheduled for March 17, 2005. (PA03-0552- HARRIS) Del Val Second Dwelling Unit - An application for a second dwelling was received January 23, 2004 for a 768 square foot mobile unit at 31050 Nicolas Road at leifer Road. A pre-DRC Meeting was held on March 9, 2004. A DRC meeting was held August 5, 2004. Waiting for applicant response. Staff sent a 30 day "no response" letter to the applicant on January 12, 2005. (PA04-0039 - PETERS) R:\MONTHL Y.RPT12005\2-2005 Report.doc Estero Street - A request for a Zone Change (from l-1 to l-2) and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 1.39 acre parcel into two parcels for single family homes. The project is located at the end of Estero Street. The applications were filed on April 19, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on July 8, 2004. Staff has had several phone conversations with the applicant and is awaiting submittal of revised plans. (PA04 -0283 and PA04-0275 - PETERS) Temecula lane -A Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to construct 59 4-plex buildings totaling 236 units, 32 3-plex buildings totaling 96 units and 96 single-family detached units on a 47.5 acre site located at the northeast corner of loma Linda Road and Temecula lane. The project was submitted on August 8,2004. A DRC meeting was held with the applicant on October 21,2004. Plan revisions were submitted on March 3, 2005. Comments are due from affected departments on March 17, 2005. Staff still awaits a Mitigated Negative Declaration document from the applicant. (PA04-0496 - HARRIS) . Angel 2nd Dwelling Unit - An Application for a second dwelling unit was submitted on December 17,2004 for a 737 square foot casita located at 42430 Sara lane. A DRC meeting was held on January 13, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting revised plans. (PA04-0601 - BALES) Gailery Portraits Product Review - A Development Plan was submitted on January 27, 2005 for 10 single family residences (2 floorplans, 2 architectural elevations) located at the southeast corner of Rancho Vista & Ynez Rd. Comment letter was mailed on February 23,2005. Staff is waiting for applicant response. (PA05-0021 - DAMKO) Wolf Creek Development Agreement Amendment -An amendment to the approved Wolf Creek Development Agreement to modify timing thresholds for park improvements and financing was submitted on February 3, 2005. TCSD has worked with the applicant and City Attorney on details of changes. Planning Commission recommended approval of this project on March 2, 2005. The item is scheduled for City Council March 8, 2005. (PA05-0027 - KITZEROW) Green Courts @ Wolf Creek - A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 11.65 acres into 85 lots (77 residential units) with an alley type design and a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet in Planning Area 10 of Wolf Creek. In conjunction, a Development Plan (Product Review) for 77 residential green court homes. Units range from 2, 084 square feet to 2, 204 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs. This application was submitted on January 10, 2005. A DRC Meeting was held on February 24, 2005. Staff is currently awaiting a resubmittal. (PA05-0009 & PA05-0010 - KITZEROW) Miscellaneous Sprint 100 Margarita - A Minor Conditional Use Permit for the co-location of six (6) cellular telecommunication antennas on a mono-pine, which includes the replacement of the existing 57 foot high mono-pine with a 68'4 ft mono-pine. located at 41520 Margarita Road. The application was submitted on September 23, 2004. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on October 19, 2004 Revised plans were submitted on December 9, 2004. The applicant contacted staff on February 22,2005 stating that the proposed site for co-location was already occupied by another carrier and that revised plans must be submitted for location on another structure on the project site. Staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PA04- 0529 - FISK) Rancho Baptist Church Monopole - A Conditional Use Permit application to construct an 80' foot monopole antenna facility with shelter on the northwest corner of the Rancho Baptist Church property, located at 29775 Santiago Road, APN 922-130-017. The application was R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report.doc submitted on November 9, 2004. Staff has completed a preliminary review, and the application has been forwarded to the City's newly hired telecommunications consultant for review. (PA04- 0578 - PETERS) Cingular Mono-Pine Wireless Antenna - A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 50' high monopine on Greentree Road, approximately 500' east of Via Sierra. Project was submitted on April 19, 2004. Staff sent a DRC letter on June 8, 2004. The applicant resubmitted plans on September 23, 2004. Staff requested copies of the project plans for 3rd party review on February 10, 2005 and is currently awaiting submittal of the plans to begin the 3rd party review. (PA04-0225 - FISK) . A T& T and Verizon Wireless - A Conditional Use PermiVDevelopment Plan to construct, operate and establish an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of up to eight :t48' high "Italian Cypress" trees stealth antennas and an 8'x12' equipment area, located at the Rancho California Water District Water Reservoir Complex, east of Meadows Parkway. Staff has received phone calls from the surrounding residents expressing concerns about this proposal. The project was scheduled for the October 15, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing with a denial recommendation, however, the meeting was canceled and the project will be renoticed for a future Planning Commission Hearing. Staff met with the applicant on March 12, 2004, to discuss design alternatives. As of March 7, 2005, the applicant has not resubmitted. (PA02- 0335 - PAPP) Meadowview Golf Course - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. The Focused EIR requires modification. Staff provided an EIR comment letter to applicant the week of June 7, 2004. Staff is currently waiting for the revised EIR. (PA01-0375 - PETERS) Verizon Wireless Telecommunication - A Conditional Use Permit for a 60-foot high mono-pine within the Rancho California Water District Headquarters facility. Staff has informed the applicant that the proposed mono-pole is not an acceptable design for the area. The applicant indicated alternative sites would not be feasible; however, on November 10, 2003, they offered to look at alternative sites and designs. The applicant resubmitted on May 10, 2004. Staff met with the applicant on August 19, 2004 to discuss design alternatives. The applicant is continuing to cooperate with staff to develop an agreeable design solution. On September 16, 2004 the applicant submitted design concepts that were not supported by staff. There has been no formal resubmittal since May 10, 2004. There is a new consultant working with the applicant who is preparing a new submittal to forward to our new Telecommunication consultant for 3rd party review. (PA02-0637 - PAPP) Cyberzone - A Minor Conditional Use Permit for the establishment and operation of an Internet business to rent computer times for Internet and Microsoft applications within an existing suite of the Promenade Mall. Staff has received conditions of approval from other departments and scheduled the project for the April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing The applicant lost their lease prior to the hearing, so the application has been continued off calendar in anticipation of another lease space becoming available within the mall. (PRJOO-906 - FISK) Temecula Regional Hospital - A General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct a fitness center, cancer center, two medical/office buildings (4 stories each) and a six story hospital structure all totaling approximately 535,000 square feet, located north of Highway 79 S, south of De Portola and west of Margarita Road. Project was submitted June 30, 2004. A DRC was held on August 18, 2004. Staff and the City Council subcommittee have met with the applicant twice. The applicant submitted revised plans and a R\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report.doc 10 Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571) on November4, 2004. This project has been noticed and is scheduled for Planning Commission on April 6, 2005. (PA04-0462, 0463 - LONG) . Verizon Wireless Telecommunication - A one year extension of time for a previously approved Minor conditional Use Permit (PA01-0019) to co-locate 3 antenna array panels on an existing monopine structure located at the RCWD tank in Chardonnay Hills, 31008 Rancho California Road. A Director Hearing was held on September 9,2004 where it was re-directed to Planning Commission due to environmental concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. An Initial Study is being prepared to consider aesthetic impacts. The applicant has been notified that a Negative Declaration will be prepared. This item will be sent to a telecommunications consultant for third party independent review in January 2005 prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. There is a new consultant working with the applicant who is preparing a new submittal to forward to our new Telecommunication consultant for 3rd party review. (PA04-0264 - PAPP) Nextel at Bennett - A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a cellular telecommunications facility consisting of six antennas (total) on two light poles and 11.5" x 20" equipment building on 12 acres located at 32240 Highway 79 South. The application was submitted on November 1, 2004. The plans were forwarded to the City's consultant for 3rd party review on March 7, 2005 and are currently being reviewed by the City's cellular consultant. (PA04-0566 - FISK) SCE Substation - A Minor Modification to a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to establish a 33/12kv substation site at the corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa. The application was submitted on January 12, 2005. A DRC letter was mailed to applicant on March 3, 2005. Staff is currently waiting for resubmit!al. (PA05-0011 & PA-05-0012 BALES) Small Business Assistance la Tacqueria - Staff is working with the owners of this Old Town business on a revised plan for an exterior façade improvement that includes new awnings, paint and signs. A proposal from the contractor is to be submitted to the Planning Department in March. Rachel's Place - Staff is working with this new business in order to help them obtain funding for new signs under the Façade Improvement Program. An application for this project is expected in February Temecula Psychic- Staff is working with this established Old Town business owner to help him obtain approval for his proposed signs and ensure compliance with the sign program for the Temecula Stage Stop. An application will be submitted by the sign contractor in February. The Stamper Building - Staff is working with the owner of this Old Town business to develop a sign program for this existing retail building on Old Town Front Street. An application for this project will be submitted to the Old Town local Review Board in March. My Favorite Things - Signs for this new retail business in Old Town Temecula were submitted to the Planning Department in February and will be funded by the Façade Improvement Program. Temecula Olive Oil Company - New signs for this expanded business in Old Town Temecula were submitted to the Planning Department in February. R:\MONTHL Y.RPTì2005\2-2005 Report.doc 11 Special Event Permits 2005 Good Old Days Car Show-Staff is helping applicant with their temporary use and special event permits. This event took place on February 26, and 27, 2005 in Old Town Temecula. A preliminary site map was developed and organizational meetings have been scheduled for February with the applicant and involved City departments. Southwest Home & Garden Show - A Temporary Use Permit for a home and garden show located in the parking lot of the Promenade Mall on May 17-24, 2005. Applicant was mailed a comment letter on December 28, 2004. Applicant resubmitted on March 7, 2005. Comments are due March 21, 2005 .(PA04-0606 - DAMKO) Special Proiects & Lon!! Ran!!e Plannina Activities The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities are as follows: Comprehensive General Plan Update - The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR began on December 17, 2004 and will continue through January 31,2005. The first Planning Commission hearing on the Updated General Plan is scheduled for February 2, 2002, and was expected to be continued to the March 16, 2005 meeting. The Public hearings before the City Council are scheduled on March 22 and April 12, 2005. The comment period on the Draft EIR was extended to March 12, 2005. (HOGAN) Public Transportation Master Plan - Staff has researched how these issues have been addressed by other jurisdictions. Most of the items appear to be very long term, except for the City's current efforts focusing on park-n-ride facilities. (HOGAN) Santa Margarita River Watershed Planning Project - Staff members from the Planning and Public Works Departments are participating in the process. A draft of the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) has been reviewed by staff and comments were provided in early December. Staff has reviewed the revised documents and provided additional comments. (HOGAN) . Automobile Dealership Signage and Special Events - Staff is preparing a recommendation for weekend events and monument signs based on the information received from Automobile Dealership Association. Staff anticipates taking this issue to the Planning Commission in May 2005. (WEST) NPDES - Planning and Public Works Department staff are working together to develop methods for incorporating best management practices including design guidelines to address management of urban runoff to meet the MS4 permit requirements. Staff will also address MS4 Permit requirements by revising the CEQA Initial Study checklist. (WEST) Staff has prepared a final draft ordinance to codify use restrictions and supplemental standards for "Cyber Cafés." The final draft was routed to the City Attorney on September 15, 2004. This item has not yet been scheduled for public hearing. (PAPP) Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Amendment - Staff is proposing to amend the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan to resolve commercial zoning issues and existing land uses A draft R\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report.doc 12 Specific Plan has been developed. Staff is currently preparing to undertake a similar process with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. (PA97-0443 - WEST) Supplemental Alcoholic Beverage Sale Standards - A draft of the Ordinance has been prepared. Briefings have occurred with most members of the council. The tentative schedule has a proposed ordinance amendment going to the Planning Commission in May 2005. (HOGAN) Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft- grading ordinance. Staff is working with GIS to analyze topography, soil types, environmental (habitat), and other constraints. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Procedures to Implement CEQA - Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines and procedure manual for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local exemptions. The process will also conform to the new CEQA Guidelines, and will create new templates for standard CEQA forms. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Development Code Clean-Up Amendment - Staff is proposing a clean-up amendment to the Development Code for grammatical corrections and clarification. Staff anticipates bringing forward an amendment in March 2005. (WEST) Surface Mining Ordinance - Staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. South Side Street Improvement Project - The former South Side Specific Plan is being modified to design guidelines and a street improvement program for Old Town Front Street between First Street and Highway 79 South. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Update of the Citywide Design Guidelines - Staff has completed its review of the Guidelines and has provided a comprehensive set of comments to the consultant assisting in this effort. Additional comments from the Redevelopment Director were forwarded to the consultant on January 5, 2005. The consultant will require two to three weeks to respond to staff comments and prepare a Final Draft. A presentation to Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for the end of March 2005. (PAPP) . AQMD Air Quality Element Guidelines - Staff has reviewing the draft and provided additional comments to AQMD. City - Project environmental reviews and permitting: a Overland Drive Extension - Staff reviewed 2nd submittal of the draft initial study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and has provided comments to Public Works. No resubmittal to date. a Old Town Southern Gateway landscaping Project - Request from Public Works for Environmental Determination for this project. Previous Negative Declaration has been modified because the project description has changed. The revised N.D. has been routed to Redevelopment, TCSD, and Public Works for comments. Planning has not received comments. Planning will coordinate with Public Works to schedule this item for City Council. (EA93 - PAPP) 0 Diaz Road General Plan level Improvements - Staff has prepared an initial study to determine the impacts of constructing ultimate improvements on Diaz Road. The initial R:\MONTHL Y.RPT\2005\2-2005 Report.doc 13 study will need to be revised because of recent improvements at the intersection of Diaz Road and Rancho Way. Staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be prepared. Planning will coordinate with Public Works to schedule this item for City Council. (EA107- PAPP) 0 1-15/ SR79 S. Ultimate Interchange Project - Staff has provided comments to the Public Works Department on the issues that need to be addressed in the NEPNCEQA document that is to be prepared for this project. (EA111 - WEST) 0 Kent Hintegartd Park - TCSD requested staff to prepare an initial study to determine the impacts of constructing a basketball court, a parking lot and a 5,520 square foot building for Boys and Girls Club at Kent Hintergartd Park. Staff has revised the Initial Environmental Study and recirculated the documents for a 20-day public review and comment period. (EA116 - WEST) 0 Ynez Road Pavement Rehab - Staff reviewed the project for CEQA documentation at the request of Public Works. The project proposes to rehab Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and Solana Way. A Notice of Exemption pursuant to guidelines was prepared. (EA118 - WEST) General Plan Amendments PA03-0178 TERC 52, llC - A General Plan amendment application (and Zone Change PA03- 0177) to change the land use designation on 52.83 acres from Business Park to High Density Residential at the northwest corner of the Rancho California Business Park, adjacent to the Campus project. Staff is awaiting the submittal of additional information and has advised the applicant that the proposal will not go to hearing until the Comprehensive General Plan Update is complete. (PAPP) Margarita Village General Plan Amendment - (PA04-0391) and Specific Plan Amendment (PA04-0390) to change the land use designation from Vl (very-low - .2 to .4 du/acre) residential to lM (low medium - 3 to 6 du/ac) for 18.3 acres along the west side of Butterfield Stage road, north of Chemin Cline!. This is associated with a Tentative Tract Map (PA04-0392) for 36 residential lots ranging in size from 7,200 to 25,000 SF. These applications were submitted on June 2, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on July 8, 2004. The project was resubmitted on August 2,2004 and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on August 26, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on October 4, 2004 and again on January 6, 2005. An Initial Study is currently being prepared. However, this item will not be processed further until completion of the citywide General Plan Update, anticipated in late March. (KITZEROW) PA04-0411, Nicolas 73 - A General Plan Amendment application (and Zone Change PA04- 0414, and TTM PA04-0415) to change the iand use designation on 73 acres from very low density Residential to l-1 at the southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Via lobo. Pre-DRC was held on July 8, 2004 and DRC was held on July 15, 2004. Based upon issues raised at DRC and clarified in a follow-up letter the applicant was informed that staff does not support the GPA. Issues related to the overall project density and number of lots proposed on the map will require a resubmittal. The proposal will not go to Public Hearing prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive General Plan update. (PAPP) R:\MONTHL ¥.RPn2005\2-2005 Report.doc 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE- CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of February, 2005. MOACTRPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report February I March 2005 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: March 22, 2005 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1. John Warner Road Assessment District Under this project an assessment district was formed. This district includes the construction of street and storm drain improvements in the John Warner Road area. This project is complete. Afterweeks of delays, the contractor submitted Contractor's Affidavit & Final Release on 3/9/05. Notice of Completion is to be filed this month. 2. Rancho California Road Widening & Median Modifications East of Ynez Road The project will include the closing of the two median openings on Rancho California Road in front of the Town Center, while lengthening the left turn lanes atYnez Road, Town Center Drive, and Via Los Colinas to improve traffic circulation. In addition, a dedicated right turn lane will be added on the eastbound direction on Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. This project is complete. The Notice of Completion is to be filed this month. 3. Old Town Community Theatre This project will construct a 20,000 square foot community theater complex and refurbishes the existing Mercantile Building. The acquisition of 4th Street right of way is complete. All environmental permits have been obtained. Construction started on 3-3-04 and the allowable working days (14 months + 16 days) extends to 5-05-05. Work is progressing on the erection of roofing, framing and utility rough ins for the structures. 4. Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements - Phase II This project will construct the storm drain triple box culvert and the channel improvements north of loma Linda. As part of this stage the entire Pechanga Parkway, Phase II project will be environmentally cleared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Muirfield Drive is temporarily closed to residents. Detour signs have been installed to direct the residents around the construction zone. The final construction items to be completed are as follows: Re-paving of the Muirfield Drive connection to Pechanga Parkway, miscellaneous backfill operations, and a concrete outlet structure. Completion date for the project is the end of March 2005. 5. Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements (Wolf Valley Creek Channel - Stage 2) The project includes the construction of a grass-lined channel/ box culverts from Loma Linda Road to Deer Hollow Road. The box culvert at Wolf Valley Road is currently under construction. A traffic detour on the south of Wolf Valley Road is in place and pedestrians/school children R, IMonthly ActivityReportlCIPl2005V anoary -February .doc have a separate sidewalk through the construction zone. Completion date for the project is schedule for June 2005. 6. Diaz Road Realignment Phase I, Traffic Signals Under this project, two traffic signals will be installed, one on Diaz Road at Rancho Way and the other one on Rancho California Road at Business Park DriveNincent Moraga. Also, a northbound lane will be added on Diaz Road from Rancho Way to Via Montezuma (low Flow Crossing). The contractor has completed all work on this project. The Notice of Completion will be filed in April. 7. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) - Add Amenities This project will add amenities, including play equipment, to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park. Work on this projectis complete. The final walkthrough was on 01/19/05. The project is in its 90-day maintenance period. 8. Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping Under this project, the southern entrance to Old Town will be beautified with landscaping and irrigation, split-rail fencing, lighted walks, and seating areas. Construction began February 7,2005. Grading, utility location, street crossings, and concrete curbs have been completed. Completion anticipated by the end of March. 9. Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II This project will rehabilitate Jefferson Avenue from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road. The design includes a complete reconstruction of the road within the project limits. In addition, problematic driveways will be reconstructed. Pavement rehab work on Diaz Rd is part of this project via Construction Change Order (CCO) No.1 (per City Council meeting dated 6/22/04). Construction started on 07/06/04. The TCP was approved on 9/30/2004; night work began Sunday, 10/10. Contractor re-started work as of 11/29 and was able to get the road suitable for a parade on 12/10 and only completed Ph 1 of 3 by 2/05/05. On 3/08/05, City Council took action to terminate Griffith's contract. A termination agreement is being processed. City staff is in the process of hiring another contractor to complete the project as fast as possible. 10. Pechanga Parkway Landscape Improvements America West landscape has completed the installation of the irrigation system and landscaping. It is anticipated that the 90-day maintenance period will begin the third week of March. SCE has yet to install the electric service necessary for the irrigation controller. 11. Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide Under this project, traffic signals will be installed on Meadows Parkway at la Serena and at Rancho Vista. Staff met with representatives of Temecula Valley Unified School District on November 20, 2003, to obtain their input on the installation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and La Serena. The traffic signals were put into service on March 10,2005. The Notice of Completion is forthcoming. 12. Veteran's Memorial This project will construct a Veteran's Memorial next to the Duck Pond. Project is complete. The project is complete. Final project close-out meeting held with contractor on 3/8/05. The project was R: IMonthly Activity ReportICIPI2005V annary. February. doc accepted as complete by City Council at the February 22, 2005 meeting. 13. Fire Station - Northeast Site (Roripaugh Ranch) This project will construct a new fire station in the north part of the City. The timing of the station will be impacted by the developer's ability to provide finished street grades, final site utilities, and finish all site grading. The project was awarded on 10-26-04 (200 Working Days). Work is estimated to start in late March 2005 as the recent rains have hindered the developers site grading and access issues. Anticipated completion is February, 2006. 14. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson This project will widen Winchester road between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise Circle. Construction began on 12/6/04, and has been severely delayed by weather. All retaining and monument wall work is complete. Work on Stage 1 construction (outside widening areas) continues. Project completion date is now mid-April. 15. Temecula Sports Complex A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow Way. Bids were opened on September 16, 2004. The contract was awarded to Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. at the September 28, 2004 Council meeting. The contract award amount is $13,365,055.51. Barnhart has completed approximately 90% of the rough grading. Some areas are still drying out from the recent rains but the finished grading process should begin next week. The Synthetic turf bid documents have been approved by the City Council and should be going out to bid next week. 16. Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting This project will add lights to the basketball courts at Vail Ranch Middle School. The project was bid successfully the second time with R & M Electrical Contracting being awarded the project on March 8,2005 in the amount of $102,696.00. Work is scheduled to begin June 27, 2005, to utilize the summer break at the school. 17. Pechanga Parkway - Muirfield Drive Traffic Signal Under this project, a traffic signal will be installed on Pechanga Parkway at Muirfield Drive. Traffic signal poles have been delivered to the City. Bids were opened on March 7 and DBX Inc. is the apparent low bidder. The contract will be awarded at the March 22 City Council meeting and construction will begin in April 2005. Construction will be completed in approximately 25 working days. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS 1. Temecula Library A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. A separate parcel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The City was approved for funding by the State on October 28, 2003. Bid documents were distributed to the 18 R: IMonthly Activity ReportICIP\2005\J anuary -February .doc pre-qualified general contractors on 2/28/05. The bid opening date is 4/7/05. PROJECTS IN DESIGN 2. Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road) This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultimate width from the Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga road. The City is working with Caltrans' local Assistance and City's Environmental Consultant to re-classify the Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) of the project to Categorical Exclusion with required technical studies (involving Federal action). The City met with the consultant to review the remaining plan check comments. 100% plans should be submitted to the City within a couple of weeks. he Planning Department completed Addendum No.3 to the Wolf Creek EIR and the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the project. The Addendum and NOD were needed to satisfy all CEQA requirements for the project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued the individual permit for the lower section of the channel. This project was divided into two stages. The first stage is to construct the storm drain triple box culvert and the channel improvements north of Loma Linda. The second stage will construct the remaining street improvements and drainage structures. Construction of this stage will start once the first stage is completed. 3. Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road) This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate width. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications are under review. Plans were sent to all utilities and utility issues are being addressed. Work is being coordinated with the library project, which resumed since State funds have been secured. A new RCWD water line is under design to service the library project. It will tie into an existing line that ends just west of Margarita Road. TCSD has requested the water line be extended past the Library. This extension was added to the second submittal, which was received on October 4,2004. RCWD has approved the fourth submittal and reproducible documents are being prepared. 4. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road This project will entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, and the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. Coordination with RCFC & WCD and the Corp of Engineers is required. The consultant is currently preparing the 70% design plans for submittal to the City in April 2005. 5. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek This project will replace the existing barrier rails of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. Project plans and specs are 100% complete and are ready to bid. Construction Authorization was received and specifications are being updated so that the project can go out to bid. Engineer's Estimates are being reviewed and updated due to lengthy Caltrans review time. R: IMonthly ActivityReportICIP\2005\J anuary- February .doc 6. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. Administrative Development Plan Application was submitted to City Planning Department on 2/4/05; pre-DRC meeting was held on 3/8/05. Comments from Planning, Building & Safety, Fire, and TCSD were received from pre-DRC on 3/9/05. Planning application process is ongoing. 7. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. Caltrans has given the City the "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." We are working with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Riverside County Flood Control to coordinate the trail design with the Murrieta Creek Improvement project. The City received comments from Caltrans on the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) on April 22, 2004. The Natural Environmental Study (Minimal Impacts) (NES (MI» was submitted to Caltrans on April 7, 2004, no comments have been received to date. The PES response to comments was completed and resubmitted to Caltrans on September 23, 2004. The City received comments from Caltrans on January 7, 2005 for the PES, NES (MI)and the ISA. These comments were addressed and revised documents were submitted to Caltrans on Feb. 7,2005. 8. State Route 79 South Medians Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula limits. PDC is making the 1st plan check (30%) corrections. 9. Guardrail Installation and Replacement On Rainbow Canyon Road In this project, old guardrails will be replaced and new guardrails will be installed in needed locations on Rainbow Canyon Road within the City of Temecula. Final package for PS&E certification and Request for Authorization (to construct) is to be submitted to Caltrans in late March. We anticipate advertisement for construction bids in June. 10. Rancho California Road Widening, Old Town Front Street to 1-15 (Southside) This project will provide a right turn lane for southbound 1-15 motorists and explore the possibility of providing a dual left turn lane from westbound RCR to southbound Front Street. Alternatives study is complete and the City has chosen alternative no.1. (widen the south side of the entire length between Old Town Front and 1-15). An MND (CEQA) was completed and a Notice of Determination was sent to the County on 10/11/04. Right of Entries to perform a geologic investigation have been received on the roadway embankment (two property owners) and the work. Staff met with Denny's manager and the work scheduled for the end of March. 11. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. The freeboard issue that was a potential stumbling block has been resolved, and the bridge profile will remain unchanged. The design process is ongoing; consultant is working toward 70% design. The last design progress meeting was held on 2/15/05. The updated project schedule has 70% design plans submitted to the City by 04/05. R, IMonthly Activity ReportlCIPIZOO5V aonary -February .doc 12. City Maintenance Facility and Corporate Yard Under this project, an expansion of the maintenance facility will be built on the property adjacent to City Hall. The consultant is progressing with the schematic design with the next submittal scheduled for May. The parking lot is to be bid within the next 2 months. Coordinating existing and needed utility services is on-going. 13. Santa Gertrudis Bicycle/ Trail Undercrossing at Margarita Road This project will construct a trail for bicycles and pedestrians along Santa Gertrudis Creek under Margarita Road. The first utility notice has been sent out. The consultant is preparing the first plan submittal. 14. Diaz Road Realignment Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road. Business Park Drive will be aT-intersection at Diaz. 95% project design plans have been sent to the utility companies and 95% PS&E has been sent to in-house reviewers. The irrigation and landscaping will need to be re-designed to meet the agreement provisions between the City and the Business Par Association. Right of Way acquisition process is ongoing. 15. Bus Bench Upgrades Under this project, bus benches and shade structures will be installed and existing ones will be upgraded at various locations. The design and locations were approved. Staff is in the final stages of preparing the construction bid documents including ADA and permitting requirements. Authorization to Bid the project was received from City Council on February 22, 2005 and the project should go out to bid in the next few weeks. 16. Localized Storm Drain Improvements This project will fix the drainage problem at the south end of Front Street (at the MWD easement). Baseline right of way and utilities are established. Staff is preparing a conceptual design for presentation to MWD (since it will be on top of their waterline). 17. Traffic Signal at SR79 South and Country Glen Way Under this project, a traffic signal will be installed on State Route 79 South at Country Glen Way. Now that City is in control of SR-79 south, project is being re-drafted and redesigned to City standards and will be bid as a City project. 18. Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road This project will construct an access road to the long Canyon Detention Basin being maintained. Plans and specifications are 90% completed and it is anticipated that this project will go out to bid this summer. Winter rains have affected the project conditions and the scope of work will need to be reevaluated. 19. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2004/2005 This project continues the annual pavement rehabilitation program for City streets. Project scope focuses on Ynez Road, approximately between Rancho California Road and Solana Way. Baseline R: IMonthly ActivityReportICIPI2005\Janoary-February .doc mapping is complete. PS&E is 30% complete. NOE has been filed w/County. Advertising is anticipated in mid-May. PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE 1. 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange - Project Report (PR) This project will modify the 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange to accommodate projected future traffic. This is the next step of project development after the completion of the Project Study Report. The Design Cooperative Agreement has been executed with Caltrans. The Professional Services Agreement with RBF Consulting to prepare the Project Report was approved by City Council February 22, 2005. A Kick-off meeting is scheduled for March 23. 2005. 2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the 1-15/1-215 split. The consultant submitted a screen check for the Project Report (PR), New Connection Report, Fact Sheet, Flood Plain and Scour Analysis Report, and Traffic Operations Analysis to both FHW A and Caltrans and M&N has received a few comments. The draft Project Report was submitted to Caltrans at the end of December 2004. The PR is under review by the State. Comments were due back at the end of February. The Consultant is working on addressing the comments that were received. 3. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City Limits and Diaz Road Extension This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between Winchester Road and the northern City Limits. In addition, the study will be combined with the Diaz Road Extension alignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to complete the work on the first draft of the alignment study. In order to proceed with the design of Diaz Road Extension for the proposed college, the alignment study was restarted with the existing information. The consultant is preparing a base map for the Diaz Road extension alignment. PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON-HOLD 1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary lane project at the southbound exit ramp for Winchester Road. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound exit-ramp at the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane on the exit ramp just north of Winchester Road. Staff is revisiting the merits of this project in light of the Project Study Report for French Valley Parkway Interchange. The study shows that this bridge may have to be removed in the future to accommodate the new Interchange. This project is suspended indefinitely. R: IMonthly Activity ReportICIPI2005\J anuary. February .doc PROJEcr NO.1 PRIORITY CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 1 OF 8 03/17/2005 PROJEcr NAME, DESCRIPTION, CONTRAcrOR & CONTRAcr $'0 - PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION PW02~7 PWOO-20 PW02-23RDA PW99-IISD PW99-IICH PW95-27 PW02~2 PW02-20 WPS031605 ~ John Wamer Road Assessment District Contractor: Mclaughlin Engineering Ii Rancho Cal~omia Road Widening and Median Modifications East of Ynez Road (Close median openings at Claim Jumper and Target). Oid Town Temecuia Community Theater Tovey/Shultz Construction, inc. $7,168,000 Approved/Pending Change Orders: $488,368.26 + 26 Days and 36 weather days Pechanga Parkway Phase IiA Storm Drain Improvements (Wolf Valiey Creek Channel-Stage 1). Temecuia Creek to Lama Linda Road Contractor: Yeager Skanska. $4.187,607 Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain improvements (Wolf Vailey Creek Channel - Stage 2) Loma Linda Road to Deer Hoilow Road Contractor: Road Builders. inc" $2,940,768.42 Diaz Road Realignment - Phase I. Traffic Signals Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Vailey School) - Add Amenities PABLO APIS PARK Vida Samarzich, Inc.: $327,081 Ii Oid Town Southem Gateway Landscaping Contractor: Intemationai Pavement Solutions Contract: $351,930.50 pROJECT I' % TIME I. % ENGINEER. COMPLETE CONTRACT (E>I.-'"""" , PAID ($) : Jon Salazar Jon Salazar David McBride Amer Attar Steve Beswick Greg Butler Steve Beswick Scott Harvey Laura Bragg Avlin Odviar 100% 100% 76.0% (07/05 ) 80% (03/05 ) 70% ( 06105 ) 100% (01/05 ) 99% ( 02105 ) 40% (04105) 100% 100% 53% 80% 70% 90% 80% 30% CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS This project is compiete. After weeks of deiays, the contractor submitted Contracto~s Affidavit & Final Reiease on 3/9/05. Notice of Completion is to be filed this monUl. This project is complete. The Notice of Completion is to be filed this month. Construction of a 20,000 square foot community theater compiex and refurbishment of the existing Mercantile Building. Construction started on 3-3-04 and the ailowable working days (14 monUls + 26 days ror changes and 36 days for weaUler thru the end of January 05) extends to 07-12.05. Work is progressing on the erection of roofing, rraming and utiiity rough ins for Ule structures. The project includes construction of a storm drain and open channel from Lama Linda Road to Temecula Creek. Muirfield Drive is temporarily closed to residents. Detour signs have been instailed to direct the residents around the construction zone. The final construction items to be compieted are as foilows: Re-paving of Ule Muirfield Drive connection to Pechanga Parkway, misceilaneous backfili operations, and a concrete outiet structure. Completion date for the project is the end of March 2005. The project includes construction of a grass lined channellbox culverts from Lama Linda Road to Deer Hoilow Road. The box cuivert at Waif Vailey Road is currentiy under construction. A traffic detour on the south of Waif Vailey Road is in place and pedestrianslschool children have a separate sidewalk through the construction zone. Completion date for tI1e project Is schedule for June 2005. Under Ulis project. two traffic signals wiil be instailed. one on Diaz Road at Rancho Way and the oUler one on Rancho California Road at Business Park DriveNlncent Moraga. Aiso, a northbound lane wiil be added on Diaz Road from Rancho Way to Via Montezuma (Low Flow Crossing). Contractor has compieted ail work on this project. The Notice of Completion wiil be fiied in April. This project added amenities. including play equipment, to the recentiy annexed Vail Ranch Park. Construction began on August 23, 2004. Work on this project is complete. The final waikthrough was on 01/19/05. The project is in its 90-day maintenance period.. Under this project. the southem entrance to Old Town wiil be beautified with iandscaping and irrigation, spiit-rail fencing. iighted waiks, and seating areas. Construction began February 7, 2005. Grading, utility location, street crossings. and concrete curbs have been compieted. Completion anticipated by the end of March. CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 2 OF 8 03/17/2005 PROJE<:T NAME,.DESauPTION, PROJE<:T % TIME % PROJECfNO. PRIORITY <:OMPLETE CONTRACI CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS CONTRACfOR & <:ONTRACf $'s ENGINEER ""œ..'.".", PAID ($) . Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabiiitation - Phase ii This project rehabiiitates Jefferson Ave from Overland Dr to Rancho Ca Rd. Contractor: Griffith Company, $1,997,758.95 Construction be9an 07/06; the TCP was approved 9/30; roadwork officiaily be9an Mayra De La 10/10. Griffith made the road manageable for the 12/04/04 parade and only PW02.26 I 100% 28% completed Ph 1 of 3 by 2/05/05. On 3/08/05, City Council took action to terminate Torre Griffith's contract. A termination agreement is being processed. City staff is in the process of hiring another contractor to complete the project as fast as possible. Pechanga Parkway Landscape Improvements America West Landscape has compieted the instailation of the irrigation system Contractor: America West Landscape and landscaping. It is anticipated that the 90-day maintenance period wiil begin pw99-IlLS 1 Brian Guillot 95% 85% the third week of March. SCE has yet to instail the eiectric service necessary for the irrigation controiler. PW03-D7 Traffic Signallnstailation - Citywide The traffic signals were put into service on March 10, 2005. The Notice of PW03-D8 i Meadows Parkway at La Serena Brian Guillot 100% 90% Completion is forthcoming. Meadows Parkway at Rancho Vista Veteran's Memorial The project is complete. Finai project close-out meeting held with contractor on Contractor: SFM Constructors: $160,000 3/8/05. The project was accepted as complete by City Councii at the February 22, PW04-10CSD i Jon Salazar 100% 100% 2005 meeting. Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The timing of the station wiil be impacted by the deveiope(s abiiity to provide Contractor: Tovey Shuitz Construction. Inc. finished street grades, final site utilities. and finish ail site grading. The project PW03-D1 Ii $3,298.000 David 0% N/A was awarded on 10-26-04 (200 Working Days). Work is estimated to start in late McBride (2/06) March 2005 as the recent rains have hindered the developers site grading and access issues. Anticipated completion is February. 2006. Winchester Road Widening at Jefferson Avenue Construction began on 12/6/04, and has been severeiy delayed by weather. Ali t Contractor: Riverside Construction Jon Salazar 70% 25% retaining and monument wail work is compiete. Work on Stage 1 construction PWOO-27 $1,607.570 (4115/05) (outside widening areas) continues. Project completion date is now mid-April. Temecula Sports Compiex Barnhart has compieted approximately 90% of the rough grading. Some areas are Consuitant: RJM Desi9n Group - $621 ,500 Contractor: 15.8% stiil drying out from the recent rains but the finished grading process should begin PWOI-17 II de Bamhart$12.150,050 Bill McAteer (2/16) 5% next week. The Synthetic turf bid documents have been approved by the City Council and shouid be going out to bid next week. Vaii Ranch Middle School Basketbail Court Lighting The project was bid successruily the second time with R & M Electrical Contracting PW04-D6CSD I Brian Guiiiot 0% 0% being awarded the project on March 8, 2005 in the amount of $1 02,696.00. Work is scheduied to begin June 27, 2005, to utilize the summer break at the school. Pechanga Parkway - Muirfield Drive Traffic Signal A traffic signai wiil be constructed at the intersection of Pechanga Parkway and Consultant: Wiidan: $9.010.00 Muirfieid Drive. Traffic signai poles have been delivered to the City. Bids were Steve opened on March 7 and OBX Inc. is the apparent iow bidder. The contract wiil be PW99-IlTS I Beswick 0% 0% awarded at the March 22 City Council meeting and construction wiil begin in April 2005. Construction wiil be compieted in approximateiy 25 working days. WPS031605 CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 3 OF 8 03/17/2005 PRomer No.1 PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, CONTRAerOR & CONTRACT$'s PWO4-15 PWOO-O7CSD II Ene Stanley Gardner Exhibit Consuitant: Dean Davidson AlA Contractor: TBD Temecuia Library Architect: LPA PROJECT I % TIME I '/, ENGINEER COMPLEtE CONTRACT 1£',--'""") PAID ($) . Bill McAteer Bill McAteer - PROJECTS BE/NG DESIGNED BY CONSULTANTS PW99-11 (Phase II) PWOO-O9 PWOO-26 PWO1-O9 PWOI-1i WPSO31605 II Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase Ii. from Pala Bridge (SR79 South) through Via EduardolWoif Valley Road and to City Limits/Pechanga Road. Consultant: DMJM: $644.523.14 Pauba Road improvements - Phase Ii (Along proposed Library) Project Design Consuitants (POC): $125.180 II Murrieta Creek Bndge - Ovenand Drive Extension to Diaz Road Project Design Consuitants (PDC) II Bridge Barrier Raii Upgrade Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek Simon Wong Engineering - $43.580 Fire Station - Wo~ Creek Site ~ Amer Attar/ Steve Beswick/ Brian Guillot Laura Bragg Steve Beswick/ Greg Butler TBD/Greg Butler Jon Salazar/ Greg Butler 0% 100% (03/05 ) 95% 98% 30% (09/05 ) 98% (02/05 ) 99% (2/05 ) N/A 95% 98% 30% CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS 0% Due to the fact that only one bid was received for this project and that bid was three times the engineers estimate, the bid will be rejected. This was put before the City Council on 3/8/05. Bid documents were distributed to the 18 pre-qualified generai contractors on 2/28/05. The bid opening date is 4m05. The City is working with Caitrans' Locai Assistance and the City's environmental consuitant to re-classify the Preliminary Environmental Document (NEPA) of the project to Categoricai Exclusion with required technical studies (involving Federal action). The City recently met with the consuitant to review and discuss the remaining design issues to be completed and associated costs. The Pianning Department compieted Addendum No.3 to the Wolf Creek EiR and the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the project. The Addendum and NOD were needed to satisfy all CECA requirements for the project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued the individual permit for the lower section of the channel. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications are under review. Pians were sent to ali utiiities and utility issues are being addressed. Work is being coordinated with the library project, which resumed since State funds have been secured. A new RCWD water line is under design to service the library. it wili tie into an existing line that ends just west of Margarita Road. TCSD has requested the water line be extended past the Library. This extension was added to the second submittal which was received on October 4, 2004. RCWD has approved the fourth submittal and reproducibie documents are being prepared. The project includes the extension of Ovenand Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road. A bridge over Murrieta Creek is included in the design. Coordination with RCFC & WCD and the Corp or Engineers is required. The consultant is currently prepanng the 70% design plans for submittal to the City in Aprii 2005. N/A Project plans and specs are 100% complete and are ready to bid. Construction Authorization was received and specifications are being updated so that the projec1 can go out to bid. Enginee(s Estimates are being reviewed and updated due to iengthy Caltrans review time. Administrative Development Pian Application was submitted to City Pianning Department on 2/4/05; pre-DRC meeting was held on 3/8/05. Comments from Planning, Buiiding & Safety. Fire, and TCSD were received rrom pre-DRC on 3/9/05. Planning application process is ongoing. N/A PROJECfNO.1 PRIORITY PWOI-27 PWO2-14 PW02.18 PW02-19 PW03-o5 PWO3-o6 PWO4-I3 II CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 4 OF 8 03/17/2005 PR()JECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, CONTRACTOR & CONTRACf $'s Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. $232,380 State Route 79 South Medians Consultant: Project Desi9n Consuitants Contact Value: $180.088.00 Guardraii instaliation and Replacement On Rainbow Canyon Road Consultant: Tetra Tech, Inc,,: $20.000 Rancho Caiifomia Road Widening, Oid Town Front Street to 1-15 (Southside) Consultant: Berryman & Henigar $135.805 Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Repiacement) Consuitant: Simon Wong Engineering: $317,719 PROJECf 'I % TIME. % ENGINEER' COMPLETE CONTRACT (E~~"'"dd.,) PAID ($) Laura Braggl Amer Attar Scott Harvey Avlin Odviar David McBride Jon Salazarl Amer Attar City Field Operations Center (Maintenance Faciiity and Corporate Yard) I Greg Butler Muiti-Trails System Margarita Road Under Crossing Consultant: LAN Engineering - PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED BY STAFF PW95-27 WPS031605 ~ Diaz Road Realignment to Vincent Moraga Estimated Cost: $800.000 Brian Guillot Scott Harvey 50% (5/05) 40% (BI05) 95% (07105) 70% (06105 ) 50% (9105 ) 50% (09/05) 5% (09105) 80% (03105 ) 50% 28% 100% 70% 40% 35% CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS The CitY is working with- Caltrans, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Riverside County Flood Control to coordinate the traii design with the Murrieta Creek Improvement project. The City received comments from Caltrans on the Preiiminary Environmental Study (PES) on April 22, 2004. The Natural Environmentai Study (Minimal Impacts) (NES (MI)) was submitted to Caltrans on Aprii 7, 2004. The PES response to comments was compieted and resubmitted to Caltrans on September 23, 2004. The City received comments from Caltrans on January 7,2005 for the PES, NES (Mi) and the ISA. These comments were addressed and revised documents were submitted to Caltrans on Feb. 7, 2005. Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula limits. PDC is making the 1 st pian check (30%) corrections. Final package for PS&E certification and Request for Authorization (to construct) is to be submitted to Caitrans in late March. We anticipate advertisement for construction bids in June. This projectwili provide a righttum lane for southbound i-15 motorists and dual ielt turn lanes from westbound RCR to southbound Front Street. Alternatives study is complete and the City has chosen altemative no.1. (widen the south side of the entire iength between Old Town Front and 1-15). An MND (CEQA) was completed and a Notice of Oetermination was sent to the County on 10/11/04. Right of Entries to perform a geologic investigation have been received on the roadway embankment (two property owners) and the work. Staff met with Denny's manager and the work scheduled for the end or March. The design process is ongoing; consultant is working toward 70% design. The last design progress meeting was held on 2/15105. The updated project scheduie has 70% design plans submitted to the City by 04/05. 0% The consuitant is progressing with the schematic design with the next submittai scheduled for May. The parking iot is to be bid within the next 2 months. Coordinating existing and needed utiiity services is on-going. This project wili construct a traii for bicycles and pedestrians aiong Santa Gertrudis Creek under Margarita Road. The first utility notice has been sent out. The consultant is preparing the first pian submittal. N/A 95% project design pians have been sent to the utiiity companies and 95% PS&E has been sent to in-house reviewers. The irrigation and iandscaping wili need to be re-designed to meet the agreement provisions between the City and the Business Par Association. Right of Way acquisition process is ongoing. CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 5 OF 8 03/1712005 PROJECfNO.lpRlORlTY PROJECf NAME, DESCRIPTION, CONTRACfOR & CONTRACf $', PW02-17 PW04.()2 PW04,()9 PW04.()7 PW04.12 Bus Bench Upgrades Ii Locaiized Storm Drain Improvements Ii Traffic Signai at SR79 South and Country Gien Way Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2004/2005 PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE PWO4.()8 PWO2-11 Combine at this stage to coordinate alignment of Diaz & Murrieta Creek crossing WPSO31605 - ~ III 1-15/ SR 79S Uitimate interchange Project Report (PR) RBF Consuiting: $325,944.00 French Valiey Parkway/I-IS Overcrossing and interchange, Project Report (PR) Moffatt & Nichol: $1,091.693.00 Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Rd. and Temecula's City Limits Diaz Road Extension to Date Street Consultant: Kimley-Hom and Assoc. $167,101.00 PROJECT! % TIME I" % ENGINEER COMPLETE CON1'RACl "d._'"""" . P,\iD($) Laura Bragg Avlin Odvlar Greg Butler Brian Guillot Avlin Odviar Avlin Odviar Scott Harvey/ Amer Attar Brian Guillot 90% (02105 ) 20% ( 01/06) 75% (5105 ) 90% (05/05 ) 30% ( 06/05 ) 0% (08/06 ) 80% ( 02107) 4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35% 35% CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS The design and locations were approved. Staff is in the finai stages of preparing the construction bid documents including ADA and permitting requirements. Authorization to Bid the project was received from City Council on February 22, 2005 and the project should go out to bid in the next rew weeks. This project wiil fix the drainage problem at the south end of Front Street (at the MWD easement). Baseiine right of way, utilities. and mapping are established. Staff is preparing a conceptual design for presentation to MWD (since it wiil be on top of their waterline). Now that City is in control of SR-79 south, project is being re-drafted and redesigned to City standards and wili be bid as a City project. Pians and specifications are 90% compieted and it is anticipated that this project wiil go out to bid this summer. Winter rains have affected the project conditions and the scope or work wili need to be reevaluated. PS&E is 30% compiete. NOE has been fiied w/County. Advertising is anticipated in mid-May. 0% The Proressional Services Agreement with RBF Consulting to prepare the Project Report was approved by City Councii February 22, 2005. A Kick-off meeting is scheduied ror March 23, 2005. The consultant submitted a screen check ror the Project Report (PR), New Connection Report. Fact Sheet, Fiood Plain and Scour Anaiysis Report. and Traffic Operations Analysis to both FHWA and Caltrans and M&N has received a few comments. The draft Project Report was submitted to Caltrans at the end or December 2004. The PR is under review by the State. Comments were due back at the end of February. The Consultant is working on addressing the comments that were received. The determination of the crossing location wiil be combined with the Diaz Road Extension aiignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consuitant and Staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currentiy awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to compiete the work on the first draft of the alignment study. Staff has yet to receive the data. In order to proceed with the design of Diaz Road Extension ror the proposed coilege, the alignment study was restarted with the existing inrormation. The consultant is preparing a base map for the Diaz Road extension aiignment. CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 6 OF 8 03/17/2005 I'ROJECfNO.1 PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, CONTRACfOR & CONTRACT $', - PROJECTS WAITING IN THE WINGS PW02.22 PWOO.29 PWOO.15 ~ French Valiey Parkway Interim Southbound Off-Ramp to Jefferson - Phase I PROJECT "I % TIME I % ENGINEER" COMPLE']'E Ç()NTRACl "",ro.,' ",.....) PAID ($) Amer Attarl Scott Harvey Ii Old Town Gymnasium ~~r;;CUla Park and Ride (@ SR79 South and La Paz I Scott Harvey Ii Guidant Corporation Roadway Improvements Iii Pauba Road Improvements East of Margarita Road. North Side Butterlield Stage Road - Roripaugh CFD Iii Rainbow Canyon South Inteichange Feasibiiity Study Ii Citywide Master Drainage Pian Iii Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, inc. Estimated Construction Costs: $700,000. RIGHT OF WA Y RELA TED PROJECTS PW02-1l PW 00-27 PW02-23 WPS031605 French Valiey Parkway/I-IS Overcrossing and interchange. Project Report (PR) Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circie and Jefferson Avenue Community Theatre (access) ???????? ???????? Steve Beswick G Butlerl Mayra De La Torre Amer Attar ???????? Scott Harvey - ~ Amer Attar Amer Attar % % % ...L-l % ...L-l "I. % % % 98% (05/02 ) N/A 100% 100"1. CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS N/A At a meeting on 04/02103, FHWA has indicated that they are open to the idea of constructing the southbound off-ramp to Jefferson provided that a) the southbound on-ramp is aiso constructed, b) the entire project is cieared environmentaily, and cj funding of the entire project is programmed on the RTIP. We will pursue this once the Value Anaiysis process is complete and the precise foot print or the interchange is determined. The design for this portion is inciuded as part of Project PW02-11. N/A New Project. N/A New Project. N/A N/A Suspended until 2006.2007 N/A CFD"was rormed at January CC mtg. Bond issuance has been delayed due to I Develope~s request to modify DA. Ashby USA legal issues may further deiay bond ISsuance. N/A On hold. RFP is complete. N/A Postponed until FY200412005 N/A Suspended. Staff is revisiting the merits of this project in iight of the proposed I Project Study Report for French Vailey Interchange that shows that this bridge may; have to be removed in the future. N/A The City receive the letter disapproving the acquisition of the Basic Etc. and the Mortuary. N/A One property is stili going through the condemnation process but the City has received possession through the courts. AJI other property owners have settled. N/A Ail escrows have ciosed. PROJECT NAME. OE$CRIPTION, PROJECT % TIME % PROJECT NO. PRIORITY COMPLETE CONTRACl CURRENT $T A TU$ &PROGRE$$ CONTRACfOR & CONTRACT $', ENGINEER "'.-' ""'...) pAlO ($) Diaz Realignment Condemnation preceding are on-going. At the same time, the City attomey is trying to negotiate a settiement with the Outdoor Channei attomey and the Business PW 95-27 I Amer Attar Park Association. The City received possession of the needed properties from the Outdoor Channel and Westem Eagle Foundation as of March 1,2005. RCR Widening - Front to Interstate 15 David Right of entries for geologic investigation of the roadway embankment adjacent to PW 02-19 I McBride Denny's have been received and work will occur at the end of March. Miscellaneous Right of Way Related Items On-going N/A Property inventory. condemnation of Diaz rtw. Will prepare Purchase Agreement for the mitigation lands to be purchased for the bridge project. SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS Various I Tracking, preparing. and processing Federal and State Julie Dauer On-going N/A Various Projects. Funds Reimbursements Bicycie Transportalion Account (BTA) Applicalion In process of preparing an appiication for submittal to Caitrans for BTA funds to aid Various I Julie Dauer N/A N/A in the construction of the Santa Gertrudis BicyclelTrail Undercrossing al Margarita Road. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Department of Staff is in process of preparing bid documents to include ADA requirements and PW02.17 I Transportation - Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Julie Dauer N/A N/A permitting. Federal funds are in the amount of $198.063. Bus Bench Upgrades. Bus Passenger Shelters Hazard Eiimination Safety (HES) Funds in process of preparing 'Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction' to PW02.18 i Guardrail installation & Repiacement - Rainbow Julie Dauer N/A N/A be submitted to Caitrans along with PS & E. Canyon Road Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation Project due to go to bid & construction soon. Once awarded. will prepare an PWO1.Q9 i Program (HBRR) Julie Dauer N/A N/A 'Award Package'to submit to Caltrans. Barrier Rail Replacement - Rainbow Canyon at Pechanga Creek & Del Rio Rd at Empire Creek Highway Bridge Repiacemenl & Rehabiiitation At the request of Caltrans we have re-submitted another copy of our HBRR PWO3.QS I Program (HBRRP) - Main Street Bridge Julie Dauer N/A N/A application for the Main Street Bridge. We are continuing to follow up with Local Assistance in an effort to expedite the appiication process. SR2S- Safe Routes to School Program - Federai We have been notified our appiication for SR2S funding has been awarded in the Various I Fiscal Year 04-05 - Julie Dauer N/A N/A amount of $425,520. CiP staff in process of preparing RFP for desi9n. Environmentai Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Construction contract awarded and construction began on February 7, 2005. PWO2-20 i Program - Oid Town Southern Gateway Landscapingl Julie Dauer N/A N/A Rotary Park Expansion PW95.11 i Overland Bridge Overcrossing Julie Dauer N/A N/A Will finaiize package to Caltrans for payment by end of month. Currentiy working with Local Assistance staff to complete paperwork. Standardize the format of the Specifications for all Amer Attar On-going N/A Specifications iibrary is continuously being updated and amended. The boiler-piate projects Gren Butler section is also being reviewed and updated. CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 7 OF 8 0311712005 WPS031605 CITY OF TEMECULA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET PAGE 8 OF 8 03/17/2005 PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT % TIME % PROJECT NO. PRIORITY CONTRACl CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER COMPLETE IE"~",,'.""') PAID ($) Renew Annuai Contracts for Survey, Geotechnicai and The Request for Quaiifications for Survey. Geotechnical and Materials Testing. and Materiai Testing, and Appraisal Services FY04-05 Appraisai Services was sent out on Aprii 19.2004 and responses were received a Laura Bragg N/A N/A May 11. Qualifications were reviewed and City Council approved the agreements at the June 22, 2004 Council Meeting. Update Pians to Reflect As-Buiit Conditions ror Ali City received from many contractors biue prints marked with As-Bulit conditions for Recent Projects 117171 On-going N/A various projects. Some of these As-Bulit conditions have never been transferred to the project mylars. As-Buiit plans wili be created for ali recent projects, if it was not done. Consuitant Selection An Access database was created ror our Consultant Selection List. Information is Various I Laura Bragg On-going N/A availabie on the City's web-site on how to be piaced on the list and responses are being entered into the computer as tI1ey are received. WPS031605 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer fb"'9 Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent March 2, 2005 Monthly Activity Report - February, 2005 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of February, 2005: I. II. III. IV. V. SIGNS A. B. Total signs replaced Total signs installed ----.ill ~ C. Total signs repaired -----2 TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns ---.!! ASPHALT REPAIRS A. B. Total square feet of A. C. repairs Total Tons 4,079 ----Mi CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned -lli A. RIGHT-OF-WA Y WEED ABATEMENT Total square footage for right-of-way abatement ---.!! VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL Total locations ~ -.!.ill A. B. VII. Total S.F. STENCILING A. ---.!! New and repainted legends B. 295 LF. of new and repainted red curb and striping R.\MAINT AINlMOACTRP'ruoo.. 2oo5lFEBR U AR Y Also, City Maintenance staff responded to ~ service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.c. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to....21!...... service order requests for the month of Januarv, 2005. The Maintenance Crew has also put in ~ hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of Februarv. 2004 was $ 53.044.72 compared to $165,947.90 for the month of Januarv. 2005. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 $ 23,151.75 $ 27,892.97 $ - 0- cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer (Traffic) Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Jell)' Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development) RIMAINT AINlMOACTRPn2004.2005\FEBRUAR Y STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of February, 2005 DATE DESCRIPTION I TOTAL COST ACCOUNT S TREE T ICHANNELIB RIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT Date: 02/05 CITYWIDE DEBRIS REMOVAL REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM CITY STREETS & RIGHT-OF-W A YS DUE TO HEA VY STORMS # 5402 TOTAL COST I $ 8,875.00 CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCA V A TING Date: 02/14/05 DIAZROAD AT DENDY WAY DRAIN STANDING WATER FROM CITY LOT # 5402 TOTAL COST I $ 1,505.00 Date: 02/14/05 EAST VALLEJO ROAD REPAIR SLOPE DUE TO EROSION FROM STORMS # 5402 TOTAL COST I $ 1,922.00 Date: 02/15/05 VIA MONTEZUMA "LOW FLOW" REMOVAL OF SILT & DEBRIS FROM LOW FLOW # 5401 TOTAL COST I $ 13,509.00 CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING Date: 02/10105 JOHN WARNER ROAD REPAIRS TO RIGHT OF WAY EROSION DUE TO HEAVY RAINS # 5402 TOTAL COST I $ 5,265.55 Date: 02/1 1/05 DE PORTOLA ROAD AT MARGARITA REPAIRS TO SAFETY FENCING AROUND CHANNELS AND I # 5401 3RD STREET AT MERCEDES TOTAL COST $ 2,454.20 Date: 02/05 CITYWIDE POWER SWEEP DEBRIS AND SILT FROM CITY STREETS # 5402 TOTAL COST I $ 5,584.20 Date: 02/15/05 TO WALCOTT BETWEEN CALLE CHAPOS REPAIRS TO DRAINAGE CHANNELS ALONG 2/24/05 AND LA SERENA THIS STREET # 5401 TOTAL COST I $ 11,929.77 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 27.892.97 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 23.151.75 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 --.:!!: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT STREET MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 Date Submitted: March 2. 2005 Subm~ted By: Bili Hughes Prepared BY6;øBrad Buren WORK WORK WORK TOTAL COST TOTAL COST COMPLETED COST FOR COMPLETED COST FOR FEB COMPLETED COST FOR FOR THIS FOR LAST SCOPE OF WORK JAN '05 JAN '05 FEB '05 '05 MAR '05 MAR '05 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR ASPHALT AC Square Footage: 3,758 $11,161.26 4,079 $12,114.63 $75,426.12 $96,596.58 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Square Footage: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 STRIPING LINEAR FEET: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $52,599.84 $126,869.22 IN-HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $10,184.00 $30,064.00 SIGNS REPLACED Material: 52 $2,600.00 111 $5,550.00 $29,350.00 $58,400.00 Labor: $1,127.88 $2,407.59 $12,732.03 SIGNS INSTALLED Material: 7 $350.00 4 $200.00 $4,000.00 $15,800.00 Labor: $151.83 $86.76 $1,735.20 $6,669.48 GRAFFITI Square Footage: 3,756 1,671 Cost: $6,573.00 $2,924.25 $32,371.50 $61,089.25 DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED Basins: 152 $3,296.88 212 $4,598.28 $30,321.71 $42,927.36 Channels: 16 $140,763.90 4 $27,892.97 $288,670.87 $223,492.00 IN-HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $3,470.40 $4,037.94 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: 98 $0.00 55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 364 $11,844.56 81 $2,639.79 $51,449.79 $55,889.56 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $704.36 $1,726.84 TOTALS $177,869.31 $58,414.27 $593,015.82 $748,290.21 3RD QUARTER RIMAINT AINIMOACRPTUUL Y.AUG.SEPT. [SECOND HALF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 Date S"bm;tte<l O1.M"..,. S"bm;tted By, Bill HUGHES Prepared By, ¡Jf!Í BRAD BURON CONTRACTORS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTALS YEAR-TO-DATE Asphait Square Feet 0 0 0 0 Concrete Square Feet 0 0 0 0 Drainage Channels 16 4 41 41 TOTAL COSTS $140,763.90 $27.892.97 $288,670.87 $288,670.87 CONTRACT STRIPING 876.664 876,664 Striping Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 Sandblasting Linear Feet 0 0 52.600 52.600 TOTAL COSTS TREE CONTRACTORS Trees Trimmed 310 223 838 838 Trees Removed 0 3 16 16 TOTAL COSTS $10,215.00 $9.687.50 $35 088.00 $35.088.00 ROW. SPRAYING - ACRES 94 12 241 241 TOTAL COSTS $9,000.00 $1 275.00 $1 275.00 $1.275.00 CITY MAINTENANCE CREW Signs Repiaced 52 111 587 587 Signs Instaiied 7 4 80 80 Catch Basins Cleaned 152 212 1.859 1.859 Trees Trimmed 0 0 160 160 ROW. Weed Abatement 0 0 17.231 17,231 New & Repainted Legends 0 0 1,273 1.273 After Hours Caii Outs 364 81 1,585 1,585 Service Order Requests 98 55 735 735 Graffiti Removal - Sq Ft 3.758 1,671 16,827 16,827 TOTAL COSTS $37,105.41 $30251.30 $248086.11 $248086.11 R\MAINTAIN\MOACRPn JAN THRU JUNE CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TONS CITYWIDE POTHOLES I PECHANGA PARKWAY I 02/01/05 PROMENADE POTHOLES/R&R 115 3 CITYWIDE POTHOLES I RAINBOW CANYON ROADI 02/02/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLES I A.c.OL 509 3 CITYWIDE POTHOLES I RANCHO CALIFORNIA 02/03105 ROAD/CABRILLO POTHOLES I R&R A.c. 517 3 02/07/05 MARGARITA I RYDER POTHOLES I R&R A.c. 115 2 02108105 CITYWIDE POTHOLES I MARGARITA POTHOLES I R&R A.C. 236 2 02/09105 MARGARITA NIO RANCHO VISTA POTHOLES I A.c.O.L. 172 2 021i 0105 DIAZ AT WINCHESTER POTHOLES I A.c.O.L. 207 2 021i 1105 CITYWIDE POTHOLES FILL POTHOLES 72 TEMP A.c. 02/14/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ I CITYWIDE FILL POTHOLES 13 i Ii 021i 5105 JEDEDIAH SMITH AT DE PORTOLA FILL POTHOLES 30 TEMP A.c. 02115105 DIAZ I YNEZ A.c. OVERLAY 328 1.5 02116/05 DIAZ I YNEZ I ZEVO I VIA DOS PICOS A.c. OVERLAY 434 2.5 021i 7105 JEFFERSON I RAINBOW CANYON ROAD A.C. OVERLAY 112 1.5 02122/05 CITYWIDE "RAIN" FILL POTHOLES 283 TEMP A.c. 02123/05 CITYWIDE "RAIN" FILL POTHOLES 83 TEMP A.c. 02/24/05 CITYWIDE "RAIN" FILL POTHOLES II TEMP Ac. 02/24/04 QUIET MEADOW R&R A.c. 231 1.5 02/28/05 TUOLUMNE COURT R&R Ac. 439 i2 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 4.079 TOTAL TONS ~ R,\MAINT AI NIWKCMPL TOIASPHAL T.R """.OS\FEBR UAR Y CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CA TCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 02/01/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 14 CATCH BASINS 02/07/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 35 CATCH BASINS 02/08/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 14 CATCH BASINS 02/09/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 7 CATCH BASINS 02/14/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 33 CATCH BASINS 02/15/05 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 44 CATCH BASINS 02/17/05 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS 02/18/05 CITYWIDE "RAIN" CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS 02/22/05 CITYWIDE "RAIN" CLEANED & CHECKED 16 CATCH BASINS 02/23/05 CITYWIDE "RAIN" CLEANED & CHECKED 33 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED -ill R,IMAINT AINI WKCMPLETDICA TCHBASIO4.05lFEBR UAR Y CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 02/02/05 OAK CLIFF AT ROCK BLUFF REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/03/05 MARGARITA AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/03/05 LONG CANYON CREEK PARK REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/07/05 MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 34 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/07/05 BUTTERFIELD BRIDGE REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/07/05 WINCHESTER BRIDGE REMOVED 82 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/07/05 NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY BRIDGE REMOVED 137 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/07/05 WALCOTT REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/07/05 RANCON BUILDING REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/08/05 BEDFORD COURT REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/09/05 VIA PUERTA AT CAMINO VERDE REMOVED 70 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/10/05 PREECE AT TIERRA VISTA REMOVED 22 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/14/05 MIRA LOMA AT EDISON SUB-STATION REMOVED 125 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/I6/05 McCABE REMOVED 7 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/17/05 VIA RIO TEMECULA REMOVED 249 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/24/05 41935 4TH STREET REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/24/05 VERDADERO PLACE REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/24/05 TAJO AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 9 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/24/05 I-IS AT MAIN STREET REMOVED 7 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/24/05 SANTA CECILIA REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/25/05 VIA MESIA AT CAMINO HERENCIA REMOVED 90 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/28/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT CALLE TAJO REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/28/05 HONORS AT CRYSTALAIRE REMOVED 165 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RIMAINT AIM WKCMPL TDIGRAFFITI\Q405\FEBR U AR Y " DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 02/28/05 SANTA CECILIA AT LaMA LINDA REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/28/05 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 02/28/05 MIRA LOMA REMOVED 380 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED --.!.ill TOTAL LOCATIONS ---.Yi R,IMAINT AIN\ WKCMPL TD\GRAFAT""'05\FEBR UAR Y COSTS January February March April May June July August September October November December SQUARE FOOTAGE January February March April May June July August September October November December $ 6,573.00 $ 2,924.25 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,756 1,671 CITY OF TEMECULA 2005 GRAFFITI REM 0 VAL TOTAL CALLS January February March April May June July August September October November December 11 26 Totals for the Year To Date: March 1,2005 Sq, Foot Cost Calls 5,427 $ 9,497.25 37 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 ---- - -_._- --------- ----I I I I I I I , JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC -- COST -- sa FT """",""G'^""""""'",cem.,,o. CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 DATE DATE WORK REC'D LOCATION REQUEST COMPLETED 02/01/05 40325 WINDSOR ROAD POTHOLE 02/01/05 02/02/05 42400 COSMIC DRIVE TREES DYING 02/02/05 02/02/05 44803 CORTE SANCHEZ TREE TRIMMING 02/02/05 02/03/05 42079 PAS EO SONRISA DEL SOL CRACK IN STREET 02/03/05 02/03/05 30425 JEDEDIAH SMITH FRONT YARD DAMAGED 02/03/05 02/04/05 PAUBA AT MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLES 02/04/05 02/07/05 41977 VARDON DRIVE TREE TRIMMING 02/07/05 02/07/05 30368 VIA CANADA WATER STANDING 02/07/05 02/07/05 3032LCOLINA VERDE DEBRIS PICK-UP 02/07/05 02/07/05 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT HWY 79 SO. POTHOLES 02/07/05 02/08/05 JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO DEBRIS PICK-UP 02/08/05 02/08/05 40167 HOLDEN CIRCLE NICHOLAS NEEDS LANDSCAPE 02/08/05 02/09/05 SOLANA WAY AT DEL REY ROAD SIGN REPAIR 02/09/05 02/i 0/05 DEL REL AT SOLANA R-I DOWN 02/i 0/05 02/i 1/05 40278 ATMORE MUDSLIDE 02/i lI05 02/i lI05 43843 PAULITA ROAD TREE FALLING 021lll05 02/11/05 PECHANGA PARKWAY AT PRIMROSE SIGN DOWN 021lll05 02/1 lI05 DEEPWOOD CIRCLE S.N.S. MISSING 021lll05 021lll05 20965 FRONT STREET STREET FLOODED 02/11/05 021l4/05 39330 KIMBERLY LANE STREET GRADING 021l4/O5 02/16/05 42030 MAIN STREET CATCH BASIN CONCERN 02/16/05 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD @ PROMENADE 021l6/05 HILLS ROAD POTHOLE 02/16/05 021l7/05 DE PORTOLA AT CAMPANULA DEBRIS PICK-UP 02/i 7/05 02/i 7/05 45276 SIL VERADO LANE TREE TRIMMING 021i7 /05 0212l/05 30932 GREENSBORO DRIVE TREE DOWN 02121/05 02/2l105 45690 CLASSIC WAY TREE TRIMMING 02/2l105 R"MAINT AINI WRKCOMPL TDISORS\04.05\FEBR UAR Y DATE DATE WORK REC'D LOCATION REQUEST COMPLETED 02/21/05 30947 GREENSBORO TREE DOWN 02/21/05 02/21/05 45339 MAGUEY COURT DEBRIS PICK-UP 02/21/05 02/2[/05 RANCHO VISTA AT MEADOWS MUD [N STREET 02/21/05 02/2[/05 41634 MAIN STREET MUD [N STREET 02/2 [/05 02/2 [/05 PUJOL STREET WARNING SIGN REQUEST 02/21/05 02/21/05 43508 CORTE BEN[SA S.N.S. REPAIR 02/21/05 02/21/05 45825 PALMETTO WAY ROOT PRUNING 02/21/05 02/21/05 43379 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE CULVERT PLUGGED 02/21/05 02/21/05 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE TREE REMOV AL 02/21/05 02/2 1/05 MILKY WAY AT ASTEROID WAY SINKHOLE 02/21/05 02/21/05 30776 E. LOMA LINDA ROAD TREE DOWN 02/2[/05 02/21/05 44024 QUIET MEADOW ROAD SINKHOLE 02/2[/05 02/21/05 40246.TUOLUMNE COURT SINKHOLE 02/21/05 02/22/05 29830 YNEZ ROAD FLOODING ON PROPERTY 02/22/05 02/22/05 41770 JOHN WARNER HOLE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY 02/22/05 02/22/05 45680 PALMETTO WAY DEBRIS REMOVAL 02/22/05 02/22/05 40325 WINDSOR ROAD POTHOLES 02/22/05 02/23/05 44024 QUIET MEADOW SINKHOLE 02/23/05 02/23/05 OVERLAND AT YNEZ ROAD TREE TRIMM[NG 02/23/05 02/23/05 LIEFER ROAD ROAD GRADING 02/23/05 02/23/05 39120 PALA VISTA ROAD ROAD GRADING 02/23/05 02/23/05 41571 ZINFANDELAVENUE SINKHOLE 02/23/05 02/23/05 42O30.MAIN STREET TREE LEANING 02/23/05 02/24/05 30601 CABRILLO GAS LINE EXPOSED 02/24/05 02/24/05 LA SERENA AT YANKEE RUN SINKHOLE 02/24/05 02/24/05 PAUBAAT LA PR[MAVERA DEBRIS PICK-UP 02/24/05 02/24/05 42344 VIA CONSUELO ROOT PRUNING 092/24/05 02/25/05 43384 VIA ANGELES S[GN REPAIR 02/25/05 02/28/05 30 i 19 SANTA CECILIA DEBRIS PICK-UP 02/28/05 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 55 R,IMAINT AIN\WRKCOMPL TOISORS\04.05\FEBRUARY CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 02/01105 CALLE CHAPOS AT RIVERTON INSTALLED 4 CARSONITES 02/01/05 iST STREET AT 1-15 FWY REPLACED 2 "N" MARKERS 02/02/05 TlERRAALTA WAY AT AVENIDAALVERADO REPLACED R-i 02/02/05 CITYWIDE S.N.S. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPLACED 32 S.N.S. 02/09/05 DIAZ ROAD AT DENDY REPLACED R-26 02/09/05 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 9 SIGNS 02/10/05 CITYWIDE S.N.S. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPLACED 4 S.N.S. 02/11/05 OVERLAND AT PROMENADE WAY REPLACED R-7, "K" MARKER 02/14/05 CITYWIDE S.N.S. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPLACED 8 S.N.S. 02/1 5/05 CITYWIDE S.N.S. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPLACED 28 S.N.S. 02/16/05 CITYWIDE S.N.S. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPLACED 30 S.N.S. 02m/05 OVERLAND AT YNEZ REPLACED W-ll 02/22/05 MARGARIT A AT DE PORTOLA REPLACED R-7, "K" MARKER TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED ...!!! TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED ----.1 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED ---2 R,WAINT AIN\WKCMPL TDISIGNS\04.OSIFEBRUARY CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 02/i4/05 RANCHO WAY E/O BUSINESS PARK DRIVE INSTALLED 295' OF RED CURB TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS -..!! NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 295 RIMA> NT AI N\ WRKCOM'L TOISTRIPING\II<.O5IFEBR OAR Y